this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
565 points (94.3% liked)
Asklemmy
44152 readers
1043 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Liberalism + Socialist, which imply something in-between, because yes, otherwise we'd just say socialism.
Social democracy = nationalism + capitalism. Ie... zero socialism involved in any way whatsoever. There is no such thing as a liberal that will accept the working class taking control of the means of production - on the contrary, liberals would rather ally themselves to fascists than allow socialism to take hold.
I am not sure what to tell you, I live in one of the few social democracy in America. Maybe have a look at the Wiki? It is a socialist model by definition, and the state does indeed own infrastructure around here. Care to link to your definition of social democracy?
Does the working class control the means of production where you live?
Yes?
No?
If it's not the former, it's not socialism. In any way whatsoever. Period. That is it.
Part of it yes, it is a mixed economy. State-owned corporations whenever it makes sense, welfare state, income redistribution, regulation of the economy, all in all within capitalism. Again, Social Democracy is just a subset of socialism applied to capitalism. Full-blown ownership of the means of production by the workers, without a private sector, that'd be just plain socialism or communism.
So the answer is no.
Which means... drumroll... no socialism involved whatsoever.
Soooo... no socialism?
Soooo... still no socialism?
There is no such thing as "plain socialism" - there is socialism and then there is not-socialism.
The whole point of social democracy is to borrow concepts and values from socialism, I never said it is socialism. I am not even sure what you're arguing about and why you're so obstinate on such a pedantic point.
First off, good luck finding a definition of social democracy out there that can skim over the parallels with socialism. At this point I tried in good faith, but obviously you have a problem with the actual definition of social democracy, this is not something I made up, this described as such everywhere.
You're free to use whatever made-up definition of your own, as I am sure someone as obstinate and strongly opinionated as you are won't be moving an inch, as it would seem there is no chance you will actually research what is social democracy. Sure it is a nationalism movement or whatever you say. This could have been an interesting conversation, but yeah I suppose you're here to bludgeon your strong opinions on people and to be insufferable about it. Have a good day.
The nazis borrowed the word "socialist," too - and it doesn't make the nazis any more socialist than social democracy. And just like the nazis, social democracy borrows nothing from socialism except the word "social."
Socialism only has one value and one concept - the workers control the means of production. You can't "borrow" this concept because it's already free for anyone to take. If you don't take it, it means you don't have anything that can be called socialism with a straight face.
Partially wrong and right.
It has aspects of socialism such as welfare and promotion of social justice, while not entirely discarding capitalism.
Yes tho a lot of liberals indirectly or directly help push people toward facism instead of adopting more socialist or social democracy policies because capital above all else lol
"Welfare" is not socialist. It's something states implemented to prevent socialist ideas from gaining ground - that's how they ended up with the (so-called) "Scandinavian model." Like every other country in the west, it was an anti-socialist measure used to prevent working class revolt - unlike actual socialism, it does not dismantle power and privilege but actively protects it.
Social justice isn't even something that was implemented - power and privilege simply pretends to implement it.
I agree and disagree, I think the idea of welfare is/was well intentioned to work within the capitalist system by people wanting improvements, not an intentional crushing of socialist ideals, it's a meshing of the two.
I do think socialism would be better for the world long-term but it's not like attempting to integrate good social democracy policies is a negative lol.