I don’t know what “flavor” you’re looking for. Apparently you have some kind of set of related but different ideas that in your head form the notion of communism. And apparently this notion leads you to think that Bernie or AOC are in favor of communism. But neither of them is in favor of anything that even remotely resembles any commonly accepted definition of communism.
I thought that was clear, and made abundantly so by my soapbox you just replied to (that it seems like you didn’t read).
Let me be as blunt as possible so you don’t miss it again:
What does (the person behind) lemmy.world/u/wpb believe “communism” and “socialism” are?
Both can have radically different forms and definitions, throughout history and between people. Debating whether or not anyone in the US is in favor of either obviously highly depends on what form we’re talking about.
Mamdani is opening government-run grocery stores. That’s socialism - wouldn’t you agree?
Both can have radically different forms and definitions, throughout history and between people
Not really. Redditors like you like to insist that your personal understanding of a concept is as valid as any other, even though that is not and has never been how communication works. You are free to believe any word means any thing, but you’re going to have a hard time engaging in any gainful discussion with anyone when you gotta argue over the meaning of every word first - Especially when you are too prideful to acknowledge that your understanding of a term might be lacking and your definition is incorrect.
Mamdani is opening government-run grocery stores. That’s socialism - wouldn’t you agree?
“Socialism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff it does the socialister it is, and if it does a whole lotta stuff, then its communism”
Dude socialism isn’t defined by “does the government do social programmes?” it’s a social relation to the means of production and governance of state. Denmark has free university education (for a little while longer, its getting cut every year) but that is not socialism. China has billionaires, but that does not mean it is not a socialist state. That is because ideology is not determined by the presence of social programmes.
I don’t know what “flavor” you’re looking for. Apparently you have some kind of set of related but different ideas that in your head form the notion of communism. And apparently this notion leads you to think that Bernie or AOC are in favor of communism. But neither of them is in favor of anything that even remotely resembles any commonly accepted definition of communism.
I thought that was clear, and made abundantly so by my soapbox you just replied to (that it seems like you didn’t read).
Let me be as blunt as possible so you don’t miss it again:
What does (the person behind) lemmy.world/u/wpb believe “communism” and “socialism” are?
Both can have radically different forms and definitions, throughout history and between people. Debating whether or not anyone in the US is in favor of either obviously highly depends on what form we’re talking about.
Mamdani is opening government-run grocery stores. That’s socialism - wouldn’t you agree?
Not really. Redditors like you like to insist that your personal understanding of a concept is as valid as any other, even though that is not and has never been how communication works. You are free to believe any word means any thing, but you’re going to have a hard time engaging in any gainful discussion with anyone when you gotta argue over the meaning of every word first - Especially when you are too prideful to acknowledge that your understanding of a term might be lacking and your definition is incorrect.
“Socialism is when the government does stuff and the more stuff it does the socialister it is, and if it does a whole lotta stuff, then its communism”
Dude socialism isn’t defined by “does the government do social programmes?” it’s a social relation to the means of production and governance of state. Denmark has free university education (for a little while longer, its getting cut every year) but that is not socialism. China has billionaires, but that does not mean it is not a socialist state. That is because ideology is not determined by the presence of social programmes.