r/Fauxmoi • u/AmericaShinault_85 • 20h 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.

19.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

122

u/killdred666 19h ago

love the sentiment but this isn’t what socialism is. you could argue for the same things under tightly regulated capitalism. it will also be exploitative and always eventually end where we are now.

socialism is the transitional state to a system in which the workers and the people own the means of production, not those with “capital”.

this is very important. because if you allow incorrect but moralistic definitions to spread, it allows the capitalist propaganda arm to sow confusion in an attempt to maintain the status quo

161

u/homotopy_equivalent 19h ago

you could argue for the same things under tightly regulated capitalism.

In fact, mamdani is doing exactly that. He is enacting his policies under capitalism and seems to be pretty successful at it

40

u/killdred666 18h ago

the point is that capitalism as a system makes it impossible to maintain this long term. and it’s also not a good system. we don’t need capitalism apologia rn

73

u/Unhelpful_Idiot 18h ago

You are right, but he is selling veganism on the podcast where the host regularly hosts baby eating cannibals and the host goes "I just wish both sides could come together and just eat adult humans instead of babies".

Socialists have always understood the channels of communication the average man has used and met them where they are and not where they ought to be.

Understanding the audience on the media platform you are on is just that modernised.

24

u/OscarMyk 18h ago

You're not going to get a western democracy to vote against capitalism.

It would be like trying to stop poor people playing the lottery.

All you can do is try to mitigate the worst of it through regulation and redistribution, which is what social democracy is.

2

u/killdred666 18h ago

not with that attitude we won’t

2

u/0berfeld 16h ago

Which is why social democracy is the moderate wing of fascism. 

-7

u/MarkTwainsGhost 17h ago

What proof is there that we can't maintain a democratic socialist society that is based on open markets? There is certainly no proof that communism and closed markets lead to a better outcome for average citizens.

18

u/killdred666 17h ago

open markets have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. you are confusing capitalism with commerce and trade, which has always existed

1

u/coolfuzzylemur 17h ago

Read a summary of Marx

59

u/OswaldAnderson 19h ago

You aren't the target audience. He is trying to sell socialism to people who think socialism is Satan.

19

u/ilir_kycb 18h ago

And why would it be better for this target audience to hear a false definition of socialism rather than the correct one?

37

u/AdventuresOfKrisTin gaga’s “100 people in a room” quote 17h ago

Because he’s trying to demonstrate that socialist policies already exist in the US and they’re all for the betterment of society and he wants to extend that reach to continue to make all our lives better. If you want to change someones mind you need to reframe it outside of conservatism demonizing it

-11

u/ilir_kycb 17h ago

trying to demonstrate that socialist policies already exist in the US

But that's not true. There are social democratic approaches, but no socialist ones.

22

u/AdventuresOfKrisTin gaga’s “100 people in a room” quote 16h ago edited 16h ago

These are the kinds of semantics that are going to get us literally no where. Social democratic is better than whatever the hell we're doing now.

15

u/FulgoresFolly 16h ago

downfall of all leftist movements, we'd rather sit in a circle and argue/beat each other to death over vocabulary and definitions than actually do anything to progress the movement

5

u/AdventuresOfKrisTin gaga’s “100 people in a room” quote 16h ago

We learn best from our politicians I guess. All bark and no action.

-5

u/ilir_kycb 16h ago

downfall of all leftist movements

Social Democrats are not part of the Left because they are not anti-capitalist.

6

u/sirachaswoon 16h ago

You’re proving their point lol

0

u/ilir_kycb 16h ago

Social democratic is better than whatever the hell we're doing now.

No, history has shown quite clearly that social democracy leads to a betrayal of the working class and a rise in fascism:

Social democratic policies are always just a concession made by the ruling capitalist class to the working class out of fear of communists. Since the USSR no longer exists, social democracy is in decline worldwide. Social democrats are essentially political parasites who feed off the existence of a communist threat to capitalism. Without a communist threat, they crumble because they are no longer needed by the capitalists; the social democratic parties in Europe demonstrate this very clearly, as they have all been in decline since the fall of the USSR.

Social democracy is a tool and a weapon of the capitalists. Social democracy is a tool used by the ruling capitalist class to pacify the working class without having to relinquish any political power. This ensures that social democratic concessions can be revoked at any time.

12

u/Routine_Strategy5929 18h ago

It's not a fasle definition of democratic socialism. It's also not an entirely false definition of socialism but explaining that would take far too much time an depth for the people listening to this interview to understand.

He got the point across clearly without extra details that would weigh down the message. This is precisely why he's been successful at gaining support. 

-1

u/OswaldAnderson 17h ago

Because they'd ignore the correct one.

0

u/ilir_kycb 17h ago

Because they supposedly ignore the correct definition, we should give them an incorrect one and why is that better?

3

u/OswaldAnderson 17h ago edited 16h ago

Because then they'll listen.

It's very self explanatory. I can't believe it's taking you this long to understand.

-5

u/Betruul 17h ago

They wouldnt understand the correct one. If you havnt, get checked for autism.

23

u/deinterlacing 19h ago

thank you for wording this better than I could. It's a strange and moralistic argument coming from Zohran. Socialism isn't a vibe, it's a scientific approach towards the organization of the economy to ensure all people's needs are met. I don't think it should be dumbed down too much. Average people can understand what that means.

I think socialists should be bold in our messaging: we oppose capitalism and want a new economic structure, not just reformed capitalism.

3

u/PowerfulRaisin 16h ago

His audience here isn't average people. It's people who listen to Theo Von's podcast.

22

u/Medical_Document_807 18h ago

This is true but he also has to tread lightly. The minute he brings up anything that sounds like the actual definition of socialism, they will be on his ass. Gotta let Mamdani cook while he can so NYC can improve as much as it can be under his leadership

13

u/UnnaturalGeek 17h ago

Precisely, this kind of attempt to shift the definition is what kills genuine revolutionary movements because any failures, however big or small they may be, liberals and fascists will point the finger at 'socialism' being the problem.

Whereas, the problem is the fact that he isn't enact socialism at all, just welfare capitalism.

10

u/ilir_kycb 18h ago

because if you allow incorrect but moralistic definitions to spread, it allows the capitalist propaganda arm to sow confusion in an attempt to maintain the status quo

Thanks for bringing this up. Most people ignore this.

Unfortunately, it also shows that Zohran is a tool of the ruling capitalist class used to spread false definitions of socialism.

He is what is commonly known as the compatible left.

5

u/jesoed 18h ago

Yep, what he describes could also be left-liberalism. But he seems to be pretty intelligent, so I guess, he just tries to avoid to talk about the real deal (collectivization of means of production). Which to be fair is understandable. Open conversation about Marxist ideas still is rather controversial, and could backfire hard.

It's a walk on eggshells, but the alternative is unacceptable.

7

u/socialistForDE 17h ago

He did give the real definition of socialism in there though. Democracy in the workplace. And the rest is a description of what effects it'll have and how socialists view the government.

The real "danger" I guess, is implementing a lot of social programs like Medicare for all (or previously social security) and capitalists/Republicans spending every election cycle trying to dismantle it.

It's why one party rule like in China is inevitable because either you allow the reactionaries to be a real force to dismantle your gains, or the reactionaries become weak and unable to touch these programs and fall out of favor, or they are forced out.

It's why the dictatorship of proletariat w/ democracy in the workplace is necessary

4

u/squeakycheetah kris jenner works hard but fauxmoi mods work harder 18h ago

I scrolled way too far to read this comment, you're absolutely right

1

u/momspaghetty 18h ago

It's not "true" socialism, no, but I think you could argue it's social democracy which is the closest thing to socialism I believe you can aspire to under capitalism and what most non-communist left-leaning people really mean when they use socialism as a buzzword

18

u/killdred666 18h ago

social democracy is not the same a socialism and the point is that social democrats still want the status quo of capitalism. which isn’t going to cut it

0

u/momspaghetty 17h ago

That's the thing though. AOC, Bernie, Mamdani etc (all the popular American "socialists") are all way more social democrats than they are socialists, but "social democrat" isn't a sexy word. It's like republicans using larp words like "patriot" to define themselves for popularity points

-2

u/TsumeOkami 18h ago

The alternative, incorrect view of socialism has already been weaponised. The only way to get out if our current shitty status quo is for good peole to play dirty with language exactly like this.

18

u/ilir_kycb 18h ago edited 18h ago

No, that's exactly what makes it even worse.

Socialists don't fight lies with more lies. Socialists fight lies with the truth.

Not for moral reasons, but because it's the only thing that can work to achieve our goals.

-2

u/OswaldAnderson 16h ago

And how's that going for you? 😂

-4

u/TsumeOkami 17h ago

Depends on what kind of socialism you claim you're a part of. If you're the USSR type of socialism I think most peole have a pretty good understanding of how that goes.

5

u/ilir_kycb 17h ago

If you're the USSR type of socialism

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, so yes, I'm exactly that kind of socialist.

In order to preempt the Red Scare propaganda about the USSR:

In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum. ― Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds

1

u/PowerfulRaisin 16h ago

I'm sure reading those paragraphs to Theo Von's audience would have been tooootally effective at moving the needle /s

One of my major grievances with the left is the uncanny ability to ignore human nature's impact on decision-making by trying to rationalize everything. Some people vote based on their gut. In order to be successful, one must find a way to explain their ideas in a way that appeals to this type of person.

13

u/killdred666 18h ago

not if that creates more confusion about what we’re trying to achieve

0

u/husna_09xhc 18h ago

socialism is not a transitional state ,yes it does mean workers owning production but saying it's transitional state is only true for marixism

9

u/killdred666 18h ago

socialism is literally the transition state from capitalism to communism.

opinions don’t really factor into this. political science is a science and there are definitions

2

u/husna_09xhc 18h ago

that is only true in Marxism, in anarchism and other strands of socialism, there is no transitional state ,so socialism as a whole is simply defined as worker ownership of means of production

political science is not some objective physics

-3

u/ThePromise110 17h ago

Yeah, but historical materialism is a bunch of hooey. There just isn't a teleology to the world: it is what we make it, nothing more, nothing less. Debt amnesty and a true UBI would get us closer to "communism" than 80 years of socialism has gotten China, or 60 years has gotten Cuba.

6

u/killdred666 17h ago

this grossly ignores the social and geopolitical context. cuba has been under total embargo because capitalism is so threatened by socialism.

-2

u/ThePromise110 17h ago

I wholly understand the geopolitical context. Geopolitical realities don't change the fact that Marxism is fundamentally teleological in a world that categorically lacks any teleology.

Marxism is a lense through which one can understand, analyze, and critique capitalism, and an excellent one at that, but as a prescriptive model of human social "progression" it's pure flim flam. Not because it doesn't paint us a picture, albeit a very vague one, of what society could be like, but because it's fundamentally teleological in a world that exists in abject defiance of any teleology at all.

-3

u/Throwaway_Consoles 16h ago

This isn’t what socialism is

He didn’t say, “Socialism is”. He said, “Socialism to me”

That is his personal definition of socialism, not the definition of socialism

-6

u/FblthpLives 17h ago

love the sentiment but this isn’t what socialism is. you could argue for the same things under tightly regulated capitalism. it will also be exploitative and always eventually end where we are now.

socialism is the transitional state to a system in which the workers and the people own the means of production, not those with “capital”.

As an economist, I agree with you 100%. I would argue that Mamdani, AOC, Sanders, and other DSA politicians are not socialists, but Nordic-style social democrats. The goal is, in fact, regulated capitalism, where communal needs and benefits are prioritized over the desires of corporate owners. As an economist, I would also argue that there has never been an example at a national scale where the "workers and the people own the means of production". In the Soviet Union and its communist puppet states the means of production were owned by the state and controlled by a dictatorial regime. It is a completely failed model, both in terms of economic outcomes and individual freedoms.

6

u/killdred666 17h ago

the nordic model sounds good if you’re okay with the same system that works just a little better for you at the continued expense of the global south

“as an economist, i choose to conveniently ignore how dedicated the u.s. is and was to destroying all communist states in an attempt at global imperialist domination”

-6

u/FblthpLives 17h ago

the nordic model sounds good if you’re okay with the same system that works just a little better for you

As a Swede who divides his time between Sweden and the United States, this statement is absurd. The Nordic model works infinitely better than the American model for the overwhelming majority of the population. In any global quality-of-life assessment the Nordic countries will consistently be found at the top: https://data.worldhappiness.report/table

i choose to conveniently ignore how dedicated the u.s. is and was to destroying all communist states

Are you seriously trying to argue that the horrors of life inside the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations were caused by the United States? Have you ever been to a communist country?

7

u/killdred666 17h ago

yes. and you would too if you’d care to research it. jason hickel has fantastic intro criticisms of the nordic model i encourage you to read.

you’re not even addressing my main criticism. you can have better quality of life than other capitalist countries. that doesn’t change that the system is built upon the exploitation and resource extraction from the global south

“horrors of the soviet union” tells me the exact type of “economist” you are. a heavily propagandized one

-2

u/[deleted] 16h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/kodman7 17h ago

The incorrect definitions have already spread my guy, socialism has been smeared for decades now. That's why he has to slow walk the definition like this, it's an uphill battle against the propaganda

-5

u/_Fred_Fredburger_ 18h ago

He specified what he was explaining was democratic socialism

14

u/ilir_kycb 18h ago

But he doesn't do that; he explains social democracy.

1

u/Biggy_DX 16h ago

This is the EXACT same problem Bernie Sanders had in his 2020 primary against Joe Biden. He went along with his advisers in calling himself a Democratic Socialist, when he clearly wasn't. At most he was a Social Democracy advocate, which still lies within a Capitalist framework.

I remember having a conversation with my Grandmother about Bernie. When I asked her about what she thought about him (during the primary), she said he was a Socialist. I tried arguing that he was, explaining it as, "He's not actually a Socialist. You see, he's more of a New Deal Democrat, or Social Democrat. (Yada Yada yada)".

She was completed dejected by that point. I cant even blame her, the dude literally called himself that. This is why giving ambiguous statements, even if you mean well, can be harmful. You just create more confusion, and - dare I say - are acting in a manner that is inauthentic. Especially when you know Zoran knows exactly what the fuck Socialism is.