• Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m still confused and alarmed that the only alternative brought up is communism, not socialism. So far as I know, the core difference is transfer of power - one is peaceful, one is violent.

    So in communism, your home might be six feet underground because “It is necessary to achieve the revolution, comrade.” Absolutely zero chance of a leader that wants the best for their people, apparently.

    • Cowbee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s incorrect.

      Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. There sre many, many forms, such as Anarcho-Syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism, Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Left Communism, and more.

      Communism is a more specific form of Socialism, by which you have achieved a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. Many Communist ideologies are transitional towards Communism, such as the USSR’s Marxism-Leninism or China’s Dengism and Maoism.

      Whether by reform or Revolution, the form doesn’t change.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nationalise essential needs and create State corporations, let capitalism have fun with non essentials. If don’t care if private producers make wine or funky clothing or big houses, the government should make sure everyone has food to eat, basic clothes to wear and a place to live.

      On that last part, buildings with 8 living units or more should be ran by a non profit State corporation, charge people based on the cost of maintenance and the salaries required, send a check if people were charged too much at the end of the year.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But we need free markets to handle the essentials because free markets consistently provide while governments consistently fail.

        We need the systems that work connected to the most critical needs.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          State corporations are private companies whose profit go to the government instead of an owner or investors. The place in North America that has the cheapest electricity is Quebec and that’s because it’s a State corporation producing it, it still makes billions in profit that is then reinvested by the government.

          So no, free markets isn’t necessary. Heck, the free market is what makes it so the US government is the one that spends the most per capita for healthcare even if it only covers part of the population.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You left out, healthcare, education, higher education, and Internet access. While we are covering basic human rights, let’s make sure we cover all the basic human rights.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Outside of internet access these things are already nationalised in first world countries (I know exactly what’s implied by what I’m saying). I didn’t feel the need to enumerate every single thing.

    • huge_clock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re also taking a snapshot of the most regulated industry in the US. Building high rises is illegal in huge swaths of urban areas. Before we say the free market isn’t providing an answer cab we actually try it? I’m talking removing exclusionary zoning, speeding up the permit process and reducing the power of local action committees, and reforming the broken heritage process that’s used by rich people to keep their areas from densifying.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that a leader who wants the best for their people isn’t sufficient to actually achieve that. What you need is for everyone to be making decisions about what’s best.

    • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Real socialism leads to communism. I want to call what I am advocating for as cultural marxism, but unfortunately that term has antisemitic connotations, while also perfectly encapsulating the gradual shift in the publics perception of Marxist ideology I am advocating for with memes such as this. I am not advocating for a violent revolution, but I wont deny the fact that when the powers that be make a peaceful revolution impossible, a violent revolution is inevitable.