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.
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.
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.
I mean, most people aren’t socialists. In Europe there’s usually a hard left option already, and it gets fairly few votes.
Not socialists? Where did you get this weird idea from?
Should I pick a European hard-left party and post it’s actual seat count, or is that irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make?
Are you saying only a few people want health care and social safety nets? And that everybody wants companies to be more important than people?
Ah, by “socialism” you mean, like, Norway. On Lemmy people usually mean the USSR when they say that. I think OP meant socialist like the USSR.
Most of the Volt platforms I’ve looked at are pretty pro-welfare.
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.
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.
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.
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.
USSR wasn’t socialist in any way, are you here just to troll?
How have you been on Lemmy for over a year, and still not run into people who think it was?
(For my part, I think words have the definition we give them)
Well you are the first person to claim so.
The first person?
In history?
Or do you mean the thing about words?
Should I pick a European hard-left party and post it’s actual seat count, or is that irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make?