Socialism is an entire ideology of it’s own. There’re not such thing as “socialist policies” unless you’re talking about extremes like nationalizing private enterprises(which can happen during states of emergency but that’s a different subject altogether), which is also not the same as implementing antitrust laws to prevent, for example, oligopolies preventing competitors from entering the market that results in a loss for the consumer in terms of things like price and quality. Would you call the latter socialism?
There are social policies, which are implemented in every democracy in the world. Things like universal healthcare, which I do not agree with and would probably move out of my country if this were implemented when I’m about to retire, aren’t “socialist policies”.
Even China doesn’t have universal healthcare, fyi.
I don’t know about Kim Jong-un so can’t comment on that. Stalin lived in a relatively modest apartment most of the time, but also had a large dacha out of town. He had a huge amount of power, but not very much on-paper wealth. He wore simple clothes, rolled his own smokes, and generally just didn’t have a very extravagant lifestyle. What’s important to remember is that “his” property, and the property of every high level leader, was state-owned and tied to their position. Their children wouldn’t inherit it and it could be stripped from them if they were removed from their positions, kind of like living in the WH.
I could be wrong, but I can’t think of a single Soviet billionaire or equivalent. I guess Stalin might technically fit that definition, since he had almost limitless power and so could commandeer whatever property/vehicle he wanted, but none of his underlings had the same power and none of the leaders who came after him did either. Famous actors/sports stars/cosmonauts could be relatively wealthy by Soviet standards (and by wealthy I mean an apartment in a nice part of town, not a lavish mansion) but again that was all gifted from the state and could be taken away if they ever fell out of favour.
Someone like Trump, Bernie, Kamala, Biden etc, who are all rich and successful before power and can go back to being rich and living in mansions after power, was unknown.
Dude, come one. Xi Jinping officially earns $22,000 USD a year as President of China while the net worth of his extended family is estimated to be over 1.5 billion USD.
I have no doubt that high ranking members in the CCP all have millions/billions of dollars squirreled away in different accounts and various property holdings. Modern China has a lot more “capitalist characteristics” than the USSR did. My post was about the USSR only, and how the guys at the top might well have access to nice apartments and be driven around by chauffeurs and the like, but they never actually own any of it.
High ranking CCP members, their families and various businessmen connected to them could fly around all over the world and secretly buy a bunch of property overseas - Soviets couldn’t. They were asset rich (which, again was state-owned and could be easily taken away) but had no liquid cash to splash around. Some deputy minister of railways could walk into a restaurant and get a free meal, but obviously only in the USSR - he can’t just fly to London and have that same power. Not to mention that high ranking Soviet government members or celebrities couldn’t even leave the country without good reason and a KGB escort.
I simply gave you a modern day example because it can be fact checked by anyone here for accuracy. You can bet this was happening even during the 50s and the Cultural Revolution era while people starved to death.
My point is that when people have absolute power, there’re lots of ways to acquire and hide private assets. It’s always a safe assumption that they will capitalize on this power for personal gain.
That is absolutely true. Look at the descendants of USSR leaders - Khruschev’s son was an engineer and after emigrating to the US taught at the Naval War College, Brezhnev’s daughter - after a failed marriage to a tightrope walker (an actual one, from a circus) - worked as a journalist and his son smuggled raincoats from Italy using his family name.
Middle class living at best.
Of course, that completely changed after the fall of communism and now the children of Putin’s cronies enjoy lavish lifestyles comparable to billionaires - just look at Peskov’s daughter and her red carpet appearances.
Even Russia’s moving forward. Bloody idiot SJW marxists/socialists(not their leaders) want to go back to the shitty times in all these countries. This is what really irritates me. These dumb fucks really need to experience REAL poverty and get royally fucked in the ass by REAL authoritarianism to get it. You can’t make this shit up man.
Correct. I think it’s also worth noting that in the USSR, a high ranking elite who lead an openly opulent lifestyle would not be tolerated for very long since the elites were constantly scheming against each other. Khrushchev’s family couldn’t just go and party in Bora Bora and expect to remain in their position - it would give the others an opportunity to start an anti-corruption inquiry and get him deposed. In fact Khrushchev was ultimately deposed when he went on vacation to Georgia, which gave Brezhnev time to organise the coup.
But anyway this is all veering away from my initial point - labeling the Democrats as communist/socialist/Marxist is just wrong. For example Bernie’s vision of “democratic socialism” (high taxes on the rich, universal healthcare, LGBT rights, while keeping the fundamental system of property rights intact) would be unrecognizable to Marx.
Wouldn’t Soviet Communism be equally unrecognizable to Marx? How about Venezuelan policies? You could spend all day pointing out differences.
I always get a kick out of the semantic quibbling involved with labeling various dramatic expansions of government power that displace freedom and market forces. Take Kamala Harris Equality vs Equity video. I was “corrected” up thread for labeling it Marxist.
Fine then. What is the better label for the ideology? “Utopian”, I was told. Okay then…
It seems to me that they share enough characteristics to share the term. Of course there are differences in how these shitty policies get enacted between different countries in different times with different cultures.
That doesn’t mean we need to invent new words to describe it in a meaningful way, let alone recognizing clear patterns that emerge again and again.
What direction would you say the Democrats’ policies are pushing us in? What’s the right word to use when considering the totality of the policies that were being discussed at the DNC?
Communism
Socialism
Social Justice
Marxism
Cultural Marxism
Equality
Equity
X-style Communism
The Left
Liberal
(…)
It’s hard to argue cleanly against the madness when obscurity is at an all time high. The overlap is so strong, the limits vague and ever shifting.
The other side, as defeatist and cucky as it is at least presents a relatively tidy ideological nomenclature
Muh Freedoms
Libertarian
Muh Markets
X Amendment
Rightwing, the Right
Not complicated.
I’d say there’s a clear pattern of deliberate obscurantism. It does work though because the energised masses all get to pick whatever works as an anger catalyst and project their passions towards antropomorphic enemies (ie Trump, White people). The rest is paralyzed by the bright flicker of the anti-reason nonsense-chaff weaponry.
That’s why slapping people with generic labels is just lazy and doesn’t work particularly well when trying to put forth a point of view or debate the other side. Take Marx - he was pro-gun, homophobic and used a lot of very racist and anti-semitic language (his “Lassalle letter” of 30 July 1862 is a well known example of this). Was he left wing? Certainly. Do you think he’d be welcome in the modern Democratic party, alongside AOC, Bernie, et al? Absolutely not. So clearly that label doesn’t fit when discussing Democrats. Just like labeling Obama’s administration as Stalinist or Maoist or Leninist doesn’t fit.
Policies should be individually picked apart and argued, not just lumped together as generic “Marxism” and equated to regimes that were completely different. The same is true for the left comparing everything to fascism and Hitler.
1) A pardon-a-palooza: - almost a certainty and plenty of past Presidents have done this. The big ? is will he try to engineer a self pardon.
2) Revenge on the Deep State: - I could see this happening in his make believe battle with the imaginary deep state.
3) The mass firing of top officials: - This could actually help Biden but I doubt Trump could figure that out.
4) The destruction of records and obstruction of the new administration: - I see this as a certainty since it’s already happened. If he does this I hope they figure it out real quick and prosecute them, but I don’t think there’s any chance of it.
5) Military conflict or covert action: - I don’t think this will happen. Trump will be too focused on what’s right in front of his face. He won’t be bothered by what’s going on outside our borders.
6) Giving up on the pandemic: - He’s already done this so it was kinda’ not a necessary part of the article.
I should add that when I use utopian it’s not like how most people use it; I use it with the book in mind. If anyone reads it they will see what people have to give up in order to have utopia. In other words, if I call a place a utopia, it’s not a good thing.
