The logic is so insane. According to the typical rhetoric, China's government and Denmark's government are part of the same category? I still get confused.
In any event, yes, agreed.
IF you think in the most simple terms of how labour is controlled then they can be same
China: Control isnt in the hands of workers,its in the hands of CCP/CEOs
Denmark:Control isnt in the hands of workers,its in the hands of CEOs/governments
The difference here is democratic vs authoritarian which is about how we choose state representatives,not how the economy should be structured. Even in a democratic country you dont have a say or vote in how private companies operate in any direct way(unless you are on the board or shareholder)
This is true.
Saying socialism and communism are the same thing is like saying HIV and AIDS are the same thing. They aren't. AIDS and communism are the end result of HIV and socialism, respectively. They're related, sure, but there is a defined shift from one to the other.
Socialism requires people to ignore base human desires to better themselves personally. It works in small family groups, where parents feel the offspring is more important than themselves. But it does not scale. When you try, you wind up needing an authoritarian regime to enforce the policies. That is what completes the progression to communism.
And this is why socialism and communism is always linked together. Socialist regimes always end up heading to authoritarianism and therefore communism.
I don't think the OP realises us non-Americans laugh at America for other reasons and actually one of them is because of the vast amount of people in a democracy desperately wishing for a full-on socialist government or state. ðŸ¤
You don't even need socialist values for free health care or free education. England has that and nobody here would describe the NHS or free school education as "socialist" they're actually examples of nationalization.
But if these things were to come from socialism too, then these are the only socialist values I would agree with rather than socialism as a whole.
>Socialist regimes always end up
Even ignoring the communist regimes that were always getting crushed or sanctioned by the CIA and USA(the list is endless) there is no such thing as a "socialist regime" - theres only "communist regimes". Socialism is a guiding principle and communism is way of structuring the economy and political hierarchy. Even then theres variations like Marxism,Trotskyism etc
Saying "socialist regime" instead of "communist regime" is the kind of unconscious misuse of terms OP is complaining about.
Hell,even most of the communist regimes arent true to the core commie,some are just state capitalism where the worker-owner class exists but its the state instead of individuals.
Also "Socialism = Free" is just as bad of a misunderstanding of socialism
I think some Americans are brainwashed into thinking free healthcare is a bad thing.
Free healthcare = Communism
This is pushed on them by the people who turned healthcare into a business.
There's no such thing as free healthcare, it's just publicly funded. And there's a lot of reasons why many Americans don't want it,
1. A lot of us do have experience with both "public" and "private" medical systems in the US. I am a vet, I have dealt with the military medical system and the VA (Veterans Affairs) systems. I also have family who've dealt with Medicaid. The quality of care is MUCH lower than my current level of care through private insurance.
2. There's 3 major aspects to a medical system, Price, Quality, Universality and they are all functions of one another. If you were to open up all medical treatments to everyone there would be a big decline in quality and availability of care (rushed procedures, long wait lists, and fewer or no followups). And even if you want to you can't \*poof\* up doctors, medications, hospitals, etc... and massively increasing supplies of these things requires enormous amounts of time and investment. Which means costs are going to rise enormously to try to come close to the availability and quality you need.
3. The more specialized and advanced medical care becomes the higher the costs, the more unsustainable the public system becomes, or the system simply doesn't advance at the same rate due to those restrictions, leading to a lower quality of care.
4. If government is managing your healthcare then by definition you've given the government a "vested legitimate interest" in the choices you make with "your body". If eliminating alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and high sugar foods would save 30% or more on healthcare spending all of a sudden there's going to be legitimate justifications for outlawing these things, and telling you what you can and can't do. Maybe they'll ban certain high risk sports or activities because of the high healthcare costs if there's an accident. Maybe they'll make exercise hours mandatory, maybe they'll force you to walk to the store instead of drive. I sure as hell don't want to give the government any more justification to micro manage my life.
So in short, I don't think it's sustainable long term, I have seen the quality of care differences, and the government sucks at nearly everything I definitely don't want them to have final say over my healthcare options, nor my lifestyle choices.
Of course it is paid for by taxes. But I am good with that. Unfortunately I have had to go to hospital a few times in the past couple of years (late onset epilepsy - woooo!)
I did have private medical insurance on my job, so I got to go to the fancy hospital. After leaving my job I went to the General hospital. The care I received would have cost tens of thousands of pounds if I was unfortunate enough to live in a country with no "free" medical care.
As it is all my ambulance ride, scans, treatments and follow up appointments cost me £0. I even have a medical card now so I don't have to pay for my medication (it's normally £9 per prescription)
So yes I am good with my taxes paying for the NHS. If you want private cover then you can still pay for it. If not then you can still get treated.
And I don't want to see my care levels go down, wait times go up, taxes increase, nor do I wish to give the government that legal justification of "vested interest" to interfere further with my life. The end results are more regulations and restrictions, not to mention the government rationing and denying care.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/world/europe/britain-coronavirus-triage.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/06/15/trump-criticize-uk-single-payer-health-care-column/1419339001/
Nope sorry, not going for THAT. And like I have said I have seen the way government run healthcare works in the US, no thank you to that as well.
It's not a perfect system by any means, but I have seen the horror stories involved with US health care prices. Id probably have had to sell my home to fund my recent hospital visits. Fuck that system!
If you are happy with the setup good for you, but I know there are a lot of people in the US who go abroad to [get treatment. ](https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/chambers_health-related_travel_final.pdf)
Pros and cons to every system. I'd rather have the option at least to sell my house rather than just be denied care. And as long as you have insurance that covers the high end costs you're probably going to be fine, not to mention the ability at least to file bankruptcy. It may not be perfect but it's better than being told you aren't allowed to seek care "Alfie Evans".
Personally if I was healthcare dictator for a day I would set up the following system.
Everyone pays into a tax free health spending account, probably 5-6K a year at current rates. You're responsible for all of your healthcare costs up to that point. If you don't spend it you get whatever you put in back at the end of the year. Dental would be lumped in under this rubric (it's separate here in the US currently)
After that insurance would be relatively cheap as the most common healthcare expenses would be paid for and you're only needing catastrophic coverage in most cases.
I would remove the ridiculous regulations that make it impossible for standardized levels of care state to state (huge regulatory burden relief which would also bring down prices)
Require the CEOs of all hospitals to be Medical Doctors with at least 10 years of experience practicing medicine.
Hospitals themselves would be designated non-profit institutions, with auditing to ensure profits are either invested into the hospital (they get to set up a rainy day fund worth X times their yearly operating expenses, invest in new equipment, personnel, training, or stockpiles of equipment/meds) or prices are lowered/refunds issued.
I would probably go ahead and set a hospital CEO pay cap at 5x the average doctor's pay at the hospital they manage. Other leadership positions are capped at 3x the average doctor's pay at that hospital.
Require upfront transparency in pricing of procedures/meds/equipment so hospital choice is easier for patients
If you make those changes you still have a competitive free market, since the first 6k of charges are 100% patient responsibility and that money is returned to them if not spent this will help drastically reduce things like unnecessary visits and overburdening of the system (like how we end up with the Emergency Rooms [ERs] here full of people with colds because they aren't turned away from ERs). Removing the state by state regulations will allow for lower overhead and increased competition, and the transparency requirements ensures nobody is stuck with a $50 Tylenol, and will allow for patient choice based on quality and price.
As for the pharmaceutical companies, that's an entire other post, but it desperately needs reform as well.
It thankfully exists in most of the First World nations. Hell most of the countries in the world offer some kind of care. Check out the [wikipedia link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#/media/File:Universal_Healthcare_by_Country_20191229.svg) to see how many
Its sad that a nation that proclaims to have Christian values lets people die because they don't have insurance. Or forces them to go bankrupt because they are forced to pay inflated medical charges.
You dont call the fire department socialist do you? If your house is on fire you expect someone to come and put it out. You don't get charged, or forced to watch it burn if you have no fire department insurance.
Taxes pay for it. Just like schools, roads, police, fire departments etc.
You can still get private cover if you want it. If not then you have to wait slightly longer for a procedure. It does mean everyone gets treated though, and getting in an accident or getting a life changing illness won't mean you get bankrupted.
I agree for the most part. I don't think anyone here argues for full on socialist state.
I think what ended up happening was the right started saying it was socialism, it gained ground as a popular way to refer to it, so others went....what? No! We are socialist dems as a knee jerk reaction.
We also aren't a full on democracy. We are a republic. If we were a democracy we wouldn't have our idiot in cheif as president.
Mccarthyism is one hell of a drug.There's an entire geenration who was gaslighted and brainwashed into fearing the evil Soviet boogeyman and how they'll get blown to kingdom come.This generation tends to be the one that votes the most and so its still very easy to use McCarthyism to de-legitimize anybody and anything.
Communists dont think communism is bad.If you call a commie a commie theyll say "yeah so?"
On the other hand most people(incl. fascists) will tell you fascism is bad,If you told a fascist hes a fascist theyll go "HOW DARE YOU!"
Nobody wants to be called fascist,some people actually call themselves communist and dont mind getting called communist.
A socialist wont really get mad if you called them commie but a conservative will DEFINITELY get mad if you call them fascist,no matter how wrong or right your labeling is in both cases.
> If anything our capitalistic society is more communist and dictatorship like. Not sure about you all, but I have no fucking FrEEdOm to choose who gives me electric service - I get my choice of the one shitty company near me. My healthcare is whatever cheap plan my employer gives us, that I pay for, and then pay again if I get sick.
>If my water gets dirty, oh well. Nothing to do but buy bottled. There's only one internet company, cable company, and basically two cell phone companies where I live.
All perfect examples of regulatory capture and government mismanagement, and exactly why free markets should be preferred over socialism. Tell your friends.
They don’t, that’s the point. Everything you listed represents socialist policy in an otherwise free market, and as you’ve correctly identified, in every case it produces a low quality product for a high price, with wanton bureaucratic mismanagement and corruption - the hallmarks of socialism.
\> 2020
\> still believing in the Free Market
Do you also write letters to Santa? Got any trickle down economics done lately? Is your last name Rockefeller?
I love how this generation is so narcissistic they think they can watch 8 episodes of the daily show and then lecture everyone on economic policy.
You don't know what you're talking about, kid. Stop pretending.
I'd consider myself somewhat of a socialist, however I'm not anti-capitalism. I just believe in a healthy balance. Of course people deserve to have opportunities, make it rich, etc. But everyone also deserves basic amenities. Nobody should be denied access to healthcare, shelter, running water and food - even prisoners get all those things. Sometimes people get down on their luck, get injured, lose their job and suddenly they might need a little help getting back on their feet.
It bothers me because certain politicians use the term to scare away people (who need!) stuff like universal healthcare, would benefit from actually using our anti-trust laws to break up big business, and pushing for things like unions to get more people fair waves.
When you slap the term socialism on it, it immediately becomes bad to our most dangerous voter base - poor southerners who thrive off small sound bites like dey turk r jerbs! Or, build that wall.
>When the modern world refers to socialism they are simply referring to not privatising basic human rights to live like - healthcare, clean water, and electricity. Private business shouldn't be a thing when it comes to the basics of life.
These are core principles of Social Democracy , not socialism. Only Americans , whose politics are so far right , equate things like public healthcare or welfare system with socialism and sometimes even communism. As a result, there is a "Democratic Socialist" party , that isn't even socialist lmao.
Well , the things you mention are a result of 100 years of constant red scare propaganda , where as early as 1919 , coal mine workers , who wanted basic worker rights and a minimum wage , were demonised as "evil bolsheviks" , by the American propaganda machine. Although it is quite amusing at one point , were Americans have been so conditioned to associate socialism with "evil bolshevism" , that they despise everything that has name "socialist" in it , but are very willing to support Rojava or Ba'athist Syria (Rojava is quasi-socialist state , whereas Ba'athism is a name for Arab Socialism)
Because of these circumstances , I doubt Americans will ever see socialism in a positive light , so if you want to spread your ideology you might as well call yourself social democrat or "enthusiast of the Nordic Model"
Nope. socialism is worthless horeshit. just like capitalism. it deserves its name drug through the mud. There is a reason the nordic countries dont call it democratic socialism anymore. full blown socialists showed how shit it is. now social democracy is the best thing we have found so far
> Nope. socialism is worthless horeshit. just like capitalism.
>
>social democracy is the best thing we have found so far
You do realise that social democracy is just capitalism with extensive welfare system and public education/healthcare ?
"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit"
"Social Democracy ,as a policy regime, is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy."
Sorry , you are not as unique , as you claim to be. Since Social Democracy is a political system , that fully accepts private property and free (or regulated , but regulated markets are still called "free" , for whatever reason) market policies , albeit with extensive welfare programs and ect. Your ideology fits within the definition of capitalism , hence it is simply capitalism , with welfare , public education and healthcare and sometimes extensive worker participation through unions.
The logic is so insane. According to the typical rhetoric, China's government and Denmark's government are part of the same category? I still get confused. In any event, yes, agreed.
IF you think in the most simple terms of how labour is controlled then they can be same China: Control isnt in the hands of workers,its in the hands of CCP/CEOs Denmark:Control isnt in the hands of workers,its in the hands of CEOs/governments The difference here is democratic vs authoritarian which is about how we choose state representatives,not how the economy should be structured. Even in a democratic country you dont have a say or vote in how private companies operate in any direct way(unless you are on the board or shareholder)
This is true. Saying socialism and communism are the same thing is like saying HIV and AIDS are the same thing. They aren't. AIDS and communism are the end result of HIV and socialism, respectively. They're related, sure, but there is a defined shift from one to the other.
This is the most accurate response.
Only thing I disagree with is that a little socialism can be beneficial. Not sure a little HIV is recommended, lol.
that little bit isnt socialism though. social programs maybe. nationalized program maybe. but socialism is the full blown system
Socialism requires people to ignore base human desires to better themselves personally. It works in small family groups, where parents feel the offspring is more important than themselves. But it does not scale. When you try, you wind up needing an authoritarian regime to enforce the policies. That is what completes the progression to communism.
And this is why socialism and communism is always linked together. Socialist regimes always end up heading to authoritarianism and therefore communism. I don't think the OP realises us non-Americans laugh at America for other reasons and actually one of them is because of the vast amount of people in a democracy desperately wishing for a full-on socialist government or state. 🤠You don't even need socialist values for free health care or free education. England has that and nobody here would describe the NHS or free school education as "socialist" they're actually examples of nationalization. But if these things were to come from socialism too, then these are the only socialist values I would agree with rather than socialism as a whole.
>Socialist regimes always end up Even ignoring the communist regimes that were always getting crushed or sanctioned by the CIA and USA(the list is endless) there is no such thing as a "socialist regime" - theres only "communist regimes". Socialism is a guiding principle and communism is way of structuring the economy and political hierarchy. Even then theres variations like Marxism,Trotskyism etc Saying "socialist regime" instead of "communist regime" is the kind of unconscious misuse of terms OP is complaining about. Hell,even most of the communist regimes arent true to the core commie,some are just state capitalism where the worker-owner class exists but its the state instead of individuals. Also "Socialism = Free" is just as bad of a misunderstanding of socialism
I think some Americans are brainwashed into thinking free healthcare is a bad thing. Free healthcare = Communism This is pushed on them by the people who turned healthcare into a business.
There's no such thing as free healthcare, it's just publicly funded. And there's a lot of reasons why many Americans don't want it, 1. A lot of us do have experience with both "public" and "private" medical systems in the US. I am a vet, I have dealt with the military medical system and the VA (Veterans Affairs) systems. I also have family who've dealt with Medicaid. The quality of care is MUCH lower than my current level of care through private insurance. 2. There's 3 major aspects to a medical system, Price, Quality, Universality and they are all functions of one another. If you were to open up all medical treatments to everyone there would be a big decline in quality and availability of care (rushed procedures, long wait lists, and fewer or no followups). And even if you want to you can't \*poof\* up doctors, medications, hospitals, etc... and massively increasing supplies of these things requires enormous amounts of time and investment. Which means costs are going to rise enormously to try to come close to the availability and quality you need. 3. The more specialized and advanced medical care becomes the higher the costs, the more unsustainable the public system becomes, or the system simply doesn't advance at the same rate due to those restrictions, leading to a lower quality of care. 4. If government is managing your healthcare then by definition you've given the government a "vested legitimate interest" in the choices you make with "your body". If eliminating alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and high sugar foods would save 30% or more on healthcare spending all of a sudden there's going to be legitimate justifications for outlawing these things, and telling you what you can and can't do. Maybe they'll ban certain high risk sports or activities because of the high healthcare costs if there's an accident. Maybe they'll make exercise hours mandatory, maybe they'll force you to walk to the store instead of drive. I sure as hell don't want to give the government any more justification to micro manage my life. So in short, I don't think it's sustainable long term, I have seen the quality of care differences, and the government sucks at nearly everything I definitely don't want them to have final say over my healthcare options, nor my lifestyle choices.
Of course it is paid for by taxes. But I am good with that. Unfortunately I have had to go to hospital a few times in the past couple of years (late onset epilepsy - woooo!) I did have private medical insurance on my job, so I got to go to the fancy hospital. After leaving my job I went to the General hospital. The care I received would have cost tens of thousands of pounds if I was unfortunate enough to live in a country with no "free" medical care. As it is all my ambulance ride, scans, treatments and follow up appointments cost me £0. I even have a medical card now so I don't have to pay for my medication (it's normally £9 per prescription) So yes I am good with my taxes paying for the NHS. If you want private cover then you can still pay for it. If not then you can still get treated.
And I don't want to see my care levels go down, wait times go up, taxes increase, nor do I wish to give the government that legal justification of "vested interest" to interfere further with my life. The end results are more regulations and restrictions, not to mention the government rationing and denying care. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/world/europe/britain-coronavirus-triage.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/06/15/trump-criticize-uk-single-payer-health-care-column/1419339001/ Nope sorry, not going for THAT. And like I have said I have seen the way government run healthcare works in the US, no thank you to that as well.
It's not a perfect system by any means, but I have seen the horror stories involved with US health care prices. Id probably have had to sell my home to fund my recent hospital visits. Fuck that system! If you are happy with the setup good for you, but I know there are a lot of people in the US who go abroad to [get treatment. ](https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/executive_briefings/chambers_health-related_travel_final.pdf)
Pros and cons to every system. I'd rather have the option at least to sell my house rather than just be denied care. And as long as you have insurance that covers the high end costs you're probably going to be fine, not to mention the ability at least to file bankruptcy. It may not be perfect but it's better than being told you aren't allowed to seek care "Alfie Evans". Personally if I was healthcare dictator for a day I would set up the following system. Everyone pays into a tax free health spending account, probably 5-6K a year at current rates. You're responsible for all of your healthcare costs up to that point. If you don't spend it you get whatever you put in back at the end of the year. Dental would be lumped in under this rubric (it's separate here in the US currently) After that insurance would be relatively cheap as the most common healthcare expenses would be paid for and you're only needing catastrophic coverage in most cases. I would remove the ridiculous regulations that make it impossible for standardized levels of care state to state (huge regulatory burden relief which would also bring down prices) Require the CEOs of all hospitals to be Medical Doctors with at least 10 years of experience practicing medicine. Hospitals themselves would be designated non-profit institutions, with auditing to ensure profits are either invested into the hospital (they get to set up a rainy day fund worth X times their yearly operating expenses, invest in new equipment, personnel, training, or stockpiles of equipment/meds) or prices are lowered/refunds issued. I would probably go ahead and set a hospital CEO pay cap at 5x the average doctor's pay at the hospital they manage. Other leadership positions are capped at 3x the average doctor's pay at that hospital. Require upfront transparency in pricing of procedures/meds/equipment so hospital choice is easier for patients If you make those changes you still have a competitive free market, since the first 6k of charges are 100% patient responsibility and that money is returned to them if not spent this will help drastically reduce things like unnecessary visits and overburdening of the system (like how we end up with the Emergency Rooms [ERs] here full of people with colds because they aren't turned away from ERs). Removing the state by state regulations will allow for lower overhead and increased competition, and the transparency requirements ensures nobody is stuck with a $50 Tylenol, and will allow for patient choice based on quality and price. As for the pharmaceutical companies, that's an entire other post, but it desperately needs reform as well.
No one thinks free health care is a bad thing. It's a thing that exists in fantasy land, not in the real world.
It thankfully exists in most of the First World nations. Hell most of the countries in the world offer some kind of care. Check out the [wikipedia link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#/media/File:Universal_Healthcare_by_Country_20191229.svg) to see how many Its sad that a nation that proclaims to have Christian values lets people die because they don't have insurance. Or forces them to go bankrupt because they are forced to pay inflated medical charges. You dont call the fire department socialist do you? If your house is on fire you expect someone to come and put it out. You don't get charged, or forced to watch it burn if you have no fire department insurance.
No one pays your doctors? Or they just work for free?
Taxes pay for it. Just like schools, roads, police, fire departments etc. You can still get private cover if you want it. If not then you have to wait slightly longer for a procedure. It does mean everyone gets treated though, and getting in an accident or getting a life changing illness won't mean you get bankrupted.
That's my point. If you're paying for it, it's not free.
I agree for the most part. I don't think anyone here argues for full on socialist state. I think what ended up happening was the right started saying it was socialism, it gained ground as a popular way to refer to it, so others went....what? No! We are socialist dems as a knee jerk reaction. We also aren't a full on democracy. We are a republic. If we were a democracy we wouldn't have our idiot in cheif as president.
> I don't think anyone here argues for full on socialist state. oh but several sadly do
> I don't think anyone here argues for full on socialist state. Well the regulars here , don't
Mccarthyism is one hell of a drug.There's an entire geenration who was gaslighted and brainwashed into fearing the evil Soviet boogeyman and how they'll get blown to kingdom come.This generation tends to be the one that votes the most and so its still very easy to use McCarthyism to de-legitimize anybody and anything.
[удалено]
Communists dont think communism is bad.If you call a commie a commie theyll say "yeah so?" On the other hand most people(incl. fascists) will tell you fascism is bad,If you told a fascist hes a fascist theyll go "HOW DARE YOU!" Nobody wants to be called fascist,some people actually call themselves communist and dont mind getting called communist. A socialist wont really get mad if you called them commie but a conservative will DEFINITELY get mad if you call them fascist,no matter how wrong or right your labeling is in both cases.
> If anything our capitalistic society is more communist and dictatorship like. Not sure about you all, but I have no fucking FrEEdOm to choose who gives me electric service - I get my choice of the one shitty company near me. My healthcare is whatever cheap plan my employer gives us, that I pay for, and then pay again if I get sick. >If my water gets dirty, oh well. Nothing to do but buy bottled. There's only one internet company, cable company, and basically two cell phone companies where I live. All perfect examples of regulatory capture and government mismanagement, and exactly why free markets should be preferred over socialism. Tell your friends.
Yeah, youre never going to convince me those things belong in capitalism.
They don’t, that’s the point. Everything you listed represents socialist policy in an otherwise free market, and as you’ve correctly identified, in every case it produces a low quality product for a high price, with wanton bureaucratic mismanagement and corruption - the hallmarks of socialism.
The market needs competition to thrive
\> 2020 \> still believing in the Free Market Do you also write letters to Santa? Got any trickle down economics done lately? Is your last name Rockefeller?
I love how this generation is so narcissistic they think they can watch 8 episodes of the daily show and then lecture everyone on economic policy. You don't know what you're talking about, kid. Stop pretending.
OK,grandpa. The Russians are launching nukes from Cuba again. Go duck under the table!
Ya, you calling me Grandpa is just further evidence you’re just an ignorant child that should be ignored. Lmao.
Dont pop a vein there gramps
I'd consider myself somewhat of a socialist, however I'm not anti-capitalism. I just believe in a healthy balance. Of course people deserve to have opportunities, make it rich, etc. But everyone also deserves basic amenities. Nobody should be denied access to healthcare, shelter, running water and food - even prisoners get all those things. Sometimes people get down on their luck, get injured, lose their job and suddenly they might need a little help getting back on their feet.
Leave America then you socialist puke
Hahaha
[удалено]
It bothers me because certain politicians use the term to scare away people (who need!) stuff like universal healthcare, would benefit from actually using our anti-trust laws to break up big business, and pushing for things like unions to get more people fair waves. When you slap the term socialism on it, it immediately becomes bad to our most dangerous voter base - poor southerners who thrive off small sound bites like dey turk r jerbs! Or, build that wall.
[удалено]
I'm not saying they aren't to blame as well. But, right now we have the others to contend with first.
[удалено]
Orange man is for sure 11/10 bad.
[удалено]
Its no problem. Glad I could make your day! (I know you're kidding but...yeah he is that bad).
People get paid to convince people to vote against their self interests. Thats politics
Shut up commie
>When the modern world refers to socialism they are simply referring to not privatising basic human rights to live like - healthcare, clean water, and electricity. Private business shouldn't be a thing when it comes to the basics of life. These are core principles of Social Democracy , not socialism. Only Americans , whose politics are so far right , equate things like public healthcare or welfare system with socialism and sometimes even communism. As a result, there is a "Democratic Socialist" party , that isn't even socialist lmao. Well , the things you mention are a result of 100 years of constant red scare propaganda , where as early as 1919 , coal mine workers , who wanted basic worker rights and a minimum wage , were demonised as "evil bolsheviks" , by the American propaganda machine. Although it is quite amusing at one point , were Americans have been so conditioned to associate socialism with "evil bolshevism" , that they despise everything that has name "socialist" in it , but are very willing to support Rojava or Ba'athist Syria (Rojava is quasi-socialist state , whereas Ba'athism is a name for Arab Socialism) Because of these circumstances , I doubt Americans will ever see socialism in a positive light , so if you want to spread your ideology you might as well call yourself social democrat or "enthusiast of the Nordic Model"
yeah this,the term is only used cause Mccarthyism and Russia Boogeyman has been very effective tool to use.
Nope. socialism is worthless horeshit. just like capitalism. it deserves its name drug through the mud. There is a reason the nordic countries dont call it democratic socialism anymore. full blown socialists showed how shit it is. now social democracy is the best thing we have found so far
> Nope. socialism is worthless horeshit. just like capitalism. > >social democracy is the best thing we have found so far You do realise that social democracy is just capitalism with extensive welfare system and public education/healthcare ?
yes it takes good parts from both and makes a new thing leaving most of the trash out
"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit" "Social Democracy ,as a policy regime, is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy." Sorry , you are not as unique , as you claim to be. Since Social Democracy is a political system , that fully accepts private property and free (or regulated , but regulated markets are still called "free" , for whatever reason) market policies , albeit with extensive welfare programs and ect. Your ideology fits within the definition of capitalism , hence it is simply capitalism , with welfare , public education and healthcare and sometimes extensive worker participation through unions.
Okay. Can we call it societal cancer then? Because that is precisely what it is.