I just got back from the Tea Party today in Newport News VA. Yes, there were plenty of complaints about "socialism" and Obama and the burden of the debt (debt is worth complaining about, true?) There were some libertarian Paulist types who disdained both parties but only a minority appreciated the irony that Cheney said "deficits don't matter" and that Bush built up huge debt in great part on the Iraq invasion most of the teabaggers and their handlers/icons supported.

I give them credit for being truly "grass-roots: in execution: they let attendees speak at a podium, and I did too. I ragged on the capital gains rate being less than the earnings rate, to get a progressive voice in there. (And heh, my car with all the Obama etc. stickers. One old guy later stared at them, to which I said, "He won because Bush did such a bad job" which he followed with some muttering about "watermelon.")

But there were also complaints about corporate greed, the banking system and the Fed, etc. One interested plea was to support HR 1207, "put forth by Ron Paul" to audit the Federal Reserve etc. There is a strain of populist, bipartisan disgust with the collaboration of politicians and the financial manipulators. Like I said before, yes there is plenty about the tax code to protest so lets put in our own two cents and not let Republicans etc. control the tax protest movement.

More people like socialism than Cheney!

I like to think that, in some small way, Canada has helped improve the image of social democracy in America :)

This is only meaningful if you asked people to describe what socialism actually is. I doubt 98% of poll respondees could answer the question, except to say that socialism = socialized medicine = universal health coverage.

I´m not sure what to make of a poll like this unless it is preceded by a careful explanation of definitions.

I would say that the support of socialism likely much higher, considering that most people who support "capitalism" probably think socialism is communism. It would also mean that all those capitalists are against social security and medicare.

Heh.

Good on you, Neil.

Perhaps, defining anyone to the left of Cheney as a socialist was not a smart tactic. Defining socialism as mildly progressive taxation, universal health care, alternative energy promotion, and educational and infrastructure support doesn't make people, not already programmed to disdain socialism, run for their pitchforks.

Since the results represent a antithetical reaction to the previous condition, I see it not so much ironic as ... dialectical.

Sure I'm a Marxist -- Chico's my favorite.

I would never mistake today's Republican for socialists, but they are undoubtedly anti-capitalism--despite their assertions to the contrary.

They hate the notions of transparency, public goods, regulation, handling negative externalities and other such components that are fundamental to capitalism.

Plutocrats? Definitely. Capitalists? No way.

I think that it also has to do with the frequency that 'socialist' is lobbed around as an insult. As one of the youngins (I was just 13 when the Soviet Union finally collapsed) the concept of the red scare was lost on me. This led me to do a little research, and make a distinction between socialism, the economic practice, and Communism, the political system. I came to the conclusion that socialism has its place in certain institutions. And like others have mentioned above, we've now seen more positive examples of socialism in Canada and Europe.

"One old guy later stared at [my bumperstickers], to which I said, "He won because Bush did such a bad job" which he followed with some muttering about "watermelon.""

You can't argue with that sort of logic. But seriously:

Rush, for example, has the Achille's heel of thinking that he's the epitome of cool. His admirers agree: witness his star treatment at CPAC. So the manner in which they're rejuvenating the term "socialism" is entirely lost on them.

And there's no way out. Republicans think they have a messaging problem: we haven't heard them decry socialism; a silent majority is punishing them at the polls for not decrying socialism enough. It makes sense if you think that right-wing voices have been too restrained, too coldly analytical. And they do think that.

The survey doesn't indicate support for actual socialism. The op is right to suggest that nutters have--in the complete absence of significant socialist parties in the U.S.--successfully branded some piecemeal reforms as "socialist" (e.g. universal health care), so folks are saying, "Shoot, if socialism gives me health care, I'm for it!" The results reflect precisely the absence of real systemic criticism of capitalism from the public sphere.

That's exactly what I said back when this "Obama's a socialist" shit started: they're gonna make people associate socialism with economic recovery, universal health care, good jobs, slowing global warming and ending the Iraq clusterfuck.

Congratulations, wingnuts!

Like I said at DeLong's joint:
Yes, it's hilarious just desserts for conservatives. For years they stretched the definition of "socialism" so they could criticize milder left systems and advocates with what started as a serious put down (?), but that only enlarged the scope of the term to include benign or even desirable states of affairs. (See, you can't have it both ways about a concept. Either you keep it narrow and nasty, or broaden and soften it.) Poetic justice.

"Socialism is the Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country."

What else is there?

The commenters who say that the poll doesn't mean much because it doesn't define "socialism," and therefore we don't know what the respondents think of anything properly called socialism are half right. It's true that large numbers of the respondents have no idea what they or anyone else mean by "socialism." It's probably true that if the pollsters described something we could all more or less agreed could properly be called "socialism," the numbers would be different.
But where they're wrong is that respondents have never had a clear idea of what "socialism" is. Despite that, such approval numbers would have been inconceivable a decade ago. The change means something. It could mean that real socialism is more popular than it ever was or that the right's "defining socialism down" has caused people to mis-identify non-socialist ideas they've always favored as socialism. Which, I'm not sure, but the changing num,bers mean something.

Well, Marx predicted that when the final struggle came, the last two capitalist would vie with each other to sell the revolultionaries the rope by which they (i.e., the last two capitalists) would be hanged.

Rethugs, how bad do you have to suck to make socialism look good by comparison?

large numbers of the respondents have no idea what they or anyone else mean by "socialism."

...the ones that call the President a fascist have no idea what that means, either.

Socialism and Capitalism are NOT EXCLUSVE and Capitalism cannot exist without relying on a socialist structure.
Water, waste, roads, education, regulations, are normally socialist supported and the stronger they are the better the capitalist section can be. Look at a place like Ukraine. Bad roads, bad power structure, corrupt government, ok schools and they struggle to try to be in the EU and a factor in capitalism. ALL successful capitalistic societies have a very strong socialist backbone. If America’s capitalistic economic system can afford a socialized medical system…it will make the capital economy stronger in the long run.