▲ 627 ▼ While you were worried about socialism… (thelemmy.club) submitted 1 day ago by GolfFoxtrotLima@sh.itjust.works to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world 40 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://lazysoci.al/post/15051084
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world -1 points 21 hours ago (1 child) It's ironic and people on this platform who support socialism don't know what it is and people who are against it apparently also don't know what it is. But I do applaud your use of buzzwords that you don't know the definition of. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 6 points 21 hours ago (1 child) people on this platform who support socialism don't know what it is Says the person who literally further down in this same thread left a comment implying that democratic socialism is the same thing as social democracy (it isn't) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mechoman444@lemmy.world -1 points 19 hours ago (1 child) I never said they're the same thing. There are fundamental nuances that I fully understand the comprehend. It's just that putting all that in a short disclaimer doesn't really fit. The point is that people are advocating for either one of those but not socialism as a whole. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 17 hours ago (1 child) You said this: Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. [...] You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism. Which seems to quite strongly indicate you're treating them as if they're the same concept. Also, your graphic is no good. It would be more accurate if Democratic Socialism was somewhere in between Social Democracy and what it labels (reductively) as merely "Socialism." Democratic Socialism is a type of Socialism. A person who believes in and advocates for Democratic Socialism is still a Socialist. You don't have to advocate for "socialism as a whole" to consider yourself a socialist. You might disagree with some types of socialism and agree with others, and you'd still be a socialist. Just because someone is advocating for Democratic Socialism as opposed to some sort of authoritarian/accelerationist/revolutionary socialism, does not mean they're not a socialist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago One of the great failings of the English language is the word “social” and the myriad of meanings it has, most of which are significantly different from one another. A socialist is much like an atheist. An atheist simply doesn't believe in God or gods. Likewise, a socialist, in the most basic sense, advocates for an economy in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned rather than privately owned by individuals or corporations. The surrounding philosophy is a separate matter. Atheism itself does not prescribe a particular philosophy, political system, or worldview, and socialism likewise does not, by itself, tell you everything about someone's broader political beliefs. That is why communism can go hand in hand with socialism in much the same way that secular humanism can go hand in hand with atheism. Neither is strictly predicated upon the other, but they can coexist because they address different aspects of one's worldview. AOC is a Democratic socialist. You can call her a Democrat or a socialist, but those labels indicate two different things. Neither one, by itself, communicates the whole picture. You can call a car an automobile, but “automobile” doesn't tell you whether it's a sedan, truck, or sports car. Likewise, calling AOC a socialist is not necessarily wrong, but it omits an important distinction: she is specifically a Democratic socialist. Again, the disclaimer and the graphic are intended to be quick references. They are not novellas, books, or even pamphlets explaining every aspect of the concepts they're describing. Although I will admit that I should probably revise the disclaimer somewhat to make that distinction clearer. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 6 points 21 hours ago (1 child) people on this platform who support socialism don't know what it is Says the person who literally further down in this same thread left a comment implying that democratic socialism is the same thing as social democracy (it isn't) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mechoman444@lemmy.world -1 points 19 hours ago (1 child) I never said they're the same thing. There are fundamental nuances that I fully understand the comprehend. It's just that putting all that in a short disclaimer doesn't really fit. The point is that people are advocating for either one of those but not socialism as a whole. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 17 hours ago (1 child) You said this: Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. [...] You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism. Which seems to quite strongly indicate you're treating them as if they're the same concept. Also, your graphic is no good. It would be more accurate if Democratic Socialism was somewhere in between Social Democracy and what it labels (reductively) as merely "Socialism." Democratic Socialism is a type of Socialism. A person who believes in and advocates for Democratic Socialism is still a Socialist. You don't have to advocate for "socialism as a whole" to consider yourself a socialist. You might disagree with some types of socialism and agree with others, and you'd still be a socialist. Just because someone is advocating for Democratic Socialism as opposed to some sort of authoritarian/accelerationist/revolutionary socialism, does not mean they're not a socialist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago One of the great failings of the English language is the word “social” and the myriad of meanings it has, most of which are significantly different from one another. A socialist is much like an atheist. An atheist simply doesn't believe in God or gods. Likewise, a socialist, in the most basic sense, advocates for an economy in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned rather than privately owned by individuals or corporations. The surrounding philosophy is a separate matter. Atheism itself does not prescribe a particular philosophy, political system, or worldview, and socialism likewise does not, by itself, tell you everything about someone's broader political beliefs. That is why communism can go hand in hand with socialism in much the same way that secular humanism can go hand in hand with atheism. Neither is strictly predicated upon the other, but they can coexist because they address different aspects of one's worldview. AOC is a Democratic socialist. You can call her a Democrat or a socialist, but those labels indicate two different things. Neither one, by itself, communicates the whole picture. You can call a car an automobile, but “automobile” doesn't tell you whether it's a sedan, truck, or sports car. Likewise, calling AOC a socialist is not necessarily wrong, but it omits an important distinction: she is specifically a Democratic socialist. Again, the disclaimer and the graphic are intended to be quick references. They are not novellas, books, or even pamphlets explaining every aspect of the concepts they're describing. Although I will admit that I should probably revise the disclaimer somewhat to make that distinction clearer. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world -1 points 19 hours ago (1 child) I never said they're the same thing. There are fundamental nuances that I fully understand the comprehend. It's just that putting all that in a short disclaimer doesn't really fit. The point is that people are advocating for either one of those but not socialism as a whole. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 17 hours ago (1 child) You said this: Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. [...] You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism. Which seems to quite strongly indicate you're treating them as if they're the same concept. Also, your graphic is no good. It would be more accurate if Democratic Socialism was somewhere in between Social Democracy and what it labels (reductively) as merely "Socialism." Democratic Socialism is a type of Socialism. A person who believes in and advocates for Democratic Socialism is still a Socialist. You don't have to advocate for "socialism as a whole" to consider yourself a socialist. You might disagree with some types of socialism and agree with others, and you'd still be a socialist. Just because someone is advocating for Democratic Socialism as opposed to some sort of authoritarian/accelerationist/revolutionary socialism, does not mean they're not a socialist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago One of the great failings of the English language is the word “social” and the myriad of meanings it has, most of which are significantly different from one another. A socialist is much like an atheist. An atheist simply doesn't believe in God or gods. Likewise, a socialist, in the most basic sense, advocates for an economy in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned rather than privately owned by individuals or corporations. The surrounding philosophy is a separate matter. Atheism itself does not prescribe a particular philosophy, political system, or worldview, and socialism likewise does not, by itself, tell you everything about someone's broader political beliefs. That is why communism can go hand in hand with socialism in much the same way that secular humanism can go hand in hand with atheism. Neither is strictly predicated upon the other, but they can coexist because they address different aspects of one's worldview. AOC is a Democratic socialist. You can call her a Democrat or a socialist, but those labels indicate two different things. Neither one, by itself, communicates the whole picture. You can call a car an automobile, but “automobile” doesn't tell you whether it's a sedan, truck, or sports car. Likewise, calling AOC a socialist is not necessarily wrong, but it omits an important distinction: she is specifically a Democratic socialist. Again, the disclaimer and the graphic are intended to be quick references. They are not novellas, books, or even pamphlets explaining every aspect of the concepts they're describing. Although I will admit that I should probably revise the disclaimer somewhat to make that distinction clearer. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 17 hours ago (1 child) You said this: Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. [...] You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism. Which seems to quite strongly indicate you're treating them as if they're the same concept. Also, your graphic is no good. It would be more accurate if Democratic Socialism was somewhere in between Social Democracy and what it labels (reductively) as merely "Socialism." Democratic Socialism is a type of Socialism. A person who believes in and advocates for Democratic Socialism is still a Socialist. You don't have to advocate for "socialism as a whole" to consider yourself a socialist. You might disagree with some types of socialism and agree with others, and you'd still be a socialist. Just because someone is advocating for Democratic Socialism as opposed to some sort of authoritarian/accelerationist/revolutionary socialism, does not mean they're not a socialist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago One of the great failings of the English language is the word “social” and the myriad of meanings it has, most of which are significantly different from one another. A socialist is much like an atheist. An atheist simply doesn't believe in God or gods. Likewise, a socialist, in the most basic sense, advocates for an economy in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned rather than privately owned by individuals or corporations. The surrounding philosophy is a separate matter. Atheism itself does not prescribe a particular philosophy, political system, or worldview, and socialism likewise does not, by itself, tell you everything about someone's broader political beliefs. That is why communism can go hand in hand with socialism in much the same way that secular humanism can go hand in hand with atheism. Neither is strictly predicated upon the other, but they can coexist because they address different aspects of one's worldview. AOC is a Democratic socialist. You can call her a Democrat or a socialist, but those labels indicate two different things. Neither one, by itself, communicates the whole picture. You can call a car an automobile, but “automobile” doesn't tell you whether it's a sedan, truck, or sports car. Likewise, calling AOC a socialist is not necessarily wrong, but it omits an important distinction: she is specifically a Democratic socialist. Again, the disclaimer and the graphic are intended to be quick references. They are not novellas, books, or even pamphlets explaining every aspect of the concepts they're describing. Although I will admit that I should probably revise the disclaimer somewhat to make that distinction clearer. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago One of the great failings of the English language is the word “social” and the myriad of meanings it has, most of which are significantly different from one another. A socialist is much like an atheist. An atheist simply doesn't believe in God or gods. Likewise, a socialist, in the most basic sense, advocates for an economy in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned rather than privately owned by individuals or corporations. The surrounding philosophy is a separate matter. Atheism itself does not prescribe a particular philosophy, political system, or worldview, and socialism likewise does not, by itself, tell you everything about someone's broader political beliefs. That is why communism can go hand in hand with socialism in much the same way that secular humanism can go hand in hand with atheism. Neither is strictly predicated upon the other, but they can coexist because they address different aspects of one's worldview. AOC is a Democratic socialist. You can call her a Democrat or a socialist, but those labels indicate two different things. Neither one, by itself, communicates the whole picture. You can call a car an automobile, but “automobile” doesn't tell you whether it's a sedan, truck, or sports car. Likewise, calling AOC a socialist is not necessarily wrong, but it omits an important distinction: she is specifically a Democratic socialist. Again, the disclaimer and the graphic are intended to be quick references. They are not novellas, books, or even pamphlets explaining every aspect of the concepts they're describing. Although I will admit that I should probably revise the disclaimer somewhat to make that distinction clearer. permalink fedilink source parent
