this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
460 points (98.5% liked)

World News

39176 readers
4262 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CosmicCleric -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

So essentially the easiest way to determine if your society is capitalist or socialist is the existence of private property.

India is considered socialist, even though it has private property.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The only metric that page uses to define India as socialist is "makes a constitutional reference to socialism". That can mean socialism is some end goal, or they just have policy inspired by socialism.

Words have definitions, so just saying "this country is socialist" is not enough evidence to declare that country is socialist, unless your definition of socialism is "a system which people call socialist".

By that definition, America is socialist so long as I call it socialist. It becomes tautological and useless.

[–] CosmicCleric 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Well I didn't create that Wiki page, so I'm only just reiterating what it says on there.

According to that page it is, in whatever way you want to interpret that page as.

The only metric that page uses to define India as socialist is “makes a constitutional reference to socialism”. That can mean socialism is some end goal, or they just have policy inspired by socialism.

Having said all that, they are actually declaring they are socialists in their constitution, so even if they don't get to it to a point where you think it's socialist, they think they're are already, or are going towards socialism.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

People say things for reasons, and those reasons aren't always to express the true state of things. For example, it's powerful to capture positive social sentiment around socialism without having to actually relinquish any power to the working class. It effectively destroys workers' ability to communicate effectively about what we want to see in the world.

Back in the day, you could simply say "I'm a socialist" and that meant that you advocated for a system where workers owned the means of production, and private property didn't exist. Now you can say the same thing, and what does it mean? Literally nothing, it's an incoherent thing to say because it has too many contradictory meanings.

I still identify as a libertarian socialist, but every other person I talk to doesn't understand what I mean by this (pro-China? pro-Bernie? interested in dismantling private ownership? want to slightly increase taxes on corporations and implement universal healthcare?). Most people that use the label libertarian socialist align with the original definition of socialism, and I find value in that. However for the purposes of communicating to people who don't agree with the position, it's effectively useless.

Destroying that avenue to communicate was definitely intentional, it subverts actual organizational efforts. The same thing has happened with unions. Essentially the entire 19th century socialist movement has been systematically destroyed through propaganda and language manipulation.

[–] CosmicCleric 1 points 7 months ago

Well truly, I don't mean to discredit what you are saying (especially since its being said well), but I gotta just point out again that they think they are socialists, enough so that they put it into their constitution.

"Boots on the ground" reality I agree with you that they are not (though I am an outsider, not a citizen of the nation, so my view is from the external), they seem very capitalistic to me. But again, their stated goals as per their constitution (and that wiki page while we're at it) says otherwise.

Anyway, good discussion. :)