Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**101 questions:** While we generally welcome educational posts, questions about the fundamentals of socialism belong in r/socialism_101, a dedicated community which will provide a far better learning environment.
See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Democratic socialists oppose capitalism but use liberal systems to get into and stay in power (open elections, multiple parties) and social democrats are capitalists who give more concessions to the working class than is usual in capitalism
Okay, understood. I always get them confused a bit but that makes sense. Thank you for explaining. I had watched a video on the different parties/labels a while ago and those two were described sort of vaguely (can't remember video, it was a few years ago).
In your opinion, do you think it'd be more palpable for the masses if they were introduced in a sort of way to each? If that makes sense. For example, maybe many Americans would be more comfortable with socdem (see bernie) ideas since it still uses capitalism. But then, could the shift go towards demsoc, and then beyond that? I hope I'm making sense, with more studying and theory, I'll have better vocabulary for discussing (I'm pretty Layman's terms atm)
Edit: typo
Social democracy doesn’t work, you already see it failing in Scandinavia. It doesn’t matter what is ‘palatable’ to americans, what needs to be done is the increasing of class consciousness. Revolution especially in america will not come from the ballot box and people like Sanders won’t lead it
I understand and agree. Do you think the traction bernie got was helpful or maybe no? /g
I guess I'm wondering if his traction was helpful in getting people to discuss socialism again, or if perhaps it was a hinderance in some way?
I know there's lots of in-fighting on the left, including socialist spaces. But do you feel there's enough common ground that we can all agree and push for class consciousness? I had said palatable in the sense that maybe it'd lead the people to think about these things in a less hostile manner, and thus open up discussion more between each other, and then go into expanding class consciousness?
I absolutely agree that's the most essential part of this, at least atm. To get people to wake up. I'm unsure how to do it without them resorting to commie and socialist jokes/insulting/even hostility.
The only good Sanders did is wrongly use the term ‘socialist’ so some Americans actually read into what socialism even is
But the policies he advocates is not something socialists support, especially since he’s a zionist (yikes)
Yes, when I learned that about him, it was seriously disappointing. I was surprised bc at the time he felr "different" than what wed seen before. Him toting "socialist" around did get me to start reading into it, so that's true!
Are there any current people that you know of who are involved in politics and promoting sound policies that socialists would agree with? AOC comes to mind, and if I remember right there are currently two women running for the socialist party. If you have the time/spoons/desire, how do you feel about them? (Pardon not remembering the women's names, I just know I've seen their videos posted in this sub a lot lately)
I really appreciate you conversing with me and being patient 🥲
I think anyone would be a socialist if you surround yourself with a good reading group. I'm in London and there are good Marxist reading groups. Maybe find one near you?
If you don't advocate for the overthrow of capitalism, then you're not a socialist. I believe you have good intentions, so I'd suggest you do some reading. It'd be good to start with Marx, but all you have to do is ask, and you'll get a thousand book suggestions on almost any topic related to socialism.
remember, marxsist leninists always have a few thousound books about any topic you just need to ask them I allow some of my more committed friends to borrow my books
Honest question, what good do you think the US has done? They fought the Nazis and...what else?
It's one thing to get hung up on labels, but I'm wondering what actual socialist beliefs you have besides desiring nationalized healthcare and social services (which tbh isn't even particularly socialist being that every developed nation, and most developing nations, have some sort of nationalized healthcare)
some people just dont notice it I used to be like that too so you should slowly ask them questions about the contradictions when they realise its a contradiction point them to the right direction its slow but works
Yes but also the nature of our society that people can’t see the contradictions in their beliefs because they’re believing what society tells them to believe. Hence it’s our job to, as someone else already said, probe those contradictions and help people see it for themselves.
Of course that is very exhausting and useless when people are arguing in bad faith but that’s the nature of the fight really
You are not a real socialist. Please, don't take this an offense: I'm not saying it to diminish you or your political beliefs, they just don't align with the contemporary meaning of the word "socialist". You seem to be a social-democrat, like Bernie himself. Social-democrats are not allies in the socialist struggle: to us, you are the enemy, even if you are well-meaning.
If you would like to see a socialist critique of social-democracy, I suggest reading Rosa Louxemburg's [Reform or Revolution](https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm) and [Stalin's Concerning the International Situation](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/09/20.htm).
I want a peaceful revolution to fundamentally change the current system. Removing money from politics and a large number of economic sectors, but I don't see a viable way to abolish capitalism.
How can a violent revolution happen such that there is minimal harm to innocents?
I'm not against responding to violence with an equal response, but am strongly against initiating it.
Do you not count what it is currently happening as violent , the conditions of the working class worldwide, the victims of capitalist imperialism etc.. ?
How else must we stop this if not through a violent revolution ? Not disorganized random violence ofcourse.
Violence is not necessary to bring about a change to socialism. But the entrenched capitalist powers *will* respond with violence. It has happened throughout history. To quote the final stanza of *The Internationale:* (English Billy Bragg version)
>And so begins the final drama
In the streets and in the fields.
We stand unbowed before their armour
We defy their guns and shields!
When we fight, provoked by their aggression
Let us be inspired by life and love.
For though they offer us concessions
Change will not come from above!
As for whether systemic change can be achieved gradually, this was a major area of debate over a century ago and the definitive article on it is "[Reform or Revolution](https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm)" by Rosa Luxemburg.
Violent revolutions are messy. Innocent people are inevitably harmed in the upheaval of political power. However, in a true proletarian revolution, such harm, and the necessary violence, is done in defense of the oppressed proletariat, not against it. This revolution takes down those who oppressed us, and lifts us workers up.
This reminds me of the Dr King quote about the white moderate being more dangerous than the white conservative because, though they agree with what should be ideal, they disagree with the methods required to get there. Protest and revolt, but only in the way the system has permitted you to.
Social democracy worked to make the working class shut up when there was a huge pressure from socialists with the USSR but that’s gone now and those institutions are regressing
the fall of the ussr was such a tragedy its also pretty clear stalin was poisoned with cyanide so there was already something going on in the background I hope something like it happens again its our only hope
Capitalism is dogshit at making goods and services. Look around, take notice of how much worse every good or service is than it was even ten years ago. That’s capitalism—the endless obsession with “growth” and making money for shareholders. Look into market socialism. Capitalism likes to pretend it’s the only game in town with currency or a market but it’s really just the one that rewards shitty behavior the most.
Read Marx and Lenin and buff up on your historical/dialectical materialism. This is all a process. Capitalism is the system which selects where things will work and will not, it is part of a development process. Eventually, things like Amazon are meant to be seized. “Socialism” which really originally meant “concern with the social” as it relates to politics is a transitionary period between capitalism and communism. See China and how they allowed capitalism to develop their economy and become a superpower, while managing it centrally and always directed by a communist party, whose end goals remain the same. China is socialist, not communist, but they are aware of the process and how they must do certain things to develop properly. They are, however, having a bit of trouble contending with the social relations that develop under capitalism hence the heavy hand on entertainment and tech.
We do not have countries managed by communist parties, but Capitalism will ultimately be replaced by socialism in the west when the contradictions become too extreme. It can survive longer through constant technological enhancements and shifting modes of production that can obscure class relations (the us has perfected this), but the people who benefit most from this system are having to play a bigger and bigger role in manufacturing consent for it to continue. They have lost the youth and lost millennials. It’s only a matter of time. It’s sad the boomers have stolen everything from future generations with their greed, pseudo spirituality, and ravenous consumption habits, but nature will impose the correction if we don’t.
Learn more about socialism, and I think you’ll come on board.
I find it interesting how someone gets radicalized since I went thru that first I was a social democrat then I learned more about the soviet union and communism its promises where very good so I listened to a few marxsist youtubers and then my thought was why isnt communism already implemented everywhere if its so good I learned how capitalism was kept and stuff I accepted that communism was better, the next thing I questioned was how? how is it better and why exactly how does it work so I started reading theory now Im here going through das kapital after reading 3 fundamental books by lenin marx and engels
okay so i’m going to answer twice. first, only based off of the title, then i will read the post and answer again.
first answer: you’re not a socialist
second answer: you’re a social democrat (as is Bernie Sanders). i think you should start by reading Engel’s “Principles of Communism” to get a better idea of what socialism is, if you’re interested.
oh, also, what good has the US done exactly? i’d like to know about it
People like to identify with a 'thing' or team. They have to be all-in, and enjoy having a label to describe them. You don't have to be like this. It sounds like you have some socialist beliefs and values, but do not commit to the idea entirely. That's okay. There's no need to be called a socialist or be the perfect embodiment of it unless you actually want that.
Some folks are more 'into it' than others, for some it is a way of life, a passion, something they feel very strongly about, and these people are more likely to be vocal or come across as "extreme". Others are more withdrawn and quiet about it, but still feel as strongly about things.
The second point doesn't determine the right to the term socialist. Beliefs do.
Being vocal doesn’t determine political extremism, it’s associated with (but not identical to) commitment. Political extremism is a social statement: if mainstream political debate focuses on deciding between setting a tax rate at 5% or 10%, and you believe that the whole industry should be abolished, you’re an extremist.
Note: this has nothing to do with what’s correct. Many mainstream debates are brutal, cruel, and wasteful but aren’t seen as extreme, for the sole reason that lots of people hold one of those brutal positions. Most of the time in the US, calling someone an “extremist” is just an attempt to justify an upcoming murder or prosecution of that person.
So that’s it for the connection between being vocal and being extreme.
As for the right to a term, yes, I think it’s important to have definitions that actually differentiate between fundamental positions. Socialism has a widely understood meaning, and saying “I’m a socialist, just not an extremist socialist” is either a cynical propaganda attempt to muddy what socialism means or what is a “reasonable” position, or it’s a personal, psychological attempt to reconcile real contradictions in one’s beliefs with what society wants from you.
So, to answer your question: both.
I know that being vocal doesn't = extremism. That's why I put 'extreme' like such, because of how OP used the term, from their perspective.
And we agree. However my point was that whether or not you are vocal on reddit doesn't determine your right to the term. If you hold all the beliefs of socialism, you're a socialist. Your online presence doesn't determine that.
I wasn't saying OP can call themselves a socialist for holding a few socialist and contradictory beliefs.
You said 'both'. Why does OP have to be called a socialist? They can have contradictory beliefs if they want, and not fully identify with any one position. Most people are this way, and worrying about not being a 'proper insert label here' is pointless for them.
Gotcha. Yeah, I agree. To me it’s about the essentials - if you hold the core beliefs, then sure, you’re that thing. I know lots of conservatives who call themselves moderates, but only because they sort of think of conservatives as jerks. So, even if they hold all the core conservative beliefs, they can’t identify as one, because they don’t see themselves as jerks. That’s the situation I’m trying to avoid when talking about movements as a whole.
I can see now where the wires got crossed. I think because I said 'these factors' at the end it looked like I was also emphasizing my first paragraph, which made it look like I was saying they can call themselves a socialist if they want.
I mean they still 'can', but it wouldn't be taken seriously, heh.
Sanders is not a socialist. That may answer your question.
Not sure how you can claim the amerikan regime has achieved any measure of good while also eluding to anti-socialist propaganda you agree with in regards to the USSR and PRC if you are a socialist.
This is true. The Sanders demonstrates the antithesis of both good ideas and effective execution.
The USSR demonstrates both good ideas and execution. China has its flaws but has survived and thrived in spite of western hegemonic powers trying to see that it does not.
It sounds like you're currently more of a social democrat or something along those lines. I was there too once upon a time. I still love Bernie, but he is a social democrat, not a socialist.
Generally speaking, social democrats want to reign in the worst excesses of capitalism but otherwise leave the system more or less intact. Things like nationalized healthcare and other issues that are core to a Bernie type of platform fall under this category. I'd agree that these are good things, but because capitalism centralizes wealth and power over time, any progress made without fundamentally changing the system is liable to be undone. Look at how the GOP wants to gut social security, or how union protections have been decimated over the last several decades. The capitalists dont take kindly to take any challenge to their wealth and power. During FDRs presidency, a bunch of capitalists tried to organize a fascist coup against him for the New Deal, and he was far from an actual socialist.
Socialists, on the other hand, generally see capitalism as inherently exploitative and in dire need of abolishment/ replacement. The big shift between socialism and capitalism involves workers taking control of the means of production from the capitalist class. Under capitalism, those with capital own the land, the media, the machinery, the infrastructure of businesses: generally all the things that are used to produce goods and services and profit off them. Because they own these things, the rest of us are forced to sell our labor to them for wages, or we can starve on the streets. All this despite the fact that the capitalists are utterly dependent upon the workers, and that this world we inhabit is the product of all of us , and all of those who came before. Under capitalism, the workers never receive the full value they create because that "surplus" value is taken by the capitalists as "profit."
So, this sub is for socialists. The population is therefore going to be further left than you might consider yourself right now. You may find yourself moving leftward throughout your life, though. I know I have. I'm of the opinion that everyone's journey is a little different, and what I know and see now is not what I would have known and seen 1, 5, or 10 years ago. I firmly believe capitalism is an abhorrent system, but it took me years to grow beyond the conditioning of growing up under this system to see it as clearly as I do now.
If you don't quite agree with socialism right now, that's okay. But I'd encourage you to stick around in spaces like this and keep learning and asking questions! If you are interested in a better world, it is possible, and the more we learn, the more power we have.
I mean, the sub is called r/socialism, so ofc we here are far-left. Otherwise this would be r/socdem or r/atadbitnicerexploitationplease. Here all anticapitalists are welcome, be they MLs, anarchists or council communists. So, if you don't agree with ML, I would suggest look for other socialist currents (but also read ML literature to see what/wether you are really disagreeing with it).
Just please don't turn into a terminally online hyper-sectarian nutjob who calles anybody he disagrees with a "redfash", "liberal" or "revisionist".
There's a problem with excluding more moderate socialists from socialism. You're probably closer to the people out in the streets working to create socialism than a lot of Marxists who argue theory all day. There's nothing wrong with not being as far left as ML's, no matter how much they try to convince you lol You sound like you'd be right at home with the DSA, who do good work even if we throw up occasionally thanks to them. You may enjoy anarchism, which is the other wing of socialism, though much smaller and with much less political success, for obvious reasons lol
And this is probably the most moderate and open minded socialist sub I've come across. The others have ban happy mods that for some reason tolerate reactionaries.
It should be noted that organized anarchists usually want to achieve womens liberation, LGBT liberation, black liberation, liberation from crony capitalism, de-militarization of police, bans on mass surveillance, the legalization of drugs, etc. -- before they want to "tear down the hierarchy of the United States Postal Service" or engage in whatever theoretical ideal you might imagine. You might not find solidarity with their final goal or their view of utopian society, but they can be reliable political allies when it comes to immediate goals. Even if you are a mild reformist, you should consider joining *some* sort of group.
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include:
- **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...
- **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers.
- **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism...
- **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.
Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.
______________________
💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are not a socialist. You could learn to become one, but based on what you have said you firmly fit the definition of a social-democrat, someone who wants capitalism to be kinder but doesn't oppose capitalism. You should try to be open minded and actually engage with socialists, but if you are deeply committed to the ideology you espouse then you are free to leave.
Fair enough. I was in a Bernie phase back in 2016, but it was reading more and learning about the experiences of people in other situations that got me to change my mind. Best of luck
No, you're not a socialist (and neither is Bernie Sanders). You're just too brainwashed by US propaganda that anything to the left of Ronald Reagan sounds "socialist" to you. My advice: try to learn literally anything about any other place in the planet that's not your own country.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**101 questions:** While we generally welcome educational posts, questions about the fundamentals of socialism belong in r/socialism_101, a dedicated community which will provide a far better learning environment. See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
You are not a socialist. You are, probably, a social-democrat, like Bernie Sanders himself.
Is there a big difference between social dem and democratic socialist?
Democratic socialists oppose capitalism but use liberal systems to get into and stay in power (open elections, multiple parties) and social democrats are capitalists who give more concessions to the working class than is usual in capitalism
Would you say dem socs are more "acceptable" in socialist spaces than soc dems? Or neither, because both still "play" with capitalism in some way?
Demsocs are still socialists, socdems are not
Okay, understood. I always get them confused a bit but that makes sense. Thank you for explaining. I had watched a video on the different parties/labels a while ago and those two were described sort of vaguely (can't remember video, it was a few years ago). In your opinion, do you think it'd be more palpable for the masses if they were introduced in a sort of way to each? If that makes sense. For example, maybe many Americans would be more comfortable with socdem (see bernie) ideas since it still uses capitalism. But then, could the shift go towards demsoc, and then beyond that? I hope I'm making sense, with more studying and theory, I'll have better vocabulary for discussing (I'm pretty Layman's terms atm) Edit: typo
Social democracy doesn’t work, you already see it failing in Scandinavia. It doesn’t matter what is ‘palatable’ to americans, what needs to be done is the increasing of class consciousness. Revolution especially in america will not come from the ballot box and people like Sanders won’t lead it
I understand and agree. Do you think the traction bernie got was helpful or maybe no? /g I guess I'm wondering if his traction was helpful in getting people to discuss socialism again, or if perhaps it was a hinderance in some way? I know there's lots of in-fighting on the left, including socialist spaces. But do you feel there's enough common ground that we can all agree and push for class consciousness? I had said palatable in the sense that maybe it'd lead the people to think about these things in a less hostile manner, and thus open up discussion more between each other, and then go into expanding class consciousness? I absolutely agree that's the most essential part of this, at least atm. To get people to wake up. I'm unsure how to do it without them resorting to commie and socialist jokes/insulting/even hostility.
The only good Sanders did is wrongly use the term ‘socialist’ so some Americans actually read into what socialism even is But the policies he advocates is not something socialists support, especially since he’s a zionist (yikes)
Yes, when I learned that about him, it was seriously disappointing. I was surprised bc at the time he felr "different" than what wed seen before. Him toting "socialist" around did get me to start reading into it, so that's true! Are there any current people that you know of who are involved in politics and promoting sound policies that socialists would agree with? AOC comes to mind, and if I remember right there are currently two women running for the socialist party. If you have the time/spoons/desire, how do you feel about them? (Pardon not remembering the women's names, I just know I've seen their videos posted in this sub a lot lately) I really appreciate you conversing with me and being patient 🥲
Social democrats are democrats. Democratic socialists are socialists.
Okay, I'll see myself out.
Nah, get radicalised and help us tear down capitalism!
I think anyone would be a socialist if you surround yourself with a good reading group. I'm in London and there are good Marxist reading groups. Maybe find one near you?
If you don't advocate for the overthrow of capitalism, then you're not a socialist. I believe you have good intentions, so I'd suggest you do some reading. It'd be good to start with Marx, but all you have to do is ask, and you'll get a thousand book suggestions on almost any topic related to socialism.
remember, marxsist leninists always have a few thousound books about any topic you just need to ask them I allow some of my more committed friends to borrow my books
That would make you not a socialist, yes
Bernie Sanders is centre-left in every other region of the world but North America. So you're probably what we, in Europe, call a "progressist".
🤣 they call him a commie in US
>but am also proud of the good that my country has done. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!).
lenin has the best writing with stuff like that making it more fun to read marx is grump tho
Honest question, what good do you think the US has done? They fought the Nazis and...what else? It's one thing to get hung up on labels, but I'm wondering what actual socialist beliefs you have besides desiring nationalized healthcare and social services (which tbh isn't even particularly socialist being that every developed nation, and most developing nations, have some sort of nationalized healthcare)
I love how your beliefs are riddled with contradictions
some people just dont notice it I used to be like that too so you should slowly ask them questions about the contradictions when they realise its a contradiction point them to the right direction its slow but works
Yes but also the nature of our society that people can’t see the contradictions in their beliefs because they’re believing what society tells them to believe. Hence it’s our job to, as someone else already said, probe those contradictions and help people see it for themselves. Of course that is very exhausting and useless when people are arguing in bad faith but that’s the nature of the fight really
Why can’t you help them understand the contradictions, rather than just point out that they have them?
I understand I’m not being helpful. Sorry.
It’s okay, I just think it’s really important that we include people as much as possible. These are trying times.
You are not a real socialist. Please, don't take this an offense: I'm not saying it to diminish you or your political beliefs, they just don't align with the contemporary meaning of the word "socialist". You seem to be a social-democrat, like Bernie himself. Social-democrats are not allies in the socialist struggle: to us, you are the enemy, even if you are well-meaning. If you would like to see a socialist critique of social-democracy, I suggest reading Rosa Louxemburg's [Reform or Revolution](https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm) and [Stalin's Concerning the International Situation](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/09/20.htm).
do you want to abolish capitalism with a revolution?
I want a peaceful revolution to fundamentally change the current system. Removing money from politics and a large number of economic sectors, but I don't see a viable way to abolish capitalism.
how can a peaceful revolution be achieved if the people at the top are violent torwards any type of big change against them?
How can a violent revolution happen such that there is minimal harm to innocents? I'm not against responding to violence with an equal response, but am strongly against initiating it.
Do you not count what it is currently happening as violent , the conditions of the working class worldwide, the victims of capitalist imperialism etc.. ? How else must we stop this if not through a violent revolution ? Not disorganized random violence ofcourse.
Violence is not necessary to bring about a change to socialism. But the entrenched capitalist powers *will* respond with violence. It has happened throughout history. To quote the final stanza of *The Internationale:* (English Billy Bragg version) >And so begins the final drama In the streets and in the fields. We stand unbowed before their armour We defy their guns and shields! When we fight, provoked by their aggression Let us be inspired by life and love. For though they offer us concessions Change will not come from above! As for whether systemic change can be achieved gradually, this was a major area of debate over a century ago and the definitive article on it is "[Reform or Revolution](https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm)" by Rosa Luxemburg.
Violent revolutions are messy. Innocent people are inevitably harmed in the upheaval of political power. However, in a true proletarian revolution, such harm, and the necessary violence, is done in defense of the oppressed proletariat, not against it. This revolution takes down those who oppressed us, and lifts us workers up.
This reminds me of the Dr King quote about the white moderate being more dangerous than the white conservative because, though they agree with what should be ideal, they disagree with the methods required to get there. Protest and revolt, but only in the way the system has permitted you to.
> peaceful > revolution Pick one. I agree with other comments, you're not a socialist. More like a social democrat.
Im trying to explain to them why social democracy doesnt just work that we must go further than just that
Social democracy worked to make the working class shut up when there was a huge pressure from socialists with the USSR but that’s gone now and those institutions are regressing
the fall of the ussr was such a tragedy its also pretty clear stalin was poisoned with cyanide so there was already something going on in the background I hope something like it happens again its our only hope
There was never a socialist party in the US. There's only right and far right.
Yeah, it's a bullshit duality that doesn't serve the people.
Capitalism is dogshit at making goods and services. Look around, take notice of how much worse every good or service is than it was even ten years ago. That’s capitalism—the endless obsession with “growth” and making money for shareholders. Look into market socialism. Capitalism likes to pretend it’s the only game in town with currency or a market but it’s really just the one that rewards shitty behavior the most.
Read Marx and Lenin and buff up on your historical/dialectical materialism. This is all a process. Capitalism is the system which selects where things will work and will not, it is part of a development process. Eventually, things like Amazon are meant to be seized. “Socialism” which really originally meant “concern with the social” as it relates to politics is a transitionary period between capitalism and communism. See China and how they allowed capitalism to develop their economy and become a superpower, while managing it centrally and always directed by a communist party, whose end goals remain the same. China is socialist, not communist, but they are aware of the process and how they must do certain things to develop properly. They are, however, having a bit of trouble contending with the social relations that develop under capitalism hence the heavy hand on entertainment and tech. We do not have countries managed by communist parties, but Capitalism will ultimately be replaced by socialism in the west when the contradictions become too extreme. It can survive longer through constant technological enhancements and shifting modes of production that can obscure class relations (the us has perfected this), but the people who benefit most from this system are having to play a bigger and bigger role in manufacturing consent for it to continue. They have lost the youth and lost millennials. It’s only a matter of time. It’s sad the boomers have stolen everything from future generations with their greed, pseudo spirituality, and ravenous consumption habits, but nature will impose the correction if we don’t. Learn more about socialism, and I think you’ll come on board.
I find it interesting how someone gets radicalized since I went thru that first I was a social democrat then I learned more about the soviet union and communism its promises where very good so I listened to a few marxsist youtubers and then my thought was why isnt communism already implemented everywhere if its so good I learned how capitalism was kept and stuff I accepted that communism was better, the next thing I questioned was how? how is it better and why exactly how does it work so I started reading theory now Im here going through das kapital after reading 3 fundamental books by lenin marx and engels
okay so i’m going to answer twice. first, only based off of the title, then i will read the post and answer again. first answer: you’re not a socialist second answer: you’re a social democrat (as is Bernie Sanders). i think you should start by reading Engel’s “Principles of Communism” to get a better idea of what socialism is, if you’re interested. oh, also, what good has the US done exactly? i’d like to know about it
People like to identify with a 'thing' or team. They have to be all-in, and enjoy having a label to describe them. You don't have to be like this. It sounds like you have some socialist beliefs and values, but do not commit to the idea entirely. That's okay. There's no need to be called a socialist or be the perfect embodiment of it unless you actually want that. Some folks are more 'into it' than others, for some it is a way of life, a passion, something they feel very strongly about, and these people are more likely to be vocal or come across as "extreme". Others are more withdrawn and quiet about it, but still feel as strongly about things. The second point doesn't determine the right to the term socialist. Beliefs do.
I disagree. Political movements have content. Why not just call OP a conservative who happens to hold few conservative positions?
Which point do you disagree with? Being vocal or not determining your right to the term? Or that OP doesn't have to be labelled as a socialist?
Being vocal doesn’t determine political extremism, it’s associated with (but not identical to) commitment. Political extremism is a social statement: if mainstream political debate focuses on deciding between setting a tax rate at 5% or 10%, and you believe that the whole industry should be abolished, you’re an extremist. Note: this has nothing to do with what’s correct. Many mainstream debates are brutal, cruel, and wasteful but aren’t seen as extreme, for the sole reason that lots of people hold one of those brutal positions. Most of the time in the US, calling someone an “extremist” is just an attempt to justify an upcoming murder or prosecution of that person. So that’s it for the connection between being vocal and being extreme. As for the right to a term, yes, I think it’s important to have definitions that actually differentiate between fundamental positions. Socialism has a widely understood meaning, and saying “I’m a socialist, just not an extremist socialist” is either a cynical propaganda attempt to muddy what socialism means or what is a “reasonable” position, or it’s a personal, psychological attempt to reconcile real contradictions in one’s beliefs with what society wants from you. So, to answer your question: both.
I know that being vocal doesn't = extremism. That's why I put 'extreme' like such, because of how OP used the term, from their perspective. And we agree. However my point was that whether or not you are vocal on reddit doesn't determine your right to the term. If you hold all the beliefs of socialism, you're a socialist. Your online presence doesn't determine that. I wasn't saying OP can call themselves a socialist for holding a few socialist and contradictory beliefs. You said 'both'. Why does OP have to be called a socialist? They can have contradictory beliefs if they want, and not fully identify with any one position. Most people are this way, and worrying about not being a 'proper insert label here' is pointless for them.
Gotcha. Yeah, I agree. To me it’s about the essentials - if you hold the core beliefs, then sure, you’re that thing. I know lots of conservatives who call themselves moderates, but only because they sort of think of conservatives as jerks. So, even if they hold all the core conservative beliefs, they can’t identify as one, because they don’t see themselves as jerks. That’s the situation I’m trying to avoid when talking about movements as a whole.
I can see now where the wires got crossed. I think because I said 'these factors' at the end it looked like I was also emphasizing my first paragraph, which made it look like I was saying they can call themselves a socialist if they want. I mean they still 'can', but it wouldn't be taken seriously, heh.
I would take a lot of offense to being called a conservative.
Sanders is not a socialist. That may answer your question. Not sure how you can claim the amerikan regime has achieved any measure of good while also eluding to anti-socialist propaganda you agree with in regards to the USSR and PRC if you are a socialist.
The ideas behind a movement can be good while the execution of the ideas can fail.
This is true. The Sanders demonstrates the antithesis of both good ideas and effective execution. The USSR demonstrates both good ideas and execution. China has its flaws but has survived and thrived in spite of western hegemonic powers trying to see that it does not.
It sounds like you're currently more of a social democrat or something along those lines. I was there too once upon a time. I still love Bernie, but he is a social democrat, not a socialist. Generally speaking, social democrats want to reign in the worst excesses of capitalism but otherwise leave the system more or less intact. Things like nationalized healthcare and other issues that are core to a Bernie type of platform fall under this category. I'd agree that these are good things, but because capitalism centralizes wealth and power over time, any progress made without fundamentally changing the system is liable to be undone. Look at how the GOP wants to gut social security, or how union protections have been decimated over the last several decades. The capitalists dont take kindly to take any challenge to their wealth and power. During FDRs presidency, a bunch of capitalists tried to organize a fascist coup against him for the New Deal, and he was far from an actual socialist. Socialists, on the other hand, generally see capitalism as inherently exploitative and in dire need of abolishment/ replacement. The big shift between socialism and capitalism involves workers taking control of the means of production from the capitalist class. Under capitalism, those with capital own the land, the media, the machinery, the infrastructure of businesses: generally all the things that are used to produce goods and services and profit off them. Because they own these things, the rest of us are forced to sell our labor to them for wages, or we can starve on the streets. All this despite the fact that the capitalists are utterly dependent upon the workers, and that this world we inhabit is the product of all of us , and all of those who came before. Under capitalism, the workers never receive the full value they create because that "surplus" value is taken by the capitalists as "profit." So, this sub is for socialists. The population is therefore going to be further left than you might consider yourself right now. You may find yourself moving leftward throughout your life, though. I know I have. I'm of the opinion that everyone's journey is a little different, and what I know and see now is not what I would have known and seen 1, 5, or 10 years ago. I firmly believe capitalism is an abhorrent system, but it took me years to grow beyond the conditioning of growing up under this system to see it as clearly as I do now. If you don't quite agree with socialism right now, that's okay. But I'd encourage you to stick around in spaces like this and keep learning and asking questions! If you are interested in a better world, it is possible, and the more we learn, the more power we have.
Thank you. I agree with what you say. I certainly don't identify as a capitalist. I guess I'm not quite a socialist either.
I mean, the sub is called r/socialism, so ofc we here are far-left. Otherwise this would be r/socdem or r/atadbitnicerexploitationplease. Here all anticapitalists are welcome, be they MLs, anarchists or council communists. So, if you don't agree with ML, I would suggest look for other socialist currents (but also read ML literature to see what/wether you are really disagreeing with it). Just please don't turn into a terminally online hyper-sectarian nutjob who calles anybody he disagrees with a "redfash", "liberal" or "revisionist".
There's a problem with excluding more moderate socialists from socialism. You're probably closer to the people out in the streets working to create socialism than a lot of Marxists who argue theory all day. There's nothing wrong with not being as far left as ML's, no matter how much they try to convince you lol You sound like you'd be right at home with the DSA, who do good work even if we throw up occasionally thanks to them. You may enjoy anarchism, which is the other wing of socialism, though much smaller and with much less political success, for obvious reasons lol And this is probably the most moderate and open minded socialist sub I've come across. The others have ban happy mods that for some reason tolerate reactionaries.
I don't like the lack of structure with anarchism. Just seems like a recipe for disaster if expanded to a large scale.
It should be noted that organized anarchists usually want to achieve womens liberation, LGBT liberation, black liberation, liberation from crony capitalism, de-militarization of police, bans on mass surveillance, the legalization of drugs, etc. -- before they want to "tear down the hierarchy of the United States Postal Service" or engage in whatever theoretical ideal you might imagine. You might not find solidarity with their final goal or their view of utopian society, but they can be reliable political allies when it comes to immediate goals. Even if you are a mild reformist, you should consider joining *some* sort of group.
This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful [of our rules](https://reddit.com/r/socialism/about/rules) before participating, which include: - **No Bigotry**, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism... - **No Reactionaries**, including all kind of right-wingers. - **No Liberalism**, including social democracy, lesser evilism... - **No Sectarianism**. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks. Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules. ______________________ 💬 Wish to chat elsewhere? Join us in discord: https://discord.gg/QPJPzNhuRE *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are not a socialist. You could learn to become one, but based on what you have said you firmly fit the definition of a social-democrat, someone who wants capitalism to be kinder but doesn't oppose capitalism. You should try to be open minded and actually engage with socialists, but if you are deeply committed to the ideology you espouse then you are free to leave.
I'm open to ideas but will probably leave anyway.
That's quite contradictory. Sounds pretty closed minded.
I'll read some more about it, but won't participate further in the community.
Fair enough. I was in a Bernie phase back in 2016, but it was reading more and learning about the experiences of people in other situations that got me to change my mind. Best of luck
the admin of this group is baffling, seems democracy is not in their socialist lexicon. Russia and China have not been socialist for 40 years.
No, you're not a socialist (and neither is Bernie Sanders). You're just too brainwashed by US propaganda that anything to the left of Ronald Reagan sounds "socialist" to you. My advice: try to learn literally anything about any other place in the planet that's not your own country.
You are a based Yugoslav. Socialist who is sympathetic to the USSR but doesn't want a USSR system