Americans have a weird notion of socialism

[noname223]

Yeah I say this as European or German. I have the feeling many Americans don't differentiate between socialism and social democacy. Sometimes this also happens in my country. But we mostly differ these two concepts.

Germany is a social democracy with a European welfare system. A welfare or social state. Scandinavia is also a welfare or social state. They invest even more money in reducing inequality. The countries are know for the best life quality in the world. I would never consider them supporters of Socialism. They still have a market system, respect private property, are clearly democracies, still have capitalism but a "softer" version.

But when I watched Fox News they confuse the meaning of it. But in my opinion some leftwingers are also responsible for it. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist. He should avoid this tendious term. He should call himself a social democrat. Personally I think there is a huge difference between a socialist and s social democrate. However I don't know whether a clear difference exists in the definitions.

When I think about Socialism I think about the Soviet Union, Venezuela, or GDR. They wanted to fight capitalism and the market system. Did not respect private property. Scandinavia in contrast choses the best of two worlds.

Though there are also people in my country who dream about socialism. It is mostly a young generation with ideals. I think most of them will someday stop dreaming about socialism. I am also a lefty but I think socialism will never work. I prefer the Scandinavian model though. There is a saying. I don't know the right translation. If you are no communist/socialist when you are 18 you have no heart but if you are still one at the age of 50 you don't have reason.
Sorry I don't know the dude who said this nor the right translation. Probably it is also not a perfect quote.

 

[Pluto]

Yes, the definition of this term varies. It's probably best avoided, having become devoid of utility aside from harbouring political division. But the internet has no quality filter, and most of the commenters on this topic strike me as low-IQ tribalists who have been brainwashed by right-wing media into supporting endless tax cuts for billionaires, and endless reductions in for services for the needy. Ask who actually owns the media outlets producing the content that they consume and the rest will make sense.

 

[Chinaski]

This is not unique to the USA.

Yes, the definition of this term varies. It's probably best avoided, having become devoid of utility aside from harbouring political division.

Socialism is an ideology, there has to be a term for this and making it a proscribed word would not negate the need to argue for it. Political division will always exist and it's wrong to suggest that this is the responsibility of those arguing for change rather than the responsibility of those who govern.

 

[Pluto]

Socialism is an ideology

Yes, though I don't know what the answer is. Various media echo chambers are capable of turning any word, term or phrase into a dirty word that immediately disqualifies anyone who uses it in the eyes of their subscribers.

It is hard for someone with a socialist inclination to argue in favour of compassion, sense and reason when competing against bad-faith actors who are reliant entirely on psychological manipulation to perpetuate their dysfunctional society. If I engage at all, I try and do so at a more nuanced level than promoting entire ideologies.

 

[Unworthyoflove]

since this is also a place for open discussion , I really have to strongly disagree on what you said. I hope you dont mind :) democracy in my opinion is generally an illusion . but I understand why you would believe and trust in what you have been tought from an early age on. been there myself. and btw thank you so much for making this post. when I read that germany invests money in reducing inequality ...it made me laugh so hard I nearly peed myself lol(was great,havent laughed in a long time). sry dont get me wrong, I honestly thought you were joking....but then I saw that you are serious. Anyway, to me these countrys follow the same Agenda as many others. and its not a pro human one. without going in to many details of the to me very obvious things just a few things....taking just the example of germany and sweden, when you see how many homeless people thre are and under wich horrible poor conditions many people live in germany its heartbraking ( in sweden its not that bad, but its also only 8 mio there). in germany there is also an extreme high percentage of children living and growing up below existencial level...not to mention that most pensionists cant live and survive from their little pension, again below existencial minimum. I ve seen such horrible suffering in germany. but I am aware that not everyone is able to see that. a part from that, the suicide rates in both counties are extremely high.( wonder why, when its so "socially pro human there). the healthcare system sucks in both counties( but in sweden, citizens at least get it for free) germany goes as far as to obligate people to have it. no matter if you can afford it or not. and if you dont pay,the will steal your last euro from your bankaccount( of course without your consent) no matter if that means you have nothing to eat. I could go on and on ....about how evil especially germany is to its people...but it will be much to long for this. I guess I really made my point ;)

 

[Angi]

I have the feeling many Americans don't differentiate between socialism and social democacy.
[...]
But when I watched Fox News they confuse the meaning of it.

Yes. Mixing up these concepts benefits the owners of news outlets, as well as the people who fund them.

In the world of emotion, if you want change, you need anger, if you want to prevent change, you need fear. Now, if you happen to be very rich, in a country where politics prioritize the rich over the poor (and the middle class), you might want to prevent change. You can do this by making sure people who do not benefit from your system fear change.

If US citizens who are not extremely rich looked towards Skandinavia, or even Germany, they would realize that those systems would serve them much better than the US system. No matter the topic or metric you look at. Education, health care, crime rates, housing, you name it. By making sure the Skandinavian system gets confused with the system of the old UDSSR, which treated people like shit, too, and carries all the old fear from the Cold War, you can use fear to make sure the US systems does not import qualities from the Skandinavian system. You can additionally use pride to say: "Our country is the most developed in the world, we will export our qualities into the world and need never look if any other country does anything better than we do."

 

[Unworthyoflove]

Yes. Mixing up these concepts benefits the owners of news outlets, as well as the people who fund them.

In the world of emotion, if you want change, you need anger, if you want to prevent change, you need fear. Now, if you happen to be very rich, in a country where politics prioritize the rich over the poor (and the middle class), you might want to prevent change. You can do this by making sure people who do not benefit from your system fear change.

If US citizens who are not extremely rich looked towards Skandinavia, or even Germany, they would realize that those systems would serve them much better than the US system. No matter the topic or metric you look at. Education, health care, crime rates, housing, you name it. By making sure the Skandinavian system gets confused with the system of the old UDSSR, which treated people like shit, too, and carries all the old fear from the Cold War, you can use fear to make sure the US systems does not import qualities from the Skandinavian system. You can additionally use pride to say: "Our country is the most developed in the world, we will export our qualities into the world and need never look if any other country does anything better than we do." I

Yes. Mixing up these concepts benefits the owners of news outlets, as well as the people who fund them.

In the world of emotion, if you want change, you need anger, if you want to prevent change, you need fear. Now, if you happen to be very rich, in a country where politics prioritize the rich over the poor (and the middle class), you might want to prevent change. You can do this by making sure people who do not benefit from your system fear change.

If US citizens who are not extremely rich looked towards Skandinavia, or even Germany, they would realize that those systems would serve them much better than the US system. No matter the topic or metric you look at. Education, health care, crime rates, housing, you name it. By making sure the Skandinavian system gets confused with the system of the old UDSSR, which treated people like shit, too, and carries all the old fear from the Cold War, you can use fear to make sure the US systems does not import qualities from the Skandinavian system. You can additionally use pride to say: "Our country is the most developed in the world, we will export our qualities into the world and need never look if any other country does anything better than we do."

I do understand that the US system is a very evil one , no doubt. but believing that in skandinavia its all like a paradies for people is very far away from the truth. does anyone of you live there ? first of all the 3 of them are not all the same , then its not like they have super low criminality there. In swedish citys like malmö and stockholm some areas are so dangerous that even the cops dont dare going there. constantly gang fights, shootings and so on. Also this putting skandinavia in the same pot with germany...why ? things in germany are very diffrent in many ways. this all sounds a bit like , in the neighbors garden the grass seems always a bit greener. the reality to me is that all these governmental systems are abusing, enslaving, controling and harmful to humans. all of them...on diffrent levels. the US in the end is nothing other then a nother european part on the other side of the ozean. Did we all forget what americans actually are: a bunch of europeans whom invaded this continent a few hundreds of years ago ;) they are not so diffrent

 

[Nolan96]

This actually annoys me too. I never know how to explain my economic views in an American context.

I'm often tempted to say I'm a social democrat, but most Americans would assume that term refers to cultural issues. ie. I'm a leftist on cultural issues but conservative when it comes to the economy. The exact opposite is the case. I support social democratic economic policy (social safety nets, affordable healthcare and education, government investments in innovation and infrastructure, green energy, etc.) but I think the left is absolutely fucking satanic when it comes to cultural issues.

 

[emptyjokes]

America has something very close to laissez faire capitalism and most of us have been fooled into thinking that we're on the brink of sliding into full-blown communism if they elect a "capitalism with less racism" candidate instead of a "capitalism everywhere at all costs" candidate. Want evidence? Look for discussions in MSM about "radicalism" in America. You will see a lot of discourse about the "reasonable center" being left behind, when the "reasonable center" in America would basically be the democratic party if they actually upheld their campaign promises. (Andrew Yang's "Forwards" party is a really good example.) The "left" in America has basically zero political representation, but the Republicans have convinced their voter base that the DNC is comprised of "woke liberal communists" and it's a damn good strategy (and I'm livid that it's working).

Pretty much every boomer I talk to will assign everything below as "communism" or something communist-adjacent if you push them on it.

1. Gun control
2. Universal Healthcare
3. LGBTQ+ Rights/Equality
4. Climate change activism
5. Police reform, racial equity
6. Fuckin' walkable cities

Republicans have taken that clip of that guy saying "Socialism is when the government does stuff." and ran with it all the way to the god damn presidency, and they're going to do it again in 2024 I predict.

(PS, the Democrats are the best campaigners for republican politicians. Every establishment DNC candidate is pretty much universally hated by the American voters, while Trump and Trump-aligned characters can win the red vote simply by wearing one of those stupid fuckin' hats.)

 

[come to dust]

In America, anyone who doesn't unequivocally support only what is beneficial to mega corporations and the rich elite, is branded a socialist.

 

[Chinaski]

In America, anyone who doesn't unequivocally support only what is beneficial to mega corporations and the rich elite, is branded a socialist.

Recent events have starkly illustrated that this very much applies to the UK also.

 

[Mixo]

This actually annoys me too. I never know how to explain my economic views in an American context.

I'm often tempted to say I'm a social democrat, but most Americans would assume that term refers to cultural issues. ie. I'm a leftist on cultural issues but conservative when it comes to the economy. The exact opposite is the case. I support social democratic economic policy (social safety nets, affordable healthcare and education, government investments in innovation and infrastructure, green energy, etc.) but I think the left is absolutely fucking satanic when it comes to cultural issues.

Always makes me chuckle whenever I read a "I'm left on social issues but right on economics" sentiment. Real liberation and concern for marginalized groups should include a materialist approach i.e. equitable pay, and closing of wage gaps as people on the margins are more sharply affected by economic inequality. The two sides are inextricable. To offer any show of "support" for those on the margins while ignoring this dimension is merely empty solidarity.

 

[Exact Change]

America has something very close to laissez faire capitalism and most of us have been fooled into thinking that we're on the brink of sliding into full-blown communism if they elect a "capitalism with less racism" candidate instead of a "capitalism everywhere at all costs" candidate. Want evidence? Look for discussions in MSM about "radicalism" in America. You will see a lot of discourse about the "reasonable center" being left behind, when the "reasonable center" in America would basically be the democratic party if they actually upheld their campaign promises. (Andrew Yang's "Forwards" party is a really good example.) The "left" in America has basically zero political representation, but the Republicans have convinced their voter base that the DNC is comprised of "woke liberal communists" and it's a damn good strategy (and I'm livid that it's working).

Pretty much every boomer I talk to will assign everything below as "communism" or something communist-adjacent if you push them on it.

1. Gun control
2. Universal Healthcare
3. LGBTQ+ Rights/Equality
4. Climate change activism
5. Police reform, racial equity
6. Fuckin' walkable cities

Republicans have taken that clip of that guy saying "Socialism is when the government does stuff." and ran with it all the way to the god damn presidency, and they're going to do it again in 2024 I predict.

(PS, the Democrats are the best campaigners for republican politicians. Every establishment DNC candidate is pretty much universally hated by the American voters, while Trump and Trump-aligned characters can win the red vote simply by wearing one of those stupid fuckin' hats.)

Well said. I am sick of the ignorance and the propaganda spewed by politicians in this country. Worse is that there is no use in trying to reason with those who have been conditioned so thoroughly.

 

[SexyIncél]

These terms have meanings, but propaganda systems distort them, so we can't talk with each other. Because many social structures cause false beliefs about themselves, to protect their existence. Not just in the US, but in Europe and elsewhere. Admittedly, the US propaganda industry is highly advanced, about a fifth of the economy

Are "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (North Korea) and "German Democratic Republic" (East Germany) democracies? So why believe they're socialist?

So what does socialism mean? The core: workers control their production; communities control their lives. As opposed to taking orders from a boss all day

I have friends who disagree with socialism, because they believe managers/bosses should control people's lives and creative capacities. And that's fine. At least we know we're talking about the same thing, without illusions

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'm actually embarassingly naive about politics. I always thought the SOUND of communism/ socialism (are they similar?) sounded 'nice'- everyone is equal and helps one another type of thing. It's just that this never seems to be practised- HOW can a country have a dictator type leader if everyone is supposed to be equal?!! Surely- decisions need to be made communally to benefit all? I suppose I just see the concept being different to the dirty reality.

I agree with you though. I love the idea of the NHS (public healthcare in the UK) and other organisations that help the community but I also like the right to autonomy. Someone posted the other day that Kim Jong Un had banned suicide! I guess I like the idea of a community helping one another but not being controlled. Sadly though- due to our exploitative nature- I doubt it works. There will always be people who play the system and exploit others. We just tend to have them as politicians in capitalist countries! Plus- not everyone will want to do 'their bit'. How do you make someone pull their weight without control?

I have heard Vladimir Putin say something like your above quote: 'Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.'

 

[Grav]

How do you make someone pull their weight without control?

You can't. Some will do it but the majority of people won't do some crap job "for the greater good" when someone else gets the skate job. I know I'm not. At the end of the day it's an individual and their immediate group that has priority over some stranger until a government comes to change your priorities.

 

[Forever Sleep]

You can't. Some will do it but the majority of people won't do some crap job "for the greater good" when someone else gets the skate job. I know I'm not. At the end of the day it's an individual and their immediate group that has priority over some stranger until a government comes to change your priorities.

Yeah- I thoroughly agree. Like- maybe these concepts CAN only work in small communities where everyone knows and respects one another GENUINELY. When it's imposed- it doesn't feel like 'the greater good' anymore- it feels exploitative. Plus- history has shown us- it usually is!

 

[angel31]

There is a clear difference between socialism and social democracy. Socialist are anticapitalist and want the means of production to be owned by the proletariat. Social democrats still work in the framework of capitalism.
And socialism has never really been implemented. Socialism means that the means of production (factories etc.) are owned by the whole community or at least the workers of that factory etc.
The Soviet Union etc. were a dictatorship, so the community didnt own anything.

You can't. Some will do it but the majority of people won't do some crap job "for the greater good" when someone else gets the skate job. I know I'm not. At the end of the day it's an individual and their immediate group that has priority over some stranger until a government comes to change your priorities.

But Socialism does not mean that there cant be control. In socialism there can still be currency and you can still get paid for your work. The only difference is that you have a say in how your workplace is run. You elect your bosses for example. And you also decide where the money flows through democratic means. So of course there would not be any Investors or stuff like that anymore.

I'm actually embarassingly naive about politics. I always thought the SOUND of communism/ socialism (are they similar?) sounded 'nice'- everyone is equal and helps one another type of thing.

Interestingly marxism isnt actually about everyone being equal. This is just a common misconseption. It is just about putting the means of production in the hands of the workers. For example: Amazon is a capitalist company right now. If we would give every worker a vote and they can vote in all of the higher ups and make it so the workers "own" the company then it would be a "socialist company".

 

[AlbigenseanGhoul]

There is a clear difference between socialism and social democracy. Socialist are anticapitalist and want the means of production to be owned by the proletariat. Social democrats still work in the framework of capitalism.
And socialism has never really been implemented. Socialism means that the means of production (factories etc.) are owned by the whole community or at least the workers of that factory etc.

I think you mean communism there. Socialism is just usually termed as the broad political ideology, which includes social-democracy, that focuses on addressing material inequalities. That means, wealth, property and income. Social democracy is just one branch of socialism that advocates for incremental socialist advances through politics and democratic participation, unlike say revolutionary socialism which advocates for a violent overthrow of capitalism. Communism is the ideal state of affairs which you refer to, in which class itself is abolished, as is property. That one has never been achieved, but many socialists believe that it can never be achieved, much like a "perfectly competitive market" of liberal capitalist economics, but is rather a goal to strive for.

As for Sanders, the only significative difference between a Demsoc and a Socdem is that the first usually seeks to eventually end capitalism, while the latter is okay with capitalism still existing in the end so long as people can live healthy lives. In the end, they tend to advocate for the same things and there's actually a lot of overlap between them.

 

[angel31]

No I did talk about socialism. If you want a slow transition to a socialist economy you still are socialist. But if you are a social democrat you dont want to remove capitalism. But I agree with you, that you could make an argument for social democracy being under the "umbrella" of socialism. But I still believe that there is a clear line between rejecting capitalism and not doing so.

 

[Grav]

The only difference is that you have a say in how your workplace is run. You elect your bosses for example.

Not sure about you but having been in enough workplaces most of them are just as goofy and would put in place some really stupid ideas. Not that the management group is wonderful but I've worked with a lot of bs slinging, self-serviing a*holes who, given a chance to be in charge, run things into the ground all while they kick their feet up and chillax. I'll take my chances with some bean counter.

 

[Moegetaku]

You can't. Some will do it but the majority of people won't do some crap job "for the greater good" when someone else gets the skate job. I know I'm not. At the end of the day it's an individual and their immediate group that has priority over some stranger until a government comes to change your priorities.

+1

People so naively forget the innate nature of human wrt greed and selfishness. Communism can only flourish when everyone has the same level of idealistic morality and ethics especially when it comes to sacrificing resources. Resources which are limited in number whereas people have unlimited wants.