Anyone else notice that alot of socialists dont know what socialism actrually means. Like they think its just starting a buissness where everybodies got the same amount of ownership of said company, and or just a giant welfare state. They dont realize that actrual Tennants of socialism would require them to not have private property rights.
@BlazingBowman, yeah, I see that a lot, and it's really frustrating especially because they try to bring up actual socialist countries as examples of socialism working well, and you can just tell that they haven't looked at the news about those countries, because any given example is either falling apart or no longer socialist.
@Marida Cruz, did you read the whole comment because it sounds like you think im in agreement with socialism. Welfare states arnt socialist. Nations like Venezuela come close because they annexed companies property into their government. No private property rights. States like sweden and iceland etc are not socialist they are welfare states there is a difference.
@BlazingBowman, what part of my comment makes you think that I think you agree with socialism? And don't all the examples you just listed fall under "no longer socialist" and/or "falling apart"?
@Marida Cruz, mostly the part about socialism working well.
@BlazingBowman, I never said it works well, and I never will either.
@Marida Cruz, not directly i guess but the whole tone of the comment kinda gave off that feeling. My apologies.
@BlazingBowman, I never said it indirectly either. I said it's frustrating when people who do believe in socialism try to bring up examples of it working well, and what I was trying to convey there is that the reason it's frustrating is because there's no such thing as an example of socialism working well.
@Marida Cruz, well not for long anyway.
@BlazingBowman, what do you mean not for long? There will never be an example of socialism working well, because it's a type of government that's fundamentally incompatible with what a government's purpose is.
@Marida Cruz, well they ussually have a brief economic boom that comes with robbing the industries and the redistribution of wealth.
@BlazingBowman, that's not an economic boom, that's just whatever the opposite of inflation is, because instead of making more money they're taking away money.
@Marida Cruz, deflation? No its an economic boom because people who didnt have money who were given money go out and spend it in stores. I remember the left championing how Venezuelans have refrigerators and toilets no because of the glory of socialism. Unfortunatly centralized planning and the high taxes always kill the society shortly after.
@BlazingBowman, well of course it would. After all, true socialism means not getting to own anything, never getting rewarded for doing your job better than anyone else, and having the same living conditions as everybody else. Which quite frankly sounds abysmal.
@Marida Cruz, agreed
@BlazingBowman, to be honest what you say is only true if we accept that Marx was the 'only true socialist'. True, in that Marx would throw a fit at what calls itself socialist today, but the base concept has been revised many times by many different thinkers. Most western politicians seem to use Crosland's adaptation of socialism when discussing the idea, which is very, very far from what Marx intended. There's no irony in that, it's just that politics changes.
@Marida Cruz, There are many examples of socialism working well. Pretty much every major economy outside of the US is a mixed economy. Hell, the U.S is a mixed economy as well. Of course fully socialist states are typically unsuccessful. Any type of “pure” economic system normally isnt good. You take the best aspects of each type of system to make the best. The U.S itself has been a mixed economy fot a long time.
Arguing against pure socialism is a strawman because nobody is really advocating for it. People are advocating for certain socialist programs that have been proven to work throughout Europe and Canada.
@K1l, a mixed economy isn't the same thing as a socialist economy, especially when there exists no successful mixed economy that uses primarily socialist ideas.
BlazingBowman has also already explained that those given examples are not socialism, they're welfare, and has explained what the difference between those is.
@Marida Cruz, Okay then, I think we need a rebranding of what socialism means because im confused. The American left advocates for things such as universal healthcare, welfare etc, but then the right (typically) says that we can’t have those things because they’re socialist. But now, you’re telling me that those things are not socialist. So I don’t get the argument against socialism here if in reality, the left isnt really advocating tor true “socialism”.
@K1l, no, the left isn't advocating for true socialism. And the right isn't actually advocating against socialism, they're just attempting to smear the left's ideology, because that's what modern politics amounts to. A much better interpretation of both sides overall views over the past few years, which will probably make a few of their decisions clearer, is that one side is authoritarian, while the other is libertarian, which basically just means more regulation vs more liberties. This might sound like a cut and dry choice, but honestly it's a mess figuring who on which side is following which idealogy.
The only people really advocating for true socialism are radical left extremists and dumb people on the internet, of which I believe we were mostly discussing the latter.
And the socialism they're pushing for isn't welfare, it's media censorship and equal pay regardless of skill.
@Marida Cruz, okay so then we’re on the same page with everything. I normally refer to the stuff I was talking about as socialism just because most people on both sides do - which I think caused some confusion. But yeah, I agree with everything you just said.
@Obsolete , so you admit todays " socialists" dont meet the definition of socialist.
@BlazingBowman, i think the thing is, the US left advocated for certain things that got labeled by the other side as “socialist” and instead of refuting that point, they just kinda accepted it. So now the modern use of the term socialism is different from the classical sense.
@K1l, maybe because the things they advicate for are socialist adjacent, and either way socialism is what theyre gonna get regardless of what they advocate for personally.
@BlazingBowman, in a literal sense, yes I agree with that. But as K1l has mentioned, most things commonly considered 'socialist' are not part of the original definition. This is why socialists often describe themselves in more specific terms (such as 'Marxist') to describe what socialist belief they subscribe to, as there are so many revisions to the theory.
I'd argue that democratic socialism is typically an altered version of socialism that is essentially less extreme with different (but similar) goals, and aligning it to Marxism is more misleading than useful, despite the terminology used.
@BlazingBowman, even at that though, why should the employees have equal parts of a company when they fronted zero start up cost...
@Scrabby, well i guess the idea these people process is for everyone to put in the same for the start up which is stupid in an entirely different way.
@BlazingBowman, someone explain this shjt to the ex coal miners getting welfare. I mean figure it out already.
@BlazingBowman, But Social Democracy is different from Socialism. The former pushes for State intervention to guide the invisible hand of economics in a direction that is beneficial to the country as a whole, the latter puts the invisible hand inside an iron glove and uses it to pummel the shít out of everyone except for the ruling elites, and destroy their economy.
Social Democracy can cover everything from government backed scholarships to help social mobility, to Kyoto-style carbon trading to force manufacturers to foot the bill for pollution they create.
It feels like calling someone a ‘Socialist’ because they advocate anything taxpayer funded is on a par with calling someone a ‘Nazi’ for advocating their Constitutional rights.
@Nellybert , no democratic socialism is socialism but we all voted to take your sh!t and redistribute. Centralization always fails.
@BlazingBowman, If you’re talking ‘proper’ full-on Socialism (Venezuela, USSR, that type) oh fúck yeah, it’s a terrible idea. I work my arse off, government can keep its damned hands off my shít (ironically, I kinda work for the government anyway).
If you’re talking about the State providing some socially beneficial services which aren’t necessarily best provided privately (such as the NHS) or stopping private companies destroying the planet (environmental legislation type stuff) then I can see a place for it.
Politics of envy style “take their money and give it to them, till we’ve dragged you all down to the lowest level” approaches can do one though.
@Nellybert , on a sort of semi-side note I've always found that point of view as well selfish, not to bad mouth people that have it of course, but people talk about not getting rewarded for working harder or not getting as much for themselves is inherently wrong to me. Maybe it's because my family is from a former communist state and still supports those policies today but from what I can gather is that there is just an inherent difference in the view on life in people from capitalist countries and communist/ex-communist ones. People talk about getting equal pay and equal resources and etc. like it is something horrible and disgusting and facist whereas in my background it is the goal. People dont want what's good for them, they dont want more than their neighbours they want everyone to have something, enough to survive on anyway. So it just shocks when I read people say things like imagine not getting rewarded for doing your job better when it is your duty to do your best anyway
@BlazingBowman, anybody else notice that all the countries that are actually working are mixtures of socialist and capitalist policies?
@AWildMagikarp, i dont think that government power or responsibilities are in fact socialist in nature. It is only socoalist when the government takes over responsibilities that are traditionally left to the private market. Such as the medical field or oil refinement etc.
@JBird7337, Different jobs require different abilities, some require very high levels of skill and I believe that should be rewarded. Should a world class brain surgeon be told that he can earn no more than the guy who sweeps the corridor outside? I don’t think so. (To confirm - I am not a world class brain surgeon, and I do not earn the kind of money they do). I believe we have a duty to look after each other, so I support the existence of a benefit safety net and the NHS for example. But I also believe that many people are motivated by reward (if we weren’t, this conversation wouldn’t be happening) and should have the right to aspire to more.
I recently changed jobs and took a pay-cut in doing so, because I chose an ethical employment path. But if I go above & beyond to achieve great results and the company benefits from my efforts, I think it’s only fair for me to share in that success.
@BlazingBowman, that’s factually incorrect. Even communism differentiates between private and personal property.
@griffinstorme, im sorry what part of redistribution of wealth do you not understand?
@Nellybert , firstly I'd like to say equal salaries for all workers isnt something that is even supposed to be achieved until certain levels of automation are achieved and wealth but to respond to your point yes I do think they should, like I did say people just have different views while reward is a system that works it also isnt a system for everyone, I know people that work their ass off, they're union members and work on strike days without pay, work extra hours without pay because they love their job, those people are immigrants from developing countries, I've never known someone born here to do that. They view that you should get paid more for certain jobs isn't as universal as some people think
@JBird7337, Why did those people emigrate to your country, if not to look for a better life for themselves/their families? Why not stay in their own country and work to make it a better place for everyone there?
Another problem with ‘perfect’ socialism is that it only works if everyone wants it to - if you’re happy working for (for example) $10 but I want $15, then either I get more than you (which upsets you) or I get denied (which upsets me and causes me to go work elsewhere). So you either get inequalities in pay, or a brain drain where all the smart people move to places that pay more.
@JBird7337, Why did those people emigrate to your country, if not to look for a better life for themselves/their families? Why not stay in their own country and work to make it a better place for everyone there, if not because of the capitalist motivation to get more for themselves?
Another problem with ‘perfect’ socialism is that it only works if everyone wants it to - if you’re happy working for (for example) $10 but I want $15, then either I get more than you (which upsets you) or I get denied (which upsets me and causes me to go work elsewhere). So you either get inequalities in pay, or a brain drain where all the smart people move to places that pay more. You ever notice how socialist ‘utopias’ have big fences up to stop people leaving, not arriving?
I’m in favour of certain social enterprises being state run - building roads, running healthcare, providing disability benefits etc - but wages are a market thing, not a government one.
@Nellybert , well if we use your example you criticise of perfect socialism there wouldn't be wages anyway. In regards to why people leave there is various reasons, in most if the cases I know (although I will admit this is a biased sample due to my background) it is primarily because they were joining family who emigrated during the prior facist government before socialism was put in place or due to the country generally being not great due to recent history of capitalist imperialism meaning socialist or not those countries aren't well off (example look at literacy rates in the Balkans against the ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires). Your example of the brain drain is also not necessarily true, plenty of academics dont flock towards pay and even in socialist countries many still remain (see Cuban health system, specifically their research). Debates like this mainly cherry pick examples for positive or negative effect. Lastly just to clarify because I dont think I got it across cont.
@Nellybert , I am not arguing for or against socialism, I was simply stating for socialism to work effectively there needs to be a fundamental shift in philosophy for a lot of people in western capitalist countries. A lot of the "evils" in the socialist system are only subjectively bad and I think the same can be applied to capitalism too, combine that with a general lack of understanding on both sides and you end up with not a very effective outlook, just thinking back on the horrible way I was taught about communist and non-Western history in school reeks of blatant propoganda
@JBird7337, What I’m trying to say is that I believe that any attempt to create a ‘proper’ socialist state (no wage/equal wages, everything run by the state, that sort of thing) is doomed to failure simply because of the imperfect nature of humanity. There will always be people who want more than they have, want to do less than their share, think that others are being greedy/lazy, get envious, want to be the one running things, etc - which will lead to exploitation and the eventual collapse of the system. However interesting an ideal it may be, I can’t see it ever surviving in the real world.
@Nellybert , for the most part I agree, good convo. Have a good one!
@JBird7337, Yeah, I think we’re on the same basic wavelength - there are pros and cons to all systems, the main problem is that some people just suck. 😂
@Nellybert , Haha, 100%
Down with Capitalism!
Buy my merch! Only $99.99!
Wear my merch to show those Capitalists that they suck!
@CaptianMcKenderson, for only $99 A YEAR you too can join the Mug Club and get a stupid ass mug
@SkizleDNizleS, and have the choice too buy a stupid ass mug...#socialismisforfigs
@fallingback09, gosh darn figs with their stupid political ideals #socialismisforfruit
If only there was an example of a social program that Americans already have as an example that social programs do work. Oh look a fire truck just spend by my window.
@HappyBandit7, moronic straw man is easy to attack.
@big freedom, finish him off with a "Venezuela," he'll be toast
Democratic socialism Is different. If you don't think it is, then you're a) not paying attention or b) just hating the others because you're told to by the cronies.
Democratic Socialists support socialist programs, but not socialism. Higher taxes to provide systems that work for All Americans and give the boot to the price gouging opportunists that screw over too many of us. BTW There will still be companies that provide better healthcare than the government does, you'll just have to pay for it. Proving my point is private schools. Your kid doesn't have to go to elementary, middle school or high school with the general public, you can send them to a private school of your own choosing. But that public school still works on some basic level. Democratic Socialist programs would be similar if people could pull their heads out of McConnell's, Kochs, and other crony capitalists asses and look at what they're actually saying and doing.
Yes, socialism sucks and doesn't work. Just like....
@mas2de, ... Eating a bowl of hot sauce sucks and is stupid. But adding a bit of hot sauce to a bland meal makes it better.
We already have a mixed govt. America is a Democratic Republic. We have Democracy, where the people vote for what they think they actually want, and the Republic tamps that with what is best for the country and the people as a whole.
Democracy soon devolves and goes sideways as people who don't care to pay attention vote next to those who are paying attention. Republics easily lose sight of their people and disconnect and then the people get pissed and overthrow their government.
Our Founding Fathers combined the two and made the US Constitution.
Along the way we realized we needed certain programs to keep things running smoothly and to keep people safe. Like a government police force because we can't trust companies or individuals to be altruistic and we've wound up with groups killing those who would threaten a companies bottom line.
Yes Socialism sucks. It ...
@mas2de, ...fails and it sucks for the people the whole time it's failing. Democratic Socialists in America today are not advocating for the US to move to a Socialist system and even if they were our system of government and Constitution would not allow it. You don't have to fear and hate and blow up every time you see someone on TV advocating for Socialist programs. Democratic Socialists today and now want to take care of the people of the US. (What a concept. A government that wants healthy citizens not burdened by crippling debt. The only ones who really win from debt are the loan sharks and insurance agencies and their friends.)
When the US runs into an issue, it has usually been because corporations have too much free reign in an area and it just hasn't been so much of an issue until it did/is. There are many solutions to this problem but they all require coordination For the people and by the people. Whether they're large groups of people like unions or large groups of elected...
@mas2de, ...leaders like a government.
Stop becoming frothing lunatics whenever someone says "... Socialist...". You throw out all the other words and rave that this person is trying to destroy America with Socialism. That isn't what's happening and that will never in our lifetimes happen in the USA. What they're trying to do is fix the worst problems we currently have. Problems such as crippling debt from insurance companies not covering their part or people flat out not having insurance when they get hurt and now they owe millions to have their life saved. When they could have been paying for that all along and had a basic bottom line insurance as well as a large group to go to bat for them against giant hospital corporations that only care about their bottom line and not as much the health of a patient.
No government program is perfect because people aren't perfect nor altruistic. But government programs/agencies are better than what came before and they're here out of neccessity.
@mas2de, tl:dr the free market is the best, most effective system for getting people out of poverty ever devised.
The more power you give to the government to take from someone and give it to someone else, removes levers from the free market.
The government that governs best, governs least. Because it always grows and gains more power. Keep the government doing what it is supposed to do:
1. Protect individual liberties
2. Provide for common defense
3. That’s it. That’s all it’s supposed to do
Read theory, Watch chapo trap house, use your common sense.
@liberachi , "Just looks at the facts, man!"
@liberachi , or better yet: get a job
Anyone else think it’s interesting how so many people in this community are right leaning (if not just anti-leftist)? As someone in law school, it’s refreshing to see