• cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    European here.

    This seems to mainly only be an issue in the US. Socialism = Communism = Enemy

    If at all anything, the opposite seems to be the case here. We’re looking at the US as a “this is how bad it will get if we let go” example

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In addition: government programs that help everyone = helping black people = no.

      I think this is the fundamental reason why the US never went to public/universal anything, be it healthcare, education, whatever.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yep. We should have told the colonies of Georgia and Carolina to fuck off, and we’ll get around to conquering them, after we kicked The King out of the other 11 colonies.

        If one person had voted differently during The Continental Congress, we would have started abolishing slavery

    • PorkRoll@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah y’all really don’t want to end up like us. We’re not the land of the free. The streets are most definitely not paved with gold. We’re just a giant ponzi scheme.

  • UsernameHere@lemmings.worldBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not from “the west” from “the rich”. There are rich people in every type of economy that use their money to gain more power. One of the many ways that is done is with propaganda to convince those with less that the rich in power are not the problem.

    Just look at the oligarchs in Russia.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not every economic system, economic systems that place significant barriers against ballooning of individual wealth off exploitation see less disparity, and thus less of an impact of money on politics. Beaurocracy becomes a new kind of power currency, which is why much of the Politburo in the USSR was corrupt, though its worth noting that their disparity levels were lower than currently in the Russian Federation.

      The Russian Federation’s “Oligarchs” are a spooky word for Capitalists that dodges the fact that they are Capitalists that took advantage of the collapse of the USSR to gain massive outsized power and wealth. The Russian Federation is Capitalist, not Socialist.

      • UsernameHere@lemmings.worldBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not every economic system, economic systems that place significant barriers against ballooning of individual wealth off exploitation see less disparity, and thus less of an impact of money on politics.

        You say not every economic system, but then you say less disparity, less impact.

        Less disparity means there is still disparity. Less impact means there is still impact.

        Because like I said, as long as there are human beings who want more power, there will be a struggle in any economic systems to prevent disparity.

        That is because it isn’t the economic system that deregulates or undermines protections.

        It is those who seek more power who deregulate and undermine protections.

        And those people exist in all types of economic systems.

        Even capitalist America had a point in history where disparity was low and the middle class and lower class thrived.

        That is no longer the case because of those who removed regulations and changed the laws to suite themselves. And again, those people exist in every type of economy.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I did not say you could not eliminate the influence of money on politics, did I? You did. I countered it, and now you’re implying that it’s impossible to completely get rid of.

          You can account for bad actors and power-seekers woth egalitarian distribution of power and a prevention against gaining in power.

          • UsernameHere@lemmings.worldBanned from community
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can account for bad actors and power-seekers woth egalitarian distribution of power and a prevention against gaining in power.

            How? Without stating how this is accomplished, you’re response is only really saying,

            ‘you can account for bad actors and power-seekers by living in a perfect world where bad people don’t exist’

            If there were an economic system that achieved that it would be a utopia. I don’t know of any utopias on earth.

              • UsernameHere@lemmings.worldBanned from community
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There are still hierarchies in socialist economies. Thats why there is still disparity in socialist economies.

                Do you have an example of one of these socialist societies where everyone has equal power?

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What hierarchy? Statist hierarchy? That’s why the goal of Socialism is Communism, and nobody has reached Communism yet. Do you think we live at the end of history?

  • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    By “socialism”, are we talking:

    A. Worker-controlled economic system, or

    B. What American liberals think is socialism, which is just a capitalist system with welfare.

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        See how most of those polls are from 2009-2011, in the middle of the worst economic crisis in Europe in a century?

        And they weren’t thrown in jail for saying it?

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unless you’re over a 100 years old you lived in a totalitarian system masquerading as Communism.

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        See how you didn’t even have to ask which country it was? Because a 100% of communist countries became dictatorships ridden with poverty for the working class and gold plated luxury for the ruling class.

        I’m happy now somewhere in the middle in this terrible, terrible capitalism. Oh, and I’m free to leave anytime I want, if I don’t like it.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So do 100% of Capitalist countries without a strong democracy. In fact capitalism is the one designed to do so by concentrating capital.

          When we figure out communism or socialism there’s a really good chance it’s a strong democracy that prevents it from falling into totalitarianism. Will it be a bunch of anarchic communes in council? Lol no. Will workers share profit equally with executives? Probably.

    • Gabu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You mean the impressions of having lived in a dictatorship which discarded the idea of progressing towards communism? How is that relevant?

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        See how you didn’t even have to ask which country it was? Because a 100% of communist countries became dictatorships ridden with poverty for the working class and gold plated luxury for the ruling class.

        I’m happy now somewhere in the middle in this terrible, terrible capitalism. Oh, and I’m free to leave anytime I want, if I don’t like it.

        • Gabu@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Grade-school level history: I didn’t need to ask which country because all of the possible countries were puppet states of a single other country…

          Because a 100% of communist countries became dictatorships […]

          There are a total of 0 communist countries throughout history. Your lack of very basic knowledge is starting to make me cringe.

          I’m happy now somewhere in the middle in this terrible, terrible capitalism.

          That’s irrelevant. If you’re happy while I’m driving a nail through your eyes, does that make driving a nail through someone’s eyes a good thing? The fact that you are privileged doesn’t make a difference.

          Oh, and I’m free to leave anytime I want

          No, you’re not. Your statement is so completely uneducated, I couldn’t even guess where to begin dismantling it.

  • ARg94@lemmy.packitsolutions.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    What’s a few hundred millions of lives lost to that anti-semite moron’s ideology over the last hundred years, eh comrade? Progress!