Are these really socialist institutions or just statist?

Are these really socialist institutions or just statist?

This is the kind of "everything the government does is socialism" nonsense edgy liberals share over Facebook. You'll note that "business subsidies", "the CIA" and "the military" are listed here as being socialist; that should be more than enough to give it away.

tbh some gobbamint things ARE socialist in spirit.


You'll notice that the porkies are trying their best to dismantle all of these institutions and replace them with awful privatized substitutes. On the other hand, while some porkies would ideally like to see the military or police privatized, they actually have no problem with throwing billions of dollars at "public" police and military. Because they know that police and the military are hands of the bourgeois state, rather than concessions to proles to prevent revolt.

socialism as the workers movement that has taken certain steps in form of social democracy and worker participation through bourgeoise democracy did make certain achievements.
it's still a shit form of socialism that isn't getting anywhere, no matter how radicalized it may get (see Venezuela).
claiming these things to be detached from socialism is stupid ultraleftist elitism though. as minor as these things might appear, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for socialism and the working class fighting for their rights.

let me add that those ultraleftist elitists rejecting these achievements as not socialist themself have never contributed and achieved anything and are literally playing into the capitalists hand if they pretend that they're meaningless by claiming there to be "no difference".
of course, uncultured americans that have no history and understanding of it themself will go on and shitpost their "no true scotsman", while pretending it isn't just that.

your shitty meme is never going to catch on you know

*the crux is lacking nuance by those anarkiddy and revcom faggots

it's a fact, and you have no arguments but shitposting "no true scotsman" while clinging to a vague reductionistic "social ownership" while your own branch of socialism doesn't even meet the criteria either.

Well, at the very least, fire departments mostly operate on a volunteer basis. If you want to dispel the notion that socialism equals government, pointing them out should really be enough.

Whether those "ultraleftist elitists" contributed anything doesn't change the fact they're right in insisting that mere government intervention is not socialism.

which isn't the argued point, faggot
learn to read

Not gonna go full leftcom on you, but what is the point of social democratic reformism if all it amounts to is compromise and concessions without true systemic change? Without a clean, revolutionary break from capitalism and capitalist society, all we are left with is a regime of mediocre reforms that cannot be exported across national borders and could at any time be repealed at the behest of industry. Even the most robust of welfare states will eventually be corroded away by the political power of Capital, such as what is happening to much of Europe right now.

The wondrous achievements of bourgeois democracy also usually involve shifting the burdens of labor exploitation, pollution and environmental destruction onto minority underclasses or third world nations anyways.

I think what you've described there is just basic leftism 101.

bump

stop bumping your own fucking thread

fuck off autist
i want more answers

i am not a social democrat or in favor of it
don't expect me to argue for it
just setting the facts straight absolute plebs have shitposted over for too long

things that are produced for the good of the whole community with need being the determiner of production and distribution is one requirement of socialism. However, two requirements are missing from most government programs.
1. The people working there do not control the body democratically in addition to the greater community controlling the productive body democratically
2. The people working there are paid in money to purchase commodities on the market. In full socialism, you have a gauranteed (it the society is productive enough to pay for it) standard of living distributed by democratically planned production for need, and additional renumeration is in goods and services also produced by democratic planning. You would be "paid" in credits of some kind and exchange credits for goods and services. The credits aren't then used by the distributor like money, they are just a measuring tool for distribution and renumeration.

Thankfully only the first one was the man himself or his campaign, and I would hope he's read enough theory to understand what he's saying. I think what he's trying to say is that they're founded on socialist principles (more like just leftist in general) and it just came out wrong, or maybe he was intentionally dumbing it down.

What I do know is that the man is no socdem- his support for community land trusts and cooperatives more than proves it.

Well actually he is a socdem by definition as someone attempting to achieve socialism through democracy, he's just not the meme Holla Forums version that knows zero theory and mostly only wants to focus on the welfare state that I guess is based mostly off the SPD (I don't actually know if these guys are good or bad or what) and Labour (despite them not self-describing as socdem)

...

Bernies kinda right about libraries tbf