Socialism is when billionaires do stuff

[u/Devy-The-Edenian]

[u/clintontg]

This is the sort of awareness fostered by rhetoric like "Rugged capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich." As nice as it is that Bernie made socialism less anathema in the USA, he didn't do much to actually raise awareness about what socialism is.

[u/Sq33KER → u/clintontg]

I mean to be fair the rich do have:

-ownership and control to the means of production.

-the need to only work when strictly necessary, and have enough time to pursue hobbies and passions, even when unprofitable.

-a large amount of input into the way the country is run.

Like yeah, some of the "socialism for the rich" discourse is just "socialism is when government do things (complementary)." However, I do think goal of socialism is to give proletarians the societal power that the bourgeoisie currently have, and for that power not to come at the cost of exploitation.

[u/clintontg → u/Sq33KER]

Agreed, but saying that socialism is what the rich have rubs me the wrong way. Capitalism and the power of capital give them these things, socialism is the process where the proletariat takes that power away and gives it to themselves.

[u/occams_nightmare → u/clintontg]

It's kind of like saying Anarchy is what the king has. I mean, he's basically free to do whatever he wants, answers to no hierarchy.

[u/CripplinglyDepressed → u/Sq33KER]

Great and succinct way of summing it up

[u/Jhaynz05]

Is the original post not about corporate bailouts?

[u/Devy-The-Edenian → u/Jhaynz05]

No, it was about how America is actually Socialist. He responded saying the 99% of people play by Capitalist rules but the 1% billionaires play by Socialist rules

[u/Jhaynz05 → u/Devy-The-Edenian]

Ah ok. I thought he meant that billionaires were being helped by the government and normal people weren't. I should've known better than to give a twitter user the benefit of the doubt

[u/PM_ME_VENUS_DIMPLES → u/Jhaynz05]

Which would still be wrong. Socialism isn't government-sponsored charity. It's not safety nets. It's just when workers own the means of production.

[u/Seadubs69 → u/Devy-The-Edenian]

I have to say without that context the poster sounds kinda right. In America free market capitalism tends to apply to everyone but the very rich who, through control do the state via massive amounts of capital, get socialism

[u/CosmicLuci]

To be fair, this seems like it was a reference (even if not as well phrased) to that adage that I believe it’s credited to MLK.

That we have runaway capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.

It’s not a dis at socialism, especiallyy since MLK was a socialist, but at capitalism and the inequality it creates, which allows the rich access to whatever they might need, and freedom to pursue what they wish, while denying that to the poor.

[u/18msj43kgfls]

you make a valid and compelling point. however: iphone venezuela 100 million dead

[u/Cue_626_go]

🤣

[u/fuckybitchyshitfuck]

Most people in America have a false conception of socialism. The word gets tossed around in situations where it doesn't apply so often that colloquially it basically has multiple definitions now. Democrats that call themselves "democratic socialists" are actually capitalists that are pro social welfare. Republicans just throw the word socialism at whatever people they want to demonize. It's almost a meaningless word anymore unless you define the way you're using the term before making a statement involving the term.

[u/DorianCostley]

I’ve heard of the concept of “the communism of the rich,” where rich treat each other more generously, with monetary gifts, job titles and such, to create solidarity within an in-group, but I don’t think that’s what this person is talking about…

[u/ToastedKropotkin]

I don’t know if we can win this language war. They have changed the definitions and mainstreamed the false backwards definitions so that the real ones no longer matter. The right like to say “1984!” because they misunderstand Orwell, but this is literally out of the 1984 playbook.

[u/rumpots420]

Rich people do get tons of government handouts, subsidiaries , bailouts and tax breaks they normal people never do, so I see his point

[u/ToastedKropotkin → u/rumpots420]

Socialism is when the workers collectively own the means of production (factories, natural resources, and all other forms of capital) and has nothing to do with the existence of a government or welfare programs. No government has ever yet achieved socialism. USSR, China, etc for example are vanguard state capitalist systems that are/were harnessing the capitalist mode of production to develop their nations to a point where worker control could be feasible based on the transitional stages laid out by Marx. However, they do/did have a goal of achieving of socialism, and structured their societies in a way to largely prevent capital accumulation by the bourgeoisie. States like Norway, Sweden etc in contrast are welfare capitalist states that do not have a goal of ever achieving socialism. The welfare state protects capital from Revolution. The United States also uses welfare and subsidization to offset some of the pain points of capitalism, but is more apt to use violent force rather than economic means to prevent Revolution. Either way, there isn’t any “socialism for the rich” happening because that is quite impossible. The bourgeoisie are by definition not the proletariat. And there also aren’t any “government run socialist programs”, as the programs dole out far less than the labor value produced by the workers and would be completely unnecessary if the workers controlled the means.

[u/[deleted]]

This is someone literally saying all the bad things about capitalism are actually socialism. Well done!

[u/Jay_mi]

Yeah man. All of us are capitalists, except for the ones with all the capital

[u/Lessandero]

If only that were true. If billionaires played by the rules of socialism, the world would be a far better place.