Do you consider yourself a Socialist?

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I am starting to dabble in a few socialist ideas. I still believe in the existence of a free market. I'm probably closer to a social democrat with a strong agrarian tilt.

Also basically this. Free markets work when everyone involved knows each other (aka on a small (mostly rural) scale.

[RFayette]

Nope, I'm a red-blooded capitalist, though there are a few social democratic ideas I have some sympathy with (most notably a job guarantee).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I mean I suppose so.  Capitalism in its current form is neither moral nor sustainable.  Socialism or social democracy might not be enough to keep people afloat for the long term, but as long as we're on a sinking ship, it might as well be one with nicer seats.

[parochial boy]

Oh, who am I kidding.

Yes, I'm a Socialist. Capitalism is a failed economic system premised on bankrupt moral premises, and sooner or later it will have to give way to a system that does a less utterly dreadful job at providing each and every member of society with the means to lead a fulfilling and prosperous life. Values like "competition" and "entrepreneurship" are barbaric relics of our basest animal instincts, and as long as they haven't been utterly crushed and destroyed humanity has no right to call itself civilized. Workers should be in control of their own destiny, and not at the mercy of a parasitic class of rent-seekers. Property is not a right, it's a privilege that the existing State structures grant far more liberally than they should. Being well-fed, well-clothed, healthy, housed in decent living conditions, and valued personally as a human being, meanwhile, are sacred, absolute and unconditional rights that said States keep making a mockery of. Owning more than a certain amount is a moral and social evil that should not be tolerated.

My beliefs exactly.

yeah, agreed. The more I think about it, the more I think that private property as a concept has really been oversold.

[Intell]

I agree with both of Antonio V's posts, so yes, definitely.

[SWE]

Vaguely

[SATW]

No, I'm a capitalist conservative.

[Kingpoleon]

No, I am strongly anti-social.

[courts]

maybe. nobody seems to agree on what that even means.

[ApatheticAustrian]

I used to, but now I'm a social Democrat

[ApatheticAustrian]

It's absolutely in the socialist tradition,

there is a reason after all why the most important mother organization for global cooperation of social democratic parties has been called Socialist International for decades, even if the US Democrats/German Social Democrats-approved newish Progressive Alliance is going to take over.

[DavidB.]

No. I'm becoming more and more supportive of redistributional socio-economic policies and of reining in exploitative forces on the free market, but I believe men are separated by nation more than by class, which is an idea that runs counter to the most fundamental tenets of socialism. I also think that applying the principles of the free market is the way to make a country most prosperous (as opposed to seizing the means of production and engaging in government planning) -- it's just that the government needs to stand firm, defend workers' rights, and engage in redistribution so that the rich pay their fair share to a just society in which all can prosper.

[Frodo]

Absolutely not -and I am positive most everyone to my left would agree with that self-assessment. 

[Boston Bread]

I switch back and forth on this. I haven't changed my ideology in a long time, but I'm not sure whether socialist is an accurate description of it or not. It also doesn't help that I hear a lot of different opinions on what socialism actually is. And if somebody asks me on this, I tend to adjust my answer, saying I am if I feel they are to the left of me and no if they are to my right.

[fhtagn]

I still say "yes" if someone asks me if I'm a socialist, but I don't generally present myself as such.

[President Johnson]

No, although I'm an active member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, whose youth-wing is called "Youg Socialists". I consider myself a strong supporter of a social market economy and a "pragmatic Social Democrat".

[Intell]

No, although I'm an active member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, whose youth-wing is called "Youg Socialists". I consider myself a strong supporter of a social market economy and a "pragmatic Social Democrat".

aka not social democrat.

[Deblano]

50% of this board is socialist?  Really?  This is pretty non-representative of the country so this is all starting to make sense.

You're surprised that there's a lot of left-wing people on the internet?

[Devout Centrist]

lol no.

[RaphaelDLG]

Definitely NOT in the strict, Karl Marx definition of the word.

In the pretty squishy recent usage of the term that means New Deal welfare state, comprehensive social market, vigorous critique of capitalism and inequality, FOR SURE.

[courts]

50% of this board is socialist?  Really?  This is pretty non-representative of the country so this is all starting to make sense.

You're surprised that there's a lot of left-wing people on the internet?

Left-wing no... socialist yes.  Socialism is far far far out of the mainstream in American politics, but 50% of the board population.

I got some bad news for you, my dude.

except this forum is a lot more white (and male) than millennials as a whole. granted we do have a lot of stereotypical democratic leaning constituencies like lgbt people that are also over represented on forum too. so that kind of explains it. still pretty weird demographics though

[Antonio the Sixth]

Definitely NOT in the strict, Karl Marx definition of the word.

Socialism predates Marx and if anything he was fairly at odds with socialist tradition in his time.

[Arturo Belano]

Absolutely

[Vosem]

I do not consider myself to be a socialist (pretty obvious for anyone who knows me, online or in real life, I should think). It is my firm belief that capitalism will inevitably out-compete any world order based on socialism so long as at least one corner of the world continues to hold on to it, and that (absent a calamity so severe that long-distance travel becomes very difficult) capitalism can be replaced only by a system that is more effective at promoting values like "competition" and "entrepreneurship".

Does this mean I oppose redistribution? Not necessarily; inasmuch as redistribution can aid competition within a society, making people healthier, happier, and likelier to become entrepreneurs, it can be a fairly integral part of "capitalism". There should, indeed, be a welfare state to some extent that will prevent people from falling below certain minimums, because society as a whole is harmed when people do. Ideally, a welfare state would be designed in a way that disallows able-bodied, healthy people from resorting to parasitism (while providing for children, the elderly, and the sick) and in a way so as to make itself as obsolete as possible in the very long-term, when no one (or very, very few people) will need it, and it should be defined as fighting against poverty and misery, not inequality (which is not actually bad).

Sorry if that's a bit scattershot.