• boblin@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It provides a safety net by pooling the resources of the community to support the less fortunate. This prevents people from having to sacrifice their long term goals because their short term needs may not be otherwise met.

    Also in contrast to capitalism that treats society as a zero sum game (“I can’t get ahead unless I take something from someone else”) socialism is a benefit multiplier (“I’m part of the community. By making the life of everyone in the community better I’m also improving my own life”).

  • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Few movements self-identify as “Socialist”, at best it’s a taxonomical label. Attempting to talk about the finer points of socialism is akin to debating the pros/cons of “Animals” – it’s an overly broad topic and doomed to spiral into bike-shedding over semantics as soon as the conversation starts to look interesting.

    With that being said, let’s talk about some more concrete terms – apologies in advance for wielding only slightly less clumsy terminology in my bullets:

    • Socialized Medicine: Healthcare is a human right. I am pro human rights.
    • Unions: Mostly positive. Nothing’s perfect, but come on… you’d have to be blind not to see and feel for how exploited lower-class workers are without them
    • Democratic Socialists of America: I’m a member – that means I like them. I think their platform represents the ideal incrementalist approach to improving the current status quo
    • European Welfare States (e.g.: Denmark): Too fuzzy to have a solid opinion on, but certainly a battle-tested template. I like most of their ideas most of the time
    • Marxism: A genius body of economic philosophy, but increasingly out of place as time marches onward. I’d be for a by-the-book implementation (insofar as that’s possible) in 1923, but not 2023
    • Maoism/Leninism: Not exactly success stories. It’s easier to appreciate their noble ideas & intentions with the distance lent by history, but that’s altogether different from “liking”
    • Communism: As a whole? I think the template holds promise and can be made to work in a modern context, but viability =/= realizability. The world would have to get turned upside-down first and it’s questionable exactly how many of us would live through that… but never say never.
    • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Well, the biggest political party in Denmark for my entire life is called Socialdemokratiet, which is social democracy coming from socialism.

      I think it’s a pretty big movement.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Marxism: A genius body of economic philosophy, but increasingly out of place as time marches onward. I’d be for a by-the-book implementation (insofar as that’s possible) in 1923, but not 2023

      One of the most insightful critiques of Marxism I’ve ever seen is that there is literally no solidly prescribed actual economic policy. Marx spoke at length about social policy and issues. Freeing the workers from the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie from themselves. But almost never and nowhere. Did he ever go into in-depth detail about economics. Or the economies that we would specifically have to go through to achieve his social vision. Which is what allowed bastardizations like those of Lenin, Mao, and the Ill families neptocracy.

      Specifically ignoring the stateless part of his stateless, classes communism. Conflating the state that shouldn’t exist with the workers who were supposed to own the means and tools they used for production themselves. Etc.

  • Nora@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 months ago

    I like working and feeling like I’m helping others or working towards a larger goal without the constant ever present exploitation of myself and others.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well, under a free market system it can’t because of competition. Under a centrally-controlled system, greed can run unchecked in the environment of total control.

  • stewie3128@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s one of the better -isms currently available.

    Workers owning the means of production is the way it should be. Until we can mature further.

  • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    that it holds that social practices are created from social practice and not inherited from immutable law, enabling criticism of the underlying machinations of society without being hindered by the argument that such machinations are an inherited and instinctual product of nature and thus unalterable.

  • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    A friendly reminder that socialism is not communism. The latter is closer to capitalism as it’s just state-owned instead of privately owned. However, socialism and capitalism can coexist, which cannot be said the same about communism.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Friendly reminder that Communism isn’t communism. Communism is “nominally” socialist, 100% authoritarian ideology that completely disregards most of what was supposed to actually define communism. You are accurate in calling it, especially in China’s case, state capitalism.

      Where as communism is 100% a type of socialism. And ultimate end goal of most socialist ideologies. Basically Communists are communists in the same way capitalists are libertarians.

    • Urist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5]

      Hard disagree. Capitalism with a handful of social systems implemented is not socialism.

  • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I’ve lived in a country with socialism for my entire life, and have studied the laws in my own and other countries without socialism.

    I will talk about socialism as it is in Scandinavia, more specifically Denmark. Here’s a few things other than paid education and free healthcare:

    • Getting paid to study: You get paid to study as soon as you turn 18. In that way you don’t need a job while you studying. Basic salary when living away from parents: 1.000 USD/month.

    • UBI: In Denmark we have UBI for people being poor, basically. If you don’t have a job, is sick and can’t work, or any other reason you might be screwed, you get paid by the government to… well yeah, exist basically. You have to meet some requirements and actively trying to get better or find a job though, which seems fair I think. If the government thinks it’s not possible to get better, you can get the money permanently for the rest of your life without doing anything. (this is used for people with disabilities, both mental and physical, both born with it or obtained later in life)

    • Shared heating system: This is maybe the biggest “socialism” thing I can mention. In Denmark your house or apartment can be hooked up to a country wide heating system, which means we all share the same heat. This is a way to make heat distribution centralised, which has major advantages such as; price, availability, maintenance. (Fun fact: every data center build in Denmark needs to be hooked up to this system, as they will “donate” all their excess heat from their servers to the central heating system)

    • Flex jobbing: If you are no longer able to work 37 hours a week, you can be a flex worker. This basically means that you can work 15 hours a week and still get paid a full salary. The government will cover the rest of the pay and also cover some expenses for the company having the flex worker. This system is great for peoples mental health, as they still can feel a part of society even though they can’t work full time. While they still can live a worthy life because their pay is fine. It’s a win-win for the country, the companies and the people needing this.

    I could go on, but I don’t want to be that guy praising my own country all the time. We Scandinavians tend to do that.

    • Too Ren@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Denmark is not socialist, nor is it capitalist. It like essentially every other “capitalist” country is a mixed economy. In some aspects countries like the US are more “socialist” like in agricultural policy.

      • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Can you explain how the US has a more socialist agricultural policy? I don’t think I’m familiar with it.

        • yesman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          US agriculture policy isn’t Socialist in that workers control the production, but “socialist” in the since that the government controls the markets through subsidies.

          For example, in the 70s their was a crash in dairy prices. To the point where farmers were dumping milk down the drain. (yay capitalism) The Carter admin, seeing the dairy industry as essential to national security (dairy was a way bigger part of the diet back then), bought massive amounts of milk at above market price to keep the farmers afloat.

          You may have heard of “government cheese” as a pejorative toward welfare. Well, that’s where the cheese came from, all that milk that the government owned. People remember the children that got free cheese, but not the farmers who got government cash.

    • rustyriffs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I wish there was a movement called anti corporatism, literally. I feel like we need something new since anything socialism related is automatically bad to a lot of people…

      • Lividpeon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Those people tend to be the ones benefiting most from socialism without realizing it. There also is a lot of confusing communism with socialism in here, they are not the same thing

  • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    The idea behind it, making life that little bit more fair. It wouldn’t work, but as miguided as it might be, it’s born of empathy and that’s worth something.

  • Cosmicomical@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    What I like is that when there is progress, the progress is actually experienced by everybody and not just by a wider or narrower elite.

    For instance, I love robotics but I can’t stand that adding robots to society results in unemployment. You can’t just let the owners scoop up all the capital gain.

  • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I like some of the goals of it (like evening out the economical inequalities), but I don’t think socialism is the right way to do it. Democratic welfare state systems found in Western European countries are much better solutions (and hasn’t turned into authoritarian tyrannies).

    UBI might also be a good option, but currently there have been no large scale implementation of it yet.

    • Urist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You cannot even out the real inequalities without demolishing the capitalist class, pretty much by definition. If you want to make everyone equal part of the capitalist class, that is pretty much socialism by definition.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        You cannot even out the real inequalities without demolishing the capitalist class

        Absent rhat happening, you still can improve the situation quite a lot with strong, well enforced regulations on their activities.

        Employment laws are usually a good place to start.