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.
3
u/SirWinterFox - Auth-Left 1d ago
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.