- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
cross-posted from: https://lazysoci.al/post/15051084
You must log in or # to comment.
Racism, xenophobia, hate, and guns is all they ever wanted in the first place.
But also, how about stop fucking demonizing guns when they’re the only solution to fascism that’s ever worked?
It’s both.
Corporations are still run by, made by, staffed by humans.
Letting them off the hook because western society has a major “fuck you I got mine” problem isn’t right either.
Humans at corporations could stand up for the right things, they just choose not to.
Blaming capitalism is like sharks for shark attacks. Companies exist to maximize profit, subject to their constraints imposed by the government. So blame the party that controls your government.
The issue isn’t that capitalism took them away, it’s that capitalism scared them into giving them away. They were convinced that racism, xenophobia, hate, and guns were more important than everything else. That’s why they refuse to admit that everything’s worse as a result of their actions - if they admit that, then they admit that they were tricked into losing everything, and they’d rather live the rest of their lives pretending this is what they always wanted instead.
…and convinced you it was good for you.
Removed by mod
Classic conservative conflating communism with socialism right off the bat
If it’s so resilient, why is everything so broken?
do you believe in Christ, brother?
Dude, just shut the fuck up. Absolute batshit.
It’s ironic and people on this platform who support socialism don’t know what it is and people who are against it apparently also don’t know what it is.
But I do applaud your use of buzzwords that you don’t know the definition of.
people on this platform who support socialism don’t know what it is
Says the person who literally further down in this same thread left a comment implying that democratic socialism is the same thing as social democracy (it isn’t)
I never said they’re the same thing. There are fundamental nuances that I fully understand the comprehend.
It’s just that putting all that in a short disclaimer doesn’t really fit.
The point is that people are advocating for either one of those but not socialism as a whole.
You said this:
Social democracy/democratic socialism refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. […] You are describing and advocating for social democracy/democratic socialism not socialism.
Which seems to quite strongly indicate you’re treating them as if they’re the same concept.
Also, your graphic is no good. It would be more accurate if Democratic Socialism was somewhere in between Social Democracy and what it labels (reductively) as merely “Socialism.”
Democratic Socialism is a type of Socialism. A person who believes in and advocates for Democratic Socialism is still a Socialist.
You don’t have to advocate for “socialism as a whole” to consider yourself a socialist. You might disagree with some types of socialism and agree with others, and you’d still be a socialist.
Just because someone is advocating for Democratic Socialism as opposed to some sort of authoritarian/accelerationist/revolutionary socialism, does not mean they’re not a socialist.
One of the great failings of the English language is the word “social” and the myriad of meanings it has, most of which are significantly different from one another.
A socialist is much like an atheist. An atheist simply doesn’t believe in God or gods. Likewise, a socialist, in the most basic sense, advocates for an economy in which the means of production are socially or collectively owned rather than privately owned by individuals or corporations.
The surrounding philosophy is a separate matter. Atheism itself does not prescribe a particular philosophy, political system, or worldview, and socialism likewise does not, by itself, tell you everything about someone’s broader political beliefs.
That is why communism can go hand in hand with socialism in much the same way that secular humanism can go hand in hand with atheism. Neither is strictly predicated upon the other, but they can coexist because they address different aspects of one’s worldview.
AOC is a Democratic socialist. You can call her a Democrat or a socialist, but those labels indicate two different things. Neither one, by itself, communicates the whole picture.
You can call a car an automobile, but “automobile” doesn’t tell you whether it’s a sedan, truck, or sports car. Likewise, calling AOC a socialist is not necessarily wrong, but it omits an important distinction: she is specifically a Democratic socialist.
Again, the disclaimer and the graphic are intended to be quick references. They are not novellas, books, or even pamphlets explaining every aspect of the concepts they’re describing.
Although I will admit that I should probably revise the disclaimer somewhat to make that distinction clearer.
Nice diatribe. You’re still wrong though. Attempting to distract from being wrong isn’t going to work.
And fed you poison.
You spoonfed us Saturday morning mouthfuls of maggots and lies disguised in your sugary breakfast cereals.
But I have lots of guns, so if shit goes way south I can just hunt my hard right neighbors.
Whatever it’s called, the systems should help people in data-backed ways and use the best info available, for the benefit of the majority. Encourage curiosity and education to discover new things, healthy work-life balance, paid sick and family leave, easy access to healthcare for all, stable rights and benefits for workers, etc. All the things that reduce poverty and chronic stress and good for advancing healthy humanity. People do better, less crime and happier too so it really is win-win, for We The People. Use Sagan’s baloney kit to examine these things and it’s obvious which political platform with a chance to win is closest. Ranked choice voting might help other parties win too. This is what we need, not more tribalism while getting sicker, and falling farther behind in many measures due to maga.
Haven’t seen a post like this in a while.
Socialism refers to collective or social ownership of the means of production. Social democracy refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. Democratic socialism generally refers to pursuing socialist ownership through democratic means. These terms are related but are not interchangeable: a capitalist welfare state is not a socialist economy simply because it provides extensive social programs. This disclaimer is intended as a quick reference, not an exhaustive explanation of socialism or every political and economic system that uses the word “socialist.”
Democratic socialism isn’t social democracy, it is a system aiming to replace capitalism with collective worker or public ownership of economy. Democratic socialism IS socialism, social democracy isn’t.
Negative. Democratic socialism aims to eventually replace the capitalistic economy with a socialist one.
It only aims to replace the economy the form of governance remains democratic.
And yes. They are different systems with many similarities.
Socialism doesn’t pull folks out of poverty.
What does then?
Bootstraps.
Can’t pull yourself up from your bootstraps if you can’t afford boots.
“Pull your bootstraps” is just what they tell you to get you to bend over
Sounds like boots are unnecessary, you just need the straps, maybe we can give minimum wage works a free pair of boot straps whenever the spend $100 or more at a few party approved corporate chains …
Giving away boot straps? That sounds like socialism to me.
It’s more that the punters think we are giving away but actually the cost is worked into price increases on the products they have to buy to get the bootstraps. They don’t notice the increases because they get the bootstraps. The cost of producing the bootstraps is so low that technically the stores turn a profit on them.
That all sounds complicated and confusing, so it must be wrong. Those filthy poors are getting something they didn’t pay for and can’t afford. That’s socialism.
(/s)
Well there is the matter of the laws of physics and reality where you literally can’t pull on your own feet to lift yourself up.
The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia
– Actual quote by an Australian conservative prime minister in this century
Not with that attitude.
Historically the thing that pulled people out of poverty was either socialism or capitalists scared of a socialist uprising.
What exactly do you think socialism is?
The Nordic countries has had socialism since at least the second world war and we’re doing pretty well here compared to the “worlds best country in the world”.
I thought it was socialized services on capitalist markets?
At least in Sweden we used to have important societal functions controlled by government but since I was born more and more has been privatized and a lot of it has not been for the better.
The privatization of public transport and our rail roads being one great example. They used to be in great shape and great pricing. Today that is not the case any more.
Only lifted 850 million people out of poverty in China alone but please stay in your capitalist bubble.
China is capitalist.
For the record I hate capitalism and I love socialism, but claiming China is socialist is straight up misinformation.
Yes, the USSR and China became global superpowers through the power of friendship…
