Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production. Social democracy refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. The two terms are not interchangeable despite frequent misuse on the internet. You are describing and advocating for social democracy not socialism.
Literally every other developed nation on the planet is socialist. Coincidentally we happen to rank near last for every meaningful metric among the developed nations.
Literally every other developed nation on the planet is socialist.
No, they aren’t.
This is exactly the problem. People use the word “socialism” to describe anything they happen to like and then wonder why nobody takes the discussion seriously.
They all have private ownership of the means of production, private investment, stock markets, billionaires, wage labor, and profit-driven corporations. In other words, capitalism.
What you’re describing is social democracy, which is a capitalist system with varying degrees of welfare spending and regulation.
And the claim that America ranks “near last on every meaningful metric” is just as detached from reality.
The United States consistently ranks among the wealthiest countries on Earth, has some of the highest disposable incomes in the world, produces a disproportionate share of global scientific research, dominates technology, finance, aerospace, entertainment, and higher education, and remains the destination millions of people actively seek to immigrate to every year.
You can certainly find metrics where the U.S. performs poorly compared to peer nations. Healthcare outcomes, life expectancy, and certain measures of inequality are common examples. But “near last on every meaningful metric” is the kind of statement someone makes when they get their understanding of the world from memes and comment sections.
So when I ask to name a successful socialist country and someones response is to redefine capitalist countries as socialist while pretending the world’s largest economy is somehow a failed state, you’re not making an argument. You’re repeating internet slogans.
You see the term socialist and think full tilt communism.
Sweden, Norway and Denmark have strong socialist aspects. They are not socialist or communist like the bad examples of cuba or self proclaimed to be so north Korea.
Socialism can be used in doses, the right amounts.
Just like capitalism is horrific if overdosed like in America, socialism to the extreme is also bad.
Absolutely correct. I’m not in support of what we’re doing in America here. In fact I’m completely against it. We’re no longer capitalists. We’re something entirely different at this point. Something quite terrible.
You named all the shit that actually helps the people in a country, then admitted the US is among the lowest in all of them…and then your singular example for why the US is so “great” is it’s the biggest economy…you literally pulled a Pam Bondi.
As for the complaint about socialism vs social democracy; you need to realize that the vast majority of people (including people in power) do not know the definitions of a god damn thing. Humans use connotation exponentially more than denotation, infinitely more so even.
You’ve managed to completely miss the point twice in a row.
I never said the United States was great because it has the largest economy. I pointed out that your claim that it ranks near last on every meaningful metric is objectively false. Those are not the same statement.
The US ranks near the top globally in income, wealth creation, technological innovation, scientific output, higher education, military power, and economic productivity. You can argue that healthcare outcomes, life expectancy, or other social metrics are more important. That’s a perfectly valid opinion. What you cannot do is pretend the other metrics stop existing because they undermine your narrative.
What’s especially amusing is that you’ve gone from claiming the US ranks near last on every meaningful metric to claiming that only the metrics you personally care about are meaningful. Those are very different arguments.
As for the socialism point, you’ve essentially admitted that you don’t know the definitions of the words you’re using and don’t particularly care to learn them.
You are arguing that because lots of people misuse a term, the misuse becomes the definition. That is not how language works. Words have meanings independent of how confidently people misuse them.
Socialism has a definition. Social democracy has a definition. Capitalism has a definition.
The fact that politicians, journalists, Reddit users, and random people on the internet routinely confuse those terms does not somehow merge them into one thing. It just means they are using the wrong words.
At this point, your position seems to be that definitions are optional whenever they become inconvenient. Unfortunately, you cannot connotate your way out of what words mean. If you’re discussing political and economic systems, the terms still have definitions whether you like them or not.
Denmark does not become socialist because people incorrectly call it socialist. The United States does not become a failure because you selectively ignore metrics where it performs well. Neither reality nor language changes simply because a lot of people on the internet are confused.
Only that in this case when people learn to understand what the term actually means that they like it even more.
Yes that’s because it sounds great on paper but in practice it just doesn’t work.
I encourage you to move to any socialist country on earth.
And don’t say china they have one of the biggest free markets on the planet with some of the richest CEO’s.
The question is about extremes. You can have a lot of social aspects and not be full tilt socialist.
Look at the many happy countries that have state heath insurance and so much more.
They still have capitalism running in parallel.
Social market economy. Google it perhaps.
Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production. Social democracy refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. The two terms are not interchangeable despite frequent misuse on the internet. You are describing and advocating for social democracy not socialism.
Literally every other developed nation on the planet is socialist. Coincidentally we happen to rank near last for every meaningful metric among the developed nations.
No, they aren’t.
This is exactly the problem. People use the word “socialism” to describe anything they happen to like and then wonder why nobody takes the discussion seriously.
Denmark isn’t socialist. Sweden isn’t socialist. Norway isn’t socialist. Germany isn’t socialist.
They all have private ownership of the means of production, private investment, stock markets, billionaires, wage labor, and profit-driven corporations. In other words, capitalism.
What you’re describing is social democracy, which is a capitalist system with varying degrees of welfare spending and regulation.
And the claim that America ranks “near last on every meaningful metric” is just as detached from reality.
The United States consistently ranks among the wealthiest countries on Earth, has some of the highest disposable incomes in the world, produces a disproportionate share of global scientific research, dominates technology, finance, aerospace, entertainment, and higher education, and remains the destination millions of people actively seek to immigrate to every year.
You can certainly find metrics where the U.S. performs poorly compared to peer nations. Healthcare outcomes, life expectancy, and certain measures of inequality are common examples. But “near last on every meaningful metric” is the kind of statement someone makes when they get their understanding of the world from memes and comment sections.
So when I ask to name a successful socialist country and someones response is to redefine capitalist countries as socialist while pretending the world’s largest economy is somehow a failed state, you’re not making an argument. You’re repeating internet slogans.
Yep, exactly the issue.
You see the term socialist and think full tilt communism.
Sweden, Norway and Denmark have strong socialist aspects. They are not socialist or communist like the bad examples of cuba or self proclaimed to be so north Korea.
Socialism can be used in doses, the right amounts.
Just like capitalism is horrific if overdosed like in America, socialism to the extreme is also bad.
It’s about finding the right balance.
Absolutely correct. I’m not in support of what we’re doing in America here. In fact I’m completely against it. We’re no longer capitalists. We’re something entirely different at this point. Something quite terrible.
You named all the shit that actually helps the people in a country, then admitted the US is among the lowest in all of them…and then your singular example for why the US is so “great” is it’s the biggest economy…you literally pulled a Pam Bondi.
As for the complaint about socialism vs social democracy; you need to realize that the vast majority of people (including people in power) do not know the definitions of a god damn thing. Humans use connotation exponentially more than denotation, infinitely more so even.
You’ve managed to completely miss the point twice in a row.
I never said the United States was great because it has the largest economy. I pointed out that your claim that it ranks near last on every meaningful metric is objectively false. Those are not the same statement.
The US ranks near the top globally in income, wealth creation, technological innovation, scientific output, higher education, military power, and economic productivity. You can argue that healthcare outcomes, life expectancy, or other social metrics are more important. That’s a perfectly valid opinion. What you cannot do is pretend the other metrics stop existing because they undermine your narrative.
What’s especially amusing is that you’ve gone from claiming the US ranks near last on every meaningful metric to claiming that only the metrics you personally care about are meaningful. Those are very different arguments.
As for the socialism point, you’ve essentially admitted that you don’t know the definitions of the words you’re using and don’t particularly care to learn them.
You are arguing that because lots of people misuse a term, the misuse becomes the definition. That is not how language works. Words have meanings independent of how confidently people misuse them.
Socialism has a definition. Social democracy has a definition. Capitalism has a definition.
The fact that politicians, journalists, Reddit users, and random people on the internet routinely confuse those terms does not somehow merge them into one thing. It just means they are using the wrong words.
At this point, your position seems to be that definitions are optional whenever they become inconvenient. Unfortunately, you cannot connotate your way out of what words mean. If you’re discussing political and economic systems, the terms still have definitions whether you like them or not.
Denmark does not become socialist because people incorrectly call it socialist. The United States does not become a failure because you selectively ignore metrics where it performs well. Neither reality nor language changes simply because a lot of people on the internet are confused.