Socialism is broad in that it encompasses many forms, such as Syndicalism, Anarchism, Communism, Marxism Leninism, Market Socialism, Democratic Socialism, and more. All Socialism truly is, is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
What you describe, Social Democracy, is not Socialism. It instead is Capitalism with strong safety nets, and as such we can see that over time, disparity has risen, safety nets have started to erode, and some of the most imperialistic companies on the planet like Nestlé are based there.
Would I rather have Social Democracy over Liberalism? Certainly, though it’s only a band-aid and doesn’t actually fix the problem.
The Military-Industrial-Complex is only a necessary evil if you desire to maintain Empire. The American Military could be drastically reduced, with funds directed towards uplifting material conditions a la public investments like Housing initiatives and High-Speed Rail, without sacrificing safety, but the Empire would have to go.
My bad, you’re 100% correct. I still stand by my points overall, the Nordic Countries can only maintain their high quality of life currently via Imperialism.
What you describe, Social Democracy, is not Socialism
And this is why leftists never get any power except for hijacking the occasional popular revolution. You guys always No-True-Scotsman yourselves into irrelevancy.
No, that’s not why leftists struggle to achieve change in Capitalist systems, nor is your point anything other than a refusal to answer the points given.
No-True-Scotsman doesn’t apply if there are important definitional differences. Social Democracy retains the exact same power balances and mode of production as Capitalism, because it is Capitalism. Socialism isn’t merely a synonym for “good,” it is an alternative mode of production raised by leftists to solve the issues present in Capitalism.
An actual example of a No-True-Scotsman would be a Marxist saying Anarchists aren’t Socialists, or vice-versa, as they both maintain the same operation of Worker Ownership.
When you were a student, did you attempt to say your Biology teacher was doing a “No-True-Scotsman” when they explained that Spiders are Arachnids, not Insects? You truly can’t respond in good-faith, because you don’t actually care about being right, but refusing to acknowledge when you might actually be wrong!
I checked out of any possibility of a good-faith conversation when you said “that’s not socialism”. Any conversation that starts with splitting hairs about definitions goes nowhere. Especially about leftism. Or metal music.
What’s the difference between Leftism and Socialism, in your eyes?
I disagree with you saying that getting terms straight so we both know what the other is actually talking about will get nowhere. On the contrary, if we continued that conversation, there’s a much larger chance of nothing happening, don’t you think?
Tell me how I can be good-faith, in your eyes. I try to be, but you seem to always disengage as soon as a converation starts.
I don’t disagree about that metal take, btw. The splintering into a million subgenres has led to people fighting over genre-bending music.
What’s the difference between Leftism and Socialism, in your eyes?
Well, first I think I should give a note about framing: Socialism, Leftism, any of the -isms are all such large movements that there will necessarily be some overlap with multiple definitions, and I think that saying “x-ism is always this and never that” is a fool’s errand.
Both Leftism and Socialism are a kind of catchall umbrella term for a number of different more specific ideologies.
In general, I would say neoliberalism overlaps quite a lot with centrism, but a bit to the left of it. Neoliberalism grades away to socialism at roughly the point of social democracy (this is where I sit on the political spectrum). Socialism is a HUGE sphere, since it’s become a bit of a catchall term, but I would say Leftism starts where Socialism departs neoliberalism, and on the left end of the spectrum Leftism itself goes beyond socialism and into communism and its more radical forms.
Tell me how I can be good-faith, in your eyes.
Say “I think” instead of “this is so” when talking about ideologies. Ideologies are fuzzy, not rigid.
But what is Leftism and what is Socialism? You say they’re fuzzy as all ideologies are, but you don’t actually define any of them. Are they just vibes?
I think it makes more sense to define terms by their mechanics, rather than goals, or intentions.
Personally, it makes more sense to me to refer to Socialism by the mechanics raised and agreed upon by self-identifying Socialists for centuries. The common thread, whether Marxist, Anarchist, Syndicalist, or so forth, appears to be Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
Why do you disagree with that? I get that you say that it’s fuzzy with ideologies, but certainly, you must see how it’s easier to define economic structures by their mechanisms, and not their goals, right?
Socialism is leftism, leftism is socialism.
Socialism is broad in that it encompasses many forms, such as Syndicalism, Anarchism, Communism, Marxism Leninism, Market Socialism, Democratic Socialism, and more. All Socialism truly is, is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
What you describe, Social Democracy, is not Socialism. It instead is Capitalism with strong safety nets, and as such we can see that over time, disparity has risen, safety nets have started to erode, and some of the most imperialistic companies on the planet like Nestlé are based there.
Would I rather have Social Democracy over Liberalism? Certainly, though it’s only a band-aid and doesn’t actually fix the problem.
The Military-Industrial-Complex is only a necessary evil if you desire to maintain Empire. The American Military could be drastically reduced, with funds directed towards uplifting material conditions a la public investments like Housing initiatives and High-Speed Rail, without sacrificing safety, but the Empire would have to go.
Nestlé is Swiss. That’s not in Scandinavia or Social Democracy. It’s one of the most thoroughly capitalistic nations in Europe.
My bad, you’re 100% correct. I still stand by my points overall, the Nordic Countries can only maintain their high quality of life currently via Imperialism.
And this is why leftists never get any power except for hijacking the occasional popular revolution. You guys always No-True-Scotsman yourselves into irrelevancy.
No, that’s not why leftists struggle to achieve change in Capitalist systems, nor is your point anything other than a refusal to answer the points given.
No-True-Scotsman doesn’t apply if there are important definitional differences. Social Democracy retains the exact same power balances and mode of production as Capitalism, because it is Capitalism. Socialism isn’t merely a synonym for “good,” it is an alternative mode of production raised by leftists to solve the issues present in Capitalism.
An actual example of a No-True-Scotsman would be a Marxist saying Anarchists aren’t Socialists, or vice-versa, as they both maintain the same operation of Worker Ownership.
Did you actually just No-True-Scotsman the entire concept of a No-True-Scotsman?
Nah, I explained it to you.
When you were a student, did you attempt to say your Biology teacher was doing a “No-True-Scotsman” when they explained that Spiders are Arachnids, not Insects? You truly can’t respond in good-faith, because you don’t actually care about being right, but refusing to acknowledge when you might actually be wrong!
Touch grass.
I checked out of any possibility of a good-faith conversation when you said “that’s not socialism”. Any conversation that starts with splitting hairs about definitions goes nowhere. Especially about leftism. Or metal music.
What’s the difference between Leftism and Socialism, in your eyes?
I disagree with you saying that getting terms straight so we both know what the other is actually talking about will get nowhere. On the contrary, if we continued that conversation, there’s a much larger chance of nothing happening, don’t you think?
Tell me how I can be good-faith, in your eyes. I try to be, but you seem to always disengage as soon as a converation starts.
I don’t disagree about that metal take, btw. The splintering into a million subgenres has led to people fighting over genre-bending music.
Well, first I think I should give a note about framing: Socialism, Leftism, any of the -isms are all such large movements that there will necessarily be some overlap with multiple definitions, and I think that saying “x-ism is always this and never that” is a fool’s errand.
Both Leftism and Socialism are a kind of catchall umbrella term for a number of different more specific ideologies.
In general, I would say neoliberalism overlaps quite a lot with centrism, but a bit to the left of it. Neoliberalism grades away to socialism at roughly the point of social democracy (this is where I sit on the political spectrum). Socialism is a HUGE sphere, since it’s become a bit of a catchall term, but I would say Leftism starts where Socialism departs neoliberalism, and on the left end of the spectrum Leftism itself goes beyond socialism and into communism and its more radical forms.
Say “I think” instead of “this is so” when talking about ideologies. Ideologies are fuzzy, not rigid.
But what is Leftism and what is Socialism? You say they’re fuzzy as all ideologies are, but you don’t actually define any of them. Are they just vibes?
I think it makes more sense to define terms by their mechanics, rather than goals, or intentions.
Personally, it makes more sense to me to refer to Socialism by the mechanics raised and agreed upon by self-identifying Socialists for centuries. The common thread, whether Marxist, Anarchist, Syndicalist, or so forth, appears to be Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
Why do you disagree with that? I get that you say that it’s fuzzy with ideologies, but certainly, you must see how it’s easier to define economic structures by their mechanisms, and not their goals, right?