I'm a little out of the loop, why is a social democratic welfare state not socialism?
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
484 points (92.8% liked)
The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk
730 readers
116 users here now
Dunking on Tankies from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.
Rules:
- Be civil and no bigotry of any kind.
- No tankies or right-wingers. Liberals are allowed so long as they are aware of this
- No genocide denial
We allow posts about tankie behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion. For a more general community [email protected] is recommended.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
i mean, lenin era USSR might be socialist probably closer to communism though, but it was most definitely NOT socialist under stalin or communist.
Lenin's 'war communism' was little more than state-sponsored looting (which, to be fair, is far from unusual in times of crisis; it is not, however, much of an innovation or a path to socialism); while the NEP was the exact social democratic reformism that the Bolsheviks were supposedly against, only without the pesky 'democracy' bit the SRs liked.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Genuinely curious about the standard by which you evaluate whether the means of production are collectively owned. For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production. Another person might say it looks like each industry being controlled by a union representing the workers in said industry. A third could say that it means anytime a person operates a machine, they own it and can decide what to do with it, until they stop using it.
Is there any concievable physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers and in what form? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.
For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production.
That might be relevant if the USSR was actually democratic.
Is there any physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.
"Does socialism really MEAN anything? 
"
Really showing the libs, I see.
load more comments
(7 replies)
What does it even mean to own the means of production? How are decisions made? Big decisions can go to a vote, but what about small ones? I don't see how any organization can function without some kind of hierarchy. But the way you describe socialism implies that hierarchy can't coexist with socialism.
Maybe the pirate ship system would work well.
Every man got the same share except the captain (2x) and quartermaster (1.5x) and the doctor (1.5x) any of that position can be replaced anytime by a vote
Maybe the base pay the same for everyone but and only do a multiplies on profit sharing.
Aye, this be a fittin' trajectory for ye politics
The socialist democratically owned company would still elect a CEO or something like it to make those kinds of decisions, and if they don't make good decisions they can be recalled by the employees to be replaced with someone else. The way I look at it it would be like how companies are currently but with all employees owning shares of the company rather then outside investors or the owner of the company. Atleast that's how I interpret it but there's probably a million different ways you could set it up while still having it be much more democratic then the modern structure.
load more comments
(19 replies)
Owning the means of production is a means, not an end in itself. I'd argue the social democratic welfare state comes impressively close to achieving the ends.
load more comments
(6 replies)
If socialism were bad, law firms wouldn't be structured as partnerships.
Law firms are so so so not socialist.
Partnerships only involve a few select attorneys at a firm, associate attorneys, paralegals, legal assistants, and every other role is not part of the partnership, and has no stake other than their vested interest in getting their paycheck (the same as any employee).
"Big Law" firms have thousands of employees excluded from any partnerships including billable (associates, paralegals) and non billable (legal assistants, HR, IT) staff, the partnership is more of a private ownership club where people are accepted mostly on vibes and sometimes, rarely, on merit.
The partnership structure is pretty antithetical to socialism, since it's structured in a way to exclude people deemed not worthy of receiving profits (But still somehow needed to make the profits??).
TL;DR: a small group of owner operators within a larger company is decidedly capitalist.
karl marx only invented socialism for rich people, read theory shitlib
load more comments
(1 replies)
The DPRK is, I'd argue, more or less an absolute monarchy that just uses different words to describe itself than traditional for that kind of system.
The People's™ Absolute monarchy
Seriously it's insane how people can unironically lie to themselves. Thy literally said "socialism is not for the workers" lmfaoo
The workers do not need to control the means of production when Pooh Bear Xi knows what's best for them before they do.
Socialism is when capitalism
Ah, you mean the elite, wealthy, oligarch class, Xi Jinping.
Whoa buddy you a fed? Got any sources? My xi would never.