Rightists: "Socialism is when the poors get any manner of social benefit."
Never mind that the poors are the primary source of the funds for said benefit. We live in a system where the rich control a system that allows them to plunder from the poor and funnel those funds to themselves.
Capitalism is theft, and theft is capitalism. Capitalism is good.
But pooling our collective resources for the general benefit of all us... that's bad. That's socialism.
How DARE the plebes be allowed to spend their money on themselves when some multimillionaires that destroyed their billion dollar businesses need a bigger yacht and a fourth European vacation home!?
🎶 The global network of capital essentially functions To separate the worker from the means of production! 🎶
https://youtu.be/oDQXFNWuZj8?si=zBHjeAQ_TK88HCIj (stay tuned for the second half)
But the workers literally control the means of production. We could decide not to turn on the machines until those with the capital give us more of it. That's called a strike. There's a couple in the U.S. that appear to be going well. I'm hopeful that other executives will figure out that they must help the workers or that more strikes occur to help them learn that lesson.
Years ago, when I started getting over my conservative upbringing, I was telling a friend--in an awkward incoherent manner--how I thought we needed to radically reform healthcare in the US.
She detected my mental struggle and said, "Socialism is not a dirty word".
That simple phrase cut through my conflicted brain. It's embarrassing how indoctrinated I was, and how I needed permission from a smart person to just accept the obvious.
I wonder how many other doofuses out there are like I was. They just need the right phrase at the right time from someone they respect.
If it is available to all it is socialism. If it is only available to the wealthy then it is theft of national resources or graft.
But those aren't socialism. They're rich people jerking each other off while laughing in the face of us low socioeconomic peasants.
But wages aren't socialism either.
And health care and food programs also aren't socialism, they're social programs, which are very different things from socialism.
🤣
I mean, they're kinda right. Taking money out of society to give to the rich isn't socialism.
When the government does stuff, it's socialism. And if the government does more stuff, its more socialism. And if the government does a whole lot of stuff? Its communism.
No lie detected.
And then you have the capitalism sycophants that come and intentionally muddy the waters in bad faith by being pedants and demanding the term only apply to the oldest, largely outdated definition of socialism, in order to derail the conversation in exactly the same way the gun nuts intentionally derail gun control conversations in bad faith by being pedents about the term "assault rifle."
Because language, definitions, and terms don't evolve constantly. A living language is static.
Yond's wherefore we continueth to talketh to one anoth'r liketh this.
(That's why we still talk to each other like this.)
There's being pedantic and then there's insisting people use terms precisely. "Socialism" has multiple established meanings which can conflict with each other and sabotage communication when there's ambiguity about which you're trying to use. I personally try to avoid terms like that entirely for that reason, it's a waste of time to sit around clarifying misunderstandings like that.
Funny his socialism seems to sound like a negative word in the us, while capitalism has the sale bad connotation in the mind of many Europeans !
He who controls the narrative...
This always gets me... some Americans will bitch about gas prices till the fucking cows come home. Yet they have some of the most heavily subsidized fuel in the world.
Because it's never cheap enough to traverse enough of the land to live in one of our beautiful, cookie-cutter sprawling suburbs and work in the city like many do.
The average American drives so much I think they have forgotten that other ways to live are even possible.
I mean they have roads in suburbs without sidewalks, it's insanity.
America is also a car centric nation. Oil and gas companies have spent decades preventing any sort of alternative travel options to traverse the country. Ever wonder why the US has some of the worst passenger rail lines in the world or why every major US city doesn't have some sort of functioning mass transit system?
But to your point, yeah some of my neighbors won't shut the fuck up about the goddamned gas prices.
Canada is a great example of a car centric nation that doesn't subsidize (as heavily) fuel.
Shit, in my province, from my city to the next large city (over 300k) is 340km away. Just one road small towns scattered in between
Edit to clairify: subsidizing is dumb but also not investing in rapid transport between hubs is equally as dumb.
Not entirely wrong
None of those statements are socialism
Well, it's not wrong. But for the wrong reasons.
some people called it back them, but politicians still did their thing
Socialism is when free money.
When poor people get free money.
Fund the property, not the citizen. /s
