{"id":7441,"date":"2026-11-11T14:29:32","date_gmt":"2026-11-11T14:29:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/meerkatmusings.co.uk\/?p=7441"},"modified":"2026-11-15T21:48:43","modified_gmt":"2026-11-15T21:48:43","slug":"the-thinking-kat-the-democrats-marxism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/meerkatmusings.co.uk\/?p=7441","title":{"rendered":"The Thinking ‘Kat: The Democrats & Marxism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A while back, Tom of Citizen Tom<\/a> challenged me to prove that the Democrats in the USA are not a Marxist party. It remains to be seen if he will take up the gauntlet of proving they are<\/strong>, since to this meerkat the answer is quite obvious, but we shall see if he is willing to put in the effort of proving his oft-repeated statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before we can prove what something is or isn’t, it’s important to offer a few definitions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is Marxism?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simply put, Marxism is the philosophy of Karl Marx. There, it’s been defined! Alright, let’s offer some details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Karl Marx believed that the working classes were being unfairly exploited by the upper classes of society. This explotation robbed the working classes of a fair share of reward for their efforts, and he argued for the abolishment of capitalism, which he believed was a manifestation of class struggles. Marx wanted to do away with the system of classes, and open the floor to workers owning and controlling the means of production. Production of goods and services would not exist as a profit-driven exercise that benefited the few; it would be a cooperative venture, with the intent of producing goods and services that help society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you want more detailed explanations, this link<\/a> is a good resource.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over time, Marx’s philosophy has been adapted by others, most famously by Vladimir Lenin. Marxism should not really be conflated with communism, but there is certainly an overlap, and a perception that the two concepts are one and the same. The central idea of a classless society with publicly-owned and run businesses and services certainly remains at the forefront of Lenin’s take on Marxism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, under Marxism, key means of production would be controlled by the working class, and ultimately, the concept of class would not exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is this what Democrats push for?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ideology of Democrats<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Democrat Party of the USA is traditionally viewed as the left-wing party of US politics. With Marxism being an example of an extreme-left philosophy, some would argue that Marxism would more naturally align with the beliefs and values of Democrat politicians, but is this actually true?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consider that during several periods of political power in the USA, the Democrats have done little, if anything, to move America away from what is clearly a nation governed heavily by strong capitalist principles. Money dominates the US landscape. The Democrats are nearly as heavily-invested in this system as Republicans. There is little inpetus to shift the system, even a little bit. There is no evidence to suggest that Democrats are looking to abolish private industry or seize means of production. There is nothing to suggest Democrats will forcibly redistribute wealth. If Tom believes there is evidence that such things are likely to become Democrat policy, he is welcome to present it, but so far, no such evidence has been presented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Democrats do tend to advocate for is more regulation and broader safety nets to protect the vulnerable, but the closest they have ever come to anything<\/strong> that might be broadly considered Marxist is to attempt to introduce universal healthcare to Americans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Does The Question Even Exist?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s difficult to find an answer to why some so passionately believe that the Democrats should be considered Marxist, though it may lie in decades of indoctrination and the steady absorption of propaganda. As mentioned earlier, money is king in the US. It is effectively worshipped. During the Cold War, there was a powerful push against communism, or anything peceived as communist. The championing of democracy became conflated with elevating capitalism, and anything that could be seen as hampering businesses or the pursuit of wealth was labelled as communist\/Marxist. Somehow, this led to implying that anything seen as altruistic was in fact a commie plot to undermine capitalism<\/s> democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You need only look at the backlash to universal healthcare as a prime example of this. To virtually every developed nation across the world, the provision of affordable healthcare services is seen as a vital component of government. In the USA, it is deemed part of an evil Marxist plot to usurp democracy, a stepping stone toward an evil woke, Marxist agenda. Apparently, if it’s not operated on a ‘for profit’ basis, it’s wrong and dangerous. Instead, it’s entirely ethical to permit people to go bankrupt over medical procedures, or do without those procedures and suffer, because the needs of shareholders matter more. To challenge this arrangement is apparently to be Marxist. Never mind that scores of countries have universal healthcare and yet have not become havens of communism…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additional Thoughts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moving the needle slightly away from a society that prioritises money over society does not make one a communist or a Marxist. In previous posts, I have attempted to explain that it is entirely possible to have wealthy people, and<\/strong> take tangible steps towards ending poverty, homelessness and hunger. This is not an either\/or situation where the only choices are rampant unchecked greed, and communist gestapos on every street corner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The kneejerk reactionism to any measure intended to aid the disadvantaged is most troublesome. It’s hysteria at work. It leads to all sorts of outlandish suggestions. Democrats do not quite<\/strong> love money as much as Republicans do, and that, in the eyes of conservatives (and not without irony, when you consider the deep religious beliefs of many conservatives), apparently makes Democrats evil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further Elements<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another popular argument about Marxism is that it allegedly looks to undermine the traditional family unit, and this is also a popular argument about Democrats. Whilst it is true that Karl Marx believed the traditional family structure was a tool of capitalism and therefore a form of oppression, it does not follow that Democrats share this belief. Whilst it is true that Democrat supporters are more likely to be part of the LGBT community, it has always been a form of fear-mongering to suggest that supporting LGBT rights is somehow going to erase heterosexual relationships and families. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is yet to be any form of actual evidence to suggest Democrats are trying to destroy the traditional family, unless you are so threatened by the expansion of rights that you somehow create a perception of your own being removed. Of course, there is a general hysteria over the LGBT community within conservative religious circles, including strange claims about forced sex-change procedures (and who can forget the transgender mice commentary?!).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, whether or not Marxism may wish to change how we view family structure (Marxists believe there are serious problems with inheritance, for example) is largely irrelevant, and I have yet to see evidence that Democrats believe the traditional concept of family should be erased. I await Tom’s argument that supporting LGBT rights is somehow Marxist, which should be especially interesting, consdering there is passing evidence Karl Marx was homophobic, and that successors to Marx’s beliefs actively persecuted the LGBT community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In summary, expanding rights to the LGBT community does not equate to erasure of the family unit, and is not therefore a signal of supporting Marxist policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interesting Exercises<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, the likes of Gemini AI cannot be relied upon more than human inquiry, but when I asked Gemini ‘is there any evidence to suggest that the Democrats of the USA can be considered Marxist, in any way shape or form?’<\/em>, this is the answer Gemini gave me:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

From the perspective of mainstream political science, economics, and even Marxist theory itself, the U.S. Democratic Party cannot be considered Marxist in any way, shape, or form.<\/strong> [1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By definition, Marxism is a revolutionary ideology that advocates for the complete overthrow of capitalism, the elimination of private property, and the establishment of a classless, stateless society. In contrast, the Democratic Party is an establishment, center-left political organization fundamentally committed to regulated capitalism, free markets, and the preservation of private enterprise.<\/strong> [1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>, 4<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, to understand why the “Marxist” label is frequently associated with the party, it is helpful to look at how political rhetoric, policy debates, and internal factions are framed in American politics. [1<\/a>, 2<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

1. Political Rhetoric and the “Red Scare” Legacy<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The primary source of evidence linking Democrats to Marxism comes from partisan political rhetoric<\/strong>, rather than actual ideological alignment. [1<\/a>, 2<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n