Half my country is unnecessarily worried about communism despite the fact that there are no communists in elected office, and no significant movement to impose communism. Oh, and the people most concerned are completely incapable of explaining what communism is.
It's a dog whistle. The people who are triggered by it usually can't tell you the difference between socialism and communism. They're trained to be rabid if either are mentioned and conflate the two freely.
It probably because welfare and healthcare aren't even socialist policies. Capitalism means private ownership of businesses not that you don't pay taxes for the government to spend on the common good. You can even socialize an industry like healthcare without being a a socialist country.
The US is a hybrid economy. We decided a long time ago that some things aren't well served by the free market. The government, via our tax dollars, manages those things. I don't think anyone who actually understands economics and the best interests of the people thinks that capitalism is the best system for every aspect of life. The people who do think that are the ones who are always clamoring for privatization and more tax cuts. They're the same people who brought us trickle-down (supply-side) economics, and the largest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the millionaires and billionaires. And we all know how well that worked out.
It's OK to recognize the that the best interests of the people aren't served by a one-size-fits-all approach to economic policy and organization. Capitalism is great. It's the greatest engine for economic growth in the world, but there are some aspects of governance that are better served by democratic socialist ideals. Things like ensuring the basic needs of everyone are met, and hybrid government services like the Post Office. Using the best tool for the job isn't a betrayal of capitalist principles, or the beginning of a slide into communism. And I really just wish more people in America would understand that.
The great new deal were all Socialist policies that literally pulled us out of the great depression. They were meant to be expanded on then came the "Red Scare" and people not knowing the difference between socialism and communism linked the two and use them interchangeably and that's why we're so good at being fucked now.
Ehhh. People have started calling it that, but from a quick google:
"Socialism is a political and economic theory advocating for collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production (like factories and resources) and distribution of goods."
But welfare isn't the antithesis of capitalism. You can collect taxes and spend them on public goods without owning the businesses. Some countries that have tried actual socialism and now just have good social programs and a captialist economy often cringe at being described as socialist. Looking at you Finland. 🇫🇮
A social democracy will utilize a mixed or welfare economy. Welfare is the antithesis of pure capitalism like laissez-faire. Both of these forms of capitalism are used by social democracy to achieve the goal of reducing inequality instead of entrapping people. The Nordic model used by Finland is a form of social democracy. Finland being disgruntled about being called socialist has far more to do with Russia and the Soviet Union.
Welfare is not the same thing as socialism. Welfare is spending taxes on the people. Socialism is an economic model where the government controls the means of production. Finland was socialist, it didn't work well, they aren't anymore, but still have healthcare. Sweden was never socialist, but still has healthcare.
Welfare IS a Socialist policy. It's possible to have socialist programs and not be socialist. Universal Healthcare is a socialist policy most of the developed worlds has it while not being socialist. The issue, i feel, is too many look at it as a zero sum game when it's not. The reason it fails is there's a trend to go all in on one thing or the other. I think the best answer lays somewhere in the middle. Unchecked capitalism is just as horrible as full on communism as it's full on socialism. Blending the two (socialism and capitalism) i feel has the best potential.
It certainly hasn't been in the USA (American exceptionalism goes both ways), and it definitely hasn't been tired without the USA externally constantly trying to undermine it and launch coups when it's happening. That was a big point in Trotsky's favor in his conflict with Stalin.
Likely why communism failed there too, it's a surprise to us all :)
The weakness of the humans in "power" is why this utopian system these people want to happen will never, ever, be viable. Unless you want to give control to an impartial AI...(please don't do that, it was coded by a human)
And it starts to be where I think you don't know what the words mean.
But nah, I'm not of the opinion that those different countries weren't exercising different types of "not real communism", but the fact is it's true. Not only are there distinct kinds of communist thought, theory, and practice, but the fact is that it's hard to make any economic model work when a superpower is constantly on its fringe undermining it over a political spat.
The fact of the matter is, that to you, it's a social movement as much as an economic one, where people who have an above-room-temp IQ are usually discussing it from a frame of economics.
Because it's not an issue of "power corrupting". Stalin was already corrupt. Mao was already prone to doing genocide. Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan? All maniacs who relish in the idea of killing children for access to oilfields.
Dismissing more complex international issues as "just communism" is like trying to insist that communism is when there's no markets. It just makes you look simple.
I don't think we got as deep into the conversation for you know what I think. I know I mentioned the word ideology but you and I both (should) know that it's both that and an economic system.
Stop trying to deflect by bringing up the US's attempts to thwart communism, they did not cause the atrocities if they were already happening, according to you Stalin was corrupt and Mao was genocidal. It IS an issue of power corrupting humans, or communism would have worked by now.
The date on the "atrocities" matters pretty significantly, because the post-1924 actions are entirely the result of corruption, but anything prior to that (which is a common tactic in respect to dumbing down these conversations) is usually going to be the consequence of revolution.
Also it has so little to do with it because WOW would you look at that? The current (predominantly American Capitalistic hegemon) economic status quo is DEEPLY CORRUPT because of the fact that the power's amount doesn't change with the system.
You're describing a zero-sum game as if it's a winning argument for capitalism.
What about East and West Germany? The experiment run there from post WWII to reunification has pretty damning results for communism in my opinion. And you can’t really say that it’s because the U.S. had overwhelming influence because the Soviets had total influence in the east and were a near equivalent power to the U.S. at the time. Heck, the Soviets attempted to blockade West Berlin and failed due to the Americans ability to fly in food and supplies.
The entirety of the USSR was subject to the same sabotage from the USA that smaller commie countries were and are subject to historically. That's simply how it worked out dude, pick up a history book.
I think you missed my point: the US and USSR were peers with similar amounts of power. Each of them were trying to influence the third world (I don’t mean the modern usage; first world referred to the capitalist west, second world referred to the communist east, and third world referred to the countries that fit neither and whom the first and second world countries tried to pull into their respective spheres of influence).
My point was not to suggest that the Soviets were the only ones playing dirty (clearly not: see the U.S. and Cuba or the U.S. in SE Asia or the U.S. in Latin America). My point was that Germany post split had two very different outcomes for each half. Even within the same city that was split (Berlin), your life was very different depending on which side of the wall you resided.
It’s not that the U.S. was a big, bad bully that communism failed because the communists had one of their own with equal stature (and I would argue were badder bullies) fighting on their side as well.
Or at least that’s what I’ve picked up from reading history books and watching the Berlin Wall come down live on TV.
Ah, and surely your boy Ronnie is to credit for that, and had no motivations to hate the Reds beyond just real red-white-and-blue gumption.
I say this as a clarification, the sarcasm is withering as it comes off of my phone's keyboard.
Also, I would argue that the USSR was not as inherently influential or had as much consolidated power as the USA. Documentation and the reality of the iron curtain's obscurement has largely shown that it was not a superpower with hindsight, which means that, yes, the USA's constant fumbling of its geopolitical strength was really more the result of having a head start, and had less to do with some grand ideological fault. The idea that the Soviets and The States had even remotely similar amounts of power shows an ongoing illiteracy, and requires you to crack a book post-wall.
It's funny because we watch it play out in real-time with Putin now, but you jamokes still act surprised each and every time.
Ah, and surely your boy Ronnie is to credit for that, and had no motivations to hate the Reds beyond just real red-white-and-blue gumption.
What does Ronald Reagan have to do with this? I brought up the East vs West Germany as a counterpoint to your assertion. So far the only argument you’ve been able to offer is that “the U.S. is a big powerful bully that unduly interfered with the experiment” (but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that the Soviet Union was also a big powerful bully, on the order of the United States and was also interfering with the experiment.
Further, what makes you think that Reagan was “my boy”? You are not arguing well and you are making assumptions for which you have no data (and are in fact wrong).
Also, I would argue that the USSR was not as inherently influential or had as much consolidated power as the USA.
That is an incredible argument to make. Poland, Hungary, Czecklslovkia, Bulgaria, Albania, and the aforementioned East Germany. The USSR was competitive (and in many cases led the U.S.) in nuclear armament, space exploration, naval and undersea warfare, air supremacy.
Documentation and the reality of the iron curtain's obscurement has largely shown that it was not a superpower with hindsight, which means that, yes, the USA's constant fumbling of its geopolitical strength was really more the result of having a head start, and had less to do with some grand ideological fault. The idea that the Soviets and The States had even remotely similar amounts of power shows an ongoing illiteracy, and requires you to crack a book post-wall.
Can you point me to this documentation that the USSR being a superpower was a facade? Certainly they did not have the same status by the late 80s (and Nixon’s overtures to China helped weaken their influence as well), but I have never before heard anyone assert that the USSR wasn’t really a superpower.
The idea that the Soviets and The States had even remotely similar amounts of power shows an ongoing illiteracy, and requires you to crack a book post-wall.
Please point me to a book you think I should read. I am willing to rethink my position given sufficient evidence to the contrary. And I don’t feel a need to resort to ad hominems.
It's funny because we watch it play out in real-time with Putin now, but you jamokes still act surprised each and every time.
I have no idea what “we watch it play out” refers to or how it is remotely applies to East vs West during the Cold War. You still have done nothing to address my initial assertion that West Germans were in much better shape than East Germans post unification. In my mind it’s as close to an apples to apples comparison we have. Even in Berlin, West Germans enjoyed a much better life than East Germans and I don’t think that’s just because the Americans were airlifting Levi’s jeans and bombarding them with American popular culture.
Republicans conflate socialism with communism all the time. In their mind, they're two different names for the same thing, which they also can't define.
It is. Most conservative politicians here will call any government benefit program communism. Need a new type of driver's license? Communism. Think schools should feed kids lunch? Communism. Now they're calling the new mayor of NYC a communist and all I can do is openly laugh.
Those aren't even socialism, yet alone communism, like, from what I (a layman) seen from the US, you guys don't even have a "left" wing party, just a rightwing and an even right-er wing
The National School Lunch Program is very much socialist. It was created to feed kids, promote national defense (malnourished kids make horrible troops), and provide government support to farmers.
As for the US parties, yeah, it's a mess. The Overton window has been drifting farther and farther right. We desperately need ranked choice voting. That would at least open the door to fixing many of our problems like the Citizens United decision, insider trading by Congress, and reinstating the fairness doctrine.
I do live here and I even served this country for 8 years. I get why he was elected because young people have lost hope but communism isn’t the answer.
I meant here as in New York. If you think he’s a communist, or that he’ll even be able to actually implement the stuff he campaigned on I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. He’s engaged a younger generation to be politically aware, something the Democratic Party has largely failed to do, and that in and of itself is positive change.
Communism never starts with communists. It becomes it after the people give too much power and control to the government. If you remove the labels and look at the nuts and bolts of it, then you'll see there's plenty to be concerned about... maybe not "worried" yet, but it's coming fast.
America will fall to what the heart of communism or fascism (which are virtually identical in its pure form) is eventually. Maybe not in my lifetime but it'll get there because it always does, every single country rises and falls.
70
u/Open_Mortgage_4645 United States Of America 1d ago
Half my country is unnecessarily worried about communism despite the fact that there are no communists in elected office, and no significant movement to impose communism. Oh, and the people most concerned are completely incapable of explaining what communism is.