While neither party can be trusted, I’ll take socialism over fascism every damned time.
It’s the catchy songs right?
Nope. It’s the catchy original definitions untainted by despots.
You. All the upvotes to you.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
With the way things are going, probably.
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.
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.
Nice of you to give socialism its turn.
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.
deleted by creator
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
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.
Good?
Good.
Doog?
Not good enough. Wake me up when its Scientific Socialism and Capitalism is dead.
What if a foreign genocidal ethnostate takes over the Democratic Party?
Russia took over the GOP, not Democrats.
Democrats are very obviously in bed with Israel (not to say GOP isn’t as well).
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?
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).
Author of the article never got to any sort of point. Just some random rambling. Jacobin needs to do better than this garbage.
Instead of a “what if” we need a “how” and “when”
100%!
The right wing has been pushing the Democratic Party to the right by making the Republicans more conservative/fascist. This pulls the Overton window to the right and the Democrats with it.
Socialism in the Democratic Party is the natural reaction to this pull. While welcome, the real solution is to do away with the two party system. Otherwise, it’s just a see-saw forever swinging back and forth.
the real solution is to do away with the two party system
How do envision getting from here to there?
I think it has to happen locally. Ranked choice voting (or similar) needs to be pushed through. Then, school boards, city/county councils and state elections.
People need to recognize and relate to new parties. National elections are not the way to do it (fuck you Stein and the American Green Party).
Ranked choice voting (or similar) needs to be pushed through
People need to recognize and relate to new parties.So I’m inferring you believe people will suddenly start voting for 3rd parties in order to then get voting reforms enacted, rather than voting reform being the necessary catalyst to making 3rd parties viable?
Just look at the numbers. At present there are a grand total of 3 (out of 535) federal legislators who are not either Democratic or Republican. Bernie Sanders ran in the Democratic primary for Senate in 2008, winning the nomination but then declining it to run as an Independent. Kevin Kiley was first elected as a Republican and then declared as Independent after several years in office. In all state legislatures combined, there are a total of 6 state senators and 22 state representatives out of 7,578 total state legislative seats.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_and_independent_members_of_the_United_States_Congress
- https://ballotpedia.org/Current_independent_and_minor_party_federal_and_state_officeholders
- https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/state-partisan-composition
Fewer than half of US states have a process for voters to initiate new legislation by direct ballot initiative (if you include voter-led veto ballot initiative of existing legislation, or state Constitutional amendments it’s 26, but strictly for writing and passing new legislation it’s 21).
https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_initiative_or_referendum
And 13 states have already banned RCV.
So I think we need the 3rd party candidates and voters to run and vote in the major party primaries in order to get elected. Like we’ve been seeing with DSA candidates winning Democratic primaries and previously Tea Party candidates winning Republican primaries. Either that or successfully calling a new Constitutional Convention to rewrite the whole damn thing, and I really don’t think that will play out the way we would want it to in the current political climate.
Rank choice voting
RCV is just one of many alternative voting systems that has alot of warts. I think there are better options that should be explored:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison/_of/_electoral/_systems
Gotta win elections to ram that through, though.
Well, I’m not a one issue voter…but if someone says they’ll implement rank choice voting than that tends to get my vote.
Are you using that metric to vote in the primary? Major party or 3rd party?
Well, I vote in a rank choice district, so all. But I want our politicians to get it to be federal
Nice. You’re actually free to vote for 3rd parties!
What do you think of my observations on that in my other comment I’m this thread?
Accept that a centuries old constitution is totally outdated.
How do we action the acceptance? What actual step comes after that?
Just copy European countries that have renewed their constitutions as time passes instead of asking empty rhetorical questions.
Just copy European countries that have renewed their constitutions as time passes
Which of our existing processes do you think will produce the result you want? Passing an amendment through Congress seems quite unlikely with our current field of partisan legislators. We can’t even meet the lower thresholds for passing legislation for things like raising minimum wage, which is supported by about 2/3 of the population. The Koch brothers were highly successful at stacking state legislatures with Tea Party nutjobs with the ultimate goal of calling for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite it. Republicans still control 28 state legislatures, and they’re generally pretty beholden to Trump and the MAGA base, so I don’t think we’d have a positive outcome with a Constitutional Convention.
So in my opinion, we need to have favorable majorities in our representation before we can have a favorable outcome with amending the Constitution. Do you have a different approach in mind?
instead of asking empty rhetorical questions.
You have this backwards, you’re giving rhetorical answers to non-rhetorical questions.
Which of our existing processes do you think will produce the result you want?
I started by the need to acknowledge centuries-old constitutions are outdated. That is the first step. Get citizens being a push for change. No “existing process”, that is the main point.
So in my opinion, we need to have favorable majorities in our representation before we can have a favorable outcome with amending the Constitution. Do you have a different approach in mind?
As stated, the first step is really to push the idea of rewriting a constitution.
If you don’t have the people pushing, you are never getting a new document or a positive vote for such a document. And you won’t even start to have a favorable majority for something that is not claimed.
Then people in power (elected or through a crisis caused by an uprising) can push a new constitution, with no care for the old document. This is how European countries have mostly done it.
Plus US is not facing a simple constitutional crisis, it is a religion-like crisis seeing how the document has been sanctified for so long. So no amending. Rewriting. And won’t happen without a huge push for trashing the old one.
the first step is really to push the idea of rewriting a constitution.
I’m asking what does that look like to you? Voting? Protesting in the streets and/or at the capitol buildings? Armed revolution?
My own belief is that it comes down to voting. We do not currently have a legal means for the people to directly initiate a Constitutional Convention. So we need state legislators who say they will vote to call for one, and federal legislators who say they will vote for Constitutional Amendments. But I don’t want the current majorities to be in charge of that. We would just end up with a fully Christo-fascist Constitution given the makeup of the delegations. Most states don’t have any means to recall legislators or for voters to directly initiate ballot initiatives to write new legislation. So we need to put better representatives in office first. My belief, as stated in other comment in this thread, is that we have to have 3rd party and independent candidates run in the major-party primaries, and we have to vote in those primaries for those candidates. We’re seeing it work more and more for DSA-aligned candidates, so hopefully we can keep building on that momentum and finally get some real change.
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.
Social democracy and democratic socialism are not the same.
Social democracy, yes, is what you describe: try to regulate capitalism and make it livable via labor protections, public services and a welfare state. The end horizon is something like the Scandinavian dream.
Democratic socialism is different: the end horizon is indeed full blown socialism, with social ownership of the means of production and ultimately with abolition of capitalist relations altogether. However, for democratic socialists, the path to that horizon does not pass via revolution but via the democratic process.
In practice social-democrats and democratic-socialists end up finding it easy to agree on a political program for the here and now and so very often they coexist. Both want to reform capitalism.They just don’t agree as to how deep that reform can go. For the democratic socialists, the things social-democrats want are in fact the means towards the end result. For the social-democrats that end result is not necessary considered possible or even desirable. But the two have never won that much that their differences would actually come to a head.
I’d be surprised that anyone would want to stop at the SocDem phase of things. Like if you actually get that far and things are going well, wouldn’t you want to take that next step? I guess it depends on perceived risk?
Nobody has ever reached a point where that was actually a practical decision to make. So nobody has ever said oh yea this is enough we should stop :)
Edouard Bernstein, the first theoretical of social democracy famously said that the “the final goal of socialism is nothing, the movement is everything”. I think it’s a matter of perspective, of what you choose to care about. My most sympathetic read of this position is that actually abandoning capitalist relations is not something that you can “choose” to realistically do because capitalism is too tied up with the survival needs of people.
While I agree that the end goal of democratic socialism is an economy in which the means of production are publicly owned, it differs significantly from the Marxist-Leninist model advocated by Lenin and later implemented by Stalin. Democratic socialism rejects the one-party state and instead maintains that democratic institutions, competitive elections, and civil liberties should continue to exist even after the economy is fully socialized.
That’s a massive distinction, especially considering that every major one-party socialist state has produced severe authoritarian outcomes.
China is a notable exception in one respect: while it remains governed by a single-party communist state, its economy has embraced extensive market mechanisms, private enterprise, and foreign investment. Whether it should still be described as socialist depends largely on which definition of socialism is being used.
Yes it is very different from Leninism. But what you’re describing are still “how” elements not “what”. And to call a spade a spade, Democratic socialism and social democracy are both deeply rooted in the Marxist tradition. The former in the thought of Karl Kautsky, the latter in the thought of Eduard Bernstein.
Bernstein is exactly who Rosa Luxemburg is responding to in “Social Reform or Revolution?”. Kautsky positioned himself in the centre between Bernstein’s revisionist reformism and what he saw as Luxembourg’s adventurism. He was in fact a huge influence on Lenin himself, who considered Kautsky a real authority in Marxism but disagreed on his tactical analysis and ultimately he ended up rejecting it.
Long story short, democratic socialism is not external to the body of Marxist thought. It played a key role in its intellectual development. For Leninists it became the anvil on which they hammered their own understanding. But since the fall of the Soviet experiment and the dengist/nationalist turn of the Chinese one, taking a serious second look at democratic socialism is, I think, the intellectually robust thing to do.
That’s a lot of a lot dude. And you’re basically right.
So what does this have to do with people not understanding and misusing the term socialism versus social democracy and Democratic socialism?
And I see that you obviously don’t fall into that camp. You know what you’re talking about.
Well, when it comes to practice there are a few things:
-
People should not be scared to call themselves socialists and still lay claim to liberal democratic bona fides. That combination is not a ruse and a fraud as the Right would like to insist but a real current in socialist thought since the beginning. The newly elected leader of the NDP here in Canada actually came out and called it recently.
-
I would actually also argue that honest social democrats, can in practice be more radical than self proclaimed socialists, if in practical politics they propose and achieve deeper reforms. I’ll trade an effective Mamdani for a high falutin big mouth talking European self proclaimed socialist that does fuck all (looking at Tsipras) any day of the week. It’s easy to talk a big game and do nothing and we shouldn’t underestimate the transformative power of promising modest reform and delivering.
-
It’s also important to keep reminding so called moderates eg in the Democratic Party that DSs and SDs can very much coexist in a left of centre party and that cosplaying the red scare all the time is extremely self defeating. Common ground exists.
-
Finally, I would say it is also important to not cede the socialist vision to the MLs as if they are the sole and rightful owners of it. They are not, never have been, and liberal democracy is not as alien a concept to socialist thought as they pretend it to be. Political liberalism is not only reconcilable with socialism but there are very legitimate currents of Marxist thought that assert it. Nicos Poulantzas famously argued that “socialism will be democratic or it will not be at all”, asserting that institutions of representative democracy are essential for a socialist transition to avoid authoritarian state-socialism.
Given that, so far, precisely none of the Marxist-Leninist states have successfully transitioned into a classless system (or even tried to), I’d say that the last bullet point is especially relevant.
It’s awfully tempting to retain that total power over others, once given it. There’s only been a handful of people throughout history that have willingly handed the reins of power back after the crisis was resolved.
I think you’re missing the point I was making.
There isn’t a “real” socialist or a “fake” socialist. Socialism has a definition: public ownership of the means of production. That’s the defining characteristic. Everything else, whether it’s democratic socialism, Marxism-Leninism, libertarian socialism, or anything else, is a modifier that describes how someone thinks that goal should be achieved or what political system should accompany it.
My point wasn’t about which branch of socialism is better or more democratic. It was that people routinely use the terms socialist, social democrat, and democratic socialist interchangeably when they are not the same thing.
So how does your comment address that? My original point was about people misusing basic political terminology, not about whether one type of socialist is preferable to another.
There’s also a recurring pattern on this platform where people simply don’t know what these terms mean. “Socialism,” “social democracy,” “democratic socialism,” and even “capitalism” all get thrown around as interchangeable labels, when they describe different concepts. That’s the misconception I’m pushing back against, and it’s one I run into constantly. You and I seem to be the exception here, we at least understand the terminology well enough to have a discussion about the ideas instead of arguing over incorrect definitions.
I guess I’m helping by articulating my understanding?
Otherwise, yes we seem to not be disagreeing.
-
At some point we’re just masturbating over minutia.
In practice, in the real world, there will never be such a thing as a purely socialist or purely capitalist economy. You could have a fully automated luxury communist economy, and there would still be someone out there doing what is effectively capitalism, just in exchange for favors and owed favors. You could organize your society into Ayn Rand’s dream world, and there would still be some folks there giving each other things for free out of the kindness of their hearts. Hell, even the Soviets tried running an economy without money for awhile, and it failed miserably.
There is a continuous spectrum between a fully government-run economy and an entirely stateless economy. And all real-world governments lie somewhere on that spectrum. The governments that we call “socialist” just lie more towards the government-run side of things. Neither extreme has ever existed. The USSR was not a complete collective ownership of the means of production. The US is not and never has been a purely market economy.
Masturbating over pointless minutia is just pointless masturbation.
Wow. You used “masturbation” way too many times.
And you’re right it’s about as pointless as your comment, considering why I left mine in the first place.
People on this platform don’t seem to know the difference between basic terms like capitalism, socialism, social democracy, and democratic socialism. They lump every good thing the government does under “socialism” and every bad thing under “capitalism.” Reality isn’t that black and white. It isn’t simply capitalism versus socialism.
Some of the most successful countries on Earth are social democracies with large welfare states and strong regulations that curb predatory business practices. They are not socialist economies. They are fundamentally capitalist economies, and that’s a distinction people constantly miss.
Unions, fair wages, wealth equality, universal healthcare, and social safety nets have nothing to do with socialism as an economic system. They are hallmarks of social democracy. Socialism and social democracy are two distinct ideologies with different definitions.
I’m not masturbating over words. I’m using those words according to their actual definitions.
