Americans see China and think: “Oh no, very bad because of socialism/communism”
But as someone who was born in mainland China (I’m Chinese-American), PRC is nothing “socialist”/“communist” at all, its a horrible State-Capitalist Authroitarian Regime under the guise of Communist aesthetics. I don’t fear socialism/communism because they never truely existed, in fact, I’d say that Norway or Finland (based on what info I could gather anyways, never personally been to Norway or Finland so I can’t speak from experience) would be more closer to “socialism” than PRC, at least they actually have a social safety net, PRC doesn’t.
As for why Americans fear these terms, I think it’s because, for some people anyways, you can get labeled as an enemy of the state to even uttering “socialism”/“communism”.
(Legal disclaimer to the FBI Agent reading this, just in case I have to make this clear: No, I am not a “communist”, as in, I do not support the CCP or similar authoritarian parties, I just support a more egalitarain and democratic society however you want to call that, and my views are 100% compatible with the US Constitution, now fuck off FBI, stop trying to denaturalize me, maybe actualy investigate the traitor in the white house, for fuck sake)
Am Norwegian.
We argue a lot of whether we live under socialism or capitalism, we have a pretty good mix of both I think.
Also, I dont think they’re really mutually exclusive, it’s more like some parts of society like healthcare, trains and police make sense to do as socialism and other things like TV channels, grocery stores and construction make sense to do as regulated capitalism.
I would argue that the next step forward is to formally design an economic system that uses the principles of both. America’s Constitution was based on the Magna Carta and other concepts, but went a step further and made dedicated rules for how political power interacts. While badly dated now, those rules lasted 250 years for a nation that exploded beyond a mere 13 colonies into a continental superpower.
I think making a clean ruleset that incorporates socialism and capitalism would allow them to excel at the things they do, while keeping their worst aspects at bay.
My favorite lefty take to hit a capitalism/libertarian shill with is that I don’t really think a communist/socialist project like the Soviet Union is the future. And honestly, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who does want that.
Its becoming a pretty common take these days that capitalism is fine IF human and environmental needs are met first.
The way I get downvoted when proposing UBI for free necessities (shelter, basic car, basic food, utilities, healthcare, ect) and using capitalism for luxuries (boats, bigger house, gambling, vacations, ect), it often feels like that neither side of the aisle are happy about conceptualizing a hybrid.
Much like Newton, I feel that Adam Smith’s writings on Capitalism had limits, because there is only so much that he could observe and measure in his time. Ditto for Marx. Both seem valid, but the question is in what way, and how we can use them to put together a theory of economics that is actually helpful.
Smith’s main goal with capitalism was to create a system to distribute the wealth of the nation to the people of the nation to the betterment of all.
In his time feudal lords sat in their huge estates, hoarding wealth and waged pointless war to the detriment of everyone else.
Capitalism was a radically left wing ideology for its time.
I don’t disagree with that. He, like other great minds, had to work with the knowledge and methods available to him in his time. It is our task to stand upon his shoulders and see further, otherwise his efforts would have been wasted.
Its becoming a pretty common take these days that capitalism is fine IF human and environmental needs are met first.
That’s not ‘capitalism’. Those issues are handled exclusively by socialist policies. At no point does a capitalist economy worry about human or environmental needs. There is no place for them in the formula for profit. Even the countries balanced the closest to the middle between capitalism and socialism only invest into the environment when it’s profitable, or otherwise beneficial for the state (e.g., one of the biggest advantages of renewable energy being independence, and not environmental impact). And the main reason for that is so many people are aware of the ongoing climate catastrophe that governments can no longer easily ignore them.
In my opinion, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that some capitalist policies make sense, or to say that some socialist policies don’t work well. But this is the first time I encounter someone saying capitalism is fine if social needs are satisfied first. So basically, capitalism is fine if it coexists with socialism? I can agree, but that’s definitely not capitalism anymore. That’s the same thing as a mix of capitalism ans socialism suggested by other people here.
Its becoming a pretty common take these days that capitalism is fine IF human and environmental needs are met first.
It’s an easier sell to the hordes of people who grew up in a capitalist society who feel “It didn’t used to be this bad”, myself being one of them.
I know that workers rights are written in blood, and often earned by it too. But it still at least feels like there was a period where companies understood at least a little bit that their workers were people, and well cared for workers were better workers. That building a reputation for quality was better than planned obsolecence. That short term profits and growth at all costs was not the right path. That the resources they required to operate were not infinite.
Maybe I’m completely delusional and it’s all rose tinted glasses from not being as aware of things when I was younger. I’m sure that nostalgia for childhood days is a big component.
But my point is that “Capitalism could be better if human and environmental needs are met first” is a very intuitive idea for a lot of US people.
Honestly why would people be talking like it’s mutual exclusive, social-capitalism kinda balance both because the extreme end of one or another never bear good result
McCarthyism is probably the most succinct answer. The Cold War directly aligned us against the Soviet Union, and a key means of villainizing the USSR and its citizenry was to paint their core governing beliefs as heretical to the American way.
There is also no doubt in my mind that Socialism’s strong connection to Union activity in the US also incentivized Corporate Barons to lobby against Social Politics hard. I have not seen any specifics about that myself, though. Modern lobbying efforts are well-known, though.
Considering what weekend this is, you should check out the history of Labor Day and why the US celebrates it in September while almost the entirety of the rest of the world celebrates it on May 1st.
In short:
Canada’s Labour Day is also celebrated on the first Monday of September. More than 150 other countries celebrate International Workers’ Day on May 1, the European holiday of May Day. May Day was chosen by the Second International of socialist and communist parties to commemorate the general labor strike in the United States and events leading to the Haymarket affair, which occurred in Chicago, Illinois, from May 1 – May 4, 1886.
Despite Labor Day in the rest of the world being celebrated in recognition of an American union worker, socialist, and anarchist movement that limited working hours to just 8 hours a day (which was also a stopgap on the planned road for even shorter workdays, fun fact), in the US it’s a completely unknown history.
The date of May 1 (an ancient European folk holiday known as May Day) emerged in 1886 as an alternative holiday for the celebration of labor, later becoming known as International Workers’ Day. The date had its origins at the 1885 convention of the American Federation of Labor, which passed a resolution calling for adoption of the eight-hour day effective May 1, 1886. While negotiation was envisioned for achievement of the shortened work day, use of the strike to enforce this demand was recognized, with May 1 advocated as a date for coordinated strike action. The proximity of the date to the bloody Haymarket affair of May 4, 1886, further accentuated May First’s radical reputation.
There was disagreement among labor unions at this time about when a holiday celebrating workers should be, with some advocating for continued emphasis of the September march-and-picnic date while others sought the designation of the more politically charged date of May 1. Conservative Democratic President Grover Cleveland was one of those concerned that a labor holiday on May 1 would tend to become a commemoration of the Haymarket affair and would strengthen socialist and anarchist movements that backed the May 1 commemoration around the globe. In 1887, he publicly supported the September Labor Day holiday as a less inflammatory alternative, formally adopting the date as a United States federal holiday through a law that he signed in 1894.
And of course, the picture wouldn’t be complete without some good old American fascism:
Since the mid-1950s, the United States has celebrated Loyalty Day and Law Day on May 1. Unlike Labor Day, neither are legal public holidays (in that government agencies and most businesses do not shut down to celebrate them) and therefore have remained relatively obscure. Loyalty Day is formally celebrated in a few cities, while some bar associations hold Law Day events to celebrate the rule of law.
The elites own the media. We’re conditioned from birth to hate SoCiAlIsm/CoMmUnIsm/TaXes/ThEft/Etc. Repeat those terms 100 times a day over a lifespan and it becomes religion for 30% of the population.
If the government spends money on the little people, there’s less money to bail out the Too Big to Fails.
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses. The United States isn’t a country, it’s a corporation with a military.
Umm. Ok. Normally when ppl talk about socialisism they’re usually more talking about state provision of the means to live for those who would otherwise be unprovided for; ownership and control of means of production is generally more associated w/ the word communism. Obvs both big tents, but still, odd defn IMO
Supporting the food supply and keeping jobs during COVID are both great examples where the government should step in. The problem is the hypocrisy, when people agree only when it benefits them, only when they can be “takers”.
Even the lack of safety features on the Payback Protection Program were good things - the money got out where it was needed much quicker.
The emergency is past so now we have the opportunity to go back and look for fraudulent use. We have time for the legal system to work. This is the money we need to “claw back”. This is the fraud we need to hunt down. And it’s not enough to just return the money for a free five year loan
As far as I remember a key feature of that program was to say what is was for but then to intentionally not implement bureaucracy to ensure that. If it was always fraud but getting the money out fast was a priority, then yes it’s very much a good thing to go back and rain justice down on cheaters
Probably stems from the Red Scare when people were rounded up and jailed/fired/blacklisted/exiled. It became the boogeyman. Through the last couple generations the fear around the word is still there, mostly because we haven’t heard positive things (let alone the truth) about socialist policies in the better part of a century.
I’ll just refer you to the above graph. That fear is greater among the elders who grew up in the McCarthy era, and the unfortunates who listen to them.
What is it with Americans and this fear of socialism? Yes let’s have some socialism, what the hell is the problem with that?
Americans see China and think: “Oh no, very bad because of socialism/communism”
But as someone who was born in mainland China (I’m Chinese-American), PRC is nothing “socialist”/“communist” at all, its a horrible State-Capitalist Authroitarian Regime under the guise of Communist aesthetics. I don’t fear socialism/communism because they never truely existed, in fact, I’d say that Norway or Finland (based on what info I could gather anyways, never personally been to Norway or Finland so I can’t speak from experience) would be more closer to “socialism” than PRC, at least they actually have a social safety net, PRC doesn’t.
As for why Americans fear these terms, I think it’s because, for some people anyways, you can get labeled as an enemy of the state to even uttering “socialism”/“communism”.
(Legal disclaimer to the FBI Agent reading this, just in case I have to make this clear: No, I am not a “communist”, as in, I do not support the CCP or similar authoritarian parties, I just support a more egalitarain and democratic society however you want to call that, and my views are 100% compatible with the US Constitution, now fuck off FBI, stop trying to denaturalize me, maybe actualy investigate the traitor in the white house, for fuck sake)
Hear that boys? They mentioned egalitarianism. Round this user up, off to Uganda.
😭
Can we just invite the Trisolarians to get this over with? /j
Am Norwegian. We argue a lot of whether we live under socialism or capitalism, we have a pretty good mix of both I think. Also, I dont think they’re really mutually exclusive, it’s more like some parts of society like healthcare, trains and police make sense to do as socialism and other things like TV channels, grocery stores and construction make sense to do as regulated capitalism.
I would argue that the next step forward is to formally design an economic system that uses the principles of both. America’s Constitution was based on the Magna Carta and other concepts, but went a step further and made dedicated rules for how political power interacts. While badly dated now, those rules lasted 250 years for a nation that exploded beyond a mere 13 colonies into a continental superpower.
I think making a clean ruleset that incorporates socialism and capitalism would allow them to excel at the things they do, while keeping their worst aspects at bay.
My favorite lefty take to hit a capitalism/libertarian shill with is that I don’t really think a communist/socialist project like the Soviet Union is the future. And honestly, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who does want that.
Its becoming a pretty common take these days that capitalism is fine IF human and environmental needs are met first.
The way I get downvoted when proposing UBI for free necessities (shelter, basic car, basic food, utilities, healthcare, ect) and using capitalism for luxuries (boats, bigger house, gambling, vacations, ect), it often feels like that neither side of the aisle are happy about conceptualizing a hybrid.
Much like Newton, I feel that Adam Smith’s writings on Capitalism had limits, because there is only so much that he could observe and measure in his time. Ditto for Marx. Both seem valid, but the question is in what way, and how we can use them to put together a theory of economics that is actually helpful.
Smith’s main goal with capitalism was to create a system to distribute the wealth of the nation to the people of the nation to the betterment of all. In his time feudal lords sat in their huge estates, hoarding wealth and waged pointless war to the detriment of everyone else. Capitalism was a radically left wing ideology for its time.
I don’t disagree with that. He, like other great minds, had to work with the knowledge and methods available to him in his time. It is our task to stand upon his shoulders and see further, otherwise his efforts would have been wasted.
The trick is to talk to real actual human beings and not people terminally online enough to know about Lemmy.
Find a lefty book club and you’ll find reasonable people.
That’s not ‘capitalism’. Those issues are handled exclusively by socialist policies. At no point does a capitalist economy worry about human or environmental needs. There is no place for them in the formula for profit. Even the countries balanced the closest to the middle between capitalism and socialism only invest into the environment when it’s profitable, or otherwise beneficial for the state (e.g., one of the biggest advantages of renewable energy being independence, and not environmental impact). And the main reason for that is so many people are aware of the ongoing climate catastrophe that governments can no longer easily ignore them.
In my opinion, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that some capitalist policies make sense, or to say that some socialist policies don’t work well. But this is the first time I encounter someone saying capitalism is fine if social needs are satisfied first. So basically, capitalism is fine if it coexists with socialism? I can agree, but that’s definitely not capitalism anymore. That’s the same thing as a mix of capitalism ans socialism suggested by other people here.
It’s an easier sell to the hordes of people who grew up in a capitalist society who feel “It didn’t used to be this bad”, myself being one of them.
I know that workers rights are written in blood, and often earned by it too. But it still at least feels like there was a period where companies understood at least a little bit that their workers were people, and well cared for workers were better workers. That building a reputation for quality was better than planned obsolecence. That short term profits and growth at all costs was not the right path. That the resources they required to operate were not infinite.
Maybe I’m completely delusional and it’s all rose tinted glasses from not being as aware of things when I was younger. I’m sure that nostalgia for childhood days is a big component.
But my point is that “Capitalism could be better if human and environmental needs are met first” is a very intuitive idea for a lot of US people.
Honestly why would people be talking like it’s mutual exclusive, social-capitalism kinda balance both because the extreme end of one or another never bear good result
McCarthyism is probably the most succinct answer. The Cold War directly aligned us against the Soviet Union, and a key means of villainizing the USSR and its citizenry was to paint their core governing beliefs as heretical to the American way.
There is also no doubt in my mind that Socialism’s strong connection to Union activity in the US also incentivized Corporate Barons to lobby against Social Politics hard. I have not seen any specifics about that myself, though. Modern lobbying efforts are well-known, though.
Considering what weekend this is, you should check out the history of Labor Day and why the US celebrates it in September while almost the entirety of the rest of the world celebrates it on May 1st.
In short:
Despite Labor Day in the rest of the world being celebrated in recognition of an American union worker, socialist, and anarchist movement that limited working hours to just 8 hours a day (which was also a stopgap on the planned road for even shorter workdays, fun fact), in the US it’s a completely unknown history.
And of course, the picture wouldn’t be complete without some good old American fascism:
The elites own the media. We’re conditioned from birth to hate SoCiAlIsm/CoMmUnIsm/TaXes/ThEft/Etc. Repeat those terms 100 times a day over a lifespan and it becomes religion for 30% of the population.
If the government spends money on the little people, there’s less money to bail out the Too Big to Fails.
Privatize the gains, socialize the losses. The United States isn’t a country, it’s a corporation with a military.
cold war and the red scare once performed never went away
It depends on how the socialism is used. US corporations, farmers and the fucking MAGAts that abused Payback Protection Program like it a lot.
Socialism is democratic control of the factors of production. Crony capitalists paying each other isn’t socialism.
Umm. Ok. Normally when ppl talk about socialisism they’re usually more talking about state provision of the means to live for those who would otherwise be unprovided for; ownership and control of means of production is generally more associated w/ the word communism. Obvs both big tents, but still, odd defn IMO
Americans are pretty confused but that’s not what socialism means.
Sure, that’s why my phrasing was so specific about ‘usually when people say…’. I acknowledge your point and accept it as correct however.
Supporting the food supply and keeping jobs during COVID are both great examples where the government should step in. The problem is the hypocrisy, when people agree only when it benefits them, only when they can be “takers”.
Even the lack of safety features on the Payback Protection Program were good things - the money got out where it was needed much quicker.
The emergency is past so now we have the opportunity to go back and look for fraudulent use. We have time for the legal system to work. This is the money we need to “claw back”. This is the fraud we need to hunt down. And it’s not enough to just return the money for a free five year loan
fuck that, the government already requires taxes without consent. It should not be allowed to retroactively declare uses of money fraudulent.
As far as I remember a key feature of that program was to say what is was for but then to intentionally not implement bureaucracy to ensure that. If it was always fraud but getting the money out fast was a priority, then yes it’s very much a good thing to go back and rain justice down on cheaters
Did the government just make it rain money on people unprompted or did people fill in forms saying they needed it?
Probably stems from the Red Scare when people were rounded up and jailed/fired/blacklisted/exiled. It became the boogeyman. Through the last couple generations the fear around the word is still there, mostly because we haven’t heard positive things (let alone the truth) about socialist policies in the better part of a century.
I’ll just refer you to the above graph. That fear is greater among the elders who grew up in the McCarthy era, and the unfortunates who listen to them.
What Your saying is socialism, You commie!