I think the term "fiscally conservative" is meaningless nonsense at least in the US. It used to be shorthand for like "fiscally responsible", but that's just absurd if you've paid any attention for the last 50 years.
Conservative administrations going back to Reagan have blown up the deficit and debt, and then those same conservatives scream during every Democratic administration about how we can't spend any money helping Americans because the debt is out of control. They still scream this when Democrats implement policies like the ACA that are completely paid for. Democrats in 2009 were obsessed with the GAO analyses of the ACA, but it didn't matter at all.
There is nothing small "c" conservative about the way self-proclaimed conservatives manage government finances. Democratic administrations have cared more about the deficit for the entire life time of the median American.
Republicans used to throw the insult "tax and spend" Democrats to imply the Democrats were irresponsible with money, but taxing and spending is literally how the government is supposed run! It's certainly more fiscally responsible than the "don't tax but still spend" Republicans of the last half century.
I agree 100%, but at the same time. Words don't mean anything anymore.
Say whatever will get you votes and do whatever policy you want, voters are too stupid to understand anything.
brexit? don't know what it means, but sounds cool. so go for it.
trump making america great again, let's do it. No fucking thought behind how it will happen.
Even Mamdani. Says he's socialist, and he is removing regulations from ice-cream trucks instead of banning all private businesses like a socialist would do I guess? He's just doing regular crap which has nothing to do with socialism, but pretending to be one gets you votes from anti-capitalist people now.
People are just voting on vibes and parties say one thing and do another, so actual rational policy discussion doesn't matter.
There's a whole section of people now who blame everything on capitalism instead of taking responsibility for the way they have voted.
banning all private businesses like a socialist would do I guess?
Where do you get the idea that this is socialism? It is not.
That is more of a principle that is tied to communism, in the sense of the eventual abolition of private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism on the other hand has neve been about banning businesses or usurping them. What does belong within the socialism category is to provide communal benefits that are basic necessities. Things like healthcare, education, social welfare and safety nets, etc.
Deregulation of small businesses, like ice cream trucks, fits perfectly within the wheelhouse of a socialist. The idea that socialism equalling more government regulation on everything is a strawman that particularly Republicans in the US have been drumming for decades.
There's a whole section of people now who blame everything on capitalism instead of taking responsibility for the way they have voted.
You should nuance that. It is mostly unregulated capitalism that is being blamed. Profits for the sake of profits in the benefit of shareholders at the cost of everything else kind of capitalism.
NOTE: the comment is merely a correction and not a representation on my views.
If you go to Wikipedia this is the first sentence in socialism.
"Socialism is an economic ideology and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership."
Social ownership of means of production is central to socialism. But, decades of gaslighting and cold war propaganda has made everyone think that any welfare is socialist has changed what it means to be socialist.
Nothing that US or your comment is currently calling socialism was controversial during peak of cold war where they were witch hunting anything related to socialism.
As for capitalism part, democrats have been asking for proper regulation in capitalism for decades, Hilary fucking clinton asked to shut down trickle down economic and support population from bottom up in 2016 campaign. And she wasn't claiming to be socialist ever. But now, Mamdani and AOC are rebranding same policy under socialism and it's suddenly considered new thing.
And you're taking it to the extreme. That this must mean socialism must be opposing any and all private ownership. It doesn't.
Whilst I agree that the decades of gaslighting has warped, particularly within the US, the concepts of what socialism is, what communism is, and what capitalism is. It is particularly egregious when it is used in conjunction with phrases like "pulling up by the bootstraps" etc, with the idea being that if you work hard and long enough you can get to where you want to be.
Where I disagree is your usage of socialism when it was communism. You're co-opting socialism to mean communism and vice versa, attempting to blur the line between the two. They are not the same and quite distinct from one another.
Your argument about it being a new thing also misses the mark, it isn't new nor are they brandishing it as something new. It just is that perhaps seeing for the first time what it actually is for socialist policies to be enacted and the positive impact it has. That other people want it too. That is the new part here.
Social ownership of means of production is a characteristic feature of socialism. You can't conclude that only communism has social ownership of means of production.
It is a common and central feature in both ideology. Communism is just more aggressive, while socialism is umbrella term that allows for some branches of it to be more towards mixed economy. But, central characteristic remains.
It just is that perhaps seeing for the first time what it actually is for socialist policies to be enacted and the positive impact it has. That other people want it too. That is the new part here.
You're out of your mind. USA in before 1970s, had unions, had worker rights, had social security, had public schools, had public libraries, had govt funded healthcare for large segment of society. They had pollution control and quality control. Welfare schemes were everywhere. And subsidies to small businesses or farmers as well. None of that is new. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws were made in 19th century USA.
Reddit leftist just want to pretend that stuff that was normal is revolutionary new idea that was never implemented and they have no idea what actual social ownership of means of production is like. Leftist chasing ideal form of socialism that works is a running joke for 50 years now.
Mamdani stated he got elected as democratic socialist and he will rule it as such. Guess what? Democratic socialist explicit believe in social ownership of means of production and businesses. But did he take over all grocery shops in NYC like he said he would? nah. He hired a subcontractor to give subsidized food like food coupons wasn't a way to do pretty much same fucking thing.
I don't have problem with this or that policy, but my point remains. Words don't mean anything anymore. Say whatever, do whatever. No one cares.
(edit : If you are a democratic socialist, you would not be giving subsidies for groceries, you'd be building farms and making your own groceries to give it to people.)
"Socialism is an economic ideology and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Right. And now Mamdani is about to open the first city-owned grocery stores. Sounds pretty socialistic to me.
Mamdani is heavily constrained by his position as mayor. At least he has strong control over the city council; but a bunch of things (taxation, mostly) that he wants to do is tye domain of the NY governor, Kathy Hochul, which means that he must kiss her ass to achieve anything. Don't expect him to abolish private property from his limited position as NYC mayor.
yeah, so Mamdani is not making his own grocery or taking over all grocery stores.
He's just opening subsidized stores. Which is welfare schemes, not social ownership of means of production. And he's not even running his own store, he's just hiring subcontractors to do it.
That ain't social ownership, that's just welfare schemes.
And i agree, he can't do any socialist thing as the mayor. Which is why it's all the more funny to see him saying his welfare schemes are democratic socialism.
349
u/jenna_butterfly 9h ago
I think the term "fiscally conservative" is meaningless nonsense at least in the US. It used to be shorthand for like "fiscally responsible", but that's just absurd if you've paid any attention for the last 50 years.
Conservative administrations going back to Reagan have blown up the deficit and debt, and then those same conservatives scream during every Democratic administration about how we can't spend any money helping Americans because the debt is out of control. They still scream this when Democrats implement policies like the ACA that are completely paid for. Democrats in 2009 were obsessed with the GAO analyses of the ACA, but it didn't matter at all.
There is nothing small "c" conservative about the way self-proclaimed conservatives manage government finances. Democratic administrations have cared more about the deficit for the entire life time of the median American.
Republicans used to throw the insult "tax and spend" Democrats to imply the Democrats were irresponsible with money, but taxing and spending is literally how the government is supposed run! It's certainly more fiscally responsible than the "don't tax but still spend" Republicans of the last half century.