3 ms·

Apologies for not being that familiar. Why not like China? Because it got there via a revolution? But otherwise the same end goal just via democratic means? W

by YZF 1y ago

Apologies for not being that familiar. Why not like China? Because it got there via a revolution? But otherwise the same end goal just via democratic means? What you're describing sounds like the USSR or China to me. The survey didn't really discuss the idea of Revolutionary Socialism but I imagine that likely has some support as well. If my tone sounds negative it's because I am negative. I support the state being more involved but all examples of pure socialism that I'm aware of end up as a total failure - because it is unworkable. In the US somehow healthcare is considered socialism but I mean "real" socialism (like the idea the grocery stores are owned by the state somehow being able to make food more affordable). The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model probably doesn't work for everyone either. I think the term "mixed-market capitalist" is more appropriate there. Maybe people are also confused vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

worik 1y ago
Revolutionary Socialists (e.g: USSR, China - both back in the day) and Democratic Socialists might seem the same from a distance. But the nature of violence is to lead to more violence, and both the USSR and China have great deals of state violence (as does the USA - I think it is the history of revolution, perhaps?) Democratic socialists have to convince you. Not so much th Bolsheviks, they just make you. > all examples of pure socialism that I'm aware of end up as a total failure "Pure socialism" is a bit silly. How could there ever be such a thing? The Bolsheviks and the CCP were fascists to my way of thinking. In Western Europe , France had a number of revolutions but recovered. The rest of them went the Democratic Socialist route. Democratic Socialists, by necessity originally and these days as a positive policy, believe in a mixed economy. Point is I do not think that Western Europe can be classed a "total failure" nor as "pure socialism". > "real" socialism (like the idea the grocery stores are owned by the state Yes. Mixed economies work better. It comes down to culture for a lot of places.

by YZF 1y ago

worik 1y ago

Revolutionary Socialists (e.g: USSR, China - both back in the day) and Democratic Socialists might seem the same from a distance. But the nature of violence is to lead to more violence, and both the USSR and China have great deals of state violence (as does the USA - I think it is the history of revolution, perhaps?) Democratic socialists have to convince you. Not so much th Bolsheviks, they just make you. > all examples of pure socialism that I'm aware of end up as a total failure "Pure socialism" is a bit silly. How could there ever be such a thing? The Bolsheviks and the CCP were fascists to my way of thinking. In Western Europe , France had a number of revolutions but recovered. The rest of them went the Democratic Socialist route. Democratic Socialists, by necessity originally and these days as a positive policy, believe in a mixed economy. Point is I do not think that Western Europe can be classed a "total failure" nor as "pure socialism". > "real" socialism (like the idea the grocery stores are owned by the state Yes. Mixed economies work better. It comes down to culture for a lot of places.