How will socialism in the US be different from other failed attempts at socialism?

[Adam Jensen]

That the countries cited as example like Scandinavia, Canada etc don't have socialists in any major position, and are not socialist countries. Some parties originated as reformist socialist - but have changed and changed label.

Actual socialist, like DSA in the US, still exist in most countries - and thus to be clear it's best to use the correct label.

However, you have failed to understand this difference for years; so don't expect an answer.

Sure, but Canada and Scandinavia and those examples are what Liberals are looking at for what they want in the US.

It's the right who can't get the labels right and scream COMMUNISM! at everything left of them.

[Themius]

So, about 50% then? Great!

They're a minority. Not 50% at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, but Canada and Scandinavia and those examples are what Liberals are looking at for what they want in the US.

It's the right who can't get the labels right and scream COMMUNISM! at everything left of them.

Well considering how right they are... it's hard to know what isn't communism.

Fair wages is Communism, civilian boards for officers is Communism, healthcare is communism.

I mean it seems like what they want is frankly aristocracy with corporate heads.

[Endus]

So why are we called socialist for wanting the same thing those countries have?

We have a catch-22 here. We are socialist for wanting their programs but their programs aren't socialism. Like can you people make up your mind?

It happens every time.

"Why don't we have strong social support systems like universal healthcare and strong welfare support?"
"Because that's socialism!"
"But we could be more like countries like Canada and the Scandinavian states, that have those things."
"They're not socialist just because they have those!"

Repeat ad infinitum. It isn't meant to make sense; it's Schrodinger's Red Scare.

[Themius]

It happens every time.

"Why don't we have strong social support systems like universal healthcare and strong welfare support?"
"Because that's socialism!"
"But we could be more like countries like Canada and the Scandinavian states, that have those things."
"They're not socialist just because they have those!"

Repeat ad infinitum. It isn't meant to make sense; it's Schrodinger's Red Scare.

I wonder what they think in their heads though like do they believe their own foolery?

off topic:

Are there latino communities in Toronto?

[Endus]

Are there latino communities in Toronto?

Probably; it's a highly diverse city with a lot of ethnic enclaves. I don't think any of the major centers are Latino, specifically; I know there's a Chinatown, Koreatown, Greektown, and a bunch of others, but latinx immigrants are most likely more recent than those communities, in terms of demographic prevalence, so they may not be as geographically focused.

Not a Torontonian, though, and I've never lived there.

[Egomaniac]

They're a minority. Not 50% at all.

A "minority" that still managed to get Trump elected in the first place and stand a good chance of getting him re-elected.

[Themius]

Probably; it's a highly diverse city with a lot of ethnic enclaves. I don't think any of the major centers are Latino, specifically; I know there's a Chinatown, Koreatown, Greektown, and a bunch of others, but latinx immigrants are most likely more recent than those communities, in terms of demographic prevalence, so they may not be as geographically focused.

Not a Torontonian, though, and I've never lived there.

Hmm, well likely still better than here most likely... I mean I probably have a good asylum case going by what I've been posting in the other thread about the views of the UN and lawyers who work refugee cases.

I've not talked to a person from here that went there and returned saying they have a renewed appreciation for America... instead they just feel dejected. I've pretty much always lived either in or around pretty Latino neighbourhoods. Even when my family became quite well off we ended up moving to an upper class enclave that was within a town that was mostly Latino. I never hung out much around the upper class area... too many issues instead I always went up to be in the town.

And the town I was in until recently... it has Neo nazi issues... which was quite scary on two occasions.

As long as it is a diverse area I think I'd be cool. Incidentally I lived in a mostly white area in England and didn't face much of any issues. There were sometimes issues outside our community... but I never recall the same fear I do here.. Like a cop car behind you and it's like...what's the risk that I get assault or I die? My father literally had three cars surround him with guns... claiming his car was reported stolen... it wasn't... it was an expensive Benz... apparently that was enough.

- - - Updated - - -

A "minority" that still managed to get Trump elected in the first place and stand a good chance of getting him re-elected.

Yes, correct. 35%-40% doing an amazing job of suppressing votes

[Kellhound]

None of the economically significant Western countries is socialist, they all are capitalist with a varying degree of government control over a narrow range of select economic sectors combined with a varying degree of wealth redistribution via taxes.

The US' interest in socialism is inverse to its interest in self determination and self reliance. With the US having an accelerating loss of both, its interest in socialistic views will continue to increase.

[Krakan]

I mean socialism succeeding or not mostly depends on if the majority of citizens are positives for the economy of the country doesn't it?

If even a large minority require government intervention or subsidization I thought socialism declines rapidly as a economic system.

[Xarkan]

It happens every time.

"Why don't we have strong social support systems like universal healthcare and strong welfare support?"
"Because that's socialism!"
"But we could be more like countries like Canada and the Scandinavian states, that have those things."
"They're not socialist just because they have those!"

Repeat ad infinitum. It isn't meant to make sense; it's Schrodinger's Red Scare.

When people quote the former leader of the Danish Liberal party for saying Denmark is not socialist that is [imo] correct

However when those policies that people point to were implemented the driving force behind it was a party that was a member of the Socialist International

And when that party was thinking of leaving they also were seemingly starting to undermine a lot of those policies

[Zan15]

So just curious. If the US makes the switch to pure socialism like liberals want how will it be different from other countries who have failed at it?

Way to start off a thread with a ridiculous lie on top of another ridiculous lie.

So what specifically are these countries you want us to use as a baseline?


oh i see you posted then ghosted....why did i even bother, should have known

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

that for the first time we will see a socialist nation that would born from fully developed capitalism instead than a sort of feudalism and proto industrialism like russia, cuba, china and respective satellites...

that could be the ultimate test for marx theories

Wouldn't be the first example of socialism rising to power trough election in a reasonably developed country:

1936 to 1939 there was the Popular Front in Spain (ended in chaos)
1970 to 1973 there was Allende in Chile (ended in chaos)
1981 to 1985 there was Mitterrand in France (he died while still in power in 1995, after enduring several "cohabitation" right governments that followed his catastrophic first years of full throttle socialism (mass nationalization, massive keynesianism, massive increase in the number of public servants, failure to nationalize the whole education sector).
Since 1998 we have Venezuela of course

- - - Updated - - -

None of the economically significant Western countries is socialist, they all are capitalist with a varying degree of government control over a narrow range of select economic sectors combined with a varying degree of wealth redistribution via taxes.

The US' interest in socialism is inverse to its interest in self determination and self reliance. With the US having an accelerating loss of both, its interest in socialistic views will continue to increase.

It is probably due to a narrow view of history, with people lately conflating social, and any kind of welfare with socialism.

Spoilers : well before the appearance of socialist theories, you had institutions that spent a considerable amount of their resource to providing free healthcare, free education and poverty relief : The Church and its equivalents.

Much later, during the Industrial Revolution, appeared what was termed as Welfare Capitalism, also referred to as Paternalism, that pretty much lead to the establishment of the establishment of Welfare-States.

In the 19th century, some companies—mostly manufacturers—began offering new benefits for their employees. This began in Britain in the early 19th century and also occurred in other European countries, including France and Germany. These companies sponsored sports teams, established social clubs, and provided educational and cultural activities for workers. Some offered housing as well. Welfare corporatism in the United States developed during the intense industrial development of 1880 to 1900 which was marked by labor disputes and strikes, many violent.

The 19th century German economist, Gustav von Schmoller, defined welfare capitalism as government provision for the welfare of workers and the public via social legislation. Western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada and Australasia are regions noted for their welfare state provisions, though other countries have publicly financed universal healthcare and other elements of the welfare state as well.

Esping-Andersen categorised three different traditions of welfare provision in his 1990 book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism; social democracy, Christian democracy (conservatism) and liberalism. Though increasingly criticised, these classifications remain the most commonly used in distinguishing types of modern welfare states, and offer a solid starting point in such analysis.

European welfare capitalism is typically endorsed by Christian democrats and social democrats. In contrast to social welfare provisions found in other industrialized countries (especially countries with the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism), European welfare states provide universal services that benefit all citizens (social democratic welfare state) as opposed to a minimalist model that only caters to the needs of the poor.

In Northern European countries, welfare capitalism is often combined with social corporatism and national-level collective bargaining arrangements aimed at balancing the power between labor and business. The most prominent example of this system is the Nordic model, which features free and open markets with limited regulation, high concentrations of private ownership in industry, and tax-funded universal welfare benefits for all citizens.

An alternative model of welfare exists in Continental European countries, known as the social market economy or German model, which includes a greater role for government interventionism into the macro-economy but features a less generous welfare state than is found in the Nordic countries.

In France, the welfare state exists alongside a dirigiste mixed economy.

[DKjaigen]

So just curious. If the US makes the switch to pure socialism like liberals want how will it be different from other countries who have failed at it?

Pure socialism is shit just look at Venezuela to see how that worked out. What most people want is a social democracy with strong welfare and free medical aid. However, you need a strong middle class to support such a state an American is not ready for that. Thanks to the globalist cronies in Washington your middle class got decimated the last 10 years. Fix the economy first and then you talk about implementing welfare.

[Slant]

They're a minority. Not 50% at all.

Whatever you need to sleep at night. My money is on a reelection for Trump, though.

Also, for the rest... there's a reason we call it social democracy. The only ones that are confused and worried they're too much left are people on the American continent. We're not socialists. We don't have socialism. We have social democracies over here. With a social market economy. That is, capitalism with rules to level the playing field.

Only Americans unironically think Soviet socialism = social democracy. Canadians, sorry, but you really have no excuse to muddle the terminology when there are alternate words. Sure, you can force everyone to relearn what words mean, or you can just join the discussion Europe is having and call it social democracy to avoid ambiguity.

[arandomuser]

liberals arent socialist
biden literally said even if he had a super majority of democrats and they passed medicare for all and green new deal he would VETO It because..hes not a socialist


could you imagine a republican president saying hed veto something the base loves, like imagine if a republican nominee said even if republicans pas the enabling act and an updated sedition and espionage act to indefinitely jail protestors and critics of his admin, hed never win the primary

[Ghostpanther]

Simple answer. It wouldn't be.

[Felya]

Simple answer. It wouldn't be.

You live on social security and covered by Medicare...

When socialist scream medicare for all, you literally already have it.

[Machismo]

You live on social security and covered by Medicare...

He also gets his health care from the VA..

I believe we call that irony.

- - - Updated - - -

Simple answer. It wouldn't be.

But, you are a socialist who literally lives off the taxpayers.

If you don't respond, we can all assume you agree with my assessment.

[Themius]

Whatever you need to sleep at night. My money is on a reelection for Trump, though.

Also, for the rest... there's a reason we call it social democracy. The only ones that are confused and worried they're too much left are people on the American continent. We're not socialists. We don't have socialism. We have social democracies over here. With a social market economy. That is, capitalism with rules to level the playing field.

Only Americans unironically think Soviet socialism = social democracy. Canadians, sorry, but you really have no excuse to muddle the terminology when there are alternate words. Sure, you can force everyone to relearn what words mean, or you can just join the discussion Europe is having and call it social democracy to avoid ambiguity.

Whatever to sleep at night? It is literally the fact.... republicans are an absolute minority of people in this country.

[Milchshake]

Why is Socialism and Marxism so misunderstood.

Well one reason might be. A bunch of bored rich kids bought some leftist magazines. Then hired their other rich friends to write for it.
Micah Uetricht is the deputy editor of Jacobin and host of Jacobin Radio's podcast The Vast Majority.


What a country!