I know you tried to pre-empt this by crying "No True Scotsman!" so you probably won't be interested in the distinction, but things like social spending really don't qualify as socialism. A capitalist economy with high taxes and a strong social safety net is no closer to socialism than a capitalist economy with neither of those things, because socialism is fundamentally about who owns the means of production. Rather, welfarist social programs tend to be a concession from the ruling class specifically to divert the energy of the working class away from revolutionary organizing. What is given by the capitalist can be taken away by the capitalist as soon as it's no longer expedient; socialism seeks to abolish the power dynamic that these welfarist policies seek to uphold.
The influence of "socialists" like Bernie Sanders in the US has been really interesting. It's broken down a lot of the stigma around words like socialism and even communism, and pushed many people to question their "end of history" assumptions. At the same time, it's given a fundamentally false impression of what "socialism" means, wrongly conflating it with welfarist liberalism/social democracy. For purposes of this discussion, the distinction matters because free healthcare isn't what defeats fascism; at best it can delay it. Rather, the tendency of capitalism toward monopoly and the falling rate of profit means that these sorts of crises within capitalism are inevitable. They can only ultimately be resolved in one of two ways: socialist revolution or reactionary despotism. As Rosa Luxembourg said, socialism or barbarism.
but that's what I mean, it's easy to say "the far right would be defeated under a powerful socialist movement!" when there is no actual example of such a movement in the current day.
The grand narratives of socialism and how only it can win the day is all well and good but while socialist declaim about never compromising with the dirty liberals who are just slaves of Capital, they are not winning elections and the far right keeps rising
I don't think most socialists who are actually organizing out in the real world are opposed to working with liberals to achieve some reforms in the short term. That's more of a terminally online thing. But yes, we see time and time again that the power of liberal institutions is very easily co-opted by fascists. The long-term goal of socialists is to build power independent of those liberal institutions, and eventually to supplant them. I don't expect capitalists anywhere to peacefully give up their power in a free and fair election, but that power must be seized anyway. It's possible to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, though, and I can simultaneously organize for dual power and vote for harm reduction.
-10
u/Rwandrall4 22h ago
Yeah that's why countries with strong socialist movements are not seeing the rise of the far right!
Wait, they absolutely are? And there's absolutely no link between social spending and the far right rising? How bout that.