I’ll be very honest. I’m extremely active in politics and been so for around 2 decades. My family navigated the political spectrum right and are now pretty progressive-left by US calibration. By European I’m most closely aligned with Social Democrats and the Nordic Model.
Where I’m being honest is that I don’t think socialism or Democratic socialism is well defined, and I don’t think even the left does a good job conveying consistency on this. It certainly doesn’t help that there are far-right astroturfers trying to wedge-drive the issue and complicate it.
For instance, if Bernie Sanders pitched himself as a Social Democrat as opposed to a Democratic Socialist, which is precisely what his policy proposals are in reality, then that would be SO much easier to convey to the less informed, apathetic voters of this country.
That is, a truly mixed economy with strongly regulated markets in favor of the consumer, environment, and promoting small-business competition while curving corporate conglomerates too big to fail. One where collective bargaining / unions are strong; where Democracy is decoupled and inoculated from private money with strong campaign finance and election laws. Where select industries like healthcare are nationalized in the hands of the people via Democratic institutions, but there is still some market capitalism and profit to be had to assume risk and investment. Where the rich are taxed heavily and social safety nets strong for those to get back on their feet.
It doesn’t help that big D Dems work against this at every turn…
The concept of socialism is not actually hard to define, but it is extremely broad and as a term can describe a lot of distinct but highly related ideas which can make it easy to both misrepresent and misunderstand. One of the defining characteristics of capitalism is that ownership of businesses is determined purely by holding transferrable title which entitle the bearer to a certain proportion of the profits of the business. Socialism on the other hand can describe
An equity model of any particular business where ownership of the business is determined specifically by a particular kind of relationship to the business (think of cooperative businesses, fan-owned sports teams, or even state-owned enterprise)
An economic system that is primarily comprised of such institutions
Any normative philosophy that proposes that certain problems associated with capitalism could be resolved by building some kind of socialist economy
but there is still some market capitalism and profit to be had to assume risk and investment
When socialism assumes the risk, it’s because that product serves s need in a society. It would seem outside of that (legitimate need), it’s a want that drives mindless and destructive consumerism, from my perspective. I can’t think of any product or service outside that scope, but I’m listening.
Hard to know if pc or smart phone proliferation or widespread internet access as an example would’ve ever occurred in that alternative universe, and who is the arbiter of determining what is such a need versus luxury?
At the same time will one argue these aren’t needs, but mass communication and aggregation of all human knowledge at our fingertips is certainly the next step from the Gutenberg Press. Liberation of communication and knowledge to masses certainly is pursuant to a need in my mind, yeah?
Such things weren’t necessarily known needs until they manifested through innovation in the first place, right?
But should we all simply revert back to Hunter-gatherering aborigines with the lowest impact possible?
So maybe we get phones and games and musical instruments; but just lower the ceiling a bit as other nations with the highest life satisfaction in the world have shown can be done. That’s the other nice thing about mirroring these models; they’re actually tangible and proven to work at a nation-state scale.
Might certain inventions or discoveries become so positively consequential to society they become nationalized and in the public domain? Take starlink for example, or 5G cellular that gives rural and city access alike to communication and knowledge and therefore potential and opportunity.
I’m not going to argue against any of that. The least wealthy should have access to sports, theatre, symphony, art exhibition, both as participants and spectators, once basic needs are met. Clothing even. The same factories producing the most expensive goods produce the least expensive, and those factory workers and society can benefit from it as much as the designer slapping a label, ostentatious or subtle, and fire exits can be unblocked. If needs on the lowest level of Maslow’s heirarcy of needs remain unmet, that’s the starting point, then onward and upward. People in Iran and California should absolutely have clean drinking water, unpolluted earth for food production. Tuna and sea turtles deserve a clean, cool enough to survive habitat. Air should be breathable. The world is abundant enough to meet every need; but not every greed.
Sounds good to me! I think people get nervous when they hear only “needs” and not necessarily wants or desires. If I understand you correctly, needs and wants can both be fulfilled — within reason, of course. No billionaires for starters.
I’ll be very honest. I’m extremely active in politics and been so for around 2 decades. My family navigated the political spectrum right and are now pretty progressive-left by US calibration. By European I’m most closely aligned with Social Democrats and the Nordic Model.
Where I’m being honest is that I don’t think socialism or Democratic socialism is well defined, and I don’t think even the left does a good job conveying consistency on this. It certainly doesn’t help that there are far-right astroturfers trying to wedge-drive the issue and complicate it.
For instance, if Bernie Sanders pitched himself as a Social Democrat as opposed to a Democratic Socialist, which is precisely what his policy proposals are in reality, then that would be SO much easier to convey to the less informed, apathetic voters of this country.
That is, a truly mixed economy with strongly regulated markets in favor of the consumer, environment, and promoting small-business competition while curving corporate conglomerates too big to fail. One where collective bargaining / unions are strong; where Democracy is decoupled and inoculated from private money with strong campaign finance and election laws. Where select industries like healthcare are nationalized in the hands of the people via Democratic institutions, but there is still some market capitalism and profit to be had to assume risk and investment. Where the rich are taxed heavily and social safety nets strong for those to get back on their feet.
It doesn’t help that big D Dems work against this at every turn…
The concept of socialism is not actually hard to define, but it is extremely broad and as a term can describe a lot of distinct but highly related ideas which can make it easy to both misrepresent and misunderstand. One of the defining characteristics of capitalism is that ownership of businesses is determined purely by holding transferrable title which entitle the bearer to a certain proportion of the profits of the business. Socialism on the other hand can describe
When socialism assumes the risk, it’s because that product serves s need in a society. It would seem outside of that (legitimate need), it’s a want that drives mindless and destructive consumerism, from my perspective. I can’t think of any product or service outside that scope, but I’m listening.
Hard to know if pc or smart phone proliferation or widespread internet access as an example would’ve ever occurred in that alternative universe, and who is the arbiter of determining what is such a need versus luxury?
At the same time will one argue these aren’t needs, but mass communication and aggregation of all human knowledge at our fingertips is certainly the next step from the Gutenberg Press. Liberation of communication and knowledge to masses certainly is pursuant to a need in my mind, yeah?
Such things weren’t necessarily known needs until they manifested through innovation in the first place, right?
But should we all simply revert back to Hunter-gatherering aborigines with the lowest impact possible?
I guess in my mind we all have musical instruments or video games our toys be it dirt bikes, etc., which are certainly luxuries of the modern era. The constraints should of course be limited by whether we can (a) take care of the poorest amongst us, (b) be the best stewards of our environment as we can, and © ensure justice and equality is applied to all.
So maybe we get phones and games and musical instruments; but just lower the ceiling a bit as other nations with the highest life satisfaction in the world have shown can be done. That’s the other nice thing about mirroring these models; they’re actually tangible and proven to work at a nation-state scale.
Might certain inventions or discoveries become so positively consequential to society they become nationalized and in the public domain? Take starlink for example, or 5G cellular that gives rural and city access alike to communication and knowledge and therefore potential and opportunity.
I’m not going to argue against any of that. The least wealthy should have access to sports, theatre, symphony, art exhibition, both as participants and spectators, once basic needs are met. Clothing even. The same factories producing the most expensive goods produce the least expensive, and those factory workers and society can benefit from it as much as the designer slapping a label, ostentatious or subtle, and fire exits can be unblocked. If needs on the lowest level of Maslow’s heirarcy of needs remain unmet, that’s the starting point, then onward and upward. People in Iran and California should absolutely have clean drinking water, unpolluted earth for food production. Tuna and sea turtles deserve a clean, cool enough to survive habitat. Air should be breathable. The world is abundant enough to meet every need; but not every greed.
Sounds good to me! I think people get nervous when they hear only “needs” and not necessarily wants or desires. If I understand you correctly, needs and wants can both be fulfilled — within reason, of course. No billionaires for starters.