Lawrence O'Donnell Explains His Belief In Socialism (VIDEO)

Lawrence O'Donnell took time out on his Monday program to further explain why he calls himself a "socialist."

O'Donnell has repeatedly used the term to define his political leanings.

On Monday, he said that he has called himself a socialist since he "first read the definition of socialism in the first economics class I took in college." However, he stressed that he didn't believe in pure socialism. Being a socialist, he said, didn't mean "that we choose the socialist option every time, but we do consider socialism a reasonable option under certain circumstances." Those circumstances, he said, included things like Medicare or Social Security.

O'Donnell said he disliked "bad socialism"--such as agriculture subsidies--as much as he disliked "bad capitalism"--such as for-profit health care--and that he was "as much a capitalist as I am a socialist." However, he explained that, since America was the only advanced country where socialist is "considered a dirty word, I feel more compelled to stand up for the socialist side of me."

O'Donnell then played an extended clip of Bill Maher trying to sell socialism to skeptical Americans.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Comments

[Gretchen Van Buren]

12:15 AM on 08/17/2011

my god, it took this many decades to even discuss in the media socialism..the only backward country that does not adhere to a social democracy.like basic imperatives eg: healthcare for all affordable housing and food that won't kill you etc...keep speaking and saying the word, socialism it will become less threatening but most of all one should implement it in every human condition for all..with a few and only a few socialistic programs and with unions we created a middle class that is now shrinking due to the greed of the rich. how much is enough..people are the dynamic not greenbacks..and when the masses realize that their imperatives are meet maybe there will be more imagination and creativity in our lives. keep speaking lawrence odonnell and wake us up from decades of slumber...

[tacevad]

03:25 PM on 08/04/2011

my micro-bio is owed to Lawrence's response to Pat Buchannon trying to use the word "Socialist" as a slur on air on Morning Joe years ago, his response?" come on Pat reach in your back pocket..we are ALL CARD CARRYING SOCIALISTS!"

[mwr133]

01:47 PM on 08/04/2011

So Lawrence agrees with socialist programs where it personally benefits him (such as social security, medicare). But he disagrees with those programs where he doesn't benefit (agriculture subsidies).

Let's be consistent people. Either you want socialism or capitalism. This country became the most powerful in the world under capitalism. As socialism as progressed in the past few decades, so has the decline in America.

[dfranz]

03:12 PM on 08/04/2011

Why is there only one choice?

Expain why Germany is one of the most prosperous nations in the world? It's highly unionized, has national health care and national retirement programs, it is also a major capitalist player in the world market. The problem with people like you who make blanket statements as if you know what you are talking about is that you have been spoon fed beliefs and don't bother to spend anytime researching and thinking for yourself.

[francesrudley]

07:22 PM on 08/07/2011

SADLY, YOU ARE DESCRIBING THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS

[Titus]

05:44 PM on 08/04/2011

It's not a binary choice. Social democracies have been in existence for hundreds of years (See UK, See Germany, See Japan, See the USA). They all have one thing in common, their base economic system is a regulated market economy. Capitalism is alive and well and will continue to be. It must be tempered however if we are to maintain a society that any hope of equality.

[motomanic]

01:35 PM on 08/04/2011

It seems some here think if you can't claim to have Socialist leanings, because being a Socialist requires a purity test. I think Lawrence is quite clear that he believes in a combination of systems just as I do. Since the majority of Americans want to keep Social Security it would seem that the majority in this country also believe in a hybrid system including some Socialism. Of course, most won't admit it.

[francesrudley]

07:25 PM on 08/07/2011

MOST WILL NOT ADMIT IT BECAUSE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO "MAKE" IT A DIRTY WORD. SOCIALISM IS LOOKING OUT FOR OUR FELLOWMAN. SOCIALISM CARES ABOUT THE OTHER GUY'S WELL BEING

[TheDavejandro]

12:21 PM on 08/04/2011

Here O'Donnel lays out the case that socialism has increased costs in health care -- only he didn't realize he was making that case at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47-CJZkjm5o&feature=related

[Milrepa]

11:02 AM on 08/04/2011

"Cowboy Capitalism" as practised in the early 19th Century (and earlier) was curbed by Anti-Trust laws, the same laws which are now irrelevant in a global economy; an economy which reflects neither a "free market" nor for that matter, economy. Tossing around words like "Socialism" and "Capitalism" only keeps us unwashed rabble busy enough to ignore the outrageous theft occurring to our sovereignty and individual freedoms. We need to quit fighting among ourselves over archaic trivia and smell the coffee, the real coffee. Not the media Sanka.

[AlsoSarah]

10:22 AM on 08/04/2011

I don't call myself a socialist, but I do believe in responsible socialism. What I would define as responsible socialism is: healthcare for all, school meals for all children, afterschool until the folks get home from work (5ish), housing for all. Basic needs met.

[AlsoSarah]

10:23 AM on 08/04/2011

And free higher education.

[Anon743]

11:56 AM on 08/04/2011

According to the far right, you are worse than Karl Marx.

[mwr133]

01:49 PM on 08/04/2011

Sounds good but is unrealistic.

[Sydroky]

12:05 PM on 08/04/2011

In england, you would be a socialist. Welcome to the darkside. You are in excellent company.

[AnthonyVolpe]

09:18 AM on 08/04/2011

Best thing I've ever seen Bill Maher do.

[CountLeo]

12:49 AM on 08/04/2011

Sounds like ol' Larry would make a good politician...

[NonConforming]

11:08 PM on 08/03/2011

If O'Donnel was true to his philosophy of Socialism, he would only take $7/hour and give the rest to govt, since no one should get paid anymore than anyone.

[Andrew FingerlickingGree]

01:35 AM on 08/04/2011

You obviously don't know the difference between socialism and communism.

[keramos]

09:16 AM on 08/04/2011

I do!  The rich get socialism.  The rest of us get capitalism - a Satan Sandwich, if you will

[AnthonyVolpe]

09:20 AM on 08/04/2011

If you were a true capitalist, you'd buy the road your house was situated on and hire toll collectors.

Oh - you gotta fix the sinkholes and cracks yourself when it gets over 100 degrees in your neighborhood. Otherwise the Post Office won't deliver your mail to you and the cops and firemen won't be able to come to your home when it gets burglarized.

[LightShadow62]

10:55 PM on 08/03/2011

Here is the harsh reality for all those who see socialism/socialist as a dirty word, anything paid for with tax dollars is socialist. Police, fire departments, jails, politicians, street sweepers, garbage collectors, dog catchers, the military, any government program and the list goes on.

Get over yourself people.

[Zenafiar1]

11:15 PM on 08/03/2011

Not entirely true. A state has to have laws/guidelines/protection for it's citizens. It's a social contract (John Locke) that the citizenry has with the government. In order to live cohesively in a society. That includes police, military, fire fighters, etc. It is true however, that socialist institutions are paid for by tax dollars such as education, energy, and now some form of healthcare.
socialism is a social, political, and moral philosophy, no only an economic system.
socialism includes:
public ownership of production(education, energy, healthcare, etc) but not private enterprises.
the welfare state
and improving human condition by eliminating poverty.
Socialism came into prominence during the French Revolution but was never truly applied to economic standards until the Industrial Revolution partly due to the negative impact of the new system in society.

[OC4Obama4Pres]

02:46 AM on 08/04/2011

Jean-Jaques Rousseau?

[Anon743]

11:58 AM on 08/04/2011

Im not so sure that welfare is a socialist principle, but extending employment to every individual is. That in itself would defeat the notion of welfare.

[tjamman]

10:07 PM on 08/03/2011

The whole purpose of having a PRESIDENT, is to GET THINGS DONE when they need to, when congress is deadlocked or otherwise impeded. You simply can't always count on hundreds of people to come together and act in a timely manner. The checks and balances system keeps the PRESIDENT from having total dictatorial power. But THE PRESIDENT has to be able to ACT on behalf of the country - order troops into war, allocate money, issue executive orders that gets something DONE, good or bad. Then Congress and the supreme court, especially with the impeachment process, can then check the President. This 14th amendment clause is obviously based on the sheer rationality of that concept. We can NOT allow the US to just go down the tubes because of bickering among a group that consists of hundreds of people. NO country could.

[Andrew FingerlickingGree]

01:42 AM on 08/04/2011

Allocate money? I disagree with parts of what you said. The president is only powerful in foreign policies, as commander and chief ( which is not entirely since he has to get congress's approval to go to war) and veto ( also, congress can overturn) So the president really doesn't have much power, and can hardly get anything done without congress.

[Theophrastus]

07:13 PM on 08/03/2011

O'Donnellistics: Explaining things in a sincere, heartfelt, common sense approach, in a manner befitting people who actually possess attention spans and basic cognitive abilities.

Well done, Sir!

But as you can see from the post below me, it was like casting pearls before swine.

[wyldthings]

06:12 PM on 08/03/2011

So it's very easy for a man that probably dines with men like Buffett and all the other wealthy powerful people in the world. He's like everybody else I believe in me and my wealth. Just because he expresses Liberal views he's the exact same as every rich and powerful individual in this Country. He travels in private Jets uses more electricity and natural resources than the great majority of us, makes millions a year and claims to be one of us as he jets off to Caines for the premiere.

[Theophrastus]

07:05 PM on 08/03/2011

So... to you being a socialist means taking a vow of poverty? ...That a successful person can't be a socialist? Or that it's easy for him to talk about socialism since he has money? That doesn't even make sense. I could understand complaining about how asinine a capitalist might be for talking about how easy the poor have it. But a successful person talking about the benefits of BOTH systems and applying them where they fit best? What IS your point exactly?

[wyldthings]

09:21 PM on 08/03/2011

My point is that you can not just pick what you want out of Socialism and use it. He does all the same thing wealthy Republicans do. He vacations in the Hamptons her drives a fancy car and pay's the same tax rate as Rush Limbaugh. He more than likely contributes to Charity. In other words he does drink the same $350.00 bottles of wine. makes more in a year than most of us but lectures us that his way is the right way. Well it is if you're one of the upper 2%. So my point is don't be so high and mighty and tell me how wrong America is but he uses every tax write off and opportunity to make money yet blames the greedy wealthy. Well that's who he is!!!

[wyldthings]

12:22 PM on 08/04/2011

Funny I'm 62 years old retired and am not under water on my home or life.Notice where it say's socialism NO PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. Now you can describe it how you like as a Hybrid but I see it for what it is, stripping the public of everything and putting it in the hands of say HUGO CHAVEZ. You like socialism move to Europe or Venezuela. I like our 235 years of leadership!
Socialism (pronounced /ˈsoʊ̯ʃəɫɪzm̩/) is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1][2] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.[3][4]

[Zenafiar1]

10:34 PM on 08/03/2011

I don't think that you fully understood what Mr. O'donnell was saying. You might want to first look up the word socialism (economic not philosophy) and second, socialism doesn't equate to poverty.

[wyldthings]

11:03 PM on 08/03/2011

I do understand His meaning. I have a Brother 18 years younger with a PHD and he's kept me abreast of most things progressive. He's explained to me many times why although he fight's for freedom he does buy the $200.00 Jeans and Sunglasses made in a sweat shop. He's explained the difference for years. He tells me about his Post Doctorate money that comes from the Evil Corporations. He tells me about unequal pay but feels as an educated person he's worth a lot more than say a Trash Collector. Lawrence dines with the evil bankers, his fraternity brothers are the Hedge Fund Managers.

[wyldthings]

06:07 PM on 08/03/2011

Let me get this straight. This man identifies himself as a socialists yet he owns millions in property holdings, I imagine a man of his wealth and fortune is heavily invested in many wall street indevers. See it's easy to sit on T.V and expouse

[JackLewis]

12:05 PM on 08/04/2011

Sure, in socialism the rich pay for the poor. Being poor doesn't mean you are a socialist it just means that you'd be on the receiving end of the deal. How hard is that to grasp?

[Theophrastus]

06:33 PM on 08/04/2011

There are many wealthy socialists. Living in a socialist country doesn't mean that you stay poor. It simply makes it harder for you to get obscenely rich. Seriously, how rich is rich enough, anyway?