“Both sides bad” is a bad take when applied to economics. In that area, one side is clearly superior. However, when it comes to politics as a whole, specifically social values, the other commenter is right. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I’m crazy about the right’s social values or anything, but I am very critical of some of the stuff the left is promoting lately (and no, I don’t mean just chronically online liberals).
I’d agree, except the progressives and conservatives align with the left and right respectively in 99% of cases. Some even go as far as to consider their social values inseparable from the economic ones. When’s the last time you met a conservative socialist, for instance?
They’re pretty compatible when you use capitalist principles to allow for a market economy where the corporate machines are owned collectively by their workers, rather than their boards of shareholders like we see today. We need a completely different government structure to properly enact and enforce environmental and safety regulations though, since lobbying, bribery, gerrymandering, and cronyism are entirely too effective in the US
I agree that it isn’t very similar to modern Capitalism at all, but the means of production would still not be state-owned or managed, so the only socialism going on would take the form of unions and government welfare, which is more similar to early 20th century american capitalism than it is to most socialist movements of the past 100 years.
The definitions of socialism and capitalism are constantly in flux though so assigning a simple name to a nuanced economic framework will always be reductive and confusing.
but the means of production would still not be state-owned or managed
All squares are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are squares.
Socialism is when the workers control the means of production: could be through the state, could also be through unions or co-ops or other labor-controlled structures. Might make you uneasy to say so, but I think you’re a socialist, my man.
I am called a socialist by a lot of people who call themselves socialist, but I am called capitalist to a lot of people who call themselves capitalist. As I said, the word has taken on many different meanings by people who interpret or misinterpret Marx’s ideas differently.
I don’t align myself with any named doctrine because the names are reductive and often misleading or conflicting. If you consider me socialist because of your definition of socialism I won’t tell you otherwise, but I will push back if someone tells me to call myself socialist because I don’t agree with the more common interpretations of what it means to be socialist.
All squares are quadrilaterals and all cubes contain squares, but a cube is not a quadrilateral, it merely looks like a quadrilateral in some projections. It may look like a hexagon in others. Projections don’t show the whole shape
deleted by creator
Thats just economics, and there is more to it than simply socialism vs capitalism.
deleted by creator
You’re actually the one infantilizing the divide in this case and I’m saying this as a socialist myself.
deleted by creator
“Both sides bad” is a bad take when applied to economics. In that area, one side is clearly superior. However, when it comes to politics as a whole, specifically social values, the other commenter is right. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I’m crazy about the right’s social values or anything, but I am very critical of some of the stuff the left is promoting lately (and no, I don’t mean just chronically online liberals).
deleted by creator
I’d agree, except the progressives and conservatives align with the left and right respectively in 99% of cases. Some even go as far as to consider their social values inseparable from the economic ones. When’s the last time you met a conservative socialist, for instance?
deleted by creator
They’re pretty compatible when you use capitalist principles to allow for a market economy where the corporate machines are owned collectively by their workers, rather than their boards of shareholders like we see today. We need a completely different government structure to properly enact and enforce environmental and safety regulations though, since lobbying, bribery, gerrymandering, and cronyism are entirely too effective in the US
deleted by creator
I agree that it isn’t very similar to modern Capitalism at all, but the means of production would still not be state-owned or managed, so the only socialism going on would take the form of unions and government welfare, which is more similar to early 20th century american capitalism than it is to most socialist movements of the past 100 years.
The definitions of socialism and capitalism are constantly in flux though so assigning a simple name to a nuanced economic framework will always be reductive and confusing.
All squares are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are squares.
Socialism is when the workers control the means of production: could be through the state, could also be through unions or co-ops or other labor-controlled structures. Might make you uneasy to say so, but I think you’re a socialist, my man.
I am called a socialist by a lot of people who call themselves socialist, but I am called capitalist to a lot of people who call themselves capitalist. As I said, the word has taken on many different meanings by people who interpret or misinterpret Marx’s ideas differently.
I don’t align myself with any named doctrine because the names are reductive and often misleading or conflicting. If you consider me socialist because of your definition of socialism I won’t tell you otherwise, but I will push back if someone tells me to call myself socialist because I don’t agree with the more common interpretations of what it means to be socialist.
All squares are quadrilaterals and all cubes contain squares, but a cube is not a quadrilateral, it merely looks like a quadrilateral in some projections. It may look like a hexagon in others. Projections don’t show the whole shape
deleted by creator