In my view, it's not that socialism with a lowercase s as defined by worker ownership of the means of production has gotten way more popular, it's that "Socialist" has shifted to mean New Deal Democrat as the Democratic party has shifted towards being the party of business interests.
If you look at what Mamdani, arguably the face of American Socialism, is doing in NYC, it's basically deciding to hold businesses accountable for breaking laws and noticing where markets have failed to provide core needs in the city.
That is a perfectly workable definition of socialism. Literally textbook. I would expect any red-blooded Leftist to agree with the statement "The means of production belong in the hands of the proletariat", or they're just fucking posers.
Please, Mister or Missues Vanguard of Leftist Vocabulary, enlighten us on what "Socialism" really means.
I think you fell for the typical right wing propaganda trope where socialism=marxism=communism. You presented the textbook definition of that propaganda and of communism.
This is the “propaganda” sponsored by most leftists, though?
Except not equality - stepping stones. Socialism is supposed to lead to communism, per Marx. That’s not a right wing take, unless you consider Karl Marx a conservative.
Communists call leftists "reformists", that think you can reform capitalism into a stable state (like i do). If you rest there, you are not a communist but a socialist, so its not a stepping stone.
I mean, those of us with Marxian biases define it that way -- not right wingers -- and see "social democrats" in the 21st century as being the people who successively turned the term to mean instead anything-where-government-does-stuff. That's effectively what it came to mean in the US.
Notably, the definition given by Marx and other 19th century socialists (worker controlled production) is doesn't even have to involve government or the state at all. It just came to mean that once proximity to power came into play. The "soviet" word merely meant local worker councils, not a state form, for example. But once the Bolsheviks took state power, the power of the actual soviets was successively demolished in favour of a centralized one party state.
So, notably: Self-called "Marxist-Leninists" in the USSR, and Social Democrats (or "democratic socialists" in the US), and Right-wingers all far prefer the term to mean "government controls things." The latter because they can then point fingers and call things authoritarian (but somehow exempt corporate power from critique).
But it is not at all clear that 19th century socialists .. from Proudhon through Marx etc -- who coined the term -- meant this at all.
Also this hard line between "communism" and "socialism" is fictitious and very schematic. All communists call themselves socialists, and almost none of them agree on what that means.
Social democrats trying desperately to sound respectable clearly want a nice hard line there. But they also have no intention of bringing about socialism.
These are overloaded terms at this point which is part of the reason so few actually comprehend.
Even Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism can mean different things depending on the context and interpretation which is another part of the collective confusion.
If we had clear definitions, it *might* irradicate the confusion, but I don't see that happening in the forseeable future.
There's too much at stake for every involved party to clear things up.
> These are overloaded terms at this point which is part of the reason so few actually comprehend.
this is perhaps the smallest of all possible reasons that "few actually comprehend" :) yes, the left is good at eating itself, but that self-destruction is not without a lot of external assistance!
Cooperatives are a capitalist mimicry of communism but not quite identical, but thats irrelevant.
Socialism is a broad collection of ideas around wealth distribution with alot of degrees of freedom, which leaves enough room to confuse ot with communism, i guess.
Cooperatives have nothing to do with capitalism. It is a democratic process for workers to control the organisation. Which may or may not have to fit into a capitalist society, but it is very much a socialist institution by definition.
I jist checked the "bare definition" of socialism and a shiver went down my back when i saw the first eng wiki paragraph
> characterized by social ownership of the means of production
... incorrect propaganda on the wikipedia.
In the german article, its more accurate "there is not clear definition".
Its a familiy of ideas around wealth distribution with many degrees of freedom. Its not incompatible to capitalism, like communism is. I gues the eng wiki article is meant trigger stereotypes with "means of production".
I already gave one, inheritance tax, since its not tied to economic activity.
When you think the "survival of the fittest" nature analogy of capitalism further, then there should be no inheritance. All value that you have accumulated over your life (nutrition) is redistributed on your death into the environment, so in that analogy, capitalism shouldnt allow inheritance at all.
There are many more options of wealth distribution, which effect more wealthy people than the working class and in small-ish quantitiea, all of them are compatible with capitalism. Again, the devil is in the details.
OK, are you providing inheritance tax as an example of socialism? I'm sorry but your comments are not easy to understand, I want to understand what you're trying to say but it's unclear because your argument is split over several comments that I can't seem to parse.
I want to understand what you're saying if you'd give me a few moments of further explanation of your claim/argument
It was my GP comment, i was referring to with the inheritance tax. In socialism, taxation has, besides its state funding and steering function (punishment of undesired behavior, like a CO2 tax), the function of wealth redistribution to narrow the gap. Maybe you can achieve this goal without taxation but regulation alone, but this would require smart governmental intervention too.
Today, it is self evident, that regulation and taxation policies in many (all?) capitalistic countries had the opposite effect than narrowing the wealth gap. In the past years of crisis and even before, the rich were getting overproportionally richer than poorer milieus, leading to even more "democratic" represetation (money in politics) and them shaping the system even further to their advantage.
Today, it is more lucrative to put your money into the stock market than to start a business, eg. a small restaurant. This is undesireable and a result of a lack of taxation/regulation. I think, the US suffers the most of a financialized economy, where dilluted economists can point to GDP and say, "look, its all good". Its like a hypothermic body reaction, where blood gets stripped from the limbs to keep the organs going and the doctor says, "look, the heart still beats fine". The lack of public funding everywhere and the widening wealth gap are self evident and related.
You might think now, what does this have to do with socialism. The inheritance tax, naturalistic decomposition and the blood examples were about access, or redistribution of a resource that is currently elsewhere. I feel strange explaining this obvious imbalance and broad socialistic solutions to US americans and get hit with so much weird feedback. Socialism is kind of the vague middle ground in a capitalism-communism spectrum, but its also not only in the economic domain (inheritance tax), which means it is obviously compatible with capitalism. And yes, the english wiki article is factually incorrect, socialism is a family of ideas with a common goal but without a clear definition. With that angle, even the US is a socialist country, but this might never penetrate some red-voting veteran check receivers. This internalized propaganda of "socialism is bad and anti-capitalistic" combined with the obliviousness towards current problems of capitalism is frightening. I shouldnt be texting that much about obvious and basic facts.
yunwal · · focus · HN ↗
If you look at what Mamdani, arguably the face of American Socialism, is doing in NYC, it's basically deciding to hold businesses accountable for breaking laws and noticing where markets have failed to provide core needs in the city.
ekjhgkejhgk · · focus · HN ↗
That's not the definition of socialism in any case.
OkayPhysicist · · focus · HN ↗
Please, Mister or Missues Vanguard of Leftist Vocabulary, enlighten us on what "Socialism" really means.
throwawayqqq11 · · focus · HN ↗
sneurlax · · focus · HN ↗
ar_lan · · focus · HN ↗
Except not equality - stepping stones. Socialism is supposed to lead to communism, per Marx. That’s not a right wing take, unless you consider Karl Marx a conservative.
throwawayqqq11 · · focus · HN ↗
cmrdporcupine · · focus · HN ↗
Notably, the definition given by Marx and other 19th century socialists (worker controlled production) is doesn't even have to involve government or the state at all. It just came to mean that once proximity to power came into play. The "soviet" word merely meant local worker councils, not a state form, for example. But once the Bolsheviks took state power, the power of the actual soviets was successively demolished in favour of a centralized one party state.
So, notably: Self-called "Marxist-Leninists" in the USSR, and Social Democrats (or "democratic socialists" in the US), and Right-wingers all far prefer the term to mean "government controls things." The latter because they can then point fingers and call things authoritarian (but somehow exempt corporate power from critique).
But it is not at all clear that 19th century socialists .. from Proudhon through Marx etc -- who coined the term -- meant this at all.
Also this hard line between "communism" and "socialism" is fictitious and very schematic. All communists call themselves socialists, and almost none of them agree on what that means.
Social democrats trying desperately to sound respectable clearly want a nice hard line there. But they also have no intention of bringing about socialism.
paperwallet · · focus · HN ↗
You are a rare person.
Leninism ≠ Stalinism ≠ Maoism ≠ Socialism ≠ Communism.
These are overloaded terms at this point which is part of the reason so few actually comprehend.
Even Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism can mean different things depending on the context and interpretation which is another part of the collective confusion.
If we had clear definitions, it *might* irradicate the confusion, but I don't see that happening in the forseeable future.
There's too much at stake for every involved party to clear things up.
GuinansEyebrows · · focus · HN ↗
this is perhaps the smallest of all possible reasons that "few actually comprehend" :) yes, the left is good at eating itself, but that self-destruction is not without a lot of external assistance!
krapp · · focus · HN ↗
Not all socialism is communism, but all communism is socialism.
EliRivers · · focus · HN ↗
In many cases it very much is the definition of socialism.
sneurlax · · focus · HN ↗
throwawayqqq11 · · focus · HN ↗
Thats not socialism. It's vaguely a redistribution layer on top of capitalism. The article contrasts S. with C. which is also wrong.
Eg. inheritance tax does not restrict free enterprise, but the devil is in the details.
sneurlax · · focus · HN ↗
happymellon · · focus · HN ↗
What makes you think that they aren't?
throwawayqqq11 · · focus · HN ↗
Socialism is a broad collection of ideas around wealth distribution with alot of degrees of freedom, which leaves enough room to confuse ot with communism, i guess.
happymellon · · focus · HN ↗
Are you sure you understand what you are arguing?
<a href="https://www.uk.coop/understanding-co-operatives" rel="nofollow">https://www.uk.coop/understanding-co-operatives
anramon · · focus · HN ↗
>Thats not socialism
That is literally the most bare and core definition of socialism.
throwawayqqq11 · · focus · HN ↗
> characterized by social ownership of the means of production
... incorrect propaganda on the wikipedia.
In the german article, its more accurate "there is not clear definition".
Its a familiy of ideas around wealth distribution with many degrees of freedom. Its not incompatible to capitalism, like communism is. I gues the eng wiki article is meant trigger stereotypes with "means of production".
sneurlax · · focus · HN ↗
throwawayqqq11 · · focus · HN ↗
When you think the "survival of the fittest" nature analogy of capitalism further, then there should be no inheritance. All value that you have accumulated over your life (nutrition) is redistributed on your death into the environment, so in that analogy, capitalism shouldnt allow inheritance at all.
There are many more options of wealth distribution, which effect more wealthy people than the working class and in small-ish quantitiea, all of them are compatible with capitalism. Again, the devil is in the details.
sneurlax · · focus · HN ↗
I want to understand what you're saying if you'd give me a few moments of further explanation of your claim/argument
throwawayqqq11 · · focus · HN ↗
Today, it is self evident, that regulation and taxation policies in many (all?) capitalistic countries had the opposite effect than narrowing the wealth gap. In the past years of crisis and even before, the rich were getting overproportionally richer than poorer milieus, leading to even more "democratic" represetation (money in politics) and them shaping the system even further to their advantage.
Today, it is more lucrative to put your money into the stock market than to start a business, eg. a small restaurant. This is undesireable and a result of a lack of taxation/regulation. I think, the US suffers the most of a financialized economy, where dilluted economists can point to GDP and say, "look, its all good". Its like a hypothermic body reaction, where blood gets stripped from the limbs to keep the organs going and the doctor says, "look, the heart still beats fine". The lack of public funding everywhere and the widening wealth gap are self evident and related.
You might think now, what does this have to do with socialism. The inheritance tax, naturalistic decomposition and the blood examples were about access, or redistribution of a resource that is currently elsewhere. I feel strange explaining this obvious imbalance and broad socialistic solutions to US americans and get hit with so much weird feedback. Socialism is kind of the vague middle ground in a capitalism-communism spectrum, but its also not only in the economic domain (inheritance tax), which means it is obviously compatible with capitalism. And yes, the english wiki article is factually incorrect, socialism is a family of ideas with a common goal but without a clear definition. With that angle, even the US is a socialist country, but this might never penetrate some red-voting veteran check receivers. This internalized propaganda of "socialism is bad and anti-capitalistic" combined with the obliviousness towards current problems of capitalism is frightening. I shouldnt be texting that much about obvious and basic facts.
anramon · · focus · HN ↗