The hate against socialism is the idea that someone who doesn’t work as hard as you, gets the same benefits as you, and that’s not fair.
Something like that could never work under capitalism. Everybody knows that rich people work extremely hard to be rich. I work hard, and I’ll be rich some day too.
decades of red scare propaganda and purposefully sabotaging public education
The ultra rich have successfully convinced a lot of people that they, too, could become ultra rich some day - but there’s no place for ultra rich under socialism.
Then further, a lot of people have been convinced that only the very very poor would be better off and everyone else would be worse off. That is of course also untrue.
Those who are educated on the matter and oppose socialism do so because of a belief that continuing high-intensity development of the economy is preferable, for one reason or another.
Many of us would argue that, with the economy in developed countries at the point where everyone could very easily be guaranteed a good quality of life without further improvements, and that, in fact, further improvements at this point are more likely to come from the cultural and technological development enabled by a more equal and less labor-intensive society, capitalism has overstayed its welcome.
It is due to lobbying and astroturfing.
Simple as.
It’s definitely not based in data, because that overwhelmingly shows massive economic and happiness growth happens in these states
Where in the world has socialism been successful in the past?
I’ll wait.
Off the top of my head: Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland.
Here is an important example of the disconnect between liberal and conservative interpretation of the word “socialist”. Economists would not label Scandinavian countries as socialist. Meanwhile conservatives point to Cuba and Venezuela as examples of socialist failure when that’s not entirely true either. We’re talking past each other in these debates.
That’s because Conservatives have no argument other than pedantry when it comes to their villifying of “socialism”.
“They aren’t socialist, they’re Democratic Socialism or Social Democrats, which are totally different from each other and not socialism at all!” (Is their pedantry, in case anyone was wondering)
It’s ALL socialism, just with a few different policies at play. But that would destroy the conservative argument that you can’t have a successful capital economy under socialism. So they play the “They aren’t real socialists” bullshit game.
In the same vein you could argue that US is not true Capitalism because trickle down doesn’t happen and many means of production are still owned by the government.
And yet we call them a Capitalist country, no?
Economists would not label Scandinavian countries as socialist.
Economists would say that’s a matter for political scientists. And aren’t all conservative.
But yes, in the English-speaking world, conservatives and the far left use the traditional definition, while the mainstream left has recently gravitated towards something like “when the government does things”.
I’m Canadian and my country is extremely successful. We’re also pretty socialist. Obviously socialism isnt a binary, but we have universal Healthcare, strong financial regulations, and a stronger more centralized federal government than the US. We’re doing very well, and the elements which cause us the most pain tend to be where we are more like the states, not where we’re more like Denmark.
I’m Canadian and my country is extremely successful.
That‘s a stretch, isn‘t it? What‘s the housing market like over there?
Worlddata.info - Canada 26th in World Quality of Life index vs. US rank 38 IM Global Wealth News - 10th in quality of life, US not listed U.S. News - 4th overall to US third. Wagecenter.com - Canada has the highest rated standard of living, US not listed in the top 10 UN Happiness report - We’ve dropped to 18th, vs the US 24th.
It is absolutely not a stretch to say Canada is extremely successful. Perfection is an awful long way off, of course. Costs are up, happiness is down. American influence has caused a rise in right-wing hate groups. But I’ll repeat - the more socialist we lean, the better we seem to do.
Well. Maybe it depends on your definition. When it comes to providing a good quality of life for your citizens, Canada is probably doing alright. But not exceptionally well. When the working class can’t afford to enter the housing market, and GDP per capita is around 60% of the US; that’s not so good. I’d classify Switzerland and Singapore as extremely successful.
Anarchist Catalonia, Socialist Yugoslavia, any number of modern workers’ coops and corporations, including Mondragon Corp.
Propaganda works.
Arguments I hear are usually something along the lines of “it’s going to destroy the economy”, “it destroys jobs”, “I’m rich and they’ll tax me a lot” (said by people who aren’t actually rich). Also, confusing social democracy (Germany, Nordic countries) with what the Soviet Union and China were doing.
Yeah, capitalism has conspired to make us believe, as a group, that resources are somehow incredibly limited while a small cabal of elites gobble up insane quantities of resources for themselves while depriving the majority of those same resources.
Pure altruistic socialism would evenly redivide those resources, giving to those who need what they need.
It is anathema to capitalism, but it is the only society that would actually work in a post-scarcity world, which we might actually be approaching, assuming that the capitalists don’t destroy it first.
The world has had enough resources for post-scarcity for decades, if not centuries. Before, the problem was logistics, now it’s will.
I think the estimate I’ve seen that tries to compute this out has people showering once every 3 weeks and using the internet for ~1 hour a week. Is this the post-scarcity lifestyle you had in mind, am I confused, or have we tipped past the point of being able to do much better?
Ah, we can’t produce water, can we? Better we check consumption, especially corporate.
I’m not sure what you mean.
But yes, desalination and cleaning are very expensive still afaik. We pipe water quite far between states, which seems crazy to me.
Oh it has always been will. Let‘s not pretend like capitalism has the better logistics and therefore a better world wouldn‘t have been possible sooner. That’s only romanticizing capitalism.
I’m talking about methods of transport and storage. Food isn’t likely to rot before it gets where it’s going, like it was a couple hundred years ago.
You can eat Southafrican oranges in Europe. Food could go wherever it’s needed but rich people doesn’t want it.
I think very few of the ruling elite would support a post scarcity world. Elon Musk keeps talking about it the most and he is one of the guys I trust the least to intentionally bring it about.
A socialist society where everyone is more or less equal. Yeah, Musk and his company of wannabe trillionaires are going to fight that to their last breath.
I think this is the biggest one. It’s the word, but it doesn’t matter which word is used. All the propaganda machines will fuck with it as quick as they can.
Also, confusing social democracy (Germany, Nordic countries) with what the Soviet Union and China were doing.
yes socialism means a lot of things to a lot of people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Etymology
it was invented a long time ago in association with a utopian fantasy
To me the hate is quite simple to understand. Socialism means that the extremely rich will be worse off financially. The 1% have an unnatural love for money, and the idea of being less wealthy for the greater good is totally abhorrent to them.
For generations they’ve been able to demonise socialism using their disproportionate influence through the media, to the extent that the majority of the population now fear it.
We’ve really not moved on that far intellectually from the witch trials. People are collectively ignorant and fearful, and with the right nudges are easy to control to the point where they’ll literally vote against their own good. They are the proverbial Turkeys voting for Christmas and I honestly don’t know how we will ever get past it.
Thankfully, we’re now reaching a turning point where PragerU will be used to teach directly in schools, letting kids know why socialism is bad and capitalism is good. Wait, that’s the opposite of what we want, fuck!
Removed by mod
We’ve really not moved on that far intellectually from the witch trials.
Cognitive biases seem to be unavoidable. Even if you are well-educated about a particular bias, it often takes reflection (internally or externally motivated) to recognize it in your decisions / behavior.
Fallacious reasoning is often just as good at convincing an audience, which is one of the reasons they are still in use despite many or most being documented and named in ancient times.
Individual training in critical thinking skills can help, but theocrats (in specific) and authoritarians (in general) spend a lot of effort making sure that public education is robbed of that. But, that’s not enough to “intellectually move on”; even with that training, bias occurs. So, we have to build systems for bias detection and remediation if we want a just global society.
If everyone does better, then you’re doing worse by comparison.
I want 10% unemployment and 0% interest rates. That’s the magic formula where I can sexually harass my au pair and she has no choice but to put up with it.
Years of propaganda from oligarchs, their think tanks and their propaganda spreaders. This has been an attack for many decades but especially after WW2 during the red scare and then after 1970 when the Powell Memo was issued. That is the origin of all of our messes, including Reagan and Trump.
Many of the same right wing think tanks are from the same oligarchs from decades ago and/or their heirs. Think Timothy Mellon or Birch Society (Koch Brother father). Even then, there was “the business plot” where the oligarchs of the 1930s wanted fascism because of the threat FDR had to their wealth and power.
The red scare is a huge factor that continues to this day.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Socialism threatens capitalists -> Capitalists spend money in media and politics to ensure support for capitalism by spreading fear about socialism -> People are scared of socialism.
It’s really that simple honestly. I generally hate oversimplifications but there’s not that much more to it
IMHO remnants from the cold war indoctrination.
Ask a typical American what they hate about socialism and they will perfectly describe capitalism
Yeah, and if you ask a typical “socialist” to compare the two and you’ll always get a best-case scenario of socialism and a worst-case scenario of capitalism.
If you’re going to repeat yourself, I will too. “Capitalism, at its best, benefits a few people (the capitalists) and screws over everyone else (the workers).”
The difference here is I’m not pulling shit out of my ass and trying to make believe that it’s a point.
Capitalism at its best essentially allows anyone a shot at success. This isn’t an arguable point. It’s what defines capitalism if it were to work as designed.
Only, it’s not working as designed.
Unchecked socialism would do the exact same thing. Don’t believe me? Ask Bulgaria.
You already said to ask about the ideal. So why bring up Bulgaria? Quit arguing with yourself.
Again, we agree. Your ideal is that anyone has a chance in capitalism. Great. And everyone else, well, they get screwed. That’s your logic. Fortunately, billions of people around the world think we can do better than that, and that treating others well is a moral imperative.
Socialism by its barest definition is great.
Socialism as outlined in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto is a little sketchier because it makes a lot of unrealistic assumptions about human nature and is just generally super hard to implement without creating a power vacuum.
Socialism as in the USSR’s Socialism is a century old practice of the cruellest and most war hungry culture imagineable, having taken advantage of the afforementioned power vacuum to starve and torture millions at home, ally with the Nazis in WWII and then change sides halfway through, tear down democracies around the globe, and push us all the closest we have ever been to thermonuclear annihilation. A threat so great that even 30 years into its grave is still a great stone over our heads, having crafted a world power balance that will threaten our destruction for generations to come.
But Socialism by its barest definition is great.
My dad was Finnish, and I think it helps to remember, Finns were fighting Russians before and during the time Russia called itself Communist and Socialist. The western side of that divide, the Nordic countries, practiced a very different version of “socialism”, with democracy, and they seem to be reaping a lot of benefits.
Socialism as outlined in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto is a little sketchier because it makes a lot of unrealistic assumptions about human nature and is just generally super hard to implement without creating a power vacuum.
Marx’s general proposals for the implementation of a socialist government:
-
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
-
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
-
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
-
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
-
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
-
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
-
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
-
Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
-
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries: gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
-
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.
Which of those do you think is hard to implement or makes unrealistic assumptions about human nature?
So right around step 1 you’ve got either
A) An Authoritarian state who controls all property with no method to implement such state.
B) An Anarchy where, since nobody owns anything, the influential will go wherever they want and take whatever they want.
A) An Authoritarian state who controls all property with no method to implement such state.
… what?
Abolition of private land ownership in favor of state land ownership is not inherently ‘authoritarian’, nor is it particularly impossible to implement.
B) An Anarchy where, since nobody owns anything, the influential will go wherever they want and take whatever they want.
You… you do realize that public lands does not mean “First come first serve”, right?
Man, this is basic pre-modern society shit. Read up on medieval village commons. Shit, read up on public lands today.
Let me put it this way: in many places around the world the people are allowed to challenge the state’s claim to properties in courts with varying success. Your step one would take that away, so it is leaning in the direction of authoritarian.
But I’m pretty sure Marx was more interested in Option B, I don’t think he was interested in using politics to build a strong democracy but rather wanted to topple any current system and hope a firect democracy pops up over night.
“It would perhaps be as well if things were to remain quiet for a few years yet, so that all this 1848 democracy has time to rot away.”
“…it happens that society is saved as often as the circle of its ruling class is narrowed, as often as a more exclusive interest asserts itself over the general. Every demand for the most simple bourgeois financial reform, for the most ordinary liberalism, for the most commonplace republicanism, for the flattest democracy is forthwith punished as an assault upon society and is branded as Socialism.”
“…the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy.”
These are three separate Karl Marx quotes and they’re extremely vague, but he has been somewhat consistent that any form of government that is not direct democracy must be “overthrown” or “fought” or “toppled”.
Let me put it this way: in many places around the world the people are allowed to challenge the state’s claim to properties in courts with varying success. Your step one would take that away, so it is leaning in the direction of authoritarian.
Bruh, in state societies without widespread private land ownership there remains a distinction between state and public lands, and the state can be challenged with regards to ownership or usage rights in courts.
But I’m pretty sure Marx was more interested in Option B, I don’t think he was interested in using politics to build a strong democracy but rather wanted to topple any current system and hope a firect democracy pops up over night.
Reformism was not his first choice, but he mused at several points that bourgeois democracies with strong workers’ movements, like the USA and the UK at his time (big RIP to our labor movements), could potentially reform without mass revolution.
“It would perhaps be as well if things were to remain quiet for a few years yet, so that all this 1848 democracy has time to rot away.”
I’m unfamiliar with that quote or its provenance, but considering that the entire point of the disappointments of 1848 was that the revolutions, both liberal and socialist factions failed, and the ‘concessions’ offered in response by the established authoritarian regimes were nothing more than window dressing (with executions for flavor), thinking that the sheen of that farce needed to fade before further action could be taken is not unreasonable.
“…it happens that society is saved as often as the circle of its ruling class is narrowed, as often as a more exclusive interest asserts itself over the general. Every demand for the most simple bourgeois financial reform, for the most ordinary liberalism, for the most commonplace republicanism, for the flattest democracy is forthwith punished as an assault upon society and is branded as Socialism.”
How is that in any way in opposition to democracy or even reform?
“…the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy.”
I repeat the second statement.
These are three separate Karl Marx posts and they’re extremely vague, but he has been somewhat consistent that any form of government that is not direct democracy must be “overthrown” or “fought” or “toppled”.
In the long term, sure. If your goal is direct democracy without a state (“Communism”), then the goal is to eventually get there. But Marx was always very clear that intermediate steps were not fucking nothing, and in many cases were necessary.
You may need to jump over the gap on a broken bridge, but better a broken bridge to jump over than the whole goddamn river.
-
Yeah, and capitalism has never lead to the toppling of foreign democracies or threatened thermonuclear annihilation
Ah, shit wait
Top of the line Whataboutism
It actually wasn’t. The comment I responded to was posing socialism as being at the root of these issues. It’s hardly the cause of any of these, much like how capitalism itself also isn’t the cause of toppling foreign democracies or threatening thermonuclear annihilation, which is what I was contrasting.
-
Not Socialism, I specifically said tbe USSR in this example.
-
I didn’t call it the root, I don’t think Joseph Stalin invented being a King, I just think he has forever stained the word Socialism.
-
When people talk about an apple that is rotten because somebody specifically asked about it, talking about all the rotten oranges and pears in the world is top of the line whataboutism.
You mean to say you weren’t actually talking about socialism, just like I wasn’t actually talking about capitalism, but instead the US hegemony in particular? 😝
I mean to say you’re talking about shit that nobody asked about and saying I made claims which I clearly didn’t.
-
Socialism as outlined in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto is a little sketchier because it makes a lot of unrealistic assumptions about human nature and is just generally super hard to implement without creating a power vacuum.
And is still pretty vague. There was a lot of colouring in for the Bolsheviks to do.
Socialism as in the USSR’s Socialism is a century old practice of the cruellest and most war hungry culture imagineable, having taken advantage of the afforementioned power vacuum to starve and torture millions at home, ally with the Nazis in WWII and then change sides halfway through, tear down democracies around the globe, and push us all the closest we have ever been to thermonuclear annihilation. A threat so great that even 30 years into its grave is still a great stone over our heads, having crafted a world power balance that will threaten our destruction for generations to come.
I’m glad it fell (plz don’t ban), but there’s hella artistic licence there.
The power vacuum came from the Tsar. They were always enemies of the Nazis, although they did temporarily agree not to fight them, and then afterwards they basically won the war themselves. The US went first with the nukes. I don’t even know what you mean about the current power balance - Russia is laughably weak, China is behind where it would have been if it took the Japan path. And, the thing about their cruel culture just sounds like bigotry.
The power vacuum came from the Tsar.
The Bolsheviks literally couped the democratically elected and socialist post-Tsar government of Russia, kickstarting several years of civil war.
They were always enemies of the Nazis, although they did temporarily agree not to fight them,
Funny, then, that they invaded Poland and the Baltics in tandem with the Nazis and spent several years supplying the Nazi war machine.
and then afterwards they basically won the war themselves.
Fucking what.
Even Stalin regarded the Soviet position as unwinnable without the Western Allies.
I didn’t expect to end up arguing with you, Pug.
The Bolsheviks literally couped the democratically elected and socialist post-Tsar government of Russia, kickstarting several years of civil war.
It was itself months old. Just like in France a century and a bit earlier, revolutions have a way of getting overthrown. And the one that stuck was itself autocratic.
If the Tsars had made actual concessions to liberalism earlier, maybe history would have developed differently. But, as it is, they waited until the late 19th century to abolish actual tied-to-the-land serfdom, were similarly reluctant to stop being autocratic feudal dicks in other ways, and set up the Duma right as revolutionaries of various stripes were trying to knock in their door. With the unpopularity of WWI and the necessity of having a lot of angry soldiers running around during it, instability became fait accompli.
Funny, then, that they invaded Poland and the Baltics in tandem with the Nazis and spent several years supplying the Nazi war machine.
The Nazis saw communism as right up their with the Jews as their main nemesis, and invented the term Judaeo-Bolshevik to describe how they’re actually the same. Yes, they did agree to not fight each other and split up some weaker nations (and trade? I’m not sure what you mean by supplying), but calling that an alliance seems like a stretch. I can’t believe both sides weren’t gauging when to break it off and attack the other from the start. Stalin spent that time shifting his defense production base to the Urals in preparation, even.
Compare Britain and France, or Italy and the Nazis, who were definitely allies.
Fucking what.
Even Stalin regarded the Soviet position as unwinnable without the Western Allies.
Yes, it would have been a very different war if the Nazis weren’t already fighting. But, as it was, they were in a stalemate circa 1941 when they started Barbarossa, and the Soviets ended up taking the lion’s share of casualties tipping the balance hard against them. Being a history student, I’m sure you as well have seen actual historians explain that human wave tactics weren’t a thing - Soviets died in spades because they were fighting hard against an enemy that saw them as subhuman.
In a few words “they basically won it themselves” is the best I could do. Since there were many topics at play I didn’t want to start pulling out statistics and narrative to explain the nuances behind that, or talk about counterfactuals relating to it being a 1-on-1 fight.
It was itself months old. Just like in France a century and a bit earlier, revolutions have a way of getting overthrown. And the one that stuck was itself autocratic.
“It’s just the nature of revolutions” rings a little hollow when two revolutions had occurred without kicking off a civil war until the Bolsheviks dissolved the democratically elected assembly. Feels rather like creating a power vacuum.
Yes, they did agree to not fight each other and split up some weaker nations (and trade? I’m not sure what you mean by supplying), but calling that an alliance seems like a stretch.
What do you call it when two countries agree to cooperate on military matters, including offensive military actions, up to an including performing a joint invasion of a country with the intention of annexing and genociding it?
Yes, it would have been a very different war if the Nazis weren’t already fighting.
No, as in, “Stalin believed that without American Lend-Lease alone, the Soviet Union could not have survived the war, even with the Western Allies being in the fight”
But, as it was, they were in a stalemate circa 1941 when they started Barbarossa, and the Soviets ended up taking the lion’s share of casualties tipping the balance hard against them. Being a history student, I’m sure you as well have seen actual historians explain that human wave tactics weren’t a thing - Soviets died in spades because they were fighting hard against an enemy that saw them as subhuman.
The Soviets inflicted approximately 50% more casualties on the Nazis (though a roughly equivalent number of total losses due to Nazis being more willing to surrender to Western forces), but suffered roughly ten times the number of casualties as Western forces, or five times if PoW deaths are excluded.
It doesn’t have to be human wave tactics to be a staggering display of incompetence that nearly lost them the war.
“It’s just the nature of revolutions” rings a little hollow when two revolutions had occurred without kicking off a civil war until the Bolsheviks dissolved the democratically elected assembly. Feels rather like creating a power vacuum.
I don’t think you can separate it like that given just a few months passing in between. Once they had power, they were pretty single-minded about reinforcing it and leaving nothing to chance.
Sure, the provisional government was democratic, to the extent it could be in such a short time. I never said the Bolsheviks were cool, so that’s not really relevant.
What do you call it when two countries agree to cooperate on military matters, including offensive military actions, up to an including performing a joint invasion of a country with the intention of annexing and genociding it?
I mean, didn’t Spain and Portugal do something similar with South America? If they were actually fighting together you’d have a point, but what happened is that they drew a line on a map through Poland, independently expanded to it, and then didn’t cross it for a little while.
No, as in, “Stalin believed that without American Lend-Lease alone, the Soviet Union could not have survived the war, even with the Western Allies being in the fight”
Oh, you meant the US. Sure, Soviet blood, American steel.
I don’t think you can separate it like that given just a few months passing in between. Once they had power, they were pretty single-minded about reinforcing it and leaving nothing to chance.
“They tried to make their own reign stable” isn’t really an argument against them creating a power vacuum, no more than the Tsarist obsession with autocracy as a means of stability counts against the Tsar’s incompetence leading to a power vacuum.
Almost a year passed, in which Russia remained cohesive enough to maintain participation in WW1 and have radical, nationwide elections.
I mean, didn’t Spain and Portugal do something similar with South America?
Fighting very separate polities.
If they were actually fighting together you’d have a point, but what happened is that they drew a line on a map through Poland, independently expanded to it, and then didn’t cross it for a little while.
‘Independently expanded to it’ is a funny way of saying “Invading within two weeks of each other, causing the sudden dissolution of the Polish war plan, then meeting in the middle and having a joint victory parade”.
Oh, you meant the US. Sure, Soviet blood, American steel.
And without Britain staying in the fight, the US wouldn’t have gotten involved in Europe at all. And without Britain staying in the fight, a massive amount of air power would have been available for Operation Barbarossa.
Removed by mod
the cruellest and most war hungry culture imagineable
America?
BuT hER eMaILs!
Gonna go bomb a wedding, maybe torture some Muslims at Gitmo? You sick fucks can’t go a year without invading a country or brutally toppling a government. What’s the longest you ever not been in a war/conflict/or any other word you created to downplay your crimes?
bUt TrUmP iS tHe OnLy PrObLeM wItH aMeRicA
Yes, you have several EmAiLs to complain about instead of actually addressing anything. I doubt anyone here thinks the US is perfect, but that’s not the question.
I did address something, I addressed that the US is everything that American thought about the Soviets.
The question had noting to do with perfect, the question was about unmistakable evil.
No, the question was about the Soviet Union. That’s why talking about the US is a cop-out.
“Socialism by its barest definition is great.” That’s what I thought too until I learned about the USSR’s Socialism and how it led to starvation, torture, war, and nearly caused a nuclear apocalypse. It’s easy to romanticize socialism in theory, but we must remember the horrors it has caused in practice.
Lmao thats just the short version of my comment
Propaganda.
People don’t know what socialism actually means because of propaganda…
you can ask someone who is against “socialism” whether they like it by talking about elements of it without explicitly mentioning the word “socialism” and they will probably agree with it.
People don’t know what socialism actually is beyond literally defining it as bad and scary. It’s insane how uneducated and stupid most of us are.
