931
This is why Americans hate Socialism. (lemmy.today)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/workreform@lemmy.world
138 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Cuba Vietnam Laos and North Korea currently.

Also Cambodia and Yugoslavia.

It's actually every country that tried socialism...

Also China is a hybrid system with a thriving free market and many extremely powerful and wealthy mega corporations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It’s actually every country that tried socialism…

    The US tried socialism. The US is, in fact, still partially socialist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    No, it is not. Socialism is an economic system in which the workers, collectively, control the means of production. That is fundamentally different from simply having government programs that provide services or benefits to the public.

    A government operating fire departments, libraries, police departments, public schools, healthcare programs, infrastructure, labor protections, or other services that benefit the general population is not inherently practicing socialism. Those are social programs or public services. They can exist under capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, monarchies, democracies, and virtually any other form of government.

    I think one of the most misunderstood words in the English language is "social." We have social programs, social services, social policy, social democracy, socialism, and social welfare, and despite the shared root, these terms do not mean the same thing.

    People constantly conflate "the government does something that benefits society" with "socialism." That is simply incorrect. A government providing a public service does not, by itself, change the underlying economic system.

    You can support or oppose a particular social program on its own merits without pretending that the program is inherently socialist. Government action and socialism are not synonymous.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    A system doesn't have to be 100% socialist to have socialist elements. A city-owned fire department is a socialist element of a system. The fire trucks are collectively owned and controlled by the people via the government. That meets the definition of socialism.

    A person who owns knitting needles and uses them to make scarves he sells is a capitalist element of a system. That person privately owns the means of production.

    Capitalism and socialism have always existed in a mixed system. In a 100% capitalist system, every "means of production" would have to be in private hands. That would mean that you couldn't have a government-owned fire department, all firefighting equipment, and the labour of firefighters, etc. would have to be privately owned and operated by independent for-profit firefighting companies. In a 100% socialist system, nobody could own knitting needles -- or at least couldn't sell any knitting they did using those knitting needles because that would turn the knitting needles from a personal possession to a piece of capital equipment, which would therefore have to be collectively owned.

    The USSR at various times tried to go 100% socialist, but it was a disaster. They had to at least allow small elements of capitalism in their socialist / communist system, just as ramping up capitalism to 100% never works either.

    We currently live in a mixed socialist / capitalist system in which some "means of production" are collectively owned and controlled by the people via the government, and others are privately owned and operated. One way in which the USA is different from the UK is that in the UK the means of production associated with healthcare are owned and operated by the people via the government (socialist healthcare) whereas in the USA they're privately owned and operated (capitalist healthcare).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent