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

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

i think that socialism and communism should be discussed separately, seeing as how they are different things.

socialism: ¨a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.¨

communism: (often initial capital letter) ¨a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.¨

socialism can work if the market is relatively free, communism can never work if you want any semblance of freedom and individuality. Both require trust in the state, which a lot of people don't have (for good reason), but the trust needed for communism is absolute and required, whereas socialism can be established without a totalitarian state. federalism scares many, but when tempered with democracy, a strong central government, especially in economics, can be very good for the people.

i don't believe that the government should own all business, but that state-owned business should be encouraged, and all businesses should be held accountable by the state. the government investing in business would stimulate and strengthen the economy, making it easier to provide greater social programs with lower tax rates. it would be ideal for all businesses to have multiple leaders/owners, and investors. this should also be regulated, but not forced, perhaps by tax benefits. people do love money.

tl;dr
communism bad, socialism kinda cool, they are very different and should not be confused, more people would consider socialism if they knew this.

with the additional money the government and the people now have with the institution of democratic socialism, the first priority would be improving standards of living by:
- raising the minimum wage, especially in areas where the price of living is high
- improving education and lowering the price of college (more/better scholarships, better public universities)
- universal healthcare
- improved mental health care
- environmental protections

I don’t know where you are getting these definitions from. Communism is a classless, stateless society. The Vanguard Party is a Leninist idea, not a Marxist idea. You will find many communists, especially anarchists, disavowing the USSR because state capitalism is not socialism, and repression by an undemocratic state is just as bad as repression by capitalists.

[Nuroblav]

communism: (often initial capital letter) ¨a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.¨

Not sure quite where you got this from, but incorrect. I like what you're trying to do in that bit though, what with distinguishing between the two.

My take on the two would be this:

-Socialism: A system where the means of the production are owned by the community (so basically the one you gave)

-Communism: A stateless, moneyless and classless society, sometimes achieved through a transitional state.

I can see where you're coming from though, given that a lot of Marxist societies did use a transitional state (which in my opinion never really worked too well but that's for another time). But in Marxist theory the transitional state isn't put down as being part of communism, rather a way to achieve it. Aside from that minor detail, I'll leave the rest up to you.

(For reference, I wouldn't refer to myself generally as a communist, mainly because it doesn't really sum up my overall views too well.)

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

i think that socialism and communism should be discussed separately, seeing as how they are different things.

socialism: ¨a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.¨

communism: (often initial capital letter) ¨a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.¨

socialism can work if the market is relatively free, communism can never work if you want any semblance of freedom and individuality. Both require trust in the state, which a lot of people don't have (for good reason), but the trust needed for communism is absolute and required, whereas socialism can be established without a totalitarian state. federalism scares many, but when tempered with democracy, a strong central government, especially in economics, can be very good for the people.

i don't believe that the government should own all business, but that state-owned business should be encouraged, and all businesses should be held accountable by the state. the government investing in business would stimulate and strengthen the economy, making it easier to provide greater social programs with lower tax rates. it would be ideal for all businesses to have multiple leaders/owners, and investors. this should also be regulated, but not forced, perhaps by tax benefits. people do love money.

tl;dr
communism bad, socialism kinda cool, they are very different and should not be confused, more people would consider socialism if they knew this.

with the additional money the government and the people now have with the institution of democratic socialism, the first priority would be improving standards of living by:
- raising the minimum wage, especially in areas where the price of living is high
- improving education and lowering the price of college (more/better scholarships, better public universities)
- universal healthcare
- improved mental health care
- environmental protections

I don’t know where you are getting these definitions from. Communism is a classless, stateless society. The Vanguard Party is a Leninist idea, not a Marxist idea. You will find many communists, especially anarchists, disavowing the USSR because state capitalism is not socialism, and repression by an undemocratic state is just as bad as repression by capitalists.

They're from dictionary.com and as far I know, communism irl has never been stateless or classless. But feel free to inform me.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

communism: (often initial capital letter) ¨a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.¨

Not sure quite where you got this from, but incorrect. I like what you're trying to do in that bit though, what with distinguishing between the two.

My take on the two would be this:

-Socialism: A system where the means of the production are owned by the community (so basically the one you gave)

-Communism: A stateless, moneyless and classless society, sometimes achieved through a transitional state.

I can see where you're coming from though, given that a lot of Marxist societies did use a transitional state (which in my opinion never really worked too well but that's for another time). But in Marxist theory the transitional state isn't put down as being part of communism, rather a way to achieve it. Aside from that minor detail, I'll leave the rest up to you.

(For reference, I wouldn't refer to myself generally as a communist, mainly because it doesn't really sum up my overall views too well.)

the definitions are from dictionary.com, and i think anarcho-communism might work in a small country, but i've never heard of it unless you want to count before societies really got going or a violent, disorganized anarchy. people need structure and will provide it for themselves, thus the social constructs of money, class, government, and so on.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

If you want to save socialist ideas you have to convince people that it wont lead to excessive government control, a loss of economic productivity, and mass starvation. Every country to fully adopt socialism has suffered from at least one of these problems, and most have experienced all 3.

Now this is not to say that in socialism is inherently a bad idea. In small applications the theory of by everyone according to their ability and to everybody according to their need works really well actually. The problem is the larger the amount of people the more will just be downright lazy and the more will only contribute the bare minimum. This is why in capitalist systems hard work is rewarded well, its a motivator. In socialist systems this motivator isn't there and economic progress often slows.

If socialism wants to survive it need's to find a new motivator, something that will get the people to work hard, but they need to do it without just outright forcing them to.

I don't know what kind of motivator would work but i do know that if you can motivate the people to work without just outright forcing them you'd avoid falling into the major traps of socialism

another good take, i like ya post g.

*slaps computer*

[Duvniask]

Not sure quite where you got this from, but incorrect. I like what you're trying to do in that bit though, what with distinguishing between the two.

My take on the two would be this:

-Socialism: A system where the means of the production are owned by the community (so basically the one you gave)

-Communism: A stateless, moneyless and classless society, sometimes achieved through a transitional state.

I can see where you're coming from though, given that a lot of Marxist societies did use a transitional state (which in my opinion never really worked too well but that's for another time). But in Marxist theory the transitional state isn't put down as being part of communism, rather a way to achieve it. Aside from that minor detail, I'll leave the rest up to you.

(For reference, I wouldn't refer to myself generally as a communist, mainly because it doesn't really sum up my overall views too well.)

the definitions are from dictionary.com, and i think anarcho-communism might work in a small country, but i've never heard of it unless you want to count before societies really got going or a violent, disorganized anarchy. people need structure and will provide it for themselves, thus the social constructs of money, class, government, and so on.

Using dictionaries to understand complex political beliefs is incredibly reductive, and a hallmark of someone who knows far too little. You're essentially restricting yourself to a base level of layman's ignorance and it actively harms the discussion you're trying to have.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

the definitions are from dictionary.com, and i think anarcho-communism might work in a small country, but i've never heard of it unless you want to count before societies really got going or a violent, disorganized anarchy. people need structure and will provide it for themselves, thus the social constructs of money, class, government, and so on.

Using dictionaries to understand complex political beliefs is incredibly reductive, and a hallmark of someone who knows far too little. You're essentially restricting yourself to a base level of layman's ignorance and it actively harms the discussion you're trying to have.

what should i use to find my definitions besides the definition book of the bourgeoisie, good comrade?

am i enough of an enlightened communist yet? or still a layman petty bourgeois? aren't laymen the common proletariats? oh well, what am i even saying? the revolution asks not who, but when and how? anarcho communism for the win, kill all capitalists and their family members. reinstitute gulags.

[New yugoslavaia]

Using dictionaries to understand complex political beliefs is incredibly reductive, and a hallmark of someone who knows far too little. You're essentially restricting yourself to a base level of layman's ignorance and it actively harms the discussion you're trying to have.

what should i use to find my definitions besides the definition book of the bourgeoisie, good comrade?

am i enough of an enlightened communist yet? or still a layman petty bourgeois? aren't laymen the common proletariats? oh well, what am i even saying? the revolution asks not who, but when and how? anarcho communism for the win, kill all capitalists and their family members. reinstitute gulags.

I don’t think that’s how anarchism works...

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

what should i use to find my definitions besides the definition book of the bourgeoisie, good comrade?

am i enough of an enlightened communist yet? or still a layman petty bourgeois? aren't laymen the common proletariats? oh well, what am i even saying? the revolution asks not who, but when and how? anarcho communism for the win, kill all capitalists and their family members. reinstitute gulags.

I don’t think that’s how anarchism works...

who told you that, a dictionary?

[Anatoliyanskiy]

guys. not the topic. this isn't how to save communism in the west, this is how to save socialism in the west. you're getting the two mixed up and now we're talking about anarchism. *sigh* I'll give my two cents however: there are many, many forms of socialism, and it can get a bit hazy on what kinds are actually socialism and which ones are just regulatory capitalism (*cough* social democracy *cough*). But mainly you can group them into three categories:
authoritarian socialism, democratic socialism and libertarian socialism. But one could argue there are multiple more categories, but I'll just stop there. While it is indeed the intention of Marxists to start out with socialism and then eventually end up with communism, many modern socialists stop with their preferred category. Heres some info to distinguish between the three types: authoritarian socialism is the type of socialism that was used in the USSR until Gorbachev came into power. It basically means that the state should control all means of production and have full authority over people's social lives as well, and dictate what they do on a day-to-day basis, and can be considered to be quite socially conservative. Stalinism, certain forms of Marxism-Leninism and other Bolshevik style socialisms fall under this category. (this is gonna be long, so sit tight.) Democratic Socialism is the main socialist ideology used by modern day leftist parties such as the NDP in Canada and other similar style parties. This category can also very easily be partnered with Social Democracy, and it dependents on the party on which is more prevalent. Democratic socialism believes liberal democracy is the best way to achieve socialism and that it can cause a so-called ''quiet revolution'', if you will. Certain forms of social democracy and eco-socialism fall under this category. Libertarian Socialism is the major category supported by the ''New Left'', and is supported by a good amount of left-wing parties in Europe, unbeknownst to them. It mainly supports the end of the state and and decentralization, along with worker's self-management. Market socialism can also somewhat be grouped into this category.

(Phew! that took a while to write. hopefully that explains socialism a bit better, and its vast differences in it. authoritarian socialism is mostly the socialism/communism that the west claims killed millions of people, and it gives the other versions a bad rap. so don't be so quick to think that socialism kills people, as in fact only the USSR's authoritarian socialism and other forms did so.)

[Phoenicaea]

plausibly dictionaries have different definition of socialism, not to mention communism, if they are either american or european. and this tells how difficult to debate, when people has no wish.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

well, i think that democratic socialism can work without major upheaval. in the us? unlikely. But elsewhere? definitely. if the political/economic climate in the us changes, it could become an accepted policy, and maybe even preferred. not going to happen in the near future, tho. at the best, bernie sanders gets the democratic nomination and universal healthcare and stuff like that are instituted.

[Aureumterra III]

well, i think that democratic socialism can work without major upheaval. in the us? unlikely. But elsewhere? definitely. if the political/economic climate in the us changes, it could become an accepted policy, and maybe even preferred. not going to happen in the near future, tho. at the best, bernie sanders gets the democratic nomination and universal healthcare and stuff like that are instituted.

DemSoc or SocDem?

[Cisairse]

Question: Are trade unions helpful, or do they hurt socialism/ the economy?

I think they are extremely useful, as they aid worker's to gain rights and help to fuel an anti-capitalist perspective.

Trade unions are helpful in an abstract way, but they are substantially more harmful than industrial unions.

[Nuroblav]

guys. not the topic. this isn't how to save communism in the west, this is how to save socialism in the west. you're getting the two mixed up and now we're talking about anarchism. *sigh* I'll give my two cents however: there are many, many forms of socialism, and it can get a bit hazy on what kinds are actually socialism and which ones are just regulatory capitalism (*cough* social democracy *cough*). But mainly you can group them into three categories:
authoritarian socialism, democratic socialism and libertarian socialism. But one could argue there are multiple more categories, but I'll just stop there. While it is indeed the intention of Marxists to start out with socialism and then eventually end up with communism, many modern socialists stop with their preferred category. Heres some info to distinguish between the three types: authoritarian socialism is the type of socialism that was used in the USSR until Gorbachev came into power. It basically means that the state should control all means of production and have full authority over people's social lives as well, and dictate what they do on a day-to-day basis, and can be considered to be quite socially conservative. Stalinism, certain forms of Marxism-Leninism and other Bolshevik style socialisms fall under this category. (this is gonna be long, so sit tight.) Democratic Socialism is the main socialist ideology used by modern day leftist parties such as the NDP in Canada and other similar style parties. This category can also very easily be partnered with Social Democracy, and it dependents on the party on which is more prevalent. Democratic socialism believes liberal democracy is the best way to achieve socialism and that it can cause a so-called ''quiet revolution'', if you will. Certain forms of social democracy and eco-socialism fall under this category. Libertarian Socialism is the major category supported by the ''New Left'', and is supported by a good amount of left-wing parties in Europe, unbeknownst to them. It mainly supports the end of the state and and decentralization, along with worker's self-management. Market socialism can also somewhat be grouped into this category.

(Phew! that took a while to write. hopefully that explains socialism a bit better, and its vast differences in it. authoritarian socialism is mostly the socialism/communism that the west claims killed millions of people, and it gives the other versions a bad rap. so don't be so quick to think that socialism kills people, as in fact only the USSR's authoritarian socialism and other forms did so.)

That sums it up well, although I wouldn't say we LibSocs would be necessarily supported by the New Left. The New Left has more of a social focus rather than an economic one.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

well, i think that democratic socialism can work without major upheaval. in the us? unlikely. But elsewhere? definitely. if the political/economic climate in the us changes, it could become an accepted policy, and maybe even preferred. not going to happen in the near future, tho. at the best, bernie sanders gets the democratic nomination and universal healthcare and stuff like that are instituted.

DemSoc or SocDem?

not super sure of those meanings, especially now that my dictionary privileges have been seized, but i think soc dem would be closer to the us democratic party, and more accepted

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

DemSoc or SocDem?

not super sure of those meanings, especially now that my dictionary privileges have been seized, but i think soc dem would be closer to the us democratic party, and more accepted

Socdems are social democrats, who basically support capitalism with some patches.

Democratic socialists are socialists. Apart from Bernie Sanders, who is actually a social democrat, but calls himself a socialist.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

not super sure of those meanings, especially now that my dictionary privileges have been seized, but i think soc dem would be closer to the us democratic party, and more accepted

Socdems are social democrats, who basically support capitalism with some patches.

Democratic socialists are socialists. Apart from Bernie Sanders, who is actually a social democrat, but calls himself a socialist.

definitely socdem, then

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Socdems are social democrats, who basically support capitalism with some patches.

Democratic socialists are socialists. Apart from Bernie Sanders, who is actually a social democrat, but calls himself a socialist.

definitely socdem, then

Well, why do you think capitalism is worth preserving?

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

definitely socdem, then

Well, why do you think capitalism is worth preserving?

it works alright if you limit the markets and it allows social mobility

[Achidyemay]

If you want to save socialist ideas you have to convince people that it wont lead to excessive government control, a loss of economic productivity, and mass starvation. Every country to fully adopt socialism has suffered from at least one of these problems, and most have experienced all 3.

Now this is not to say that in socialism is inherently a bad idea. In small applications the theory of by everyone according to their ability and to everybody according to their need works really well actually. The problem is the larger the amount of people the more will just be downright lazy and the more will only contribute the bare minimum. This is why in capitalist systems hard work is rewarded well, its a motivator. In socialist systems this motivator isn't there and economic progress often slows.

If socialism wants to survive it need's to find a new motivator, something that will get the people to work hard, but they need to do it without just outright forcing them to.

I don't know what kind of motivator would work but i do know that if you can motivate the people to work without just outright forcing them you'd avoid falling into the major traps of socialism

I agree, it needs a new motivator. Although I believe changing the motivator makes this a fundamentally different economic system. Also, there's more that can be tweaked than just the motivators, which deal with the demand side, but also distribution mechanisms, which deal with the supply side.

The Motivators I've heard of are:
1. Payment
2. Force
3. Moral Duty
4. Social Standing
5. Self-Improvement

Distribution Mechanisms:
1. Lines
2. Lottery
3. Pricing
4. Triage
5. Auction

Socialism with it's "by everyone according to their ability and to everybody according to their need" rhetoric, is saying that it motivates by force, distributes by triage. Communism uses moral duty and social standing instead of force, which is why it works in smaller, tightly nit communities, where the product of ones labor is easily recognized in the smiles of their neighbors faces.

In order for socialism to work better, it needs to make sure that whoever is doing the triage is giving to the actual needy and not to the politically well connected, i.e., the social standing motivator must be entirely removed from the organizer's mind. Further, if each gives according to their ability, there will be far more than just what is needed to satisfy. Certainly, currently, a persons labor of a few hours a day is more than enough to fight the entropy that would kill them otherwise, for some laborers in some circles, only a few minutes is all it takes as memes and technologies improve.

I don't want it to seem like the above lists are all there is, you can mix them and match them and smash them together in wildly different ways. Moral duty and self-improvement typically work well together, but are both killed by the introduction of payment. Similarly, lines kill lotteries and both can fall to pricing, if one isn't careful. I suppose saying socialists should use more social standing based motivation in their policy is a non starter tho, hm?

[Duvniask]

Using dictionaries to understand complex political beliefs is incredibly reductive, and a hallmark of someone who knows far too little. You're essentially restricting yourself to a base level of layman's ignorance and it actively harms the discussion you're trying to have.

what should i use to find my definitions besides the definition book of the bourgeoisie, good comrade?

am i enough of an enlightened communist yet? or still a layman petty bourgeois? aren't laymen the common proletariats? oh well, what am i even saying? the revolution asks not who, but when and how? anarcho communism for the win, kill all capitalists and their family members. reinstitute gulags.

What the fuck are you talking about? Go read the socialist classics and/or theoretical summaries of socialism if you want to have anything approaching an understanding.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

what should i use to find my definitions besides the definition book of the bourgeoisie, good comrade?

am i enough of an enlightened communist yet? or still a layman petty bourgeois? aren't laymen the common proletariats? oh well, what am i even saying? the revolution asks not who, but when and how? anarcho communism for the win, kill all capitalists and their family members. reinstitute gulags.

What the fuck are you talking about? Go read the socialist classics and/or theoretical summaries of socialism if you want to have anything approaching an understanding.

no thx boomer, i have better things to do than read manifestos that caused government sanctioned mass starvation

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

What the fuck are you talking about? Go read the socialist classics and/or theoretical summaries of socialism if you want to have anything approaching an understanding.

no thx boomer, i have better things to do than read manifestos that caused government sanctioned mass starvation

In a similar way that you don’t want to read Lord of the Rings for the grey morality and the hard sci-fi elements? Fuck, the problem isn’t that you don’t know the first thing about leftist thought; it’s that you think you know, and are entirely wrong.

Also, even in your false understanding of socialism, why not take government-sanctioned starvation above capitalist, decentralised starvation now? You probably don’t think of starvation in developing nations as a crisis of capitalism, but those people do not atarve because there is nothing to eat. They starve because they cannot afford the food that we dump into landfills by the tonne.

If you want to save socialist ideas you have to convince people that it wont lead to excessive government control, a loss of economic productivity, and mass starvation. Every country to fully adopt socialism has suffered from at least one of these problems, and most have experienced all 3.

Now this is not to say that in socialism is inherently a bad idea. In small applications the theory of by everyone according to their ability and to everybody according to their need works really well actually. The problem is the larger the amount of people the more will just be downright lazy and the more will only contribute the bare minimum. This is why in capitalist systems hard work is rewarded well, its a motivator. In socialist systems this motivator isn't there and economic progress often slows.

If socialism wants to survive it need's to find a new motivator, something that will get the people to work hard, but they need to do it without just outright forcing them to.

I don't know what kind of motivator would work but i do know that if you can motivate the people to work without just outright forcing them you'd avoid falling into the major traps of socialism

I agree, it needs a new motivator. Although I believe changing the motivator makes this a fundamentally different economic system. Also, there's more that can be tweaked than just the motivators, which deal with the demand side, but also distribution mechanisms, which deal with the supply side.

The Motivators I've heard of are:
1. Payment
2. Force
3. Moral Duty
4. Social Standing
5. Self-Improvement

Distribution Mechanisms:
1. Lines
2. Lottery
3. Pricing
4. Triage
5. Auction

Socialism with it's "by everyone according to their ability and to everybody according to their need" rhetoric, is saying that it motivates by force, distributes by triage. Communism uses moral duty and social standing instead of force, which is why it works in smaller, tightly nit communities, where the product of ones labor is easily recognized in the smiles of their neighbors faces.

In order for socialism to work better, it needs to make sure that whoever is doing the triage is giving to the actual needy and not to the politically well connected, i.e., the social standing motivator must be entirely removed from the organizer's mind. Further, if each gives according to their ability, there will be far more than just what is needed to satisfy. Certainly, currently, a persons labor of a few hours a day is more than enough to fight the entropy that would kill them otherwise, for some laborers in some circles, only a few minutes is all it takes as memes and technologies improve.

I don't want it to seem like the above lists are all there is, you can mix them and match them and smash them together in wildly different ways. Moral duty and self-improvement typically work well together, but are both killed by the introduction of payment. Similarly, lines kill lotteries and both can fall to pricing, if one isn't careful. I suppose saying socialists should use more social standing based motivation in their policy is a non starter tho, hm?

Do you think that socialism is the government controlling everything top-down? Because your post suggests that you do...

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

no thx boomer, i have better things to do than read manifestos that caused government sanctioned mass starvation

In a similar way that you don’t want to read Lord of the Rings for the grey morality and the hard sci-fi elements? Fuck, the problem isn’t that you don’t know the first thing about leftist thought; it’s that you think you know, and are entirely wrong.

Also, even in your false understanding of socialism, why not take government-sanctioned starvation above capitalist, decentralised starvation now? You probably don’t think of starvation in developing nations as a crisis of capitalism, but those people do not starve because there is nothing to eat. They starve because they cannot afford the food that we dump into landfills by the tonne.

it's better to have decentralized starvation because it implies that it's not as big of a problem and kills less people. I'm not a "lowly marxian servant" like Duvniask, I just think they're being too harsh in their left-wing gatekeeping, especially for someone as lowly as they claim to be. I would read Lord of the Rings, grey morality is interesting and hard sci-fi is very cool. It's also works of fiction with little bearing on real lives and deaths, unlike what Duv is suggesting I go study. Food waste is both a real problem, and one that doesn't require "my false understanding of socialism" to solve. maybe I'm not a true scotsman for saying so, but socialism or communism will never solve the essential problems of humanity, namely who has what, why, and how. but that's just an uneducated wannabe leftist talking, so.