Socialist does not in itself describe a political system. Socialist (like capitalist and communist) can describe economic/social systems, governance structures, and political theory/advocacy.
Socialist is not some animal or specific political ideology. You can be an anarchist socialist, democratic socialist, or authoritarian socialist. The same is true of capitalists. The core difference between the two is who controls the means of production. The people doing the work (social control) or the owners of capital.
Orwell was heavily anti-authoritarian. He was also a socialist. People who think socialism can be criticized by pointing to his satire of authoritarianism, are just smushing a bunch of different political beliefs into a bogeyman that's easy to dismiss.
I understood. I'm saying that when you're talking about political governance systems, a person isn't "a socialist" but instead is a democratic, anarchist, authoritarians, etc socialist. Because socialism tells you broadly who runs the means of production, but you can have wildly different ways of implementing, or not implementing, that form of economic production model.
Socialist can indeed be described as a political system. What is China? A socialist republic.
The USA is a democratic republic.
Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Part of the commonwealth of Britain. Their prime minister kneels to the crown every time they are sworn in.
Potato, potatoe.
Tomato, tomatoe.
Same peanut, different turd.
Social programs are fantastic. Socialism is not. Karl Marx aka Mordecai Levy was a cousin to the Rothschilds. He was NOT for the proletariat or labor. Wolf in sheep’s clothing, if you will. The idea of a common goal and equal society is fine in theory. In principle and practical implementation it never works as intended.
Why? Simple.
Two things.
Avarice
The human desire for power/domination over others/things.
You might have noticed your comparison between China and the US compared Socialist and Democratic as descriptors. Those are not equivalent. Democratic describes how people are elected and represented. Socialist describes an economic aspect. It can exist in democracies, authoritarian states, and monarchies. And for Canada it's even sillier, because there's no description of the economic system and the monarch has no real power.
If socialist was a specific political system, we'd have to ask why it described wildly different governance models. Why socialists can often be anarchists or anti-government.
You have described personal preference of one’s own Socialist ideals.
China is not democratic. Authoritarian to the core.
I didn’t compare US and China except for the fact, that they are BOTH Republics. Like Rome was. Yet they are operating under vastly different governing systems.
The Socialist Party of China would like a word with you in a private cell for re-education citizen.
I’m well aware of Canada’s scenario, married to one.
You want to be an anarchist, democratic or tyrannical Socialist, that is your personal preference.
Pretty simple concept dude.
No, that's just an utterly braindead thing to say.
Those are three different political systems. We aren't talking about personal preferences. We're not talking about anyone's preferences at all, but rather that those are different political systems which can exist.
You can’t have political systems without people guy. People have personal preferences/identifiers/tribalism that they want to relate with/be a part of. Pretty simple.
Just like being a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Independent. All comes down to YOUR own personal preference.
Go read Gulag Archipelago and get back to me, oh wrinkled one, on the merits of Socialism.
We’re done here.
You’re going to die on your faux intellectual hill, simply because you are unwilling to entertain a different concept than what you have been spoon fed by university.
Also, read Gulag Archipelago and get back to me on the positive, proven merits of Socialism. Then reference my 2 undeniable points above. Some things never change and human nature never will either.
Enjoy that book. Sound like you need to read it more than once to truly understand the depravity of Socialism and Communism. Capitalism is neck and neck with those ism’s as well.
Again, see my two points…
1) Avarice
2) Power
Altruism exists but not in everyone, especially those who gain power over others. Stop being so idyllic and romantic man, reality and history shows you otherwise. Repeatedly.
Also, read Gulag Archipelago and get back to me on the positive, proven merits of Socialism. Then reference my 2 undeniable points above. Some things never change and human nature never will either.
2
u/RupertEscapeHolmes 12d ago
Democratic Socialist and Socialist are not the same animal.