Edit: you all think I'm shitting on socialism, when I guess I was failing to tie together how capitalists will enjoy socializing their loses, but never socializing benefits to society.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Socialism is not the government giving money to capitalists. It is not paying for the cops to get tanks. It is not having an army.

It is not even universal healthcare. That is just a government service you've been gaslit into thinking is socialism.

Socialism is the workers owning the means of production. End.

Now, if the government had bailed out the financial firms or car manufacturers and turned them into worker co-ops, maybe that would be socialism, but they didn't.

[–] cobra89 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

How does that work when all of the production happens in other countries now? Is there some scenario where we have a socialist white collar economy? All the rhetoric surrounding Communism fits a blue collar economy where production is still the key driver of the economy. Most "1st world" economies these days are service economies not production economies. Is there some literature on how Communism fits in with a service economy?

[–] Sarcasmo220@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

Owning the means of production can also be seen as owning the business collectively. So in a service model business, like say a restaurant, instead of the owner taking in profits and paying the workers less money, all the workers split those profits evenly.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

Communism can only be truly global. You can have worker coops in a servive economy, which is a form of Socialism, but depending on the production outsourced in Capitalist manners means the economy overall contributes to global Capitalism, which can eventually take on the character of Imperialism.

Most 1st world economies are in fact Imperialist, they cannot exist in the manner they do without hyper-exploitation of the global south.

[–] dcluna@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Commenting just to get a notification in case someone answers your question - definitely interested in this angle

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 5 months ago

The answer is why the fascists turned "globalism" into a dogwhistle. It's quite simple: You don't do that. You liberate those workers too, through whatever means work.

Socialism is by necessity a globalist ideology. It doesn't do your commune any real good if you buy all your necessities from a slave labor camp.

An injury to one is an injury to all, workers of the world unite, etc etc etc. You must reject the principles of nationalism, or at least principles of non-interference, or you end up merely outsourcing the exploitation.

[–] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I'm pro social programs, I just spoke poorly. "Socialism for me but not for thee" was what I should have said

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Greed along with the lack of scruples

[–] Xantar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Need more context, pal.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 months ago

Wage Labor and Capital is a good start.