• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Should I pick a European hard-left party and post it’s actual seat count, or is that irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make?

    • x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Are you saying only a few people want health care and social safety nets? And that everybody wants companies to be more important than people?

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Ah, by “socialism” you mean, like, Norway. On Lemmy people usually mean the USSR when they say that. I think OP meant socialist like the USSR.

        Most of the Volt platforms I’ve looked at are pretty pro-welfare.

        • x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Norway? You think it’s only one or a few countries?

          The UK, Australia, almost every European country. All of them have a lot of structures made possible by socialism. Even America has some socialist constructs.

          I think you might be thinking of “communism” which nowadays means the opposite. Like how neither Russia or China are actually communist. Both have an authoritarian state and lots of capitalism, with a tiny bit of socialism.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I mean, the actual historical definition of socialism is “collective ownership of the means of production”, and the actual historical definition of communism is “a classless, stateless society that will inevitably follow capitalism, according to Marx”. The USSR only ever claimed to be working towards communism, and referred to themselves as “socialist”.

            Nowadays the words can mean something different, depending on who uses them.

            • x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Well yes, but you misjudged what I said as I used the correct terms.

              So my point is again, there are many people that believe in socialist constructs, and are therefor partly socialist.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                If you mean you were using the historical definitions, a social safety net is not a means of production. Government-run factories or mines would be socialist, although some purists insist that it’s not socialist until there’s no private ownership left at all.

                If you mean you were using the popular definitions, sure, people like government services. Volt also likes government services.

                • x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Services fall under “Means of production”. So yes, these safety nets are part of socialism. Taxes going back to the people as well.

                  I don’t want to try and figure out the perfect semantics for all of this.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            How have you been on Lemmy for over a year, and still not run into people who think it was?

            (For my part, I think words have the definition we give them)