Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wears $3,500 Outfit

[Starlight]

I do know what socialism is. It is when the government/state controls the means of production, the jobs, and the distribution of goods

Two reasonably big mistakes there, which I've bolded. You describe only a tiny sub-variety of socialism, not the concept in general.

1. "Socialism" doesn't require government control of the means of production: Worker control counts as socialism. In general socialism requires "social ownership" which means that ownership doesn't reside in the hands of a few rich people. The many sub-varieties of socialism vary greatly as to whether they prefer worker-coops, community ownership, or a democratic (or even non-democratic) State to provide the social ownership.

2. Sub-varieties of socialism vary as to whether for distribution they use the free-market, central planning, or some other system. In general, the concept of central planning of markets or the abolition of free markets is not a key concept in socialism.

[Tassman]

Democratic Socialism isn't actual socialism, it is a capitalist society with socialized programs. The USA would qualify as Socialism under your definition. We have social security, and healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid), and welfare programs.

It's a question of degree. What you want to refer to as Socialism is in fact Communism. The more socialistic countries such as in Scandinavia, Australia and NZ etc, have universal health care, free or subsidised education including tertiary education and far more comprehensive welfare safety nets than the overtly capitalistic countries like the USA.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's a good description of the US, not so much of Nordic model countries.

[rogue06]

One of if not the leading cause of illness among the poor in the U.S. are obesity related. As I've said before here being poor means you might have to drink a generic cola rather than a Coke or Pepsi.

[Leonhard]

Query the Roma Gypsies in Sweden and Denmark. See how they treat them.

Uh, where exactly in Denmark is that supposed to be?

[JonathanL]

Uh, where exactly in Denmark is that supposed to be?

Nowhere, that picture was taken in Romania:

https://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/20...folk-i-romania

[Leonhard]

Nowhere, that picture was taken in Romania:

https://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/20...folk-i-romania

Just wanted that to be clear. Even our refuge camps aren't slums like that.

[Leonhard]

Democratic Socialism isn't actual socialism, it is a capitalist society with socialized programs. The USA would qualify as Socialism under your definition. We have social security, and healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid), and welfare programs.

Yeah but you guys tend to play switch-a-roo with that definition, because as soon as comprehensive welfare is discussed in the US, you guys roll out the slogans "Socialism doesn't work, look at Venezuela and Soviet Union"

So you seem both to say that Social Democracy is pretty much Socialism, and at the same time qualifying it with the claims you're making here Sparko.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah but you guys tend to play switch-a-roo with that definition, because as soon as comprehensive welfare is discussed in the US, you guys roll out the slogans "Socialism doesn't work, look at Venezuela and Soviet Union"

So you seem both to say that Social Democracy is pretty much Socialism, and at the same time qualifying it with the claims you're making here Sparko.

[Leonhard]

Which is also true. I'm just annoying Sparko, because I do see conservatives citing Venezuela or the likes whenever there's talk of comprehensive welfare (this is not being done in this thread). There's a switcheroo being played with the term.

I mean for crying out loud Fox News had a reporter comparing Denmark to Venezuela, and making all sorts of false claims about how almost no one was working.

So which is it. Is comprehensive welfare Socialism, or not?

[lilpixieofterror]

Which is also true. I'm just annoying Sparko, because I do see conservatives citing Venezuela or the likes whenever there's talk of comprehensive welfare (this is not being done in this thread). There's a switcheroo being played with the term.

I mean for crying out loud Fox News had a reporter comparing Denmark to Venezuela, and making all sorts of false claims about how almost no one was working.

So which is it. Is comprehensive welfare Socialism, or not?

Is it an element of socialism? Sure, but pretty much every country has adopted socialist elements.

[Tassman]

I mean for crying out loud Fox News had a reporter comparing Denmark to Venezuela, and making all sorts of false claims about how almost no one was working.

Oh well, Fox News......

So which is it. Is comprehensive welfare Socialism, or not?

I thought we had agreed that comprehensive welfare etc, as per Scandinavia and Australia et al, is 'Democratic Socialism', i.e. the political philosophy which advocates many socialist ideals within a democratic system. This as opposed to non-democratic socialist ideologies such as in Communism.

[Leonhard]

Is it an element of socialism? Sure, but pretty much every country has adopted socialist elements.

Well then why the comparisons to Venezuela and the Soviet Union? Denmark is neither, so apparently comprehensive wellfare =/= socialism.

I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Sparko]

Two reasonably big mistakes there, which I've bolded. You describe only a tiny sub-variety of socialism, not the concept in general.

1. "Socialism" doesn't require government control of the means of production: Worker control counts as socialism.

In practice it is the government/state who controls the means of production when it comes to a socialist country. They usually couch it in terms of the proletariat or the workers who own everything, conveniently they are voted to head the proletariat for the greater good.

In general socialism requires "social ownership" which means that ownership doesn't reside in the hands of a few rich people. The many sub-varieties of socialism vary greatly as to whether they prefer worker-coops, community ownership, or a democratic (or even non-democratic) State to provide the social ownership.

And yet in every case you end up with the rich people at the top running everything for the good of the people who are all equally poor.

[Sparko]

It's a question of degree. What you want to refer to as Socialism is in fact Communism. The more socialistic countries such as in Scandinavia, Australia and NZ etc, have universal health care, free or subsidised education including tertiary education and far more comprehensive welfare safety nets than the overtly capitalistic countries like the USA.

Please explain the difference in practical terms between socialism and communism.

And no, capitalism and socialism are not a question of degree, they are fundamentally different economics.