Here we go again. This is what happens when people don’t understand the difference between an economic system and a system of government.
Capitalism and socialism are economic models. Democracy, authoritarianism, dictatorship, and communism are systems of government. They are not interchangeable, nor are they mutually exclusive.
You can have democratic capitalism, authoritarian capitalism, democratic socialism, and authoritarian socialism. History has provided examples of every combination.
Mass surveillance, censorship, political corruption, police abuse, and restrictions on protest are all functions of how a government exercises power. They are not inherent features of capitalism or socialism.
Posts like this don’t demonstrate some profound insight into economics. They demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of basic political science. The fact that this kind of meme gets shared uncritically is a good indication of just how widespread that ignorance has become online.
We have a blatant politically aligned trillionaire, capitalism has now become a power structure that will devour both, not by means of authority or force, just from the attrition of allowing a trillionaire to exist and by that very existence we will be consumed via interest alone. Everything is now resource control, and capitalism is the only lever of power because we’ve allowed one singular entity to have that level of capital influence and control.
Conceptually I agree, this is how these systems would be competently applied for stable political structures, but we’re not working with stable structures anymore and in practice that’s not how it’s been working. If we had politicians who actually understood political and economic systems and structures and gave the slightest shit about stability and longevity (this isn’t just America, this is a global statement) then these logics would apply, but nigh every politician is currently trying, feverishly, to hammer the square block through the round hole and they will die before they ever stop.
a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
It is a system government. Although the concept of communism is extremely complex. Ideally, it would be a classless society based on shared and equal equity.
Socialism is part of it of course, but one can exist without the other.
Lenin proposed that a vanguard party implement Marx-described socialism by force.
Lenin proposed that a vanguard party lead the proletariat in reasserting their control of domestic infrastructure. The funny thing is that Lenin’s biggest triumph wasn’t as a violent revolutionary, but a peace activist. His coup against the Mensheviks was in opposition to their continued prosecution of The Great War. It was, in effect, a soldier’s strike action.
So you have it totally ass backwards. First the Tsarists and then the Mensheviks implemented a policy of forced conscription and endless war. Then Lenin championed a radical response of mass desertion and refusal to fight. When the national leadership tried to force newly christened anti-war Communists back to the front lines - by threatening summary execution, corporal punishment, and indefinite detention in Tsarist gulags - they found themselves entirely outnumbers. And, as a result, their civil government collapsed on itself.
Afterwards, Lenin began issuing instructions on how to transform the Russian aristocratically managed economy into independently organized and managed worker’s soviets. Then he attempted to organize a bureaucracy that could knit the soviets together into an international economic network without relying on the traditional methods of market mechanics.
That second part - the actual functional implementation of the Marxist economic model - is what makes him a Communist in practice and not just another Tsar or President.
The reason why socialism gets stereotyped as authoritarian is that most hyper-capitalist societies are very resistant to becoming much more socialist in short order, so authoritarian factions emerge to make (violent) revolution, which begets an authoritarian system of government when those factions finish the revolution and are in a perfect position to fill the power vacuum.
Historically, every self-described socialist state has been authoritarian to one degree or another. China is the closest modern exception, but much of its economic growth came after it embraced market reforms and allowed significant private enterprise, features associated with capitalism.
Also, healthcare has nothing to do with whether a country is socialist or capitalist. Universal or government-funded healthcare isn’t inherently socialist. It’s simply a public policy that can exist under democracies, monarchies, capitalist economies, mixed economies, and even authoritarian states. Conflating public healthcare with socialism is a basic category error.
You’re not wrong exactly, but propaganda rsn’t about lies it’s about emphasis.
It would be like saying “people think Mexicans immigrants are violent criminals because they often come from poverty” instead of "people think Mexican iMmigrants are violent criminals because if there is one murder committed by a Mexican immigrant in a day of a thouand murders, Fox News will spend all day talking about that immigrant.” Sure, poverty might drive someone to crime, but the perception isn’t caused by the crime, it’s caused by warping reality to exclude context of all the other crimes–ie, propaganda.
Medicare is socialism. Social Security is socialism. Tri-care is socialism. Yet, when Americans hear “socialism” they think “Soviet totalatarianism”, not those things they rely on. That is the result of propaganda.
Then we agree but you wanted to frame it as us disagreeing in order to fight?
The stereotyping I referred to is the propaganda. But that propaganda would have zero fuel if it wasn’t for the authoritarian regimes I referred to. Where the propaganda comes in is implying that it’s the only way socialism can or has ever worked/happened at all.
Here let me help you (by using the same bad faith tactics you’re using against (y)our preferred economic model, not because I believe the following, but because it’s a ridiculous statement but allows you to view the same argument from a different perspective).
Socialism is when the people in the vanguard party make decisions for society.
Here we go again. This is what happens when people don’t understand the difference between an economic system and a system of government.
Capitalism and socialism are economic models. Democracy, authoritarianism, dictatorship, and communism are systems of government. They are not interchangeable, nor are they mutually exclusive.
You can have democratic capitalism, authoritarian capitalism, democratic socialism, and authoritarian socialism. History has provided examples of every combination.
Mass surveillance, censorship, political corruption, police abuse, and restrictions on protest are all functions of how a government exercises power. They are not inherent features of capitalism or socialism.
Posts like this don’t demonstrate some profound insight into economics. They demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of basic political science. The fact that this kind of meme gets shared uncritically is a good indication of just how widespread that ignorance has become online.
We have a blatant politically aligned trillionaire, capitalism has now become a power structure that will devour both, not by means of authority or force, just from the attrition of allowing a trillionaire to exist and by that very existence we will be consumed via interest alone. Everything is now resource control, and capitalism is the only lever of power because we’ve allowed one singular entity to have that level of capital influence and control.
Conceptually I agree, this is how these systems would be competently applied for stable political structures, but we’re not working with stable structures anymore and in practice that’s not how it’s been working. If we had politicians who actually understood political and economic systems and structures and gave the slightest shit about stability and longevity (this isn’t just America, this is a global statement) then these logics would apply, but nigh every politician is currently trying, feverishly, to hammer the square block through the round hole and they will die before they ever stop.
🙄 Communism isn’t an economic model?
It is in fact not.
Definition
It is a system government. Although the concept of communism is extremely complex. Ideally, it would be a classless society based on shared and equal equity.
Socialism is part of it of course, but one can exist without the other.
Can’t find this anywhere in the Manifesto
By Karl Marx?
I have literally provided you with a definition.
This is a pedantic comment; read “Marxist-Leninism” where you see “Communism” when a lot of people use the latter.
Marx and Lenin didn’t establish or implement economic models?
I’m far from a scholar on economics, let alone socialism or communism, but my understanding of the broad strokes would be:
Lenin proposed that a vanguard party implement Marx-described socialism by force. That one-two combination is called “communism” by many.
Lenin proposed that a vanguard party lead the proletariat in reasserting their control of domestic infrastructure. The funny thing is that Lenin’s biggest triumph wasn’t as a violent revolutionary, but a peace activist. His coup against the Mensheviks was in opposition to their continued prosecution of The Great War. It was, in effect, a soldier’s strike action.
So you have it totally ass backwards. First the Tsarists and then the Mensheviks implemented a policy of forced conscription and endless war. Then Lenin championed a radical response of mass desertion and refusal to fight. When the national leadership tried to force newly christened anti-war Communists back to the front lines - by threatening summary execution, corporal punishment, and indefinite detention in Tsarist gulags - they found themselves entirely outnumbers. And, as a result, their civil government collapsed on itself.
Afterwards, Lenin began issuing instructions on how to transform the Russian aristocratically managed economy into independently organized and managed worker’s soviets. Then he attempted to organize a bureaucracy that could knit the soviets together into an international economic network without relying on the traditional methods of market mechanics.
That second part - the actual functional implementation of the Marxist economic model - is what makes him a Communist in practice and not just another Tsar or President.
That’s a whole lot of writing just to say, “I agree, but I want to argue with you.”
Did he or did he not use violence to throw out the Tsarists and then the Mensheviks?
Was the party he (and his comrades) created a vanguard party or was it not?
I’ll never get people’s allergy to reading.
He described it as such. That doesn’t make it violent. Especially not within the historical context.
100%
The reason why socialism gets stereotyped as authoritarian is that most hyper-capitalist societies are very resistant to becoming much more socialist in short order, so authoritarian factions emerge to make (violent) revolution, which begets an authoritarian system of government when those factions finish the revolution and are in a perfect position to fill the power vacuum.
propaganda.
Keep the government out of my Medicare!
Historically, every self-described socialist state has been authoritarian to one degree or another. China is the closest modern exception, but much of its economic growth came after it embraced market reforms and allowed significant private enterprise, features associated with capitalism.
Also, healthcare has nothing to do with whether a country is socialist or capitalist. Universal or government-funded healthcare isn’t inherently socialist. It’s simply a public policy that can exist under democracies, monarchies, capitalist economies, mixed economies, and even authoritarian states. Conflating public healthcare with socialism is a basic category error.
No.
Not all misunderstandings are propaganda, but all propaganda intends to create misunderstandings.
You’re not wrong exactly, but propaganda rsn’t about lies it’s about emphasis.
It would be like saying “people think Mexicans immigrants are violent criminals because they often come from poverty” instead of "people think Mexican iMmigrants are violent criminals because if there is one murder committed by a Mexican immigrant in a day of a thouand murders, Fox News will spend all day talking about that immigrant.” Sure, poverty might drive someone to crime, but the perception isn’t caused by the crime, it’s caused by warping reality to exclude context of all the other crimes–ie, propaganda.
Medicare is socialism. Social Security is socialism. Tri-care is socialism. Yet, when Americans hear “socialism” they think “Soviet totalatarianism”, not those things they rely on. That is the result of propaganda.
Then we agree but you wanted to frame it as us disagreeing in order to fight?
The stereotyping I referred to is the propaganda. But that propaganda would have zero fuel if it wasn’t for the authoritarian regimes I referred to. Where the propaganda comes in is implying that it’s the only way socialism can or has ever worked/happened at all.
Democratic capitalism lmao.
Anything can be true when you make shit up
O man.
You realize the most successful countries on Earth are Democratic capitalists right?
MFW the entire US and most of the western world is imaginary.
Here let me help you.
Capitalism is when the people with capital make decisions for society.
You don’t get to vote on what happens.
Ah mr dunning Kruger
Here let me help you (by using the same bad faith tactics you’re using against (y)our preferred economic model, not because I believe the following, but because it’s a ridiculous statement but allows you to view the same argument from a different perspective).
Socialism is when the people in the vanguard party make decisions for society.
You don’t get to decide what happens.