That’s not true. Supporting socialism has nothing to do with one’s financial situation, but rather about advocating for a more equitable society where everyone has access to basic needs.
it has to do, as you have nothing to lose. Never said it is only based on this, but it will have an effect. You’ll be less tempted to vote for a party that will make you lose half your wealth if you’re currently rich
That’s a classic strawman argument. Just because someone supports socialism doesn’t mean they’re motivated by personal gain or a desire to take from the wealthy. It means they care about creating a more equitable society for all.
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.
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.
Yeah I’m a socialist who was born poor but now has a lot to lose. You’re full of shit and only say things like this to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everyone else is as callous and selfish as you are.
Socialism in political theory is the idea that, at minimum, some systems should be owned by the collective - that’s it. The Road system in the US is largely a socialist project, for reference. USPS was also a socialist project before it was privatized. So is our now mostly defunded education system. Our fucking amazing national park system was also a socialist project to create jobs during the great recession. And the only reason that these things are going downhill is because we’ve defunded them.
Other things socialists want would be federally funded healthcare, a federally maintained train system, college being funded by US taxes, etc.
Yes, stalinism, communism, and Maoism are socialist ideologies. So is social democracy, the Nordic model, and various others.
You’re brainwashed based on your reaction to that word.
Socialism is really broad. It’s not just that (but yea it starts with it), but “so socialist” indicates the more “strict” or left-wing versions of socialism
You’re brainwashed based on your reaction to my reaction
Colloquially liberal as opposed to the more strict political philosophical definition.
If you are going with the latter none of the above statements are strictly liberal as liberalism is defined by a very personal property based capitalism forward structure and a focus on personal freedoms balanced by a set of assumed privileges.
By the political philosophy definition both Republicans and Democrats are liberal. A growing number of people find the issue of the USA’s strict adhereance to old school philosophic liberalism the main problem of both parties since it does fuck all to check the accrual of personal property or provide safety nets. If you wanted to be more accurate by the change in social standard in the place you find yourself the above values in the post are safest “Progressive”. At least keeping this definition in mind helps navigate a lot of the conversation of politics in many Lemmy instances.
By the political philosophy definition both Republicans and Democrats are liberal. A growing number of people find the issue of the USA’s strict adhereance to old school philosophic liberalism the main problem of both parties since it does fuck all to check the accrual of personal property or provide safety nets.
Okay, well maybe they should stay out of discussions of the USA’s politics since they know sweet fuckall about it.
Political philosophy is fascinating, please keep it in the excellent universities (sorry, “colleges”) outside of the USA and let us try and fix this goddamned mess.
Political philosophy is fascinating, please keep it in the excellent universities (sorry, “colleges”) outside of the USA and let us try and fix this goddamned mess.
How else do you think you are going to fix this mess? Revolution is great for creating change but dollars to donuts you end up with shit systems unless you have a core of political science minded people in the pocket. That really was what made the original American revolution work - you had a core of people who were HEAVILY invested in the works of political science philosophers ( Locke, Hume etc.) and the dedication to replace the outgoing regime with something other than meatheaded revolutionaries who just replicate the same system over again with some new face.
Only if you describe everyone left of center as liberal. There’s a whole liberal capitalist population who don’t want to make the changes required to ensure members of society are healthy and have the required care, because it would inconvenience them.
Yes. I do. The “liberal capitalists” you’re describing are right-wing.
These are the definitions 90% of the American public are using. Shitting on liberals by leftists is some European/East Asian/Australian bullshit. We don’t do that here.
Some dictionaries are more perscriptivist, but even with the ones that change faster they’re always playing catch up with how people use words. But in terms of “liberal” most of them have both definitions.
The thing that bugs me these days is people (many of them here on Lemmy) that use “neoliberal” to mean “modern liberal” when that’s not its original meaning at all. It really means “liberal in its 19th Century sense of free and unfettered capitalism” aka “modern conservative”.
“Why are you so socialist?” Because I care about people other than myself.
or because you have nothing to lose from it in your current situation
That’s not true. Supporting socialism has nothing to do with one’s financial situation, but rather about advocating for a more equitable society where everyone has access to basic needs.
it has to do, as you have nothing to lose. Never said it is only based on this, but it will have an effect. You’ll be less tempted to vote for a party that will make you lose half your wealth if you’re currently rich
That’s a classic strawman argument. Just because someone supports socialism doesn’t mean they’re motivated by personal gain or a desire to take from the wealthy. It means they care about creating a more equitable society for all.
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?
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.
Bro you have no idea what the term “socialism” even means. Get fucking educated
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
Yeah I’m a socialist who was born poor but now has a lot to lose. You’re full of shit and only say things like this to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everyone else is as callous and selfish as you are.
good for you
And yea, keep making assumptions
So they are not a capitalist.
Socialism in political theory is the idea that, at minimum, some systems should be owned by the collective - that’s it. The Road system in the US is largely a socialist project, for reference. USPS was also a socialist project before it was privatized. So is our now mostly defunded education system. Our fucking amazing national park system was also a socialist project to create jobs during the great recession. And the only reason that these things are going downhill is because we’ve defunded them.
Other things socialists want would be federally funded healthcare, a federally maintained train system, college being funded by US taxes, etc.
Yes, stalinism, communism, and Maoism are socialist ideologies. So is social democracy, the Nordic model, and various others.
You’re brainwashed based on your reaction to that word.
Socialism is really broad. It’s not just that (but yea it starts with it), but “so socialist” indicates the more “strict” or left-wing versions of socialism
You’re brainwashed based on your reaction to my reaction
That’s liberal. I mean, you can fancy it up how you like, but in any state in the union that’s considered liberal.
Just not here, depending.
Colloquially liberal as opposed to the more strict political philosophical definition.
If you are going with the latter none of the above statements are strictly liberal as liberalism is defined by a very personal property based capitalism forward structure and a focus on personal freedoms balanced by a set of assumed privileges.
By the political philosophy definition both Republicans and Democrats are liberal. A growing number of people find the issue of the USA’s strict adhereance to old school philosophic liberalism the main problem of both parties since it does fuck all to check the accrual of personal property or provide safety nets. If you wanted to be more accurate by the change in social standard in the place you find yourself the above values in the post are safest “Progressive”. At least keeping this definition in mind helps navigate a lot of the conversation of politics in many Lemmy instances.
Okay, well maybe they should stay out of discussions of the USA’s politics since they know sweet fuckall about it.
Political philosophy is fascinating, please keep it in the excellent universities (sorry, “colleges”) outside of the USA and let us try and fix this goddamned mess.
How else do you think you are going to fix this mess? Revolution is great for creating change but dollars to donuts you end up with shit systems unless you have a core of political science minded people in the pocket. That really was what made the original American revolution work - you had a core of people who were HEAVILY invested in the works of political science philosophers ( Locke, Hume etc.) and the dedication to replace the outgoing regime with something other than meatheaded revolutionaries who just replicate the same system over again with some new face.
Only if you describe everyone left of center as liberal. There’s a whole liberal capitalist population who don’t want to make the changes required to ensure members of society are healthy and have the required care, because it would inconvenience them.
Yes. I do. The “liberal capitalists” you’re describing are right-wing.
These are the definitions 90% of the American public are using. Shitting on liberals by leftists is some European/East Asian/Australian bullshit. We don’t do that here.
It’s also considered Christian, but PedoCon MAGA Nazis will deport you to a torture prison in El Salvador if you say it.
That’s be ause PedoCon MAGA Nazis wouldn’t know the “teachings” of “Jesus” if it kicked them in the nards.
Yeah, it’s lexicon vs literal definition.
How people generally use words often makes me wonder why we have dictionaries at all.
Some dictionaries are more perscriptivist, but even with the ones that change faster they’re always playing catch up with how people use words. But in terms of “liberal” most of them have both definitions.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
The thing that bugs me these days is people (many of them here on Lemmy) that use “neoliberal” to mean “modern liberal” when that’s not its original meaning at all. It really means “liberal in its 19th Century sense of free and unfettered capitalism” aka “modern conservative”.
I’m concerned that some of you don’t have a lot of experience with the outside world.
In what way? I just acknowledged that most of America defines the word as anything left of Newt Gingrich.
Oh, sorry, not you. I agree and updooted accordingly. Some of the other comments, I meant.