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.
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.
Yeah socialism is going to make the US fail, it’s totally not currently failing rn… LOL
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.
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.
What’s bad about Cuba that isn’t caused by the US embargo?
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.
The US tried socialism. The US is, in fact, still partially socialist.
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.
FTFY
lmfao
Russia historians citing USSR internal records are all western lies?
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.
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.
The ignorance is yours, my friend. And unfortunately you are proving OP was correct.
Oh man a literal red fascist just hit me with that “no u”
The fact that you think there can be red fascists further proves your ignorance. Communism and Fascism are diametrically opposed ideologies.