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.
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.
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.
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.