Most Americans Still Don’t Know What Socialism Actually Is, And That’s Exactly How the Left Wants It [WATCH]

Political commentator Kaizen D. Asiedu argued that many Americans have an inaccurate understanding of socialism, contending that public support for socialist policies is often rooted in confusion about what the ideology actually entails rather than an understanding of its economic structure.

Speaking during a recent discussion, Asiedu pointed to recent elections across Latin America, arguing that several countries have moved away from socialist or Marxist leadership after experiencing the results firsthand.

“So now, Colombia rejected a socialist. Peru rejected a socialist. El Salvador, Chile, Honduras, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, all rejected Marxist or socialist leadership, and Venezuela was destroyed by socialism.”

He contrasted those developments with what he sees as growing acceptance of socialism in the United States.

Gold. Upgraded. Buy real gold from $1. Store it in America. Sell it with one click.

“Latin Americans are rejecting socialism after having tried it. So why are Americans accepting socialism, having never tried it?”

According to Asiedu, the answer begins with a misunderstanding of the term itself.

“Well, partially because most Americans don’t know what socialism is.”

He argued that many people incorrectly associate socialism with popular government programs.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

“It’s not healthcare for all or affordable housing. Socialism isn’t a synonym for all the things I want, but I’m not getting in my capitalist country. It’s not a vibe.”

Asiedu then offered his definition of socialism.

“It’s an economic system characterized by collective or governmental ownership of the means of production. Means of production meaning infrastructure used to produce goods and services like factories, farms, and companies.”

He also defined capitalism, arguing that it is frequently misunderstood as well.

“Capitalism also isn’t a vibe. It’s not billionaires and corporations controlling politics. It’s not a synonym for all the things I hate about my country. It’s an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, aka the means of production.”

Asiedu compared economic systems to computer operating systems, saying both capitalism and socialism exist in multiple forms.

“Now, just like Mac versus Windows, there are different versions of capitalism and socialism.”

He pointed to Scandinavian countries as examples that are often incorrectly labeled as socialist.

“Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are less capitalistic than America, but they are still capitalist.”

According to Asiedu, private ownership remains the defining characteristic of those economies.

“Although they have a few exceptions to the rule, private companies own the means of production, not the government, in those countries.”

He argued that individual government programs should not be confused with an entire economic system.

“Now, you might like certain programs that socialism promises, like universal healthcare, but those programs aren’t tied to a specific operating system.”

Using another technology analogy, he continued:

“You can run Photoshop on Mac or Windows, just like you can have universal healthcare in socialism or capitalism.”

Asiedu said public understanding of socialism has declined over time.

“But it seems we as a people keep getting more confused about what socialism is.”

He cited polling data to support that claim.

“In 1949, 34% of Americans correctly identified socialism as government ownership of the economy. By 2018, only 17% did, and I suspect it’s even worse now.”

He added that, in his view, some political leaders also misuse the term.

“American politicians are confused, too. In 2015, Denmark’s Prime Minister had to correct Bernie Sanders and say, Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

Asiedu also referenced New York politician Zohran Mamdani.

“Zohran Mamdani is a democratic socialist. Democratic socialism is a version of socialism.”

He acknowledged that supporters of socialism often argue it has never been implemented correctly but questioned that argument.

“Now, you could argue that socialism just hasn’t been done right yet, and when every socialist experiment at the national level in the 20th century failed, and every experiment in the 21st century is failing, maybe the problem isn’t that socialism hasn’t worked in practice, it’s that it almost certainly can’t work in principle.”

He continued by arguing that repeatedly claiming future attempts will succeed despite past failures is not persuasive.

“And maybe the assertion that this time will be different isn’t optimism, it’s actually just unfalsifiability, where a theory cannot ever be contradicted by actual evidence.”

Despite his criticism of socialism, Asiedu said he believes capitalism has shortcomings that deserve attention.

“We have bugs in this version of capitalism that need to be fixed, principally that there is too much money in politics, that billions of dollars speak louder than millions of voices.”

He argued that socialist movements can serve a constructive role by encouraging reforms without replacing the broader economic system.

“And you know what? The socialists might create healthy pressure to fix those bugs. That’s good, but that’s different than changing the whole operating system.”

Asiedu concluded by arguing that history favors reforming capitalism rather than replacing it.

“Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, because when there’s never been a successful socialist country in history, and the countries who have actually experimented with it are abandoning it, the results start to speak for themselves. And lately, they’re speaking Spanish.”

WATCH:

Gold is the oldest answer. SoundMoney makes owning it as easy as the apps you already use.