this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
350 points (94.6% liked)
Communism
2180 readers
92 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
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.