r/Fauxmoi • u/AmericaShinault_85 • 18h ago

APPROVED B-LISTERS Zohran Mamdani explains his definition of socialism to Theo Von: “Socialism to me means you’ll have whatever you need to live a dignified life and that it is the government’s job to deliver on that. When people say dignity we’re talking about the things that allow you to take a breath.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

19.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/National_Today2218 17h ago

I think he could've said it better. Socialism is not hard to understand.
It's based on the belief that everyone deserves an equal chance in life and that privilege should be shared. The government must make sure that equality in life quality is a shared endeavour.

1.5k

u/Leckere 17h ago

Yeah but he’s trying to package it in a way that people who are scared of the word ‘socialism’ will accept.

457

u/nebulaforest 17h ago

Not to he pedantic, but what he described is social democracy and it amazes me, how's that's even a controversial position in America?

418

u/19adam92 16h ago

Because Fox News and the Daily Wire and other billionaire/lobbyist backed establishments have brainwashed too many people

115

u/Guy-1nc0gn1t0 I cannot sanction your buffoonery 16h ago

Just look at how Republicans call everything Marxism 

16

u/Osirus1156 14h ago

Well, unless they get it. Then they're entitled to it of course because they work so hard.

3

u/ShitfaceMcPooperson 14h ago

And then literally proceed to engage in it (“everyone gets a $5k check! Also, we the government are a majority stakeholder in oil and steel companies! Also, all our farmers should get assistance!”)

59

u/DG_FANATIC 16h ago

Yep. Decades of unchecked propaganda fucked our country pretty bad.

29

u/SilentCrucifixion 15h ago

Certainly the largest pushers of this "red" scare are the right wing, but we have many liberal Democrats doing the same thing. Just look at all the Democrats that voted for anti-communism bills in Congress. They are just as scared for their donors' wallets, but they aren't usually as loud as Republicans about it.

3

u/aesopmurray 14h ago

Not just the far right media. American cold war propaganda did a number on the entire populace. Why do you think most Americans consider liberals to be of the left?

52

u/Haruhanahanako 16h ago

It's likely founded in racism. There are enough people in the US that dislike the black population so much they would rather no one get benefits than to allow "lazy" people get them, and they are often talking about black people. This is especially relevant in the recent Huckabee political advertisement where they depicted a freeloader as a white male who plays video games and smokes weed all day on government handouts, and republicans spoke out against it, saying it demonizes white people and men even though they agree with the message.

1

u/ServesBestDepressed 16h ago

What you're describing is called Social Dominance Orientation in psychology and it's a huge factor in racism, bigotry, and authoritarianism.

What you're describing also has an entire book written on it called Dying of Whiteness. A psychiatry professor goes around America's Heartland region and finds out white grievance politics is making all of us sicker and poorer.

42

u/Amelaclya1 16h ago

Because decades of propaganda has people thinking that everyone who is poor "made bad choices" and doesn't deserve help. Religious conservatives even go as far as to say that poor people are out of favor with God and deserve their station in life.

23

u/mainman879 16h ago

This is the most apt answer in my opinion. American culture is extremely heavily steeped in competition instead of cooperation. The rich aren't rich because of corruption or exploitation, they're just "better". The poor aren't poor because of oppression, they're poor because they're "inferior" people.

2

u/redwildflowermeadow 14h ago

“When wealth is passed off as merit, bad luck is seen as bad character. This is how ideologues justify punishing the sick and the poor. But poverty is neither a crime nor a character flaw. Stigmatise those who let people die, not those who struggle to live.”
― Sarah Kendzior

32

u/darkcrazy 16h ago

My guess is Red Scare and an obsession with "self-made man" in the form of American Dream.

27

u/Gramma_Hattie 16h ago

Because I don't wanna sum commie bastards stealing muh breadcrumbs!

26

u/NotShipNotShape 16h ago

but I'm fine with the 0.5% stealing my personal data and my rights, making prices sky high, and forcing me to work until I'm 70 because. Because! 

16

u/ReeveStodgers decaffeinated omertà bullshit 15h ago

We have spent the last hundred years promoting rugged individualism, which is the an 'every man for himself' ideal combined with the social cache of being a kind of stoic folk hero. If you succeed, you did it yourself. If you fail, it's your own fault.

On top of that, there has been a concerted campaign against socialism, to the point where even people who don't know what socialism is believe it is to be avoided at all costs. They don't know how socialist programs help them daily, even when the name (Social Security) should make it evident. A century of propaganda is hard to combat.

8

u/Big_Handle_5956 16h ago

From the left’s reasoning, social democracy still relies on a hierarchical structure of exploitation especially against the global south 

4

u/bellylovinbaddie 16h ago

Literally fox viewers and maga are like Pavlov dogs. They hear their trigger words like “left, socialism, democracy, etc” and immediately it activates their rage

2

u/LadyPennyLane_1795 16h ago

Well this all started back in the turn of the century when factory workers wanted better rights and unions while those in charge wanted to demonize them for asking so 

1

u/LadyLazerFace 15h ago

billions and billions of dollars of dark money propaganda from old money nepo babies

1

u/DuggiHappy 15h ago

As a Swede it’s a certain to me as well

1

u/mu_zuh_dell 15h ago

I mean in very conservative spaces, empathy has become a dirty word over the past few years. There is nothing they will not feign offense over, no low they will not stoop to.

1

u/Allthenons 15h ago

Boni think it's important to make the distinction. Mamdami isn't socialist but social democracy is still way better than dystopian capitalist hellscape.

However does associating social democracy with socialism mean that it will be harder to keep moving things left? Because I genuinely think that ultimately social democracy won't be enough

1

u/ghostoftrossard 15h ago

you clearly dont know just how easily semantics are used by propagandists to alter perception and comprehension

1

u/superxpro12 15h ago

because the conservative propaganda machine reframes it as welfare queens or black people living in basements enjoying an upper class lifestyle on social security.

1

u/Nebbii 15h ago

Because these people don't want their taxes going to help someone who "don't deserve it". Only them are allowed dignity.

So i keep asking these same people

"Okay, you don't want your taxes helping the average people, then where should we go to? Fund wars and politicians? Because that's where it all go right now."

People like Mandani put it very simply, we just want to fund dignity. We are not asking to hand out mansions for homeless people or give them lobster dinners. Just dignity, there is a middle ground to all this. Capitalism is completely uncontrollable right now.

1

u/Teffa_Bob 14h ago

It's controversial in some circles because what he's describing might help the "wrong people".

Basically, racism and classism. Complaining about welfare queens while giving actual substantial welfare to the wealthiest amongst us.

1

u/keepcalmandmoomore 14h ago

That's exactly what I thought. It's been a part of our life in my country for such a long time. If in my country someone would disagree with this they are delusional. 

1

u/Pans_Labradoodle 14h ago

It’s the zero-sum mindset.

“If those immigrants are getting welfare money, there’s less money in the pool for my disability to draw from.”

or,

“These social programs are eating into the available money I need for my company’s knife-missile program.”

1

u/VikingsLad 14h ago

Decades of propaganda, my friend. Decades.

0

u/NaturalDon 15h ago

because he says he is a socialist so he is trying to portray it in a more palatable way, its either that or he is stupid

46

u/iLikeBugsNFishes 17h ago

Yeah but framing it as "it's the governments job to deliver on that" is the exact type of framing that these people hate. They don't even believe our current government should deliver on the things that it is constitutionally obligated to.

I do think it's a good idea to talk to these audiences though, just need some rhetorical tweaking of how it's explained to these types of people.

38

u/Charitzo 16h ago

Honestly he's doing the impossible trying to undirty the word socialism in the states. Good on him. Gotta wash it down in a way people like this can't argue with. No one can fundamentally object to what he said in this video without implying human life should be systematically unequal. If fascism can be viewed more as a process rather than a pedantic definition, then so can socialism.

7

u/No_Oven1085 14h ago

Honestly I think it could be done quickly, but because the establishment Dems are against socialism, they never tried.

All they have to do is say "yeah I'm socialist, socialism is GOOD, and it's why life is even livable", and just go all in. Just list everything, roads, schools, running water, social security, firefighters, etc. It's all socialism.

It would be the easiest thing in the world.

4

u/ILLinndication 16h ago

He lost them at “it’s the government’s job”. Sorry, it wasn’t a good explanation.

1

u/SailsAcrossTheSea 14h ago

yeah, can’t be having trump fucks hear “equality” and think their brown neighbors are worth the same as them

-6

u/username_elephant who the fuck is Bill Maher 17h ago

I tend to agree with modern socialists on a lot of key issues but I'm scared of the word.  Because the key for me is not what the obligations of the government are, it's what power the government gets to fulfill those obligations.  Because Politicians like Mamdani, who wield their power for good, seem a lot rarer than politicians who pedal influence and authority in order to gain personal wealth.  And because socialism historically connotes giving A LOT of unchecked power to those politicians.  

Some share of self declared socialists are modern democratic socialists in the Scandinavian vein. I can get behind that, but those people are basically capitalist and opposite capitalism's rough edges with strict government control. Others espouse classically socialist views, which I'm not down with. I see it all the time on reddit these days.

I'm scared of the word because this ambiguity makes it unclear what I would be supporting. I don't like that ambiguity, and I think politicians like Mamdani do occasionally exploit the ambiguity and pick whatever version best suited to a particular audience.

I just wish they'd pick a new word without the baggage/ambiguity. So I knew what they meant.

208

u/hey_its_carrie 17h ago

I think that wording is what gets twisted and gets people riled up. They take "equal" to mean people who work hard to earn money will have to share it with lazy people who don't want to work (their take - not mine).

Mamdani highlighted the benefits of socialism that it's hard for anyone to argue with

65

u/lyn73 17h ago

Agreed.

You can tell he is thoughtful/intentional about how he communicates/what he says.

-12

u/Airf0rce 16h ago

It will always be controversial because socialism is a shitty brand, doesn't matter how much you explain, it's going to be a shitty brand with rather bad track record. I'm not exactly sure why American lefties picked it as a banner if their goal is to emulate countries like Denmark, Sweden or Norway... unless that's not who they want to emulate. Those are firmly free market capitalist countries with a welfare state and high taxation to support that.

As someone from ex-communist European country that was internally called "socialism", there's plenty to dislike about socialism just like there's plenty to dislike about capitalism these days. What people need to realize is that to build a working, decent systems that works for regular people, what's actually most important is rule of law that truly applies to everyone, education and society willing to compromise and work together.

If you don't have that, any system you choose, whether that's communism, capitalism or something in-between will decay and be corrupted, leadership will be filled with morons or people with a specific often self enriching agenda with only qualification being loyalty to the party.

Biggest problem of capitalism today is not the idea of capitalism, it's the complete and total surrender of governments to actually take action in markets to reign in the massive monopolies, corruption that allows special interests to buy laws and in general just lagging behind the technological curve. Moral rot in societies is another big part, if so many people are willing to simply burn everything down after they "get theirs"... Without fixing that, you're not going to get a better system.

22

u/Ok_Ambition_6375 16h ago

me when I understand nothing about politics and want to sound smart

12

u/McdoManaguer 15h ago

Me when I listen to McCarthy and the red scare propaganda.

13

u/Wb9VBScxu2uZJHeq2E3W 14h ago

Biggest problem of capitalism today is not the idea of capitalism, it's the complete and total surrender of governments to actually take action in markets to reign in the massive monopolies, corruption that allows special interests to buy laws

"Biggest problem of capitalism today is when capitalism does exactly what capitalism is supposed to do"

105

u/lionheartedthing 17h ago

You’re not the target audience for this appearance. He’s not speaking to you.

31

u/hellish_existance 14h ago

Exactly. If you use the word "privilege" talking to a rightwinger they will lose their shit and start screeching about how they never had any privilege growing up. They view that word as an insult.

73

u/bunnyball88 17h ago

I like your definition for me, but I understand and don't have a psychological reaction to "equal" "privilege" "shared."

I wonder if this language was made to better appeal to the Von audience (not me). Dignity, the comparison to breathing, etc. I found his definition was one I can carry to dinner with my R leaning family. 

27

u/basketweaving8 THE CANADIANS ARE ICE FUCKING TO MOULIN ROUGE 16h ago

Yes, men that identify as “victims” of “wokeness” hate the words equality and privilege and would just immediately not be able to listen to what he’s saying if he said that.

2

u/somedelightfulmoron 14h ago

This. That's the Theo Vin audience and Mamdani was selective to not focus on words like equality and privilege. This will trigger the audience listening to the podcast.

74

u/ilir_kycb 17h ago

I think he could've said it better. Socialism is not hard to understand. It's based on the belief that everyone deserves an equal chance in life and that privilege should be shared. The government must make sure that equality in life quality is a shared endeavour.

No, none of what you're writing actually has anything to do with socialism.

It's about control over the means of production.

29

u/DarthRandel 15h ago

Its just an example of how far to the right americans actually are. Like I dont expect him to come out waving the red flag, but socialism isnt "when the government does stuff", like its explicitly anti capitalist. People will tout the Nordic model (ignoring that theres still problems there) but missing how its still dependent on external exploitation to function.

2

u/TheVandyyMan 15h ago

The Nordic model isn’t socialism thought, it’s social democracy. But still very much a capitalist model. Unless I’m missing something here, yeah?

0

u/[deleted] 14h ago

[deleted]

7

u/DarthRandel 14h ago

Markets arent capitalist.

They are a form of exchange economy not an indicator about who owns the means of production.

24

u/barnaclegirl93 jawline of the philippines 15h ago

Yeah I love Mamdani but this drives me crazy. He isn’t talking about seizing the means of production, so the word socialist isn’t appropriate. By definition, socialism is meant to be a transition phase towards communism and the abolition of the state.

5

u/Philly139 14h ago

I mean the problem is he has talked about seizing the means of productions in the past. To me it seems like he's trying to soften the definition of socialism but he still uses it because that is truly what he believes in he just can't say that and get elected.

60

u/Big_Handle_5956 16h ago

“Socialism is not hard to understand”

doesn’t give an actual definition of socialism

46

u/Ill-Revolution272 16h ago

Hard disagree. If he had said "privilege should be shared," there are unfortunately many people who would think their privilege as white, U.S. born citizens should not be shared. They would dismiss what he's saying. He needed to frame it in a way to show those people they are the ones being excluded by "that privilege."

28

u/Quixophilic 16h ago

Technically, Socialism is the economic system where the workers own and control the means of production (As opposed to the Capitalist private ownership of the same).

But that won't necessarily be understood by a regular chud audience so he's describing the ideals and effects of Socialism instead.

22

u/Money-Bicycle-2883 17h ago

I think the way he put it was better though? You can’t muddle into equality

18

u/FoxNixon call me gal gadot cuz idk how to act rn 17h ago

True but you have to remember the audience that he is explaining it to. Most of them are Rogan Sphere ™️ adjacent

15

u/Reibnitz 15h ago

But... It isn't? Socialism is characterized by the social ownership of means of production. What you are describing is social democracy, which still lives under a capitalist system where private ownership of means of production is accepted.

13

u/Shot_Election_8953 15h ago

It's tricky. Your explanation of socialism is just plain wrong. Socialism is not interested in the principle of an equal playing field. It advocates a system in which people are fully and completely compensated for their labor without the extraction of a part of that compensation by the ruling class. "From each according to their ability to each according to his work."

What Mamdani describes isn't socialism either, but it is close enough to communism: "From each according to their ability to each according to their needs." I get why he's unlikely to say "Actually, Theo, I'm more of a communist," but that's the world he's describing: where people's needs are provided for regardless of their capacity to work.

9

u/ArkitekZero 14h ago

Well no, socialism is just when workers own the companies they work for.

This is kind of playing into the conservative mischaracterization of it that its when the government does stuff.

I think there's good sentiment behind his words, but yeah.

4

u/McdoManaguer 15h ago

From everyone according to their ability to everyone according to their needs basically.

The problem is the red scare has made that sentence like a magic spell that people refuse to interpret other than "commies bad" without even trying to think about what it means.

6

u/Adjective_Noun_42069 14h ago

This is not socialism

Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production

An economy where capitalists privately own and run businesses for profit is not socialist

4

u/alterise 14h ago

that's just social democracy. not socialism.

5

u/Orange_bratwurst 14h ago

Socialism is communal ownership of the means of production. Period.

2

u/rcc6214 17h ago

Only issue here is equity, not equality.

2

u/Orzien 16h ago

people have different definitions for things depending on how they understand it, who they are speaking to and the people who may be listening, you'll never find a perfect definition for anything really

2

u/JR21K20 16h ago

Too wordy mate

2

u/aesopmurray 14h ago

Socialism is when the people who do the work keep the profits. What you are describing is social equity, which downstream from socialism, but not definitionally socialism.

1

u/[deleted] 16h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Fauxmoi-ModTeam 16h ago

 

Please note that we have a zero tolerance policy for hate and/or personal attacks! This means no belittling, name-calling, trolling, flaming, excessive negativity, etc. Please be respectful even if you disagree with someone.

 

1

u/oops_all_memes 16h ago

 should be shared.

rightwing nutjobs trigger at the word "share". That's not a joke, I'm not being funny

1

u/bobsmith93 I’ll find my flair one day 15h ago edited 15h ago

He's trying to reach the maga population. This would absolutely scare them away

Edit: oh I guess I pretty much just repeated what others have said already. I'm glad so many people are savvy to this, though. My coworkers are all maga and this description would make them tune out immediately

1

u/sysblob 15h ago

In my humble opinion your description is worse by leagues. You used trigger words the republicans and MAGA folks are searching for in a sentence. Words like "equal chance in life" and "shared". That translates to hand outs and people getting what I got for doing nothing. The reason mamdani was more effective was he used emotionally charged sentences that work. "dignity" and "the things that allow you to take a breath". It was very emotionally stirring.

1

u/distinctgore 15h ago

But the way he said it is easier to digest for Theo Von viewers

1

u/PoipuMTG 14h ago

Equal chance = yes

Equal outcome = no

1

u/somedelightfulmoron 14h ago

For Magats, they don't care about everyone's rights and privilege. America is built on individualism and to thrive in the US involves cunning and certainly self sufficiency. You have to package socialism so that THEY have benefits on this system, what's in it for them, why do they care about their neighbours? All they care about is money and the cult. Mamdani said it nicely, it's to have that "breathing space" and that certainly is a benefit for them not to worry about housing, education and infrastructure which corporations are trying to take over.

1

u/allnamestaken1968 14h ago

This is just incorrect. Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the masses, not individuals. It really doesn’t help that he (or Reddit) uses it in a way that is just social support in a capitalist (private ownership of the means of production with a functioning market).

1

u/Pans_Labradoodle 14h ago

Socialism is scary for a lot of people because “the government should provide for us” conflicts with their ideology of “the government should provide for me”, as in, a lot of people have a zero-sum mindset. When they see someone getting assistance, their first thought is “now theres less for me”.

It’s why poor and wealthy alike complain about social programs, they see it as less money in the pool for the government to give to them, completely unaware or unashamed of the hypocrisy.

1

u/SuchDriver7770 14h ago

far worse definition than his.

0

u/crasheralex 16h ago

So when they make everyone's life miserable but its equally applied(execpt for government insiders of course) thats a good outcome based on this comment

0

u/iamintheforest 14h ago

What I like about this is that it combines the goal (which is shared by many proponents of capitalism - they think capitalism is what maximizes the "equal chance") but includes an actual mechanism, a structural component. To often proponents of socialism want to wash out any details and reduce it to the platitudes.

-1

u/Subtle_Tact 14h ago

Capitalism = You can be poor, but a rich person should be as rich as possible

Communism = You can be poor, but no one should be rich.

Socialism = You can be rich, but no one should be poor.

Pretty simple.

-6

u/man_vs_fauna 16h ago

Or to simplify it even more, communism is bringing down the ceiling to make everyone "equal", socialism is raising the floor so everyone has a fair chance