Good?
Good.
Doog?
Not good enough. Wake me up when its Scientific Socialism and Capitalism is dead.
Good. Elected representatives funded by their constituents and others in the working class mean there’s less of a risk they pull up the ladder behind them and fuck those who got them into power.
Doesn’t mean this won’t ever happen. That’s why I said risk.
Long term goals are of course to ban Citizen’s United, set a cap on money needed to campaign for an elected position, and pass Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).
I’d be okay with just democracy taking over the Democratic party
You just get another Trump like candidate sooner or later. Recognize the symptoms.
They had decades to figure out how to unite their base. Obama and Bernie’s popularity gave them the building blocks. They remained willfully ignorant because they like those corporate checks too much.
Works for me. Give us universal basic income and universal healthcare. Take money out of politics. Give me an international high speed rail system. And paid by taxes higher education. Shut down the snooty universities.
Alternatively workers should earn a pension for every hour they labour on behalf of someone else.
Anyone under a predetermined amount when they retire should be able to collect the difference between the what they received and what they are short.
Any business that does not pay enough to those working for them should have their taxes increased to double the difference, as a punitive action.
Also do this with other things
Not so scary if you do five minutes of research.
While neither party can be trusted, I’ll take socialism over fascism every damned time.
It’s the catchy songs right?
You. All the upvotes to you.
Nope. It’s the catchy original definitions untainted by despots.
and what does socialism mean in this case
what does democratic socialism mean
is it just defund israel or is it defund the police? indeed is it destroy israel or own that means of production you love so much?
i guess we and you will find out which fantasy we’ll all be larping eventually
Socialism and fascism have always gone hand in hand.
Edit: I’m sorry that so many of you have such an issue with this statement.
Most leaders of socialist countries have governed in a fascistic or authoritarian manner. I understand that the historical consensus does not classify self-described socialist leaders as fascists, but I believe that distinction is based primarily on their stated ideology rather than how they actually governed. In my view, ideology should not exempt these monsters from being recognized for the authoritarian and fascistic characteristics of their regimes.
I’ll bite.
Why?
Edit: and how? Specific examples please
He’s also said socialism and not democratic socialism, so… He’s changing the narrative on you.
North Korea, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia… Man, Cambodia was really bad.
The only real exception people point to is China, but they’ve embraced market capitalism to such an extent that even they recognized a purely socialist economy wasn’t sustainable. You can’t take that away from them.
I always ask the same question of people who enthusiastically support socialism but don’t seem to understand what the word actually means: What country would you want to move to that is currently socialist, or that has been socialist in the past?
It’s a simple question, and I rarely get a direct answer.
So… do you understand that authoritarianism isn’t necessarily fascism? You’re listing authoritarian regimes, but none of those were fascist. At an extreme simplification, authoritarian/libertarian is an entirely separate axis from left/right.
Stalin is one of the most evil men in history and committed atrocities against his own people but he and his regime were most emphatically not fascists.
All governments are authoritative. They necessarily have to be so according to the social contract.
It’s just funny that the person responding to you only cares about if a given government and ideology is authoritative when it’s something they don’t like.
Capitalist liberalism is also authoritative and seeks to suppress and oppress dissent against weath consolidation and rights violations.
I mean I guess that’s true but it’s certainly a spectrum. There’s a fair difference between a Western democracy like Canada and whatever we’re saying the PRC is these days. And an even bigger difference between that and Stephen Miller’s fantasy, and there’d still be a difference between Stephen Miller’s rotten mind and what Stalin was doing.
A government must to some extent be authoritarian but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s mutually exclusive with civil and personal freedoms.
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian political ideology characterized by dictatorial leadership, extreme nationalism, suppression of political opposition, and the subordination of individual rights to what the state or nation is said to require.
Stalin wasn’t an fascist? Are you taking the piss?
Red fascism is more or less something ginned up in the early stages of the Cold War as a way to conveniently carry the fight through to the new enemy.
Stalin was not fascist, nor is Stalinism related to fascism. Stalin was a fucking monster regardless of whatever label you prefer, though.
If we look at other cited regimes, your footing is even weaker. Mao wasn’t a fascist, and none of the leaders of the PRC since then have been. Same for Castro and Cuba. Pol Pot was one fucked up dude, but he wasn’t fascist.
Stalin is certainly the closest comparison, but he’s still not fascist.
I understand where you’re coming from, and I understand why you believe this is true, especially when you take into account the current consensus among historians and other authority figures on the subject. They generally agree that Stalin and the other figures you mentioned were not fascists.
I disagree.
They qualify as fascists under every metric of the definition, and in abundance. Being communist, or labeling Stalin’s system “Stalinism,” does not exclude it from being fascism. Those labels do not change the underlying structure.
By every measurable standard, they were fascists, unequivocally,
Saying that a totalitarian ultra-nationalistic authoritative and violent regime isn’t fascist because they called themselves communists is historically and morally disingenuous.
What a great little technical out for some of the worst people on Earth and in human history to not be called fascists.
I usually reply to that with: “And if you love capitalism that much why don’t you move to the US instead?”
That still doesn’t answer the question.
I live in the United States, and I love my country.
The fact is that, as far as I’m aware, there has never been a single socialist country that has been broadly successful, and I don’t think there ever will be. So answer the question.
You say you support socialism, but you choose to live in a country that isn’t socialist because it’s prosperous, stable, and safe. If socialism is the superior system, why wouldn’t you want to live in a country that actually practices it?
Why do you like socialism so much? Have you ever lived in a socialist country? Have you even visited one? Can you point to a socialist country, either current or historical, that you would willingly move to?
It seems like you’re just repeating things you’ve read on Lemmy or elsewhere on the internet. You don’t appear to understand what socialism actually is, how it functions, or how it differs from social democracy or democratic socialism. You keep calling welfare programs “socialism,” when they aren’t.
Answer the fucking question, what country would you move to that is currently socialist or has been socialist in the past?
And don’t you even dare deflect to the fact that I live in America and that you think it’s a terrible country? Don’t even try it. It’s not going to work.
Do you know that most successful countries in the world are social-democracies right? Like most of Europe. You don’t need to go full communist or follow the red party book to incorporate the good bits of modern social-democratic practices to counter bad capitalism abuse. Im not a communist or “socialist” btw (assuming the typical American biased understand of those terms).
Yes. Some of the most successful countries on earth are social democracy’s which has nothing to do with socialism.
I encounter us problem on Lemmy all the time. ALL THE TIME! I’ll leave you with my regular disclaimer.
Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production. Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. The two terms are not interchangeable despite frequent misuse on the internet. You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism.
Tell me, in your opinion, how do you define and differentiate Socialism and Communism?
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned collectively by the public rather than by private individuals.
Communism, as it has existed in practice, is a political and economic system in which a one-party state controls the means of production and directs the economy, with the stated goal of advancing the interests of society as a whole. In theory, however, communism was originally envisioned by as a stateless, classless society that would emerge after socialism.
Noticed that the definition of communism is more involved and longer than the definition of socialism that is of course by necessity as it’s more complicated than the other.
I’d also preemptively like to point out that not every communist government is a one-party system, nor is it predicated upon that. That’s just what it’s been historically in the majority.
Also nobody ever answers the question. What country would you like to live in that is socialist historically or today?
Would you classify democratic socialism and social democracy under the umbrella of socialism, or would you classify them differently? For the record, I am not a Stalinist, Leninist, or Maoist, if that clarifies matters.
Social democracy is a capitalist economic system supplemented by large and robust welfare programs and a heavily regulated private sector. Things like strong anti-monopoly laws, relatively small wage gaps between workers and executives, strong unions, and progressive taxation are all characteristic of social democracy.
Democratic socialism is similar in many respects, but its long-term goal is to eliminate capitalism entirely by transitioning the means of production to public ownership. That does not necessarily entail communism, since most democratic socialists advocate maintaining a democratic system of government rather than adopting a one-party state.
I do not classify social democracy as socialism because its economy remains fundamentally capitalist.
I do consider democratic socialism to be a form of socialism, though with many important caveats. It does not inherently require or inevitably lead to communism.
I am personally less supportive of democratic socialism because I have a deep distrust of both the human condition and the long-term viability of a fully publicly owned economy. Historically, I do not believe such systems have produced consistently successful outcomes.
Technically, the single party state thing is intended to be a temporary thing. It’s meant to last only long enough until the whole stateless, classless thing comes to be.
People being people though… the people in charge start to enjoy the benefits of being in charge and tend to not want to keep going. Mao sure never missed a meal during that famine his regime caused.
It’s a critical weakness in the Marxist-Leninist ideology and why I can’t buy into it myself. I feel like any would-be “better way of doing things” has to take into account how people actually behave when exposed to and given power over others.
And you touched on a very interesting point that I rarely get to in discussions about socialism here on Lemmy: the human condition, the very nature of the human species. In my view, that’s what negates socialism as a viable option. It’s great on paper, and I even support it from a technical standpoint. It just doesn’t work because, to rehash an old slogan, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Gaslight somewhere else.
And here we have another Lemmy user that doesn’t know what a word means. But he sure is using it and that’s nice.
Socialist: We want you all to have free readily available healthcare
Republican Base: OVER OUR DEAD BODIES!!
*“OVER YOUR DEAD BODIES!”
ftfy
WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM screams my family as I tell them that they will pay the same or less in taxes than they were for insurance in the first place.
Universal healthcare is not socialism nor is it socialist.
Literally any kind of government can have universal healthcare. What type of government is completely irrelevant for What kind of healthcare the country has.
Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production. Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. The two terms are not interchangeable despite frequent misuse on the internet. You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism.
Not necessarily, if we’re in a democracy where a strong majority of people want the true socialism - ie: collective ownership of the means of production - then is that not democratic socialism?
Social democrats and democratic socialists are not the same thing.
Social democrats are liberals who want to improve conditions under capitalism.
Democratic socialists want to replace capitalism with worker ownership of the means of production by means of electoral politics instead of a revolution.
With the way things are going, probably.
I’d love to go socialist at this point. Capitalism has only fucked me over and over and over.
I’m pretty wealthy and I want the USA to be way more socialist. I want medical for all, free daycare, food security for everyone, and a huge expansion of public education. Unfortunately about 50% of the population equates any socialism with Marxism and refuses to even hear how bad they’re getting screwed by their Corp sponsored overlords.
I’m literally explaining social democracies vs Marxism to grown adults on nextdoor constantly. These knuckle draggers have the strongest political opinions and the weakest base of knowledge, it’s infuriating. The 24 hour news cycle has turned our dumb neighbors into hateful mean little people.
Social democracy isn’t socialism. Which is why it has the same problems as capitalism.
They don’t equate socialism and marxism, they haven’t read Marx like most people and implies think anything left of Bill Clinton is Marxist because that’s what talking heads have told them.
Exactly what I was trying to say.
Nice of you to give socialism its turn.
What if a foreign genocidal ethnostate takes over the Democratic Party?
Russia took over the GOP, not Democrats.
Don’t play dumb. Of course you know I meant Israel. Here you are discussing and downplaying the Gaza genocide:
I guess they wanna throw a shade by contrasting the numbers. 1.5 million deaths in 2 years vs 76000 deaths in 3 years. Or in relative terms, 60-70% vs 4%.
They kinda have a point there, even though the official UN definition of genocide of course doesn’t rely on number of deaths but intent. But usually, genocidal intent leads to high number of deaths, doesn’t it? Especially when your military is so much more powerful.
Using a death toll that quit counting YEARS AGO because the people doing the counting (Gazan health ministry) were wiped out. You think Israel is counting? Who is counting how many people they’re rounding up and killing and putting mass graves in occupied Gaza?
Democrats are very obviously in bed with Israel (not to say GOP isn’t as well).
As in social security and other safety nets including retirement systems where my purchasing power doesn’t dacay as I age until I’m not able to pay my mortgage or feed myself. Sounds like a plan.
Then the USA would actually have two parties instead of one?
But there are the De…
~Oooh. I see what you did there.~
This would be far more accurately titled as ‘returns to’ given FDRs New Deal and the fact that 99% of socialist policies enacted over the last century are from the Democrats, instead of the inflammatory weasel-wording ‘what if socialism takes over’ like it’s some kind of coup.
It might be some dumb play to drum up clicks from right-wing people who have never seen a Jacobin article I guess, but it puts off their base, and looking through the article… it doesn’t hide its socialist-positive bias at all even from the first few sentences, so I kinda doubt that intent. Just dumb.
instead of the inflammatory weasel-wording ‘what if socialism takes over’ like it’s some kind of coup.
If I can give some context, as a DSA member, while DSA is parasitizing the Democratic ballot line, it essentially acts like an independent party.
The goal isn’t necessarily to “take over” the Democratic Party. Rather, the dominant position in DSA is what’s called a “Dirty Break”, where the org parasitizes the Dems in the short term, essentially until they kick us out (Ideally in such a way that DSA comes out the stronger org, and that the Dems whither not unlike the Whigs).
Something which is already starting to happen, with Democrats telling us to go “make our own party” as though we haven’t looked at the US political system, and ruled that out for now.
Further, DSA is a big tent organization, with everyone from reformist social democrats, to Anarchists, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, etc. And the DSA party platform (the updated version of which gets released on the 14th, I believe) expresses an overt desire by DSA to transcend capitalism. So this isn’t just a return to FDR style social Democracy, like you’re suggesting, there’s a bit more going on
Thanks for the clarification, I feel like very little of this was discussed in the article and you explain it better.
Good luck getting that motley crew to get along. Everyone can agree on anticapitalism but that’s basically it. How exactly to go about it is going to vary widely. It’s hard to see Marxist-Leninists wanting to play ball with reform advocates.
It’s still a good idea worth trying. I’m just skeptical of lefties ever turning into a cohesive force since there’s such a wide array of leftism and some of the particulars of given ideologies are mutually exclusive.
Good luck getting that motley crew to get along
I mean, this isn’t a project that started yesterday, and it isn’t some hypothetical. DSA has existed in its current form, a big tent with ideological and strategically based caucuses, for a little over a decade at this point. If anything the caucus system, which currently codifies those different tendencies in the org, makes it stronger. People within DSA debate endlessly about everything under the sun, but the minute any one part of the org is attacked by someone on the right, the org rallies around them, generating greater organizational coherence. It’s like having siblings. You can bully your little brother, but god forbid anyone else tries it.
Additionally, caucuses allow DSA members to collaborate across chapters in ways that national is improving on, but not currently able to fully facilitate. Caucuses also exchange ideas, strategies, etc. in ways that general membership might not do otherwise.
And that, I think, is what has allowed DSA to grow in the way that it has. All of these left tendencies are forced to come to the table in order to get what they want, instead of just imploding into a billion little sects. And those negotiations, both among caucuses, and with material conditions, mean that DSA is able to formulate a cohesive program and strategy.
I think the Caucus system, as it currently stands, will probably have to be done away with at some point, if DSA is to cohere more power, and thus a greater sense of party discipline, but for now, I think it’s a strength of the org, not a weakness.
Yeah, the left is unfortunately mired with purity tests and No True Scotsman fallacies. Meanwhile, the right is laser focused on marching directly towards fascism. It’s like watching a game of tug-of-war, except one side has people tripping their teammates, or loudly complaining about how they got rope burn one time so they’re going to refuse to participate.
If you think socialism is bad, you either are an evil piece of shit or ignorant of what socialism actually is.
Or both!
What socialism is happening? Who is advocating workers controlling the means of production? All I see are social programs being touted.
Who is advocating workers controlling the means of production?
That would be communism, not socialism. Lennonist communism is where the workers control the means of production in a collectivist but decentralized manner (Stalinist communism is where the state (Stalin) controls the means of production). Socialism is where the capitalists are allowed to maximize profit all they want (hell they keep most of that under the socialist model), but society guarantees a minimal quality of life (the social bit) by taxing the capitalists to ensure a base-level of universal health-insurance and/or housing for the masses.
Basically, socialism is the logical conclusion of FDR’s New Deal.
Where are you getting this from?
It sounds like they just plucked it out of their ass.
Explained here
The article you linked is what happens when you hire a “content marketer” to write for you. Not sure why the home of ancient aliens would be a definitive source.
Where did you get this definition of socialism from? There’s no such thing as as socialism that allows for capitalist ownership of the means of production; if a socialist says it’s fine, they’re not a socialist.
As per Einstein himself (in his article entitled “Why Socialism?”):
In [a socialist economy], the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilised in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.
As you can see, as the means of production are owned and maintained by society itself in a socialist economy, there would be no possibility for any aspiring capitalist to accrue those means for themselves, and thereby maximize their own profit. In theory they would just be another worker without any special economical advantage over anyone else.
Where did you get this definition of socialism from? There’s no such thing as as socialism that allows for capitalist ownership of the means of production; if a socialist says it’s fine, they’re not a socialist.
The distinction between socialism and communism is well known and studied. The key differences are:
Communism:
All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on need. In practice, a strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.
Socialism:
individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.
You can find the basis of my quotes here, on the history channel’s very own website. You can also see the clear distinction in Europe’s current Democratic Socialism vs. Russia’s Communist stuff.
The History channel? As in the channel that hosts and broadcasts “Ancient Aliens”? You’re not exactly helping your case here.
Additionally, you’re incorrect in your citing of the notion that all property in a communist state is communally owned. All private property is communally owned, but that only goes for anything falling into the category of productive assets used to generate profit and subsume labour. You’re by all means still entitled in such states to owning any personal property, i.e. various forms of entertainment, food, toiletries, housing, etc. The whole basis of your distinction pretty much falls apart through that correction alone.
For the sake of providing an external source, you can read further on socialist/communist ideas through this website, particularly the first two paragraphs which once again thoroughly deconstructs your false distinction of the aforementioned ideologies.
Just curious if your head hurts from banging it against so many walls…
Sorry, but the stupid people’s website, Reddit, is that way ------>
That’s seems pretty rude for someone who is on your side. Maybe I’m missing your joke though.
My words were an expression of solidarity with you. I thought it was funny way to recognize you banging your head against the wall as the expression goes, but maybe you didn’t get my joke?
I found it funny how you kept having to educate people and they seemingly didn’t understand what you were saying.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear on that friend
What FDR did with a New Deal and socialism are not the same thing. FDR’s goal was to save capitalism while feeding the working class stale bread crumbs so they do not demand better, so that they do not advocate for more socialism.
Americans don’t understand that distinction.
All those words and not a single one of them correct.
Explain that to history channel. Also, look at the distinction between Europe’s socialist implementation. Then, compare that to Russia’s Communist stuff.
You mean explain it to a contributor to the History Channel that knows nothing about either?
So, that bit in my response as related to how Europe implements socialism is conceded?
There is nowhere in Europe where any form of socialism is practiced at the state level
Socialism is 1950’s conservatism now.
