Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism


News of the “dog bites man” variety.


Ironic inasmuch as their leaders are pretty much allied with the captains of industry.


The kind of “socialism” that many Democrats support is along the lines of what Bernie Sanders advocated, namely a type similar to what’s found in the “democratic socialist” countries of Sweden and other Scandinavian countries. These are basically what we call “mixed economies” but with a higher degree of socialism than what’s found in a country like the U.S., for example.

No country today uses unbridled (“laissez faire”) capitalism because it simply is too unstable and unethical.


The meaning of the word “socialism,” which used to include perpetual class enmity and denial of private ownership, has been watered down. Obviously, there is a range of people in the Democratic party–many of whom do advocate these things (especially the former)–but I think a lot of people are like Pope Pius XI described below in his social encyclical.

  1. The other section, which has kept the name Socialism, is surely more moderate. It not only professes the rejection of violence but modifies and tempers to some degree, if it does not reject entirely, the class struggle and the abolition of private ownership. One might say that, terrified by its own principles and by the conclusions drawn therefrom by Communism, Socialism inclines toward and in a certain measure approaches the truths which Christian tradition has always held sacred; for it cannot be denied that its demands at times come very near those that Christian reformers of society justly insist upon.

  2. For if the class struggle abstains from enmities and mutual hatred, it gradually changes into an honest discussion of differences founded on a desire for justice, and if this is not that blessed social peace which we all seek, it can and ought to be the point of departure from which to move forward to the mutual cooperation of the Industries and Professions. So also the war declared on private ownership, more and more abated, is being so restricted that now, finally, not the possession itself of the means of production is attacked but rather a kind of sovereignty over society which ownership has, contrary to all right, seized and usurped. For such sovereignty belongs in reality not to owners but to the public authority. If the foregoing happens, it can come even to the point that imperceptibly these ideas of the more moderate socialism will no longer differ from the desires and demands of those who are striving to remold human society on the basis of Christian principles. For certain kinds of property, it is rightly contended, ought to be reserved to the State since they carry with them a dominating power so great that cannot without danger to the general welfare be entrusted to private individuals.

  3. Such just demands and desire have nothing in them now which is inconsistent with Christian truth, and much less are they special to Socialism. Those who work solely toward such ends have, therefore, no reason to become socialists.


There a numerous forms of socialism, so maybe read this: What the pope was referring to in the encyclical was actually dealing with Marxism, which was a radical form of socialism that reflected Marx’s philosophy as well.

BTW, do you intend to collect Social Security or Medicare? Is so, welcome to socialism.


You might be able to make a case for that if Democrats didn’t spend so much time trying to silence their political opponents. The “socialism” they support looks an awful lot like the “national” kind.


Are you saying that Hillary used gestapo techniques to try and silence Donald?


I favor means testing both, but politically we’re a long way from that happening. In the meantime, a person with children is a fool if he doesn’t take it. If he doesn’t need it, he can give it to his children or grandchildren who are paying for it. Maybe he gets more than he put in, maybe not, but that’s the system we have.



Right. Democrats are Nazis. We get it.

Thank you for your informed, educated, insightful contribution to this conversation.


You must be reading and/or watching different “news” sources than I. Secondly, we were posting about socialism, not what the Democrats are supposedly doing according to you. Please try and stay on topic instead of deflecting, ok?


That was kind of the point. The word “socialism” had a real meaning, so associating any intervention or service provided by public authority as socialism makes the word meaningless or at least confusing. If one is not a proponent of those two unacceptable elements, the Pope is saying you shouldn’t call yourself a socialist because those other things are not inextricably tied to socialism.

My point was that the same can be said now. A lot of things called “socialism” really aren’t, which causes confusion and misunderstanding.


I was having a discussion about this with a friend the other day. “Why do so many people call themselves socialists? They’re more properly called social democrats.”

“Because they believe society is more important than capital.”

“But that’s not what the word means.”

“Well, people aren’t dictionaries.”

In my experience, a lot of these young socialists are pro-gay and pro-abortion, but economically entirely in step with Catholic social teaching.


Visit the Disney Channel!!!



So laughing at people as a form of demeaning them is moral, iyo?


Why do you think “socialism” is real???

Visit Venezuela.

What parts of Venezuela do you want to install HERE?


For what it’s worth, I was talking to an elderly couple from eastern Europe last week. Politics came up and the man said that the democrats today sound an awul lot like the Communists did back in the 50s.


You’re right. Venezuela is a disaster. That proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that liberalism will reduce American to the very same state.

You get more persuasive with every passing day.

Pretty soon I’m going to start wearing a genuine, made-in-Bangladesh MAGA hat.


How about Sweden? Norway? Finland? Frankly, I’d much rather live with my relatives in Sweden than here in the States, but at 73 I ain’t moving.

The Venezuelan leader is a tyrant, which is hardly compatible with “liberalism”, especially since “liberalism” is from the word “liberali” that means freedom. .


Or how about Canada? My wife and I will probably retire to Newfoundland, where she’s from, in a few years (I’m 58).

I’m pretty sure MonteRCMS, along with plenty of others here at CAF, would call Canada a “socialist” country, but it’s hardly falling apart. It seems to be doing pretty well, actually.


So ya wanna be a “Newfy”, eh? Never been there but I hear it’s very nice. Hey, when ya move I’ll visit ya and bring a case of LaBatts.

[heart, keep beating!]

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit