• TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Again, it boils down to “define socialism”.

    Are we talking about USSR, Cuba and China-type socialism? Then they are all those things.

    But if we’re talking about Finland, Denmark Sweden and Norway-socialism, then I’m on board with socialism!

    • coldy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The problem is that none of the countries you listed were ever socialist. Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway are just capitalist countries with good social policies.

      And as much as their propagandists wish they did, the USSR, Cuba and China never got past the state capitalism part of establishing socialism.

      There has never really been a socialist country in the world, it’s a bit of a moot point to go like “I like this kind of socialism but not this kind” when nobody ever got to see it…

      • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That’s my point. Socialism developed a broad meaning as time went on. Before, it started to mean simply demanding better worker’s rights and conditions. But evolved to mean businesses owned by workers. Eventually, communism came into the scene and started to promote stateless society run by the proletariat. Then with so many people being turned off by the violence of communism, the more moderate left-- social democrats-- advocated to implement socialism through political and electoral mobilisation. But even then, as time progressed, social democrats abandoned their attempts to implement wholesale socialism and instead rein capitalism with sweeping regulations, instead of abolishing capitalism. Nonetheless, even though social democracy still embraced capitalism, the ideology is still considered under the wide tent of socialism but further right to it.

        • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          IIRC communism was the original Das Kapital version, and socialism came into being as “communism-lite” not really following Marx’s ideal but giving some good things to workers

          • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            The term socialism was first coined in 1832, way before Das Kapital has been published in 1866. But before Karl Marx, socialism as we know it wasn’t something that is fully solid despite the term already being coined. During 1848 liberal revolution, there were some who participated who’d be considered “socialists”, but they don’t necessarily know what they want.

            • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              That’s really cool! Thanks for the context I hadn’t known about that broader current of socialist thinking

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      Define the Nordic Model. It’s not socialism what they have. At best it’s a social democracy. They still run on a capitalistic system. Not to mention they are crawling to the right.

    • MBM@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Using socialist to mean “has social policies” is weird to me (and some of the Nordics aren’t in a great state government-wise right now)

    • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Are the Chinese antisemitic? I don’t even think they qualify by Israel’s stupid definition of the word, since they support the UN borders.

      • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Socialism has a broad definition than antisemitism. Does it mean worker-run businesses? Businesses run by the government on behalf of workers? Or should society be organised by commune?

        Anti-semitism is anti-semitism. Nevermind what Hasbara says and the Israeli state weaponising the term to their convenience, anti-semitism just means being bigoted against Jews.

        • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Some Chinese people believe in antisemitic tropes that Jews secretly rule the world.

          So because some Chinese citizens believe conspiracy theories, you claim that the government itself is antisemitic? That’s the weakest anti-China bash I’ve ever seen, dude.

            • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              me: Are the Chinese antisemitic?

              you: Yes

              it was clear from the context that I wasn’t talking about individuals who happen to be chinese, but the socialist chinese government

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                It was not clear to me. Do you think it’s possible that not everything you say is universally understood by everyone to be what you mean to say?

                You know, sort of like how it wasn’t clear to you that I never said anything about the government?