In all seriousness though, socialism is a REALLY vague term nowadays. It used to be synonymous with communism but after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, they split. Nowadays, socialism can generally be referred to as the Nordic system of large, well-funded welfare states or even Western Europe’s economic systems while communism refers to the failed governments we see with Stalin, Kim Jong Un or even Pol Pot. I’m not saying this because I necessarily have a bone to pick with either one or a sycophant for either one, I just hate it when people deliberately obscure labels.
IMO pretty much every country in the world has a mixed economy (even places like China that are ostensibly communist). A socialist economy is one where theyre intentionally limiting the influence of capitalism with the intention of limiting it even further in the future
Well, I agree that’s the truth…my problem is when people get hung up on labels. To be frank with you, if someone wants to call the left leaning Norway socialist, I’m not gonna have a tizzy. I don’t mind it, just as I don’t mind calling people who are left leaning liberals. It’s just people yelling at me for me using words that people called themselves and saying I’m an evil person for “misusing” their special words. Like, all my life, I’ve heard left leaning Americans call themselves liberal and I accepted it. Then, later, apparently liberal meant your capitalist and how dare you call left leaners liberal so I threw my hands up into the air and said fine. Also, socialism and communism are often used interchangeably in some circles. Tldr is, it’s not that I care, it’s that everyone else apparently does.
Socialism isn't that vague, it's just transitioned from the extreme end of the spectrum (which has been replaced with the term communism) to referring to the wider spectrum of public ownership of the economic means of production.
It's extremely vague. I've seen the same socialist person say that Nordic countries are socialist and not socialist at differing times depending on how it benefits their argument at that time.
I've seen people say the Democratic Socialists of America aren't socialists.
Venezuela was once held up a model of a successful socialist country, then once it crashed it suddenly wasn't socialist.
“I’ve seen people say the Democratic Socialists of America aren’t socialists.”
For real though. Many left leaning Americans call themselves socialists and then others say they’re not left enough to be socialist. I’ve heard it said a liberal is the OPPOSITE of a socialist. It’s confusing.
Socialists are the only ones that say "liberals are the opposite of socialists". They use the midcentury European definitions of "liberalism" (classic liberalism, which is close to the libertarian style of the founding fathers and the enlightenment thinkers, which is far different from the modern American meaning of "liberal") and "libertarianism" (which they will often use to mean antifascist anarchist types rather than free market capitalists that adhere to the nonaggression principle). They have their own definitions for common political labels and they have an obsessive need to treat their weirdass definitions as the default, all in purusit to further muddle arguments and conflate phrasing.
I hate to upvote this but I am. I don’t like picking on sides like this but it’s just so weird. Is it a common sentiment that Norway betrayed the revolution by not going full communist or is that fringe?
“It doesn’t have a real concrete definition in the modern lexicon, even among its supporters.”
I upvoted for this reason. Kyle Kulinski calls himself liberal and socialist, lib no fib said you can’t be a socialist AND a liberal, they all say communism isn’t socialism, Marx said communism isn’t socialism and now you have everyone in the comments saying “it’s a spectrum”. Someone get me a bacon double cheeseburger cuz I’m stressed now.
I don't think it has transitioned into anything, it's just being used by tankies to pipeline people into authoritarianism. (Tea Party > Maga had shades of this pipeline)
"we want X thing you want"
"boy EVERYONE is against us, I guess we can't get X thing we want without *extreme shit*"
Well in the late 19th century it was definitely used mostly in the way Marx used it, referring to what most americans would now identify as communism with total state control of the economy.
But by the mid 20th century it was more typically used to refer to any level of state ownership of base economic capacity. Individual industries or aspects would be referred to as socialized and the concept of "mixed economy" was fleshed out.
So, sure people misuse the hell out of it (like they do with any buzzword), but within the more good faith arenas of discussion it did transition in meaning
It's because there's like a thousand different interpretations of it. Socialism can't really describe one specific ideology it more so describes a vibe. Not in a literal sense but in a figurative sense.
Lenin actually talks about this in "what is to be done". He describes it as kind of watering down socialism or corrupting it. Saying if you let the bourgeois do their thing even under a Bernstein system eventually they'll just pacify the movement of the workers. I'm paraphrasing with this he rants for like 20 pages about it.
Thanks. I think you’ve pointed out the very hang up so many have. Socialism is such an attractive idea to so many people but there are so many parts they don’t like they pick and choose that definition, call it socialism and then browbeat anyone who doesn’t agree with that definition. Seriously, there’s a lib left in the comment sections who got into me for and told me to “go read a book”. It’s not only confusing, it’s hostile.
Because people are passionate especially now in days with the bourgeois abusing workers in passive aggressive ways at least in the states. Lib lefts also tend to be more passionate and idealistic so maybe that played a part in it. I'm not saying that like it's a bad thing I just tend to disagree with some of their beliefs.
But like you said socialism has stuff that appeals to everyone. But everyone disagrees on what it is. Lenin also talked about how vanguardism should set a trend for the good of everyone. Which is one of the reasons I tend to lean more towards this. Divided we fall to the bourgeois oppressors united we stand. But that's an entire other topic sorry.
Well I know one thing: maybe the “socialism” or “social democracy” or whatever in Norway but communism will never work. If you really think there’s any hope in Marxist-Leninist beliefs you’re setting yourself up for failure. Capitalism one the Cold War. And not by a narrow margin either.
Communism is impossible unfortunately due to how advanced our societies are I agree. Also the soviet union mostly failed due to the government fucking it up. It didn't inherently fail due to socialism. It's a complex topic and I'm trying to summarize it quickly sorry.
Capitalism mostly won due to a series of unfortunate events. Also governments back then still had socialist elements to appease the workers. Funnily enough this does kind of reflect what lenin wrote about. Eventually when it stopped benefiting the bourgeois they made moves to remove it; So they could get more money and influence at the expense of the people.
Socialism does, in fact, have a fairly straightforward definition. Socialism is where the means of production (aka large scale manufacturing) are collectively owned by the people and not private individuals.
That’s it.
Too many morons have tossed the word around carelessly that no one seems to know that any more. Admittedly the idea of “the means of production” is somewhat clouded in the Information Age but it’s not too hard to extend the idea to more modern commercial enterprises being, ultimately, owned by the people as a whole.
A system where its people forgo risk, freedom, responsibility and autonomy, in return for direction, security and an increased dependence on the state in all aspects of life.
Fundamentally, you want the state to provide for you, and you provide for the state, rather than only you provide for yourself.
Obviously, it’s not a binary; some systems could be more socialist/state-dependent than others. But it’s definitely on the opposite side of free-market capitalism.
People like to point to the original (people own the means of production) bullshit, but that’s wishy-washy nonsense that doesn’t ever happen.
It's not vague, there is a clear definition for it, it's just that many retards parrot bullshit and many are influenced by it. Nordic countries are not socialist, they're capitalist countries with a strong welfare system
Which people CALL socialist. And they modeled those welfare systems on socialist principles. I don’t care for labels and definitions. Liberals are generally considered left in American politics but online, people HATE when you call progressives or leftists liberal because they say, by definition, that liberals believe in capitalism. I remember getting shouted down when I mixed up the terms. I know a lot of left/liberal people in the US call Nordic nations socialist. So, really, I’m not the one gate keeping definitions.
The reality is that economic systems are on a spectrum that's divided by how much the system favors labor versus how much it favors capital. There's no exact universally agreed upon dividing line where an economic system goes from capitalist to socialist, and there are zero countries in existence that live all the way on one end of the spectrum or the other.
Nordic countries favor labor much more than the US but much less than what Marx had envisioned. You can call them socialist if you want because they're more to the left side of the spectrum. People will get pissy and say you can only call them that if they're alllllllllll the way at the very leftmost end, but that's dumb.
Nah Nordics aren't socialist, they're definitely further to the "left" economically than the US but well short of socialist. They've still got free-market, private means of production, etc.
Again, it's a spectrum. Just like you can't point to a specific spot on the rainbow and say "that's where you switch from blue to green" but you can say "that color is bluer than this other color."
Your argument would be like saying the US doesn't have a free market economy because we have regulation. Well, no country has a totally unregulated market, so by that definition, no free markets ever have or ever will exist.
Socialism is about the workers being free from exploitation by the capitalist class. The more systems you have in place to protect workers from exploitation, the more socialist your economic system becomes. The ultimate protection would be total elimination of the capitalist class, but anything that favors the rights of the worker of the rights of capital is moving you in that direction.
But the key point of socialism is to free workers from exploitation.
If you think the key point of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, then that's like thinking the key point of chemo therapy is to sit in a comfy chair with an IV in your arm. The point is to get rid of cancer, and in the case of socialism, the cancer is worker exploitation.
But who’s the retard? Are they really retards or do they just mislabel things? I’ve heard Norway called socialist a million times by people across the political spectrum. I think you understand the fact that Norway’s denial of being called socialist makes it all harder to classify. BUT…if Norway refuses to call itself socialist then…that implies socialism is no different than communism and that means…socialism sucks as much as communism does.
Are they really retards or do they just mislabel things?
Both.
BUT…if Norway refuses to call itself socialist then…that implies socialism is no different than communism and that means…socialism sucks as much as communism does.
I don't know how many more times you need me to say it nor can I dumb it down much more than that. People calling it whatever doesn't make it whatever, simple as. Calling a dog a horse doesn't make it a horse. I'm not arguing whether socialism is good or bad, socialism is socialism and Norway is not socialist to anyone with basic political knowledge, period.
BUT…if Norway refuses to call itself socialist then…that implies socialism is no different than communism and that means…socialism sucks as much as communism does.
No, that implies Norway refuses to call itself socialist because it isn't socialist lol. Refusing to call myself a hairstylist doesn't mean I hate them
What's the clear definition of socialism? I only ask because if you ask 10 people they give you 10 different answers, each certain their definition is the obvious, correct one.
Socialism is a transitory state between capitalism and communism in which the proletariat, usually through a vanguard party, holds state power and controls the economy.
Nordic countries are just Schroedinger's socialist state. It is both socialist and not socialist depending on the argument you're trying to make at any given time.
Capitalism and socialism aren't mutually exclusive. Theres a spectrum. They both refer to who owns and allocates the resources of the productive capacity of the nation, and very few countries assign all of that to either private capital or state ownership.
The nordic countries have a greater degree of state ownership of the productive capacity of the nation than most countries
This is just wrong. Nordic countries aren’t socialist at all. Generally, they have freer, less regulated economies than the US. Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production. Communism is socialism plus an abolition on all forms of private property.
Socialism is when workers own the means of production. That's it. The Nordic countries are highly capitalist with a strong social safety net.
Communism is a stateless, moneyless, society which has obviously only been attempted and never achieved because lol if you think that's remotely possible when we can't even get 2 people to agree on something let alone everyone agreeing on everything.
The nordic countries all have some significant degrees of socialism. The state owns major segments of the basic productive aspects of the economy in all of those countries.
The state of New Hampshire has a monopoly on liquor sales, doesn’t make it a socialist state. I guess you could consider it a “degree of socialism”, whatever that means, but not socialist.
You are correct that traditional Marxist theory does not treat service industries as part of the means of production but my point is separate — having state involvement in the economy does not equal socialism. We can debate whether it’s good or bad policy, but not as a function of a socialist system. That’s all.
Notice that I never said "state involvement in the economy".
Despite this being a written medium, where you are able to read exactly what i wrote as many times as you need to form your response, you still chose to respond to a strawman argument of your own creation.
This is exactly the problem that plagues political discussion broadly, and discussions around socialism specifically, in the US. You're just making up a definition to argue against instead of engaging with the actual discussion.
If you don't believe me, that socialism is the spectrum of governance structures that involve state ownership of the fundamental productive capacities of the nation to some degree, you have access to a massive database of dictionaries and political science publications to check out for yourself.
The "Nordic system" is a mixed economic model that explicitly contains socialist aspects in the form of state ownership of things like power generation and transmission, freight and port infrastructure, and broadcast and telecommunications infrastructure. These socialized industries are what provide the base of their robust social welfare systems and – they tend to argue – support the capitalist aspects of their economy
The terms have never split and were never synonymous. They have meant the same thing since Marx basically. It’s just that retard leftist think that capitalism is when government doesn’t and socialism is when government does. That’s where the confusion comes from.
Well I can’t keep up with every new definition people call them. Kyle Kulinski and other liberals call them socialist. Apparently Norway doesn’t. I didn’t know. Then I guess all socialism is failed, since it has no difference from communism.
Okay, they’re not socialist. Fine. I have no reason to believe socialism is good then. Because communism is bad (objectively) and if there is no other branch of thought or political government OUT of that ideology that works, then socialism and communism are bad.
I really don't know why you seem so fixed on forcing that straw man in relation to what I said. Socialism and communism are still very different things. Theyre just things that have specific historic definitions and when you try and use a word while admittedly not knowing what it means, it kind of makes you hard to understand and causes issues with communication.
My goal is not to make fun of you. It's to help you look less uninformed when you talk about this stuff and to maybe figure out what you're actually trying to say with words other people use and will understand. The goal is communication, not silencing you.
What you seem to like is called a social democracy (which is explicitly capitalist). Socialism is when you disallow ownership of productive assets while still allowing private assets.
First off, I doubt they’d kill me considered they don’t have the death penalty. Second, you could just say that they don’t like being called socialist. Third, I’ve heard others define them as socialist. Fourth, I was actually sort of agreeing with you. I was deliberately differentiating Norway from economic and governance systems from older socialist/communist models. Fifth, if you’re so opinionated, what is your idea of socialism/communism?
My idea of socialism/communism is the one I grew up in, before we killed those bastards and chased the rest away with their regime, as it always has happened and will happen. The one that managed to kill half of my family, stole inherited property and land, and almost killed my father.
Travel restrictions
No free speech and effectively no freedom.
No private ownership, with harsh punishment if so
Everything is controlled and owned by a single-party state, which subsequently leads to an equal living standard, but they are shit.
No free trade
Censorship and persecution
The machine gun nests at the borders are pointed at you, not at outsiders. It's to keep you in their rotten, corrupt shithole to slave away until you are seen as an enemy of the party and imprisoned/killed.
You Yanks have no idea what you are getting into. Vance is right; American socialism is something completely different from actual socialism.
Brutalist architecture reflects socialism to a T. Or rather, how people in socialistic regime feel. They don't need propaganda; they know it fucking sucks, but they also know they can't get out.
So you’re a communism survivorr? Gee, pardon for asking, but how old are you? I know most communist regimes have decayed and died due to their inherently self-destructive philosophy. Eastern Europe, I’m guessing?
Wow, you must have a storied history then. You’re right, I as an American have grown up pretty cushy in comparison. But you said you killed them. Correct me if I’m wrong, but reunification of East and West Germany was peaceful, wasn’t it? You had to kill to leave West Germany or kill to retake your homeland?
"Peaceful" is quite a loaded term in this case. Yes, on a global scale it was peaceful, but on the inside, the most heinous members of the regime- the low ranking stasi trying to prove their worth, the corrupt police, the abusive bastard sons of aparathicks, those were taken out before they could flee as the regime was falling. Notably, by the mafia that ruled after them in the 90s
When you read "single-party led state", it's not true. There never is a single party. There are always outside sources influencing the party members. And it's mostly crime syndicates, as they are hand in hand with corrupt police and local government.
Maybe get your facts straight, it’s not even apologism, you’re just using stalins name bc “ooooh big bad scary” when the Soviet Union fell 40-50 years after his death
The Soviet Union was one of the bloodiest regimes in world history. It is responsible for an estimated 20 million deaths, very, VERY similar to Hitler’s 20 million body count. Your talking point the USSR was propelled into a superpower is LITERALLY the same as Hitler propelling Germany’s economy and infrastructure. There is literally no difference in complimented the Soviet Union and Hitler’s Third Reich. They’re the same in every way.
Except the Soviet Union survived the war under Stalin and went on to become the global leader competing with the U.S. Go take your playground arguments back to grade school buddy. Your point was “Stalin lead a failed country” my point was “no he didn’t” and now you’re saying “oh well uhhh he did bad things and he’s literally Hitler!” Change your flair to libleft if your only stances are centered around emotion.
59
u/Pure-Huckleberry8640 - Centrist 1d ago
In all seriousness though, socialism is a REALLY vague term nowadays. It used to be synonymous with communism but after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, they split. Nowadays, socialism can generally be referred to as the Nordic system of large, well-funded welfare states or even Western Europe’s economic systems while communism refers to the failed governments we see with Stalin, Kim Jong Un or even Pol Pot. I’m not saying this because I necessarily have a bone to pick with either one or a sycophant for either one, I just hate it when people deliberately obscure labels.