While neither party can be trusted, I’ll take socialism over fascism every damned time.
It’s the catchy songs right?
and what does socialism mean in this case
what does democratic socialism mean
is it just defund israel or is it defund the police? indeed is it destroy israel or own that means of production you love so much?
i guess we and you will find out which fantasy we’ll all be larping eventually
Socialism and fascism have always gone hand in hand.
Edit: I’m sorry that so many of you have such an issue with this statement.
Most leaders of socialist countries have governed in a fascistic or authoritarian manner. I understand that the historical consensus does not classify self-described socialist leaders as fascists, but I believe that distinction is based primarily on their stated ideology rather than how they actually governed. In my view, ideology should not exempt these monsters from being recognized for the authoritarian and fascistic characteristics of their regimes.
I’ll bite.
Why?
Edit: and how? Specific examples please
He’s also said socialism and not democratic socialism, so… He’s changing the narrative on you.
North Korea, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia… Man, Cambodia was really bad.
The only real exception people point to is China, but they’ve embraced market capitalism to such an extent that even they recognized a purely socialist economy wasn’t sustainable. You can’t take that away from them.
I always ask the same question of people who enthusiastically support socialism but don’t seem to understand what the word actually means: What country would you want to move to that is currently socialist, or that has been socialist in the past?
It’s a simple question, and I rarely get a direct answer.
So… do you understand that authoritarianism isn’t necessarily fascism? You’re listing authoritarian regimes, but none of those were fascist. At an extreme simplification, authoritarian/libertarian is an entirely separate axis from left/right.
Stalin is one of the most evil men in history and committed atrocities against his own people but he and his regime were most emphatically not fascists.
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian political ideology characterized by dictatorial leadership, extreme nationalism, suppression of political opposition, and the subordination of individual rights to what the state or nation is said to require.
Stalin wasn’t an fascist? Are you taking the piss?
Red fascism is more or less something ginned up in the early stages of the Cold War as a way to conveniently carry the fight through to the new enemy.
Stalin was not fascist, nor is Stalinism related to fascism. Stalin was a fucking monster regardless of whatever label you prefer, though.
If we look at other cited regimes, your footing is even weaker. Mao wasn’t a fascist, and none of the leaders of the PRC since then have been. Same for Castro and Cuba. Pol Pot was one fucked up dude, but he wasn’t fascist.
Stalin is certainly the closest comparison, but he’s still not fascist.
I understand where you’re coming from, and I understand why you believe this is true, especially when you take into account the current consensus among historians and other authority figures on the subject. They generally agree that Stalin and the other figures you mentioned were not fascists.
I disagree.
They qualify as fascists under every metric of the definition, and in abundance. Being communist, or labeling Stalin’s system “Stalinism,” does not exclude it from being fascism. Those labels do not change the underlying structure.
By every measurable standard, they were fascists, unequivocally,
Saying that a totalitarian ultra-nationalistic authoritative and violent regime isn’t fascist because they called themselves communists is historically and morally disingenuous.
What a great little technical out for some of the worst people on Earth and in human history to not be called fascists.
I usually reply to that with: “And if you love capitalism that much why don’t you move to the US instead?”
That still doesn’t answer the question.
I live in the United States, and I love my country.
The fact is that, as far as I’m aware, there has never been a single socialist country that has been broadly successful, and I don’t think there ever will be. So answer the question.
You say you support socialism, but you choose to live in a country that isn’t socialist because it’s prosperous, stable, and safe. If socialism is the superior system, why wouldn’t you want to live in a country that actually practices it?
Why do you like socialism so much? Have you ever lived in a socialist country? Have you even visited one? Can you point to a socialist country, either current or historical, that you would willingly move to?
It seems like you’re just repeating things you’ve read on Lemmy or elsewhere on the internet. You don’t appear to understand what socialism actually is, how it functions, or how it differs from social democracy or democratic socialism. You keep calling welfare programs “socialism,” when they aren’t.
Answer the fucking question, what country would you move to that is currently socialist or has been socialist in the past?
And don’t you even dare deflect to the fact that I live in America and that you think it’s a terrible country? Don’t even try it. It’s not going to work.
Do you know that most successful countries in the world are social-democracies right? Like most of Europe. You don’t need to go full communist or follow the red party book to incorporate the good bits of modern social-democratic practices to counter bad capitalism abuse. Im not a communist or “socialist” btw (assuming the typical American biased understand of those terms).
Yes. Some of the most successful countries on earth are social democracy’s which has nothing to do with socialism.
I encounter us problem on Lemmy all the time. ALL THE TIME! I’ll leave you with my regular disclaimer.
Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production. Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. The two terms are not interchangeable despite frequent misuse on the internet. You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism.
Gaslight somewhere else.
And here we have another Lemmy user that doesn’t know what a word means. But he sure is using it and that’s nice.
Then the USA would actually have two parties instead of one?
But there are the De…
~Oooh. I see what you did there.~
This would be far more accurately titled as ‘returns to’ given FDRs New Deal and the fact that 99% of socialist policies enacted over the last century are from the Democrats, instead of the inflammatory weasel-wording ‘what if socialism takes over’ like it’s some kind of coup.
It might be some dumb play to drum up clicks from right-wing people who have never seen a Jacobin article I guess, but it puts off their base, and looking through the article… it doesn’t hide its socialist-positive bias at all even from the first few sentences, so I kinda doubt that intent. Just dumb.
instead of the inflammatory weasel-wording ‘what if socialism takes over’ like it’s some kind of coup.
If I can give some context, as a DSA member, while DSA is parasitizing the Democratic ballot line, it essentially acts like an independent party.
The goal isn’t necessarily to “take over” the Democratic Party. Rather, the dominant position in DSA is what’s called a “Dirty Break”, where the org parasitizes the Dems in the short term, essentially until they kick us out (Ideally in such a way that DSA comes out the stronger org, and that the Dems whither not unlike the Whigs).
Something which is already starting to happen, with Democrats telling us to go “make our own party” as though we haven’t looked at the US political system, and ruled that out for now.
Further, DSA is a big tent organization, with everyone from reformist social democrats, to Anarchists, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, etc. And the DSA party platform (the updated version of which gets released on the 14th, I believe) expresses an overt desire by DSA to transcend capitalism. So this isn’t just a return to FDR style social Democracy, like you’re suggesting, there’s a bit more going on
Thanks for the clarification, I feel like very little of this was discussed in the article and you explain it better.
Good luck getting that motley crew to get along. Everyone can agree on anticapitalism but that’s basically it. How exactly to go about it is going to vary widely. It’s hard to see Marxist-Leninists wanting to play ball with reform advocates.
It’s still a good idea worth trying. I’m just skeptical of lefties ever turning into a cohesive force since there’s such a wide array of leftism and some of the particulars of given ideologies are mutually exclusive.
Good luck getting that motley crew to get along
I mean, this isn’t a project that started yesterday, and it isn’t some hypothetical. DSA has existed in its current form, a big tent with ideological and strategically based caucuses, for a little over a decade at this point. If anything the caucus system, which currently codifies those different tendencies in the org, makes it stronger. People within DSA debate endlessly about everything under the sun, but the minute any one part of the org is attacked by someone on the right, the org rallies around them, generating greater organizational coherence. It’s like having siblings. You can bully your little brother, but god forbid anyone else tries it.
Additionally, caucuses allow DSA members to collaborate across chapters in ways that national is improving on, but not currently able to fully facilitate. Caucuses also exchange ideas, strategies, etc. in ways that general membership might not do otherwise.
And that, I think, is what has allowed DSA to grow in the way that it has. All of these left tendencies are forced to come to the table in order to get what they want, instead of just imploding into a billion little sects. And those negotiations, both among caucuses, and with material conditions, mean that DSA is able to formulate a cohesive program and strategy.
I think the Caucus system, as it currently stands, will probably have to be done away with at some point, if DSA is to cohere more power, and thus a greater sense of party discipline, but for now, I think it’s a strength of the org, not a weakness.
I’d be okay with just democracy taking over the Democratic party
If you think socialism is bad, you either are an evil piece of shit or ignorant of what socialism actually is.
Good?
Good.
Not good enough. Wake me up when its Scientific Socialism and Capitalism is dead.
They had decades to figure out how to unite their base. Obama and Bernie’s popularity gave them the building blocks. They remained willfully ignorant because they like those corporate checks too much.
Author of the article never got to any sort of point. Just some random rambling. Jacobin needs to do better than this garbage.
Instead of a “what if” we need a “how” and “when”
What if a foreign genocidal ethnostate takes over the Democratic Party?
The Democratic Party needs an anti-trump:
Someone who is the opposite of trump in every way…
Smart, wise, humble, charitable, brave, gregarious, kind, caring, socialist, democratic, and good.Essentially, someone who embodies all the virtues that the hypocrites of the Christian Right eschew.
Smart and wise folk generally do their best to stay out of formal politics. politics sucks.
Closest I can think of is Bernie Sanders, but he may have aged out of a presidential run.
That person is very much staying at home happy and content with their loved ones.
Like Obama?
We can hope.
What socialism is happening? Who is advocating workers controlling the means of production? All I see are social programs being touted.
Who is advocating workers controlling the means of production?
That would be communism, not socialism. Lennonist communism is where the workers control the means of production in a collectivist but decentralized manner (Stalinist communism is where the state (Stalin) controls the means of production). Socialism is where the capitalists are allowed to maximize profit all they want (hell they keep most of that under the socialist model), but society guarantees a minimal quality of life (the social bit) by taxing the capitalists to ensure a base-level of universal health-insurance and/or housing for the masses.
Basically, democratic socialism is the logical conclusion of FDR’s New Deal.
Where did you get this definition of socialism from? There’s no such thing as as socialism that allows for capitalist ownership of the means of production; if a socialist says it’s fine, they’re not a socialist.
As per Einstein himself (in his article entitled “Why Socialism?”):
In [a socialist economy], the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilised in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.
As you can see, as the means of production are owned and maintained by society itself in a socialist economy, there would be no possibility for any aspiring capitalist to accrue those means for themselves, and thereby maximize their own profit. In theory they would just be another worker without any special economical advantage over anyone else.
Where did you get this definition of socialism from? There’s no such thing as as socialism that allows for capitalist ownership of the means of production; if a socialist says it’s fine, they’re not a socialist.
The distinction between socialism and communism is well known and studied. The key differences are:
Communism:
All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on need. In practice, a strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.
Socialism:
individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.
You can find the basis of my quotes here, on the history channel’s very own website. You can also see the clear distinction in Europe’s current Democratic Socialism vs. Russia’s Communist stuff.
The History channel? As in the channel that hosts and broadcasts “Ancient Aliens”? You’re not exactly helping your case here.
Additionally, you’re incorrect in your citing of the notion that all property in a communist state is communally owned. All private property is communally owned, but that only goes for anything falling into the category of productive assets used to generate profit and subsume labour. You’re by all means still entitled in such states to owning any personal property, i.e. various forms of entertainment, food, toiletries, housing, etc. The whole basis of your distinction pretty much falls apart through that correction alone.
For the sake of providing an external source, you can read further on socialist/communist ideas through this website, particularly the first two paragraphs which once again thoroughly deconstructs your false distinction of the aforementioned ideologies.
Just curious if your head hurts from banging it against so many walls…
Sorry, but the stupid people’s website, Reddit, is that way ------>
That’s seems pretty rude for someone who is on your side. Maybe I’m missing your joke though.
My words were an expression of solidarity with you. I thought it was funny way to recognize you banging your head against the wall as the expression goes, but maybe you didn’t get my joke?
I found it funny how you kept having to educate people and they seemingly didn’t understand what you were saying.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear on that friend
Where are you getting this from?
Explained here
The article you linked is what happens when you hire a “content marketer” to write for you. Not sure why the home of ancient aliens would be a definitive source.
It sounds like they just plucked it out of their ass.
What FDR did with a New Deal and socialism are not the same thing. FDR’s goal was to save capitalism while feeding the working class stale bread crumbs so they do not demand better, so that they do not advocate for more socialism.
Americans don’t understand that distinction.
All those words and not a single one of them correct.
Explain that to history channel. Also, look at the distinction between Europe’s socialist implementation. Then, compare that to Russia’s Communist stuff.
You mean explain it to a contributor to the History Channel that knows nothing about either?
So, that bit in my response as related to how Europe implements socialism is conceded?
There is nowhere in Europe where any form of socialism is practiced at the state level
Socialism is 1950’s conservatism now.
Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production. Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. The two terms are not interchangeable despite frequent misuse on the internet. You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism.
Social democracy and democratic socialism are not the same.
Social democracy, yes, is what you describe: try to regulate capitalism and make it livable via labor protections, public services and a welfare state. The end horizon is something like the Scandinavian dream.
Democratic socialism is different: the end horizon is indeed full blown socialism, with social ownership of the means of production and ultimately with abolition of capitalist relations altogether. However, for democratic socialists, the path to that horizon does not pass via revolution but via the democratic process.
In practice social-democrats and democratic-socialists end up finding it easy to agree on a political program for the here and now and so very often they coexist. Both want to reform capitalism.They just don’t agree as to how deep that reform can go. For the democratic socialists, the things social-democrats want are in fact the means towards the end result. For the social-democrats that end result is not necessary considered possible or even desirable. But the two have never won that much that their differences would actually come to a head.
I’d be surprised that anyone would want to stop at the SocDem phase of things. Like if you actually get that far and things are going well, wouldn’t you want to take that next step? I guess it depends on perceived risk?
Nobody has ever reached a point where that was actually a practical decision to make. So nobody has ever said oh yea this is enough we should stop :)
Edouard Bernstein, the first theoretical of social democracy famously said that the “the final goal of socialism is nothing, the movement is everything”. I think it’s a matter of perspective, of what you choose to care about. My most sympathetic read of this position is that actually abandoning capitalist relations is not something that you can “choose” to realistically do because capitalism is too tied up with the survival needs of people.
While I agree that the end goal of democratic socialism is an economy in which the means of production are publicly owned, it differs significantly from the Marxist-Leninist model advocated by Lenin and later implemented by Stalin. Democratic socialism rejects the one-party state and instead maintains that democratic institutions, competitive elections, and civil liberties should continue to exist even after the economy is fully socialized.
That’s a massive distinction, especially considering that every major one-party socialist state has produced severe authoritarian outcomes.
China is a notable exception in one respect: while it remains governed by a single-party communist state, its economy has embraced extensive market mechanisms, private enterprise, and foreign investment. Whether it should still be described as socialist depends largely on which definition of socialism is being used.
Yes it is very different from Leninism. But what you’re describing are still “how” elements not “what”. And to call a spade a spade, Democratic socialism and social democracy are both deeply rooted in the Marxist tradition. The former in the thought of Karl Kautsky, the latter in the thought of Eduard Bernstein.
Bernstein is exactly who Rosa Luxemburg is responding to in “Social Reform or Revolution?”. Kautsky positioned himself in the centre between Bernstein’s revisionist reformism and what he saw as Luxembourg’s adventurism. He was in fact a huge influence on Lenin himself, who considered Kautsky a real authority in Marxism but disagreed on his tactical analysis and ultimately he ended up rejecting it.
Long story short, democratic socialism is not external to the body of Marxist thought. It played a key role in its intellectual development. For Leninists it became the anvil on which they hammered their own understanding. But since the fall of the Soviet experiment and the dengist/nationalist turn of the Chinese one, taking a serious second look at democratic socialism is, I think, the intellectually robust thing to do.
That’s a lot of a lot dude. And you’re basically right.
So what does this have to do with people not understanding and misusing the term socialism versus social democracy and Democratic socialism?
And I see that you obviously don’t fall into that camp. You know what you’re talking about.
Well, when it comes to practice there are a few things:
-
People should not be scared to call themselves socialists and still lay claim to liberal democratic bona fides. That combination is not a ruse and a fraud as the Right would like to insist but a real current in socialist thought since the beginning. The newly elected leader of the NDP here in Canada actually came out and called it recently.
-
I would actually also argue that honest social democrats, can in practice be more radical than self proclaimed socialists, if in practical politics they propose and achieve deeper reforms. I’ll trade an effective Mamdani for a high falutin big mouth talking European self proclaimed socialist that does fuck all (looking at Tsipras) any day of the week. It’s easy to talk a big game and do nothing and we shouldn’t underestimate the transformative power of promising modest reform and delivering.
-
It’s also important to keep reminding so called moderates eg in the Democratic Party that DSs and SDs can very much coexist in a left of centre party and that cosplaying the red scare all the time is extremely self defeating. Common ground exists.
-
Finally, I would say it is also important to not cede the socialist vision to the MLs as if they are the sole and rightful owners of it. They are not, never have been, and liberal democracy is not as alien a concept to socialist thought as they pretend it to be. Political liberalism is not only reconcilable with socialism but there are very legitimate currents of Marxist thought that assert it. Nicos Poulantzas famously argued that “socialism will be democratic or it will not be at all”, asserting that institutions of representative democracy are essential for a socialist transition to avoid authoritarian state-socialism.
Given that, so far, precisely none of the Marxist-Leninist states have successfully transitioned into a classless system (or even tried to), I’d say that the last bullet point is especially relevant.
It’s awfully tempting to retain that total power over others, once given it. There’s only been a handful of people throughout history that have willingly handed the reins of power back after the crisis was resolved.
I think you’re missing the point I was making.
There isn’t a “real” socialist or a “fake” socialist. Socialism has a definition: public ownership of the means of production. That’s the defining characteristic. Everything else, whether it’s democratic socialism, Marxism-Leninism, libertarian socialism, or anything else, is a modifier that describes how someone thinks that goal should be achieved or what political system should accompany it.
My point wasn’t about which branch of socialism is better or more democratic. It was that people routinely use the terms socialist, social democrat, and democratic socialist interchangeably when they are not the same thing.
So how does your comment address that? My original point was about people misusing basic political terminology, not about whether one type of socialist is preferable to another.
There’s also a recurring pattern on this platform where people simply don’t know what these terms mean. “Socialism,” “social democracy,” “democratic socialism,” and even “capitalism” all get thrown around as interchangeable labels, when they describe different concepts. That’s the misconception I’m pushing back against, and it’s one I run into constantly. You and I seem to be the exception here, we at least understand the terminology well enough to have a discussion about the ideas instead of arguing over incorrect definitions.
I guess I’m helping by articulating my understanding?
Otherwise, yes we seem to not be disagreeing.
-
At some point we’re just masturbating over minutia.
In practice, in the real world, there will never be such a thing as a purely socialist or purely capitalist economy. You could have a fully automated luxury communist economy, and there would still be someone out there doing what is effectively capitalism, just in exchange for favors and owed favors. You could organize your society into Ayn Rand’s dream world, and there would still be some folks there giving each other things for free out of the kindness of their hearts. Hell, even the Soviets tried running an economy without money for awhile, and it failed miserably.
There is a continuous spectrum between a fully government-run economy and an entirely stateless economy. And all real-world governments lie somewhere on that spectrum. The governments that we call “socialist” just lie more towards the government-run side of things. Neither extreme has ever existed. The USSR was not a complete collective ownership of the means of production. The US is not and never has been a purely market economy.
Masturbating over pointless minutia is just pointless masturbation.
Wow. You used “masturbation” way too many times.
And you’re right it’s about as pointless as your comment, considering why I left mine in the first place.
People on this platform don’t seem to know the difference between basic terms like capitalism, socialism, social democracy, and democratic socialism. They lump every good thing the government does under “socialism” and every bad thing under “capitalism.” Reality isn’t that black and white. It isn’t simply capitalism versus socialism.
Some of the most successful countries on Earth are social democracies with large welfare states and strong regulations that curb predatory business practices. They are not socialist economies. They are fundamentally capitalist economies, and that’s a distinction people constantly miss.
Unions, fair wages, wealth equality, universal healthcare, and social safety nets have nothing to do with socialism as an economic system. They are hallmarks of social democracy. Socialism and social democracy are two distinct ideologies with different definitions.
I’m not masturbating over words. I’m using those words according to their actual definitions.
Oh. If you actually read the article, it’s about nomenclature. Nothing of substance. What a waste.
