Socialism. Production and distribution is owned by the community (government).
It has nothing to do with “Handouts”. Or helping your neighbor really.
There is no redistribution of wealth. That is communism.
Socialism with handouts is communism.
You could have a completely Socialistic society that let’s some of it’s people starve because it benefits the majority.
A great example to look at socialism is the nazi party creating Volkswagen.
People in Germany needed an affordable car. They created the production and distribution of affordable cars, owned and operated by the controlling government party.
Now, you can debate all you want on if it was a good or bad idea.
Average German looking for simple affordable car? Probably would think it was a good idea.
Rich German looking for a Duesenberg? Probably hates the idea of Volkswagen and spending their tax dollars on it.
Poor German? They aren’t getting a car anyways
A large government can easily have a monopoly on a good or service.
If that’s a good or bad thing is debatable
For example, say America was 100% Socialistic.
Government would gain access to all satalites and towers and issue the Volkstelefon. Affordable phone and internet for everyone!
Sounds great?
Imagine if tomorrow Trump issued his phone in that style.
Probably not a good idea?
So why all the hate?
ELI5: Because socialism is not always the right answer just like capitalism isn’t always the right answer.
Yeah, you show some spirit, but no, that’s not what those words mean, you even use them with different meanings - wiki/Socialism, wiki/Communism.
You misrepresented the two terms so badly I was looking for funny sarcasm/parody/trolling (eg “100% socialistic”, “hangouts/wealth redistribution is communism and socialism is communal ownership”, etc). Same with VW example.
And alleging “socialism” (actually ‘communism’, the communal ownership of production factors) is less secure for your personal freedoms than private companies owning your data is just lol. The gov has the same access. Atm private companies control a lot of gov too so you just don’t really have a gov of the people anymore.
Not to mention that socialism/communism is not incompatible with democracy.
You can have 0 private (mega)corps (for simplicity sake: that just means no stock markets) and still have a perfectly normal & representative democracy.
In fact, with people more engaged & putting the work into governance (not voting like a sports fan), that’s how you safeguard from fascism.
And yes, Trump can issue a phone in that style, since nobody is overthrowing him (is there even a codified procedure for that?).
You could have a completely Socialistic society that let’s some of it’s people starve because it benefits the majority.
Besides the word “socialistic” not meaning that (unless you meant that the choice was between ‘everybody starving’ and ‘a minority starving’) a majority can always outvote the minority, that is their moral prerogative. That is the opposite of a minority rule where the majority can starve (or be otherwise hindered/stolen from/enslaved/etc).
The difference is that with communal wealth the food production isn’t motivated by profit, but way more by food production quantity.
I think you might be confusing socialism and state capitalism here.
Socialism. Production and distribution is owned by the community (government).
This is a somewhat inaccurate definition. Socialism is the social ownership of means of production that does not necessarily mean the government. It comes in many forms such as democratic ownership by the employees (worker cooperatives), community ownership like utility providers being owned by the town and townsfolk, or state ownership if the state is democratically elected and accountable to the working class.
The concept of democratic and social ownership would be lost in an authoritarian state.
It has nothing to do with “Handouts”. Or helping your neighbor really.
There is no redistribution of wealth. That is communism.
Socialism with handouts is communism.
Both socialism and communism are concerned with redistribution of wealth. They just disagree on the method. Socialists believe that by eliminating capitalism and with progressive taxation wealth redistribution becomes inevitable, whole communists thinks this will only be achieved with a powerful state to oversee the redistribution process.
You could have a completely Socialistic society that let’s some of it’s people starve because it benefits the majority.
This scenario contradicts the core moral and political goal of socialism which is ensuring the wellbeing of all member of the community by ending the exploitation inherited in capitalism. A system that allows this scenario is just unethical authoritarianism regardless of what people call it or think it is.
A great example to look at socialism is the nazi party creating Volkswagen.
The nazi party was socialist in name only. It was essentially a fascist regime that crushed actual socialist and communist movements, and imprisoned and murdered labour leaders. They also didn’t nationalize the majority of industry and relied heavily on forced labour.
Again this fits state capitalism better than socialism. It’s essentially the state controlling corporates instead of the social and democratic ownership by the working class that socialism seeks.
A large government can easily have a monopoly on a good or service.
For example, say America was 100% Socialistic.
Government would gain access to all satalites and towers and issue the Volkstelefon. Affordable phone and internet for everyone!
Imagine if tomorrow Trump issued his phone in that style.
thats a valid point but primary against state control not socialism itself.
In an ideal socialist system this Volkstelefon would be owned by a democratic entity rather than an elite group of politicians in a flawed democratic government. This entity would probably consist of worker and consumer representatives with the common goal of providing affordable high quality service that’s also fair to both the workers and consumers.
Your concern here is also shared with most socialists.
While yes socialism can some time manifest itself in the form of state ownership that’s never the ideal situation since it can easily transform into state capitalism if the state decisions weren’t representative of the workers’ will (which is usually the case in non-direct democracy systems).
Socialism. Production and distribution is owned by the community (government).
It has nothing to do with “Handouts”. Or helping your neighbor really.
There is no redistribution of wealth. That is communism.
Socialism with handouts is communism.
You could have a completely Socialistic society that let’s some of it’s people starve because it benefits the majority.
A great example to look at socialism is the nazi party creating Volkswagen.
People in Germany needed an affordable car. They created the production and distribution of affordable cars, owned and operated by the controlling government party.
Now, you can debate all you want on if it was a good or bad idea.
Average German looking for simple affordable car? Probably would think it was a good idea.
Rich German looking for a Duesenberg? Probably hates the idea of Volkswagen and spending their tax dollars on it.
Poor German? They aren’t getting a car anyways
A large government can easily have a monopoly on a good or service.
If that’s a good or bad thing is debatable
For example, say America was 100% Socialistic.
Government would gain access to all satalites and towers and issue the Volkstelefon. Affordable phone and internet for everyone!
Sounds great?
Imagine if tomorrow Trump issued his phone in that style.
Probably not a good idea?
So why all the hate?
ELI5: Because socialism is not always the right answer just like capitalism isn’t always the right answer.
Yeah, you show some spirit, but no, that’s not what those words mean, you even use them with different meanings - wiki/Socialism, wiki/Communism.
You misrepresented the two terms so badly I was looking for funny sarcasm/parody/trolling (eg “100% socialistic”, “hangouts/wealth redistribution is communism and socialism is communal ownership”, etc). Same with VW example.
And alleging “socialism” (actually ‘communism’, the communal ownership of production factors) is less secure for your personal freedoms than private companies owning your data is just lol. The gov has the same access. Atm private companies control a lot of gov too so you just don’t really have a gov of the people anymore.
Not to mention that socialism/communism is not incompatible with democracy.
You can have 0 private (mega)corps (for simplicity sake: that just means no stock markets) and still have a perfectly normal & representative democracy.
In fact, with people more engaged & putting the work into governance (not voting like a sports fan), that’s how you safeguard from fascism.
And yes, Trump can issue a phone in that style, since nobody is overthrowing him (is there even a codified procedure for that?).
Besides the word “socialistic” not meaning that (unless you meant that the choice was between ‘everybody starving’ and ‘a minority starving’) a majority can always outvote the minority, that is their moral prerogative. That is the opposite of a minority rule where the majority can starve (or be otherwise hindered/stolen from/enslaved/etc).
The difference is that with communal wealth the food production isn’t motivated by profit, but way more by food production quantity.
I think you might be confusing socialism and state capitalism here.
This is a somewhat inaccurate definition. Socialism is the social ownership of means of production that does not necessarily mean the government. It comes in many forms such as democratic ownership by the employees (worker cooperatives), community ownership like utility providers being owned by the town and townsfolk, or state ownership if the state is democratically elected and accountable to the working class.
The concept of democratic and social ownership would be lost in an authoritarian state.
Both socialism and communism are concerned with redistribution of wealth. They just disagree on the method. Socialists believe that by eliminating capitalism and with progressive taxation wealth redistribution becomes inevitable, whole communists thinks this will only be achieved with a powerful state to oversee the redistribution process.
This scenario contradicts the core moral and political goal of socialism which is ensuring the wellbeing of all member of the community by ending the exploitation inherited in capitalism. A system that allows this scenario is just unethical authoritarianism regardless of what people call it or think it is.
The nazi party was socialist in name only. It was essentially a fascist regime that crushed actual socialist and communist movements, and imprisoned and murdered labour leaders. They also didn’t nationalize the majority of industry and relied heavily on forced labour.
Again this fits state capitalism better than socialism. It’s essentially the state controlling corporates instead of the social and democratic ownership by the working class that socialism seeks.
thats a valid point but primary against state control not socialism itself.
In an ideal socialist system this Volkstelefon would be owned by a democratic entity rather than an elite group of politicians in a flawed democratic government. This entity would probably consist of worker and consumer representatives with the common goal of providing affordable high quality service that’s also fair to both the workers and consumers.
Your concern here is also shared with most socialists.
While yes socialism can some time manifest itself in the form of state ownership that’s never the ideal situation since it can easily transform into state capitalism if the state decisions weren’t representative of the workers’ will (which is usually the case in non-direct democracy systems).