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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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