Because I don't know a lot about it. I find it hard to believe something that has existed so long is the perfect solution to modern issues.

I think we can do better than throwing out/stanning blanket government styles and should instead focus on the issues individually

well I can try and sum up where it's coming from, at least from a theory (and practice, somewhat) standpoint,

I've come to realize most of everything I read puts emphasis on more equality in the workplace, meaning a person giving their time and energy (labor) gets paid more in return for the value they create.

They also have more say in the decisions that affect their life in the workplace as well; thereby it is a more democratic workplace, when the workers get paid better according to the wealth they produce with their labor, and they have decision-making power in the place they spend a large part of their waking day(s).

Then, when you get past just the work part, there's social issues that pair with modern social(ism) that aim to create a better, more egalitarian life, more mobility for people to have all their needs covered.

One main thing people struggle with is the ability to own a business and what looks different under socialism. The major thing that needs to change is the elimination of exploitation of labor, just picture your typical, CEO getting paid $123 million while someone busting their ass is getting a sorry-ass-minimum wage that if it rose with inflation would be $40+ instead of $7.25 federally

The right way would be to focus on the bare minimum essentials not being met. First and foremost. Healthcare, a living wage, access.

There are certain issues and stances that align with the philosophy one could take right now

i.e.:

A Living Wage (the amount people have spend out of their total income on rent alone is insane. doesn't allow for 'upward mobility')

Universal Healthcare (In the US = major f***ing issue)

Education/Childcare

Ending of Racist Policing (Better known as just policing) - this is a bit more complex because some socialists are more centered toward shifting the funds toward things that actually help the community, rebuilding the neighborhoods where law enforcement has terrorized people and using them to remedy the poverty in the area and take care of the people instead. There are arguments to be made about abolition as well, it gets a bit more complex from there

if you mean individual persons then that isn't how you solve systemic issues

probably just means the typical platform issues

Yea, all those points are great.

I'm for ubi, legislation/standardization of democratic business structure, healthcare being free and universal, better voting algorithms... Basically fairness, equality and an adequate baseline for human necessities.

I haven't done much research into the correct implementation of these things either.. So I would consider myself to be w.o the authority to vote between two separate policies implementing the same one of these issues.

However I'm not sure that's an all encompassing description of what socialism is, nor would I label myself as something that may not describe my beliefs in their entirety.

Is it that anyone aligned with these views falls under the general term "socialist" ? And then any differentiation in views branches out with more specific terms from there? (Rectangle vs square kind of thing) If so, I could readily disregard the opinions of any anti-socialist.

With my current knowledge of the subject, I feel it's too broad of a term and we should align ourselves with policies and solutions to issues rather than parties, people or philosophies. With the latter part being ubiquitous..I have no idea why we vote on people instead of policies. The ego does not serve the public.

I'm also aware of the spectrum between capitalism and socialism...but does socialism not call for government reform around issues such as voting methods, lobbying, etc.?

Is it more than just an economic system and also a type of government?

let’s f***ing go i’m drunk and going to try to respond to this gimme a sec

I think labels aren't necessarily the most important thing,

However from what I have seen, people who consider themselves 'communist' or 'socialist' do so because they believe in the ideas, concepts, and theory/philosophy, even if the framework isn't put into place yet.

That's how I've made sense of it.

Now, a great many people are hesitant because they don't know what they're signing up for if they call themselves a socialist because they believe in the policies/ideas that fall under it. That makes sense and it also would show critical thinking in a hesitance to label yourself without being properly educated.

I'd say in the in-between time, you could say you're "open to ideas and better alternatives to the current situation" so to speak, while you're figuring out where you're at.

There is so much CONSTANT propaganda trying to get you on one side or the other, but I think if you care about other human beings and take things slowly you may realize which form of economics/governance is more compassionate towards said human beings.

As far as the 'differences' / branching kind of thing u mentioned,

There are a few (i wish I had the literary sources right now but I'm going off the top of my head) socialist writings that consider socialism the transition period to communism.

The way I understand it, Socialism is 'Post-Capitalist' . So socialism sees the flaws of capitalism and realizes that it was not focusing on the needs of the greater population of human beings and realizes profit is not the most important thing to live for. So that's when things like universal healthcare, education, basically things that consider the well-being, and preparation of human beings to be in the best situation they can, the priority. This is in opposition to the idea that the profit margins are more important than the well-being of the employee, and large population of people who aren't being fairly served by their govt.

The reason people see socialism as big government to me is because there are so many f***ing flaws in capitalism (prioritizing money over human life) that it takes a strong leadership to change all of the places where we went wrong.

In capitalism, money is essentially God. And people are struggling. And it makes peoples lives worse because they're worrying about their next meal, so they're desperate.

Me personally? I'm struggling because I'm afraid once I spend money on therapy, meds, and then things I want,

sometimes i fear I'll be broke and in the negative and won't have money for food or whatever to sustain me through finishing my education.

But enough of that...

I think the hesitance to align ones' self with socialism does stem from how anti-socialist the United States, and some other nations are (although on the world stage the U.S. is one of the main outliers with the containment policies and the cold war in the 20th century).

I think the best thing you could do is probably do some reading, but also some thought about: 'Is this really how things should be?'

I definitely agree with when you said 'I have no idea why we vote on people instead of policies. The ego does not serve the public.'

That was some smart as s*** to say

And that's why I think at one point I think it's better that we might have a more 'boring' president; This allows for the policies and actions themselves to be discussed rather than the temperament or twitter rant .

Now I'll end this post by addressing your last few statements.

Socialism's technical definition is where 'the workers own the means of production'

This definition can sometimes seem too limited because it's dressed up as this incredibly huge philosophy within public political discourse and so it also has a disclaimer that it includes other issues that align with it

This would mean anything essentially that gives a greater quality of life to the larger amount of people, i.e.: voting rights, food, shelter, water, representation, etc.

When it comes to lobbying, it's such a strong force I'd say there are plenty of people across the board that have an issue with money in politics, we've seen this with the discourse about PACs, Super-PACs, and then like politicians bragging about how many donations they got under $20 or $200 whatever it was,

Because I feel like no matter whether you asked someone with right or left views, they'd both agree the elites control the politicians, before they devolve in their propaganda to either side.

TL:DR: Socialism is both an economic system, and a form of governance, a philosophy, because a lot of issues fall under the umbrella

mf wrote an essay in this s*** lets go
its probably all nonsense

Cause I have a degree in economics

Ok this predictable.

U gone have to elaborate, because your post is meme-level and not actually saying anything at all

What in your education tells you that capitalism is preferable to socialism.

inb4 free market cause aint no free market when theres so many monopolies

I am memeing. I do actually like socialism I’m just not a socialist

There are no purely capitalistic societies or pure socialist states the ideal society will always lean towards mixed market economies viewing it as black or white principles is not the best perspective or pragmatic way to go about

its gotta be a better way to describe s*** because i feel like what it takes to be a socialist is someone who believes in the ideas of socialism,

everyone's just reluctant to label themselves, idk.

I mean it's not as crazy as we're lead to believe tbh but it does go to show your views on how people should be treated which is important so

There would still be a wage gap, correct? Everyone is paid according to their contribution and the physician is obviously contributing more than the gap sales clerk.

How large would the wage gap be?

How tf could anyone possibly know what the wage gap would possibly be as if they knew that whenever capitalism started

So then it’s possible the wage gap would still be significant. We would still have upper, middle, and lower class. Might still even have a 1%.

But lower class would just be able to comfortably afford rent and food.

That doesn’t sound as bad to me. Only problem is I would have to see what incentives there are to make more money.

As always you are completely wrong

The first tenant of socialism will be the redistribution of wealth and land lmao

"Afford rent and food" lmao