My son 17 and thinks socialism is okay and communism great. Proud dad moment and I didn't teach him any of this. His generation just looks at the current state of things and says fuck that.
Also, the word "socialism" has kind of a fuzzy definition right now, at least in America.
It technically means that social ownership of the means of production, but I think most Americans think socialism means supporting a lot of government spending for social welfare.
This less strict definition means more people will identify as socialist or approve of socialism.
Unfortunately it's even broader - any government spending is now socialism. So bailing out banks is "socialism for the rich", even though it's neither social ownership nor for social welfare.
Even if you look at the pure definition, it can be fuzzy. Who should control the means of production is the great debate among leftists. The problem is "social ownership" can take many forms, and how well they represent society widely varies. If a government is corrupt, government ownership certainly will not represent the people. I've come to the conclusion that a variety of approaches is probably necessary as each has its own weaknesses. Natural resources need to be protected from exploitation by even local communities. But people are also right to not trust governments to continuously maintain their best interests. Generally speaking, keeping stuff as close to the people as possible is ideal. Workers, and not investors or government officials, should control the means of production in a business. At the same time, there should be a low barrier of entry for people to come together and form competing businesses. Investment may be necessary, but at the very least, investment should be a one time thing with a limited return on that investment. It should exist to lower barriers of entry, not raise them. And people certainly shouldn't be able to make a living off of loaning money. While the answers aren't always clear, there are some fundamental things all leftists should be able to agree on, though.
I could be wrong but I always thought they go hand in hand, if the people get the money from the production it's spent on the people with social programs, or that's my basic understanding.
I feel like most liberal democracies* have a large section of the population who think the welfare state, or UBI, is socialism. But yeah, the US seems particularly nuts on the definition of "socialism".
* Using this term liberally (heh) - capitalism making actual democracy impossible notwithstanding.
Everything that "radicalized" me was a consistent failure of the social contract by capital. It's done more to dissuade people from capitalism than any Soviet propaganda could.
Damn, that's a good point... If they don't want let government help anyone and they call anything they don't want, socialism, eventually socialism will contain everything everyone actually wants.
16 Comments
bravesilvernest@lemmy.ml · 122 pts · 128d
Also that said 18-29 lol
osanna@lemmy.vg · 51 pts · 128d
Quokka@quokk.au · 36 pts · 128d
Socialism?
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 126d
Ahem, just a year ago, I couldn't read then?
Fredselfish@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 126d
My son 17 and thinks socialism is okay and communism great. Proud dad moment and I didn't teach him any of this. His generation just looks at the current state of things and says fuck that.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 29 pts · 126d
"I hate socialism" cry the boomers as they drive their subsidized vehicle on their government funded roads
chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 126d
And get their social security checks. And get their medical care taken care of by a single payer healthcare system.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org · 29 pts · 128d
Thank you themattylee, that was perfect.
Add to that the very palpable effect "Not Socialism" has on the country right now...
BillyClark@piefed.social · 15 pts · 127d
Also, the word "socialism" has kind of a fuzzy definition right now, at least in America.
It technically means that social ownership of the means of production, but I think most Americans think socialism means supporting a lot of government spending for social welfare.
This less strict definition means more people will identify as socialist or approve of socialism.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 126d
Unfortunately it's even broader - any government spending is now socialism. So bailing out banks is "socialism for the rich", even though it's neither social ownership nor for social welfare.
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 126d
It is "socializing the cost". Socialism? No. Socialized? Yes.
parricc@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 126d
Even if you look at the pure definition, it can be fuzzy. Who should control the means of production is the great debate among leftists. The problem is "social ownership" can take many forms, and how well they represent society widely varies. If a government is corrupt, government ownership certainly will not represent the people. I've come to the conclusion that a variety of approaches is probably necessary as each has its own weaknesses. Natural resources need to be protected from exploitation by even local communities. But people are also right to not trust governments to continuously maintain their best interests. Generally speaking, keeping stuff as close to the people as possible is ideal. Workers, and not investors or government officials, should control the means of production in a business. At the same time, there should be a low barrier of entry for people to come together and form competing businesses. Investment may be necessary, but at the very least, investment should be a one time thing with a limited return on that investment. It should exist to lower barriers of entry, not raise them. And people certainly shouldn't be able to make a living off of loaning money. While the answers aren't always clear, there are some fundamental things all leftists should be able to agree on, though.
halferect@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 126d
I could be wrong but I always thought they go hand in hand, if the people get the money from the production it's spent on the people with social programs, or that's my basic understanding.
MisterFrog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 126d
I feel like most liberal democracies* have a large section of the population who think the welfare state, or UBI, is socialism. But yeah, the US seems particularly nuts on the definition of "socialism".
* Using this term liberally (heh) - capitalism making actual democracy impossible notwithstanding.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 126d
Everything that "radicalized" me was a consistent failure of the social contract by capital. It's done more to dissuade people from capitalism than any Soviet propaganda could.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 126d
Damn, that's a good point... If they don't want let government help anyone and they call anything they don't want, socialism, eventually socialism will contain everything everyone actually wants.
Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 124d
People's views move to the right as they get older unfortunately