This is an important point. Applies to many things, of course, but the Capitalism / Socialism tension is definitely up there. The US has one foot in both camps and just leans more to one side than the other.
This is as good a place as any to put this:
Because bro above me posted about blm I will as well. I really love what this blm leader did. I think he’s trying to build a charter school but I forgot. I also hope patrisse cullors gets investigated for where all that money went. Yk the women who bought a bunch of mansions. What’s annoying is that she was playing victim on Instagram.
Jesus Christ. “Capitalism” isn’t a fucking ideology. It’s just a term for a free market with minimal government intervention. The only thing that comes close to an ideology in the US is “Rugged Individualism”.
The Nordic States ARE capitalist countries. People analyse them by looking at shit in economic terms.
Socialism IS an ideology. That’s why you socialist fuckers have no real world solutions. All you do is spout meaningless rhetoric.
You want to argue for more government intervention, FINE. Don’t slap on a fucking ideology to it. MLK wasn’t in China when real shit was going down.
Oh, that wasn’t “real” socialism? What the fuck do you think the objective of socialism is? How can you be surprised by the outcomes of the process of getting there in all the other fucking ex-socialist countries if you really know what the fuck socialism is?
With all the shit we’ve seen go down in history, you’d have to be a certified idiot to buy it. At least people several decades ago didn’t have the benefit of hindsight.
If you wanna be a pre-Marx socialist, by all means do so. Go get a bunch of people, move to some place in the country and do your own shit. Nobody cares. You’re free to do so. No one’s stopping you.
3 Likes
Don’t tell the Ayn Rand cultists that. Many champions of capitalism do treat it as an ideology and even a religion.
1 Like
Are you asserting that capitalism and socialism are not competing influences in the US?
I’m asserting that people who keep using the word “socialism” either don’t know what it means or they’re idiots.
2 Likes
And Christian of the loony variety made this movie:
Loved every single minute of it.
Well ok. But I disagree - I think - unless I’m just not getting what you’re trying to say. While socialism may be principally an ideology, it is appropriate to use the word “socialism” (as well as “capitalism”) to describe an economic / political system. I’m no expert on this point but I could have sworn that Marx pegged socialism as the midpoint between capitalism and communism or something of that nature. Since it’s way easier to say that a policy is of a socialist nature rather than a nature-that-would-shift-means-of-production-towards-social-ownership, I’m not really understanding the outrage at the usage.
No, socialism, according to Marx. is the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, which really means that the State eventually has to own everything AND control the economy. That’s how communism can happen.
Capitalism can be replaced by any other word. China is a State Capitalist country today. Although most enterprises are partially State-owned, they allow a market economy, i.e, a capitalism, to take place unless there are certain political reasons for them to intervene.
You cannot reasonably replace Socialism with any other word. China still calls itself “socialist” because they usesit as a unifying ideology for the masses despite being Capitalist.
The thing I was thinking of was what Oxford defines as “a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism”. Either way, you’ve clearly spent more time thinking about this than I have and I’m not really trying to argue about definitions anyway. What I’m saying is that both words have become part of the common vernacular in characterizing the nature of a thing, so even if it is a slight bastardization of the term I think this is ultimately a distinction without a difference.
That would be correct.
Which is what I was saying in the post you first responded to.
How do you achieve Communism? Has any country in history ever been able to do that?
If you don’t accept it as an ideology, or at least part of one, then it’s still essentially a totalitarian dictatorship.
Think we’re making separate and unrelated points.
Nope. I know what your point is. I’m saying the term “socialism” shouldn’t be mainstream in the first place because of what it really means.
There are several overlapping things with fascism. Would you make the term “fascism” mainstream?
- Fascism is a mainstream term - gets thrown around quite a bit actually
- I’m not questioning your grasp of the definition(s). I’m saying that regardless of whether the words are being used in their textbook form, they have a colloquial understanding that can’t really be muted
By whom? Socialists and wannabes. Does anyone proudly label himself as a fascist?
Which is why dumbasses get sucked into the original ideology so easily.
1 Like
This one made it all fall into place for me. Thanks
I’m not sure what you’re implying. Please elaborate.
Nah I’ll stay
Look, if you want to call me a fascist or have a problem with my tenor, go ahead and say it. This is an adult forum and I’m not a kid. We can discuss this. I was a village kid so I tend to be a little coarse sometimes.
i said that the reason why idiots don’t go around calling themselves “fascists” is because it’s not a mainstream term - as in not socially accepted -.AFTER I said that there are multiple overlaps with socialism, which would mean I don’t endorse it either.
1 Like