Used Stalin for laughs but not talking communism. “Small-s” socialism: The basic idea we are responsible for and to each other.

Let's first make one thing clear. Stalin was a socialist-in-name-only. His politics had very little to do with the philosophies Engels and Marx stood for. Stalin was an oppressor, the very thing Engels and Marx wanted to end with socialism.

Now I don't want to connect this to Trump or any politician in particular. The extreme of socialism is that everybody gets as much as everybody else. Share fairly, or so to speak. This way nobody would be rich, so nobody would be more important, and nobody would be poor and as such nobody would be insignificant, and so all misery would disappear from the world. That is the idea behind socialism.

It never worked, because strong leadership is needed to make sure everybody gets their fair share and that people don't try to get more. Engels and Marx rejected the entire idea of leadership as that would make others more important than you, and those with power abuse that power and then more would be destructed than be made better. Well Stalin proved Engels and Marx were right on that point.

Of course, money also brings power and people with power abuse that power. If we look at the U.S. political system were the one who pays most dictates, since how well your presidential campaign is funded depends on those people, and they want something back for that. Guns have not been banned in the US, not because of the 2nd amendment, but because the NRA pays to keep them legal. If that is a good or bad thing is now irrelevant, but that is in reality how things go. In a socialist system this should technically not be possible.

The solution always lies in the middle ground. Capitalism allows a free market, and grants freedom to both seller as buyer, and allows the market to offer what people want. Downside, some get rich, others get poor, rich dominate poor. Communism makes everybody the same, downside, too much regulation and stagnation and hard to keep in line without becoming what you wanna destroy.
So why not try to combine the good of both. Allow a free market, yet have some background for those who couldn't keep up. This is the setup in countries like the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, and it overall works pretty good. This too has its cons, as the perfect system cannot exist.

Being either capitalist or communist is seeking the extremes only. Being a bit of both. Black-white thinking only gets you so far.

Well said Jeroen. I personally prefer a mixed economy myself. A completely unregulated market just results in a monopoly taking over since they can afford to undercut the competition. However, a market completely controlled by the government results in stagnation since the government isn’t very good at predicting what goods and services different people want or need. Therefore a mixed economy is the best approach since it’s a bit of a balacing act for both sides.

However, I don’t think that was the point Kylie was going for. His takeaway seemed more to me like Orange Hitler wants us all dead, therefore we need socialism. I will never accept the US becoming a socialist state, as I believe that will lead to our collapse. However, I have no problem with social programs and safety nets. When you stumble in life, it’s nice to know it’s not game over for you since there are programs to help give you a hand up in life. I support having food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, and all the other assistance programs the government provides. Ideally, I would like to see a National Health Service to compete with private insurance, publicly funded training courses for jobs that are essential to keep our country and economy running, and perhaps even a Freedom Dividend like the one Andrew Yang proposed. I don’t see those happening in the future, but thise are changes I would like to see discussed, debated, and hopefully implemented someday.

Ah, your political compass test makes a little more sense now. Like I hate the idea of social security for example. I'd rather have my money instead of giving it to the government of all things just so they can give it back to me later. That's not exactly a mainstream Republican belief though.

But yes, I agree that it simply cannot be a 100% free market.

Yeah, I see Social Security more as backup retirement income that everyone has access to. My grandfather worked for a company all his life and was set up to retire a millionaire thanks to the pension his company provided. However, a few years before his retirement, the company went under and he lost it all. It’s because of Social Security he’s able to enjoy retirement instead of still working.

I guess that's as good a reason as any for supporting it.

I definitely am capitalist, however, there are some really bad things a 100% free market can do.

The best example of this is trusts/monopolies. If allowed, a few companies would be able to dominate an entire industry, set prices, and dictate wages. That's obviously not good and when it gets to that point it's not really a free market anyway.

Same thing goes for things like putting a bunch of crap in food and then lying about it.

There have to be some limitations and that's just the way it is.

True. There is a limit to everything and even a capitalist will have to acknowledge that there is also a limit to a free market, and indeed, that a free market can threaten a free market due to the forming of monopolies, sounds ironic, but is unfortunately true.

Indeed it is. I'd rather have the government be more involved than have companies I can't control/elect running things.

We've managed it this far, of course we can afford it.

That's not to say that some limitations on a completely free market aren't needed. For example: trusts/monopolies. If allowed, a few companies would be able to dominate an entire industry, set prices, and dictate wages. That's obviously not good and when it gets to that point it's not really a free market anyway.

Same thing goes for things like putting a bunch of crap in food and then lying about it.

That doesn't mean we should go to socialism. Everyone's super poor in socialism.

USSR was socialist btw

The commenters here have a better understanding overall about capitalism vs. socialism vs. a mixed economy than your run of the mill “politics” commenters do. It’s still difficult to define.

In general I think socialism is one of those “ask 100 people, get 100 different definitions” kind of words.

Example: The Right-leaning PM of Denmark went out of his way to clarify that Denmark was not a “socialist planned economy.” And he was right!

But in an American content, advocating the levels of taxation and social spending that a country like Denmark has often gets Bernie Sanders thrown in the “socialist“ bin. And indeed, Bernie places himself there as well. Even though he doesn’t want to seize the means of production or put everyone on food stamps or anything like that. The blanket cancellation of all student debt is one thing he promoted that’s quite anti-capitalist though it would have no prayer of ever being enacted even if he won.

A few other things often labeled “socialist“ rightly or wrongly:

—Pro-environment policies? Socialist.
—Pro-public health policies: including but not face masks, vaccines, merely listening to Dr. Fauci, merely funding the CDC? All have been labeled socialist in the last few months.
—Police reform and/or defunding: Socialist.
—Welfare benefits: Including social security and Medicare? Called socialist but also, pretty much socialist.

So yeah. “Socialist” can mean its dictionary definition, or something close to it, or it can be a politicized insult hurled at any left-of-center policy or frankly any government policy at all depending on whom you ask.

Eh, economically socialism is easy enough to spot. It's when you get into other political aspects that it gets interesting. What's especially difficult is deciding the line between it and communism, or if there even is any difference at all.

But really, socialism boils down to the government taking your money and handing it out to someone else for free.

I'll tell you what's the worst though, corporate welfare. Anyone who advocates for socialism on the basis of fairness should hate it too. It gives out free money to businesses that the government deems too big to fail. It goes against capitalism and it goes against the equality for the poor message that socialists try to preach.

...and as long as you consider yourself someone the government "takes away" money from to give to someone else for free - as a lot of media outlets will tell you - you will be opposed to any social programs ever. But all insurances work like this - you pay them in the hope you'll never need them but you can't expect them to help you in times of need if you didn't pay anything before. And social security is in a nutshell nothing other than an insurance. Yes, you don't need a health insurance if you never get sick. But what if you do? Same goes for unemployment: You don't need it until you do. In a society where everyone just assumes they don't need any help ever and that only happens to other people so don't take away my hard earned money people who suddenly do need help just fall through the system and end up on the street or dead. And, not even thinking about morals or social obligation or whatever, but do you want to live in a society where there are people living on the street with nothing to lose because they literally have nothing left who can see that you still have something? Or do you want to be able to walk around safely without an armored van and safety guards? The "upper middle class" is already hiding in gated communities and paying loads of money to build walls and fences and have guards with weapons at every gate. It would be much cheaper to just as a society give everyone who could pose a threat something to live for. I don't care how far left or right you are politically but economically it makes sense to have some sort of social security for the less fortunate even if you are absolutely sure you, personally, will never need it.

People shouldn't be dependent on the government to take care of them financially. If they saved that money wisely instead of having the government take it to give back later, they'd have the same money (maybe more) and it wouldn't cost the government to do it.

Not everyone can save up money first. What about people who don't have rich parents to pay for their college and have to work two jobs to even be able to afford going to college at all? What if they don't immediately find a job afterwards? What if they lose one of their jobs during? What about people who only ever had a job that barely paid for their living? What if they lose their job at age 50? Maybe they have worked very hard to at least have something left for retirement and now they don't find a job immediately and every next month without new income is eating another month or more away from their retirement. Like I said, it's the same situation as health insurance. Sure, everybody could save up a little in case they ever get sick. But that doesn't work for everybody. What if you have cancer and aren't a millionaire? Treatment can get very expensive very quickly. What if you break your leg when you're 19? What money did you have saved up at age 19? I mean, sure, you could just let everyone die who is too poor to afford anything unplanned to happen to them - that would solve overpopulation too... 🤷

Well college is too expensive, especially considering that they receive government funding.

You have to pay money to be able to have that. That's part of taxes. If it weren't for those taxes to fund those programs, those people COULD have more money and they wouldn't have to rely on the government for it.

If you want to buy insurance fine, just don't make me pay for it too.

Just out of curiosity: If you lost your job right now, how long would your savings last you?

Long enough. That's the point of saving, so you can be self-sufficient.

Context*

Thought I’d submit this one to Think_Tank since I saw updated stream terms that it is now trying to be a place for respectful political discussion.

Ran out of room in the title so here’s a fuller explanation:

A racist, bigoted, dog-eat-dog and winner-take-all society that accepts no responsibility for the environment or public health imposes real costs that can actually be tallied on a balance sheet.

We’ve seen this in spades this year. The fallout of Trump’s failed coronavirus response is immense and may never be fully tallied. The police brutality and the riots they provoked have killed, injured, and caused economic damage as well, even if greatly exaggerated by right wing media.

Basic point being: We live in a society and our government has to actually work for us, or we will all suffer, both in terms of our humanity and in terms of our pocketbooks.

The Joker is maybe not the best avatar for this idea, but that is the meme and ergo here it is.