this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
202 points (96.3% liked)

World News

38758 readers
2938 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Norway? You think it's only one or a few countries?

The UK, Australia, almost every European country. All of them have a lot of structures made possible by socialism. Even America has some socialist constructs.

I think you might be thinking of "communism" which nowadays means the opposite. Like how neither Russia or China are actually communist. Both have an authoritarian state and lots of capitalism, with a tiny bit of socialism.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I mean, the actual historical definition of socialism is "collective ownership of the means of production", and the actual historical definition of communism is "a classless, stateless society that will inevitably follow capitalism, according to Marx". The USSR only ever claimed to be working towards communism, and referred to themselves as "socialist".

Nowadays the words can mean something different, depending on who uses them.

[–] x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well yes, but you misjudged what I said as I used the correct terms.

So my point is again, there are many people that believe in socialist constructs, and are therefor partly socialist.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If you mean you were using the historical definitions, a social safety net is not a means of production. Government-run factories or mines would be socialist, although some purists insist that it's not socialist until there's no private ownership left at all.

If you mean you were using the popular definitions, sure, people like government services. Volt also likes government services.

[–] x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Services fall under "Means of production". So yes, these safety nets are part of socialism. Taxes going back to the people as well.

I don't want to try and figure out the perfect semantics for all of this.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 20 hours ago

You're right, it's not worth it to argue about definitions any more.