That’s not what I meant to say. What I meant to say is you’re less inclined to vote for socialism if you end up suffering economically for it. There sure are people that just want people to be equal, but it’s pretty obvious to see that the proudest defenders of this are often the ones who would benefit the most of this, which is likely to be linked to what I said above.
or a desire to take from the wealthy
It sure seems like many do. Saying that on lemmy is… bold
Yes, there’s some truth to that. If someone with vast resources wanted to end world hunger today, they could make a significant impact. But let’s be real, people tend to prioritize their own interests and comfort over the greater good.
Does it exist in the world today? If so, then I do know what it is. Is it a political philosophy that exists largely in books because most holistic attempts to implement it results in authoritarianism and institutional dysfunction? If so, then I know about that too. (Yes, and the ones the US toppled to maintain its interests, obvs. Are you suggesting those are the only “real” socialist countries?)
I understand that you think socialism is fundamentally flawed, I can tell from your tone. I am attempting to engage you politely despite your previous mischaracterizations of what I have said.
I would like to present some counterexamples. Countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have implemented socialist policies such as universal healthcare, free education, and a strong social safety net, and they’ve seen significant economic growth and social progress as a result.
In addition, the cooperative movement in countries like Spain and Italy has shown that worker-owned cooperatives can be highly successful and provide better working conditions and benefits for employees. And let’s not forget about the Nordic model of socialism, which combines elements of market economics with strong social welfare policies to create a more equitable society.
But even within my own country (US), we’ve seen that periods of prosperity have often coincided with the implementation of social safety nets like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP. These programs have helped to reduce poverty and inequality, and they’ve also contributed to economic growth by putting money in people’s pockets and stimulating demand.
Furthermore, many of the worker protections we take for granted today were implemented after the Great Depression, as a response to the failures of laissez-faire capitalism and the exploitation of workers. The Fair Labor Standards Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and other key laws that safeguard workers’ rights were all enacted during this period.
It seems to me that socialism is not inherently flawed but rather it has been distorted or watered down in some cases, or implemented in ways that don’t prioritize the needs of working-class people.
I understand that you think socialism is fundamentally flawed, I can tell from your tone.
It depends - “socialism” can mean more than one thing. Not all implementations are fundamentally flawed.
Countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have implemented socialist policies such as universal healthcare, free education, and a strong social safety net, and they’ve seen significant economic growth and social progress as a result.
Sweden has a total population less than New York and is 90% Christian. Norway is the size of LA and Chicago combined. Denmark only slightly larger, and all have very homogeneous populations. It’s fantastic they’ve been able to support those socialist programs, but compared to the enormous size and demographic complexities of the US, it’s not a fair comparison.
If you want those programs in the US (and I do), you have a ridiculously difficult challenge ahead that simply will not be met by wishing it so, or believing we can all just demand it as one people and it will happen. Which are the two main methods of political change those who proclaim themselves “left” on here seem to propose.
Institutional, national change must have a national party. People must constantly engage with that national party to keep it going in the direction they want.
Socialists on Lemmy don’t have that. What they seem to have is a lot of hate for Democrats and no solutions.
I’m not buying your strawman argument. I don’t appreciate your mischaracterizations. What I said was that many people are selfish and act in their own interest. However, I believe most people are inherently good and are often victims of their environment. That’s why I support socialism - it is a system that aims to address the root causes of inequality and promote the common good.
My point was that the American experiment in self-governance is an ideal we’re always reaching for. So despite our ancestors’ failure to deliver luxury gay space communism to one and all (or to prevent the destruction of the biosphere, or to protect the fairness of the vote . . . well, a lot of things, really) we still have a role to play in yrying to make it better.
My point is everyone working within the structures that exist to bring equity and justice doesn’t mean they’re all corporate genocidal shitweaels as is so often implied by “socialists” who are not part of that effort. Maybe they’re just regular people.
Shouldn’t that be “we’re doomed any way”? Or are there just two options?
Laws can help though, one step at a time. Socialism isn’t throwing the old system away entirely
Totally agree, which is why I recommend using the Democratic party to implement more (and more) socialist policies. But I’m constantly told by “lefties” (of which, I assume some significant part consider themselves socialist) that Democrats are worse than Hitler and the only option is to just let republiQans win. Which, y’know, they did. And now it’s all this.
Everyone who couldn’t bring themselves to vote, or to vote for Harris, because of the Biden administration’s inability to stop the genocide in Gaza. Search this comm in Sept-Oct of last year, you’ll see lots of examples.
That’s not what I meant to say. What I meant to say is you’re less inclined to vote for socialism if you end up suffering economically for it. There sure are people that just want people to be equal, but it’s pretty obvious to see that the proudest defenders of this are often the ones who would benefit the most of this, which is likely to be linked to what I said above.
It sure seems like many do. Saying that on lemmy is… bold
Yes, there’s some truth to that. If someone with vast resources wanted to end world hunger today, they could make a significant impact. But let’s be real, people tend to prioritize their own interests and comfort over the greater good.
So you admit socialism is an ideal that can never be realized?
Bro you have no idea what the term “socialism” even means. Get fucking educated
calm down
political topics really rile people up
Does it exist in the world today? If so, then I do know what it is. Is it a political philosophy that exists largely in books because most holistic attempts to implement it results in authoritarianism and institutional dysfunction? If so, then I know about that too. (Yes, and the ones the US toppled to maintain its interests, obvs. Are you suggesting those are the only “real” socialist countries?)
Maybe your fucking education was shit.
I understand that you think socialism is fundamentally flawed, I can tell from your tone. I am attempting to engage you politely despite your previous mischaracterizations of what I have said.
I would like to present some counterexamples. Countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have implemented socialist policies such as universal healthcare, free education, and a strong social safety net, and they’ve seen significant economic growth and social progress as a result.
In addition, the cooperative movement in countries like Spain and Italy has shown that worker-owned cooperatives can be highly successful and provide better working conditions and benefits for employees. And let’s not forget about the Nordic model of socialism, which combines elements of market economics with strong social welfare policies to create a more equitable society.
But even within my own country (US), we’ve seen that periods of prosperity have often coincided with the implementation of social safety nets like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP. These programs have helped to reduce poverty and inequality, and they’ve also contributed to economic growth by putting money in people’s pockets and stimulating demand.
Furthermore, many of the worker protections we take for granted today were implemented after the Great Depression, as a response to the failures of laissez-faire capitalism and the exploitation of workers. The Fair Labor Standards Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and other key laws that safeguard workers’ rights were all enacted during this period.
It seems to me that socialism is not inherently flawed but rather it has been distorted or watered down in some cases, or implemented in ways that don’t prioritize the needs of working-class people.
It depends - “socialism” can mean more than one thing. Not all implementations are fundamentally flawed.
Sweden has a total population less than New York and is 90% Christian. Norway is the size of LA and Chicago combined. Denmark only slightly larger, and all have very homogeneous populations. It’s fantastic they’ve been able to support those socialist programs, but compared to the enormous size and demographic complexities of the US, it’s not a fair comparison.
If you want those programs in the US (and I do), you have a ridiculously difficult challenge ahead that simply will not be met by wishing it so, or believing we can all just demand it as one people and it will happen. Which are the two main methods of political change those who proclaim themselves “left” on here seem to propose.
Institutional, national change must have a national party. People must constantly engage with that national party to keep it going in the direction they want.
Socialists on Lemmy don’t have that. What they seem to have is a lot of hate for Democrats and no solutions.
I’m not buying your strawman argument. I don’t appreciate your mischaracterizations. What I said was that many people are selfish and act in their own interest. However, I believe most people are inherently good and are often victims of their environment. That’s why I support socialism - it is a system that aims to address the root causes of inequality and promote the common good.
My point was that the American experiment in self-governance is an ideal we’re always reaching for. So despite our ancestors’ failure to deliver luxury gay space communism to one and all (or to prevent the destruction of the biosphere, or to protect the fairness of the vote . . . well, a lot of things, really) we still have a role to play in yrying to make it better.
My point is everyone working within the structures that exist to bring equity and justice doesn’t mean they’re all corporate genocidal shitweaels as is so often implied by “socialists” who are not part of that effort. Maybe they’re just regular people.
A society where everyone is responsible isn’t doable. People are assholes, we’re doomed either way
Laws can help though, one step at a time. Socialism isn’t throwing the old system away entirely
Shouldn’t that be “we’re doomed any way”? Or are there just two options?
Totally agree, which is why I recommend using the Democratic party to implement more (and more) socialist policies. But I’m constantly told by “lefties” (of which, I assume some significant part consider themselves socialist) that Democrats are worse than Hitler and the only option is to just let republiQans win. Which, y’know, they did. And now it’s all this.
with socialism or without it, but yea should have said that
who the fuck says that? The political system is broken in the USA anyways. Only 2 sides.
Everyone who couldn’t bring themselves to vote, or to vote for Harris, because of the Biden administration’s inability to stop the genocide in Gaza. Search this comm in Sept-Oct of last year, you’ll see lots of examples.
“The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats.” -Noam Chomsky
Sadly true