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” or “social.”
Disclaimer: Disagreeing with someone’s argument, pointing out flaws in their reasoning, or interpreting their position differently does not automatically make it a straw man. For example, if I say, “I think we should reduce military spending,” and you respond, “You think we should completely eliminate the military,” you have created a straw man. You are arguing against a position I never actually took. ⬅️⬅️ (For the potential discussion that may occur below this comment)
What’s amazing is that Americans don’t live in a purely capitalist state. Nobody does. Every major country in the world has a mix of capitalism and socialism. AFAIK no country has purely private firefighters. UPS and FedEx exist, but so does the national postal service. In many countries various utilities like water, sewer, electrical, etc are publicly owned, but in most places the phone service is private.
China initially went full publicly owned, but it was a disaster, so they now have a mix of public and private. Cuba has had to open up its economy to allow privately owned businesses. Meanwhile, the US learned long ago that purely private is a disaster. Policing used to be private, run by companies like the Pinkertons. Firefighting used to be for-profit only.
90% of people campaigning for “socialism” are talking about European-style socalism, at least as a first step. A social safety net. Healthcare provided by the state. Utilities owned by the state, or at least heavily regulated, etc.
But, Americans, while they love the fire department and couldn’t imagine replacing it with a for-profit fire service, somehow think the economy will collapse if the government opens a grocery store.
Yeah… Most of the comments section looks something like this.
Nothing you have mentioned is socialism. Private healthcare, publicly funded firefighters, state-owned utilities, or your examples of China introducing free-market principles into its one-party system. None of these things, individually or collectively, constitute socialism. What you are describing, as usual, is social democracy, which uses the word social to describe a capitalist economy with an extensive welfare state.
Providing social welfare programs is a fundamental function of virtually every form of government. Whether it is communism, democracy, or dictatorship, governments have historically implemented programs intended to provide some level of social welfare to their populations. That does not make these systems a mixture of socialism and capitalism. It makes them different political and economic systems providing social services through different mechanisms. In China’s case, for example, you have a political system rooted in one-party communist rule incorporating significant elements of capitalism. An interesting hybrid, certainly, but that does not mean its economy is socialist in the traditional economic sense.
Your argument that every economy in the world is a hybrid, followed by the assertion that these hybrid economies specifically incorporate socialism, is fundamentally incorrect. I will agree that most modern economies have some degree of hybridization, but they ultimately retain their underlying economic identity.
Take the Nordic countries, for example. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are deeply capitalist countries with incredibly strong free markets. The distinction is that their governments play a significantly larger role in regulating markets and providing social welfare services than the United States does.
By the way, the same principle applies to China. Its private sector and free-market activities are heavily regulated to accommodate the interests of the ruling Communist Party. When private enterprise grows beyond what the government considers acceptable, the state has demonstrated that it is more than willing to intervene aggressively.
What you are describing and advocating for is social democracy. Not democratic socialism, but very specifically social democracy.
It is genuinely astonishing how consistently people advocate for an economic and political philosophy without understanding the fundamental distinctions between the systems they are attempting to support.
Nothing you have mentioned is socialism
Of course it’s socialism. It’s genuinely astonishing how people don’t understand that virtually every country in the world right now has a Mixed Economy: “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.”
Providing social welfare programs is a fundamental function of virtually every form of government
And the mechanism through which that is done is… socialism. The government could choose not to do any of those things and let the free market sort it out and it would be… capitalism. This isn’t rocket surgery.
Your argument that every economy in the world is a hybrid
The correct term is Mixed Economy.
specifically incorporate socialism, is fundamentally incorrect
No, it is a standard view, as you can see if you just read that Wikipedia entry.
There’s a good bunch of people who don’t think they are poor but “temporarily inconvenienced bllionaires”.
I do own a railroad. I bought it for $200. I own Reading Railroad, B&O, and I’m trying to work out a deal to acquire Short Line from my brother in exchange for Vermont Avenue.
He’ll never do it! It’s a ploy to keep you invested in the railroad cards!
It’s the dualistic thinking, indoctrination and team/tribalism for their conditional, flimsy identity and esteem. If they learned healthy ways to not attach identity to things like this and to think on up to highest levels, to weigh valid evidence and make informed choices, use Sagan’s baloney kit to see all the propaganda and not fall for it.
Artificial scarcity makes stress and people don’t think there’s time to learn all this to do better, but there are times or must find time for your own benefit. Some of it is chosen ignorance since knowledge is available to all with freedom, cognitive dissonance, cling to bad ways out of obedience and tradition, used to keep people in dualism and compliantly conforming to the box while the owners get richer.
It’s mostly just people thinking it’s going to give the poor inactive population more than the working class. Like somebody chain smoking getting a shit ton of medical care while the working man is too rich to qualify. Don’t get me wrong I’m a socialist. That’s just how people think.
Sounds familiar. With my conservative family members it’s always either socialism or islamphobia. Or both.
If they’re like mine, they don’t even know what socialism actually is. They just imagine Russian bread lines and conveniently forget socialist programs, like Social Security.
My cousins are half-Thai (white father, Thai immigrant mother) and virulently anti-immigrant at the same time. They are also fiercely anti-Semitic and pro-Israel at the same time. I don’t know how their heads have not exploded already. It helps that they are genuinely dirt stupid.
Sounds like your cousins are morons.
In my country center left’s tax the rich means tax income above 60k.
And because that’s against majorities interests they get voted out.
The rich unfortunately bought all the parties. Parlamental democracy is a failure and we need direct votes on each bill. Imagine being able to directly vote on the topics discussed on a weekly or monthly basis via phone.
Don’t worry, California just voted no to taxing above 1 billion. Even when most of the voters do not make it, or ever will in their lifetime, yet they voted against it
Sounds like an awful idea. Direct democracy on specific policies is a fucking nightmare. I want actually informed and knowledgeable people making decisions on shit.
Yeah, sounds great in theory if everyone was as autistic as I am. But I don’t want policies on healthcare and vaccines being decided on by the average uninformed click of some average idiot with a smartphone app.
“Ask the audience” works until you have a question that requires actual expertise.
I get your frustration with capital corruption and influence. But you’re not thinking this through.
Agreed. I don’t have the time nor interest to be appropriately informed on all judicial matters. I would like though to vote in someone that is and that shares my ideals, so they can represent me appropriately. What we should get is corporations and lobbying out of politics
Yeah, imagine having to regularly vote on something like “Art. 2.17b GCrL shall be amended to exclude entities as described under Art. 90 IndRegR”. Didn’t vote? Oops, that one made it functionally impossible to sue companies for negligence. And the one almost identical-sounding one next to it would’ve lowered your tax burden by 5%.
A state is a hideously complex thing and I don’t want to have to care about how the Regulation on the Valuation of Asset-Backed Financial Instruments in the Leasing Sector (1987) works or how paragraph 3 of the MONKEEZ Act potentially conflicts with TRIPS.
I don’t want to throw away my vote after elections
I got lied to too often.I want to be included in decisions that concern me - other decisions only concerns other people, I don’t need to be involved in everything, but I want to keep my vote
I get the idea, but one thing to know about lies, was it a campaign goal or what was it, bc most politicians can’t do whatever they want. Even some majority doesn’t mean unrestricted power. Dems have a platform of policies and more are passed in states with more Dems, and more healthcare access makes healthier people, and higher wages and paid leave improves worker satisfaction, etc. Proven policies produce good results so vote based on the platforms with proven policies. That’s the closest we have other than ballot initiatives.
You can try to make direct voting a thing with enough push for it, that’s part of the Democratic process to join or start movements like that. With social media now anything can go viral! Good luck!
Actually I’m more of an utopian naivist and with that an anarchist, to be happy with that. But it would be a step in the right direction.
To more self determination
You lack imagination. I’m seeing a system where you can change the party you vote for at any time. Not knowledgeable on a topic? Leave it to the people you trust most. But if certain policies are interesting it should be possible to intervene at will.
If people decide on topics they have no clue on that’s their right and no worse than voting the wrong parties.
One problem i’m seeing is, people might vote shortsighted like brexit. But i’m seeing parties all over europe only thinking within their legislature too so no loss.
Not knowledgeable on a topic? Leave it to the people you trust most.
That’s not what people do.
But if certain policies are interesting it should be possible to intervene at will.
No, it shouldn’t. I can find vaccines “interesting”. I shouldn’t have a say in whether a new vaccine is safe or not. That decision should be left to experts in that field.
I don’t lack imagination. You are lacking any understanding of how policy is created and how governments function.
It’s such a stupid idea that I’ve heard this “app based direct democracy” multiple times from the dumbest fucking guys at bars. This is the equivalent of “we just need crypto” solution to problems with banking a capital. Ironically, if we had this type of direct democracy, you’d have the most popular policies be more and more dumb “easy to understand” solutions like the one you are presenting.
I’m curious, is the “tax the rich = tax people earning over 60k” the actual position of the party (as checked on their website/announced by their reps), or is that what the media are reporting ?
There was a very strong push to misrepresent the UK greens push for a wealth tax as being an attack on ordinary people who owned their homes.
It was utterly untrue and fortunately the greens were media savvy enough to subvert it (but not savvy enough to prevent the anti-semitism attack successfully deployed against Corbyn the last successful left leader).
Party representants were interviewed and didnt name a number. When voted into office they taxed everyone over 60k more.
In Switzerland we have some sort of “direct democracy” (basically people get to vote on a law or a change in the constitution a few times a year) and people still vote for less taxes for the rich.
Fuck that. Most people are dumb as shit and should not vote.
I am fighting socialism because my father grew up in the FRG and my mother in the GDR, and because I was able to talk to my grandparents on both sides, who lived in the FRG and GDR respectively.
My relatives in the socialist GDR had to work more (more hours per week, less vacation days per year) and could afford less (though technically, affordability wasn’t the issue: they had the money, there was just nothing to buy).
My relatives in the west also had more freedom in where they traveled, which media they consumed, and which opinions they voiced.
Don’t get me wrong, I hate capitalism too. But change needs to come democratically. Otherwise things get worse, not better.
The acronyms make this entirely unreadable dude
“My father grew up in the frog and my mother in the Great Darrier Reef” sure man.
You typed out four paragraphs, add the extra four words 😭
Context clues? I don’t actual know what the FRG or GDR are but I was pretty much able to gleam one was a socialist state (presumably part of the USSR) and the other a capitalist one.
(actually GDR now that I think about it definitely stands for German Democratic Republic.
I keep having to look up acronyms on posts about american politics, it’s only fair if it also works like that the other way around 😉
PLEASE do me a favor and start calling them out too. Together we can make lemmy acronym free :3
“Socialism” can mean different things, from European-style social democracy or Keynesian economics to Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. The Reaganites having spent the past four decades using the word to mean anything beyond an Ayn Rand pipe-dream of pitiless free-market competition hasn’t helped.
Otherwise things get worse, not better.
Eh, it’s a mixed record. The Soviet Union was pretty bad for Germany and co, but for Russia and the rest of them it (at great human cost) brought them into modernity, and ditto for China. On the opposite side democracy didn’t exactly save Weimar Germany.
