• 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.