Could democratic socialism become the brand of a new generation of political actors — not just on the fringe, not just in New York City, but across the country?
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned collectively by the public rather than by private individuals.
Communism, as it has existed in practice, is a political and economic system in which a one-party state controls the means of production and directs the economy, with the stated goal of advancing the interests of society as a whole. In theory, however, communism was originally envisioned by as a stateless, classless society that would emerge after socialism.
Noticed that the definition of communism is more involved and longer than the definition of socialism that is of course by necessity as it’s more complicated than the other.
I’d also preemptively like to point out that not every communist government is a one-party system, nor is it predicated upon that. That’s just what it’s been historically in the majority.
Also nobody ever answers the question. What country would you like to live in that is socialist historically or today?
Would you classify democratic socialism and social democracy under the umbrella of socialism, or would you classify them differently? For the record, I am not a Stalinist, Leninist, or Maoist, if that clarifies matters.
Social democracy is a capitalist economic system supplemented by large and robust welfare programs and a heavily regulated private sector. Things like strong anti-monopoly laws, relatively small wage gaps between workers and executives, strong unions, and progressive taxation are all characteristic of social democracy.
Democratic socialism is similar in many respects, but its long-term goal is to eliminate capitalism entirely by transitioning the means of production to public ownership. That does not necessarily entail communism, since most democratic socialists advocate maintaining a democratic system of government rather than adopting a one-party state.
I do not classify social democracy as socialism because its economy remains fundamentally capitalist.
I do consider democratic socialism to be a form of socialism, though with many important caveats. It does not inherently require or inevitably lead to communism.
I am personally less supportive of democratic socialism because I have a deep distrust of both the human condition and the long-term viability of a fully publicly owned economy. Historically, I do not believe such systems have produced consistently successful outcomes.
So, I’ve answered all your questions because that’s what someone does when they’re asked a question.
I assume I’ve answered them adequately since you’ve seemingly run out of questions and have alluded to making a point about why you were asking them in the first place. Which is odd, because we’re in a comment thread. If I didn’t know the answer to one of your technical questions, I could simply look it up before replying. Trying to trip someone up with technical questions in an asynchronous comment thread doesn’t really accomplish much.
More importantly, I’ve answered every question you’ve asked without giving you anything to rebut, so there doesn’t seem to be much left to say.
Interestingly, though, nobody ever answers my questions.
So I’ll ask again:
Which communist country, past or present, would you choose to live in?
If you’re asking that question, your betraying your own ignorance. The definition of communism is classless and stateless, meaning there cannot be a commumist state.
By the way for the majority of human history humans lived in communes! It’s just human nature ;)
Technically, the single party state thing is intended to be a temporary thing. It’s meant to last only long enough until the whole stateless, classless thing comes to be.
People being people though… the people in charge start to enjoy the benefits of being in charge and tend to not want to keep going. Mao sure never missed a meal during that famine his regime caused.
It’s a critical weakness in the Marxist-Leninist ideology and why I can’t buy into it myself. I feel like any would-be “better way of doing things” has to take into account how people actually behave when exposed to and given power over others.
And you touched on a very interesting point that I rarely get to in discussions about socialism here on Lemmy: the human condition, the very nature of the human species. In my view, that’s what negates socialism as a viable option. It’s great on paper, and I even support it from a technical standpoint. It just doesn’t work because, to rehash an old slogan, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I think it’s an overall dramatically better way of running things than capitalism for what are hopefully obvious reasons. But I also think even “partial socialism” is still an improvement. Reform is maybe not ideal but it’s still better than what we have now. So long as you don’t stop pushing for and seeking out that better, brighter future for everyone.
Could you ship of theseus your way into socialism? Who knows? I’d be willing to try though.
Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned collectively by the public rather than by private individuals.
Communism, as it has existed in practice, is a political and economic system in which a one-party state controls the means of production and directs the economy, with the stated goal of advancing the interests of society as a whole. In theory, however, communism was originally envisioned by as a stateless, classless society that would emerge after socialism.
Noticed that the definition of communism is more involved and longer than the definition of socialism that is of course by necessity as it’s more complicated than the other.
I’d also preemptively like to point out that not every communist government is a one-party system, nor is it predicated upon that. That’s just what it’s been historically in the majority.
Also nobody ever answers the question. What country would you like to live in that is socialist historically or today?
Would you classify democratic socialism and social democracy under the umbrella of socialism, or would you classify them differently? For the record, I am not a Stalinist, Leninist, or Maoist, if that clarifies matters.
Social democracy is a capitalist economic system supplemented by large and robust welfare programs and a heavily regulated private sector. Things like strong anti-monopoly laws, relatively small wage gaps between workers and executives, strong unions, and progressive taxation are all characteristic of social democracy.
Democratic socialism is similar in many respects, but its long-term goal is to eliminate capitalism entirely by transitioning the means of production to public ownership. That does not necessarily entail communism, since most democratic socialists advocate maintaining a democratic system of government rather than adopting a one-party state.
I do not classify social democracy as socialism because its economy remains fundamentally capitalist.
I do consider democratic socialism to be a form of socialism, though with many important caveats. It does not inherently require or inevitably lead to communism.
I am personally less supportive of democratic socialism because I have a deep distrust of both the human condition and the long-term viability of a fully publicly owned economy. Historically, I do not believe such systems have produced consistently successful outcomes.
Would you consider any European country currently existing to fall under the category of Democratic Socialism?
So, I’ve answered all your questions because that’s what someone does when they’re asked a question.
I assume I’ve answered them adequately since you’ve seemingly run out of questions and have alluded to making a point about why you were asking them in the first place. Which is odd, because we’re in a comment thread. If I didn’t know the answer to one of your technical questions, I could simply look it up before replying. Trying to trip someone up with technical questions in an asynchronous comment thread doesn’t really accomplish much.
More importantly, I’ve answered every question you’ve asked without giving you anything to rebut, so there doesn’t seem to be much left to say.
Interestingly, though, nobody ever answers my questions.
So I’ll ask again:
Which communist country, past or present, would you choose to live in?
If you’re asking that question, your betraying your own ignorance. The definition of communism is classless and stateless, meaning there cannot be a commumist state.
By the way for the majority of human history humans lived in communes! It’s just human nature ;)
No. There are currently no countries in Europe that are democratically socialist officially.
Technically, the single party state thing is intended to be a temporary thing. It’s meant to last only long enough until the whole stateless, classless thing comes to be.
People being people though… the people in charge start to enjoy the benefits of being in charge and tend to not want to keep going. Mao sure never missed a meal during that famine his regime caused.
It’s a critical weakness in the Marxist-Leninist ideology and why I can’t buy into it myself. I feel like any would-be “better way of doing things” has to take into account how people actually behave when exposed to and given power over others.
And you touched on a very interesting point that I rarely get to in discussions about socialism here on Lemmy: the human condition, the very nature of the human species. In my view, that’s what negates socialism as a viable option. It’s great on paper, and I even support it from a technical standpoint. It just doesn’t work because, to rehash an old slogan, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I think it’s an overall dramatically better way of running things than capitalism for what are hopefully obvious reasons. But I also think even “partial socialism” is still an improvement. Reform is maybe not ideal but it’s still better than what we have now. So long as you don’t stop pushing for and seeking out that better, brighter future for everyone.
Could you ship of theseus your way into socialism? Who knows? I’d be willing to try though.