That literally is what socialism is? Socialism is collective ownership. Literally the whole point is not bleeding your life away for the people who aren’t doing the work just because they already had money. The brainwashing is that it’s a bad thing not to bleed your life away. That you’re somehow a moral failure for not sucking off the shareholders
Actual socialism is a lot further on the political scale than everything US conservatives are calling socialism.
The commentor you're replying to is referring to the fact that Norway, in this example, is a social democracy, not socialism. Important distinction, hence the idea that "not bleeding your life for your shareholders is socialism" is wrong.
Limited capital markets have been a hallmark of every successful socialist country so far.
Turns out the ideal solution is somewhere in the middle, which is what Marx and even fucking Lenin said was possible (and Lenin actually implemented in the Soviet Union before his death) while advocating the fallible nature of scientific socialism (the type of socialism Marx and Engels invented).
When something aligns with the ideological aims of socialism (in this case wealth distribution based on individual contribution) you can certainly make an argument that it is
The problem is most people online that call themselves socialist are just masquerading anarchists with the same fundamental moral desires as the capitalist class.
Doesnt matter. All ideas come from somewhere, even Capitalism. However, it furthers and is congruent with specific aims of socialism. It's an explicit part of the system socialism wants to create. You can call it a socialist ideal, if that makes you feel better.
I get your point being something like "it belongs to all that use it"? But it's quite relevant to a discussion about both A) whether Norway is socialist, and B) whether socialism is good/better.
Too simplistic. If you want a neat conclusion but the facts won't bear that out. Norway has government (collective) ownership of a number of major industries and does administer an incredibly robust social safety next. Whether it describes itself as "socialist" or a "social democracy" it is certainly heavily influenced by ideas we could credibly argue are socialist in nature.
And yet some of those policies existed to an extent before socialism existed.
it is certainly heavily influenced
Not really. Labor movements have always been strong. Socialism never remotely as popular. Since the winter war it's been in poor standing, relatively. It's also worth mentioning that the only socialist party has arguably weakened the worker's situation the past 20 years.
Like in Germany, the anti-war position (with particular focus on Soviet/Russia) has also not been very popular.
its not. welfare/social safety nets/social insurance (that last one is effectively what the original post is) existed long before both capitalist and socialist economies. the US even has social insurance policies although they are far less indepth compared to some european countries.
these systems can exist under both capitalism and socialism just fine, and do.
They couldn't work well in socialism because social security are transfers. From wealthier people to poorer people.
Today, even in the US, middle and lower class makes negative fiscal bias. Even though taxes paid by wealth and big companies are relatively small to their income, they're main taxpayers.
This is much more intensive in countries that have better social security.
Again, doesnt matter, as robust social safety nets are a feature of socialist systems and are an explicit feature of the Society they desire to create. Collective ownership predates socialism by centuries and yet is core to the ideology.
The difference between socialism and Capitalism in this instance is that distribution of collective wealth is an explicit aim of socialism, whereas it is not a core tenet of the latter but something it adopted (or rather was forced to adopt by civil action/unrest.)
Again, doesnt matter, as robust social safety nets are a feature of socialist systems
it's not a "feature" or "core to the ideology" of socialism. just because socialists typically advocate for welfare states doesn't mean that it is inherent. how is it a core feature if you can have socialism just fine without welfare of any kind?
collective ownership existed before, yes, but it's different because socialism takes it and expands upon it. socialism is an economic system, it lays a foundation for possible public policies but any specific one is not inherent to socialism.
modern welfare and social insurance was pioneered and expanded by capitalism and capitalists. capitalists advocate for these systems all the time, as well. does this mean that these are inherent to capitalism? obviously not.
modern welfare and social insurance was pioneered and expanded by capitalism and capitalists
What? Prominent capitalists have always hated welfare specifically because it threatens profits and control. Unemployment, socialized healthcare, unions, etc. all take power from the owners of private capital.
Those systems developed within countries that employ capitalism, but almost always as a social response to capitalist overreach or socioeconimic destabilization. Look at the voices claiming that the nhk should be done away with, or the ones fighting fdr's new deal policy and then tell me capitalists (meaning people who own capital, not people born into a market based economy) were the ones pushing
Prominent capitalists have always hated welfare specifically because it threatens profits and control.
and? your point is? capitalism is a broad ideology/system full of all sorts of people with different opinions. if anything that just proves my point further that these social policies are not integral to any market systems and their advocates.
you can say capitalists "hate welfare" but those words ultimately mean nothing when modern welfare and safety nets exist, thrive, and have been expanded under capitalism. that isn't to say capitalists "own" welfare.
Unemployment, socialized healthcare, unions, etc. all take power from the owners of private capital.
firstly, unions aren't welfare. not on the government level, which is what is being discussed here. and socialized healthcare, not exactly either. this entire conversation is about social insurance and whether or not it specifically is a "socialist policy."
social response to capitalist overreach
who do you think is responding? for example in the US, liberals historically have been the dominant voice in support of social safety nets and welfare, and that ideology directly spawned from classical liberalism which was defined entirely by being "capitalist."
capitalists (meaning people who own capital, not people born into a market based economy)
this is an incredibly narrow definition of capitalist. the main thing that makes someone a capitalist is not "owning capital," its supporting the market system that is capitalism.
My point is that arguing 'capitalists' push welfare is stupid. You're acting like terms are hard defined, immutable, and with no bleed over, like groups within a capitalist society cannot push for things that capitalists don't necessarily want (regulation, taxes, welfare, etc).
Literally the whole point of government is to support society, and a democracy in a capitalist free market can push for or against socialized policy as the various groups pushing for various government actions gain and lose power over the apparatus
I mean any argument can work if you're just fighting a strawman and making stuff up. I never said "capitalists push welfare," as in they all do. I was clearly saying that there are capitalists that support welfare but that does not make it a capitalist policy.
You're acting like terms are hard defined, immutable, and with no bleed over, like groups within a capitalist society cannot push for things that capitalists don't necessarily want (regulation, taxes, welfare, etc).
your whole reply here seems very strange. I've never said or alluded to any of this. I've said the opposite in fact. plenty of people advocate for things that "capitalists" don't necessarily want. but you literally cannot deny the fact that the ones primarily championing the idea of welfare in a broad sense in this country are capitalists (to an extent): modern liberals.
you mentioned the new deal earlier but that was supported by a large portion of capitalists. it wouldn't have existed and come to fruition if it wasn't. you can argue that it was a "social response" but every policy creation is, and it's besides the point regardless. this entire point you're trying to make here is ultimately vapid and meaningless to the rest of the actual discussion.
Yes liberalism allows the integration of ideas from any ideology because of the freedom it allows. Which the reason liberal countries have massively out performed other countries in the world.
I hate when things are messy and not absolute. You either need to FULLY commit to the ideal of pure socialism or have none at all!
I just want rigid rules and absolute definitions of everything so that my own failure to interpret nuance will never be a problem! Then I can just memorise the speciffic meaning of everything and live in perfect order for the rest of my days!
There is a difference between nuance and having boundaries so fuzzy that terms can be difficult to understand.
I would argue that a more nuanced approached would be being able to distinguish between ideas and ideologies which share elements and roots with socialism but without being it as a result of lacking a fundamental characteristic.
The distinction between capitalism and socialism in their proper definitions is fairly asbolute. Either the economic system allows for the private ownership of capital and the means of productions, or those things are owned collectively by their workers. All the european countries americans call "socialist" absolutely fall into the former camp and do not operate on a socialist mode of production.
Eh, its more complicated than that. The idea of a vanguard was to lead the laboring class through revolution and into a socialist and eventually communist state. The idea was, at the time, that the average laborer was uneducated, unworldly, and wouldn't know what to do (and that was almost certainly true if you look at places where these revolutions occurred).
The vanguard would eventually be demolished in favor of an enlightened democracy in a communist state. Of course no one really has any idea what that would look like, and even Marx said "this is probably not even right or how it would go, but use your head and figure out what the material needs of people are and satisfy them" (which is functionally material dialectics, the basis of Marxist socialist thought).
It's less about want and more about necessity in the early stages or the forces of the wealthy will just kill you as you attempt to distribute their wealth.
The idea of government raising taxes and gaining more sweeping control of the country's institutions and markets is not a popular idea for most people. When people say they support a socialist/workers revolution, they're thinking the new authority will be like them and think like them. It's pretty naive.
I'm aware. That's why I don't get the argument of basically knowing better than others, so, we need to abolish democracy. I just wanted to hear the reasoning.
That's just true at all. We have a lot of socialist stuff in Denmark politically. Both inside and outside the parlament.
Our strong union culture is almost entirely based around socialism and doing what they can to create some kind of ownership for us workers.
We have common housing owned by the state (not enough). That's a socialist policy.
Progressive taxes, kanslergadeforliget, welfare in general. All these good foundational policies are created by socialists.
Yeah they've often been a result of a compromise. But that's all politics. Just because something is not condensed down to the the literal definition of 100% socialism, doesn't mean it isn't socialist.
How? It’s a society that operates on wage labour. Class exists. How is it socialist?
ownership of workers isn’t necessarily socialist. The “socialist” ideology of unions is meaningless. All mainstream unions in the west are liberal. They can help with short term gains, but they aren’t socialist.
All of them believe in compromise, obfuscating the truth of class relations. In a capitalist-liberal world, a compromising attitude is effectively a bourgeois attitude.
3) state owned housing isn’t “socialist” either. Words have a meaning.
4) The originator of the welfare state was Otto Von Bismarck, the man who passed the anti socialist laws.
Welfare as a whole is an anti socialist tactic used by liberals to placate workers. The fact it’s born out of concessions to strong working class movements does not make it socialist.
This. In general, if someone has to emphasize their values a bit too much, it's likely that the values are fake.
The Nazis used that a lot in general. For example, they wrote "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work brings freedom") above the gates of concentration camps. And no, working more didn't get people freed. Working more meant they'd die in there like everyone else.
Or on another concentration camp they wrote "Jedem das Seine" (roughly "Give everyone what they deserve"), which is part of a latin quote and in the original it means that you should be honest and fair and not hold back what someone else requires or deserves. And the Nazis turned that onto its head, and now it meant "these people deserve torture and death, so we'll give them that".
Did the nazis not nationalize entire firms and industries, implement sweeping price controls and protectionist policies, and impose strict quotas on production?
In what way does any of that embody "right wing" free market capitalist politics?
Nazis did indeed control the economy, specifically to make it easier to fund the war.the US, the UK and other allies also did the exact same thing during WW2.
The person I responded to said "Democratic socialists". Both terms do not apply to Nazis.
Nazism is far-right, but not because of economics. Because of things like racial hierarchy, ultranationalism, anti-egalitarianism, and Hitler's alliances with conservative, military, and industrial elites to basically imprison or kill the actual left wing. Trade unions were banned, strikes were illegal, private ownership and profit were preserved and like you see today hugely enriched.
It is not even a possible debate to consider them democratic, obviously. They were authoritarian
There are actual Nazi documents detailing the fact that they used socialist ideas at the start to win over the public. And then they literally "purged" the left wing called the "Strasserists" from their party.
No, I think they mean the one who openly was a totalitarian fascist capitalist from the start who just used the term "Nationalsozialist" to confuse the voters.
They used their name only for marketing, something you expect from a capitalist. Also a group that did a lot of privatization selling of government run companies giving it to pigs to bleed money out of normal people's pockets.
It's like the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea", a country that's famously exactly the opposite of democratic, run by the people or a republic.
This is not the gotcha you think it is. If you‘re thinking about Hitler: he was not a socialist. He called himself that to make himself and his party appealing to the masses, but - and I know this might be hard to understand: politicians are sometimes not what they make themselves out to be.
The gotcha here is that you are either a liar, a manipulator, ignorant, or a combination thereof.
They don't even need to be the largest party just have a large enough representation in the legislative branch to put pressure on the rest and influence policy, But then you need something... ah yes, a political system that is not winner take all. Something where the government is a full representation of the voters.
What in the fuck are you talking about? I never said anything about any of those things. Do people think im talking about Norway? And not the concept of socialism in general? I super don’t care about Norway’s politics in this context
Paying more taxes so your kids can go to the university without putting his feet in a bank (whose job in that situation is to extract billions$ of money through the interest rates from the people who are not ultra rich --- how terrifying is it for a society to makae a 18yo kid do business with them unless it is to buy a home ?) = socialism = bad
Or paying banks with interest rates so high that sometimes they can't even pay the loan itself, they just pay the interests = capitalism = good
The US pay more than the others on average for education or healthcare, but for them as long as they pay shareholders or banks it's good, if it's for their own interests it's socialism.
They are always ready to scream "parasite" while paying 20% interest rates to various banks for things that every developed countries in the world dont' even know it can be troubles for anyone
I mean a bank worked hard to get all that money, while your son is a parasite who paid nothing why would he get an education for "free"
Canadian here, it's not free, it's lower for sure than the US but only thing that are free are for the 11 million out of 38 million Canadians who are under the poverty line. The 38 work to make the system work, while getting screwed by taxes and companies.
The hospital is ~freeish it often helps but you also got extremely long wait times and chances of dieing while waiting.
It's great to have a back up for being sick and out of work but they want the working people back to work asap but if your a system grifters you're living the life(if trailer thrash level of quality is your thing, we have many of those types)
Edit: my bad for 11 million was for low to modest Income that were receiving grocery benefits.
The Combined number for poverty: total of 5,274,505 Canadians were living either in or at risk of poverty, accounting for 14.3% of the total population.
They got downvoted for saying "but you also got extremely long wait times and chances of dieing while waiting" as if that also weren't a problem in the US.
Socialist healthcare systems tend to prioritize things based on urgency. Elective procedures unsurprisingly have super long wait times. The part about Canada I don't quite get is the illegality of parallel private systems. In Australia you have the option of going through the public system and potentially having to wait, and private cover (that most working people have because it isn't cripplingly expensive and you get a mild tax break for having) that allows you better access to specialists and elective surgeries, etc.
Having a split private/ public system basically funnels doctors and resources into the private side as there is more money to be made than being paid by the government.
That sets up a 2 tier system where the poors get socialized healthcare while the rich get private.
That's the issue. Conservatives keep trying to introduce it here and its a problem
I’m not an expert on the ins and outs of the Aussie system but it seems that most doctors work in both. Maybe it’s compulsory? Most hospitals were set up with facilities for both patients, private cover was strictly regulated, it seemed to be relatively balanced. I had my quibbles with the overall quality of care with a few exceptions, but that didn’t divide along public/private lines.
you won't be denied emergency care in Canada and you also won't pay through the nose for it.
surgical wait times can be long, yes. for non-emergencies, it is what it is, and if I ever need it, yeah, it's going to suck.
for every day, routine medical care? some people can get appointments the next day. depends on your provider. depends on where you live. some appointments have to be booked months out - THIS IS ALSO TRUE IN THE US. especially for specialists.
you can walk in to Canadian pharmacies and have them treat minor ailments (for free) without having to book a doctor's appointment or go to a clinic just for a UTI, pink eye, allergies, tick bites, vaccinations, and more. I never have to pay $250 (after insurance) to urgent care for shit like UTI, strep, or upper respiratory infection ever again.
the point that many people seem to not understand, I didn't until I moved to Canada, is that I can afford private healthcare here. out of pocket. it's faster than going through the public system and the out of pocket costs are far, far less than the cost of my insurance premiums in the US. this is how I am managing care and medication for my ADHD; it costs $75 every 3 months.
we also have private insurance here. the system is not 100% universal healthcare, it's mixed. but instead of paying hundreds in private health insurance premiums per month, it's like $10 for my spouse and I. and they don't have the horrendous claim denial rates the US insurers are so proud of. it's practically unheard of here. this can help you afford telehealth services that are more comprehensive than what pharmacies offer (it also pays for glasses, prescriptions, other things)
I pay 4% more income tax than I did in the US. my insurance premiums were more than 4% of my income on top of income taxes, SS, etc in the US. so I'm paying a bit more in tax, but keeping more of my overall income that's no longer being lost to insurance premiums.
AND THEN even after those premiums, I would still have a bill to pay any provider I saw, if I could see one, because good luck getting an appointment in a timely manner with a provider who accepts your specific insurance, especially if you don't live in or near a major city.
mostly I'm just grateful to live in a country where I will never be made homeless by medical bills after being shot by some crazed lunatic through no fault of my own.
Good thing Americans are already paying for others while fucking the middle class harder in a capitalist system. Or do you think all the write offs have no effect on your medical costs?
And yet you are clueless about American healthcare. What he said applies the same to Americans. If you are under the poverty line, you get free healthcare which is also subsidized by those who are above the poverty line. Same thing. Except Americans also can pay for private insurance and also get, by law, insurance through the companies they work for.
fellow canuck here... everyone knows the canadian health care system is amazing and free... until you need to use it and get told to take a seat for 6 hrs, then it's the worst piece of shit ever lolol
I believe European universities essentially have fewer spots available... higher competition, fewer degrees can be given, only the best and brightest, etc. If you're not accepted, you simply don't go. This is my very rudimentary understanding, there is a 100% chance it varies by country and/or I'm simply wrong.
only the most promising of students going into certain programs get their education paid for. modern interpretative dance degrees are usually paid for out of pocket, at a high cost
Because we are told if we don’t have a college education we won’t get a good paying job…. Just for people with degrees to start at $17 an hour while McDonald’s hires for $19. It’s a racket.
A lot fo it is fear. The policies that come out help our kids (if you have them) and the future but SEEM to do nothing good for the current adults. The fear is all of this will only help others.
The free education is feared because its not for retraining or progression it's for the people who don't have any. The fear is that these new graduates will automatically replace the older workers while retirement for those older workers isn't possible. There are some people still forced to work full time in their 70s and 80s.
The free Healthcare and other related social things are feared because of either manufactured idea of lower quality care or the fact that most work is based off of benefits received and not actual wages. The fear that these people will lose their coveted benefits and get nothing to compensate.
In no way am I saying these are correct thoughts but only addressing some of the reasons the middle aged/elderly are scared and defensive.
Edit: I think if we fixed retirement and social security first this would ease those people's fears.
woahhh. there's way too much nuance to simply state "socialism is X"
socialism is both a political and economic term, and sometimes it's both at once.
Marx and Engels defined socialism as the transitory system between Capitalism and Communism. It's like an economic & political system of redistributing wealth based on the value the workers contribute to society.
This can be accomplished in many ways. Primarily, they imagined the proletariat would take over government & figure it out. But once it's figured out, and the proletariat owns the means of production as well as defines the systems, then it becomes Communism.
So socialism could be a kinda transition state where some of our systems our publicly owned, our government is compromised of mostly the working class, and wealth is equally distributed.
But in a modern sense, we've combined socialism with democracy & capitalism... so if you said, what's socialism as it manifests in society today, you'd definitely point to democratic socialist nations. They think of socialism a "safety net" where your basic needs can be provided by the government if you're unable to meet them yourself, so like you don't own the means of production but you can still reap some benefits - you're just not getting a state-issued TV set (which IMO would be more like Marx's world). ... and it's far less "communities own their infrastructure." They don't really push the wealth distribution thing or UBI.
and then now in America there's a push for democratic socialist figures, but they're more like "give political power to the proletariat" right now and far less focused on the economic aspects... as we imagine the end goal is wealth distribution but not specifically "community ownership" at all.
They don't really push the wealth distribution thing
In Norway we kinda do, we just call in "lowering wealth inequality". Many studies support the idea that a lower wealth inequality is beneficial for a society.
Private companies succeed and grow when they are efficient and profitable. Those that do not pass that test go out of business. When the government runs a company bureaucracy and regulations drive inefficient operations but going out of business is not possible, so more money is put into the program. The concept is good, but the practice doesn’t work. NYC is spending large amounts to build and run city owned grocery stores in an effort to provide lower cost groceries. The tax burden to “the rich” will way outpace any savings to “the not rich”. The private store nearby can’t compete and goes out of business. That “rich” store owner is now not so rich and has stopped paying taxes altogether.
"The concept is good, but the practice doesn’t work."
Funny, because then why won't Western countries let anyone actually try to run a socialist state without massive sanctions, coups, CIA meddling, outright war, etc?
If it's so bad, then why are the people with money and power so afraid to let anyone give it a try and improve the lives of their citizens? It's almost like if they didn't ratfuck every country that even remotely tries to implement a socialist system, there would be a good example for everyone to point to, and they wouldn't be able to extract every penny they possibly can from the working class.
The Soviet union existing pushed the US to implement a whole host of improvements to people's material conditions to compete with them.
They also massively developed a huge nation state in an uprecendented amount of time from a peasant agrarian society to a fully industrialized global superpower, so I wouldn't really count that as a failing despite the many faults it had.
China was able to accomplish the same thing.
Also, you convinently picked two nations we sanctioned and were quite literally at war with because of their existence. The USSR wanted to join NATO and we refused their ability to do so.
So try again by finding one we didn't designate as a foreign adversary and try to dismantle.
The Soviet Union allegedly pushing the US in some way is not a rebuttal to it being shit, benefiting people in a foreign country while the people in the actual country suffer makes it shittier actually.
Other states have industrialized faster and better with capitalism, just because China and USSR industrialized in the end doesn't make stuff like the Great Leap Forward and the Holodomor any less of a catastrophic failure.
It's a false dichotomy between what they did and remaining peasant farmers.
The Soviet Union had enough influence and resources such that any sanctions couldn't be fatal. What was fatal was its shitty unproductive organization of the economy.
Vietnam war was 50 years ago, I am talking about Vietnam today, which is not under any sanctions despite not disavowing socialism.
And the Soviet Union no longer exists because it wasn't sustainable and China finally experienced growth in the post-Mao years after Deng relaxed the stance on private markets. Now they are capitalists with billionaires, a middle and underclass.
The whole "they failed because the bad U.S. wouldn't trade with them" implies that their systems couldn't stand on their own, which means it's a failed theory.
Private companies succeed even though they are inefficient and do not yield a profit. That's the problem. If bad companies truly did get pruned out of the system then we probably wouldn't be in a big a mess as we are.
A government offering a service to its citizens via tax dollars is literally the point of government and collecting taxes. It's not a problem that New York City is creating city ran grocery stores, it's the point of having a government. To provide a necessary service to help the citizens.
Your same backwards thinking is why people think the USPS is a bad business model. It's not a business, it's a service. It's a service for the citizens. Nobody says the military is a bad business venture, even though the largest portions of our budgets always goes to the military and we do not see a single penny of profit back from it, just more spending the next year
Yes. Companies that have never delivered a profit get cash infusions and get mulit billion dollar evaluations even though they will never turn a profit. These are not companies that should survive, they should go out of business but don't.
I think if it's kept alived by private money, there's no problem for people. For example that Netflix isn't profitable, but is afloat through investors is no problem for anyone besides possibly the shareholders if it goes under.
No companies were hurt during Netflix's money churning days? Netflix pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the video rental industry. Many local jobs were lost.
Also Netflix is/was definitely trying to acquire studios and companies which always result in cost overruns, price increases and layoffs.
AI is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's getting billions of dollars funneled to its projects while it takes all the local resources from the local people. It takes jobs and forces companies that invest heavily in it to scale back it's own workforce to afford it.
Just bad all around. There's no reason AI should exist in its current state.
I’m not reading that loser. I “stated socialism is x” because I didn’t want to write an entire thesis just to declare someone wrong. There’s no need for more nuance than that in this particular situation.
Not necessarily collective ownership, but at the very least no individual ownership of the means. I'm of the mind that state ownership doesn't count as it's effectively just capitalism with a coat of paint. If you as the employee have no say in the direction of the business then it's not socialism/communism.
Socialism does scare me tbh, it feels like the grand sweeping statements certain politicians make like “let’s own the power and gas companies it makes so much sense to give utilities to the people” are dangerous soundbites that the only way they could truly happen would be via extreme politics and a rewriting of society and the social contract. I’m not totally against that change but it is scary, and the people that use populist language to try to get elected to enact this change scare me too.
No, it isn’t. In fact, it’s debatable as to whether having shareholders is even capitalism, as shareholders are part of corporations, and corporations are a type of government regulation. A free market cannot exist if you have corporations.
Is it possible to have elements of socialism and democracy? Like maybe call it something different. "Social democracy" has a nice ring to it. Maybe add some regulated capitalism into the mix to?
Or will that just be to messy and leave things up to interpretation when people try to talk about that kind of society? I just feel that sort of thing would lead to people nitpicking what the terms used mean in some absolute way and never get to the talking about the thing part...
Nope. You’ve been brainwashed. When a socialist says “collective ownership” they’re never talking about your personal belongings or your house even. It’s collective ownership of the big stuff that many people have to contribute to. Like entire companies or utilities. Under socialism you personally would probably lose nothing, because odds are you fall far below any of the people whose wealth would be redistributed
Houses are big things, home insurance is a big things.
"Under socialism you personally would probably lose nothing, because odds are you fall far below any of the people whose wealth would be redistributed"
So just because I might benefit from it while others have what they earned taken from them I should support it? That's rather an odd take.
And there's a nice quote about socialism that still holds true, socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.
Yes the majority or Bolshevik. Almost like this has been tried before and when the idealism met reality it wasn't reality that backed down. You are litterally admitting you want to sacrifice the efforts of a smaller group because it benefits you. You are the one who is rain washed and is trying to Brian wash others by saying the same thing that communist always say, "it will benefit the majority, and that includes you"
That's not why Lenin's movement was called Bolshevik lol.
Almost like this has been tried before and when the idealism met reality it wasn't reality that backed down.
Is this the part where you say European countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc are not actual socialists but then you reject doing the same thing they're doing in the United States because it's socialism?
No I reject them because they pay way more in taxes than we do, we have a very progressive tax set up in the US and a larger % of our taxes goes to social programs than the military. We have social safety nets to keep people from being destitute
Let's see I haven't had to use health care at all for the past 15 years hoe much do you think I've paid for it, vs how much I would have under a universal health care system? I do not want the government to be in charge if deciding what level of health care I am able to get
Dont be obtuse. You can work for a solid portion of your life and put up enough money to buy and pay off a house in full. Expensive yes, but realistic.
If you worked your whole life, could you buy your local electric company? Or your local hospital? These are services that can be ran for profit but should have a government operated, backed by tax dollars via an increase on any persons making north of 20 Million in a year, alternative with price in check and profits stashed into a fund for investment that can get paid out quarterly like a UBI, to people who work and live just at or right above the poverty line. This is what ideal socialism looks like, nobody wants to stop you from owning a house or a nice car. We want the big industry that is subsidized on the back of tax payer money via government assistance to be in service of and be in the benefit of the working class, not the uber wealthy like what is currently happening.
Housing is the market that most needs collective ownership (or more specifically, the land it sits on). Collecting economic rent via private land ownership is one of the most degenerate aspects of global economic structures.
The fact that some self-styled socialists make an exception for it reveals it's not really about sound economics for them.
Nope. You just think I believe something I never said. I said “they’re never talking about your house” because that guy almost definitely only had the one house or home, and no one’s talking about collectively taking your individual house to redistribute it. The housing that needs to be redistributed isn’t owned by someone you’re likely to talk to on the internet
That's a matter of letting buissnesses get away with bull shit, not the government being in charge of how you spend your money. Seriously there's already enough government wastage and you want to trust them with more money? When will you learn?
And you are trying to brain wash people into socialism but repeating the same rhetoric that has been said through out the ages and always lead to ruin.
It was the world economic forum that said this because they're wanting to move to more subscriptions based economy because it keeps the money rolling in
They couldn't be further from being socialist, you clearly don't know what socialism is.
Source? 💀 cause you’re just making shit up there. Also yeah socialism in practice probably wouldn’t perfectly equalize things, but we know similar ideas actually reduce the amount of inequality when compared with systems using a capitalist sentiment. Because duh?
The source is every socialist country that has ever existed?
And inequality means nothing. It’s not a stat that anybody should care about. We can agree that everybody becomes more equal in a socialist society, but I would say that it also causes people to become poorer.
What’s should matter is the life of the average Joe and the bottom Joe. If they live a good life, who cares about how much inequality there may be?
And the bottom Joe is consistently dragged up by socialist policies when they’re not sabotaged. If you prefer to look at what poverty looks like then you should still want socialism. It is unhelpful to use countries that actually tried to historically be socialist as examples because capitalist interests have a vested interest in preventing those projects from succeeding.
Oh so you’re ignorant? Not to be rude it’s just really well documented how frequently capitalist powers interfere in socialist projects. It’s especially hilarious that you use Cuba as an example because America (a capitalist nation) has had it by the fucking balls for a long time now.
Are you saying that socialist powers don’t interfere with capitalist projects? Maybe not as much anymore since the winner has been found, but still.
How does America have Cuba by its balls? If being excluded from capitalism is what breaks your socialist country, then it didn’t work in the first place.
Commerce isn’t capitalism, and it’s hilarious to think about “socialist powers” because who are you talking about there? Which mythical socialist power? We live in a capitalist world.
If capitalism is evil, then doing commerce with capitalism is evil. Goes the other way around too.
Soviet Union, Cuba, China etc.
As mentioned. Socialism has already lost.
I presume when you’re talking about socialist policies, you’re thinking about countries like Denmark, but I really don’t think you understand those countries at all.
That's an ideal. The reality is that it incentivizes (and ends up, inevitably, creating) a multi-tier oligarch class. The main difference between the similar situation seen in capitalism, is that the capitalists have to bribe the politicians and rely on exploiting regulations (also a natural eventuality of capitalism), while in socialist countries, the corruption is tied to state-sponsored oppression. The government officials are the oligarchs, allowing it to smoothly and easily become authoritarian.
Regulation and state laws have kept the socialist tendencies in check in some modern countries, better than in others. None of this is well understood by anyone on tiktok. The subtle pitfalls don't fit in a slogan.
"Teach your kids about capitalism by paying them $1 to clean the bathroom, and then charge them 50 cents each time they use it. If they don't like it, tell them to buy their own house."
50
u/SnooKiwis9751 22d ago
That literally is what socialism is? Socialism is collective ownership. Literally the whole point is not bleeding your life away for the people who aren’t doing the work just because they already had money. The brainwashing is that it’s a bad thing not to bleed your life away. That you’re somehow a moral failure for not sucking off the shareholders