[flagged]

capitalism can also be interpreted as something which "serves the modern, specialised multifunctional community by doing your job." to "profit then use the sum to upgrade society"

what the heck you place socialism as something towards <the overall happiness of the society, and not focusing on increasing material wealth>? first that socialism is a temporary state towards communism, that despite, it doesn't need to pursue communism. see China. second; WHY DO YOU WANT TO CENTRALIZE POWER TOWARDS A SELECTED GROUP OF PEOPLE? Karl Marx is fine, but it's a european guy who lived in 1800s. socialism and capitalism are essentially the same with the difference of the hope of donation of power coming from the public vs. the private... you need to be quite naive to believe the goverment will do the good without corruption. much more people with power allowing their goods to be taken. see our history before capitalism

▲

henearkr 2 days ago | parent [-]

You just proved my point: you use the radical variant of the meaning of the word "socialist", without even acknowledging that it is not the only one.

Have you heard of SocDem, or "social democracy"?

It is everywhere. Even in ones of the most successful democracies on this planet.

▲

Aloisius 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's odd to call people who promote capitalism socialists.

They might have historically believed in gradual transition away from capitalism, but today they seem entirely happy with capitalism with a little corporatism in labor markets. Socialism is mostly branding.

▲

henearkr 2 days ago | parent [-]

This is where there is a misconception.

This use of the word "socialist" (the use that is NOT meaning "communist dictatorship") is quite equivalent to "politically left".

For example, it correlates with free healthcare, free education.

This is not in opposition to "capitalism".

It is more, like, "maybe profit (financially) less, but care more"?

▲

Aloisius a day ago | parent [-]

Who knew the socialist revolution would be won not by an uprising of the proletariat, but rather changing the definition of socialism?

Seriously though, I realize that the American right calls welfare socialism, but that's just rhetorical slight of hand. There's also some actual American socialists who cynically label such things socialism to get more members, believing they'll be able to just slip in abolition of capitalism later in a bait and switch strategy - similar to the one attempted during the early American labor movement.

But welfare isn't socialism. If it was, that would mean that a fair chunk of the world has been socialist centuries before the term was coined - including American colonies where free public education was first instituted in the 17th century. It would render the entire socialist movement, for most of its existence, nonsensical.

▲

henearkr 14 hours ago | parent [-]

You persist not seeing that this is a different meaning of the same word.

And this is the other way around, "socialism" had the softer meaning of "welfare" way before the communist dictatorship even happened in History.

Here, in the "etymology" section of this WP page, you will read that all definitions (Émile Littré, Paul Janet, Émile Laveleye, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Adolf Held, Thomas Kirkup, Émile Durheim, August Bebel, and Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition of 1911), i.e. all definitions given before 1911 except one by Pierre Leroux, point to the general meaning of "improving society by better distributing wealth and caring more":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism

And that's why new terms were used for the subsequent authoritarian events: marxism, communism, etc. They exist because "socialist" was too ambiguous as it was already taken for the meaning of "with caring for society welfare".

▲

Aloisius 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Those definitions are mostly from out of context quotes. Many are cherry picked from large works that go into substantially more detail about how the person defined socialism.

Paul Janet stated socialism is generally used to refer to a doctrine which undermines the principle of individual property.

Émile de Laveleye stated socialism demanded a laborer reap the whole fruits of his labor and if other factors like land and capital contributed, then they must be unified with the labor. In other words, worker ownership of the means of production.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, of course, believed property was theft and most certainly did not believe the continuation of property rights was an aspiration towards the amelioration of society, his definition of socialism.

Thomas Kirkup, who actually contributed the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on socialism in 1887, stated that "Socialism means: 1) That the working people aim at gaining, by combination or association, the control of land and capital which they lost in the individual struggle. (2) That order, economy, and prevision should remedy the confusion, waste, and demoralisation caused by competition. (3) That industry should be carried on not for private gain, but for the common good."

Émile Durheim was describing Saint-Simon who called for centralized state regulation of production and distribution.

And the 11th edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica states that "Socialists believe that the present economic order, in which industry is carried on by private competitive capital, must and ought to pass away, and that the normal economic order of the future will be one with collective means of production and associated labour working for the general good. This principle of socialism is cardinal and fundamental."

Never mind that these are but a handful of definitions for socialism in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

	▲	henearkr an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm making you a favor, if you did not understand, to avoid you many trouble in your future. Also, I'll combine it with the symmetrical warning to European people lol: - to US guys: when speaking with people of European education or culture, the words socialist and communist have very different meanings. Mixing those will anger your interlocutor. You can avoid it easily by using common "synonyms" (in US) such as communist or marxist. - advice to EU people: be aware that in US they only think of "socialist" as meaning "communist" and are very obtuse about it. Danger zone!

▲

ExoticPearTree 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As somebody who lived its early years in a socialist country, all I can tell you is that socialism does not work. Never did, never will.

▲

henearkr 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of EU countries are liberal-socialist, and it works really well.

Canada has a more important socialist component than the US, and it serves them well.

I wonder if you really did not understand my first post, or if it is just your take at flameware.

▲

ExoticPearTree 2 days ago | parent [-]

Its not about flamewars. Its about the fact that socialism doesn’t work.

Have you watched the news lately? EU is a shitshow right now. France is going downhill really fast, Germany - I don’t even about them. And the rest is scrambling with their own issues.

Oh yes, Canadian free healthcare, right? Where a doctor might see you in 6-12 months. If you die in the meantime, tough luck.

No, socialism doesn’t work.

You know, everyone is a lefty until they start their own company, and then they quickly realize what a bunch of crap that ideology is.

▲

henearkr 2 days ago | parent [-]

Lol, well the large demonstrations in France are because people demand more social, not less ;)

So, here you are, people are pretty much happy with socialism, they are angry when you try to take it from them.

Also, I've read a lot a different version than yours: "ppl are righties up until they fell ill". Which happpens a lot more than creating a corporation. Ah and the result is quite life-and-death, which failing a startup is not (is common).

Ah and NO you won't have to wait in Canada if you have an emergency. And even an advanced cancer will be treated quickly, you won't have to wait months of course (or ppl would die of waiting, which the system avoids effectively).

▲

ExoticPearTree 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Lol, well the large demonstrations in France are because people demand more social, not less ;)

Nice try, but no. They want the government to fix the deficit by not increasing their taxes or lowering their benefits. Which means the government needs to shrink.

	▲	henearkr 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You should really learn more about what is happening in France... Your take of it is, at best, delusioned. French people, the ones shouting in the streets, don't care directly about that deficit. They care about being able to have decent lives with social welfare. Fyi, the main hard points are currently: not wanting to push the retirement age, and not wanting to eliminate bank holidays. One of the biggest components of the recent protests' organisers was LFI. If you do your homework, you'll understand easily that LFI does not push towards less social wellfare.

▲

somewhereoutth 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Assuming you are living in a modern economy - including the US - around half of it is owned/run by the government, i.e. half of it is socialist (social ownership of the means of production)

▲

swinglock 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You sure know a lot about socialism and words, for someone that doesn't know that these social democrats are called so because it's literally the name of their parties.

▲

henearkr 2 days ago | parent [-]

Well you sure know a lot about words, but could you change or rearrange them please, because right know I have trouble to make sense of your comment :/

▲

swinglock a day ago | parent [-]

They are socialists. It's not a slur.

	▲	henearkr a day ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, thank you, that's clearer. But the whole point, on my side, is to emphasize that in some cases "socialist" means "authoritarian communist" (that's been only when the word is used by some Americans) and in some cases (the most of the time e.g. if you are dialoguing with somebody from Europe) it means something else. See my other comments for more.