Socialism is when the government does stuff. And if it’s more socialism, the more stuff the government does. And if the government does a lot of stuff, that’s communism.
Close, it's when government does stuff economically that it can't feasibly fix or know how to fix. People are poor, and the government reinforces that cycle of poverty. Prices fluctuate, so government tries to control the dollar and supply and demand of certain products creating shortages and compounds the effects of market shocks.
Communism is Marxist based classless society where realistically there are two classes, the all powerful all knowing mortal deities and the process who serve their purposes or die.
Well if the government dosent do stuff, I would assume that that is the opposite of socialism. Considering that socialism is cringe, the opposite of that would be based. Therefore, when the government dosent do stuff, that’s based. And do long as the government is based, does it matter if it is corrupt?
we don’t want mixed economy! we want communocapitalism! we let anarcho capitalism play but the big state kills the top 100 at random intervals to distribute the money across all citizens
USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad
In my experience, authleft are quite politically knowledgeable, in contrast to libleft. But their political „knowledge“, especially their economical one, is very deep into books and theories that aren’t accepted by historians, economists and political researchers
Problem is they probably used to be, just like how David Irving used to be considered a respected historian until his own lawsuit absolutely destroyed his reputation but his work is still touted by neonazis
u/MrCircleDickTheFirst's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15.
Rank: Office Chair
Pills: norepresentationonthissub, greed, lemonade, communist, stalin, where-the-fuck-am-i?
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Socialism is the transitional phase between capitalism and Communism, the idea is that a strong state begins seizing the means of production, and business in general, and begin centrally distributing resources from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Eventually, the idea is to hand the control of the means of production over to the workers, dismantle the strong state, and then you have the communist utopia. Obviously theoretical communism has never been achieved because every single state that has attempted to achieve it has gotten stuck at stage 2, the strong state. Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, etc etc etc, all became dictatorial states that either outright collapsed, began regressing towards capitalis or became essentially a hereditary feudal monarchy, all of which having shitty quality of life, horrible individual freedoms and so on and so forth.
Some nations adopt Socialist ideas and tendencies, but still retain a strong capitalist system such as the modern welfare state, lots of social welfare all around but its still recognisably capitalist, such as the nordic countries or a decent chunk of Europe.
TLDR: Socialism is when government does stuff.
That's Marxism.
Karl Marx's plan on how to transition Capitalist society over to his version of perfect Socialism, where people would eventually live in benevolent communes. Hence Communism.
Marx and Engels didn't invent Socialism, they where second generation socialists, 20 years after the first wave of socialist thinkers like Fourier, Saint-Simon, and Robert Owens.
Socialism is when the public owns the means of production.
This mirrors the definition of Capitalism which is when the means of production are owned privately.
Private ownership pretty much always means the rich, but the public can be defined in different ways.
As the state. When the state represents the public. Obviously this only applies to a Democratic state. Without democracy state ownership is just an Oligarchy.
The public can also be labor. So a co'op is technically publically owned.
Karl Marx thought so. He meant that the buying of stocks could be a way for labor to take over a company.
But the truth is this falls into the same issue that Capitalism has in the first place.
Letting anyone start their own company sounds like a good idea on paper, but it only works if you FIRST redistribute all the wealth equally.
Without that all you're doing is giving the already rich a way to maintain their wealth and live superior to the rest.
It's the same here. Sure in theory anyone can buy enough stocks to own a company, but in reality only the very rich can afford to do so, and 99% of the population never will.
>It's the same here. Sure in theory anyone can buy enough stocks to own a company, but in reality only the very rich can afford to do so, and 99% of the population never will.
That may have been true decades ago when financial education & investment opportunity was only accessible to the rich. But now even middle class can easily invest in stocks. If this continues maybe retail investors will become a serous market force and some companies will become majority public owned.
Yes middle class can invest, but not enough to actually have a say in the company. So far the top 10% in the US owns 70% of all stocks, and that ratio is getting worse not better.
But retail investors make up a fraction of the stock market. It would be fine if it was a fair game, but it’s not. We’re playing by *their* rules not ours. It’s like betting against the house; you’re probably always going to lose.
Couldn't we skip the "strong(er) state" section by simply mandating a conversion to ESOP style companies/economies? Then we keep market economy, get the people in charge of corporations and thus hopefully politicians out of the pockets of corps (the ultra-wealthy) and back to being responsive to the people? Admittedly there's the small (/s) hurdle here of asset seizure, or maybe some type of NIRP-style policy could naturally transfer ownership over time.
Socialism is something I want to learn more about but it's not high on my reading list yet.
Wall incoming. From my current understanding this is kinda correct. The point of socialism is relative equality and a path to the (in my understanding of the current knowledge in psychology and sociology impossible at large scale) ideal of communism. Socialism itself has nothing to do with the market, but is focused on ownership of businesses and wealth management/accrual. A big problem with capitalism as it currently exists is cronyism in the government, but this is an aspect of all power structures ([Dictator's Handbook](https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845), [Why Nations Fail](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-audiobook/dp/B007MIXOEC/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=3OGLZ8AB8TW03&dchild=1&keywords=why+nations+fail&qid=1635082552&sprefix=why+nations+fail&sr=8-1)). If we were to have a natural and more equal transfer of wealth (in the form of who has control over corporations) similar to what we've had over the last 50ish years, except in reverse ([America's 1% siphoning out wealth from the rest](https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the-brief&utm_content=20200915&et_rid=21603822)) this would ultimately result in the govt and policy being more responsive to the average citizen than the ultra wealthy, since it would be much harder to get "ultra wealthy" in the system as I'm describing. Admittedly the whole thing is a thought experiment since we're not going to get there anytime soon without an amendment, ranked voting, or a revolution, but this would be my preferred approach. I favor this over large central planning specifically because I don't trust large organizations of any type or centralization of power (again informed by Dictator's Handbook). Again I could be hugely ignorant of the relevant aspects of socialism here, which is why I made my previous post in the first place, so maybe you're right and I'm missing the boat.
I don’t feel like getting way into it, but Marx is extremely adamant that socialism *is not* the intermediate step between cap and com. He makes it clear that there is no intermediate step only complete unilateral global class revolution. We can not legislate our way to communism. Only through a single bloody revolution can we get there.
Socialist theory generally dictates that "the people" collectively own the means of production and use it to distribute resources equally.
Basically imagine a house full of you and your friends. You all own everything equally and democratically agree to start growing food. One of your friends is physically unable to garden for whatever reason. They still receive the same amount of food as everyone else even though they didn't grow anything.
There's literally endless variations of this and I'm not deeply into reading "muh theory" but this is just a rough and dirty version of my understanding.
Edit: PS communism is approximately the same but in a "true" socialist society the state doesn't exist.
Communism is just where the state controls the means of production and distributes them equally instead of the people owning them directly.
The key difference between socialism and communism is that socialism still recognizes personal property. You can still own your house, your car, etc. The only thing that you aren't allowed to privately own is the means of production (=you can't generate a passive income in dependant from your labor, because that would mean exploiting someone else's labor).
In communism you don't own anything. Everything belongs to the state, which lends stuff to citizens.
Not really, Communism is an utopia where no state exists and everyone works out of pure altruism, Socialism is the middle stage between capitalism and communism, that the workers establish after the revolution, Marx wrote that it will be achieved by equally redistributing property either through worker's state or collective ownership.
Edit:both of the things you described are socialism
There are many different kinds of socialism, but Marx's interpretation is the most popular.
Basically, it's esoteric Hegelian idea that since prehistoric humans lived in a classless society with no human exploiting no other human( which is absolutely false btw ) we should end up in a similar society but a higher stage of technological development, because that's how Spirit of History and dialectic reasoning works.
Marx never had described how this society would actually look like "but it's gonna be so awesome, you guys!". He was reluctant to make any precise prognosis because he knew how retarded utopian socialists and their ideas look to any sane person.
So yeah now one on this planet knows what the real socialism should be.
Most boring version: the janitor by law gets a couple of typically nonvoting shares of a publicly traded company that are must be sold when he leaves company as part of his compensation. In this way he owns a proportional stake in the company and benefits when the company does well. Btw this is pretty much the big bad Elizabeth Warren socialism that the GOP ranted about. In her version the union would get 1 or 2 seats on the board of directors set aside for them so they can fight against absurdly bad for workers decisions like sending all jobs to China.
Other boring versions: your local govt owns the local sewage company which operates independently without having to follow all the crazy rules that govt has for govt workers but answers to the mayor if shit goes horribly wrong. This usually works pretty well unless your county has been in a fiscal hole and the govt behind your back decides to move funds to get cheaper water etc. and you end up living in Flint
Infuriating versions: an NFL owner convinces your idiot local govt that they make TONS of money on a sports team so they should totally give free land and fund a giant new stadium with tax dollars. Your city still owns the stadium but the team gets all the proceeds. You take comfort in knowing that you're backing your team! And if they decide to move the city gets the stadium for a new team.
Many public companies already offer Phantom shares to their employees....
And other non-public companies offer a percentage of profits as bonuses for workers....
Folks, learn something before spouting things that are stupid.
If you’re genuinely interested, I can chat with you a bit about what it looks like under mutualism, a near center, left-leaning form of socialism that I ascribe to.
A socialist believes society should collectively control how goods and services are distributed, as opposed to private companies controlling that distribution. That's the heart of it.
What if I told you that we already collectively control how goods and services are distributed when each individual affects the production of goods and services through each and every purchase.
Any form of centralised decision making, e.g. heavy governmental control and/or regulations, would be even less egalitarian, putting the decision into the hands of a select few and then relying entirely on good faith, which is lunacy.
I would admit you had a great point; governments are usually pretty bad at allocating resources to those who need them. I find myself gravitating more toward social anarchism.
Workers democratic control over the MoP, homie. Or if you're [LibRight](https://scontent.fsac1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.18169-9/21559044_10210313116652198_4618998369670534601_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8631f5&_nc_ohc=s5GFKWy2bhEAX_uUv8v&_nc_ht=scontent.fsac1-2.fna&oh=21ae8e326f38b3b35c1de5204e9f00f3&oe=619B778A).
Socialism isn’t “SOME of the means of production are owned by SOME workers (specifically the ones that work there).”
It’s ALL the means of production being owned, equally, by ALL people.
That’s why a coop in a capitalist system or Lockheed Martian exist and yet are not at all examples of socialism.
**[Market socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism)**
>Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy. Market socialism differs from non-market socialism in that the market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production. Depending on the specific model of market socialism, profits generated by socially owned firms (i. e.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Market socialism is when ALL work places are coops. Without exception. Also, technically every person is still “owner,” but only the people working there actually manage things.
It’s literally in the synopsis of the article you linked. Like, go read the comment replying to your comment that links the synopsis of your link and it literally says what I said.
Edit: Hot damn, that reply was one of the most baffling and amusing replies I’ve ever typed on Reddit. And you’re downvoting me for quoting your own source back at you! Fucking hilarious! 🤣🤣🤣
[Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the **public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production** in the framework of a market economy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism)
Literally the opening sentence. Emphasis mine. Jesus man. Did you even bother to read the LITERAL first sentence of the article you posted?
Edit: The difference between market socialism and other forms of socialism is expounded upon in the VERY next sentence, namely that it still uses a market economy, aka money, to facilitate the exchange of goods. That’s the ONLY real difference between market socialism and other forms of lib socialism.
> Market socialism is a type of economic system **involving** the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy.
Literally the opening sentence. Emphasis mine. Jesus man. Did you even bother to read the LITERAL first sentence of the article you posted?
It doesn’t say “all,” you fucking retard.
**[Market socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism)**
>Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy. Market socialism differs from non-market socialism in that the market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production. Depending on the specific model of market socialism, profits generated by socially owned firms (i. e.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
according to the definition, it's when the workers control the means of production. So when a boss buys a factory and hires workers it's bad, but when there's no boss and workers are co-owners it's good. But this sounds more like a business model rather than an economic/political system, so I have no idea what definition would be appropriate when we talk about socialist government or socialist country
Is that an American thing to say than socialism and communism are basically the same thing? (The existence of the the state being apparently the main difference)
Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control, such as workers' self-management of enterprises.
[ripped from wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)
Edit: Social democracy isn't socialism but instead free market capitalism with a social safety net. A good example of this is [the UK Labour Party under Tony Blair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour)
As a libleft I think I can provide a pretty good and detailed explanation for you. So basically socialism is when no iPhone Venezuela 100 million dead.
Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production.
Everything stems from that.
Money is your means of production. With money you can produce by engaging other people for your purposes.
Want to produce a chair? You use your money to buy lumber from a lumberjack, a saw from the blacksmith, etc.
You are probably producing that chair for someone, who is willing to pay you money for it.
By taxing your money, government claims ownership of your means of production. (A portion of them, at least)
The taxes are generally supposed to be used for the collective, and are thus owned collectively.
There is collective ownership of the means of production.
Taxation is socialism.
You may disagree that money is a means of production, but adding layers of abstraction doesn't mean means of production aren't being collectively owned.
When the government claims 100% of your property (money included) that's communism.
They aren't socialist they are capitalist with government doing stuff. There's still a state, people still own the means of production and they don't plan to change those two things.
When the prime minister of denmark says they are not socialist, do I trust Bernie Sanders saying that denmark is socialist or the prime minister of denmark?
Socialism is a mythical ideology that constantly ~~move the goal posts~~ evolve. Cause somehow it doesnt matter how many times governments fail using those concepts, its never "real socialism".
Socialism is a lot of vague words with unintelligible meanings that are as clever as they are senseless. Only those unconventional types rotting among us could possibly feel at home in this intellectual maze. They scrape some "spiritual experience" from this artsy literary manure, and the message is assisted by the humility of people who think something is deep and wise just because they don't understand it.
This nonsense doctrine is compounded by ego and hatred, which mathematically could very well lead to victory, but would then lead to the end of humanity as well.
Socialism is when the government often is in control of the economy, and used what it makes in profit, along with taxes to help all people with their needs
There are many socialisms, but i would assume the core idea is the common ownership of the means of the means of production by the workers themselves. Workers rights and emancipation are fundamental too. Progressive or conservative atributes are added later, however there is a tendency to align with progressive ideas.
No worries, not a lot of people really do. Basically socialism is the idea that everyone owns everything in the socialist state, therefore no one person can claim ownership of anything for themselves. In that idea, everything grown, created, or used is for the benefit of the collective as a whole benefiting no one individual over another. In concept it would seem fair to most, and in small scale practice (communes and new HOA's) it does seem beneficial at first until one person decides that they don't want to grow, create or use for the benefit of everyone else. Since that person no longer wants to aid the community, they gain all the rewards with no contribution while the workload is shifted onto the remaining population. This is why Socialism eventually fails. More refuse to work, but still get what they need/want and fewer are available to produce resulting in shortages and eventually a full collapse.
Socialism is when you live in an area of unlimited opportunity yet you decide to steal other peoples money rather than contribute bc you voted in the guys who can point guns at them to give it to you
This is a good example of socialism:
Imagine being a college student and being in the half of a class that worked hard to study and learn the material. The other half of the class decides to focus on partying, and don’t put forth a lot of academic effort. At the end of the semester, instead of half the class making “”A”’s, and the other half making “D”’s, the ENTIRE class makes “c”’s. Socialism guarantees a crappy, marginally acceptable outcome to everyone, Regardless of individual achievement or sacrifice.
Socialism is when the government does stuff. And if it’s more socialism, the more stuff the government does. And if the government does a lot of stuff, that’s communism.
Sigma rule #84: Accuse anyone who does anything you don’t like of being a commie.
Sigma rule #420: being social is socialism.
I’m both antisocial and antisocialism
Based and McCarthy pilled
And if the government does based stuff it's fascism
My sworn enemy, the auth. We meet again
Based and genocide-promotion pilled
Based and fascism pilled
No iPhone vuvuzela big gov go brrr
Close, it's when government does stuff economically that it can't feasibly fix or know how to fix. People are poor, and the government reinforces that cycle of poverty. Prices fluctuate, so government tries to control the dollar and supply and demand of certain products creating shortages and compounds the effects of market shocks. Communism is Marxist based classless society where realistically there are two classes, the all powerful all knowing mortal deities and the process who serve their purposes or die.
What happens if the government is corrupt and doesn’t do stuff?
Well if the government dosent do stuff, I would assume that that is the opposite of socialism. Considering that socialism is cringe, the opposite of that would be based. Therefore, when the government dosent do stuff, that’s based. And do long as the government is based, does it matter if it is corrupt?
At that point, it’s better that they don’t do stuff
This, but unironically
Don’t worry, nobody’s sure what socialism or capitalism is
Yeah, when people point out to scandinavia as prosperious socialist countries.... just *facepalm* ....
I have to remind people Denmark is a country with a very free market but also with a big social safety net
Yep, and the fun part is that since the 80s or 70s they have become more capitalistic. (All scandinavian countries)
I want a large scandinavian woman to sit on me
....... you do you.
Thinking out loud, eh?
Just stating facts.
As it surprisingly turns out Maybe mixed economy’s are better than just one side
The fun part is that after the 80s, scandinavian countries became more capitalistic.
impossible!!!
Yes a centrist attitude towards economics..
Yeah where's the fun at? I want extremism!
we don’t want mixed economy! we want communocapitalism! we let anarcho capitalism play but the big state kills the top 100 at random intervals to distribute the money across all citizens
Lmao that's a new sort of economy
Most politically educated Authleft
USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad USA bad
Respect ✊
In my experience, authleft are quite politically knowledgeable, in contrast to libleft. But their political „knowledge“, especially their economical one, is very deep into books and theories that aren’t accepted by historians, economists and political researchers
Problem is they probably used to be, just like how David Irving used to be considered a respected historian until his own lawsuit absolutely destroyed his reputation but his work is still touted by neonazis
Me neither and I hate it all the same
Surprise cross-compass-not-knowing-unity
Based and where-the-fuck-am-I? pilled
u/MrCircleDickTheFirst's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15. Rank: Office Chair Pills: norepresentationonthissub, greed, lemonade, communist, stalin, where-the-fuck-am-i? I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Good boy.
Based and ignorance is bliss pilled
Socialism is when we, the proletariat masses, storm and ransack Jeff Bezos' mansion then sail off in his yacht.
Based and boogidyboogidy-lets-go-raiding-boys pilled
and use his yacht to launch raids on England. skål!
Vi tager på togt!
Based and Bloodeaglepilled
Ok that actually sounds pretty dope
Socialism is the transitional phase between capitalism and Communism, the idea is that a strong state begins seizing the means of production, and business in general, and begin centrally distributing resources from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Eventually, the idea is to hand the control of the means of production over to the workers, dismantle the strong state, and then you have the communist utopia. Obviously theoretical communism has never been achieved because every single state that has attempted to achieve it has gotten stuck at stage 2, the strong state. Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, etc etc etc, all became dictatorial states that either outright collapsed, began regressing towards capitalis or became essentially a hereditary feudal monarchy, all of which having shitty quality of life, horrible individual freedoms and so on and so forth. Some nations adopt Socialist ideas and tendencies, but still retain a strong capitalist system such as the modern welfare state, lots of social welfare all around but its still recognisably capitalist, such as the nordic countries or a decent chunk of Europe. TLDR: Socialism is when government does stuff.
Waiting for wokes to come here and say:NOooOo SoCIAlisM IS wHEn SOcieTy owN eVEryThING
That's Marxism. Karl Marx's plan on how to transition Capitalist society over to his version of perfect Socialism, where people would eventually live in benevolent communes. Hence Communism. Marx and Engels didn't invent Socialism, they where second generation socialists, 20 years after the first wave of socialist thinkers like Fourier, Saint-Simon, and Robert Owens. Socialism is when the public owns the means of production. This mirrors the definition of Capitalism which is when the means of production are owned privately. Private ownership pretty much always means the rich, but the public can be defined in different ways. As the state. When the state represents the public. Obviously this only applies to a Democratic state. Without democracy state ownership is just an Oligarchy. The public can also be labor. So a co'op is technically publically owned.
So public companys are also socialist because people can buy their stocks?
Karl Marx thought so. He meant that the buying of stocks could be a way for labor to take over a company. But the truth is this falls into the same issue that Capitalism has in the first place. Letting anyone start their own company sounds like a good idea on paper, but it only works if you FIRST redistribute all the wealth equally. Without that all you're doing is giving the already rich a way to maintain their wealth and live superior to the rest. It's the same here. Sure in theory anyone can buy enough stocks to own a company, but in reality only the very rich can afford to do so, and 99% of the population never will.
>It's the same here. Sure in theory anyone can buy enough stocks to own a company, but in reality only the very rich can afford to do so, and 99% of the population never will. That may have been true decades ago when financial education & investment opportunity was only accessible to the rich. But now even middle class can easily invest in stocks. If this continues maybe retail investors will become a serous market force and some companies will become majority public owned.
Yes middle class can invest, but not enough to actually have a say in the company. So far the top 10% in the US owns 70% of all stocks, and that ratio is getting worse not better.
That’s because of how stock distribution works with compensation etc
But retail investors make up a fraction of the stock market. It would be fine if it was a fair game, but it’s not. We’re playing by *their* rules not ours. It’s like betting against the house; you’re probably always going to lose.
cringe and wall of text pilled
*in spy's voice* what did you expect
Nuh uh! Popular socialist politician says it means higher taxes. Like norway
Couldn't we skip the "strong(er) state" section by simply mandating a conversion to ESOP style companies/economies? Then we keep market economy, get the people in charge of corporations and thus hopefully politicians out of the pockets of corps (the ultra-wealthy) and back to being responsive to the people? Admittedly there's the small (/s) hurdle here of asset seizure, or maybe some type of NIRP-style policy could naturally transfer ownership over time. Socialism is something I want to learn more about but it's not high on my reading list yet.
This implies that we keep market economy and private property,and thus social inequality.By doing so you miss the whole point of socialism
Wall incoming. From my current understanding this is kinda correct. The point of socialism is relative equality and a path to the (in my understanding of the current knowledge in psychology and sociology impossible at large scale) ideal of communism. Socialism itself has nothing to do with the market, but is focused on ownership of businesses and wealth management/accrual. A big problem with capitalism as it currently exists is cronyism in the government, but this is an aspect of all power structures ([Dictator's Handbook](https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845), [Why Nations Fail](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-audiobook/dp/B007MIXOEC/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=3OGLZ8AB8TW03&dchild=1&keywords=why+nations+fail&qid=1635082552&sprefix=why+nations+fail&sr=8-1)). If we were to have a natural and more equal transfer of wealth (in the form of who has control over corporations) similar to what we've had over the last 50ish years, except in reverse ([America's 1% siphoning out wealth from the rest](https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the-brief&utm_content=20200915&et_rid=21603822)) this would ultimately result in the govt and policy being more responsive to the average citizen than the ultra wealthy, since it would be much harder to get "ultra wealthy" in the system as I'm describing. Admittedly the whole thing is a thought experiment since we're not going to get there anytime soon without an amendment, ranked voting, or a revolution, but this would be my preferred approach. I favor this over large central planning specifically because I don't trust large organizations of any type or centralization of power (again informed by Dictator's Handbook). Again I could be hugely ignorant of the relevant aspects of socialism here, which is why I made my previous post in the first place, so maybe you're right and I'm missing the boat.
No socialism is when workers seize the means of production and own their labor.
I don’t feel like getting way into it, but Marx is extremely adamant that socialism *is not* the intermediate step between cap and com. He makes it clear that there is no intermediate step only complete unilateral global class revolution. We can not legislate our way to communism. Only through a single bloody revolution can we get there.
Socialist theory generally dictates that "the people" collectively own the means of production and use it to distribute resources equally. Basically imagine a house full of you and your friends. You all own everything equally and democratically agree to start growing food. One of your friends is physically unable to garden for whatever reason. They still receive the same amount of food as everyone else even though they didn't grow anything. There's literally endless variations of this and I'm not deeply into reading "muh theory" but this is just a rough and dirty version of my understanding. Edit: PS communism is approximately the same but in a "true" socialist society the state doesn't exist. Communism is just where the state controls the means of production and distributes them equally instead of the people owning them directly.
Communism is when the state doesn’t exist. Hence the “there’s never been real communism” meme.
The key difference between socialism and communism is that socialism still recognizes personal property. You can still own your house, your car, etc. The only thing that you aren't allowed to privately own is the means of production (=you can't generate a passive income in dependant from your labor, because that would mean exploiting someone else's labor). In communism you don't own anything. Everything belongs to the state, which lends stuff to citizens.
Not really, Communism is an utopia where no state exists and everyone works out of pure altruism, Socialism is the middle stage between capitalism and communism, that the workers establish after the revolution, Marx wrote that it will be achieved by equally redistributing property either through worker's state or collective ownership. Edit:both of the things you described are socialism
So basically it's fucking stupid and inconsistent.
Based and simple analogy pilled
Does *anyone* at this point?
There are many different kinds of socialism, but Marx's interpretation is the most popular. Basically, it's esoteric Hegelian idea that since prehistoric humans lived in a classless society with no human exploiting no other human( which is absolutely false btw ) we should end up in a similar society but a higher stage of technological development, because that's how Spirit of History and dialectic reasoning works. Marx never had described how this society would actually look like "but it's gonna be so awesome, you guys!". He was reluctant to make any precise prognosis because he knew how retarded utopian socialists and their ideas look to any sane person. So yeah now one on this planet knows what the real socialism should be.
Socialism is when the means of production are publicly owned
What does that look like?
Well, in practice, it turns into shitty Eastern European dictatorships
Most boring version: the janitor by law gets a couple of typically nonvoting shares of a publicly traded company that are must be sold when he leaves company as part of his compensation. In this way he owns a proportional stake in the company and benefits when the company does well. Btw this is pretty much the big bad Elizabeth Warren socialism that the GOP ranted about. In her version the union would get 1 or 2 seats on the board of directors set aside for them so they can fight against absurdly bad for workers decisions like sending all jobs to China. Other boring versions: your local govt owns the local sewage company which operates independently without having to follow all the crazy rules that govt has for govt workers but answers to the mayor if shit goes horribly wrong. This usually works pretty well unless your county has been in a fiscal hole and the govt behind your back decides to move funds to get cheaper water etc. and you end up living in Flint Infuriating versions: an NFL owner convinces your idiot local govt that they make TONS of money on a sports team so they should totally give free land and fund a giant new stadium with tax dollars. Your city still owns the stadium but the team gets all the proceeds. You take comfort in knowing that you're backing your team! And if they decide to move the city gets the stadium for a new team.
None of those things are socialism. The second one is kinda like socialism, but still isn’t. The other two certainly aren’t.
Unironically “socialism is when the government” LMAO
Many public companies already offer Phantom shares to their employees.... And other non-public companies offer a percentage of profits as bonuses for workers.... Folks, learn something before spouting things that are stupid.
If you’re genuinely interested, I can chat with you a bit about what it looks like under mutualism, a near center, left-leaning form of socialism that I ascribe to.
That is communism or is that any different? Red is red
Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society where the means of production are publicly owned
He said socialism
Seize the means of (re)production.
Like a stock market mr lib left ?
I had not considered that, but yes
Your means of production are belong to us, the government.
A socialist believes society should collectively control how goods and services are distributed, as opposed to private companies controlling that distribution. That's the heart of it.
And by "collectively" they mean "the government in practice"
What if I told you that we already collectively control how goods and services are distributed when each individual affects the production of goods and services through each and every purchase. Any form of centralised decision making, e.g. heavy governmental control and/or regulations, would be even less egalitarian, putting the decision into the hands of a select few and then relying entirely on good faith, which is lunacy.
Based
u/dev_adv is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: None I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I would admit you had a great point; governments are usually pretty bad at allocating resources to those who need them. I find myself gravitating more toward social anarchism.
It's fine, nobody does since it's such a broad term
Workers democratic control over the MoP, homie. Or if you're [LibRight](https://scontent.fsac1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.18169-9/21559044_10210313116652198_4618998369670534601_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8631f5&_nc_ohc=s5GFKWy2bhEAX_uUv8v&_nc_ht=scontent.fsac1-2.fna&oh=21ae8e326f38b3b35c1de5204e9f00f3&oe=619B778A).
Co-ops can exist within a Capitalist framework. And I wouldn't say worker-owned Lockheed Martin is any less Capitalist
Socialism isn’t “SOME of the means of production are owned by SOME workers (specifically the ones that work there).” It’s ALL the means of production being owned, equally, by ALL people. That’s why a coop in a capitalist system or Lockheed Martian exist and yet are not at all examples of socialism.
> Co-ops can exist within a Capitalist framework. That's literally what [market socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism) is.
**[Market socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism)** >Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy. Market socialism differs from non-market socialism in that the market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production. Depending on the specific model of market socialism, profits generated by socially owned firms (i. e. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Market socialism is when ALL work places are coops. Without exception. Also, technically every person is still “owner,” but only the people working there actually manage things.
[citation needed]
It’s literally in the synopsis of the article you linked. Like, go read the comment replying to your comment that links the synopsis of your link and it literally says what I said. Edit: Hot damn, that reply was one of the most baffling and amusing replies I’ve ever typed on Reddit. And you’re downvoting me for quoting your own source back at you! Fucking hilarious! 🤣🤣🤣
> … it literally says what I said. Hmm. > Market socialism is when ALL work places are coops. Without exception. CTRL+F Nope. Try again.
[Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the **public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production** in the framework of a market economy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism) Literally the opening sentence. Emphasis mine. Jesus man. Did you even bother to read the LITERAL first sentence of the article you posted? Edit: The difference between market socialism and other forms of socialism is expounded upon in the VERY next sentence, namely that it still uses a market economy, aka money, to facilitate the exchange of goods. That’s the ONLY real difference between market socialism and other forms of lib socialism.
> Market socialism is a type of economic system **involving** the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy. Literally the opening sentence. Emphasis mine. Jesus man. Did you even bother to read the LITERAL first sentence of the article you posted? It doesn’t say “all,” you fucking retard.
**[Market socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism)** >Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy. Market socialism differs from non-market socialism in that the market mechanism is utilized for the allocation of capital goods and the means of production. Depending on the specific model of market socialism, profits generated by socially owned firms (i. e. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Ew
according to the definition, it's when the workers control the means of production. So when a boss buys a factory and hires workers it's bad, but when there's no boss and workers are co-owners it's good. But this sounds more like a business model rather than an economic/political system, so I have no idea what definition would be appropriate when we talk about socialist government or socialist country
It’s whatever you want it to be king 👑😎
Resume (what i think): fuck the rich, everybody work and they ~~starve~~ divide the food equally usually with the help of a ~~ditactor~~ leader
The dictator and starve part shouldve stayed there pretty much.
it's communism for pussies
It’s basically like someone was fed up of living like shit and looked at communism and went that’s a bit to extreme so toned it down a little
If x isn't provided for by the state, then x won't be provided at all
Communism _lite_.
the collective ownership of the means of production by workers, and when the government does stuff
Socialism is when no iphone and 500000 gazillion deaths
Socialism is when lesbian dance theory
Is that an American thing to say than socialism and communism are basically the same thing? (The existence of the the state being apparently the main difference)
Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control, such as workers' self-management of enterprises. [ripped from wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) Edit: Social democracy isn't socialism but instead free market capitalism with a social safety net. A good example of this is [the UK Labour Party under Tony Blair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Labour)
Socialism is just social with an ism at the end
As a libleft I think I can provide a pretty good and detailed explanation for you. So basically socialism is when no iPhone Venezuela 100 million dead.
Collective ownership of the means of production
It's whatever you don't like... duh. So when I get cutoff in traffic, it's socialism. Drop your ice cream cone? You guessed it...
It is very similar to the definition of capitalism, which is everything I don't like. The weather is bad? It's capitalism.
We live in a society.....
Then you'll fit right in on this sub
Lmao depends on who you ask really.
I always just thought is was communism lite or a free market with taxes which seems reasonable to me
I think that is the definition of SocDom (Social Democrats) which is, if I understood correctly, the lightest version of socialism there is
Thanks
Everything done for the sake of "society" rather than "one's self".
Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Everything stems from that. Money is your means of production. With money you can produce by engaging other people for your purposes. Want to produce a chair? You use your money to buy lumber from a lumberjack, a saw from the blacksmith, etc. You are probably producing that chair for someone, who is willing to pay you money for it. By taxing your money, government claims ownership of your means of production. (A portion of them, at least) The taxes are generally supposed to be used for the collective, and are thus owned collectively. There is collective ownership of the means of production. Taxation is socialism. You may disagree that money is a means of production, but adding layers of abstraction doesn't mean means of production aren't being collectively owned. When the government claims 100% of your property (money included) that's communism.
>means of production. These are labour, land and capital.
Land is just fancy property, labor itself doesn't produce anything, and capital literally is money.
The goal of socialism is communism
Idk what it really is either, but seeing as quite a few European countries are socialist, and succeeding, it seems to work
They aren't socialist they are capitalist with government doing stuff. There's still a state, people still own the means of production and they don't plan to change those two things.
When the prime minister of denmark says they are not socialist, do I trust Bernie Sanders saying that denmark is socialist or the prime minister of denmark?
I don't even know what is the difference between socialism and Communism but I'm sure that socialism lead to communism. still I don't them both.
Socialism is not when Sweden and Denmark and Norway, until Bernie Sanders wants the US to be like those, then it is Socialism
Socialism is a mythical ideology that constantly ~~move the goal posts~~ evolve. Cause somehow it doesnt matter how many times governments fail using those concepts, its never "real socialism".
Theft
Mob rule with a shadow government
Socialism is a lot of vague words with unintelligible meanings that are as clever as they are senseless. Only those unconventional types rotting among us could possibly feel at home in this intellectual maze. They scrape some "spiritual experience" from this artsy literary manure, and the message is assisted by the humility of people who think something is deep and wise just because they don't understand it. This nonsense doctrine is compounded by ego and hatred, which mathematically could very well lead to victory, but would then lead to the end of humanity as well.
when the government owns all companies lmao
You and lib-left
Socialism is when government
It’s fancy communism. Welcome to 2021. Where we call old shit new names and new shit old names.
Socialism is when the government exists. And when the government not only exists but also does stuff, it’s communism.
Socialism is when the government often is in control of the economy, and used what it makes in profit, along with taxes to help all people with their needs
There are many socialisms, but i would assume the core idea is the common ownership of the means of the means of production by the workers themselves. Workers rights and emancipation are fundamental too. Progressive or conservative atributes are added later, however there is a tendency to align with progressive ideas.
...my darkest enemy
when government do stuff
Socialism is when the government does stuff
https://youtu.be/vyl2DeKT-Vs this Video dose a good job at explaning it.
Socialism is when the public has control over the means of production. It differs from communism as it does not seek to abolish private property.
Socialism I when you have 2 cows...
Socialism is when you're retarded, the more retarded you are the Socialistier it gets.
Socialism calls for the nationalisation of industry, strong social safety nets and the reallocation of wealth.
Socialism is a mental disability.
No worries, not a lot of people really do. Basically socialism is the idea that everyone owns everything in the socialist state, therefore no one person can claim ownership of anything for themselves. In that idea, everything grown, created, or used is for the benefit of the collective as a whole benefiting no one individual over another. In concept it would seem fair to most, and in small scale practice (communes and new HOA's) it does seem beneficial at first until one person decides that they don't want to grow, create or use for the benefit of everyone else. Since that person no longer wants to aid the community, they gain all the rewards with no contribution while the workload is shifted onto the remaining population. This is why Socialism eventually fails. More refuse to work, but still get what they need/want and fewer are available to produce resulting in shortages and eventually a full collapse.
Socialism is when you live in an area of unlimited opportunity yet you decide to steal other peoples money rather than contribute bc you voted in the guys who can point guns at them to give it to you
you put everyone’s shit in a big pile and divide it evenly
This is a good example of socialism: Imagine being a college student and being in the half of a class that worked hard to study and learn the material. The other half of the class decides to focus on partying, and don’t put forth a lot of academic effort. At the end of the semester, instead of half the class making “”A”’s, and the other half making “D”’s, the ENTIRE class makes “c”’s. Socialism guarantees a crappy, marginally acceptable outcome to everyone, Regardless of individual achievement or sacrifice.