[The Immortal Goon]

Government control doesn't equate socialism; socialism is a class dictatorship of the proletariat, just like capitalism is the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie:

But of late, since Bismarck went in for State-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious Socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkyism, that without more ado declares all State-ownership, even of the Bismarkian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.

Socialism properly implies above all things the co-operative control by the workers of the machinery of production; without this co-operative control the public ownership by the State is not Socialism – it is only State capitalism. The demands of the middle-class reformers, from the Railway Reform League down, are simply plans to facilitate the business transactions of the capitalist class. State Telephones – to cheapen messages in the interest of the middle class who are the principal users of the telephone system; State Railways – to cheapen carriage of goods in the interest of the middle-class trader; State-construction of piers, docks, etc. – in the interest of the middle-class merchant; in fact every scheme now advanced in which the help of the State is invoked is a scheme to lighten the burden of the capitalist – trader, manufacturer, or farmer. Were they all in working order to-morrow the change would not necessarily benefit the working class; we would still have in our state industries, as in the Post Office to-day, the same unfair classification of salaries, and the same despotic rule of an irresponsible head. Those who worked most and hardest would still get the least remuneration, and the rank and file would still be deprived of all voice in the ordering of their industry, just the same as in all private enterprises.

Therefore, we repeat, state ownership and control is not necessarily Socialism – if it were, then the Army, the Navy, the Police, the Judges, the Gaolers, the Informers, and the Hangmen, all would all be Socialist functionaries, as they are State officials – but the ownership by the State of all the land and materials for labour, combined with the co-operative control by the workers of such land and materials, would be Socialism.

Schemes of state and municipal ownership, if unaccompanied by this co-operative principle, are but schemes for the perfectioning of the mechanism of capitalist government-schemes to make the capitalist regime respectable and efficient for the purposes of the capitalist; in the second place they represent the class-conscious instinct of the business man who feels that capitalist should not prey upon capitalist, while all may unite to prey upon the workers.

[AFAIK]

To add to what others have stated;

Social democrat= Welfare state, redistribution of wealth, worker protections
Democratic socialist= Instituting a socialist economy through the political system whilst avoiding revolutionary violence
Socialist economy= Workers own the means of production, distribution and exchange. Managers and investors no longer exist.

[Decky]

And to add to that socialism starts at democratic socialist. Social democrats are just another type of capitalist.

[Pants-of-dog]

The difference between social democrats (like Sanders or other leftist politicians) and democratic socialists (who are far more rare) is that the former seek to modify capitalism while the latter seek the eradication of capitalism and think they can do it without authoritarian means.

Democratic socialists think we can create a classless state without tyranny, but we are still socialists in that the end goal is the same as any other socialists.

Social democrats want to reform capitalism by using taxpayer money to regulate those things that the free market fails at addressing.

Mr. Sanders has been useful insofar as he has helped this debate and discussion happen. As for the general US population understanding how socialism can help them, there would have to be a multi-generational project to overhaul education of history in order to even have the discussion.

[Decky]

It wouldn't have to be a multi-generation project. Stalin managed sweeping changes to a society even more backwards than the United States in far less time than that. You just have to accept that you can't make omelette without breaking eggs (or as Stalin said, when a forest is chopped woodchips fly).

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not so sure.

I think you would need different historical conditions to create a US Stalin. Or a multi-generational project.

[Rich]

Socialism is about total working class control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It has nothing to do with being given scraps by the government.

The Soviet Union was about putting total control of the means of production, distribution and exchange into the hands of the Middle Class and Upper class intellectuals that made up the central committee and politburo. Every scrap of working class power, autonomy and control was smashed: Factory committees, Soviets, Dumas, peasants committees, army committees and the constituent assembly. The worker class would be allowed no choice of employer and no choice of political party.

See the Soviet future a middle class intellectual's boot smashing into the face of the worker for ever.

[Decky]

You can't seem to decide if you are a right wing nutter or a Trot.

[Potemkin]

:lol: You can't seem to decide if you are a right wing nutter or a Trot.

There's a difference?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Firstly, when did I disagree with anything you have said here, I agree that these Socialistic Policies I have mentioned are just a distraction from Capitalism greed and I point to shut down Socialists. Welfare is Socialistic and that was my point, it is stepping stones but no where near what true Socialism is. To be completely honest with you, your argument is just sounds like you are metaphorically spewing rhetoric instead of having a discussion. I may be wrong on some points but I am here to learn. Not to have my points thrown in my face with no evidence. As for the point about Bernie, I'll stick with the experts on that one. I tried to end the argument peacefully, but unless you have evidence and a valid counter argument, I say good day sir.

I thought this was a peaceful conversation? You're on a political forum, so it logically follows that people will ask you questions and talk about what they think. That's what happens on a political forum. Re-read my posts and note I never told you what to think or said anything personal. All I did was ask you what you meant, and elaborated on a few things. I'm not an expert on Marxism but I can guarantee you that any will say essentially what I said: it is a common mistake among people today to confuse welfare and social democracy with socialism. I'm sorry you feel this is rhetoric but socialism is clearly defined even if the blueprints vary from culture to culture.

I had hoped you were interested in talking because this is a forum. I still hope you are.

[TrumpSortOfMeme]

I thought this was a peaceful conversation? You're on a political forum, so it logically follows that people will ask you questions and talk about what they think. That's what happens on a political forum. Re-read my posts and note I never told you what to think or said anything personal. All I did was ask you what you meant, and elaborated on a few things. I'm not an expert on Marxism but I can guarantee you that any will say essentially what I said: it is a common mistake among people today to confuse welfare and social democracy with socialism. I'm sorry you feel this is rhetoric but socialism is clearly defined even if the blueprints vary from culture to culture.

I had hoped you were interested in talking because this is a forum. I still hope you are.

Apologies, I guess either my points aren't being understood or I'm not understanding yours. Though its likely the latter. I need to start reading some more. Re-reading what you have written and doing some research I understand what your saying. I just got disgruntled about my confusion about what you guys were saying. I'm new to this whole thing clearly. :)

[Rich]

:lol: You can't seem to decide if you are a right wing nutter or a Trot.

Trotsky was even more keen on smashing every vestige of working class autonomy and power than Lenin. He wanted to miitarise labour. Lenin and Trotsky both pushed for dictatorship straight after the Febuary revolution when Stalin was still taking a moderate line. The October Coup was to a considerable extent a coup by Lenin and Trotsky against the moderates of the Bolshevik party. Trotsky only got all squidgy about democracy once he'd been side lined from the leadership. If it had been Stalin that had been exiled rather than Trotsky no doubt we would have to endure the same whinings about bureacratism from the Stalinists.