Eeeh... It was only anti-fascism as in "anti-others" (who happened to be fascists in a way they differentiated from). The US has been real fucking bad from the very start and there hasn't been a single moment where that stopped. I can't see a single period where it isn't the modern day meaning of fascist. Yeah, the civil war was won by the better part but it wasn't a "good vs evil" black and white thing, because nothing is like that in reality. Faschism is deeply ingrained in the US and has always been so, especially when it comes to politicians, military, police force etc.
Socialism is not "when the government does stuff." Governments are tools that can be used to advance any sort of ideology or agenda. Socialism is a specific ideology (or set of ideologies), which Ben Franklin did not and could not have subscribed to on account of the ideology had not yet even been developed.
When a member of the capitalist class lobbies the government to introduce regulations designed to prevent small business from competing with his monopoly, that is not making the system "more socialist" because the government is doing "more stuff." It is making the system more capitalist. A system that is controlled by and works for the benefit of the capitalist class is a capitalist system, regardless of the degree to which the government does things.
If anything, the more correct term would be "statist" but that's also an absurd term, because again, governments are tools. Whoever holds power in a system will use that tool to advance their own interests, and if the tool does not exist, then it will be created. This ridiculous idea that socialism is simply an ideology based around supporting the government doing things, any government doing any things, is complete nonsense. There is not any ideology that says that, it isn't something anyone believes. The difference between socialism and capitalism is not the degree to which the state is being used but who is using the state and to what purposes.
Capitalist states do not have fire departments because they are "partially socialist" but because capitalists don't like having their buildings burn down any more than anyone else does.
Socialism is not “when the government does stuff.”
Of course not, only an idiot who is trying to undermine someone's argument would claim that. Socialism is when the means of production are collectively owned, such as when a fire truck is owned by a city.
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership, especially when we're talking about a bourgeois state.
If a king rides through a village and says, "I really like the views around here. Seize the land for the state and kick out all the peasants so that I can come here without having to see them spoiling the view." Is that "collective ownership" because the land is now held by the state? Is that "socialism?"
Treating state ownership and collective ownership as equivalent is just "socialism is when the government does stuff" with extra steps.
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership
No, and yet both can be examples of socialism. As in, when the city owns a fire department which is paid for by city taxes and available to help anybody in the city any time there's a fire.
“Means of building collective power”. That’s the right thing to communicate, My take is we need a new word that’s not socialism, communism etc because those words have lost concrete meaning, similar to globalism and neoliberalism no one knows what they mean anymore because they’ve been targeted, abused, redefined and vilified.
I think basically stop denonising unions. I've been hesitant to join mine, as I don't want to be seen as a trouble maker. Funnily I've already received my 'last promotion' at 56. I could shit on the marble floor and not get sacked (because vital skills). However, simply displaying solidarity with my younger colleagues would be deemed 'offensive'. Two more years and nearing retirement, I think I'll let rip
Yeah.. most people in my country don't have a union available, and there are no prospects for creating one in the near future.
I don't mean any offense myself, but just having access to a union and not joining it is... an interesting choice from my perspective.
A cooperative economy, co-ops in general, is the answer in my opinion. Anarchists and communists are mostly on board, if only seeing them as stepping stones towards larger goals. Being a form of socialism, socialists are on board. While being stateless and still relying on markets they may be able to sway conservatives. Their economic proof of success already might convince liberals. And who doesn't want democracy in their workplace?
I tried that in a group of people the other day. I got a resounding "Nah, I'm good"
What do you do when everyone is happy to die? Because right now my plan is "try my damned best to make sure these dipshits don't take me down with them"
in the OG Matrix: Cypher isn't evil because he betrays everyone and gets some people killed, which is undoubtedly an evil act. No, Cypher is inherently evil because he not only doesn't care, but he actively chooses ignorance. He CHOOSES to go back to sleep. This is the avg American. They chose ignorance because they WANT to be mesmerized and lied to, Americans enjoy and celebrate it. IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
Doesn't really exist here, there's work that most people drive to from 30+ minutes away and church which I refuse to go to for obvious reasons. Everything closes at 10 including on the weekends, there's a lot of lot of America that's like this, I've tried moving, didn't help.
Oh, that's sad to hear. I live in Germany in a relatively small town (~50k population). I work in a much larger town but I have a lot of remote work from home. In my home town are at least 10 places where I could volunteer and get there by walking or bike.
I actually do at a place where I try to teach some older folks a bit about computers.
However, there's also an animal shelter, voluntary fire fighters, a second hand shop that donates the income for disabled children, a nature preservation station and probably a bunch more.
I actually considered both animal shelter and vfd, animal shelter wasn't interested and it would cost around $600 to get started for fire department, yes cost. Been so bored I'd do yardwork for free but once again equipment cost etc, plus everyone is convinced you're out to murder them.
I see. Maybe you can do something in line with your professional work? E.g. if you work with computers you could also help people in the neighborhood. Especially older people often need help.
Another thing I just remembered nearby are repair cafes, I'm not good with electronics so it's not for me but maybe it's something for you? Also we have people that help immigrants with bureaucracy, translation or just integration into society (eg. local sports clubs)
Anyways, don't pressure yourself into something. Just keep your ears open, maybe something pops up.
Grab a bucket and pick up trash along your street. Take the old lady's trash out. Paint something that's worn out (with permission where appropriate). Find the ugliest yard in the neighborhood and offer to cut some of it back or just clean up an abandoned yard or park. Landscaping goes exponentially faster with power tools, but a hand pruner, hand saw, and cheap weed whacker can do a lot.
On a restaurant supply site, or maybe even just ask a local restaurant, aquire a quantity of take out containers. Make a large batch of inexpensive food, chicken and rice is a good one. If you have a little extra cash grab a huge bag of Halloween candy. Drive to your nearest economically depressed area, and look for someone outside. Offer them food. If they say no, ask if they know anyone that could use a meal. The food will be gone quickly. Don't means test, just give. It feels pretty good.
The amount of people who are completely ignorant about socialism and communism in this thread is evidence that the first sentence of this tweet is true, and that it was super effective.
Conservatives are the footsoldiers of the 1% and are in complete agreement with them on pretty much every topic. Conservatives see themselves as temporarily embarassed billionaires.
Conservatives are the reason for our wealth inequality. If not for conservatives, the normal people would be able to regulate the hoarding of wealth and the behavior of the 1%. Conservatives are the sole reason laws do not apply to the wealthy.
Whenever I see posts about "rebelling" and "standing up" I just think...are you assuming that the vast majority of people in this country ARE NOT okay with their lives? I mean, that's the only way a true "rebellion" will ever occur. And despite what liberals and the Left say, most Americans are content with their lives.
And the largest one in that list is...? And the longest lasting is...? Just because you can balance a knife on its tip doesn't mean that that's a stable configuration, and if anarchism is not stable, why bother talking about it?
Idealistic and naive, in my view. Anarchists have never explained how we get from here to the global classless, stateless, moneyless society that both communists and anarchists wish to achieve, given the context of capitalist power and reaction — at least no explanation that makes sense to me.
I would be happy to be proven wrong though, as I truly believe that both groups want the same outcome.
Anarchy only helps those privileged enough to have the means to defend what they have with violence.
Anarchy means the sick, disabled, poor, minorities, etc are thrown to the wolves, and expected to defend themselves with less capability and resources than the majority.
Sure, you might argue family units or communities might band together and take care of each other, but they probably need some rules to make that equitable since not everyone will agree, and- oops we made government again.
I have visited wikipedia. So you mean the anarchy that is "without hierarchy or authority" but not complete chaos?
I guess I'm unclear how you manage that without it devolving into chaos though. Like corporations constantly prove that if we don't have a law against it they'd just sell humans. I dunno how you manage to make an equitable society without some kind of rules and enforcement of said rules, when there will always be bad actors.
It's a more complex concept than I assumed, but I struggle to conceptualize what that kind of system actually looks like.
To be honest, I think even I need more education on the topic. But I think it's more like societies form organically. People pick roles and contribute to society as needed instead of doing a job just because you need to pay the rent.
And it doesn't mean there's an absence of rules or laws. And commerce would still function but there would be a specific need for it. And it wouldn't be just for profit. So that removed a lot of incentive to do bad things.
Something that works is something that can't be "sabotaged" by a better system.
Capitalism works, but 100% capitalism doesn't. Socialism works, but not 100% socialism. If you can imagine less than 100% anarchism, then that works too -- basically people having a certain amount of autonomy, but not 100% autonomy.
Balance is key. People can't be 100% under the thumb of the government or life isn't worth living. But, people also can't be 100% free to do anything they want without considering other people because that leads to chaos and death. You can't have absolutely everything being privately owned for someone's profit, because that's just awful, but you also can't have no private ownership of the means of production either. A successful system is a mix.
Capitalism isn't the reason why everything is shit. That's the kind of argument a 6 year old would make. Everything was shit long before Capitalism came around. When feudalism / manorialism was the dominant economic system, people weren't allowed to leave the land where they were born because legally they were tied to the land and owed their labour to their landlord until they died. No capitalism there, but things were awful shitty.
The problem is extreme power inequality and wealth inequality. The theorists who promoted capitalism liked it because they thought that it would lead to less wealth and power inequality than feudalism. They thought that as long as the government enforced laws to ensure there was fair competition, there wouldn't be a ruling class of capital owners who would hold all the power. Anybody could start their own business and compete against existing businesses. If they had a better idea, or a better product, or a more efficient process, they'd be rewarded with more sales, and that would displace the existing business. But, of course, the wealthy and powerful managed to corrupt the system so that those laws were not being enforced and the wealthy and powerful were able to eliminate competition and effectively become feudal lords again.
Something that works is something that can't be "sabotaged" by a better system.
I stopped reading here.
Calling capitalism a "better system" is a fucking joke. The system can't work without exploiting people, authoritarianism, and exploiting every resource until there's nothing left but a burnt empty husk of a planet.
I've been reading all of your arguments in this thread and you seem to be a very confident person who doesn't know anything.
Tell me why a society where all businesses were legally required to have democratic institutions that make them run by the worker will be "under the thumb of the government" or "not worth living"
I mean, sure, they made an effort to make people hate all forms of tax and welfare, but the USSR and China have done a fantastic job of making you hate the words socialism and communism.
Hell, even the nazis used the moniker of National Socialists.
Yeah I'd say there might be a bigger problem with leftists trying to associate things like healthcare programs with the word socialism that's holding things back.
Kinda disconnected from reality when you're saying we should do X because X is something failed systems have done. Might be more successful to say we should do X because X is good and it won't make us into a failed state.
Maybe we should consider looking at what has actually worked instead of debating between which failed system to implement? There's more options than just laissez faire capitalism and socialism ya know.
I think failed is a loaded term you're using here. But more important to me than labels is that I believe in free healthcare, housing, food and education. Lots of countries do that already or at least a good portion of those, and the US doesn't.
Yeah, we have a phobia around the word socialism. Probably part of why the DSA won't ever be more than a small minority, even if they DO have the right idea about alot of things (a few things they're really not right on though - like abolition of private property as the means of production just will never fly here and it's not clear to me that's a good idea anyway). But maybe we can take the best of socialism and repackage it in a way that's palatable. Make it into a sort of socialism with American characteristics, as the Chinese might say. In alot of ways, it's really just an updated version of the Progressive movement of the late 1800's/early 1900's.
If China's plans for Myanmar keep going well then them soon, too. I feel like China is playing them like a slot machine: arming a coup repeatedly until it ends up the way they want.
No, it is not. Socialism is an economic system in which the workers, collectively, control the means of production. That is fundamentally different from simply having government programs that provide services or benefits to the public.
A government operating fire departments, libraries, police departments, public schools, healthcare programs, infrastructure, labor protections, or other services that benefit the general population is not inherently practicing socialism. Those are social programs or public services. They can exist under capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, monarchies, democracies, and virtually any other form of government.
I think one of the most misunderstood words in the English language is "social." We have social programs, social services, social policy, social democracy, socialism, and social welfare, and despite the shared root, these terms do not mean the same thing.
People constantly conflate "the government does something that benefits society" with "socialism." That is simply incorrect. A government providing a public service does not, by itself, change the underlying economic system.
You can support or oppose a particular social program on its own merits without pretending that the program is inherently socialist. Government action and socialism are not synonymous.
A system doesn't have to be 100% socialist to have socialist elements. A city-owned fire department is a socialist element of a system. The fire trucks are collectively owned and controlled by the people via the government. That meets the definition of socialism.
A person who owns knitting needles and uses them to make scarves he sells is a capitalist element of a system. That person privately owns the means of production.
Capitalism and socialism have always existed in a mixed system. In a 100% capitalist system, every "means of production" would have to be in private hands. That would mean that you couldn't have a government-owned fire department, all firefighting equipment, and the labour of firefighters, etc. would have to be privately owned and operated by independent for-profit firefighting companies. In a 100% socialist system, nobody could own knitting needles -- or at least couldn't sell any knitting they did using those knitting needles because that would turn the knitting needles from a personal possession to a piece of capital equipment, which would therefore have to be collectively owned.
The USSR at various times tried to go 100% socialist, but it was a disaster. They had to at least allow small elements of capitalism in their socialist / communist system, just as ramping up capitalism to 100% never works either.
We currently live in a mixed socialist / capitalist system in which some "means of production" are collectively owned and controlled by the people via the government, and others are privately owned and operated. One way in which the USA is different from the UK is that in the UK the means of production associated with healthcare are owned and operated by the people via the government (socialist healthcare) whereas in the USA they're privately owned and operated (capitalist healthcare).
*the limited and distorted information that the West feeds you about the USSR and China have done a fantastic job of making you hate the words socialism and communism.
I would have to know what exactly you are talking about to respond effectively, but largely yes, internal USSR records support the idea that anti-communist narratives are largely distorted or fabricated. Almost everything you think you know about the purges, the Moscow trials, the famines, the gulags, Soviet “authoritarianism,” and almost everything other talking point you can bring up falls into this category. And the things that aren’t distorted or fabricated are taken so far out of context as to make them unexplainable.
The USSR wasn’t perfect, it did some inexcusable things. But the common narrative is almost comically misrepresentative, especially considering the much much worse things that contemporary capitalist nations were doing.
Oh man, I apologize, I didn't realize your ideal world meant a surveillance state totallitarian dictatorship which abducted and killed people in the night, starved the population, and put millions to work in camps until they were near dying.
You should have started with how you actually support those things instead of saying simply "I think everything was great" which merely implied an ignorance of the bad things.
...but Corporate Socialism is widely accepted and successful in the USA. The Americans will not top the 1st class European countries, because the vast majority are slaving away at work and simply too tired and stressed out to protest or vote out the asswipes supporting the current system.
There are millions upon millions of americans and millions of them are armed. If they wanted a socialost state they could have had easily have gotten one by nkw....but they STILL havent done that...
So clearly they dont want it.
"Nothing is substantial until it is substantiated"
The rich use their money to make and separate classes using information/propaganda/public relations/marketing/slogans or whatever your favourite word is for communication to the masses.
O my God. I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!
Building collective power and protecting the vulnerable.
Show me one example of a socialist or communist country that has actually accomplished what this meme is describing. And no, don't just say China. China is a hybrid economy that has incorporated extensive markets and private enterprise alongside substantial state ownership and control. It isn't some straightforward example of the socialism this meme is talking about.
More importantly, socialism and communism were never originally designed around "protecting the vulnerable" in the first place. The central issue was economic power and ownership.
The fundamental socialist argument was that the people who collectively produce wealth should have collective ownership and control over the means of production, rather than allowing those means of production to be concentrated in the hands of a relatively small class of private owners.
And ironically, wealth concentration is exactly the problem we're dealing with today. You don't need to invent a "parasitic pedophile class" or some grand conspiracy to make that argument. Concentration of wealth inevitably creates concentration of political and economic power, and that is a legitimate problem that deserves serious discussion.
You can absolutely argue that collective economic power would provide greater protection for vulnerable people. But that's an argument for socialism. It isn't the original definition or purpose of socialism.
If you're going to defend socialism, at least defend what socialism actually is rather than turning it into a generic synonym for "things that help vulnerable people."
And can we please stop attributing every good thing a government does to socialism? Socialism is an economic system. Programs designed to help people are social programs run by the government, and they are not inherently socialist or communist. Providing public services and social programs is simply one of the basic functions of a governing system.
You don’t need to invent a “parasitic pedophile class” or some grand conspiracy to make that argument.
How on earth is it a "grand conspiracy" to label the class known for extracting wealth from workers to fund child sex parties 'the parasitic pedophile class?' That's just a straightforward description of the group of people who in practice have concentrations of wealth.
I genuinely don't even know what part of this is supposed to be conspiratorial. Are they not parasitic? Are they not pedophiles? Are they not a class?
You can absolutely argue that collective economic power would provide greater protection for vulnerable people. But that’s an argument for socialism. It isn’t the original definition or purpose of socialism.
Hard disagree. Workers are vulnerable people, who, without organization, are taken advantage of by the ruling class. "What force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one? But the union makes us strong!" And vulnerable people are workers, many of them anyway. Socialism is not and never has been just about some stereotypical image of an able-bodied white guy in a hardhat and fuck everybody else. In order to achieve working class solidarity, especially on an international scale, it is absolutely 100% necessary to overcome barriers such as race, gender etc, which means supporting and accommodating all sorts of vulnerable people.
I'm going to say something that will probably be unpopular and will likely get downvoted, but that's okay. The truth doesn't become less true because people don't like hearing it.
I believe there is a serious possibility that child abuse and exploitation exist within some of the highest levels of American society, including among politicians and the ultra-wealthy. There are enough allegations, documented cases, associations, and circumstantial evidence surrounding various individuals and networks that I believe these matters warrant serious investigation. If evidence establishes that crimes were committed, I have no problem whatsoever with arrests, prosecutions, and convictions, regardless of how wealthy or politically powerful the people involved are.
But there is an important distinction between saying something deserves investigation and saying that something has been proven.
At this point, there is an enormous amount of speculation, conjecture, allegations, and circumstantial evidence surrounding this subject. What we do not have is sufficient publicly established evidence to definitively claim that there is some organized "pedophilic class" controlling or operating within the upper echelons of American society. People have absolutely committed horrific crimes against children. Criminal networks can and have existed. Powerful people can and have abused their positions. None of that, however, automatically proves the much broader claim.
And that's an uncomfortable distinction, but it matters. If someone has committed a crime, investigate them, charge them when the evidence supports it, put them on trial, and let the evidence be tested in court. A person's wealth, political affiliation, social connections, or position should not place them above the law. But neither should suspicion, association, or circumstantial evidence be treated as a substitute for proof beyond what the evidence can actually establish.
So I'm deliberately trying to be precise here. I am not defending anyone accused of child abuse. I am not minimizing the existence of child abuse. I am not making excuses for politicians, billionaires, conservatives, liberals, MAGA supporters, or anyone else. I condemn child abuse regardless of who commits it, and I believe anyone who commits these crimes should be prosecuted and punished under the law.
I also don't support right-wing conservatism or MAGA, but that is beside the point. Please don't twist my position into something I didn't say simply because my position doesn't fit neatly into a particular political narrative. I am saying that allegations should be investigated, credible evidence should be pursued, and proven crimes should be prosecuted. At the same time, I am not going to turn allegations and circumstantial evidence into established facts simply because they support a conclusion I already find plausible.
As for the second part of your statement, I'll give you the same answer I give everyone else: socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned, with worker ownership or control being one important form of socialist organization. It is not synonymous with social programs.
A government providing public healthcare, libraries, police, fire departments, public education, social insurance, or other services does not automatically make those programs "socialist." Governments of many different economic systems provide public programs. The fact that something benefits society does not make it socialism.
Socialism also isn't simply a philosophy about "protecting workers." Worker protection can exist under capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, and other systems. The defining question is fundamentally about ownership and control of productive assets.
You can hard disagree with whatever you want it doesn't make it any less true.
But there is an important distinction between saying something deserves investigation and saying that something has been proven.
There is also an important distinction between what can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt (against the best lawyers money can buy), and what is likely to be true. There's absolutely no reason why we have to hold all criticism to the former standard, and it's completely unreasonable to do so.
It is not synonymous with social programs.
The fact that something benefits society does not make it socialism.
100% agreed, I never said anything remotely like that.
Socialism also isn’t simply a philosophy about “protecting workers.”
Agreed, however, protecting workers is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of socialism. The goal of worker ownership is fundamentally driven by a desire to advance the interests of workers, which includes worker protection.
You can hard disagree with whatever you want it doesn’t make it any less true.
Yeah, it's not the fact that I disagree, but the arguments I made to support that disagreement that show your position is wrong.
I think we're actually closer to agreement than you seem to realize, but you're making one important logical leap that I don't think your argument establishes.
I agree that there's a distinction between something being proven beyond a reasonable doubt and something being sufficiently supported by evidence to conclude that it is likely true. I've never argued otherwise. In fact, that's precisely why I keep appealing to historical evidence and academic definitions rather than pretending every conclusion requires courtroom-level proof.
Where I disagree is your claim that protecting workers is a necessary condition of socialism. Worker ownership of the means of production is central to the definition of socialism. But you've moved from that definition to an asserted purpose: that worker ownership is fundamentally driven by the desire to protect workers. Those aren't the same proposition.
Socialism seeks to alter the ownership and control of the means of production and, consequently, the distribution of economic power. That can absolutely benefit workers and historically has often been justified in terms of improving workers' material conditions. But "worker protection" is not what makes an economic system socialist. A system could theoretically have worker ownership while providing extremely poor working conditions, and it would still be socialist in the relevant economic sense. Conversely, a capitalist economy can provide extraordinarily strong worker protections without becoming socialist.
That's the distinction I'm making: worker protection can be a motivation, objective, or consequence associated with socialism without being a necessary defining condition of socialism itself.
And regarding your final point, saying that your arguments demonstrate that my position is wrong is not itself an argument. You still have to establish the premises and show that the conclusion follows from them. That's exactly what I'm challenging.
If your position is that socialism necessarily entails worker protection, then demonstrate that from the definition or from the academic literature. If your position is instead that socialist movements have historically pursued worker protection as one of their objectives, I have no substantial disagreement with that. Those are two very different claims.
You still have to establish the premises and show that the conclusion follows from them. That’s exactly what I’m challenging.
If your position is that socialism necessarily entails worker protection, then demonstrate that from the definition or from the academic literature.
I feel like already explained this but I'll spell it out very neatly for you:
Premise A: Socialism means worker control of the means of production (MoP).
Premise B: A class that has control of the MoP will use that power to advance their own interests.
Premise C: Worker protections are in the interests of the working class.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, in a socialist system, worker protections will be implemented.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, if a system does not have worker protections, workers are not in control of the MoP, and it is not a socialist system.
Conclusion 3: Therefore, worker protections are a necessary condition of socialism.
A system could theoretically have worker ownership while providing extremely poor working conditions, and it would still be socialist in the relevant economic sense.
This could only be true if either B or C are false. If one of those premises is wrong, then it's you that needs to provide an argument or justification about why it is false.
I understand the syllogism. The problem is that your conclusion does not actually follow from your premises, and you still haven't addressed the distinction I've been making.
Premise A is broadly consistent with the economic definition of socialism: workers collectively control or own the means of production.
Premise C is also uncontroversial: worker protections can be in the interests of the working class.
The problem is Premise B. You are assuming that a class possessing control over the means of production will necessarily use that control to advance all of its perceived interests, and then treating that assumption as sufficient to establish a necessary institutional feature of socialism. That does not follow.
Even if workers collectively control the means of production, they still have competing interests and preferences. Collective ownership does not magically produce unanimous preferences about wages, hours, workplace safety, benefits, working conditions, or how resources should be allocated. Workers can collectively choose policies that benefit them in some respects while sacrificing other interests.
More importantly, you're confusing an expected consequence or political objective with a necessary definitional condition.
Your argument could establish something like:
"If workers control the means of production, they have the ability and potentially the incentive to implement worker protections."
It does not establish:
"Any system in which workers control the means of production must necessarily have worker protections, and therefore worker protections are a defining condition of socialism."
That's the gap I've been pointing out.
And the fact that you can construct a syllogism doesn't make the conclusion established. You have to demonstrate that the premises are sufficiently strong to entail the conclusion you're drawing from them. Premise B is doing almost all of the work here, and it contains the exact assumption under dispute.
You also keep saying that I'm claiming socialism inherently doesn't protect workers. That's not my position either. Obviously socialist movements have historically advocated worker protections, and obviously worker ownership can be used to pursue them. I'm saying something much narrower: worker protection is not what defines socialism, and the absence of a particular set of worker protections does not logically establish the absence of worker ownership of the means of production.
Your Conclusion 2 is particularly problematic. "Workers are not receiving protections, therefore workers do not control the means of production" is simply affirming what you are trying to prove. You would need an independent argument establishing that worker control necessarily produces those protections. You can't use the conclusion as evidence for one of its own premises.
So no, I haven't failed to address your argument. I'm addressing the precise point on which your argument depends: you have demonstrated that worker protection can be an interest of workers. You have not demonstrated that it is a necessary institutional consequence of worker ownership, nor that its absence logically proves that workers don't control the means of production.
Those are three different claims, and you're treating them as though they're interchangeable.
You're just nitpicking and splitting hairs. You opened with "O my God. I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!" Now it's just that I haven't sufficiently proven my premise. We're back to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," where you're rejecting the whole argument based on a sliver of a technicality. I'm not really interested in playing that game.
I've established a clear and reasonable argument for why worker protections should be considered a necessary component of socialism. Your counterargument is that, just because workers have a clear means and motives to protect themselves, they might randomly decide not to. That's hypothetically true, but only hypothetically. In practice, it's pretty much always going to happen, and if it doesn't happen, like I said, it's a good reason to look very carefully about why it isn't happening.
Also, for the record, the meme doesn't even say that worker protections are a necessary component of socialism, only that socialism "protects the most vulnerable!" You literally said, multiple times including right here:
Obviously socialist movements have historically advocated worker protections
...that that's correct! The only issue you have which it, that you've chosen to hyper-focus on, is that you're claiming it's not definitionally correct (and I disagree with even that) but the meme never even claimed that it was part of the definition! Only that it was an ideology that did promote worker protections, which you just said is true! So on what basis was this reaction of "I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!" at all called for?
You're just wrong. Regardless of whether you can carve out this technicality or not on this point, you're still generally wrong on the main point.
Providing public services and social programs is simply one of the basic functions of a governing system.
A governing system can be merely tax collection under the threat of violence and nothing else. The government doesn't have to provide any services. Governments tend to provide public services (socialism) because a government with a 0% mix of socialism simply doesn't work.
Once a village grows past a certain size, you need some kind of firefighting service. That can be a bucket brigade where neighbours all go out and assist in putting out a fire with whatever they have on hand that can help. Or, it can be private for-profit fire companies that are paid for by insurance or subscriptions (the capitalist way) or it can be firefighting gear collectively owned by the people via the government and be a government-owned fire department. All those ways have been tried in the past. But, even in the most hardcore capitalist-loving places, the socialist answer for this part of the economy is the one that makes sense.
If the means of production (land, labour, capital) are owned by the government when they could instead be owned by a private entity, and the people can use the product of those means (roads, firefighting services, etc.) without a fee that's socialism. Even the most brutal, corrupt, self-serving dictatorship tend to have socialist elements, if only because that allows the government to collect more taxes.
You are once again conflating social programs with socialism.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or collectively owned and controlled by the people who work within them. It is not synonymous with social welfare programs.
I made this distinction explicitly in my original comment, so perhaps you simply didn't read it.
Socialism is a theory of economics. Things such as public healthcare, welfare, food assistance, libraries, public education, fire departments, and other government-funded services are social programs. A government providing those services does not, by itself, make the economy socialist. Capitalist countries can, and routinely do, have extensive social programs.
Likewise, socialism does not inherently mean that the government owns every business, every piece of land, or every productive asset. That's a common misconception. The central question is who owns and controls the means of production. Under a socialist model, ownership can take various collective forms, including worker cooperatives, public ownership, or other forms of social ownership.
The fundamental difference from capitalism is that productive enterprises are not primarily owned by a small class of private shareholders whose ownership entitles them to the profits generated by the workers. Instead, the workers themselves have collective ownership and control over the enterprise and therefore participate in determining how its economic output is distributed.
And socialism does not dictate a particular form of government. A socialist economic system and a communist political system are not synonymous. You can have socialism under different political structures.
So I cannot stress this enough: socialism and social programs are two entirely different concepts. One is an economic system; the other refers to programs and services provided or funded by a government. Conflating the two is simply a category error.
(If you continue to argue something other than what I've stated above I will continue to repeat over and over what socialism is and the differences between social programs and socialism either concede this point or don't reply further)
As for your other points, you also argued that a government has no obligation to do anything for the people it governs.
If that's your position, then we have to ask a rather obvious question: what exactly is the purpose of government?
If a government exists merely to collect taxes, what are those taxes actually supposed to accomplish? Governments collect revenue so they can perform the functions of governance and provide the services their societies have determined should be provided collectively. Those services can, and very often do, take the form of social programs.
And yes, you were absolutely correct about one thing: fire departments, libraries, healthcare providers, and countless other services can exist as private, for-profit entities. There is nothing inherently preventing a fire department from being privately operated, for example.
But that's completely beside the point. The fact that something can be provided privately does not somehow make a government providing it “socialism.” That's a non sequitur.
The question is not whether a service could be provided by a private company. The question is whether society has decided that a particular service should be provided collectively through government and funded through taxation.
Governments exist to perform functions and provide services that their citizens have collectively decided should be governed at the public level. Exactly what those functions are varies enormously from one government to another. But if your argument is that government has no obligation whatsoever to provide anything for the people it governs, then you're essentially left with a government that collects money without providing a corresponding public function.
And again, none of this has anything to do with socialism as an economic system.
A capitalist country can have extensive social programs. A socialist economy can have relatively limited ones. The existence of social programs does not determine the underlying economic system any more than the existence of a military, police department, or public library does.
You're conflating the economic system with the services provided by the government, and those are fundamentally different concepts.
You are once again failing to understand that in a mixed economy, like the US economy, Canada's economy, the British economy, the Chinese economy, Cuba's economy, or virtually any other economy in the world, there is a mix of capitalism and socialism.
A mixed economy is an economic system that includes both elements associated with capitalism, such as private businesses, and ones associated with socialism, such as nationalized government services.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or collectively owned and controlled by the people who work within them
Yes, for example, the people of the UK collectively own and control the health care system of the state, therefore it is a socialist element within their mixed capitalist / socialist economy.
Capitalist countries can, and routinely do, have extensive social programs.
There's no such thing as a "capitalist country". Virtually every country has a mixed socialist / capitalist system where certain elements of the economy are capitalist, and other elements are socialist.
Things such as public healthcare, welfare, food assistance, libraries, public education, fire departments, and other government-funded services are social programs
They are social programs which are provided via socialist elements of their mixed economy. Public healthcare in the UK is part of the socialist side of the economy, whereas pharmacies are part of the capitalist side of the economy. Fire departments are socialist elements of the economy, whereas fire insurance is capitalist.
Likewise, socialism does not inherently mean that the government owns every business
Right, socialism can consist of community ownership of an asset, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, but of course it also includes state ownership of an asset.
So I cannot stress this enough: socialism and social programs are two entirely different concepts
Fine, but I cannot stress enough that virtually every economy in the world is a mix of capitalism and socialism, where some assets are privately owned and used to generate profits for those private owners, and others are state owned and used to provide, among other things, social programs.
If you continue to argue something other than what I’ve stated above I will continue to repeat over and over what socialism is
Don't you think you should actually read about mixed economies first? I assume you're living in one now, so it would be good for you to be aware of that.
what exactly is the purpose of government?
It's up to the government. If the government is a strong man and his henchmen, it's a thing that exists so that they can collect taxes. If it's a modern western democracy, it's at least in theory something to provide for the common defence of the country, to meet the basic needs of the people, to provide a social safety net, to provide a legal framework and protections, to allow the citizens and residents to be their best selves, etc.
But that’s completely beside the point. The fact that something can be provided privately does not somehow make a government providing it “socialism.”
Of course it does. Socialism is when the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the public or the community as a whole. That ticks all the boxes. A fire department is a socialism. A library is one of them socialisms.
A capitalist country can have extensive social programs
There you are, thinking there's such a thing as a "capitalist country" again. Every country that has capitalism also has socialist elements.
If you think such a thing as a purely capitalist country exists, how about a list of names of countries that are capitalist and not mixed economies. I'm guessing an economist would say there are zero purely capitalist countries, but maybe you can find an example they didn't.
There is no such thing as a mixed economy, either the principal mode of production benefits the working class or the bourgeois. It's impossible to have a 50/50 and any other mix inevitably collapses towards one or the other.
It's a concept, that makes no sense and deludes the meaning of the term socialism and capitalism so much that they become meaningless. It's propagandistic newspeak.
At the end of the day according to marxist political theory (AKA the guy who established the meaning of the term capitalism, so this carries some important weight), that doesn't make sense, either the principal owner of the means of production is the working class, or not.
Anything inbetween? completely capitalist, according to any socialist who has ever read theory.
it does exist but all the concept does is sully discussions, make terms meaningless, and make you feel like a superior centrist.
Socialism is simply democratization/worker ownership over the means of production. Mixed economies pretend that socialism is when the government does stuff, which is wildly inaccurate.
You're going to make me repeat myself. So you'll just get my regular disclaimer:
Socialism refers to collective or social ownership of the means of production. Social democracy refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. Democratic socialism generally refers to pursuing socialist ownership through democratic means. These terms are related but are not interchangeable: a capitalist welfare state is not a socialist economy simply because it provides extensive social programs. This disclaimer is intended as a quick reference, not an exhaustive explanation of socialism or every political and economic system that uses the word "socialist."
Your consistent yet erroneous assertions will not make you correct.
The countries you mentioned are not mixed economies. Libraries, fire departments, healthcare subsidized by the state are not socialist programs. They are social/welfare programs instituted by the state through tax collection.
You are unable to understand these simple concepts which is quite sad.
I have provided you with some links to you so that can educate yourself on what socialism is and its various iterations.
Public welfare programs are not socialist.
This will be my last reply to you as I will not waste my time repeating the same thing over and over. You may choose to accept the correct definitions of the terms you are using or you may continue to delude yourself with your self-proclaimed bullshit.
And make no mistake you are literally just making shit up to suit the conclusion you want. Nothing you said is based on reality.
The link you sent me proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that mixed economies exist.
If that is your only supporting evidence, then you have literally nothing demonstrating that a capitalist country with social programs is therefore socialist.
A government providing welfare, public services, infrastructure, healthcare subsidies, education, fire departments, police, libraries, or other services to the people it governs has nothing inherently to do with socialism as an economic model. Those are functions of government, not definitions of an economic system.
Socialism refers to a system in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned or controlled. That is fundamentally different from a capitalist economy in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned, even if the government taxes that economy and uses the revenue to provide extensive social programs.
And yes, technically you can describe the United States, Germany, Norway, Sweden, or virtually any modern economy as a "mixed economy" because virtually every real-world economy contains some combination of private markets, public institutions, regulation, taxation, and government ownership. That isn't particularly controversial.
But calling something a "mixed economy" does not tell us which economic system is predominant. It is a descriptive category, not an argument that capitalism and socialism are somehow interchangeable.
By that logic, a car is an automobile and a gorilla is a great ape. Both statements are technically true, but neither tells you anything particularly useful about what distinguishes one thing from another.
The United States is fundamentally a capitalist economy with a substantial welfare state and significant government regulation. Norway is fundamentally a capitalist economy with a much larger welfare state. Neither becomes socialist simply because its government provides social programs.
This is the distinction that keeps getting lost: social programs are not socialism, and a welfare state is not the same thing as a socialist economy.
If your argument is that the United States is a "mixed economy" in the broad academic sense, fine. I will happily concede that point.
If your argument is that the existence of social programs means the United States is therefore socialist, you still have not established that argument. You have simply changed the definition of socialism.
A government providing public services actually has nothing to do with the definition of socialism, which is worker ownership over the means of production.
Communism is the honeydew of left-wing ideologies. Stop trying to work it into every post about free healthcare, income inequality, human rights and so on. Stop trying to normalize. It's literally banned in multiple countries for legitimate reasons. It's been used to oppress millions of people. If you support it you clearly don't understand it. And people who put it next to socialism are clearly trying to smear socialism. Seriously.
Socialism and communism are not the same thing and American right wingers in particular keep trying to make it look like they are because it helps them win elections. Trump's new thing is "Democrats are communists". Think about it. He's calling democratic socialists communists. Grasp the nuance and use it to your advantage. Stop upvoting this type of stuff. You're digging yourselves into a hole.
Anyway... I wish I could be telling this to OP, but that is a Twitter screenshot there, I think, and I sure as fuck am not going there.
Communism is the goal of socialism. The original democratic socialists, people like Eduard Bernstein, called it that because the idea was that communism could be achieved through gradually reforming existing political systems. It became more and more obvious that this was just a pretense for opportunism, with things like the betrayal of the Second International and the demsoc support of WWI, and now we're at a point where the pretense is often dropped entirely, or forgotten altogether.
It’s been used to oppress millions of people.
Communism has never been used to oppress anyone because it's never existed as a system (not counting primitive communism). There have only been socialist states that claim to be working towards communism. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not called The Union of Soviet Communist Republics.
"Bernie Sanders is not a Marxist" or "not a Marxist-Leninist" would be the correct way to say it.
Also, it hasn’t been used to oppress millions of people because it straight up hasn’t. The history of socialism that Americans and other Westerners have been taught is filled with lies, exaggerations, and missing context.
from an American perspective, anyone suggesting communism is saying with their entire chest "Why don't Americans opt for a system of economics and government that fell to despotic dictatorship decades faster than the system they've got?"
If by “antisocial conditioning” you mean the asshole who kept his truck beeping in reverse for ten minutes straight at 5:45 this morning, or the garbage truck playing a dumpster solo at 4:30am the night before then yes.
That sounds more like it's probably a problem related to living in a house built out of toothpicks with paper-thin walls and windows in a place where too many humans have been forced to congregate in a small area for primarily economic and sociopolitical reasons. But, you know, you can also blame the people stuck there with you too if you want.
When they don’t have the sense to realize they’re in a residential area and the time of day I can definitely blame them. Just like you’d blame someone for littering.
And, yes, living in a community sucks and I’d rather be very far away from everyone.
Then quit complaining and move. It's less expensive to live in the stix, and unless you're a certain type of person, the vibe I don't get from you, you'll just wind up a miserable hermit instead of a miserable person among people that probably care more about you than you realize. Have a nice evening.
158 Comments
saltesc@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 3d
The US used to be a world leader in anti-fascism. There's even those old-timey films explaining how letting it in would ruin the American way.
https://youtu.be/42X_eAOU4DU "Don't Be a Sucker"
M137@lemmy.today · 16 pts · 3d
Eeeh... It was only anti-fascism as in "anti-others" (who happened to be fascists in a way they differentiated from). The US has been real fucking bad from the very start and there hasn't been a single moment where that stopped. I can't see a single period where it isn't the modern day meaning of fascist. Yeah, the civil war was won by the better part but it wasn't a "good vs evil" black and white thing, because nothing is like that in reality. Faschism is deeply ingrained in the US and has always been so, especially when it comes to politicians, military, police force etc.
plyth@feddit.org · 13 pts · 2d
anti-fascism or anti competing fascism?
Isn't manifested destiny already fascism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 3d
They even called out Alexander Hamilton for being a proto-fascist.
Then that one Wall Street fuckwad wrote a book about him filled with lies and eventually turned it into a play.
If you want a hero in the founding fathers, look up Aaron Burr
JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 3d
And T-Paine while you're at it!
Rothe@piefed.social · 0 pts · 2d
Because the American Way™ competed with fascism about many of the same things. It is not the brag you think it is.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 27 pts · 3d
Both of the Cold War empires spent decades lying about what socialism was, and that process continues to this day. No wonder people are confused.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 2d
Yes.
The fire department is socialist. People like the fire department.
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
I don't! They only show up to my house when there's a fire! They bring bad juju, and fire!
Objection@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1d
Ah yes, the famous socialist, Comrade Ben Franklin.
merc@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 1d
Yes, exactly that.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1d
What an absolute joke.
Socialism is not "when the government does stuff." Governments are tools that can be used to advance any sort of ideology or agenda. Socialism is a specific ideology (or set of ideologies), which Ben Franklin did not and could not have subscribed to on account of the ideology had not yet even been developed.
When a member of the capitalist class lobbies the government to introduce regulations designed to prevent small business from competing with his monopoly, that is not making the system "more socialist" because the government is doing "more stuff." It is making the system more capitalist. A system that is controlled by and works for the benefit of the capitalist class is a capitalist system, regardless of the degree to which the government does things.
If anything, the more correct term would be "statist" but that's also an absurd term, because again, governments are tools. Whoever holds power in a system will use that tool to advance their own interests, and if the tool does not exist, then it will be created. This ridiculous idea that socialism is simply an ideology based around supporting the government doing things, any government doing any things, is complete nonsense. There is not any ideology that says that, it isn't something anyone believes. The difference between socialism and capitalism is not the degree to which the state is being used but who is using the state and to what purposes.
Capitalist states do not have fire departments because they are "partially socialist" but because capitalists don't like having their buildings burn down any more than anyone else does.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 1d
Of course not, only an idiot who is trying to undermine someone's argument would claim that. Socialism is when the means of production are collectively owned, such as when a fire truck is owned by a city.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 2 pts · 1d
Socialism is not when the city owns stuff either...
socialism is when the principal mode of production is owned by the workers.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
No, but it includes the fire department which is when the city owns fire trucks and pays firefighters to fight fires.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1d
State ownership is not the same thing as collective ownership, especially when we're talking about a bourgeois state.
If a king rides through a village and says, "I really like the views around here. Seize the land for the state and kick out all the peasants so that I can come here without having to see them spoiling the view." Is that "collective ownership" because the land is now held by the state? Is that "socialism?"
Treating state ownership and collective ownership as equivalent is just "socialism is when the government does stuff" with extra steps.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 1d
No, and yet both can be examples of socialism. As in, when the city owns a fire department which is paid for by city taxes and available to help anybody in the city any time there's a fire.
jimmy90@lemmy.world · -13 pts · 2d
oooh look it's the truth
commies look look - this is why you are hated and your recent terrorist supporting populist/authoritarian fantasies are just making it worse!
Koarnine@pawb.social · 9 pts · 2d
What
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
The Zionist is mad
brownsugga@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 3d
All major media outlets are fascist mouthpieces
ShutUpWesley@piefed.zip · 19 pts · 3d
brownsugga@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
Sweet
rf_@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 3d
“Means of building collective power”. That’s the right thing to communicate, My take is we need a new word that’s not socialism, communism etc because those words have lost concrete meaning, similar to globalism and neoliberalism no one knows what they mean anymore because they’ve been targeted, abused, redefined and vilified.
People have knee-jerk reactions to those words.
ODuffer@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 3d
I think basically stop denonising unions. I've been hesitant to join mine, as I don't want to be seen as a trouble maker. Funnily I've already received my 'last promotion' at 56. I could shit on the marble floor and not get sacked (because vital skills). However, simply displaying solidarity with my younger colleagues would be deemed 'offensive'. Two more years and nearing retirement, I think I'll let rip
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 3d
Yeah.. most people in my country don't have a union available, and there are no prospects for creating one in the near future. I don't mean any offense myself, but just having access to a union and not joining it is... an interesting choice from my perspective.
save_the_humans@leminal.space · 1 pts · 3d
A cooperative economy, co-ops in general, is the answer in my opinion. Anarchists and communists are mostly on board, if only seeing them as stepping stones towards larger goals. Being a form of socialism, socialists are on board. While being stateless and still relying on markets they may be able to sway conservatives. Their economic proof of success already might convince liberals. And who doesn't want democracy in their workplace?
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TumR7eTc_-c
WappleFF27@feddit.online · 15 pts · 3d
I tried that in a group of people the other day. I got a resounding "Nah, I'm good"
What do you do when everyone is happy to die? Because right now my plan is "try my damned best to make sure these dipshits don't take me down with them"
mHtt@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 2d
in the OG Matrix: Cypher isn't evil because he betrays everyone and gets some people killed, which is undoubtedly an evil act. No, Cypher is inherently evil because he not only doesn't care, but he actively chooses ignorance. He CHOOSES to go back to sleep. This is the avg American. They chose ignorance because they WANT to be mesmerized and lied to, Americans enjoy and celebrate it. IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
The opinions shared about socialism in this thread prove you right, unfortunately.
plyth@feddit.org · 7 pts · 3d
How does one connect with one's humanity?
How does one connect with one's community, especially if somebody has to start?
affenlehrer@feddit.org · 7 pts · 3d
Maybe some voluntary work? That should tick both boxes
SpikedIguana@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 3d
Doesn't really exist here, there's work that most people drive to from 30+ minutes away and church which I refuse to go to for obvious reasons. Everything closes at 10 including on the weekends, there's a lot of lot of America that's like this, I've tried moving, didn't help.
affenlehrer@feddit.org · 9 pts · 3d
Oh, that's sad to hear. I live in Germany in a relatively small town (~50k population). I work in a much larger town but I have a lot of remote work from home. In my home town are at least 10 places where I could volunteer and get there by walking or bike.
I actually do at a place where I try to teach some older folks a bit about computers.
However, there's also an animal shelter, voluntary fire fighters, a second hand shop that donates the income for disabled children, a nature preservation station and probably a bunch more.
SpikedIguana@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 3d
I actually considered both animal shelter and vfd, animal shelter wasn't interested and it would cost around $600 to get started for fire department, yes cost. Been so bored I'd do yardwork for free but once again equipment cost etc, plus everyone is convinced you're out to murder them.
affenlehrer@feddit.org · 5 pts · 3d
I see. Maybe you can do something in line with your professional work? E.g. if you work with computers you could also help people in the neighborhood. Especially older people often need help.
Another thing I just remembered nearby are repair cafes, I'm not good with electronics so it's not for me but maybe it's something for you? Also we have people that help immigrants with bureaucracy, translation or just integration into society (eg. local sports clubs)
Anyways, don't pressure yourself into something. Just keep your ears open, maybe something pops up.
tburkhol@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 3d
Grab a bucket and pick up trash along your street. Take the old lady's trash out. Paint something that's worn out (with permission where appropriate). Find the ugliest yard in the neighborhood and offer to cut some of it back or just clean up an abandoned yard or park. Landscaping goes exponentially faster with power tools, but a hand pruner, hand saw, and cheap weed whacker can do a lot.
JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 3d
On a restaurant supply site, or maybe even just ask a local restaurant, aquire a quantity of take out containers. Make a large batch of inexpensive food, chicken and rice is a good one. If you have a little extra cash grab a huge bag of Halloween candy. Drive to your nearest economically depressed area, and look for someone outside. Offer them food. If they say no, ask if they know anyone that could use a meal. The food will be gone quickly. Don't means test, just give. It feels pretty good.
Malica@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 3d
Volunteer work
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
The amount of people who are completely ignorant about socialism and communism in this thread is evidence that the first sentence of this tweet is true, and that it was super effective.
Burn_The_Right@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 2d
"Parasitic pedophile class" is a lot of words to just say "conservatives".
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 2d
The 1%
Burn_The_Right@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 2d
Conservatives are the footsoldiers of the 1% and are in complete agreement with them on pretty much every topic. Conservatives see themselves as temporarily embarassed billionaires.
Conservatives are the reason for our wealth inequality. If not for conservatives, the normal people would be able to regulate the hoarding of wealth and the behavior of the 1%. Conservatives are the sole reason laws do not apply to the wealthy.
ZK686@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 3d
Whenever I see posts about "rebelling" and "standing up" I just think...are you assuming that the vast majority of people in this country ARE NOT okay with their lives? I mean, that's the only way a true "rebellion" will ever occur. And despite what liberals and the Left say, most Americans are content with their lives.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 6 pts · 3d
Everybody's hooked on communism.
But what about anarchism?
jtrek@startrek.website · 10 pts · 3d
A top priority for me is the people who do stuff benefit from that stuff, instead of some removed jerks.
Along side health care, food, shelter, an environment that's sustainable for human life.
I'm not familiar with anarchism's solutions to these things.
heartSagan5@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 3d
Anarchism is an assured destruction of the Social Contract. People, without guidance, are more horrible.
decolo@piefed.social · 7 pts · 2d
You know anarchism doesn't just mean 'anything goes', right?
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 3d
[citation needed]
5wim@infosec.pub · 4 pts · 2d
"No rulers" doesn't mean "no rules."
merc@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 2d
But it does mean nobody to enforce the rules, which means no rules.
athatet@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 2d
No it doesn’t.
merc@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 2d
Yes it does.
athatet@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 2d
Oh wow. How very convincing. I guess you got me.
merc@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 2d
My argument was just as high quality as yours.
5wim@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 2d
Lol read a book, my god
merc@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 1d
Perhaps you should do more than just read a book and look at the real world?
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1d
No it doesn't, name one anarchist society where this was an issue in the real world.
https://anarwiki.org/wiki/List_of_Anarchist_Societies
point to them here
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
And the largest one in that list is...? And the longest lasting is...? Just because you can balance a knife on its tip doesn't mean that that's a stable configuration, and if anarchism is not stable, why bother talking about it?
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 12h
That's a different point, we can move onto that one next if you'd like, first i'd like you to concede your previous one.
simply admit what you said has never happened in the real world, and anarchism doesn't mean no rules, it means no rulers.
Unless you have an example where that happened on the list, where that was the reason for the collapse.
Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 1d
Decades of anthropological evidence say otherwise. Read Graeber's works on the subject. They are incredibly enlightening.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
Idealistic and naive, in my view. Anarchists have never explained how we get from here to the global classless, stateless, moneyless society that both communists and anarchists wish to achieve, given the context of capitalist power and reaction — at least no explanation that makes sense to me.
I would be happy to be proven wrong though, as I truly believe that both groups want the same outcome.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 1d
That's fair
Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 1d
The two are not mutually exclusive
Cyv_@lemmy.blahaj.zone · -2 pts · 3d
Anarchy only helps those privileged enough to have the means to defend what they have with violence.
Anarchy means the sick, disabled, poor, minorities, etc are thrown to the wolves, and expected to defend themselves with less capability and resources than the majority.
Sure, you might argue family units or communities might band together and take care of each other, but they probably need some rules to make that equitable since not everyone will agree, and- oops we made government again.
JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 3d
Sips fox news brand coolaid
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 3d
That's not how anarchism works.
Cyv_@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 0 pts · 2d
I have visited wikipedia. So you mean the anarchy that is "without hierarchy or authority" but not complete chaos?
I guess I'm unclear how you manage that without it devolving into chaos though. Like corporations constantly prove that if we don't have a law against it they'd just sell humans. I dunno how you manage to make an equitable society without some kind of rules and enforcement of said rules, when there will always be bad actors.
It's a more complex concept than I assumed, but I struggle to conceptualize what that kind of system actually looks like.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 5 pts · 2d
Yes. Sort of.
To be honest, I think even I need more education on the topic. But I think it's more like societies form organically. People pick roles and contribute to society as needed instead of doing a job just because you need to pay the rent.
And it doesn't mean there's an absence of rules or laws. And commerce would still function but there would be a specific need for it. And it wouldn't be just for profit. So that removed a lot of incentive to do bad things.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 3d
But it is kind of how humans work. Have you met humans?
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 4 pts · 2d
Then, with that logic, none of the social systems work whether it's capitalism, communism, anarchism, socialism, etc.
merc@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 2d
That's the thing, anarchism doesn't work.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 2d
Just like communism and socialism doesn't work?
Because capitalism is a violent, agressive system that keep sabotaging them for profit.
Capitalism is the reason why everything is shit and why the masses can't have any form of real democratic power.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
Socialism definitely can work, just look at China or Cuba.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 1d
Of course!
merc@sh.itjust.works · -4 pts · 2d
Something that works is something that can't be "sabotaged" by a better system.
Capitalism works, but 100% capitalism doesn't. Socialism works, but not 100% socialism. If you can imagine less than 100% anarchism, then that works too -- basically people having a certain amount of autonomy, but not 100% autonomy.
Balance is key. People can't be 100% under the thumb of the government or life isn't worth living. But, people also can't be 100% free to do anything they want without considering other people because that leads to chaos and death. You can't have absolutely everything being privately owned for someone's profit, because that's just awful, but you also can't have no private ownership of the means of production either. A successful system is a mix.
Capitalism isn't the reason why everything is shit. That's the kind of argument a 6 year old would make. Everything was shit long before Capitalism came around. When feudalism / manorialism was the dominant economic system, people weren't allowed to leave the land where they were born because legally they were tied to the land and owed their labour to their landlord until they died. No capitalism there, but things were awful shitty.
The problem is extreme power inequality and wealth inequality. The theorists who promoted capitalism liked it because they thought that it would lead to less wealth and power inequality than feudalism. They thought that as long as the government enforced laws to ensure there was fair competition, there wouldn't be a ruling class of capital owners who would hold all the power. Anybody could start their own business and compete against existing businesses. If they had a better idea, or a better product, or a more efficient process, they'd be rewarded with more sales, and that would displace the existing business. But, of course, the wealthy and powerful managed to corrupt the system so that those laws were not being enforced and the wealthy and powerful were able to eliminate competition and effectively become feudal lords again.
ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 2d
I stopped reading here.
Calling capitalism a "better system" is a fucking joke. The system can't work without exploiting people, authoritarianism, and exploiting every resource until there's nothing left but a burnt empty husk of a planet.
merc@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 1d
I stopped reading here. If you're not going to actually engage with what I wrote, then why should I bother?
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1d
I've been reading all of your arguments in this thread and you seem to be a very confident person who doesn't know anything.
Tell me why a society where all businesses were legally required to have democratic institutions that make them run by the worker will be "under the thumb of the government" or "not worth living"
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2d
americans can't rebel.
that money has also been used to make them weak, subservient and pacified.
Best they can do is vote harder and whine
bashibazouk@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
And yet you need twitter to get your message out. Irony in that...
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
I bugged out 20 years ago and that community you refer to took alll they could from me and kicked me to the curb.
Im gonna need appologies and damages compensated before i believe in society again.
Im not holding my breath.
nkat2112@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 3d
Thank you for sharing this, OP. This is beautiful.
Godofdirt@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
It's not natural for this much ineaquality
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 2 pts · 3d
I mean, sure, they made an effort to make people hate all forms of tax and welfare, but the USSR and China have done a fantastic job of making you hate the words socialism and communism.
Hell, even the nazis used the moniker of National Socialists.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 3d
Yeah I'd say there might be a bigger problem with leftists trying to associate things like healthcare programs with the word socialism that's holding things back.
Kinda disconnected from reality when you're saying we should do X because X is something failed systems have done. Might be more successful to say we should do X because X is good and it won't make us into a failed state.
kurwa@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
Yeah socialism is going to make the US fail, it's totally not currently failing rn... LOL
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 2d
Maybe we should consider looking at what has actually worked instead of debating between which failed system to implement? There's more options than just laissez faire capitalism and socialism ya know.
kurwa@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 9h
I think failed is a loaded term you're using here. But more important to me than labels is that I believe in free healthcare, housing, food and education. Lots of countries do that already or at least a good portion of those, and the US doesn't.
auntieclokwise@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
Yeah, we have a phobia around the word socialism. Probably part of why the DSA won't ever be more than a small minority, even if they DO have the right idea about alot of things (a few things they're really not right on though - like abolition of private property as the means of production just will never fly here and it's not clear to me that's a good idea anyway). But maybe we can take the best of socialism and repackage it in a way that's palatable. Make it into a sort of socialism with American characteristics, as the Chinese might say. In alot of ways, it's really just an updated version of the Progressive movement of the late 1800's/early 1900's.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
Cuba Vietnam Laos and North Korea currently.
Also Cambodia and Yugoslavia.
It's actually every country that tried socialism...
Also China is a hybrid system with a thriving free market and many extremely powerful and wealthy mega corporations.
plyth@feddit.org · 3 pts · 2d
What's bad about Cuba that isn't caused by the US embargo?
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 2 pts · 3d
If China's plans for Myanmar keep going well then them soon, too. I feel like China is playing them like a slot machine: arming a coup repeatedly until it ends up the way they want.
merc@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 2d
The US tried socialism. The US is, in fact, still partially socialist.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
No, it is not. Socialism is an economic system in which the workers, collectively, control the means of production. That is fundamentally different from simply having government programs that provide services or benefits to the public.
A government operating fire departments, libraries, police departments, public schools, healthcare programs, infrastructure, labor protections, or other services that benefit the general population is not inherently practicing socialism. Those are social programs or public services. They can exist under capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, monarchies, democracies, and virtually any other form of government.
I think one of the most misunderstood words in the English language is "social." We have social programs, social services, social policy, social democracy, socialism, and social welfare, and despite the shared root, these terms do not mean the same thing.
People constantly conflate "the government does something that benefits society" with "socialism." That is simply incorrect. A government providing a public service does not, by itself, change the underlying economic system.
You can support or oppose a particular social program on its own merits without pretending that the program is inherently socialist. Government action and socialism are not synonymous.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2d
A system doesn't have to be 100% socialist to have socialist elements. A city-owned fire department is a socialist element of a system. The fire trucks are collectively owned and controlled by the people via the government. That meets the definition of socialism.
A person who owns knitting needles and uses them to make scarves he sells is a capitalist element of a system. That person privately owns the means of production.
Capitalism and socialism have always existed in a mixed system. In a 100% capitalist system, every "means of production" would have to be in private hands. That would mean that you couldn't have a government-owned fire department, all firefighting equipment, and the labour of firefighters, etc. would have to be privately owned and operated by independent for-profit firefighting companies. In a 100% socialist system, nobody could own knitting needles -- or at least couldn't sell any knitting they did using those knitting needles because that would turn the knitting needles from a personal possession to a piece of capital equipment, which would therefore have to be collectively owned.
The USSR at various times tried to go 100% socialist, but it was a disaster. They had to at least allow small elements of capitalism in their socialist / communist system, just as ramping up capitalism to 100% never works either.
We currently live in a mixed socialist / capitalist system in which some "means of production" are collectively owned and controlled by the people via the government, and others are privately owned and operated. One way in which the USA is different from the UK is that in the UK the means of production associated with healthcare are owned and operated by the people via the government (socialist healthcare) whereas in the USA they're privately owned and operated (capitalist healthcare).
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
*the limited and distorted information that the West feeds you about the USSR and China have done a fantastic job of making you hate the words socialism and communism.
FTFY
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · -1 pts · 1d
lmfao
Russia historians citing USSR internal records are all western lies?
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I would have to know what exactly you are talking about to respond effectively, but largely yes, internal USSR records support the idea that anti-communist narratives are largely distorted or fabricated. Almost everything you think you know about the purges, the Moscow trials, the famines, the gulags, Soviet “authoritarianism,” and almost everything other talking point you can bring up falls into this category. And the things that aren’t distorted or fabricated are taken so far out of context as to make them unexplainable.
The USSR wasn’t perfect, it did some inexcusable things. But the common narrative is almost comically misrepresentative, especially considering the much much worse things that contemporary capitalist nations were doing.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · -1 pts · 1d
LMFAO
Oh man, I apologize, I didn't realize your ideal world meant a surveillance state totallitarian dictatorship which abducted and killed people in the night, starved the population, and put millions to work in camps until they were near dying.
You should have started with how you actually support those things instead of saying simply "I think everything was great" which merely implied an ignorance of the bad things.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
The ignorance is yours, my friend. And unfortunately you are proving OP was correct.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 0 pts · 1d
Oh man a literal red fascist just hit me with that "no u"
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
The fact that you think there can be red fascists further proves your ignorance. Communism and Fascism are diametrically opposed ideologies.
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
...but Corporate Socialism is widely accepted and successful in the USA. The Americans will not top the 1st class European countries, because the vast majority are slaving away at work and simply too tired and stressed out to protest or vote out the asswipes supporting the current system.
DudeWhoYapsTooMuch@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
That and most of us didn't pay attention to school.
UnequalExchange@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
americans hate it cause they want to hate it.
There are millions upon millions of americans and millions of them are armed. If they wanted a socialost state they could have had easily have gotten one by nkw....but they STILL havent done that...
So clearly they dont want it.
"Nothing is substantial until it is substantiated"
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1d
The rich use their money to make and separate classes using information/propaganda/public relations/marketing/slogans or whatever your favourite word is for communication to the masses.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 3d
O my God. I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!
Show me one example of a socialist or communist country that has actually accomplished what this meme is describing. And no, don't just say China. China is a hybrid economy that has incorporated extensive markets and private enterprise alongside substantial state ownership and control. It isn't some straightforward example of the socialism this meme is talking about.
More importantly, socialism and communism were never originally designed around "protecting the vulnerable" in the first place. The central issue was economic power and ownership.
The fundamental socialist argument was that the people who collectively produce wealth should have collective ownership and control over the means of production, rather than allowing those means of production to be concentrated in the hands of a relatively small class of private owners.
And ironically, wealth concentration is exactly the problem we're dealing with today. You don't need to invent a "parasitic pedophile class" or some grand conspiracy to make that argument. Concentration of wealth inevitably creates concentration of political and economic power, and that is a legitimate problem that deserves serious discussion.
You can absolutely argue that collective economic power would provide greater protection for vulnerable people. But that's an argument for socialism. It isn't the original definition or purpose of socialism.
If you're going to defend socialism, at least defend what socialism actually is rather than turning it into a generic synonym for "things that help vulnerable people."
And can we please stop attributing every good thing a government does to socialism? Socialism is an economic system. Programs designed to help people are social programs run by the government, and they are not inherently socialist or communist. Providing public services and social programs is simply one of the basic functions of a governing system.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 2d
How on earth is it a "grand conspiracy" to label the class known for extracting wealth from workers to fund child sex parties 'the parasitic pedophile class?' That's just a straightforward description of the group of people who in practice have concentrations of wealth.
I genuinely don't even know what part of this is supposed to be conspiratorial. Are they not parasitic? Are they not pedophiles? Are they not a class?
Hard disagree. Workers are vulnerable people, who, without organization, are taken advantage of by the ruling class. "What force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one? But the union makes us strong!" And vulnerable people are workers, many of them anyway. Socialism is not and never has been just about some stereotypical image of an able-bodied white guy in a hardhat and fuck everybody else. In order to achieve working class solidarity, especially on an international scale, it is absolutely 100% necessary to overcome barriers such as race, gender etc, which means supporting and accommodating all sorts of vulnerable people.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 2d
I'm going to say something that will probably be unpopular and will likely get downvoted, but that's okay. The truth doesn't become less true because people don't like hearing it.
I believe there is a serious possibility that child abuse and exploitation exist within some of the highest levels of American society, including among politicians and the ultra-wealthy. There are enough allegations, documented cases, associations, and circumstantial evidence surrounding various individuals and networks that I believe these matters warrant serious investigation. If evidence establishes that crimes were committed, I have no problem whatsoever with arrests, prosecutions, and convictions, regardless of how wealthy or politically powerful the people involved are.
But there is an important distinction between saying something deserves investigation and saying that something has been proven.
At this point, there is an enormous amount of speculation, conjecture, allegations, and circumstantial evidence surrounding this subject. What we do not have is sufficient publicly established evidence to definitively claim that there is some organized "pedophilic class" controlling or operating within the upper echelons of American society. People have absolutely committed horrific crimes against children. Criminal networks can and have existed. Powerful people can and have abused their positions. None of that, however, automatically proves the much broader claim.
And that's an uncomfortable distinction, but it matters. If someone has committed a crime, investigate them, charge them when the evidence supports it, put them on trial, and let the evidence be tested in court. A person's wealth, political affiliation, social connections, or position should not place them above the law. But neither should suspicion, association, or circumstantial evidence be treated as a substitute for proof beyond what the evidence can actually establish.
So I'm deliberately trying to be precise here. I am not defending anyone accused of child abuse. I am not minimizing the existence of child abuse. I am not making excuses for politicians, billionaires, conservatives, liberals, MAGA supporters, or anyone else. I condemn child abuse regardless of who commits it, and I believe anyone who commits these crimes should be prosecuted and punished under the law.
I also don't support right-wing conservatism or MAGA, but that is beside the point. Please don't twist my position into something I didn't say simply because my position doesn't fit neatly into a particular political narrative. I am saying that allegations should be investigated, credible evidence should be pursued, and proven crimes should be prosecuted. At the same time, I am not going to turn allegations and circumstantial evidence into established facts simply because they support a conclusion I already find plausible.
As for the second part of your statement, I'll give you the same answer I give everyone else: socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned, with worker ownership or control being one important form of socialist organization. It is not synonymous with social programs.
A government providing public healthcare, libraries, police, fire departments, public education, social insurance, or other services does not automatically make those programs "socialist." Governments of many different economic systems provide public programs. The fact that something benefits society does not make it socialism.
Socialism also isn't simply a philosophy about "protecting workers." Worker protection can exist under capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, and other systems. The defining question is fundamentally about ownership and control of productive assets.
You can hard disagree with whatever you want it doesn't make it any less true.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 2d
There is also an important distinction between what can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt (against the best lawyers money can buy), and what is likely to be true. There's absolutely no reason why we have to hold all criticism to the former standard, and it's completely unreasonable to do so.
100% agreed, I never said anything remotely like that.
Agreed, however, protecting workers is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of socialism. The goal of worker ownership is fundamentally driven by a desire to advance the interests of workers, which includes worker protection.
Yeah, it's not the fact that I disagree, but the arguments I made to support that disagreement that show your position is wrong.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
I think we're actually closer to agreement than you seem to realize, but you're making one important logical leap that I don't think your argument establishes.
I agree that there's a distinction between something being proven beyond a reasonable doubt and something being sufficiently supported by evidence to conclude that it is likely true. I've never argued otherwise. In fact, that's precisely why I keep appealing to historical evidence and academic definitions rather than pretending every conclusion requires courtroom-level proof.
Where I disagree is your claim that protecting workers is a necessary condition of socialism. Worker ownership of the means of production is central to the definition of socialism. But you've moved from that definition to an asserted purpose: that worker ownership is fundamentally driven by the desire to protect workers. Those aren't the same proposition.
Socialism seeks to alter the ownership and control of the means of production and, consequently, the distribution of economic power. That can absolutely benefit workers and historically has often been justified in terms of improving workers' material conditions. But "worker protection" is not what makes an economic system socialist. A system could theoretically have worker ownership while providing extremely poor working conditions, and it would still be socialist in the relevant economic sense. Conversely, a capitalist economy can provide extraordinarily strong worker protections without becoming socialist.
That's the distinction I'm making: worker protection can be a motivation, objective, or consequence associated with socialism without being a necessary defining condition of socialism itself.
And regarding your final point, saying that your arguments demonstrate that my position is wrong is not itself an argument. You still have to establish the premises and show that the conclusion follows from them. That's exactly what I'm challenging.
If your position is that socialism necessarily entails worker protection, then demonstrate that from the definition or from the academic literature. If your position is instead that socialist movements have historically pursued worker protection as one of their objectives, I have no substantial disagreement with that. Those are two very different claims.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1d
I feel like already explained this but I'll spell it out very neatly for you:
Premise A: Socialism means worker control of the means of production (MoP).
Premise B: A class that has control of the MoP will use that power to advance their own interests.
Premise C: Worker protections are in the interests of the working class.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, in a socialist system, worker protections will be implemented.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, if a system does not have worker protections, workers are not in control of the MoP, and it is not a socialist system.
Conclusion 3: Therefore, worker protections are a necessary condition of socialism.
This could only be true if either B or C are false. If one of those premises is wrong, then it's you that needs to provide an argument or justification about why it is false.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1d
I understand the syllogism. The problem is that your conclusion does not actually follow from your premises, and you still haven't addressed the distinction I've been making.
Premise A is broadly consistent with the economic definition of socialism: workers collectively control or own the means of production.
Premise C is also uncontroversial: worker protections can be in the interests of the working class.
The problem is Premise B. You are assuming that a class possessing control over the means of production will necessarily use that control to advance all of its perceived interests, and then treating that assumption as sufficient to establish a necessary institutional feature of socialism. That does not follow.
Even if workers collectively control the means of production, they still have competing interests and preferences. Collective ownership does not magically produce unanimous preferences about wages, hours, workplace safety, benefits, working conditions, or how resources should be allocated. Workers can collectively choose policies that benefit them in some respects while sacrificing other interests.
More importantly, you're confusing an expected consequence or political objective with a necessary definitional condition.
Your argument could establish something like:
"If workers control the means of production, they have the ability and potentially the incentive to implement worker protections."
It does not establish:
"Any system in which workers control the means of production must necessarily have worker protections, and therefore worker protections are a defining condition of socialism."
That's the gap I've been pointing out.
And the fact that you can construct a syllogism doesn't make the conclusion established. You have to demonstrate that the premises are sufficiently strong to entail the conclusion you're drawing from them. Premise B is doing almost all of the work here, and it contains the exact assumption under dispute.
You also keep saying that I'm claiming socialism inherently doesn't protect workers. That's not my position either. Obviously socialist movements have historically advocated worker protections, and obviously worker ownership can be used to pursue them. I'm saying something much narrower: worker protection is not what defines socialism, and the absence of a particular set of worker protections does not logically establish the absence of worker ownership of the means of production.
Your Conclusion 2 is particularly problematic. "Workers are not receiving protections, therefore workers do not control the means of production" is simply affirming what you are trying to prove. You would need an independent argument establishing that worker control necessarily produces those protections. You can't use the conclusion as evidence for one of its own premises.
So no, I haven't failed to address your argument. I'm addressing the precise point on which your argument depends: you have demonstrated that worker protection can be an interest of workers. You have not demonstrated that it is a necessary institutional consequence of worker ownership, nor that its absence logically proves that workers don't control the means of production.
Those are three different claims, and you're treating them as though they're interchangeable.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 22h
You're just nitpicking and splitting hairs. You opened with "O my God. I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!" Now it's just that I haven't sufficiently proven my premise. We're back to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," where you're rejecting the whole argument based on a sliver of a technicality. I'm not really interested in playing that game.
I've established a clear and reasonable argument for why worker protections should be considered a necessary component of socialism. Your counterargument is that, just because workers have a clear means and motives to protect themselves, they might randomly decide not to. That's hypothetically true, but only hypothetically. In practice, it's pretty much always going to happen, and if it doesn't happen, like I said, it's a good reason to look very carefully about why it isn't happening.
Also, for the record, the meme doesn't even say that worker protections are a necessary component of socialism, only that socialism "protects the most vulnerable!" You literally said, multiple times including right here:
...that that's correct! The only issue you have which it, that you've chosen to hyper-focus on, is that you're claiming it's not definitionally correct (and I disagree with even that) but the meme never even claimed that it was part of the definition! Only that it was an ideology that did promote worker protections, which you just said is true! So on what basis was this reaction of "I cannot even begin to tell you how truly stupid this meme is!" at all called for?
You're just wrong. Regardless of whether you can carve out this technicality or not on this point, you're still generally wrong on the main point.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 2d
I was with you until this bit:
A governing system can be merely tax collection under the threat of violence and nothing else. The government doesn't have to provide any services. Governments tend to provide public services (socialism) because a government with a 0% mix of socialism simply doesn't work.
Once a village grows past a certain size, you need some kind of firefighting service. That can be a bucket brigade where neighbours all go out and assist in putting out a fire with whatever they have on hand that can help. Or, it can be private for-profit fire companies that are paid for by insurance or subscriptions (the capitalist way) or it can be firefighting gear collectively owned by the people via the government and be a government-owned fire department. All those ways have been tried in the past. But, even in the most hardcore capitalist-loving places, the socialist answer for this part of the economy is the one that makes sense.
If the means of production (land, labour, capital) are owned by the government when they could instead be owned by a private entity, and the people can use the product of those means (roads, firefighting services, etc.) without a fee that's socialism. Even the most brutal, corrupt, self-serving dictatorship tend to have socialist elements, if only because that allows the government to collect more taxes.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
You are once again conflating social programs with socialism.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or collectively owned and controlled by the people who work within them. It is not synonymous with social welfare programs.
I made this distinction explicitly in my original comment, so perhaps you simply didn't read it.
Socialism is a theory of economics. Things such as public healthcare, welfare, food assistance, libraries, public education, fire departments, and other government-funded services are social programs. A government providing those services does not, by itself, make the economy socialist. Capitalist countries can, and routinely do, have extensive social programs.
Likewise, socialism does not inherently mean that the government owns every business, every piece of land, or every productive asset. That's a common misconception. The central question is who owns and controls the means of production. Under a socialist model, ownership can take various collective forms, including worker cooperatives, public ownership, or other forms of social ownership.
The fundamental difference from capitalism is that productive enterprises are not primarily owned by a small class of private shareholders whose ownership entitles them to the profits generated by the workers. Instead, the workers themselves have collective ownership and control over the enterprise and therefore participate in determining how its economic output is distributed.
And socialism does not dictate a particular form of government. A socialist economic system and a communist political system are not synonymous. You can have socialism under different political structures.
So I cannot stress this enough: socialism and social programs are two entirely different concepts. One is an economic system; the other refers to programs and services provided or funded by a government. Conflating the two is simply a category error.
(If you continue to argue something other than what I've stated above I will continue to repeat over and over what socialism is and the differences between social programs and socialism either concede this point or don't reply further)
As for your other points, you also argued that a government has no obligation to do anything for the people it governs.
If that's your position, then we have to ask a rather obvious question: what exactly is the purpose of government?
If a government exists merely to collect taxes, what are those taxes actually supposed to accomplish? Governments collect revenue so they can perform the functions of governance and provide the services their societies have determined should be provided collectively. Those services can, and very often do, take the form of social programs.
And yes, you were absolutely correct about one thing: fire departments, libraries, healthcare providers, and countless other services can exist as private, for-profit entities. There is nothing inherently preventing a fire department from being privately operated, for example.
But that's completely beside the point. The fact that something can be provided privately does not somehow make a government providing it “socialism.” That's a non sequitur.
The question is not whether a service could be provided by a private company. The question is whether society has decided that a particular service should be provided collectively through government and funded through taxation.
Governments exist to perform functions and provide services that their citizens have collectively decided should be governed at the public level. Exactly what those functions are varies enormously from one government to another. But if your argument is that government has no obligation whatsoever to provide anything for the people it governs, then you're essentially left with a government that collects money without providing a corresponding public function.
And again, none of this has anything to do with socialism as an economic system.
A capitalist country can have extensive social programs. A socialist economy can have relatively limited ones. The existence of social programs does not determine the underlying economic system any more than the existence of a military, police department, or public library does.
You're conflating the economic system with the services provided by the government, and those are fundamentally different concepts.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
You are once again failing to understand that in a mixed economy, like the US economy, Canada's economy, the British economy, the Chinese economy, Cuba's economy, or virtually any other economy in the world, there is a mix of capitalism and socialism.
Yes, for example, the people of the UK collectively own and control the health care system of the state, therefore it is a socialist element within their mixed capitalist / socialist economy.
There's no such thing as a "capitalist country". Virtually every country has a mixed socialist / capitalist system where certain elements of the economy are capitalist, and other elements are socialist.
They are social programs which are provided via socialist elements of their mixed economy. Public healthcare in the UK is part of the socialist side of the economy, whereas pharmacies are part of the capitalist side of the economy. Fire departments are socialist elements of the economy, whereas fire insurance is capitalist.
Right, socialism can consist of community ownership of an asset, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, but of course it also includes state ownership of an asset.
Fine, but I cannot stress enough that virtually every economy in the world is a mix of capitalism and socialism, where some assets are privately owned and used to generate profits for those private owners, and others are state owned and used to provide, among other things, social programs.
Don't you think you should actually read about mixed economies first? I assume you're living in one now, so it would be good for you to be aware of that.
It's up to the government. If the government is a strong man and his henchmen, it's a thing that exists so that they can collect taxes. If it's a modern western democracy, it's at least in theory something to provide for the common defence of the country, to meet the basic needs of the people, to provide a social safety net, to provide a legal framework and protections, to allow the citizens and residents to be their best selves, etc.
Of course it does. Socialism is when the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the public or the community as a whole. That ticks all the boxes. A fire department is a socialism. A library is one of them socialisms.
There you are, thinking there's such a thing as a "capitalist country" again. Every country that has capitalism also has socialist elements.
If you think such a thing as a purely capitalist country exists, how about a list of names of countries that are capitalist and not mixed economies. I'm guessing an economist would say there are zero purely capitalist countries, but maybe you can find an example they didn't.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1d
There is no such thing as a mixed economy, either the principal mode of production benefits the working class or the bourgeois. It's impossible to have a 50/50 and any other mix inevitably collapses towards one or the other.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Of course there's such a thing as a mixed economy. They made a whole Wikipedia article about it.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1d
It's a concept, that makes no sense and deludes the meaning of the term socialism and capitalism so much that they become meaningless. It's propagandistic newspeak.
At the end of the day according to marxist political theory (AKA the guy who established the meaning of the term capitalism, so this carries some important weight), that doesn't make sense, either the principal owner of the means of production is the working class, or not.
Anything inbetween? completely capitalist, according to any socialist who has ever read theory.
it does exist but all the concept does is sully discussions, make terms meaningless, and make you feel like a superior centrist.
Socialism is simply democratization/worker ownership over the means of production. Mixed economies pretend that socialism is when the government does stuff, which is wildly inaccurate.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Take it up with the profession of economics. They think it makes sense. I think it makes sense. You're the only one confused by it.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
You're going to make me repeat myself. So you'll just get my regular disclaimer:
Your consistent yet erroneous assertions will not make you correct.
The countries you mentioned are not mixed economies. Libraries, fire departments, healthcare subsidized by the state are not socialist programs. They are social/welfare programs instituted by the state through tax collection.
You are unable to understand these simple concepts which is quite sad.
https://share.google/UwkbI8StvcTnotfL9
https://share.google/yAO1HkNJznbQeo0iv
https://share.google/lVx33U2pRt7rMnOgn
I have provided you with some links to you so that can educate yourself on what socialism is and its various iterations.
Public welfare programs are not socialist.
This will be my last reply to you as I will not waste my time repeating the same thing over and over. You may choose to accept the correct definitions of the terms you are using or you may continue to delude yourself with your self-proclaimed bullshit.
And make no mistake you are literally just making shit up to suit the conclusion you want. Nothing you said is based on reality.
Good day.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
You should read the link I sent you first.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
The link you sent me proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that mixed economies exist.
If that is your only supporting evidence, then you have literally nothing demonstrating that a capitalist country with social programs is therefore socialist.
A government providing welfare, public services, infrastructure, healthcare subsidies, education, fire departments, police, libraries, or other services to the people it governs has nothing inherently to do with socialism as an economic model. Those are functions of government, not definitions of an economic system.
Socialism refers to a system in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned or controlled. That is fundamentally different from a capitalist economy in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned, even if the government taxes that economy and uses the revenue to provide extensive social programs.
And yes, technically you can describe the United States, Germany, Norway, Sweden, or virtually any modern economy as a "mixed economy" because virtually every real-world economy contains some combination of private markets, public institutions, regulation, taxation, and government ownership. That isn't particularly controversial.
But calling something a "mixed economy" does not tell us which economic system is predominant. It is a descriptive category, not an argument that capitalism and socialism are somehow interchangeable.
By that logic, a car is an automobile and a gorilla is a great ape. Both statements are technically true, but neither tells you anything particularly useful about what distinguishes one thing from another.
The United States is fundamentally a capitalist economy with a substantial welfare state and significant government regulation. Norway is fundamentally a capitalist economy with a much larger welfare state. Neither becomes socialist simply because its government provides social programs.
This is the distinction that keeps getting lost: social programs are not socialism, and a welfare state is not the same thing as a socialist economy.
If your argument is that the United States is a "mixed economy" in the broad academic sense, fine. I will happily concede that point.
If your argument is that the existence of social programs means the United States is therefore socialist, you still have not established that argument. You have simply changed the definition of socialism.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Good, you read some of it. If you read more you'll find out that every economy in the modern world is a mixed economy.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 1 pts · 1d
A government providing public services actually has nothing to do with the definition of socialism, which is worker ownership over the means of production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
how does this work in your framework?
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · -9 pts · 2d
Communism is the honeydew of left-wing ideologies. Stop trying to work it into every post about free healthcare, income inequality, human rights and so on. Stop trying to normalize. It's literally banned in multiple countries for legitimate reasons. It's been used to oppress millions of people. If you support it you clearly don't understand it. And people who put it next to socialism are clearly trying to smear socialism. Seriously.
Socialism and communism are not the same thing and American right wingers in particular keep trying to make it look like they are because it helps them win elections. Trump's new thing is "Democrats are communists". Think about it. He's calling democratic socialists communists. Grasp the nuance and use it to your advantage. Stop upvoting this type of stuff. You're digging yourselves into a hole.
Anyway... I wish I could be telling this to OP, but that is a Twitter screenshot there, I think, and I sure as fuck am not going there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYAKQ5Crers
EDIT: I just remembered this. 2020. Not too recent, not too old. https://politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/04/scott-walker/no-bernie-sanders-not-communist/
EDIT 2: Gonna go ahead and block this group. Anything to do with "workers' rights" around here is braindead dictator worshippers
Objection@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 2d
Communism is the goal of socialism. The original democratic socialists, people like Eduard Bernstein, called it that because the idea was that communism could be achieved through gradually reforming existing political systems. It became more and more obvious that this was just a pretense for opportunism, with things like the betrayal of the Second International and the demsoc support of WWI, and now we're at a point where the pretense is often dropped entirely, or forgotten altogether.
Communism has never been used to oppress anyone because it's never existed as a system (not counting primitive communism). There have only been socialist states that claim to be working towards communism. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not called The Union of Soviet Communist Republics.
"Bernie Sanders is not a Marxist" or "not a Marxist-Leninist" would be the correct way to say it.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
Also, it hasn’t been used to oppress millions of people because it straight up hasn’t. The history of socialism that Americans and other Westerners have been taught is filled with lies, exaggerations, and missing context.
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 2d
from an American perspective, anyone suggesting communism is saying with their entire chest "Why don't Americans opt for a system of economics and government that fell to despotic dictatorship decades faster than the system they've got?"
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
You're right, the American perspective is absurd and brainwashed
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · -9 pts · 3d
Hard pass.
ShutUpWesley@piefed.zip · 9 pts · 3d
That is precisely the response the Epstein class is hoping for.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 3d
Well then maybe humans and communities should be less annoying.
ShutUpWesley@piefed.zip · 8 pts · 3d
Congratulations! You've a victim of anti-social conditioning!
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 3d
If by “antisocial conditioning” you mean the asshole who kept his truck beeping in reverse for ten minutes straight at 5:45 this morning, or the garbage truck playing a dumpster solo at 4:30am the night before then yes.
bold_atlas@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3d
Wow, it didn't take much to turn you into the Joker did it? lol
SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 3d
Yes and it was lovely
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 3d
The Joker had a level of motivation I could only dream of.
I don’t want to destroy the world, I want to flee it. Destroying it involves too many people.
cecilkorik@lemmy.ca · -2 pts · 3d
That sounds more like it's probably a problem related to living in a house built out of toothpicks with paper-thin walls and windows in a place where too many humans have been forced to congregate in a small area for primarily economic and sociopolitical reasons. But, you know, you can also blame the people stuck there with you too if you want.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 3d
When they don’t have the sense to realize they’re in a residential area and the time of day I can definitely blame them. Just like you’d blame someone for littering.
And, yes, living in a community sucks and I’d rather be very far away from everyone.
JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca · -1 pts · 3d
Then quit complaining and move. It's less expensive to live in the stix, and unless you're a certain type of person, the vibe I don't get from you, you'll just wind up a miserable hermit instead of a miserable person among people that probably care more about you than you realize. Have a nice evening.
darkempressofchaos@lemmy.world · -12 pts · 2d
waaait the solution to deal with our pedophilic and corrupt governemnt is to give that same government more power through socialism?????????
isnt that kind of self-defeating?????
Objection@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1d
No, absolutely not. Socialism has nothing to do with giving capitalist states more power.