How to save socialism in the US (and other western countries

[Duvniask]

And I am a 400 foot tall purple platypus-bear with pink horns and silver wings.

Despite what some might say, in the final analysis social democracy preserves capitalism in return for a compromise where the working class gets universalized benefits. The only way you can really call it "socialism" is if you subscribe to the obnoxious idea that socialism is "when the government does things".

Ahh the old fashioned:

"Social democracy isn't my flavour of hardline socialism, therefore it ain't socialism."

Spare me the bullshit.

Go read actual theory instead of spouting your surface-level layman nonsense. Social democracy has never meaningfully challenged capitalism.

Social democracy literally isn’t socialism. And this is coming from a passionate anti-socialist. Sweden and Finland are both social democracies and both reject the label of socialism

"Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and organizational self-management of enterprises as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity in which surplus value goes to the working class and hence society as a whole. There are many varieties of socialism and no single definition encapsulates all of them, but social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

As a term, socialism refers to a broad range of theoretical and historical socioeconomic systems and has also been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves and their goals, generating numerous types of socialism. Socialist economic systems can be further divided into market and non-market forms. The first type of socialism utilize markets for allocating inputs and capital goods among economic units. In the second type of socialism, planning is utilized and include a system of accounting based on calculation-in-kind to value resources and goods wherein production is carried out directly for use."

It being written on Wikipedia does not mean it is correct terminology. This is the terminology of certain academics who maintain a very surface level view of what "socialism" means.

Socialism, properly understood, is a system distinct from capitalism, and you will find no better analysis of what constitutes capitalism and its mode of production than in the Marxian framework, which keeps its terms much more well-defined than common parlance. Defining socialism as just being "social ownership" or "economic democracy" leads you to a distinction without a difference, where the entirety of the capitalist framework is preserved, but under obfuscatory legal expressions. You still have a ruling class that towers over the working class and controls the state apparatus behind the scenes, albeit less so than in comepletely managed democracies like the US. You still have the universality of commodity production which implies the concomitant market exchange, alienated and exploited wage labor by said ruling class, externalities and the race to the bottom in the pursuit of profit.

[Lower Nubia]

Ahh the old fashioned:

"Social democracy isn't my flavour of hardline socialism, therefore it ain't socialism."

Spare me the bullshit.

Go read actual theory instead of spouting your surface-level layman nonsense. Social democracy has never meaningfully challenged capitalism.

why should I read it, when people who have studied this for years have written a nice, succinct, summary. That's their jobs right? To learn esoteric knowledge and make it available in an educational format for laymen.

"Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and organizational self-management of enterprises as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity in which surplus value goes to the working class and hence society as a whole. There are many varieties of socialism and no single definition encapsulates all of them, but social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.

As a term, socialism refers to a broad range of theoretical and historical socioeconomic systems and has also been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves and their goals, generating numerous types of socialism. Socialist economic systems can be further divided into market and non-market forms. The first type of socialism utilize markets for allocating inputs and capital goods among economic units. In the second type of socialism, planning is utilized and include a system of accounting based on calculation-in-kind to value resources and goods wherein production is carried out directly for use."

It being written on Wikipedia does not mean it is correct terminology. This is the terminology of certain academics who maintain a very surface level view of what "socialism" means.

Academic, or surface level. Pick one.

Socialism, properly understood, is a system distinct from capitalism, and you will find no better analysis of what constitutes capitalism and its mode of production than in the Marxian framework, which keeps its terms much more well-defined than common parlance.

Oh wow, I definitely didn't see this statement coming, oh socialism is purely this, even though academics agree that there are vast number of forms within the definition... wow I've been broadsided... oh no... kill me.

Defining socialism as just being "social ownership" or "economic democracy" leads you to a distinction without a difference, where the entirety of the capitalist framework is preserved, but under obfuscatory legal expressions. You still have a ruling class that towers over the working class and controls the state apparatus behind the scenes, albeit less so than in comepletely managed democracies like the US. You still have the universality of commodity production which implies the concomitant market exchange, alienated and exploited wage labor by said ruling class, externalities and the race to the bottom in the pursuit of profit.

This is simply within the definition. Just as: "Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity in which surplus value goes to the working class and hence society as a whole."

The moment I saw you coming I was like:

Which part of the Wikipedia criticism page will they use to say: "Social Democracy isn't Socialism" Oh, it's here:

"Social democracy is criticized by other socialists because it serves to devise new means to strengthen the capitalist system which conflicts with the socialist goal of replacing capitalism with a socialist system. According to this view, social democracy fails to address the systemic issues inherent in capitalism."

Even when academics know your criticism they still count it as socialism. Why? because your criticism is just a socialist purity issue rather than the realism of socialist policy throughout the past 100 years.

[Duvniask]

Go read actual theory instead of spouting your surface-level layman nonsense. Social democracy has never meaningfully challenged capitalism.

why should I read it, when people who have studied this for years and have written a nice, succinct summary. That's their jobs right? To learn and esoteric knowledge and make it available is an educational format for layman.

Why should you read something that will make you understand the subject more in-depth instead of just reading summaries? Gee, I wonder, it's almost like I'm saying you will get a better understanding.

And that opinion is in dispute. Wikipedia gets edited a lot, and this addition of "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism" is a newer one, presumably by someone that thinks just like you. Here is the page from 4th July.

It being written on Wikipedia does not mean it is correct terminology. This is the terminology of certain academics who maintain a very surface level view of what "socialism" means.

Academic, or surface level. Pick one.

Academics can treat things superficially, you know, especially if they are not familiar with all their material or cite other authors who are not.

Socialism, properly understood, is a system distinct from capitalism, and you will find no better analysis of what constitutes capitalism and its mode of production than in the Marxian framework, which keeps its terms much more well-defined than common parlance.

Oh wow, I definitely didn't see this statement coming, oh socialism is purely this, even though academics agree that there are vast number of forms within the definition... wow I've been broadsided... oh no... kill me.

Do you understand that a few quoted academics on Wikipedia aren't representative, or even right for that matter?

Do you also understand that not every academic quoted in that article has agreed with the statement "social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism"?

Does it in fact occur to you that Wikipedia articles are a mishmash of different sources that don't speak out on the same things?

In fact, do you understand that it is nowhere apparent that academics all agree on a definition? That's what the criticism section is for.

Defining socialism as just being "social ownership" or "economic democracy" leads you to a distinction without a difference, where the entirety of the capitalist framework is preserved, but under obfuscatory legal expressions. You still have a ruling class that towers over the working class and controls the state apparatus behind the scenes, albeit less so than in comepletely managed democracies like the US. You still have the universality of commodity production which implies the concomitant market exchange, alienated and exploited wage labor by said ruling class, externalities and the race to the bottom in the pursuit of profit.

This is simply within the definition. Just as: "Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity in which surplus value goes to the working class and hence society as a whole."

And here I am thinking a bit of critical thinking will come in handy. You don't even have any argument, just cowering to what Wikipedia says, even though I have already described to you that it leads to a diffused and watered-down definition of socialism.

The moment I saw you coming I was like:

Which part of the Wikipedia criticism page will they use to say: "Social Democracy isn't Socialism" Oh, it's here:

I did not look at Wikipedia at all when writing my post, so this is just projection on your part. Now I have to, of course, because I'm speaking to someone who is unable to argue about the matter without falling back onto vacuous shorthands. It's like if someone wrote a comprehensive work on democracy, and I tried to put it into words for you, and you simply responded with a dictionary definition that's completely lacking in content, instead of meaningfully engaging with the theory.

"Social democracy is criticized by other socialists because it serves to devise new means to strengthen the capitalist system which conflicts with the socialist goal of replacing capitalism with a socialist system. According to this view, social democracy fails to address the systemic issues inherent in capitalism."

Even when academics know your criticism they still count it as socialism. Why? because your criticism is just a socialist purity issue rather than the realism of socialist policy throughout the past 100 years.

Christ, I'm speaking to someone who thinks Wikipedia articles are all written by authors that agree with each other or some shit.

Do you understand that this "criticism" section, which does apparently describe Marxist objections, is from a different set of authors than the other piece you quoted? That nowhere have we seen these authors say they agree that social democracy is a form of socialism? In fact, what they are indeed being cited as saying is that, yes, there is disagreement and therefore reasons that defining social democracy as a form of socialism could be inaccurate.

[Das Poopenpeein TM]

don't

[Lower Nubia]

why should I read it, when people who have studied this for years and have written a nice, succinct summary. That's their jobs right? To learn and esoteric knowledge and make it available is an educational format for layman.

Why should you read something that will make you understand the subject more in-depth instead of just reading summaries? Gee, I wonder, it's almost like I'm saying you will get a better understanding.

And that opinion is in dispute. Wikipedia gets edited a lot, and this addition of "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism" is a newer one, presumably by someone that thinks just like you. Here is the page from 4th July.

Oof, you shot yourself in the foot, because, oh look:

"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a Keynesian capitalist economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest, and social welfare provisions. Due to longstanding governance by social democratic parties during the post-war consensus and their influence on socioeconomic policy in the Nordic countries, social democracy became associated with the Nordic model and Keynesianism within political circles in the late 20th century. It has also been seen by some political commentators as a synonym for European socialism and as overlapping with democratic socialism."

Not just within the definition, but synonymous for more hardcore forms of socialism, like Democratic socialism.

Academic, or surface level. Pick one.

Academics can treat things superficially, you know, especially if they are not familiar with all their material or cite other authors who are not.

Course they can, I'm sure a doctor of philosophy would have difficulty grasping biochemistry.

That does not reflect on what's here though. This is academics within the sphere of political science. This is their home turf, so again, they either are an academic, or have surface knowledge. Pick one.

Oh wow, I definitely didn't see this statement coming, oh socialism is purely this, even though academics agree that there are vast number of forms within the definition... wow I've been broadsided... oh no... kill me.

Do you understand that a few quoted academics on Wikipedia aren't representative, or even right for that matter?

Of course my dear, which is why I can also go here and, my god, what's this, it's the encyclopedia Britannica:

"Meanwhile, the socialist parties of Europe were modifying their positions and enjoying frequent electoral success. The Scandinavian socialists set the example of “mixed economies” that combined largely private ownership with government direction of the economy and substantial welfare programs, and other socialist parties followed suit. Even the SPD, in its Bad Godesberg program of 1959, dropped its Marxist pretenses and committed itself to a “social market economy” involving “as much competition as possible—as much planning as necessary.” Although some welcomed this blurring of boundaries between socialism and welfare-state liberalism as a sign of “the end of ideology,” the more radical student left of the 1960s complained that there was little choice between capitalism, the “obsolete communism” of the Marxist-Leninists, and the bureaucratic socialism of western Europe."

But no, I'm sure the Emeritus Professor of Political Science, from Arizona State University, has got this more fucked up than yourself.

Do you also understand that not every academic quoted in that article has agreed with the statement "social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism"?

Which of course raises the point, why do men so learned on this matter not come to some agreement if you have outlined the definition so cleanly? That's because the definition isn't so clean - which is why it's so. Fucking. Broad.

How many feet you do have with holes in?

Does it in fact occur to you that Wikipedia articles are a mishmash of different sources that don't speak out on the same things?

Different sources are good, unlike yourself, they seem to provide a breadth of competing positions.

In fact, do you understand that it is nowhere apparent that academics all agree on a definition? That's what the criticism section is for.

Obviously.

Which further shows you as a fool: if it was as simple as you defined, academics wouldn't have such difficulty. But, oh wait, they do. Which is, again, why they pick a. Broad. Fucking. Definition.

You need another foot.

And here I am thinking a bit of critical thinking will come in handy. You don't even have any argument, just cowering to what Wikipedia says, even though I have already described to you that it leads to a diffused and watered-down definition of socialism.

Oh please, don't give yourself too much credit, actually, make that no credit. It's clear your definition was just within the expected parameters. It's you, who had not presented any new knowledge to this conversation if I was able to predict what you were going to say.

I did not look at Wikipedia at all when writing my post, so this is just projection on your part.

Which is the fucking problem you idiot.

If I could predict what you were going to say based off of the Wikipedia criticism section, it's because you're not presenting any new information into this convo-fucking-sation.

Now I have to, of course, because I'm speaking to someone who is unable to argue about the matter without falling back onto vacuous shorthand.

Like professors? Sure, such a shorthanded bunch.

It's like if someone wrote a comprehensive work on democracy, and I tried to put it into words for you, and you simply responded with a dictionary definition that's completely lacking in content, instead of meaningfully engaging with the theory.

Oh for god's sake, such a tightnit definition isn't pinned down you insufferable oath. Which makes your definition the most hypocritical thing. If academics can't agree on that definition, as you've admitted, is it because your definition is so obviously true and they've missed it, or is it because it is lacking in poignant knowledge elsewhere? Which. Again. Makes the definition broad by necessity of the epistemological problem of defining such a variety of policies over the last 100 years.

Christ, I'm speaking to someone who thinks Wikipedia articles are all written by authors that agree with each other or some shit.

No I fucking do not. Don't poison the well.

Do you understand that this "criticism" section, which does apparently describe Marxist objections, is from a different set of authors than the other piece you quoted? That nowhere have we seen these authors say they agree that social democracy is a form of socialism? In fact, what they are indeed being cited as saying is that, yes, there is disagreement and therefore reasons that defining social democracy as a form of socialism could be inaccurate.

[/quote]

Yes, I'm aware they don't define it as socialism - IT FUCKING SAYS IT, which makes your statement the evermore mundane, if they don't define it as such, and others, and might I say, a lot more others, do define it as such, why then have you presented a clear cut case that the definition is as you have put it - so clear. Unless of course the reality of the past 100 years is more complicated than your gutteral waste of time that you've posted here.

[Atheris]

And I am a 400 foot tall purple platypus-bear with pink horns and silver wings.

Despite what some might say, in the final analysis social democracy preserves capitalism in return for a compromise where the working class gets universalized benefits. The only way you can really call it "socialism" is if you subscribe to the obnoxious idea that socialism is "when the government does things".

Ahh the old fashioned:

"Social democracy isn't my flavour of hardline socialism, therefore it ain't socialism."

Spare me the bullshit.

As a social democrat: No, social democracy isn't socialism. The two are connected, but social democracy is as capitalist as apple pie.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Ahh the old fashioned:

"Social democracy isn't my flavour of hardline socialism, therefore it ain't socialism."

Spare me the bullshit.

As a social democrat: No, social democracy isn't socialism. The two are connected, but social democracy is as capitalist as apple pie.

As a communist and an ex-socialist I can back you up. Social democracy is not socialism.

[Lower Nubia]

Ahh the old fashioned:

"Social democracy isn't my flavour of hardline socialism, therefore it ain't socialism."

Spare me the bullshit.

As a social democrat: No, social democracy isn't socialism. The two are connected, but social democracy is as capitalist as apple pie.

Sure, because there isn't any one socialism. Social Democracy comes under the the confines of socialism.

[-Astoria-]

don't

Founding date checks out.

[Alcala-Cordel]

don't

Founding date checks out.

Name as well

As a social democrat: No, social democracy isn't socialism. The two are connected, but social democracy is as capitalist as apple pie.

Sure, because there isn't any one socialism. Social Democracy comes under the the confines of socialism.

That doesn't change the fact that social democracy is capitalist with capitalist foundations.

[Lower Nubia]

Founding date checks out.

Name as well

Sure, because there isn't any one socialism. Social Democracy comes under the the confines of socialism.

That doesn't change the fact that social democracy is capitalist with capitalist foundations.

My god, I swear this thread is a fractal.

[Anti Defense League]

They must purge the Social Liberal tendency; there's a reason, after all, 40% of Union workers in the United States will hold their nose and vote Republican regularly. If you solely focus on the economics, while at best being neutral on matters of religion and morality, then there is the pathway to victory.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

And welfare itself is a thing with socialist attributes.

No.

The capitalist welfare system originated from Bismarck's measures to ease the contradictions between the government and the working class.This is a bourgeois reform in order to ease the contradiction with the proletariat.Since feudalism can enter the stage of capitalism through social improvement, capitalism can also enter socialism through social improvement.Since its birth, welfare bears the socialist attribute of social equity and ensuring the interests of the proletariat. Although it is still different from the true socialist welfare

The welfare society in northern Europe is exactly the influence of socialist thoughts.

The welfare society in Northern Europe exists as a compromise that dampens working class fervor in return for social benefits. It's only "socialism" to the extent that the word has become a watered-down, meaningless term that obfuscates what the real revolutionary movement set out to accomplish.

Because it has not become real socialism. In the capitalist society, it is impossible for the socialist policy to bring its real effect into full play

The first premise of capitalism is private ownership. Individuals master the means of production and use employment or labor to create profits. Even in the Soviet Union and Cuba, the state also accumulated capital by promoting people's labor. Any economic activity will steal the surplus value of workers.

Precisely the reason why all these states are capitalist. They accumulate capital. It's not hard to understand.

Because if the "difference between the value created by labor and the labor remuneration" does not exist, the economic activities carried out by the workers are actually at a loss. Neither enterprises, trade unions nor the state can accumulate wealth and the means of production can not grow.

It certainly existed in all of the Eastern Bloc countries, with their respective national incomes derived from surplus activity on the part of their workforces (or that of other workforces being exploited around the world) - more reason for them to be capitalist, mind you.

A socialist society is not within the paradigm of value; it is a post-value society, in other words a moneyless society. It doesn't steal surplus "value", because value would be an anachronism. What it does do is direct the necessary surplus labor toward socially useful ends, as decided upon by the working class as a whole, not to satisfy a profit for some owner - indeed, there would be no such thing as profit. Societies like the Soviet Union exploited surplus value from their working population the same as any other capitalist system - surplus value which could then be consumed by a long line of nomenklatura parasites until being reinvested into whatever the state apparatus saw fit; just like a businessman investing into new machinery to generate more revenue.

Socialism cannot be separated from money. You're asking too much for it. You're talking about a communist society.Socialism only needs to realize that the society owns and controls products, capital, land and assets, and its management and distribution are based on the public interest.It is also a socialist way of operation that the state collects the value created by workers and then distributes it twice.The difference between it and capitalist countries is whether it represents the interests of the proletariat.It is obvious that the social welfare of the governments in Britain, America and Western Europe is to maintain the dominant position of capitalists, not to really solve the problems encountered by the people in production and life.When the Soviet Union was just established, under the leadership of Lenin, it was aimed at solving the problems encountered by all the Soviet people and improving their living standards.They are no longer socialism when they have formed bureaucrats and began to carry out hegemonic activities.Because their purpose of action is no longer for the interests of the proletariat.This turned them into imperialism under the banner of socialism.

Capitalism is a private economic system, and socialism is a social system of public ownership. In China, the proportion of the public economy is close to 40%. I would rather you call it a mixed economy because public ownership is still in the core position in China

More nonsense. Capitalism doesn't stop being capitalism just because you, theoretically, split the capital among a large group (or even the entire population). And that's just theoretically speaking, the working classes of China or Cuba only own the means of production in the abstract, to the extent that the state is somehow equivalent to the working class (spoiler, it isn't). And questions of ownership only pertain to the superstructure; it is a legalistic expression that obscures the base, the true relations of production, which are still geared towards the production of commodities in return for profit.

That's just what you think.The composition of production relations is determined by the owners of the means of production.Private ownership and public ownership are not separated from capitalism,because the theoretical basis of utopian socialism and Marxism are all built on public ownership.The socialist country advocated by Marx is the public ownership of means of production and the large-scale socialized production it brings.Its rulers are the proletariat as a whole.It has nothing to do with whether to produce goods for profit, because that is the issue to be dealt with at the Communist stage.

[Aureumterra]

don't

Seconded

[-Astoria-]

They must purge the Social Liberal tendency; there's a reason, after all, 40% of Union workers in the United States will hold their nose and vote Republican regularly. If you solely focus on the economics, while at best being neutral on matters of religion and morality, then there is the pathway to victory.

"Tendency"?

[Anti Defense League]

They must purge the Social Liberal tendency; there's a reason, after all, 40% of Union workers in the United States will hold their nose and vote Republican regularly. If you solely focus on the economics, while at best being neutral on matters of religion and morality, then there is the pathway to victory.

"Tendency"?

"Socialism"-more aptly Social Democracy-in the U.S. tends to get locked up into the death spiral of racial, sexual, etc politics. This is by design of the ruling corporate elite, however.

[Nuroblav]

To drop in on the social democracy discussion:

Social democracy is basically a democratic welfare state that - as mentioned already - combines elements of socialism and capitalism. As someone who use to advocate for a similar system, I would not lump it under socialism. Sure it draws a bit from socialism, but it's been revised so heavily that it's more just a friendlier form of capitalism. In socialism, the means of production are regulated by the community as a whole - which is not the case in social democracy.

And get Bernie Sanders to stop calling himself a socialist.

That as well

Yes, and if they do agree, then people should probably begin to organize. Whether it’s into political parties, organizations, or as I would hope: revolutionary Trade Unions. If people become aware of what socialism truly is, and begin to form their own opinions on the ideology, then much more would surely soon follow.

Indeed

[Starblaydia]

I did not look at Wikipedia at all when writing my post, so this is just projection on your part.

Which is the fucking problem you idiot.

It's like if someone wrote a comprehensive work on democracy, and I tried to put it into words for you, and you simply responded with a dictionary definition that's completely lacking in content, instead of meaningfully engaging with the theory.

Oh for god's sake, such a tightnit definition isn't pinned down you insufferable oath.

Lower Nubia *** warned for flaming ***.

[The Rich Port]

If you ask me the only thing that needs any saving in the US is capitalism.

The American people can only take so much abuse, so much overwork, so much moral degradation, so much of not seeing a penny of any of this prosperity and wonderfulness and freedom until they get fucking sick of it.

And in that case, we go in one of two ways: inevitable socialism or inevitable corporatism/authoritarianism/fascism. Either Americans get sick of working for pennies and a tiny piece of pie of the American Dream, or they miss the starting gun, the corporations take over every aspect of our lives, and we accept our place as expendable cogs in a really shitty machine.

I'm cautiously optimistic, as I am in all things, that Americans especially will realize how ass backwards the country is and set ourselves right, but as an American myself, I am always vigilant of the reality that reactionary sentiment is particularly high here.

[Das Zuletzt Reich]

Young people keep pushing socialism in the US because its unknown. While you might think you are the socialist mastermind after reading the Communist Manifesto, its not that simple. Communism is the "opposite" of fascism. Or thats what you think. Communism is there because its opposing "fascism", and governments are called fascist because you have been thought that fascism killed millions of Jews. Because the US government is "fascist" (spoiler alert, no its not) the answer to that is Communism. Communism, becuase its far left and fascism is far right. However, communism killed much more people, which many "communists" in america dont understand. Another problem is the false news american media is sending to the people. As you might think that racism is an every-day problem in America, its not, because if you make an article in a newspaper or a tabloid called "Black woman caught over speeding, had an argument with an officer" it wouldnt make people read that. But if you call it "Racist cop stops and threatens a black woman in a car" everyone would click to read it because its pretty terrible. Im not saying that there is no racism in america, or police brutality but there isnt as much as it actually is. If you think communism would solve all your problems, look at other capitalist countries. France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Morocco... All of them are successful, and have none of your problems. Its not capitalism to blame, its the people who are abusing, not only the system, but the people too. After all the people who lead the system in america are there to gain more money, not to solve any problems. China says that their system is communist, but its more like controlled capitalism mixed with some fascism, however there arent many problems in China even though there is that tiny bit of fascism. Many people who are trying to "lead" the USA arent informed enough, and they dont want to inform their followers.

Conclusion: socialism isnt the answer. Capitalism is OK, its the criminals and abusers of it that are bad.

[Plzen]

The average American newborn is not significantly different from the average French newborn, and yet the two societies have very different sets of problems.

If you think the reason people act in problematic ways is because they are bad people, the only thing that shows is that you have no interest in solving whatever problem it is.

[Nuroblav]

However, communism killed much more people,

I think I've brought this up before somewhere in the thread, but capitalism has caused way more. Also a lot of deaths attributed to 'communism' are not due to the system itself, or are backed up by a laughably inaccurate source.

[Allenstadt]

As someone from a country with as strong Communist party, I think part of the reasons leftists are so vilified in the US is because of the cold war (McCarthy's 'Commies'). The US was, and to an extent is, so opposed to communism that any person even leaning slightly left of center can be labeled communist and lose many votes, since commies are the enemy.

[-Astoria-]

Young people keep pushing socialism in the US because its unknown. While you might think you are the socialist mastermind after reading the Communist Manifesto, its not that simple. Communism is the "opposite" of fascism. Or thats what you think. Communism is there because its opposing "fascism", and governments are called fascist because you have been thought that fascism killed millions of Jews. Because the US government is "fascist" (spoiler alert, no its not) the answer to that is Communism. Communism, becuase its far left and fascism is far right. However, communism killed much more people, which many "communists" in america dont understand. Another problem is the false news american media is sending to the people. As you might think that racism is an every-day problem in America, its not, because if you make an article in a newspaper or a tabloid called "Black woman caught over speeding, had an argument with an officer" it wouldnt make people read that. But if you call it "Racist cop stops and threatens a black woman in a car" everyone would click to read it because its pretty terrible. Im not saying that there is no racism in america, or police brutality but there isnt as much as it actually is. If you think communism would solve all your problems, look at other capitalist countries. France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Morocco... All of them are successful, and have none of your problems. Its not capitalism to blame, its the people who are abusing, not only the system, but the people too. After all the people who lead the system in america are there to gain more money, not to solve any problems. China says that their system is communist, but its more like controlled capitalism mixed with some fascism, however there arent many problems in China even though there is that tiny bit of fascism. Many people who are trying to "lead" the USA arent informed enough, and they dont want to inform their followers.

Conclusion: socialism isnt the answer. Capitalism is OK, its the criminals and abusers of it that are bad.

...what

[Duvniask]

Why should you read something that will make you understand the subject more in-depth instead of just reading summaries? Gee, I wonder, it's almost like I'm saying you will get a better understanding.

And that opinion is in dispute. Wikipedia gets edited a lot, and this addition of "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism" is a newer one, presumably by someone that thinks just like you. Here is the page from 4th July.

Oof, you shot yourself in the foot, because, oh look:

It doesn't matter to my point if a different part of the article now says it. The point is that such edits yield you uncertain grounds, because it is a matter in dispute.

Academics can treat things superficially, you know, especially if they are not familiar with all their material or cite other authors who are not.

Course they can, I'm sure a doctor of philosophy would have difficulty grasping biochemistry.

That does not reflect on what's here though. This is academics within the sphere of political science. This is their home turf, so again, they either are an academic, or have surface knowledge. Pick one.

First of all, being an academic does not mean you have mastered your field, nor does it mean your work is coherent and semantically refined. Being a student of political science myself, I'm all too aware of the misleading usage of terminology applied in the field. Such problems have been pointed out by others, because it makes the field of comparative politics a nightmare to work in:

"My focus is conceptual —about concepts— under the assumption that concepts are not only elements of a theoretical system, but equally tools for fact-gathering, data containers. The empirical problem is that we badly need information which is sufficiently precise to be meaningfully comparable. Hence we need a filing system provided by discriminating, i.e., taxonomic, conceptual containers. If these are not provided, data misgathering is inevitable; and statistical, computerized sophistication is no remedy for misinformation. The theoretical problem can be stated, in turn, as follows: we grievously lack a disciplined use of terms and procedures of comparison. This discipline can be provided, I suggest, by awareness of the ladder of abstraction, of the logical properties that are implied, and of the rules of composition and decomposition thus resulting. If no such discipline is obtained, conceptual mishandling and, ultimately, conceptual misformation is inevitable (and joins forces with data misgathering).

Thus far the discipline has largely followed the line of least resistance, namely, "conceptual stretching." In order to obtain a world-wide applicability the extension of our concepts has been broadened by obfuscating their connotation. As a result the very purpose of comparing —control— is defeated, and we are left to swim in a sea of empirical and theoretical messiness. Intolerably blunted conceptual tools are conducive, on the one hand, to wasteful if not misleading research, and, on the other hand, to a meaningless togetherness based on pseudo-equivalences." —Giovanni Sartori, Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics (1970)

Second there is a difference between what I said, which is that of academics treating something superficially, and having superficial knowledge; a professor can be aware of the complicated history of the socialist movement yet still choose, for whatever reason, to confine it to its most vacuous meaning.

Do you understand that a few quoted academics on Wikipedia aren't representative, or even right for that matter?

Of course my dear, which is why I can also go here and, my god, what's this, it's the encyclopedia Britannica:

"Meanwhile, the socialist parties of Europe were modifying their positions and enjoying frequent electoral success. The Scandinavian socialists set the example of “mixed economies” that combined largely private ownership with government direction of the economy and substantial welfare programs, and other socialist parties followed suit. Even the SPD, in its Bad Godesberg program of 1959, dropped its Marxist pretenses and committed itself to a “social market economy” involving “as much competition as possible—as much planning as necessary.” Although some welcomed this blurring of boundaries between socialism and welfare-state liberalism as a sign of “the end of ideology,” the more radical student left of the 1960s complained that there was little choice between capitalism, the “obsolete communism” of the Marxist-Leninists, and the bureaucratic socialism of western Europe."

But no, I'm sure the Emeritus Professor of Political Science, from Arizona State University, has got this more fucked up than yourself.

I can disagree with the methodology and rigor of (my) professors just fine when it comes to semantics. This isn't a debate over laws of physics, it's a debate about the usage of words, which, as I laid out above, is subject to constant misuse and stretching, resulting in certain people fitting everything into a simplified but vacuous little package that holds little consistency and becomes largely useless for accurate comparison. Socialism is perhaps the most misused and least understood term of all, but it is hardly alone.

Do you also understand that not every academic quoted in that article has agreed with the statement "social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism"?

Which of course raises the point, why do men so learned on this matter not come to some agreement if you have outlined the definition so cleanly? That's because the definition isn't so clean - which is why it's so. Fucking. Broad.

How many feet you do have with holes in?

"Learned men" cannot come to agreement on many matters, especially those of semantics. The broadest definitions are the most useless when applied, because, as argued above, they defeat the purpose of comparison. A broad definition of democracy, for example based on holding elections and having differing political parties represented in parliament, will mean that authoritarian states like Russia, which regularly engage in vote manipulation, murder of dissidents and crackdowns on free speech, are democracies just like any other.

Having a very broad definition of socialism, like you propose, is a case of conceptual stretching so absurd that it leads to socialism being reduced from a genuinely different socioeconomic system to just being another form of capitalism; capitalism with state intervention and social welfare, which is honestly absurd. This has been my point, consistently. You refuse to engage with it, because your only shtick is to fall back to what certain, and I do emphasize certain, academics say on the matter.

I contend that these academics are wrong, because their appliance of the term is ill-suited for actually describing what have always been the goals of the socialist movement from the beginning, which has always been to challenge and overthrow capitalism; and capitalism is a distinct epoch in history characterized by the universalized production of commodities for exchange, wage labor (which is but another term for commodified and alienated labor), and capital accumulation.

Does it in fact occur to you that Wikipedia articles are a mishmash of different sources that don't speak out on the same things?

Different sources are good, unlike yourself, they seem to provide a breadth of competing positions.

That has nothing to do with my point, which is that we can only be certain that the authors who actually say that "social democracy is a form of socialism" will agree with that statement. All the other cited authors have, for all we know, no opinion or may even disagree entirely, yet they are still cited because their input in an article about social democracy was deemed relevant elsewhere.

In fact, do you understand that it is nowhere apparent that academics all agree on a definition? That's what the criticism section is for.

Obviously.

Which further shows you as a fool: if it was as simple as you defined, academics wouldn't have such difficulty. But, oh wait, they do. Which is, again, why they pick a. Broad. Fucking. Definition.

You need another foot.

My definition is itself a simplification, but it much more accurately captures what the socialist movement sets out to accomplish. Yours, and the one used by these people, is just a co-opted usage where socialism has been collapsed into a meaningless term where it is just another form of capitalism and therefore cannot be said to exist in opposition to it; it fully obscures the history and theoretical underpinnings of the socialist movement, and it is also in opposition to the stated aims of most self-identified socialists.

I did not look at Wikipedia at all when writing my post, so this is just projection on your part.

Which is the fucking problem you idiot.

If I could predict what you were going to say based off of the Wikipedia criticism section, it's because you're not presenting any new information into this convo-fucking-sation.

You're very angry about something you know very little about.

The problem here is that a certain someone is trying to resolve a semantical dispute by pivoting to Wikipedia. I happen to know better what I'm talking about, so I don't really need to fall back onto a site that is itself an illustration of said semantical dispute.

Now I have to, of course, because I'm speaking to someone who is unable to argue about the matter without falling back onto vacuous shorthand.

Like professors? Sure, such a shorthanded bunch.

They can be. Being a professor doesn't mean you are right or rigorous in all ways, especially in terminology. It's one thing to challenge laws of nature, it's another thing to criticize how someone uses words.

It's like if someone wrote a comprehensive work on democracy, and I tried to put it into words for you, and you simply responded with a dictionary definition that's completely lacking in content, instead of meaningfully engaging with the theory.

Oh for god's sake, such a tightnit definition isn't pinned down you insufferable oath. Which makes your definition the most hypocritical thing. If academics can't agree on that definition, as you've admitted, is it because your definition is so obviously true and they've missed it, or is it because it is lacking in poignant knowledge elsewhere? Which. Again. Makes the definition broad by necessity of the epistemological problem of defining such a variety of policies over the last 100 years.

It doesn't need to be lacking "in poignant knowledge elsewhere" for people to misuse it. People misuse words constantly.

Social democracy was born in the socialist movement as a kind of reformism, but their insistence on transforming society away from capitalism largely died out before the middle of the 20th century. Instead it became about preserving capital and just raising the existential foundation of the workforce with social welfare spending and labor-market policies; by that point it was clear that pretty much any self-professed social democrat was not a socialist. Calling it a "variety of policies" ignores the rather simple issue that social democrats stopped wanted to change the system, instead seeking to reform capitalism and "humanize" it. Such a stance is irreconcilable with the socialist movement at large, which was always about the abolishment of capitalism.

Christ, I'm speaking to someone who thinks Wikipedia articles are all written by authors that agree with each other or some shit.

No I fucking do not. Don't poison the well.

Then why are you saying those authors cited in the "Criticism"-section agree with the statement that "social democracy is a form of socialism"? There is no way you could possibly know that, given we are talking about a matter which is subject to a semantics dispute. You are in fact saying that, despite their criticism, they still count it as a form of socialism; nowhere does it say that, it's something you just made up because you either misread the page or because you somehow think nothing in the article could possibly contradict anything else, which is an absurd thing to believe.

Do you understand that this "criticism" section, which does apparently describe Marxist objections, is from a different set of authors than the other piece you quoted? That nowhere have we seen these authors say they agree that social democracy is a form of socialism? In fact, what they are indeed being cited as saying is that, yes, there is disagreement and therefore reasons that defining social democracy as a form of socialism could be inaccurate.

Yes, I'm aware they don't define it as socialism - IT FUCKING SAYS IT, which makes your statement the evermore mundane,

I question how aware you are, since you yourself contradicted this angry spiel earlier:

Which part of the Wikipedia criticism page will they use to say: "Social Democracy isn't Socialism" Oh, it's here:

"Social democracy is criticized by other socialists because it serves to devise new means to strengthen the capitalist system which conflicts with the socialist goal of replacing capitalism with a socialist system. According to this view, social democracy fails to address the systemic issues inherent in capitalism."

Even when academics know your criticism they still count it as socialism. Why? because your criticism is just a socialist purity issue rather than the realism of socialist policy throughout the past 100 years.

if they don't define it as such, and others, and might I say, a lot more others, do define it as such, why then have you presented a clear cut case that the definition is as you have put it - so clear. Unless of course the reality of the past 100 years is more complicated than your gutteral waste of time that you've posted here.

It's somewhat amusing to me that you have nothing to respond to my point with other than "BUT THEY SAY SO". Yes, certain academics treat the matter lazily and end up in the hell-world of conceptual stretching, what is your response to my actual challenge to their usage of the term? I have yet to see it. What you've presented here is nothing but screeching about how broad the definition is and the problems of defining it... and I ask why should it be so complicated? I have a clear stance I'm willing to defend, so have at it, Hoss.