this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
350 points (94.6% liked)
Communism
2158 readers
12 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anyone who says they don't like socialism I just tell to stop using public roads moving forward.
socialism is when the government pays for things, and the more things it pays for, the more socialister it gets
- Cunk on socialism
Then a dictatorship spending 80% of GDP to prepare for war would be a socialist country.
Even if all the money is spend on social issues, only utopian socialism equals this. It's what got Karl Marx so fussy about because he knew the capitalists/monarchs/oligarchs will never allow it to happen for as long as they live. So a next social revolution à la the French revolution he predicted.
Since Marx, socialism is when the means of production is in the hands of the workers and one's income is comparable to one's contribution.
And since Marx didn't have a good idea as to how a socialist government would function as his version did not get off the ground, we now have standard vanguard (SU) and capilliary vanguard (PRC '78) democracies as examples of socialist societies.
A few corrections:
For Marx, worker ownership is not Socialist. Cooperatives are petite bourgeois structures, the form of ownership must be public ownership, ie equal ownership across all of society, not just the working unit. Countries like Cuba, the PRC, and former USSR all have public ownership as the principle basis of society.
Marx had a decent idea of how Socialism would function, you can read a bit about it in Critique of the Gotha Programme. Lenin and other Marxists took the basis created by Marx and implemented the first major steps towards Communism in real life.
Just to clarify, the post you reponded to is definitely paraphrasing famous prof. Wolff joke about exact same topic.
Why do you need to redefine a world that ot's creator defined?
They are sarcastically pointing out that public roads aren't Socialist.
Publicly funded infrastructure and utilities within a Capitalist system isn't an example of Socialism. Socialism is an organization of society where public ownership is principle, ie at least over the large firms and key industries. The US Army is not "socialist," it's an arm of the state within a Capitalist system. Same with roads.
I get what you're trying to say, but I think this line of thinking backfires more often than it helps. Anti-socialists can easily point out that it's the broader system that needs to be viewed, not the discrete element.
Purely pedantic. The terms socialism and socialist are perfectly legitimate to describe the outlook or philosophy behind running aspects of society as "an arm of the state" vs having private interests run them for profit.
It isn't pedantic at all. Capitalist countries like the Nordic Countries may have more social safety nets (even if they are slowly being picked apart by Capital), but that doesn't make them "Socialist." Using Socialism as a moniker in place of public ownership obfuscates how the entire economy is run, and in whose interests. The post office in the US, for example, primarily exists to work with the private sector and help smooth it out. Social programs aren't Socialism.
You're also on the community for Communism, you're going to find people more strict and clear with using terms like "Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism."
I think most people associate socialism w social programs because we have a weak understanding of political theory due to cultural taboos about "politics' in polite conversation.
If we talked about it as often as we do other things like sports or movies (and w should because of it has a HUGE impact on our lives) it would help us understand what socialism actually is and why social programs are usually half measures at best.
Social programs within Capitalism are band-aids, yes, but social programs within Socialism are necessary. I think that's what you're saying, but wanted to add clarity.
My younger brother moved from the bay area to a suburb of Nashville. He hates it because (per him, I haven't verified this) there are no public parks or trails that he can run or bike at within like 40 miles of his place. Plenty of private parks, but nothing public. At least it seems that way to him since every city he's lived in California had/has at least 15 miles of bike trail and usable public parks in every neighborhood.
Weird, I grew up in the Bay Area myself and I never even heard of private parks. Like, you need a membership? A resort I can understand, but a park??? That just seems insane. And I think of Nashville as a good ol' down home American heartland kinda place.
I am familiar with only one. It was built by the HOA. The HOA fenced off the park and locked the gate to prevent nonresidents from using it. i have literally never seen anyone use the park (there are better ones in walking distance) but i just find it hilarious that they'd go to all that effort for something no one uses.
Technically lemmy and the fediverse implement socialiam principles
Open source is inherently socialist