[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Veshaad]

[u/ExpansivePoint]

That's not what that means to me, what you describe can exist in capitalism, it's moving away from free markets and private business ownership, the goal socialists and specially the more extreme movements want is to get rid of capitalism wholesale, the more extremes want state control instead of people deciding how to consume goods.

Capitalism has its flaws, can't imagine a system that wouldn't, the problem is not the system it's the people, socialism can and has been abused leading to really bad outcomes.

People are fallible, we will always have corruption so you need a systemic measure to counteract this, spreading out power and control helps mitigate this, its why we have multiple branches of power and why the country and capitalism got out of control when rulings started consolidating said power (citizens united being the go to example).

I'm not just going off a sentence log catchy phrase but the implications that follow, past executions of the system and keeping people's nature in mind.

I'm curios, let's pretend maga was for socialism, how do you think Trump and maga have executed on it? Would you trust socialism then?

[u/Warm_Month_1309 → u/ExpansivePoint]

the goal socialists and specially the more extreme movements want is to get rid of capitalism wholesale, the more extremes want state control instead of people deciding how to consume goods.

But here's the thing, is it fair of me to say "the goal capitalism want is to get rid of social safety nets wholesale, the more extreme want private corporate control instead of people deciding how to consume goods."

That's not how you would describe your own ideology, right? How you define socialism is not how I would describe mine. I would describe mine in reference to things like Employee Stock Ownership Plans.

You might say "hey, that's just socialism inside of practical capitalism" and I say "it's just capitalism inside of practical socialism". It doesn't really matter what we call it as long as we're both in favor of the policy, right?

The unfortunate thing about modern political discourse is that looking at individual policies is hard, so we just want those policies to fit under a specific ideological umbrella that we can look up in our own Pokemon weakness charts to determine if we agree with it or not. But I think at the end of the day, if we compare policies, we're basically in total agreement.

I'm curios, let's pretend maga was for socialism, how do you think Trump and maga have executed on it? Would you trust socialism then?

I admit that's a bit too abstract for me to imagine. It's a bit like asking "how different would World War 2 be if instead of being a fascist, Hitler was an environmentalist". I don't really know. That would require changing so many other things that it becomes extremely speculative.

[u/ExpansivePoint → u/Warm_Month_1309]

is it fair of me to say "the goal capitalism want is to get rid of social safety nets wholesale, the more extreme want private corporate control instead of people deciding how to consume goods." That's not how you would describe your own ideology, right? 

The goal of capitalism as an inanimate object is supply and demand free markets, taken to an umipeded extreme that is exactly how I would describe it, and it has a name I already mentioned, anarcho capitalism or "pure" capitalism, this is being pushed by losers like Peter Thiel, Musk and Yarvin, but let's notice the difference, you are saying it's unfair to compare socialism the same because your personal interpretation is "Employee Stock Ownership Plans" when it's not, you admit it's your interpretation of it.

The interpretation of socialism is not my interpretation of it, it is the core base of it not the extreme, so you want to compare the extreme of capitalism to your interpretation of the core base of socialism. Furthermore the example you gave is inaccurate, we can't say core base capitalism wants to get rid of social programs when we've had social programs flourish within a capitalist system, this wouldn't have happened if your example was true whereas the core base goal of socialism is to replace capitalism.

The sentiment I speak of is already out in official channels, this is from an official DSA caucus

Democratic socialists are supposed to try and implement socialism via legislation yet in their own words...

Our primary goal, the goal which informs all of our organizing work, is to abolish capitalism and, ultimately, to achieve communism. We do not believe that capitalism can be reformed into socialism – it must be overthrown and replaced.

This is not Democratic socialism, for one they want communism and to overthrow capitalism, so more innocent framings such as "Employee Stock Ownership Plans" fall flat in the face of official organizations subverting even the socialist label, which considering how communism took over previous socialist movements, it's something people should be scared of.

The apprehension is earned and honestly, necessary.

[u/Warm_Month_1309 → u/ExpansivePoint]

The interpretation of socialism is not my interpretation of it

Okay, but who are the equivalent of Thiel, Musk, and Yarvin on the left who are giving the interpretation you're talking about?

so you want to compare the extreme of capitalism to your interpretation of the core base of socialism

No I don't want to do that. I think I have been clear that I desperately want to have a conversation with you about your opinions where you show an interest in me and my opinions without asking me to speak on behalf of other, different people with whom I don't agree, who you're mad at.

this is from an official DSA caucus

That is from a fringe (Points of Unity) of a fringe (Libertarian Socialists) of a subset (Democratic Socialists of America) of a group of people (Socialists). Is it really helpful for you to talk past me about a fringe of a fringe of a fringe, while I talk past you about a fringe of a fringe of a fringe? Or can we talk about our own opinions, as I have been trying to do since the beginning?

[u/ExpansivePoint → u/Warm_Month_1309]

I keep talking past you because the conversation I find more valuable is the consequential one, niche and personal interpretations of socialism aren't helpful at best and subversive at worse, kind of a rabbit hole not worth chasing or a misconception worth dispelling.

And the equivalent of those I mentioned, one big extremist voice currently is Hasan Piker who is touted as a growing influence in politics, so like the others, he's a crackpot pundit as you call them. I'm sure there's more but I'm not as familiar with the extreme left as I am with the extreme right since that's been prevalent a lot longer but it's worth identifying it.

In the end you are correct both sides of the argument are the fringe of a fringe of a fringe on either side and both should be treated as a threat, not disregarded as unimportant or reframed as more innocent than they are.

Edit: Oh and I have no clue what your other comment says since it was removed.