▲ 1507 ▼ But "socialism" is a scary word (slrpnk.net) submitted 2 years ago by compostgoblin@slrpnk.net to c/memes@lemmy.ml 296 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 years ago (7 children) The US doesn't have any socialist policies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] EchoCT@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago* But when government has social programs it's socialism. It's in the name! I don't think this needs a /s, but the world doesn't fucking make any sense. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago permalink fedilink source parent [+] abfarid@startrek.website -8 points 2 years ago (4 children) Arguably, The US does have several socialist policies, albeit implemented very badly. For instance, public education. Does capitalism stick its grubby fingers into it from every possible angle? Yes. But at its core it has collective funding through taxes (therefore owned/controlled by the state), universal access, and the prioritization of public welfare over profit (at least on paper). Those principles are strictly socialist and not capitalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 years ago (3 children) Socialism does not mean controlled by the state, that is just a state service, which can be capitalist. Socialism, and I cannot stress this enough, is not when the government does stuff permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] abfarid@startrek.website -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Where did I say "government does stuff"? If a service is provided not for profit, funded by the community and is otherwise not privately owned, it's socialist. It needs to be for-profit and/or privately owned to be capitalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago No, this type of thinking is anti-dialectical. Capitalism is a system where private property and commodity production is primary, and socialism is a system where collective ownership and planning is primary. This does not mean systems are partially Socialist and partially Capitalist, but that property relations are not uniform in most systems. I think reading Marx would be helpful for you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 years ago This may help clear up much of where you are butting heads with MLs in your comments. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EchoCT@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago* But when government has social programs it's socialism. It's in the name! I don't think this needs a /s, but the world doesn't fucking make any sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] abfarid@startrek.website -8 points 2 years ago (4 children) Arguably, The US does have several socialist policies, albeit implemented very badly. For instance, public education. Does capitalism stick its grubby fingers into it from every possible angle? Yes. But at its core it has collective funding through taxes (therefore owned/controlled by the state), universal access, and the prioritization of public welfare over profit (at least on paper). Those principles are strictly socialist and not capitalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 years ago (3 children) Socialism does not mean controlled by the state, that is just a state service, which can be capitalist. Socialism, and I cannot stress this enough, is not when the government does stuff permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] abfarid@startrek.website -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Where did I say "government does stuff"? If a service is provided not for profit, funded by the community and is otherwise not privately owned, it's socialist. It needs to be for-profit and/or privately owned to be capitalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago No, this type of thinking is anti-dialectical. Capitalism is a system where private property and commodity production is primary, and socialism is a system where collective ownership and planning is primary. This does not mean systems are partially Socialist and partially Capitalist, but that property relations are not uniform in most systems. I think reading Marx would be helpful for you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 years ago This may help clear up much of where you are butting heads with MLs in your comments. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] theonlytruescotsman@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 years ago (3 children) Socialism does not mean controlled by the state, that is just a state service, which can be capitalist. Socialism, and I cannot stress this enough, is not when the government does stuff permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] abfarid@startrek.website -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Where did I say "government does stuff"? If a service is provided not for profit, funded by the community and is otherwise not privately owned, it's socialist. It needs to be for-profit and/or privately owned to be capitalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago No, this type of thinking is anti-dialectical. Capitalism is a system where private property and commodity production is primary, and socialism is a system where collective ownership and planning is primary. This does not mean systems are partially Socialist and partially Capitalist, but that property relations are not uniform in most systems. I think reading Marx would be helpful for you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 years ago This may help clear up much of where you are butting heads with MLs in your comments. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] abfarid@startrek.website -8 points 2 years ago (2 children) Where did I say "government does stuff"? If a service is provided not for profit, funded by the community and is otherwise not privately owned, it's socialist. It needs to be for-profit and/or privately owned to be capitalist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago No, this type of thinking is anti-dialectical. Capitalism is a system where private property and commodity production is primary, and socialism is a system where collective ownership and planning is primary. This does not mean systems are partially Socialist and partially Capitalist, but that property relations are not uniform in most systems. I think reading Marx would be helpful for you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 years ago This may help clear up much of where you are butting heads with MLs in your comments. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago No, this type of thinking is anti-dialectical. Capitalism is a system where private property and commodity production is primary, and socialism is a system where collective ownership and planning is primary. This does not mean systems are partially Socialist and partially Capitalist, but that property relations are not uniform in most systems. I think reading Marx would be helpful for you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 years ago This may help clear up much of where you are butting heads with MLs in your comments. permalink fedilink source parent