Read on Twitter
I just wanna repeat. Socialism is a rather drastically different concept of government than just having social programs...... A THREAD:
They are in no way the same thing. Socialism, defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
It is not the same as sharing assets to help the community as a whole, who own their own production, distribution, and exchange.
In other words, you contribute for roads, but then you drive on them to go to places to purchase with money you own things you will now own at shops that are owned not by the whole.
Now why this matters is that the confusion is constantly being made, although often in jest. I've long said the problem liberals have is that people think we are the people conservatives say we are.....
.....all day, 24/7, conservative media tell people this horrible caricature of what a liberal is, but it's not true. The real issue is that today's new liberal actually decided to begin being that caricature, and calling US the "neoliberal."
And many honestly think these caricature things are what we should be, which is only serving to make the D in our names more toxic, as normal liberals are being branded, as we always were, but with the actions of the actual neo-liberal pinned onto us:
Examples include Bill Maher saying Biden would've won more if he wasn't talking about "defunding the police" (and Biden is NOT talking about defunding the police, the actual neo-liberals are). https://thehill.com/homenews/media/502593-bill-maher-tees-off-on-f-ing-stupid-defund-the-police-message-terrible-idea
We used to say this in jest. You hate socialism? So you won't use roads, right? But in fact roads were created through social programs, not socialism--vastly different things, and I think it's long past time we start being serious about the distinction.
In fact, the very person who coined the term capitalism, Adam Smith, said the following. He had no problem with the notion of social programs that would elevate the poor.
And though I say this, the actual neo-liberals, enacting the caricature, would scream I'm a "neoliberal" who loves corporations and shit, while simultaneously, I'm being labeled as a Stalin-esque Commie by the people on the right.
It just has to come under some kind of damned control, and it won't if we keep using all our terms so fucking wrong it's not even funny.
Screw the notion of "Democratic Socialist," or whatever the rose-bunnies are calling themselves this week. The most accurate term we have still scares the Right, but it's the way countries lead towards making the best progress: Welfare Capitalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism
And if they have a problem with that term, remind them that it appears in the Constitution, so the founders probably wouldn't have such a damned fit over the concept at all. In fact, it's precisely what they call for.
