Ask Lemmy

Democratic control over the means of production by workers

It provides a safety net by pooling the resources of the community to support the less fortunate. This prevents people from having to sacrifice their long term goals because their short term needs may not be otherwise met.

Also in contrast to capitalism that treats society as a zero sum game ("I can't get ahead unless I take something from someone else") socialism is a benefit multiplier ("I'm part of the community. By making the life of everyone in the community better I'm also improving my own life").

Few movements self-identify as "Socialist", at best it's a taxonomical label. Attempting to talk about the finer points of socialism is akin to debating the pros/cons of "Animals" -- it's an overly broad topic and doomed to spiral into bike-shedding over semantics as soon as the conversation starts to look interesting.

With that being said, let's talk about some more concrete terms -- apologies in advance for wielding only slightly less clumsy terminology in my bullets:

• Socialized Medicine: Healthcare is a human right. I am pro human rights.
• Unions: Mostly positive. Nothing's perfect, but come on... you'd have to be blind not to see and feel for how exploited lower-class workers are without them
• Democratic Socialists of America: I'm a member -- that means I like them. I think their platform represents the ideal incrementalist approach to improving the current status quo
• European Welfare States (e.g.: Denmark): Too fuzzy to have a solid opinion on, but certainly a battle-tested template. I like most of their ideas most of the time
• Marxism: A genius body of economic philosophy, but increasingly out of place as time marches onward. I'd be for a by-the-book implementation (insofar as that's possible) in 1923, but not 2023
• Maoism/Leninism: Not exactly success stories. It's easier to appreciate their noble ideas & intentions with the distance lent by history, but that's altogether different from "liking"
• Communism: As a whole? I think the template holds promise and can be made to work in a modern context, but viability =/= realizability. The world would have to get turned upside-down first and it's questionable exactly how many of us would live through that... but never say never.

I've lived in a country with socialism for my entire life, and have studied the laws in my own and other countries without socialism.

I will talk about socialism as it is in Scandinavia, more specifically Denmark. Here's a few things other than paid education and free healthcare:

• Getting paid to study: You get paid to study as soon as you turn 18. In that way you don't need a job while you studying. Basic salary when living away from parents: 1.000 USD/month.

• UBI: In Denmark we have UBI for people being poor, basically. If you don't have a job, is sick and can't work, or any other reason you might be screwed, you get paid by the government to... well yeah, exist basically. You have to meet some requirements and actively trying to get better or find a job though, which seems fair I think. If the government thinks it's not possible to get better, you can get the money permanently for the rest of your life without doing anything. (this is used for people with disabilities, both mental and physical, both born with it or obtained later in life)

• Shared heating system: This is maybe the biggest "socialism" thing I can mention. In Denmark your house or apartment can be hooked up to a country wide heating system, which means we all share the same heat. This is a way to make heat distribution centralised, which has major advantages such as; price, availability, maintenance. (Fun fact: every data center build in Denmark needs to be hooked up to this system, as they will "donate" all their excess heat from their servers to the central heating system)

• Flex jobbing: If you are no longer able to work 37 hours a week, you can be a flex worker. This basically means that you can work 15 hours a week and still get paid a full salary. The government will cover the rest of the pay and also cover some expenses for the company having the flex worker. This system is great for peoples mental health, as they still can feel a part of society even though they can't work full time. While they still can live a worthy life because their pay is fine. It's a win-win for the country, the companies and the people needing this.

I could go on, but I don't want to be that guy praising my own country all the time. We Scandinavians tend to do that.

I like working and feeling like I'm helping others or working towards a larger goal without the constant ever present exploitation of myself and others.

The concept of helping people.

Personal greed cannot grow to unlimited dimensions.

It's one of the better -isms currently available.

Workers owning the means of production is the way it should be. Until we can mature further.

The part where the workers own the means of production.

that it holds that social practices are created from social practice and not inherited from immutable law, enabling criticism of the underlying machinations of society without being hindered by the argument that such machinations are an inherited and instinctual product of nature and thus unalterable.

That it's anticorporatist.

I like that the government is financially able to provide social services above and beyond anything Americans are used to. Those services are a reliable way to help out neighbors.

There's no reason for any American to be unhoused, hungry, uneducated, or in need of healthcare. If wealth taxes were implemented, 95% of Americans wouldn't have any more money taken from them than they already do and it would do so much for millions and millions of Americans.

A socialistic society lifts up the people that need it most and doesn't hurt anyone in a way that they can't cope with. And moreover, some studies estimate that helping out those poorest Americans allows them to add value to society in ways that makes up for the wealthy people and corporations getting taxed heavier.

Used to dismiss it out of hand because all the 'socialist countries' are complete authoritarian hellholes. But in hindsight this is a kind of thought-terminating cliche. I never really knew what the idea was apart from some vague notion about sharing or something that's well intentioned but never works out in practice. I think most people share this belief.

Turns out the idea is pretty simple: Worker ownership and control. Places like the USSR and China fail this definition because they don't have any of that. Therefore they are not socialist. Those countries replicate the worker/owner dynamic of Capitalism, so it is 'State Capitalism'. And they both have the same problem: A small group of people have all the power and they fuck over everyone else.

I had to get sold on the specific idea of 'market socialism' / ' workplace democracy ' before I learned and realised this. The general idea is that if you can run a country like a democracy, you can run a business like one too. In fact, many are. So lets do that as much as possible in order to wrestle power away from the owner class who spend all of their money bribing politicians and ruining everything.

I like democracy

The idea behind it, making life that little bit more fair. It wouldn't work, but as miguided as it might be, it's born of empathy and that's worth something.

I like the idea of a deliberate and rational society. Unfortunately we need to be cautious with this kind of thing and pay attention to where others have failed in the past.

It addresses the crudeness of the hand that deals some people, rather than assume equal opportunism is automatic.

To me, it's all about rational return on investment providing economic incentives to achieve what we want to achieve.

My favorite example to explain what I mean is my own personal health insurance. I have a chronic medical condition that requires constant medication, frequent visits to specialists, and expensive medical tests and procedures. There is simply zero chance that I will ever pay enough in a monthly premium to cover what I cost. Meaning I am always a net financial loss for a private, for-profit insurance company.

This gives a private company every incentive in the world to obstruct and deny my care in hopes that I'll get frustrated and give up, or maybe even die and get off their books forever.

The government, on the other hand, has a positive financial incentive to keep me healthy. If I am healthy, I am working, paying taxes, buying goods and services that contribute to the economy, and hopefully contributing something beneficial to my community. Only the government (acting as a proxy for "society") naturally profits from insuring my healthcare.

This is why I believe we should have fully socialized medical care. Because there are some specific things that only the government has natural positive economic incentives that align with what is beneficial for the general public.

Whatever those things are, they should be socialized. And generally those things are basic life sustaining things like food, housing, medicine, education, utilities.

I'm fine with privatized capitalism in a very restricted, heavily regulated niche form. But all the basic necessities should be socialized.

It makes me feel like I fit in on internet discussions!! We're on the same team :)))

What do you like about capitalism?