You're viewing a single thread.
For anyone who thinks Canadian cops are nicer, I still remember the G20 in Toronto. The police designated a park as a free speech zone, surrounded it, took off their name tags and put on masks, and began to beat the protesters. They tore a disabled man's prosthetic leg off and dragged him around, they took people away from cameras and beat them. Not a single cop, including the chief in charge, suffered a single consequence. And they wonder why we no longer feel sad when one dies.
I saw a documentary of G20 here in Germany and one take home message was "it's a miracle no one got killed". They were heavily insured, imprisoned without a trial and stuff. Just for those talking about "European Socialism". There is no such thing.
Go read up on Genova's G8... Seems like a pattern.
Just for those talking about "European Socialism". There is no such thing.
First, ACAB.
Second, systems of government =/= economic systems. Ie you can have socialism with or without democracy.
First, ACAB.
Full heartedly yes
you can have socialism with or without democracy.
Yesn't. Depends on your definition of both socialism and democracy. Can you vote socialism into power in a liberal democracy while keeping the state apparatus in tact including the monopoly on power and cops and stuff? No, I don't think so. What about a more direct democracy, a council republic with communities of communities based on the principles of mutual aid? Sounds great! Is this found anywhere in modern day Europe? No, there is no European socialism in this sense.
And if you define socialism as path to communism than there never was and never will be a socialist state since states are inherently conterrevolutionary. If you define socialism as having the official goal to move into communism, than there is still no European socialism since hell, we are moving to the right. Nationalism is rising everywhere and former social democrats are neoliberals which is the best option on the ballot right now sadly.
I was talking about European socialism and when Muricans use this phrase, they refere to safety nets and universal healthcare and stuff. This is under no definition socialism. When you mean Catalonia 1935, I would agree but noone would call that European Socialism.
Depends on your definition of both socialism and democracy
Everything depends on definitions, but there's nothing subjective or controversial really in what I'm saying. One is a system of government, or the "form" of government in other words, and one is an economic system or the "form" of the economical model.
Can you vote socialism into power in a liberal democracy
What does that even mean? Again, socialism is not a system of government.
if you define socialism as path to communism If you define socialism as having the official goal to move into communism
What is even this red scare rhetoric?
there is still no European socialism
American, I take it? (No offense.)
I'm Finnish. We're by definition a socialist country. Social democracy is defined as philosophy withing socialism. Socialism is defined as the government either owning OR REGULATING the means of government. Yes, you can equicovate several days on how "the Nordic model isn't socialist, it's a mixed economy", but aside from the US, no-one really does. The Nordic model absolutely is socialist in nature. (Also, if one considered — just for metaphorical purposes — capitalism as murder. Then what would "mixed" mean in that context? You can't slightly murder someone. Either you do or you don't. Ofc, with political and economical philosophies this is much less clear. Thus the metaphor, as otherwise my explanation of my thoughts on that would be complete gibberish.)
I think you're one of the people who think "free markets" are synonymous with "capitalism", when nothing could be further from the truth. Free markets are defined as markets in which only the quality and quantity and price of the good you provide matter, as then there is honest competition. That can only exist in well regulated (ie market-socialist) markets. In capitalism, profit goes above everything, so it always tends to move towards monopolies which produce worse and more expensive products. Due to that being the very core nature of capitalism, even the US employs some socialist policies. (This is not to say that the US is socialist in ant significant way, just that the policies are.) They're called "antitrust laws".
"This law prohibits conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade."
Because even the US has to face facts that naturally that is where capitalism goes and it has to be blocked so that monipolies don't screw the economy faster than Stalin's five-year plans.
The point being that when you dissociate communism from socialism, you can see that the type of socialism being called for is much closer to the American Dream than to communism. Essentially it's just what we already have, minus shitty practices, minus greedy billionaires always trying to squeeze more money out of something while making it worse. So add actually well designed, affordable products, universal basic income, proper labour laws (The average American takes less vacation time than a medieval peasant), affordable housing, all that good jazz.
To scare people with "socialism" is to misunderstand it so badly that you're playing for the side that's benefitting from your life being shit.
Oh I get on rants when I take my sleep meds (I have a 60min window to go to bed more or less, chatting during it is fun), sorry for the long-windedness.
What I meant was that (while keeping in mind that all discussion about political philosophies are fraught with the danger of generalising too much because someone always has some niche clashing definition) you can basically mix and match systems of government and eoxnomies. Like authoritarian communism, obviously, but technically, you could have democratic communism. I mean, you won't, because until we get to Star Trek levels of fully automated gay space communism (and "gay" in that references more the use the word use to have, not anyone's sexuality per se) it just isn't viable. But if a democratic majority voted on it and wanted to use communism, they could.
You can also have democratic capitalism, or authoritarian capitalism (what China does de-facto). Or even monarchic socialism, which is more or less of what some of Nordics who still have royals have, albeit it's more monarchic democratic market-socialism, but here we go with the labels again. They're meant to help us, not confine us.
And now I think I've written quite enough.
lol, I live in Germany and have never heard anybody outside the US referring to the Nordic model as socialism. Sanders and his followers do but some Europeans do that too? I mean we do have parties that are called social democrats or even socialists, but only for historical reasons, nobody would say they are anything else than capitalist nowadays.
socialism is not a system of government.
Socialism is defined as the government either owning OR REGULATING the means of government.
Curious, which is it? Socialism is not a system of government but a system where the government does stuff? So an absolutist monarchy where the monarch (and therefore the government) owns everything is socialism? Maybe rethink that definition.
(The average American takes less vacation time than a medieval peasant)
I don't think you were aware of that but there is a paywall. From what I've gathered, it's 150 days a year off, which is still much more than here in Germany and I guess in the North as well. So we too live in capitalism.
I think you’re one of the people who think “free markets” are synonymous with “capitalism”,
Short answer: No. But I'm not a fan of free market either. Free markets can display demand but not needs. We need a needs centered economy. But there is a thing like market socialism.
even the US employs some socialist policies.
So the US is the mixed system now? From your definitions, there at least can exist a mixed system, right? It's a gradual difference between the US and the Nordic system and Germany is somewhere in between. And some Germans are very proud of our "soziale Marktwirtschaft" (social market economy) and maybe even call it a mixed system. Where do you draw the line?
So let's get our definitions straight. There are different schools of thought within socialism but by enlarge, it's a counter movement to capitalism. In a nutshell, a capitalist (as in they own capital) owns the means of production (eg a factory) and employs workers who have nothing else to sell than their work force. That's the capitalist mode of production. This changed alot since the 19th century and this binary class system morphed into hierarchies of some kind or another.
So much for capitalism. Socialism, as I said, is counter movement. In socialism, the workers own the means of production themselves and do not need a capitalist. This can be in direct form (workers owning the factory they work in, i.e. syndicalism, this can be free market) or in the form of a workers' state (as the Soviet Union proclaimed to be and social democrats do in a way) or, as I would prefer, in a system of councils on different levels. I'm a big fan of social ecology.
All that said, I do not think you can mix all kinds of economic systems and systems of governments. Capitalism goes well with electoral, representative democracy because both are systems of competition. Capitalism also goes well with dictatorships since both are systems of domination. All attempts to implement a socialist state, either by socialist parties within a bourgeois democracy or a revolution that leaves the state apparatus in tact, have failed and morphed into capitalism sooner or later. Socialism is by its definition a workers' democracy and therefore only compatible with direct forms of democracy like a council republic. I'm aware that this is a very libertarian socialist (not to say anarcho-socialist) perspective and you don't have to share it, but I hope, you can acknowledge it.
Working rn so indepth answer later but just lolled so hard that couldn't help not answering
socialism is not a system of government.
Socialism is defined as the government either owning OR REGULATING the means of government.
Curious, which is it?
Kapparoflmaoooxdddd
You don't understand that a government must use an economic system... for the economy.
Like do you not understand the difference between a form of government and a form of economy? Two distinct things.
Like talking about the shape and size of something. You don't think circles are all big or small, right? You understand that shapes and sizes are different things right?
Fucking laughing my ass off here I'll reply in depth in like 4 hours
Maybe don't insist on the difference and then use the word "government" in your definition of socialism twice. If you don't see any problem there, I'm not sure your answer will be worth reading
Uh, no.
You just don't seem to understand.
The government may utilise socialism. It's a tool for them.
You don't seem to understand the difference between systems of government and economic systems, no matter how I try to dumb it down for you.
Did you read my whole comment? Because I'm not sure. But eitherway. Your definition was:
Socialism is defined as the government either owning OR REGULATING the means of government.
What even are "the means of government"? Isn't it tautological that the government owns the means of government? That makes it to be a government in the first place, right? Or do you mean "the means of production"? Than you only define state socialism and not even that, it still fits to almost any monarchy or dictatorship. You would just define it as "not free market" which you on another spot say it is not. I'm really trying to follow you but you are not making much sense and refuse to answer me in a meaningful way.
But I understand that you seperate the two systems. I just think they are too intertwined to do so and I elaborate on that in my comment. We can agree to disagree without calling each other dumb. We can have a normal, constructive conversation about it like adults would. I have a different definition on socialism. Would you react to that? Or do I assume correctly that you did not read it?
Why don't we regularly kill them?
Recently a Toronto resident was acquitted of murdering a cop, the city celebrated and the cops got pissed and expressed that they wished the man deemed innocent had gone to jail.
Long story short, this man was getting his family back into their mini van to go home. Armed, plain clothes cops are looking for an unrelated suspect so of course they draw guns and run towards the innocent man with his family. The man panics, steps on the gas and escapes, running over the cop and killing him. He was then arrested for "intentionally killing an officer", ignoring the fact that all the man saw was two armed men in plain clothes running towards him and his family
Jesus fucking Christ! They've done everything short of spelling or a war declaration! Where I'm standing, the guy is extra innocent if he did actually do it.