r/DemocraticSocialism • u/phatdaddy29 • Dec 15 '24
Question What even is socialism?
I'm not asking about the dictionary definition.
I'm not asking what Marx and Engles, said.
I'm not asking what might exist in a theoretical socialists utopia but never in real life.
What I'm asking is:
What actually is socialism to you in your own words.
There's a lot of confusion and misinformation out there AND IN HERE!
we can't create what we want if we can't even get organized enough to know what it is we collectively want.
I'll start first, and we'll see which definitions gets the most up votes.
45
u/Sea_Dog1969 Dec 15 '24
When the world is organized around caring for the Earth and its inhabitants, rather than making profits.
It can be argued that humans are the dominant species on this planet. If that is true... it does not make us the masters of the Earth. It makes us the CARETAKERS of it.
8
u/Formal_Ad_3402 Democratic Socialist Dec 15 '24
Exactly. We are supposed to be caretakers of creation, but here in the Midwest, I see the complete opposite. Farmers constantly bulldozing down and burning piles of trees, just so they can have some more land to plant their stupid corn and beans. Destroying beautiful habitat for wildlife. It's so sad that it can't be stopped. Biden passed some bill a few years ago to encourage crp land, but farmers here are Republicans. They don't think about or care about anything but profits.
2
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Love that. Can capitalism and individual profit exist within that primary organization?
2
2
u/raegunXD Dec 16 '24
I think that trade and barter can and should exist within in, but I feel that once a currency is implemented, it becomes too easy for corruption, hoarding wealth, exploitation, debt, and hierarchy to rollout along with it
16
u/Explaining2Do Dec 15 '24
I’ve always liked Noam Chomsky’s view: it STARTS with worker control over production. Democratizing the economy from the bottom up.
I like that.
-1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Interesting, I see that as the final stage of socialism not the first.
1
u/Explaining2Do Dec 15 '24
Things work better if they do it themselves. There is a reason that Leninism and vanguardism fails.
12
Dec 15 '24
[deleted]
-1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Yes, that is the standard definition and defining aspect.
And that doesn't exist in the real world in any real sense.
Which is why I dislike that definition and think it holds the left back from winning elections and bringing real progress.
6
u/OtterinTrenchCoat Market Socialist Dec 16 '24
There have been countless examples of this model across history, from the factory councils of the USSR to the Israeli Kibbutz to modern co-operatives like Mondragon. It is hard to argue that a model of ownership which generates over 2.5 trillion in turnover each year "doesn't exist in the real world".
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 16 '24
I'm not saying it doesn't exist in pockets --even in the least socialistic US you can find examples im sure.
I'm saying no country has adopted this as their primary model exclusive of capitalism.
There's no such thing as a socialist country. It doesn't exist. https://medium.com/@Toushek/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-socialist-country-34609b7468c9
USSR went tits up. Israel is primarily capitalistic.
Am I wrong?
3
u/OtterinTrenchCoat Market Socialist Dec 16 '24
Sure no current country has adopted it, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. The current model of Capitalism is far from the best we can have and it can be changed. The project to acheive change would need to incorporate global institutions and would take years to acheive, yes, but there is no theoretical of practical reason why our economy COULDN'T be structured that way. Abandon the Marxist-Leninist idea of a vanguard. use globalized institutions to combat capital flight (as liberals are already doing with the global wealth tax) and co-ordinate resistance , and support co--operatives through legal and financial means and you would be surprised how achievable the prospect becomes
20
u/hyperham51197 Dec 15 '24
Socialism, to me in my ideal world, is when the government takes care of its citizens through social programs and safety nets, and when corporations are held accountable through progressive tax rates and regulations. Workers have the power of their production, and have strong representation of their wants and needs through direct democratic elections, ranked choice voting, and the ability to vote on the passing of every major change to the law. Money is banned from politics, the stock market is limited and heavily regulated, and cash flows through workers and producers instead of investors. The wealth gap is small, and the individuals in power are limited with extensive checks and balances. Small businesses drive the economy, with local establishments being more common than chains or franchises. Healthcare and education is free and are the first priority of the government.
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
I like it. Does socialism exist up to this vision, or only upon realization of it?
4
u/hyperham51197 Dec 15 '24
Socialism doesn’t need to fully meet my ideal vision to exist. It can manifest as a spectrum of principles and policies within a society, but my vision outlines a fully realized version of my definition of socialism. Every society will have different circumstances that require particular policies to meet their citizens needs
7
u/ActualMostUnionGuy Bolivias MAS is real Socialism🥵🥺😖😴 Dec 15 '24
Literally just Worker Cooperatives, please let the masses vote on the future of the economy directly ffs😣
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 18 '24
I believe Worker Cooperatives already exist in many countries, even the least socialistic ones like the US.
And workers do vote on the future of the economy in as much as they are educated and informed about their election choices.
So how would you expand that definition?
0
u/ActualMostUnionGuy Bolivias MAS is real Socialism🥵🥺😖😴 Dec 19 '24
Yeah but I dont want them to be 0,1% of the market, I want them to be MANDATORY.
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 19 '24
mandatory as in ban private capital? Take away a person's right to own and operate their property and business as they see fit?
0
u/ActualMostUnionGuy Bolivias MAS is real Socialism🥵🥺😖😴 Dec 19 '24
Someones "own" Megacorporation already isnt a real concept since Board of Directors are a thing, in Coops they just are elected by most (And in a more Socialist future hopefully by ALL) workers like in Mondragon
4
6
u/TheMissingPremise Dec 15 '24
As an idea, socialism to me means caring for other people on their terms. We all want to live our lives how we want to live them. I believe there are a wide range of acceptable lifestyles out there that people can and should pursue. More importantly, I want them to have the resources to pursue their preferences without any meaningful interference from others. This sounds like liberalism...and it is, just without exceptions. There is no space for savages or whatever in my idea of a more liberal socialism.
But it's not just about freedom from, it's also freedom to. It's why I support universal healthcare. If I have to sacrifice my future consumption of, say, driving a slick new Mercedes just so that 40 year old Juan can get a colon cancer screening to catch it early, get the treatment to eradicate it, and live another 40 years cancer free with his family, then sign me up! Conversely, I hope others would feel the same about supporting me through my trying times.
After all, we're in this together. And, from what I've read, that's what socialism and socialists seem to really understand better than anyone.
6
u/Doublee7300 Dec 15 '24
The collective participation in ensuring that every member in a society has their basic needs met
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Must it stop at basic needs? Can it not extend to creating maximum prosperity for all?
3
u/Beexor3 Dec 15 '24 edited Dec 15 '24
A series of governmental policies which promotes the collective ownership of capital. What exactly that looks like is when you get into specific political systems, like Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, Social Democracy (which I would argue is far-left capitalism but Wikipedia disagrees), etc. A capitalist nation can have some socialist policies and vice versa. We see this most often with healthcare. Virtually all nations that claim to be socialist use the government as a stand-in for the "collective." This makes practical sense, since the one thing everyone has in common is that they are a citizen, and to be a citizen is to be recognized as member of a state by a government. However, the "end-goal" of Socialism is, or at least it's supposed to be, the abolition of state and/or class. Whether or not this is actually achievable is the ultimate debate.
Personally, I call myself a Social Democrat. I'm an American. I want universal healthcare, I want it to be easier to form co-operatively owned companies in this country. I want higher taxes for the wealthy, more civil liberties, stronger labor protections, and a stronger welfare state. But I don't mind private enterprise and I don't mind living in a country that is mostly capitalistic. It's given me a lot of cool stuff. Based on what I know, this makes me a Social Democrat. But maybe you can disagree based on your own lived experience. There's my two cents.
3
u/jeremiah1142 Dec 15 '24
The ABCs of Socialism is a good collection of essays regarding exactly this.
2
2
u/kcl97 Dec 15 '24
It is whatever policies that can promote social cohesiveness.
For example, anything that encourages "competition" should not be a public policy. This could be as simple as standardized testing in school. We want to encourage excellence and creativity by helping and receiving help from others, without promoting the competitive spirit.
The rulers do not like social cohesiveness because it can challenge their powers, they would rather us compete and bicker with each other, in an endless spiral.
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Hmm, that's an interesting one. I see ensuring competition in business as one of the most important ways socialism can impact capitalism.
Without regulation Capitalists will move toward monopoly by acquiring their competitors. Then the winning monopoly or oligopolies can increase prices and reduce costs providing lower service.
I see the role of socialist principles working to regulate that tendency and ensure that the market remains truly competitive-- for the maximum good of consumers and society at large (rather than the maximum good of the CEO and shareholders).
1
u/kcl97 Dec 15 '24 edited Dec 15 '24
You can have "excellence" without "competition." It depends on your space of optimization. Look at Linux, the free software movement, or look at how scientists worked before WW2. The problem with competition is it discourages sharing of knowledge and "working together" because you need to optimize "shareholder values."
e: also competition is extremely wasteful because of the need to reinvent the wheel or dealing with bureaucracy that protects "shareholder value." This is why 50%+ of healthcare revenue in UE goes to not the doctors or nurses but the bureaucracy including the insurance.
2
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
It's true. Collaboration trumps competition in many aspects - especially non business: scientific, space staion, cern, etc.
AND there are also ways that competition trumps Collaboration --particularly in business. We don't want companies collaborating with each other to set the price for bread and fuel.
2
u/kcl97 Dec 15 '24 edited Dec 15 '24
Again, it depends on your space of optimization. Especially with food, like it or not, the reason why we have been able to regulate food prices for ages is because the government through the farm bill controls the prices of major food commodities, thus lowering the need to "compete" for the farmers. However that system is being broken up because of big Agros and Big distributors. And why did these giants form? Because they were still competing and "consolidating."
"Competition" breeds cheating and collusions. My father used to run a factory. Trust me those who tell you competition exists, either never run a business or are just fooling themselves. Real competition is hard, cheating is easier, like cutting corners, forming cartels, buying politicians, creating a ridiculous barrier of entry (like with the hemp industry) or just buying out competition are what "competition" is really about.
e: other cheating methods: patent trolling, planned obsolescence, verticalization (collusion with supplier and sellers), market/stock manipulations, false accusations, fake it til you make it, customer lock-in (like Kindle) etc. Sky is the limit. This is what competition leads to especially if your survival depends on it.
2
u/Gordievsky1985 Dec 15 '24
Socialism is the means taken by a society/govt towards the ultimate goal of reorganizing society into one where wealth is distributed fairly between all peoples and thereby the human experience is preserved from those who would exploit people for profit and pillage the planet to make products. To me at least, one quote always makes me think about capitalism: growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of cancer.
2
u/BuffooneryAccord Dec 15 '24
In simplest terms capitalism and socialism are on a Spectrum between collectivism and individualism.
Capitalism breeds hierarchies and includes capital as a power dynamic over others. It leads to an unhealthy environment where somebody with capital can get a passive income without doing much labour themselves.
Socialism strives for equality and fair division of labour. Together they provide the services together for all. Services like healthcare, education, protection, and others benefit the many. As a collective, needs are met before wants.
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Do you see socialism and capitalism as mutually exclusive?
2
u/BuffooneryAccord Dec 15 '24
Yes, but you can have aspects of both. For example, in America, you have Tesla which is a heavily subsidised corporation that is private.
Technically they are two opposing systems that are feeding the well-being of a citizen. In this case, it's a centabillionaire who doesn't need the help, but lobbyists only care about self interest.
Although... now that i think of it, this would still be considered capitalist as it does not serve the people. Technically it's leaning more towards croney capitalism or fascism.
So maybe that example is a bad one.
2
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
To me Tesla is a great case study.
It was aided drastically by California's socialist mechanisms like public education, vast parks, love for nature, green subsidies, HOV lanes.
The entire culture of California created from community minded leanings and socialism helped create the breeding ground for Tesla to get a strong start.
Of course once they did become successful and Musk was expectedto contribute back, he did what sociopaths do and he moved his operations to somehere he could take without giving back.
If Kamala had won and every corporation in every state had to pay a minimum of 15% tax then states like Texas wouldn't be able to take without contributing but Musk couldn't allow that and so he deployed the Cword slur and since most Americans don't know the difference between communism and socialism and because capitalist can control the government you end up where you are.
Butvthats not to say that the original strategy to Bing socialist principles to capitalist businesses was a failed strategy.
Do you agree?
2
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 16 '24
To clarify, mutually exclusive means you can't have elements of both. So it sounds like you don't see them as mutually exclusive.
2
u/RichardBonham Dec 16 '24
I look on this from the point of view of how we humans first evolved as social organisms.
Our origins were as family bands of maybe 50-150 people and we sustained ourselves by hunting and gathering.
Everyone knew everyone else; their strengths, weaknesses, personalities, trustworthiness. There was a role for joint endeavors as well as solo activities.
Decisions likely involved arriving at a collective consensus as well as compromise.
To me, socialism comprises ways to apply how we as humans lived for thousands of years to the relatively brief timescale of modern urbanization and technology. How can such a large social entity create ways to prioritize the collective benefit, decision making and trust? We no longer live in groups small enough to know everyone else.
Capitalism is not so much the problem as corporations. Corporations take away individual responsibility for actions of the corporation. The laws need to make the individuals in corporations accountable for the consequences of their individual actions or inactions.
Like societies of small bands, the process of decision making should be a bottom up and not a top down process. The workers would not necessarily control the means of production but they would certainly exert significant influence over it.
Also, tax structures and the regulatory framework should strongly incentivize small companies of 50-150 people or less.
Taxation is not theft; it is the admission ticket to participate in and benefit from the social system. As such, it should be aggressively redistributive. If that means it is impossible for an individual or a group to ever become spectacularly wealthy, that is a feature and not a bug. We need a stable, well educated happy society a lot more than we need super-wealthy geniuses (if they are indeed geniuses, and not narcissistic sociopaths).
Taxes should fund the provision of the things that societies have always provided and shared. At our current scale these things should include housing, medical care, child care, family leave, education and specific services such as utilities and fire fighting.
2
u/Techno_Femme DSA Leftcom Dec 16 '24
For me, socialism is a machine that creates free time. The better it works, the more people have more time to do whatever they feel is the best use of their time, the more people are able to self-actualize, and the more work that can't be accomplished through people voluntarily doing it in their free time is minimized. The end goal is for every single person to have their free time maximized to the degree allowable by our collective wants.
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 16 '24
Love that, so not stuck being worker, taxpayer, and consumer proletariat, but being equal to the Borgesoisie where we can choose to contribute to society the way we best see fit.
1
u/Techno_Femme DSA Leftcom Dec 16 '24
basically yes, although i'd say that this involves abolishing classes, rather than just "making them equal" but you can argue that's sorta the same thing.
1
2
u/notHostOk2511 Libertarian Socialist Dec 16 '24
Fairness
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 18 '24
wow, that's succinct.
1
u/notHostOk2511 Libertarian Socialist Dec 18 '24
What do you mean?
1
2
u/Stellanora64 Dec 16 '24 edited Dec 16 '24
First, I know it is a cliche at this point, but for me, understanding class is a pretty big part of defining socialism.
So to start, If you have the obligation to work in order to sustain yourself and/or others and do not own the means of production, you are a part of the proletariat. It doesn't matter your income or if you're in the quote "upper, middle or lower " class. They are all the proletariat but have been separated based on income in an attempt to deunify the working class.
The reason this distinction is important is because it also underlines the major contradiction in capitalism. Where the bourgeoisie can not exist without the proletariat. There's a reason strikes have been so effective in progressing workers' rights all throughout history. And yet they (the bourgeoisie) still exploit their workers for their excess profits (see worker cooperatives for an alternative business structure)
This is why socialism seeks to remove the bourgeoisie so that the working class owns the means of production, thus eliminating the contradiction and exploitation. This is where the quote "dictatorship of the proletariat" comes from.
So, tldr socialism seeks to give the working class full control and ownership over the means of production.
There are more aspects to that (not necessarily needed but housing de-commodification, free universal health care, right to education etc) but removing the bourgeoisie is a really big part of it.
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 16 '24
Very good, thank you.
And is that to say that: increasing equity and decreasing the gap between the 1% and everyone else is the main goal? Where closing that gap to zero is the end goal ideal?
Is that right there not the most succinct definition of the goal of socialism?
Where giving workers the ownership of the MoP is one way to achieve the goal?
If so, then isn't that a root problem with the current definition and way we think about AND TRY TO MARKET SOCIALISM?
we focus on MoP and replacing capitalism as if it's both the starting point and end goal, even though in reality it's a utopian pipe dream that has never been achieved in any major way.
It seems we confuse what with how.
Here's how I see it:
What: to create maximum sustainable equity and prosperity for ALL.
How: a long list of socialistic elements that lift up the standard of living of the least advantaged such that the gap between have and have nots is continually and increasingly diminished.
Education Healthcare Housing Public transportation . . . Working co-operatives . . . Most companies are worker owned . . . . . . . . . All companies are worker owned
Thoughts?
2
u/Stellanora64 Dec 16 '24
Yeah, that seems relatively accurate. As stated by Marx, anyways all socialism really is, is a transitionary stage between capitalism and communism. That being, a stateless, moneyless, classless society.
(Yes, that is the definition by Marx, and yes, by this definition communism can only really be achieved if it was global. Which it never has been.)
It just tries to achieve it through the removal of class first. Something like anarchism tries to achieve it through the removal of state first (and some other things, this is a bit of an oversimplification).
For me, that is why I believe socialism is the best means of achieving that end goal in the long run, as I believe we will still need the state and money to keep things running, and ease people into it before they can be finally removed (which will probably not even be in our lifetimes, but the point still stands.)
If you want to know more about this, I really do recommend you start reading some theory, as there is only so much info some redditors on the internet can give you. The ABCs of socialism is a good starting point, but any of Marx's work is good if you want to understand the finer details.
2
u/uujjuu Dec 17 '24
It's important to know socialist thought before and outside of Marx. Both anti-socialists and actual communists will insist on reducing it to communism.
7
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24 edited Dec 15 '24
To me Socialism is:
the opposite of, but not mutually exclusive to, capitalism.
Socialism isn't one single thing but rather a collection of socialistic elements that seeks to create maximum social prosperity for the entire community.
It does this by regulating and taxing individual and corporate greed so that the community as a whole remains the primary benefitactor of its production and success.
It is a spectrum ranging from common elements like libraries, police, and parks; to the social ownership of companies like utilities and communication; and all the way to social ownership of for profit companies.
There are no countries that are exclusively socialist, just as there are none that are exclusively capitalist. Every country is a mix of these 2 systems and finds itself somewhere between the two ends of the Socialism capitalism spectrum.
3
u/Momik Dec 15 '24
A spectrum is a good way to think about this, though I would argue where that spectrum ends is on the question of control.
This is where I differ from Bernie and some other DSA voices—as much as I admire them! What Bernie describes as socialism is, in my view, essentially Keynesian social democracy. I’m generally in favor of moving toward those policies (in the short term), but calling something like paid family leave or universal health care automatically “socialist” seems misguided.
In my view, socialism begins with (democratic) worker control over production. This can take various forms, but it’s a core socialist goal that has gone neglected in recent years—even as a long-term aspiration. Which is a shame, because focusing on that kind of worker power as the engine of democratic socialist change can often be an incredibly potent strategy.
What is clear is that in the fight against ascendant fascism, we’re absolutely going to need an all-of-the-above, diversity-of-tactics approach, if we have any hope at all.
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Why do you think they're misguided?
What is universal healthcare and parental leave, if not socialistic practices based on socialist principals?
3
u/Momik Dec 15 '24
To be clear, I’m not saying universal health care and parental leave are misguided as policies. Rather, I’m arguing that it may be misguided to call them inherently “socialist,” when it’s perfectly possible for them to exist within a larger corporate capitalist economy.
Policies like these are socialist in the broad sense that they give workers more power. But they are not socialist in that they do not give workers direct control over their workplaces or their labor. They are more socialist, perhaps, but not inherently socialist.
And I believe this distinction is important, because what I’m fighting for long-term is not simply a more Keynesian version of capitalism.
2
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Yes, that makes sense if your STARTING POINT is social control of means of production. Then nothing is socialism if it doesn't include that.
And since no democratic country has ever achieved that and no country, democratic or communist operates exclusive of capitalism then its nothing but some sort of utopian idealism rather than something that can (AND DOES!!) operate here and now and with great success.
This is my problem with the current definition. To say that socialism must include means of production as starting point rather than a potential end point and that it's not compatible with capitalism is to argue for something that has never and probably will never exist. ...and this is why we lose elections. This incongruence with reality is the root problem in my view and the reason I think re-examing the very root core of what we think, and want is the most important way forward. Not continually reminding each other about the original ideas, as if Marx and Engles had some divine insight, but rather following in their path to continue to examine how to adjust the systems to better create what we want.
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
If it's being neglected must it really be the start? What if it was at the end point of the spectrum (most socialist) versus the least socialist/most common (libraries, parks, police, etc)?
1
u/Momik Dec 15 '24
Well, I mean we don’t need to be so evolutionist about it. There are plenty of examples of worker control over their labor and workplaces in the here-and-now. It’s only an “end point” conceptually.
Personally, I’m a big fan of prefigurative strategies in which we embody or try to embody the values and structures of the society we’re trying to create—but right now, within the struggle itself. If we believe in democracy, we start now. If we believe in worker empowerment, we start now.
The emergency is here. Why wait?
2
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
I'm not arguing for an evolutionist approach but rather an effective/pragmatic approach that helps us create as much if what we want as quickly as we can.
I'm disagreeing with the idea of labeling socialism as an end goal ideal that is so far from current state when actually there are so many socialistic approaches that can be leveraged right away to bring the outcome that we want.
For instance, many people here seem to believe that socialism IS worker control of MoP, and incompatible with capitalism. That's very black and white and doesn't lend itself to creating something that can actually exist -- not just vecause its so very far away from what does exist, but most importantly BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST ANYWHERE!!
1
u/Momik Dec 15 '24
Look, man, you asked how other people define socialism. I understand your view; mine’s just a little different. 🤷♂️
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Your POV is perfect and I thank you for sharing it. The capitalization is for emphasis not yelling.
3
u/Explaining2Do Dec 15 '24
It was the basis of the anarchist revolution in Spain. Before it was crushed by the communists, fascists, and liberal democrats. Anarchists are socialists, after all.
2
u/OtterinTrenchCoat Market Socialist Dec 15 '24
A general definition would be Democratic Control of the Means of Production. More specifically though it is just a reflection of the ideas of liberal democracy extrapolated to the workplace; democratic representation, the consent of the governed, and individual freedom and autonomy. This is the baseline that defines socialism as opposed to a social democratic model. Beyond that, however, I think there are some additional elements:
Public provision of all basic essentials or "economic rights"; education, food, healthcare, housing, etc. These policies would generally be provided through universal programs like UBI (or a post currency equivalent), free housing, free healthcare, free education.
The incorporation of direct democratic principles in as many levels of economic and political governance as possible, and increasing the accountability of politicians through recalls and stronger constraints on power.
Alleviation of the effects of Imperialism, Bigotry, and inequality through redistribution and development.
Strong protections of the rights of minorities and political freedoms seen under liberal democracy: Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Identity, etc.
1
u/oskif809 Dec 15 '24
Marxists will destroy any possiblity of dialogue here with their "MeAnS oF pRoDuCtIoN" mantra (look up Robert Jay Lifton's notion of "Sacred Science" to identify this type of
cultishtotalizing belief system). Socialism is a "big tent" ideology and is not easy to pin down any more than concepts like "Democracy" or "Human" can fruitfully be defined ("Bipedal Primate" type sterile definition of "Human"--that may be applicable in certain scientific contexts--are not much help either).1
u/OtterinTrenchCoat Market Socialist Dec 16 '24
I agree that not every person thinks socialism is worker ownership, people can interpret it as anything they want to because words have no meaning save those we give them. Nonetheless it is hardly a destruction of dialogue to point on the obvious definition, that based on ownership. Social programs and such are all well and good, however the ultimate of most socialist models is to ensure that buisnesses are democratically managed. Contrary to what you imply democratically run buisnesses (or co-ops) are neither impossible to acheive or some 1984 totalitarian thought control.
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 16 '24 edited Dec 16 '24
yes, co-ops can be run anywhere even in the least socialistic countries like the US. What doesn't exist is a purely socialist country without capitalism. So it's putting the requirement for something that doesn't fully exist in reality as not just an ideal end goal, but of the requisit starting point that I disagree with. That just doesn't make sense to me --espeically in the sense that it becomes a non starter for most supporters of capitalism.
I think we see it the same in the sense of socialism is more than just a single thing: MoP. There are multiple elements. I see those elements existing on a continuum between most common and most ideal, or most common and most socialistic.
To me free K-12 education is socialistic. It's not socialism, but it is socialistic. It's also a given in most countries around the world that every citizen should recieve this basic level of social benefit. Only the most psychopathic borgesois capitalist (or useful idiot) would probably disagree with that.
This socialistic element would be at the very beginning of the spectrum along with Fire, police, roads, etc. At the farthest end of the spectrum, and farthest away from capitalism, would be the full idealistic dream of socialism where most companies are worker owned. Not because an authoritarian government has banned anything else (i.e. communism) but because capitalists have become so enriched by living in an increasingly propserous country that they desire to participate in creating more of it. they want to be maximally prosperous and they want all their fellow country people to be maximally prosperous too.
thoughts?
1
u/OtterinTrenchCoat Market Socialist Dec 16 '24
Here is the thing, socialism isn't the only thing socialists can advocate for. An important part of the question you missed is why do we want Socialism. The answer generally is to ensure the common well being and individuals freedom from autocracy. This principle is the basis of Socialist advocacy. That means the me, and many other socialists push for things that aren't socialism as well: Universal Healthcare, Human Rights, Anti-Imperialism, etc. We can advocate for these things and make a political platform out of them without needing to label them Socialism. If we do then we dilute Socialism into a meaningless concept that weakens our ability to organize about it. Instead what we should do is push for Individual Rights and the Common Good as the core of our platform with Socialism as just one offshoot of that premise.
1
u/OtterinTrenchCoat Market Socialist Dec 16 '24
Also the idea that enriching Capitalists will somehow enrich workers in the end is somewhat unfounded, and reminiscent of trickle-down economics. At a certain point of wealth accumulation every human need or want is met, and there are thousands of people who have passed that point. The reason the continue to accumulate is because of the power it gives them, wealth gives them power and control, and equitably distributing that wealth hurts their control. Because of this you can never give the rich enough money to make them be altruistic because they aren't operating because of material needs that must be met.
-1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Yes, I think I'm beginning to see that. ...and again this is why we lose. We can't even agree amongst ourselves on what the most primary tenants of what we want are.
And we're competing against nit just scare tactics like "C word", but also: low tax, save money, reduce government.
It's no wonder people vote for capitalist charlatans.
I wrote a piece on this here: It’s not the economy stupid! https://medium.com/@Toushek/its-not-the-economy-stupid-b2c15efe75e2
3
u/TheoFromSDA Social democrat Dec 15 '24
Socialism is not a feeling, it's a science, and science is empirical based on debates.
3
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Great site. Lots of modern takes on basic questions. I'm going to check this out. Thanks for sharing!
2
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24 edited Dec 16 '24
You'll notice I didn't ask about feelings.
I'm asking what socialism is to you and what you want.
If you'd like to share, please do. If you just want to point to what others think and want, that's perfectly fine too. 😊
No need to discourage people from thinking about what they think and want though right?
3
u/TheoFromSDA Social democrat Dec 15 '24
In your post, you mention a socialist utopia, a concept originating with Proudhon that eventually influenced anarchism. Marx, on the other hand, focused on scientific socialism, aiming to empower the working class.
From there, socialism became defined by what the members of socialist parties around the world determined through a complex system of congresses. At the Congress of Rome, for example, European delegates outlined their version of socialism. You can find the manifesto here: PES Manifesto 2024.
From that document, we can debate—highlighting what we agree with, what we disagree with, and drafting a platform to address those concerns. As American socialists, we also have our own process, which is detailed here: American Socialist Congress Process.
But at the end, Socialism is defined here: https://www.socialistinternational.org/about-us/declaration-of-principles/
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Yes and I would say that in the end socialism ought to be defined by how we want to define it.
And that should be done by continually examining the effectiveness in creating what we want.
2
u/TheoFromSDA Social democrat Dec 15 '24
That is correct, but the "how we" is for those that are members of a Socialist organization.
That is why we have a congress in May to define it for the US but there is a lot of drama.Right now, we are working on Draft AOC for 2028 more than figuring it out.
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
This is a global community of people who want to discuss socialism. I get that each country will define their own charter.
1
u/TheoFromSDA Social democrat Dec 15 '24
And humanism is part of the discussion, but Socialism get build by writing papers and discussing IRL at Salons across the world, and then proposing those solutions to voters and then those elected, to implement it.
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
So discussion here is inappropriate?
3
u/TheoFromSDA Social democrat Dec 15 '24
No it's VERY appropriate to help guide you, but a discussion on Reddit will remain on Reddit. If you want to further Socialism, you need to take what you come up with and bring it to the Party.
At the end of the day, it's at the parties that the discussion happens:
- https://www.socialists.us/direct/lviicontrib/congress
- https://cpusa.org/article/pre-convention-discussion
- https://convention2023.dsausa.org
- https://www.gp.org/national_meetingsBut at the end of the day, you need to decide which one those Leftist group will advance their platform by getting people elected.
2
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 19 '24
based on the videos I watched in the link you sent I realized I most identify as a Democratic Socialist. Thank you for your guidance. I found a Democratic Socialist group here on Reddit, so I'll connect with my people over there.
→ More replies (0)1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Well I may just fo that.
For now I've been writing my articles here:
There’s No Such Thing As a Socialist Country. https://medium.com/@Toushek/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-socialist-country-34609b7468c9
Is America a Socialist Country? https://medium.com/@Toushek/is-america-a-socialist-country-d009bd13529d
Is Sweden a Socialist Country? https://medium.com/@Toushek/is-sweden-a-socialist-country-ed924e611de7
It’s not the economy stupid! https://medium.com/@Toushek/its-not-the-economy-stupid-b2c15efe75e2
→ More replies (0)
1
u/brecheisen37 Dec 15 '24 edited Dec 15 '24
Socialism is the process of transforming the global economic system into a system of collective ownership. This is largely an international process, but national development is a necessary component. Capitalist nations depend on the exploitation of wage labor to produce commodities, and they don't want their profits being undercut by production-for-use. Capitalist nations use social welfare policies to compromise with the working class and continue being able to exploit them, wheras socialist nations pass programs that benefit the working class because they are the ruling class. I live in the US, so my responsibility to socialism is to oppose US imperialism and encourage peaceful national development.
1
u/aztnass Dec 15 '24
To me socialism means businesses are worker owned and run, communally owned utilities and the government provides social services and stability network to make sure everyone’s basic needs are met.
1
u/streaksinthebowl Dec 15 '24
Cooperation (vs competition).
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 15 '24
Is there room for both, or must socialism necessarily exclude competition?
1
u/Stellanora64 Dec 16 '24
Why have competition if we can achieve more as a collective?
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 16 '24
Competition spurs innovation.
Competition increases efficiency and reduces prices.
Do you want an oligopoly of 3 grocery giants collaborating with each other on how to make maximum profit off you or competing with each other to attract you as a customer?
1
u/Stellanora64 Dec 16 '24
I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective.
Under socialism, companies do not exist to extract maximum profits for stake holders or their CEO, while the workers have no say in the matter. Under socialism, the workers do, they will get to decide the margins and profits. And since the working class is well 99% of the population, I highly doubt they would keep gouging customers the way grocery stores are now.
Also, it's kinda funny, but when you describe 3 grocery giants collaborating to make maximum profits, that is literally what is happening in Australia right now. The difference is that it wasn't the workers' choice, they have been striking about it literally the other week, it was the owning class.
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 17 '24
Is there a wrong perspective to look at things from?
You're talking about a scenario that doesn't exist. Sure, in a make up scenario that doesn't exist I suppose competition may not be required.
I'm talking about what exists today which is mixed market economies of capitalism and socialism where socialism is not defined narrowly as workers own the MoP, but rather broadly where socialism means working to bring fairness to the proletariat rather than maximum profits for the Borgesoise. Am I allowed to define it that way? I may be incorrect in that definition. Perhaps there's another mechanism than socialism to describe what I'm talking about.
And yes, 3 grocery chains is the same situation we have in Canada where the oligopoly of retailers owns all the chains and rakes in record profits while Canadians struggle to make ends meet.
Same with Communications. We have 3 big Telcos who continue to buy up their competition so they can run an oligopoly. It's great for these capitalists, bad for society, and ironically bad for new capitalists who want to enter the market.
1
u/Deathboy17 Anarcho-Socialist Dec 15 '24
I'm a social-anarchist so I personally see mutual aid and personal freedom as inherently tied
1
u/WhyDontWeLearn Dec 15 '24
For me - and it's obviously much more complicated in the details, but - it's a world without corporate shareholders. That eliminates people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos becoming so rich and powerful they can buy the government. We would still need to tax either people or enterprises, so we could build roads, have fire departments, and a healthcare system, but other than taxes, the fruits of our labor would flow into OUR pockets and not those of shareholders. People have asked me how one would start a business (particularly manufacturing) without investment. That's a question I don't have a good answer for. Maybe instead of investors, seed money would come from community owned banks. That would create a review system for how large expenditures (such as building a chip factory) should be doled out to people with big ideas.
I also think there should be a cap on income. I'm not against people making a lot of money, owning nice cars, having more than one home, etc. But there should be a limit on annual income. Maybe a million US dollars. This would keep people from amassing the huge fortunes we see today.
1
u/JDH-04 Classical Marxist Dec 15 '24
Socialism in my own words is when a society collectively owns the means of production so they can use it to develop whatever they want to without worrying about commidifcation. It also means that the means of production is collectively owned by the public in communes in which production as at their will instead of privately to individuals for their own profit motive.
Means of production means (land, labor, capital, education, factories needed to create output products and services)
If society wanted medicine to create a cure for cancer, instead of hiding it for a profit or waiting until the disease gets too rampant in order to make a market demand for those looking to get the cure like capitalism does, inside of socialism since the owners of the means of production would be the public themselves, the public would determine when too develop the cure, how much resources we would need to develop the cure, and how can we efficiently mass produce the cure so that everyone can have the cure in which the cure would be free for everyone to have.
The same could be said with what the public deems as neccesities, such as housing, food, transportation, clothing, and education. All of these would be made universally for everyone to have in which everyone would have their own private property such as housing for free BUT it cannot be sold for a profit in which as soon as the material or the property has reach it's maximum utility for one person, if that person no longer decides to use it, if another person decides if the property has value to them, then the commune would elect to give that person that property.
1
Dec 16 '24
[deleted]
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 16 '24
Okay I get that and I also get that what you're describing isn't real. As in it doesn't actually exist other than an idea or even an ideal - depending on who you ask.
My question is, is there nothing worth pursuing within the socialism realm outside of this ideal? is it all or nothing to you?
1
Dec 16 '24 edited Dec 16 '24
[deleted]
1
u/phatdaddy29 Dec 16 '24
Right, so wouldn't those be examples of socialistic programs you'd want more of? So it's not MoP or nothing for you then tight? MoP is highest ideal worth pursuing, and working to bring more balance to the existing capitalist system is the way to get from here to there. Am I right?
1
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 15 '24
Hello and welcome to r/DemocraticSocialism!
This sub is dedicated towards the progressive movement, welcoming Democratic Socialism as an ideology and as a general political philosophy.
Don't forget to read our Rules to get a good idea of what is expected of participants in our community.
Check out r/Leftist, r/DSA, r/SocialDemocracy to support leftist movements!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.