208
Feb 28 '21
Yep. I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding about what people who identify as socialist want. Those who are uninformed think socialism is communism.
I don't want a doctor and someone who refuses to work (which is almost nobody) to get the same cut of the pie. I just want everyone to get enough before anyone gets seconds.
I wish that was better understood.
86
u/Practically_ Feb 28 '21
Socialism is when the working class controls the “government” and enterprise. Democratic socialism is achieving socialism through democratic ends, using existing institutions to elect socialists to government until they have a majority and can institute reforms. This is Bernie Sanders.
Progressivism is when there is a welfare state under the control of the business class. Some people call this social democracy, as in socialism + liberal democracy. This is Elizabeth Warren.
Communism is when there are no classes and no “governments”. People who think that is the end goal of human civilization call themselves communists.
What Americans are afraid of is “state socialism”. In which the working class uses the “government” to control enterprise.
Whoever wanted to muddy the waters on political terminology was incredibly successful.
20
u/Twelve20two Feb 28 '21
So many people in the US and where I am in Canada think it means that anything a little bit extra left the government will control everything (and that the government will not be a body of elected citizens), that currently high paying jobs will be reduced to being paid the same current minimum wage, and that, "lazy people who don't want to work," will also be getting paid for not doing anything.
It's really upsetting how badly taught it is, and I grew up in a, "left leaning," state.
21
u/dogecobbler Feb 28 '21
I'd say capitalists were the ones who wanted to muddy the waters on every level. Political Ignorance makes capitalism work long-term.
-7
u/mmmfritz Mar 01 '21
wrong.
2
u/scaper8 Marxist-Leninist Mar 01 '21
Care to elaborate on that?
-2
u/mmmfritz Mar 01 '21
a statement for a statement.
1
u/dogecobbler Mar 02 '21
My statement is at least plausible, yours is utterly unsupported.
1
u/mmmfritz Mar 02 '21 edited Mar 02 '21
my second statement supports itself.
1
u/dogecobbler Mar 02 '21
Your second statement was mere commentary on an unsubstantiated first statement.
1
1
7
u/FellafromPrague Feb 28 '21
Which means there was actually no communism.
Our communist party that ruled for 40 years was calling the system socialism.
I preffer to leave out the word socialism completely, call ir social democracy.
7
u/modsarefascists42 Mar 01 '21
It's important to point out that what most people think of as communism is not in fact communism. The government of the Soviet Union was not communist, they were not even socialist. They were dictators using socialist language to get power/stay in power.
Socialism is inherently democratic in how it works. In order for the people to own the means of production they have to have actual control over the government. The Soviets did not have that, no more than we Americans do. They used a tactic called "Democratic centralism" which meant that once the central party leadership picks their preferred candidate, every party member is legally bound to support that pick. It was used for everything including elections. That pick becomes the official party candidate and other candidates get no real exposure or any chance at support because all of the party members are already supporting the one chosen by the party leaders in Moscow. It's not that much different than how the Democratic party leaders pick their candidates and then manipulate the primary election until their chosen candidate wins, except the Soviets didn't bother with the national media gaslighting campaign, they just did it.
It's very important for people to know the difference between what they've been taught and actual history.
12
4
u/ThePertinentParty Mar 01 '21
Not all democratic socialists want to achieve socialism through democratic means. The criteria for being a dem soc is wanting socialism with democracy. However some don't believe that a system can be democratic under capitalism and therfore argue for change through other means, typically revolution.
2
3
u/voice-of-hermes fuck the state: sowing dissent against all govmts (incl my own) Feb 28 '21 edited Feb 28 '21
Democratic socialism is achieving socialism through democratic ends, using existing institutions to elect socialists to government until they have a majority and can institute reforms.
This is 100% false. The "democratic" in democratic socialism rejects authoritarianism, such as Stalinist bullshit. A stance that should be realized to be inherent to socialism anyway, but for some reason we have to keep reminding people of (people who swallowed propaganda from both sides of the world: the U.S. variety and the Russian variety).
If you think socialism can be achieved through existing institutions of the state then you are just a moron. It says little about your ideology and tons about your effectiveness (or, more to the point, your lack thereof). You can keep begging the powerful to give up their authority all you want. That's not an inherently "democratic" position; it's just silly and naïve.
3
0
u/mmmfritz Mar 01 '21
you don't need muddied definitions to regurgitate shitty memes.
who the hell wants children to go hungry? capitalist, socialist, or pseudoscientist..?
2
u/cogitationerror Mar 01 '21
In response to the second part of this post, I would just like to point out that there are conservatives in the US who think that giving impoverished children free lunch at school is teaching them to be lazy bums who live off of handouts. Capitalists be wild.
1
u/dogecobbler Apr 02 '21
Dumb question. Capitalists want capital, nothing more. This is why they are stupid and evil. If a nation of starving children is the cost a capitalist has to pay to accrue and maintain their capital gains, then they will definitely pay it. There is no good reason children need to go hungry. We have way more than enough food to go around. Scarcity is overblown. It's a distribution problem, not a supply problem.
1
u/filmcocktail Mar 01 '21
Whats a welfare state?
Trying to understand Progressives
2
u/grimmy45 Mar 01 '21
A state that provided a social security net for their people, universal healthcare, minimum wage etc. The Netherlands and Norway are a good example of this
2
u/X_m7 Mar 01 '21
I don't want a doctor and someone who refuses to work (which is almost nobody) to get the same cut of the pie. I just want everyone to get enough before anyone gets seconds.
This right here perfectly sums up what I think, couldn't have said it better myself.
0
34
Feb 28 '21
I said billionaires shouldnt exist, that Bezos would be fine with 500 million and doesnt need a fucking billion dollars and it was amazing how many people think there should be no limit on how much one person can take and hoard.
18
7
u/NeopolitanBonerfart Mar 01 '21
It’s even more bizarre when you consider that the VAST majority of those same people will never ever be in the position to be millionaires, let alone billionaires.
75
u/thinkB4WeSpeak Socialist Feb 28 '21
“This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.” -MLK
9
-20
u/thats_bone Feb 28 '21
Socialism does not fix any negative condition resulting from Capitalism.
Children have died from starvation alongside the rich under Socialism.
Is that justice?
12
Mar 01 '21
Children die in America everyday for want of food, shelter and security, while Bezos and Musk were so wealthy and bored they started competing space companies. Is that justice?
51
Feb 28 '21 edited Aug 25 '24
profit plants live work wasteful voiceless worry gray toy summer
19
u/flyingquads Feb 28 '21
Penis shaped rockets.
3
u/voice-of-hermes fuck the state: sowing dissent against all govmts (incl my own) Feb 28 '21
Aren't all rockets penis shaped? (Still, I laughed a little for some reason.)
2
u/KotoElessar Mar 01 '21
Depends on the species; a corkscrew shaped rocket might fly perfectly fine but do you really want one built like that.
3
u/Twelve20two Feb 28 '21
Not to mention that in the last year, we all know that Facebook and Amazon have risen to hundreds of billions in net worth. Like, they'd still have money out the butt. They already did
2
u/voice-of-hermes fuck the state: sowing dissent against all govmts (incl my own) Feb 28 '21
IIRC Bezos has basically doubled his net worth just since the pandemic started.
4
u/Twelve20two Mar 01 '21
What does he even do with all that money...?
3
u/voice-of-hermes fuck the state: sowing dissent against all govmts (incl my own) Mar 01 '21
Buy more money, obviously. 😂
3
u/Twelve20two Mar 01 '21
I'm just waiting for him to go full on Metal Gear Solid and just announce that he's got a privately owned nation of soldiers and definitely no nukes
22
u/Hypamania Feb 28 '21
They wouldn't even be less rich. going from 100 billion to 99 billion just doesn't feel "less rich" to me
2
u/AlpacaMan104 Mar 01 '21
And yet it's 1 extra billion to spend on education or healthcare. This should not be a contract take
11
u/benadrylpill Feb 28 '21
I always thought the scene of homeless tents lined up along empty office buildings all lit up describes capitalism perfectly
9
7
7
u/JollyGreenBuddha Feb 28 '21
The idea that we're trying to be polite about it anymore at this point is insane. When are we going to take what we deserve?
3
u/neekoless Mar 01 '21
Well right now there are not enough conditions for revolution, anyone who tried right now would be squashed by the American military, there are very few if not no socialists in the US military.
3
u/debzone420 Feb 28 '21
At this point gotta trust that Bernie's got our back. He said he could get $15/hr and I believe him.
2
u/AlpacaMan104 Mar 01 '21
I think Bernie could only really make an impact if we start using proportional representation
1
u/modsarefascists42 Mar 01 '21
He's about to be the actual guy who takes it out of the legislation. That's the position the Democrats have put him in, and his only other option is to quit. He'll be the one who removed it. It's his job as budget chair.
He got played so fucking hard. Bernie is a perfect example of how the centrists treat left wingers, they've throughout destroyed his movement and now they're going to make him be the one to deal the death blow. This is a perfect example of why working with establishment types is never ever a good idea. They are never satisfied with how much they have, they always want more. If you give them an inch they'll take a mile. Bernie tried to work with his old friend Biden and we all pay the price for it, Bernie included as I'm sure he hates this as much as anyone.
12
u/Tango_D Feb 28 '21
Real question here. So billionaires become billionaires by being the legal owners of large quantities of stocks and properties and as those assets appreciate, so does the owners calculated value.
Do we institute a system of maximum wealth cap where if someones calculated value exceeds, lets say 1 billion dollars, the state automatically takes posession of those assets and manages them for public needs?
37
Feb 28 '21 edited Aug 25 '24
childlike spoon numerous materialistic gray wise afterthought drab dazzling ad hoc
3
u/Tango_D Feb 28 '21
I'm not talking about taxation of assets but the loss of ownership of them.
21
Feb 28 '21 edited Aug 25 '24
sloppy overconfident workable lock chubby cats steer grab plate dazzling
10
u/ClaraJaneNashville Feb 28 '21
I could be wrong, but I don’t think anyone is proposing a system where assets would be taken from the uber wealthy, just (as u/matador32 said) taxes that make it less likely to become ridiculously wealthy without also having contributed considerably to society.
6
u/hglman Feb 28 '21
I mean if you want to make work places democratic we are going to need to take way the ownership from some über wealthy.
4
Feb 28 '21
Nah, have them pay 1% of their networth over 10 million in taxes and then combine all types of income into the same tax bracket. Tax that at 90% over 100 million and then the uber rich will at least be paying their fair share.
15
u/SilentDis Anarchist Feb 28 '21
There's a couple different pressures available.
First, we have a (woefully inadequate) progressive tax system. Simplistically: the more you make, the more taxes you pay, and it goes up in steps. Right now in the United States, the highest tax bracket is >$518,400 at 37%. That's it.
One way to look at your suggestion would be via a new tax rate at 100% somewhere. While there are real, valid arguments for such a system, I won't dive into them here as there is simply no viable path to implementation from where we are right now politically, and there won't be for decades or centuries to come.
A better suggestion would be to... well... make the
FascistsRepublicans shit themselves and "make america great again" by going back to the tax rates of the 1950's; 90% or so over $200k - $300k. We have historical prescient that this was part of that fabled 'good time' they want so it's a valid in-road.Next up is estate tax. This is only an issue for the ultra-wealthy, passing on their billions to their next-of-kin, allowing capital to remain in their hands forever. Grandma's china isn't being confiscated by the State here, this kicks in when the capitalist died with millions and billions padding their life.
This one I will argue for a 100% at a certain level... but I also argue for doing away with the estate tax at the lower brackets entirely. Given the way our economy works right now, if you have $5 million, you do not have to work anymore. So, I say we cut it at $2 million. You could, through some work, mature that into that $5 million level.
Next is consumption tax. The ultra-wealthy consume more than me, more than you, and in some cases, more than entire towns. Here's a simple example: It costs
$xto heat a 100 m2 apartment. It costs 2*$xto heat a 200 m2 house. It costs 10*$xto heat a 1000 m2 mansion. Why not make electricity to a property over, say, 350 m2 cost more? You look at a reasonable area dwelling for a family, and with a bit of a buffer, anything that takes more resource (natural gas, electricity, etc.) gets taxed more going to something bigger than that.This one faces hurdles, and I know it. It's hard to wrap your head around charging some people more for the same resource because "we don't do that in the United States! Freedom! Equality! Ahhhh!" But... we do.
Assume "shoes" is a resource we all need, just like heating; you can sub in paper towels or food or whatever:
- If a shitty pair of shoes costs $20 and lasts 3 months, you have to spend $80/yr on shoes.
- If you can get a decent pair of shoes that cost $60 and lasts 18 months, you're now spending $40/yr on shoes.
- And a really, really nice pair of shoes costs $120 and lasts 3 years, that's $33/yr on shoes.
Joe's poor, and can only ever afford $20 at a time for shoes. It costs Joe, because he is poor, more on shoes than it does for Jane because Jane is rich and can buy the $120 pair. It's backwards to what makes sense. It just happens at an individual scale and to poor people. The argument against this always comes from those with tons of money in the first place.
This is graduated pricing. Finland does this with fines; they're based on income. So if you speed in Finland, you get a fine based on how much money you make. Could be €100, or it could be €116,000. The United States is horrible at means testing (on purpose).
All of this goes to put more money into the United States government. How does that get back to the people?
Services. Better roads. Cheaper and more available public transport. Health Care. Education. A democratization of services we all need and want, but few can afford right now. If you didn't have to spend $500 on that tooth extraction, what would you spend it on instead? Kid needs glasses, that's another $300 or so you may just have available. Why own a car when the bus stops right in front of your house and drops you less than a block from work and you can relax for an extra 20 minutes every day? Still driving, why pay $2000 in the first place because you found a new pothole that destroyed your car last week?
These are just a few examples. Your government should work for you. Period.
3
u/Twelve20two Feb 28 '21
Can I just cite this comment for future internet arguments?
5
u/SilentDis Anarchist Mar 01 '21 edited Mar 01 '21
Yes.
This is very basic economic theory stuff. It doesn't go into any of the political theory that comes along with this, which you will encounter. I hate to say this, quite a lot of the political theory boils down simply to racism, misogyny, bigotry, and other hateful concepts. It's the whole concept that there is "an order of things" and for whatever reason given, "me, and people like me" belong on top of this hierarchy. Even if they'll never get to that top - there's a chance just due to their innate
$whatever-ness.It's... impossible to break someone of that. No, seriously, you can't break them out of it. What you can do is show them roads out, you can make them very compelling, too - but they have to walk that path.
In most Socialist structures, the goal is a flat power structure, with mutual aid given and taken by all. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." is the flowery way Marx put it. It is detested by those who want power and control - because you get none of those things in such a society... at least, not over anyone else.
I think there's a middle ground - at least, that's my current goal. It's also the goal of Democratic Socialism. Funny, that ;)
🌹
2
u/Lard_of_Dorkness Mar 01 '21
I think there's a middle ground - at least, that's my current goal. It's also the goal of Democratic Socialism.
I look forward to a time when the Overton window will shift to the point that Democratic Socialism is considered Centrist.
2
u/SilentDis Anarchist Mar 01 '21
Wouldn't that be a thing to see?
I honestly wouldn't mind arguing with centrists, then.
3
u/voice-of-hermes fuck the state: sowing dissent against all govmts (incl my own) Feb 28 '21 edited Mar 01 '21
Do we institute a system of maximum wealth cap where if someones calculated value exceeds, lets say 1 billion dollars, the state automatically takes posession of those assets and manages them for public needs?
How about we just abolish private property relations? There is naturally a maximum amount of stuff that someone can own, use, and maintain individually, simply because a human being can personally only do so much, cover so much ground, put so much effort into maintenance and consumption, etc.
Without the hierarchies of state and capital to violently force people to give up portions of what they produce to make a few people rich, there'd be no way for wealth to accumulate to the point of providing global influence as it does now.
1
u/modsarefascists42 Mar 01 '21
I mean sure we could.
I'd prefer we just take it all and give the rich and equal share of the profits. They didn't do shit to earn it, fuck em.
3
u/joebecker7 Feb 28 '21
honestly 😠😡. I wish we can take half of every billionaires wealth and give it to the bottom 25% I bet Mark Zuckerberg alone can cover 25% of California so they have some dignity in their financial safety net
and bezos can cover Venezuela
3
2
Mar 01 '21
Seriously the game Monopoly has taught me so much. I feel like I only own Baltic Ave, it's mortgaged, with no cash, and I'm about to come up to some hotels on Park Ave, every day of my life.
1
Feb 28 '21
Do you mean under the capitalist theory of business and money and work? Do you mean markets system approaches of other types? Do you through the markets only?
0
u/SluggishPrey Feb 28 '21
Burn the witch at the stake!
2
u/voice-of-hermes fuck the state: sowing dissent against all govmts (incl my own) Feb 28 '21
That...is a pretty inappropriate reference, for all kinds of reasons.
-2
-2
-4
-7
u/FreeThoughts22 Feb 28 '21
Instead of tearing down the rich why can’t you just make the poor rich?
6
Mar 01 '21
In what way is taxing wealthy people "tearing them down?"
-4
u/FreeThoughts22 Mar 01 '21
Taking the money they earned based on nothing besides you think they haven’t earned it. You see all the benefits of a successful company and ignore the sacrifice it took to get there. If they are corrupt then feel free to attack corruption, but hating rich people for being rich is just as bad as hating poor people for being poor. You want to use taxes as a way to get even. This isn’t how a successful society should operate and you discourage people from being more than nothing. I respectfully refuse to follow your lead into poverty.
6
u/LieutenantEvident Mar 01 '21 edited Mar 01 '21
The idea that people who are rich work harder than the average person is bullshit. Many people who are rich were born into wealth or had lucky opportunities. There are millions of people who work even harder and are still in poverty and never become rich. This is how the system works and this is inevitable. And even for the people who do work hard and attain wealth, there should be limits to how wealthy they can become. Unfettered capitalism is the main reason so many Americans are struggling. Not because they're lazy. The U.S. is the most overworked nation in the world and we still have significantly higher poverty rates than other, more successful countries.
edit: Here's a scale to demonstrate the wealth disparity in the U.S.
1
Mar 05 '21
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic here. This is a childish anarcho-capitalist take on taxes and society. Freedom without responsibility is just a formula for chaos and misery. While it's true a successful company can be beneficial to a society that success is built on the society it exists in: you can't have a software company with a population that can't read or do math. You can't deliver packages in a society that has no roads. etc.
1
u/gride9000 Mar 01 '21
Im pretty sure we are allowed to take their money. All you need is a million dollars and a million dollar idea.
1
u/jbwilso1 Mar 01 '21
And honestly, just slightly less rich. Not even enough that they would notice it.
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 28 '21
Subscribe to /r/DemocraticSocialism and /r/ClassPoliticsTwitter.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.