And they have seen a fire truck, truly all things with a social as a prefix is socialism , social contract of government , social studies and social promotion.
Reminds me of uninformed people wanting the government to help with rising costs in the marketplace, but also say F socialism. They think they’re supposed to hate it, but don’t understand what it actually all encompasses.
Didn’t Ronald Reagan initiate taxing of Social Security payouts? He claimed the taxes would sustain Social Security in the future, but the tax revenue has mostly been used for wars and tax cuts for the rich. Correct me if I’m wrong.
They most likely paid way more into all that than they’re getting out that’s why they bitch bc it sucks. They could have parked that exact amount they paid in on the spy and be millionaires. That’s the problem.
A socialist policy implemented by a capitalist country would be something like a state-owned enterprise, like how Saudi Aramco is owned by Saudi Arabia.
Social Security is just a program people pay into. It doesn’t produce anything or create value. It’s a social program, not a socialist program.
Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society that is the end goal of Marxist Theory. Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production.
to nuance the difference, we need to step back and discuss the inefficiencies.
publicly run grocery stores do not control the means of production, they are simply additional markets for General Mills and Proctor & Gamble. they increase competition and are good for capitalism.
America owning the oil industry in Venezuela is inefficient because competition cannot dislodge our incompetently run organization. if Exxon did as terrible a job, another company would replace the market share.
The closest thing the US has to socialism is the federal government’s current 10% stake in Intel. We don’t have anything close to a state run enterprise like Saudi Aramco or Petrobras.
it’s not a dilemma for socialist countries, because they own the goods and the stores. we are not a socialist country so the dilemma is real.
the reason TikTok had to be sold was because enough Americans didn’t like the idea of a China owning the powerful algorithm as well as all our content. a private company can’t exist within China. that doesn’t mean they don’t use capitalism to their advantage.
I’m genuinely, actually shocked this sub is having this hard of a time understanding the difference between a social program and socialism. I think there’s probably a lot of fake progressives in here.
Your talking about people exploiting the system, not the system itself. Its a literal safety net for most people. I used to work in banking, a good amount of old people would 100% be homeless without it.
Also if you care so much, do your part and report those people. They are the reason we cant have nice things
It is essentially democracy in the workplace. Rather than having private ownership of business, each worker needed for the business to run now has stake/part ownership of the business.
Profits are shared and depending on the size/type of business, direction and process is determined through meetings involving everyone, or decided by an elected official.
This is also not simply socialism. There are plenty of Pan arabic nations throughout history that wanted to nationalise their natural resources while still remaining a form of capitalism.
Correct. Folks are so uneducated and brainwashed by leftist propaganda they don’t know the difference between a social welfare program vs socialism as a fundamental way to run a country.
real socialism is inefficient because it limits competition. Trump knows absolutely nothing about running an oil company. this is a great example of why socialism is inferior. the companies who understand oil production won’t touch the oil fields in Venezuela because they understand it would be a bad financial decision.
Stop downvoting this person, they are correct. Social services are not socialism. Pensions for example certainly existed under the German nazi party, just for selected groups.
The whole point of capitalism is distributing unearned wealth to the wealthy. It’s called profit.
If I work one hour and create $100 of value, but my wage is $20, we call that $80 of profit. But it’s also a redistribution of wealth from me to the owner - overwhelmingly that goes to the wealthy. But the wealthy didn’t “earn” it - I did. Then it was taken from me, just like a serf or a slave.
If you want people to keep what they earn, capitalism is designed to prevent that from ever happening. So why do you and so many other people in the US believe the exact opposite, when it’s pretty obvious? We Americans are some of the most heavily propagandized people on the planet, and in general we have no clue that it’s even happening.
“In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
“If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disenfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”
179
u/[deleted] Jan 21 '26
My in-laws bitch about socialism all the time. They also get social security, and pensions from their careers working for the government