General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe differences between Socialism & Communism
Lately, as you know, we've been hearing the words "Socialism!" & "Communism!" a lot due to Zorhan Mumdani winning the Dem primary to be mayor of NYC. It's also quite evident that many Americans haven't any clue what these things are especially the right wing dinguses who've been screaming Red Scare bullshit for 100 years. Remember what they did to Obama?
I'm sure that if you frequent social media sites like Twitter & Bluesky then you've seen it too; some right winger blaming Socialism & Communism for the faults of Capitalism. Even pundits are often absent minded on stations like MSNBC. Steve Rattner for instance tweeted out basically trying to say "free stuff is bad!" Who even does that? Who thinks "free stuff" is bad when we're all paying out asses for healthcare so some wealthy dick of a CEO can buy another boat. Seriously?!
So I set out on a mission to find a really good video that explains the differences in a way everyone can understand & ultimately I came upon the video below. I really hope people take the time to watch it. I have 1/2 a notion to make my Twitter account active again just so I can reply to every right wing member of Congress who's demonizing Socialism, Communism, & Zorhan Mumdani, especially since they have zero clue what those things even are, people who have government healthcare.
I really think these are very different times given the rise of fascism & how younger voters prefer Socialism over Capitalism. I'd love to see our party lean into it hard. Let's be real, those people who scream "blah blah Socialism!!!! blah blah!" would never vote for a Democrat to begin with. I think we should stop chasing right wing voters who would drag the party right & instead start chasing leftists who align with progressive policy. There's a lot of them & that's a lot of votes we could get & should get.
I hope you're all having a beautiful day today ❤
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
creon
(1,764 posts)Communism is one variety of socialism. One of many varieties. Max, in his lifetime, had many enemies among other socialists.
The developed world ( the old phrase being called the "first world"
is liberal democracy.
Regulated capitalism with socialist features.
Cirsium
(2,758 posts)All robust and vibrant political parties and movements have members with a variety of views.
Avariety of viws/perspectives are what makes a party robust and vibramt
Mr.Bee
(1,059 posts)To me it sounds like 'Ice Cream Social',
Public Libraries,
Social Security,
Pot-Lucks,
Y'know, things social...
'We The People'
That's all you need to tell 'em!
Escurumbele
(3,840 posts)There are NO countries that have a pure socialist government, it just doesn't work. The most successful governments are those who are Social-Democratic, meaning they foster regulated capitalism with strong social benefits for the people, such as free education, free healthcare, and others.
Communism is nothing but a dictatorship, examples such as Russia, Venezuela, and many other Latin American countries. They hide as socialists and promise things that can never be implemented just to gain votes, once in power they morph into a very ugly dictatorship like it happened in many Latin American countries, the best example being Venezuela as of late.
vanessa_ca
(367 posts)
TacosUberAlles
(88 posts)A true Communist country has never existed & keep in mind that the USSR officially dissolved in 1991.
Today, Russia is a Capitalist country with what scholars describe as either a fascism or a ultra nationalist regime with hard fascist tendencies.
brush
(60,728 posts)and/or socialism just doesn't work. They both failed and resorted to capitalism which is where they are now.
Response to brush (Reply #8)
TacosUberAlles This message was self-deleted by its author.
TacosUberAlles
(88 posts)Anyways, I hope you enjoyed the video & are having a great day today 😃
brush
(60,728 posts)never has been one extant and surviving.
So please name one for me since the video didn't.
TacosUberAlles
(88 posts)I simply posted the video because I found it educational.
Please go back & read my OP again.
There's a lot of people screaming about Communism & Socialism right now because of Zohan Mumdani, & most are fash trash right wingers who haven't a clue what Socialism or Communism even is.
Deuxcents
(23,248 posts)TheRickles
(2,886 posts)The Communist Manifesto called for worker ownership of the means of production (factories), by take-over or after the state had "withered away" (Marx's phrase). Which is to say that there has never been a truly Communist country in the world so far, one where there is no central government.
Socialism is when the State controls industry (as in China and Russia), and Fascism is when Corporations control the government (an arrangement we are rapidly approaching here). Democratic Socialism is the balancing act by which Scandinavian countries attempt to regulate capitalism for the greater good, not just for the stockholders.
Celerity
(51,126 posts)I have battling this erroneous positing since I joined DU 7 years ago.
We are social democratic nation states, aka The Nordic Model.
We all have very robust, vibrant, AND also highly regulated capitalist economies that work synergistically with expansive social welfare state sectors to provide some the absolute highest standards of living on the planet.
TheRickles
(2,886 posts)bamagal62
(4,042 posts)
Ping Tung
(3,152 posts)All of which claim to be on the side of "the People".
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.
Albert Camus
brush
(60,728 posts)All have failed, communism is a form of socialism, and it has failed too. Witness Russia, China and all the rest. They revert to capitalism which descends from bartering...trading goods and services for items produced by an individual or groups.
Bartering didn't quite measure one-for-one in value so a means to meet that was to create a value measure...cash/capital, which is where we are now.
Socialism doesn't work because it doesn't satisfactorily satisfy those who create goods and services. Who wants to create stuff with their time, labor and materials and then have it to be free for everyone, which is what socialism/communism are all about. The state/government owns and runs the means of production and everyone shares...but no profits are to be made by individuals, gourps or private companies.
As Marx's motto said, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his/her needs."
It just doesn't work.
TacosUberAlles
(88 posts)and how a lot of right wingers are screaming at him things they don't understand?
These people are dinguses of the highest order & don't know the difference between Socialism & Communism.
brush
(60,728 posts)IMO Mumdani should've just called himself a Democrat instead of a Democratic Socialist.
Calling himself a socialist just allows the rethugs to holler and scream and post anti-socialism ads on social media, MSM and cable media and on and on.
I hope it's a lesson learned, and for AOC as well if she wants to run for higher office. Calling oneself a self-avowed socialist will not be well recieved.
TacosUberAlles
(88 posts)That definitely wasn't what my op was about. Yikes 🤐
I'll have to be more clear next time. Sorry.
It's more about this stuff https://www.news10.com/news/politics/congressmember-ogles-mamdani-investigation/
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)Cirsium
(2,758 posts)It just doesn't work. It just doesn't work. It just doesn't work.
As Lady Izdihar points out (for those who didn't actually listen to the video) the Communist countries have not been ruthlessly attacked because they failed, but rather because they succeeded.
Strange how Socialism is expected to be perfect, to deliver the ultimate utopia quickly, and if it doesn't then it is all invalidated - (It just doesn't work. It just doesn't work. It just doesn't work.) - whereas in Capitalist countries we have a steady parade of police states, brutal dictatorships, imperialism, exploitation, etc. yet we are not to question Capitalism.
Over 100 years of relentless propaganda has taken its toll.
thought crime
(548 posts)We can already see panic caused by Zohran Mamdani's primary victory. They panic because they fear his policies would succeed.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)Cirsium
(2,758 posts)Which capitalist countries have succeeded? How do you measure success? Success for whom? The Cuban revolution was a disaster for the pimps, gangsters, sweat shop and plantation owners.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)The idiot in the OP video with the hammer and sickle button on her beret couldn't either.
Not that it matters. You are not genuinely asking the question, but rather just playing "gotcha!"
The capitalist ruling class is immensely powerful. Nothing good can succeed against that opposition. One would think that would be clear even to brainwashed USers with the billionaires running amok and Trump taking a meat axe to everything decent and humane. The US has led a continuous war against any and all Socialist movements both at home and abroad. What do you think that grotesquely monstrous military is all about? Maybe that is your idea of "success" - bludgeon the world into submission or the benefit of the neo-colonial owners of the plantations, sweat shops, and mines, where the vast majority of people on the planet slave away under hideous conditions for the benefit of billionaires in the US and Europe. Oh, and by the way, the environment is being destroyed on a global scale to support those "social democratic" happy zones in northern Europe (unless you are a Muslim immigrant). Hurray for success!!
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)I think that the USSR, the Warsaw Pact countries, Cuba, PRC, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam have all been successful. You don't. Whatever. What difference does it make? Yes, Capitalism has been largely triumphant, at the point of the gun in the form of the largest military ever in human history. If that is what you all successful, the yes Capitalism has succeeded and Socialism has mostly been defeated.
Interesting that the Red Scare crowd like to crow about how "we defeated Communism" but at the same time claim that "it doesn't work." That is analogous to the right wingers with their "government doesn't work" while they do everything they can to smash it.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)You have a really disturbing definition of "success."
Nope.
"A vicious dictatorship where the vast majority of people live in oppressed poverty" perfectly describes most of Latin America, brutal police states with private interests controlling everything, backed up by the US military. That does not describe Cuba.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)The Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) holds a monopoly on power, with no other political parties permitted, dissent is suppressed, and civil liberties are severely restricted.
Poverty is rampant, particularly since the collapse of the USSR and the financial support it had provided Cuba. High prices, shortages and generalized deterioration, including the essentials such as food, health services and medicines, are major concerns for everyone, without distinction of groups, even to the point of fear for the lives of senior citizens and families with children. https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/a-look-at-cuba-growing-inequalities/
Cirsium
(2,758 posts)Why? Even the founding fathers of the US thought that was a bad idea. The party system gives the illusion of citizen control, but as any honest observer knows, money wins every battle, not democracy.
By promoting this lie about Cuba’s socialist system, the U.S. ruling class perpetuates a pretext for the 50-year blockade and aggression against the island country. It also aims to discredit socialism as an ideology—and at the same time cover up the inherent flaws in the U.S. political system. The objective is to demoralize the U.S. working class with the idea that there is no alternative to capitalism, and that the rule of corporations and the few individuals who own them is the normal order of society.
Despite the persistent propaganda against Cuba over the past five decades, the Cuban Revolution remains an example of working-class democracy. This fact lies at the root of U.S. government opposition to Cuba: The Cuban Revolution represents genuine workers’ democracy and the true rule of the majority.
https://www.liberationschool.org/ch-14-workers-democracy-in-cuba/
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)If you get your information from "Liberation School," it is obvious there is no point in continuing this conversation. Good night.
Cirsium
(2,758 posts)Might help.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)
brush
(60,728 posts)You can't because they've all failed and reverted to capitalism.
Name one.
Capitalism has waged all out war against Socialist countries, and has succeeded in destroyed most of the Socialist countries.
Yugoslavia was a great success story. So is Cuba. So is China. The Warsaw Pact countries and the USSR were success stories for the poor, for women, for minorities, etc. Not so good for landlords, bankers, investors, and other social parasites.
brush
(60,728 posts)I'm sympathetic to Cuba but I wouldn't call it successful and thriving...I mean 1950s Amerocan cars.
Why do socialist countries fail and or revert to capitalism?
Which btw, is what is happening in the many little restaurants and ventures now in Cuba selling prepared food and other items so the owners can supplement their income...capitalism.
Of course you would reject those examples. You would reject any examples. No surprise there.
You measure success by how many 1950s American cars are still running in Cuba? And you laugh at me???
Do you have any idea of the environmental impact and economic waste involved in coming out with new automobile models every year?
brush
(60,728 posts)independent ventures set up many Cuban homes selling prepared food and other items...to make a profit? Capitalism, people want to be paid a reasonable profit for their output to time, labor and materials. It descends for the batering system which evolved into a unit of measure to one on one value of items...that became money, cash, capital...and here we are.
It's the natural form of exchange.
As for your environmental concerns, I too say down with LAISSEZ-FAIRE, unregulated capitalism. Up with fairly regulated capitalism to guard environmental concerns.
You can't stop progress creativity. People appreciate new things.
People wanting to be paid a reasonable profit for their output to time, labor and materials is not Capitalism.
Capitalism is making money from money. That is the opposite of being paid for one's labor and having expenses covered.
brush
(60,728 posts)What is the name those transactions.
Being paid a wage for your labor and being compensated for materials are not profit. Workers are paid wages and often reimbursed for expenses. But they are not capitalists. Calling any and all economic transactions "Capitalism" renders the word meaningless. Capitalism is a historical phenomenon, a stage in the development of human productive forces.
Capitalism: exploitation of wage labour; private ownership of the means of production; and social relations based on commodities for exchange (seeing the economic relationships of production and exchange as relationships among things - money and merchandise - rather than relationships among people).
brush
(60,728 posts)A job?
I show up and work and the boss pays me. That doesn't make me a capitalist.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)In a communist economy, you would get your same state issued housing, food and clothes, regardless of the job you had or how much you worked. North Korea is an example of that.
Cirsium
(2,758 posts)Everything is part of the capitalist economy. Slaves were part on the slavery system, but you don't call them slave owners.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)And then they killed them.
Cirsium
(2,758 posts)Nazi Germany was capitalist; social relations based on commodities for exchange, private ownership of the means of production; wage labor, etc.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)After Hitler and his National Socialist party took power, his socialist intentions to regulate, direct, and nationalize the economic nature of Germany were plain.
An invaluable source of information concerning the economy of the National Socialist Germany comes from those dissident voices who managed to escape the censors or flee before all contact to the outside world was cut off. One such voice was Emil Lederer, a Jewish professor of economics at the University of Berlin who fled to America after being deposed of his teaching position. In a 1937 article he explained a fundamental law of economic theory, writing that, “inasmuch as reality is never the crystallization of a pure principle, every historical system is more or less a compromise.”
The Nazis were never able to achieve a pure socialist system—much like any other proclaimed socialist state, reality universally underperforms the ideal. In Hitler’s Germany, however, the central economic planners were able to get remarkably far in securing the government supremacy. Lederer concludes that, “this new economic system built up in Germany, taken in its structural character,” was designed so that the entire population was, “organized for purposes fixed by the government.”
But if you don't believe dissidents, then read what Nazi leaders
themselves said. Nazi economist Othmar Spann explained that Nazis desired a state where private ownership existed only in a, “formal sense, while in fact there will be only public ownership.” Arthur Van Riel and Arthur Schram, “Weimar Economic Decline, Nazi Economic Recovery, and the Stabilization of Political Dictatorship,” The Journal of Economic History 53, no. 1 (1993): 97-98.
Suppressing unions, imprisoning and killing Socialists and Communists, giving massive amounts of money to private industry...
But the Nazis were Socialists? Even Wikipedia knows better than that:
"The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement."
"The Great Depression had spurred increased state ownership in most Western capitalist countries. This also took place in Germany during the last years of the Weimar Republic.However, after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized. The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible."
"Companies privatized by the Nazis included the four major commercial banks in Germany, which had all come under public ownership during the prior years. Additionally, the Nazis privatized some public services which had been previously provided by the government, especially social and labor-related services."
"One of the reasons for the Nazi privatization policy was to cement the partnership between the government and business interests. Hitler believed that the lack of a precise economic program was one of the Nazi Party's strengths, saying: 'The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all'."
Somebody seems very interested in associating Socialism with the Nazis. Hmmmm.....I wonder what that could be about?
iemanja
(56,336 posts)
MichMan
(15,530 posts)But look at those fins!
iemanja
(56,336 posts)It's a state-run capitalist system with no safety net.
When capitalist countries do horrible things, we hear "that's not real capitalism!"
When socialist countries do great things, we hear "that's not real socialism!"
Long before the changes in China to which you allude, China soared past India by any measurement - poverty, productivity, literacy - despite starting from a very similar baseline.
Capitalism means private ownership of the means of production. "State-run capitalist system" is an oxymoron.
A quick peek at Wikipedia:
"Welfare in the People's Republic of China is linked to the hukou system of household registration. Those holding non-agricultural hukou status have access to a number of programs provided by the government, such as healthcare, employment, retirement pensions, housing, and education."
"The Human Rights Measurement Initiative finds that China is fulfilling 98.4% of what it should be fulfilling for the right to health based on its level of income. When looking at the right to health with respect to children, China achieves 98.6% of what is expected based on its current income. In regards to the right to health amongst the adult population, the country achieves 97% of what is expected based on the nation's level of income. When considering the right to reproductive health, the nation is fulfilling 99.6% of what the nation is expected to achieve based on the resources (income) it has available. Overall, China falls into the "good" category when evaluating the right to health."
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)China came in 52nd.
https://ghsindex.org/country/china/
Here's the full report for all countries:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:09b4cd41-b384-41f1-8dc7-f42dcd17aa31
uponit7771
(93,104 posts)iemanja
(56,336 posts)Because what they describe is not remotely socialist. People starve in China, especially in the rural areas. It has tremendous inequality.
Talking to Chinese people is nothing like Cuban or Soviet (when there was a USSR). They don’t complain about surveillance or lack of liberty but rather poverty.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)Socialism is where the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. There continues to be significant state ownership and control over key industries and resources in China. And socialism certainly does not guarantee a robust social safety net. Socialist countries have historically had very poor social safety nets.
iemanja
(56,336 posts)And extreme inequality and joblessness. If that is what you consider socialist, we might as well stick with oligarchy because China’s “socialism” is no better for the poor.
China is very different today than during the years following the revolution.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)And subject to the whims of the CCP. There is no rule of law; it is rule of the CCP.
And not much has changed since the Maoist revolution in terms of human rights. There is no freedom of speech, nor of the press, nor of the people to protest.
And yes, socialism is indistinguishable from oligarchy in many regards.
uponit7771
(93,104 posts)... controlling shares of said Chinese corps not just whims.
Chinese SOEs are ran horribly and over subsidized
US also has SOE like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mack.
No way the Chinese state exist to protect the proletariat by all means
iemanja
(56,336 posts)SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)iemanja
(56,336 posts)Now whether it's "free" is a question, but it definitely involves private capital. This doesn't happen when the state controls all business. This is not to say that the Chinese government doesn't own a great deal, but rather other economies exist as well.
Response to iemanja (Reply #93)
SunSeeker This message was self-deleted by its author.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)If they didn't, they would in in jail, like Jimmy Lai, the founder of the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily in Hong Kong, who hthe CCP have thrown into solitary confinement. Lai was charged under the Beijing-imposed National Security Law three years earlier, on 11 December 2020, with two counts of “conspiracy to commit collusion with foreign countries or external elements,” and one count of “collusion with foreign countries or external elements.” He has beeen kept in solitary confinement since December 31, 2020, after a sham trial by the CCP. He's 77. Apple Daily has since been closed down.
This tells all of the billionaires you cite that they and their companies would meet the same fate if they should cross the CCP.
Many billionaires in China have already been jailed, particularly in recent years as part of a broader crackdown on the private sector and perceived threats to the Communist Party's control. This crackdown has seen a number of high-profile figures facing investigations, detentions, and ultimately, imprisonment, following prosecutions for various trumped up financial and economic crimes.
Sun Dawu, aprominent agricultural tycoon, was sentenced to 18 years for "provoking trouble" and other charges, after publicly supporting activists and criticizing the government.
Xiao Jianhua, a Chinese-Canadian billionaire was sentenced to 13 years for trumped up financial crimes, like bribery and embezzlement. His company was also fined $8 billion. https://share.google/35KM8mpBZv4qqE3K3
iemanja
(56,336 posts)What I’m saying is that it is not a country where the workers own the means of production. It is not socialism.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)Socialism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
iemanja
(56,336 posts)Marx is. Government control of the means of production—which obviously isn’t entirely the case in China—is a pre-stage of socialism, whose ultimate goal is for workers to control the means of production. What you refuse to acknowledge is that workers do not benefit in the Chinese system. They earn extremely low wages working, for example, at Apple factories. In rural areas, people are even poorer, and the Chinese government tries to keep Westerners from seeing those conditions. In Cuba, as difficult as life is there, citizens have jobs, healthcare, and rationed food. That differs dramatically from China.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)If you want to follow Marx, that's your business. But if you wish to communicate in the English language, you need to use English language definitions.
Here is a current report on conditions in Cuba: https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/a-look-at-cuba-growing-inequalities/
Workers in China are fucked, as are workers in Cuba.
uponit7771
(93,104 posts)SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)China's major industries are dominated by state-owned enterprises (SOEs). These SOEs are prevalent in sectors considered strategically important to the country, such as energy, telecommunications, and banking. The government also maintains a strong presence in industries related to national security, like aerospace, weapons production, and key infrastructure.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-biggest-chinese-state-owned-151851607.html
uponit7771
(93,104 posts)Also the info in the link never says all corps are controlled by CCP.
There are private companies not owned by CCP, that's not socialism
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)Especially in China, where literally everything and everyone is controlled by the government.
uponit7771
(93,104 posts)What percentage of Chinese corps are private?
"Specifically, private companies account for 92.3% of all registered enterprises, according to the State Council Information Office. While state-owned enterprises (SOEs) play a significant role in certain sectors and contribute substantially to the Chinese economy, the private sector dominates in terms of the sheer number of businesses. "
"SOEs" May be directly owned and controlled by CCP but China is not anywhere in the even aspirational communism spectrum where the state controls and owns means of production.
They're bout as capitalist as Sweden but without social safety nets
iemanja
(56,336 posts)That didn’t make it communist.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)Much of the means of production were government owned and/or controlled, as far as Germany's economic model went. But politically, it was far right/fascistic. Fascism is not an economic model, but rather a political one. Fascism often involves a system where the state controls or directs the economy through close ties with large corporations, but ultimately it is the government that controls the corporations, not the other way around.
Fascism is defined a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
uponit7771
(93,104 posts)
mjvpi
(1,726 posts)Does reality resemble Adam Smith or Karl Marx’s vision of how Capitalism will evolve? Personally, I can acknowledge some good things about Capitalism, or a meritocracy for sure. The idea of competition works better with shoes than health care. Democratic Socialism seems to leave room for combining what works well in both systems.
Response to mjvpi (Reply #21)
uponit7771 This message was self-deleted by its author.
uponit7771
(93,104 posts)brush
(60,728 posts)have become capitalist societies...oligarchs and all.
Repeat after you about what?
ITAL
(1,138 posts)"You know the difference between communism and socialism. In socialism, everyone shares the wealth. In communism, everyone shares the poverty."
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)Instead, she resorts to silly propaganda, claiming socialism is "early stage" communism and that communism is the "most successful" system ever to exist. And all this will wearing the Soviet hammer and sickle on her beret. What a joke. I don't know who she is, but she is an idiot. How can you post this crap here?
First of all, let's get our definitions straight. Socialism is a political and economic system where the means of production, such as factories and land, are owned and controlled by the community as a whole, rather than by private individuals or corporations. Communism is a political and economic ideology that aims for a stateless, classless society with common ownership of the means of production and equal distribution of resources. It envisions a society where the state controls key resources like property, production, education, agriculture, and transportation. This system seeks to eliminate social classes and the concept of private property, ultimately aiming for a society where everyone shares the benefits of labor equally.
There have been NO successful communist governments, nor any successful socialist governments. They either dissolved completely, like the USSR, or devolved into an oppressive government dictatorship with no respect for individual rights, like China, Cuba, or the USSR before it dissolved, or the former Yuogslavia before it fell apart.
What Zohran Mamdani and Bernie and AOC are talking about is not communism or even socialism. They are not advocating for the state to own all the means of production, nor are they saying there should be no private ownership of property. They describe themselves as democratic socialists, and what they are really talking about is regulated capitalism with a fully robust safety net like the Scandinavian countries. None of the Scandinavian countries are socialist, let alone communist.
Here's Bernie in his own words:
You can have Medicare for All without socialism. You can have a living wage and paid parental leave and childcare without socialism. And you can have it while still respecting voting rights, private property rights and a regulated capitalism. The Scandinavian countries, and indeed many European countries, are doing all of that right now. They're doing it by TAXING CAPITALISTS. It's not rocket science and it does not require a new system. It just requires more robust regulation of capitalism. And we've ALWAYS regulated capitalism.
It is unfortunate that AOC, Bernie and Mamdani have chosen to use the term democratic socialist to describe themselves, since they are not actual socialists. It allows the right to smear them as "socialists" while also allowing fringe lunatics like the USSR loving dishonest dipshit in the OP video to claim that socialism is not so bad if relatively mainstream politicians like AOC, Bernie and Mamdani use the "s word" to describe themselves.
TacosUberAlles
(88 posts)Why the toxicity?
Because I found it educational & thought some people would find it helpful. That's why. The better question is perhaps why are you seemingly personally offended by this?
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)Why the bullshit?
There was nothing educational about that OP video. It was all falsehoods. That is not what progressives are supposed to be about. Unlike the right wing, we are a truth based community.
TacosUberAlles
(88 posts)I don't know what your deal is but kindness is free.
Kindly go be abusive elsewhere.
All I did was share something which I found educational & is a "hot button issue" right now. Jeez.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)Truth is not "abusive."
beaglelover
(4,309 posts)mjvpi
(1,726 posts)As I see it, Capitalism American style is eating itself alive. We need to try some things differently. Bernie. Senator Warren’s way of of putting up guardrails and regulations is so rational. In the long run, maybe the near future as I think about it, climate change will be the ultimate measure of Capitalism.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)Putting the word socialism in there is a misnomer and is political poison. I just don't understand why they choose to misname what they are talking about. It hurts Democrats and our effort to regulate capitalism to better serve the people.
Calling regulation of capitalism "socialism" is in essence buying the right wing smear that any effort to regulate business is socialism. Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. That is not what Democratic Socialism is. So why have the word Socialism even in there?
Why not call themselves FDR Democrats instead?
uponit7771
(93,104 posts)
BannonsLiver
(19,441 posts)One must strive to be both at all times. 
uponit7771
(93,104 posts)TheRickles
(2,886 posts)Cirsium
(2,758 posts)Here we are back in the 50s again! I can almost hear the ghost of Richard Nixon as he rants and raves at a HUAC session.
By your criteria, there have been NO successful capitalist countries. They usually revert to police state tyranny. In fact that is happening right here right now in the US, i the heart of the global capitalist empire. Imagine that!
OMG!!! We can't have that!
I spent a lot of time in Yugoslavia in the 70s. There was vastly more freedom there than there was in many capitalist countries, in particular Greece, Spain, and Portugal. More than there was in the US back then for many people. We won't even talk about the ongoing capitalist horror show in Latin America or India.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)As is the UK, Ireland, Germany, France and Austria. And so is Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
Yugoslavia was a socialist country under Tito. If you were not a member of the communist party, you could not hold a decent job. Compared to other countries behind the iron curtain, it had more freedom in the sense that you were allowed to leave the country to work, but it was far from a free country. And it was desperately poor, typical of socialist countries. You being a tourist there is very different from being a citizen there and trying to raise a family. It was a brutal life. That is why my family left Yugoslavia in 1967. Economic failures and rights abuses led to the civil war of 1990 and eventual breakup of Yugoslavia into what are basically small democratic capitalist countries now, but with relatively poor social safety nets, unlike the Scandinavian countries.
Capitalist countries who do not provide basic democratic rights, properly regulate their economy and do not provide an adequate social safety net, like India, are of course not going to be a model to follow. Nobody is saying they should be.
Provided that those systems are supported by massive exploitation and destruction in the global South.
SunSeeker
(56,227 posts)uponit7771
(93,104 posts)brush
(60,728 posts)uponit7771
(93,104 posts)Cause they can't get mad at someone calling them something that they call themselves
AntiFascist
(13,574 posts)What communism and fascism seem to have in common is the diminishment of the individual for the sake of advancing "the Party". Individualism and diversity are frowned upon. Mussolini's treatise on fascism goes into great lengths about how there needed to be a unified, purified society where fractured groups within that society who seek their own identity should not be tolerated.
In the Trump Administration's vision for a Christian Nationalist society, a woman's place is in the home for purposes of bearing and raising as many children as possible and serving her husband. All men and women should be heterosexual and married for the purpose of raising a family. There is no room for DEI. The Christian bible supersedes the Constitution. White American bloodlines should not be further "poisoned" by that of immigrants of color, etc, etc.
American freedom is dying, and the American dream is being shaped into a MAGA nightmare. It may as well become Gilead. Republicans who accuse leftist politicians of being communists and Marxists need to take a long look in the mirror, and they may see a 1930's style German National Socialist staring back at them.
Cirsium
(2,758 posts)The Nazis were not a form of socialism. They were completely in bed with the capitalists.
AntiFascist
(13,574 posts)or in Trump's case, socialism for the MAGA faithful oligarchs.
Sorry, but I don't see this as true capitalism. According to Trump's professor at the highest rated business school in the country, "He was the dumbest goddamn student I ever had."
Nazis were not in bed with all capitalists, and they certainly didn't believe in a free market. Several of the titans of industry of the day supported Hitler's fascism because they saw a threat from increasing support for Marxism and communism across Europe, so in that sense I can see how they were opposed to popular socialism. People had become disenchanted with capitalism after the Great Depression. Fascism latched on to the appeal of socialism by branding itself as a third alternative to Marxism and capitalism.
Trump's failures with his companies declaring bankruptcy and the fact that he has screwed the banks numerous times only shows that he doesn't understand how capitalism is supposed to work. He makes his money by grifting off of his position as president and receiving bribes from wealthy oil sheiks and the like. Even Musk makes much of his money from government contracts with the blessing of Trump. How is that representative of real capitalism? It's really just socialism for the rich and powerful.
Yes, the ruling class response to people's (inevitable) dissatisfaction with Capitalism is Fascism, We are seeing that here in the US now.
Capitalists don't believe in a "free market," they strive for monopoly and government favoritism. All governments under Capitalism pick winners and losers.
"True Capitalism" is purely imaginary. Capitalism is a historical phenomenon, not a religion, and it develops and evolves over time, just as Feudalism did.
If you are going to call Capitalism "Socialism for the rich" can we then call Socialism "Capitalism for the poor?" Words lose meaning when we throw them around like that. The word is not the thing. I am talking about a system with social relations based on commodities for exchange, private ownership of the means of production; and wage labor. That is a plus or minus 500 year phenomenon, a stage in the development of human productive forces, something that actually exists no matter what we call it.
Again, the word is not the thing and Capitalism is not a religion. Yes, there is an ideology associated with Capitalism, and there are various beliefs about it - free markets, supply and demand, the invisible hand and other such fantasies . But as is the case with slavery and racism, first comes the economic drive then comes the ideology that is manufactured to justify and rationalize that economic behavior.
AntiFascist
(13,574 posts)the Soviet Union had built up a huge cache of wealth that was intended to benefit its citizens, but "inevitably," greed took hold and the wealth was divided up between Putin and his oligarchic cronies. You might blame this on American capitalism, but Russia lacks the regulation and governmental controls that would allow capitalism to function fairly.
The real problem, as I see it, has to do with centralized government becoming corrupted and ultimately authoritarian in order to protect its ruling elite. The same happened to the Roman Empire.
No matter what "ism" you are attached to, it historically had to be enforced by a centralized government.
Technology may be viewed as double-edge sword, but I believe it can ultimately lead to a decentralized form of government, that is truly run "for the people, by the people."
Also, Marxism suffers from the same fate as does Iran calling for "death to Israel," by calling for death to capitalism. It is just inviting violence and the authoritarian crackdown we are beginning to witness now!
The public wealth was stolen after the USSR fell. That is probably why the USSR fell. Theft of the public wealth is routine and relentless in the US.
AntiFascist
(13,574 posts)theft of public wealth is due to the centralization of the wealth by the government, not a byproduct of capitalism necessarily.
Public ownership makes things easier to steal? The opposite is true.
Under private ownership they are already stolen.
AntiFascist
(13,574 posts)true public ownership of the Federal Reserve would be decentralized. Good luck bringing all private property under public ownership.
Cirsium
(2,758 posts)Not sure what you are trying to say.
When you say "private property" what are you referring to?
AntiFascist
(13,574 posts)"Private property is a foundational element of capitalism, enabling individuals to own and control resources, which in turn drives economic activity and growth. This ownership incentivizes individuals to invest, innovate, and efficiently utilize resources, leading to increased production and wealth. Without private property, the core mechanisms of capitalism, such as free markets and competition, would be significantly weakened."
What I'm talking about with respect to government wealth is what our taxes go toward.
It's true that wealthy capitalists tend to want to be taxed disproportionately and this is where stricter government regulation comes into play. As oligarchs have taken over government, not only are they wanting to eliminate their own taxes, but they want to partially make up for the resulting deficit by eliminating social programs. If there were more democratized control over the government wealth, this would be more difficult, while Congress is unable, currently, to fulfill that purpose because of the often-violent threats against them by the MAGA base. Even today a moderate Republican senator has decided to leave government, likely for that very reason. Exactly the tactics used by Hitler when he came to power!
Cirsium
(2,758 posts)AI seems to be quite biased. Maybe it stands for "artificial idiocy."
What do you think should be publicly owned and what should be privately owned?
OC375
(140 posts)Sick to death of ism’s. They get in the way of human relations and they all seem to eventually fail, and come back around again eventually with new packaging. ism’s and religion are what keep us fighting. We think we invented democracy, meritocracy, social responsibility and conflict based solely on noble higher ideals. We didn’t. They’ve been around as long as societies. Even that fails. All we can do is try to make the transitions as humane as possible, and we generally fail at that too. Sorry, but I just can’t get hot and bothered by a communist democrat. It will work for a while, or it won’t, and then we’re on to whatever comes next. Yawn.
Individualism? Atheism? Vegetarianism? Egalitarianism? Journalism? Impressionism? Tourism? Parochialism? Realism? Feminism?
snot
(11,237 posts)when we say we want to spread "democracy," what we really mean is "capitalism"; and when we say we fear "communism," what we really fear is tyranny.
As we've seen, communism can be utterly tryannical, and as we know all too well, capitalism can, too.
The real poles are the political: democracy vs. tyranny; and economic: capitalism vs. communism.
Personally, although I believe in natural human generosity, I find Marxist expectations unrealistic insofar as they suppose we'll ever completely lose the desire to keep at least part of the fruits of our own labor for ourselves or that we'll remain consistently motivated to do our fair share of the scut work without any incentive other than the "greater good."
On the other hand, completely unregulated capitalism is also unsustainable, since it first devours the real economy and then itself.
But democratic socialism has worked beautifully for many countries. Give me a governmental system that's democratic, of by and for the people; and an economic system that applies socialism and capitalism selectively, based on what actually produces the best results.
I.e., I suspect there are some kinds of goods and services that are best operated in a more or less socialist matter – basically, those requiring large infrastructure investments and/or that provide basic necessities that cannot easily be replaced or foregone in case of economic need, such as fire departments, roads, bridges, water, power, education, and medical care – while others that are more discretionary, require less investment, or involve rapid innovation may be best left to a well-regulated capitalism.
Jack Valentino
(2,881 posts)BRILLIANT!!!!
Welcome to DU!
(and I agree-- long past time for Democrats to lose any fear of being called a "socialist"
or even a "communist"---
since Republicans began using those terms to attack Social Security almost a hundred years ago....
and today's Republicans don't even know what the words mean anymore)
TacosUberAlles
(88 posts)I appreciate that greatly. Thanks for the warm welcome 😃
I really feel that if our party leans hard into it then we'd certainly gain a lot more people, especially young people, who will be very excited & vote. I have never understood the chasing of right wing voters to begin with while ignoring left wing voters. I have a bit of a theory though on this. It is just a theory.
I think why this happens is because our party really wouldn't have to change much to get right wing voters. However, should they then it means dropping policies & ideals that Dem voters expect like abortion for instance. It would be a subtraction instead of an addition.
The left on the other hand would require more work because it's the opposite; addition & not subtraction. Take single payer healthcare, weed legalization federally, medical debt forgiveness. These are just a few examples of several. And because of that, it's more work.
I do feel that right now we're very much in a transitional phase of things. We've lost to fascism not once but twice & people are really being harmed, especially people who aren't white & LGBTQIA people. Many realize this & are of the opinion that the "same old same old is NOT working anymore!" & they're very upset by where we are right now as a country. I can't blame them at all because I am too.
It's going to be a very interesting next few years.
Buckle up!
gulliver
(13,454 posts)...is too often like telling a mugger who just walked up to you that mugging is illegal. They both know what you're telling them is true, but it doesn't change their plans.
Cirsium
(2,758 posts)The 1950s called. They want their Red Scare back.