Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 10/27/2026 6:10:02 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
This time last year, Americans wondered whether it was possible for a young socialist to become mayor of the country’s largest city.
Now they wonder whether voters in next week’s midterms will elect multiple democratic socialists to Congress. Americans are heading to the polls amid greater acceptance of socialism, according to a recent Gallup poll showing that more than 40% of U.S. adults viewed the ideology favorably, the highest level since 2010.
In short, socialist candidates are having a moment on ballots – but not for the first time in the U.S.
While today’s socialist surge is making headlines, the country’s political landscape looked much the same a little more than a century ago. Back then, record numbers of socialist candidates were running for local, state and national offices – and many won.
Here’s a brief look at the socialist movement in the United States.
Socialism’s Early U.S. Roots
The underpinnings of what would become U.S. socialism started in the early 19th century with utopian communities, where citizens gathered outside larger society and lived according to collectivist ideals, including communal property. The most prominent of these were the Shakers.
The rapidly industrializing U.S., combined with the influx of immigrants from European countries with socialist traditions, would provide fertile ground for the development of organized labor.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Looks like one of USN&WR’s typically fascinating articles.
It’s destiny
People always want someone else’s stuff. I believe the Bible calls it coveting.
Unintelligible word salad.
The article confuses progressivism and socialism so what - are we to now say Theodore Roosevelt was a socialist? No. Just no. FDR, Wilson, even Nixon and Hoover were all progressives.
None were socialists.
Journalists remain untrustworthy.
“People always want someone else’s stuff.”
That is EXACTLY the bottom line.
Brianna fails to mention the Maine nazi nor the DNC’s Hamas wing.
Forty percent, huh? Looks like we need to go beyond testing for driver’s licenses and make them take one for breathing.
Meanwhile, this administration has taken government stakes in 40 companies. That’s nationalist and socialist.
Because, yes they shouldn't be confused. Context is everything here.
Out of Marxism and Socialism contemporary with Social Darwinism washed in the catastrophies of the Napoleonic wars and the 19th century revolutions (the Civil War in the US), yes, by 1870-1900 there was a worldwide "Progressivism" that essentially said "Certainly we can do better and *Progress* beyond all this carnage and destruction". In the US it was the beginning of rethinking the founding documents because, again, certainly *we* could do better.
Of course that Socialist underpinning to Progressivism burdened by age old anti-freedom institutions political, economic and social naturally led to more catastrophy in a "War to end all wars" and a replay times 100 just 16-17 years later.
So fine I agree, but the devil is in the details. I've not seen any *Progressives* that *progress* towards anything *better*.
It's, ALWAYS some variant of...
"The issue isn't the issue, the issue is the Revolution".
So, yeah easy to confuse stupid Socialists and stupid Progressives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.