It's no longer taboo.

Socialism, and I'm speaking of libertarian socialism, is a beautiful economic and social system that brings fairness and justice to everyone.

in MS and HS was an economics professor at the local university, and a socialist. No big deal and I only remembered it recently.

Here is more on the polling on this term. From Pew http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/

Young people communicating across borders and they find the problems we all face are different. I bet a lot of them look at their counterparts in Europe and envy the fact that they are not the ones without student loan debt.

Of course, the youth here are also glad that they can drive even if they are women and that there isn't constant bombing and rations as is the reality in other areas.

plus they got and are getting screwed over by capitalism and there's no hiding that, either.

out of the last consumer dying on a dying planet. It self-destructs, but doesn't just kill itself. It kills everything and everybody around it.

GOTV.

From Gallop http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.



....Socialism

Socialism had the lowest percentage positive rating and the highest negative rating of any term tested. Still, more than a third of Americans say they have a positive image of socialism.

Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans' reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them -- an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.

There are significant differences in reactions to "socialism" across ideological and partisan groups:

A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives

53% have a positive image of the word 'Socialism'.

Heck, that's a majority. And a growing majority. A huge trend.

And only 17% of republicans have a positive image.

The only take way one should get from your figures, Gothmog, is that the republicans are friggin idiots and the 53% of Democrats are the ones to join with and make sure the world gets with the Socialist program. Can we count on you to join the rest of us in making sure the word is no longer mistakenly understood?

GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/k-idamt8oeend4gfvhnxla.png

At least two-thirds of adults younger than 30 say they are willing to vote for a candidate with any of the characteristics included in the survey.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

I've been thinking of this a lot re: Chris Matthews and his categorical, clueless dismissiveness of Bernie Sanders ("but he's a socialist&quot At first I thought it was because Matthews' wife is running for Congress, that Matthews' anti Bernie shade was to gain support($) for her campaign with DNC/Hillary.

But then I realized Matthews was not a baby boomer, he's a year too old. And he never was part of the antiwar movement. Or more importantly, he never was part of that early boomer generation of liberals who learned about socialism in the antiwar movement.
Then slowly dialectics began to be taught in universities, anyone studying after say 1971 at a major liberal arts program was taught the skill of dialectical analysis. By the eighties it was pretty much impossible for a well educated liberal arts grad (in any area from political science to film history) to graduate without demonstrating fluency in dialectics. Today it's even used in cooking schools ...vis "deconstructed meatloaf!"

I see this alot on MSNBC. The younger liberal hosts like Maddow and especially Chris Hayes, present Democratic socialism & Bernie as politically viable and often just plain sensible. (Keith O would have also) They give Bernie frequent coverage and conduct useful, informative interviews with him. In many other reports by both Hayes and Maddow, there's marked dialectical fluency, a serious desire to connect the dots on many levels for events and issues.

I do not see the same level of knowledge or critical aptitude with Chris Matthews or certainly not with all the Chuck Todds or Scarboroughs or the rest of the rightwing MSM. Ignorance of "Socialist!"dialectics and knowledge of its utility goes hand in hand with their antique, knee jerk hostility to "Bernie the Socialist" and defensive reenforcement of establishment politics.

because the status quo favors them.

It means that Democrats and liberal voters are less scared of the word. What it DOESN'T mean is that Bernie Sanders would win a general because Republicans can't make endless amounts of hay out of it.

anyway, so who gives a flying .... at a rolling donut?

Last time we elected a kenyan socialist with the muslin name Osama Hussein, remember?

regarding Sanders chances of winning a national election. Many people have
completely gotten over being scared of Socialism, esp. after decades of being
exploited and screwed-over by capitalism.

It's been funny watching Tweety's (Chris Matthews) hyperventilation
fuming "Socialist!!" as an accusation against Bernie, then have others
he's interviewing look at him like "WTF dude. get with the times"

due to the obvious purpose.
It should be clear, what that word "democratic"
means, but it is definitely convenient to
leave it out.

it simply marks a generational shift that happens to work in Bernie's favor. Add the 'democratic' in front of it, and it's all the better because it makes people pause and think for a moment about the real meaning of the word, versus the McCarthyite, cold war meaning.

the media has lost control of the message. The Internet has changed the game totally.

In Idaho, only 1/3rd of voters identify themselves as Republicans now according to a recent poll.
The rest of those Republicans have started identifying themselves as Independents.

Voters who identify themselves as Democrats make up 1/3rd of the voters, about the same amount as long ago as 10 years ago.
So, the GOP's stranglehold on party loyalty here is weakening.

People want a federal government that works.
The filibustering that the GOP did in the Senate for so many years hurt their party quite a bit.

I am so proud of my children's generation. Maybe we have a brighter future than we think.

...but for anyone having anything to do with ZOMGSOCIALISM!!1!. They're going to be sitting out of not just the electoral process should Sanders win the nomination and beyond, but if unnamed poster had any integrity they'd drop out of every socialist element already existing in the United States too. Obvious, they won't and will continue to indulge themselves in every socialist institution they already benefit from and future ones they might.

I mean, really, you'd think a supposed liberal or progressive poster would be better than ZOMGSOCIALISM!!1!... we mock conservatives for such braying-jackass ignorance all the time... but evidently not.

In reality, it is Bernie's traditional Democratic policies that he doesn't like. He has made it very clear that he believes the party needs to move further to the right to capture republican voters because "the left isn't reliable".

...but yeah, sounds about right. (No pun intended.)

That is a majority. And a growing majority. By the time Bernie gets the nomination, I figure that number will have grown to, oh, 75%.

My question to you Dan, will you then see the writing on the wall, or will you continue to proclaim you see a boogeyman?

"It," of course, is simply a concept. And it can mean a lot of things. I don't find the term too useful. I would say I have a positive association with it.

Plus, the Muslims, our new "scare du jour" are mostly right wingers so socialists seem nice and safe in comparison.

The people of the US, by and large, do not realize what socialism entails. They are much less willing to support it when they realize how much of our society must be changed, invented, or left behind. I don't think we'll get there through the various current political methods, as doing so makes it harder in some senses to unite in the face of the massive mechanisms of modern capitalism. But if you ask people if they are willing to stand up, you will get very few agreements. This shift is merely representative of a generational change and a public less-receptive to "red scare" attacks and confusion around the terms "social democracy", "democratic socialism" and "socialism" (always remember the media's diversion from truly socialist attempts and positive identification of "socialism" with liberal capitalist countries like Sweden).

The Sanders surge is, for me, not exciting because of what it represents in real political and socio-economic gain. That stands to be highly limited. Modern capitalism has developed the most impressive and comprehensive anti-democratic oppressions in history, and there is usually little progress without long, dedicated struggle.

It's exciting because it represents a huge opportunity for those of us interested in moving beyond capitalism. People identify each issue as something that needs to change, that we want to change. We have hope, some awareness, and a lot of compassion. There is a movement somewhat interested in uniting against the various oppressions of capitalism. Much of it arises from struggles as important as the greater cause of humanism and far more radical and immediate.

We have to be able to unite and have our voice on the table in this leftward movement. We need a strong leftist voice advocating a platform of systemic change through individual policies and broader shifts. We on the left need to be able to come to compromises and agreements, stepping back and framing things more generally, and play a part in the upcoming discussions. If Sanders is elected, we may have a microphone, if not a voice. We need to be able to advocate for specific policies and platforms like that presented by Black Lives Matter while avoiding the general disagreements that have historically weakened us. We must be effecting change in the meantime, or we will lose legitimacy. And of course, we must physically and emotionally be present in support of the oppressed, always.

But we can make our voices heard--and the cool part about this movement is that, at least with almost everyone I've spoken to, is that people are listening.