• cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months 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

    • someguy3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months 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
        8 months 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

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          There are elements of capitalism there, but I wouldn’t call it a capitalist economy. Capitalism requires that private individuals own the means of production. But, in Russia does anybody outside Putin’s inner circle really own anything?

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yes, absolutely. The Russian Federation is the direct result of a collapsing Socialist system in the hands of Capitalists, just because fewer and fewer people own things doesn’t mean it isn’t a direct result of Capitalization of the economy.

            • Revan343@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              just because fewer and fewer people own things doesn’t mean it isn’t a direct result of Capitalization of the economy

              In fact that’s the natural progression of a Capitalist economy

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              The USSR wasn’t really socialist at its core, and the new Russia really isn’t capitalist at its core.

              In the former system, the theory was that the people / workers owned the means of production. The reality was that it was the leader and those close to him who really “owned” them in the sense that they had power over them. It was all about who you knew in that system. In a true socialist system, it should have been up to the people to make decisions, but in the USSR it was up to the party’s elites, and the people just had to live with it.

              In the current system, it’s Putin and his close circle who own everything. While they allow capitalist type activities to happen, the capitalists don’t really own anything. If they displease Putin anything they have can be taken away on a whim. If you stay on Putin’s good side, or at least stay beneath his notice, you can operate as a capitalist. But, become too successful and you’ll be reminded who’s in charge.

              Both true socialism and true capitalism require that the rule of law apply to everyone, even the leaders. If the leader can just ignore the laws and seize the “means of production” without facing consequences, it’s authoritarianism, not capitalism or communism / socialism.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                The USSR was a flawed form of Socialism, but was fundamentally Socialist. The majority of the economy was run by Worker Soviets, in a process called Soviet Democracy. The Politburo, ie the highest Soviet, had a massive amount of influence and power, but day to day decisions were made locally. I would agree, I don’t think it was a particularly good form of Socialism, but I would still consider it Socialist.

                Modern Russia is absolutely Capitalist at its core, that’s the entire foundation of the Russian Federation. The Capitalists are the Oligarchs! The Inner Circle are Capitalists! just because it’s a higher stage of Capitalism doesn’t mean it ceases to be Capitalism.

                • merc@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  The USSR was a flawed form of Socialism, but was fundamentally Socialist

                  Was the rule of law strong enough that decisions were being made by the people, or were they being made by authoritarians? Because if key decisions weren’t being made by the people, it wasn’t socialist.

                  The Capitalists are the Oligarchs!

                  The Oligarchs are feudalists, not capitalists.

    • PorkRoll@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months 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.

        • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          No kidding. Their “fix” every year is to either fill all the potholes with asphalt, which the spring rains promptly loosen and get kicked out, or a thin “repaving” layer, which gets destroyed by the summer monsoons. I’m convinced Caltrans is a jobs program for people that can’t get a job otherwise, because those guys can’t seem to get anything done correctly.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s actually insane how many of our institutions are actually based on pyramid schemes. No wonder we all use it as the symbol for conspiracy because it is a huge portion of how anything runs in the US. Cover the costs by convincing more people to join in at a less beneficial or profitable step down the pyramid and hope someone else will be coming behind you for you to take from as well.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Europe uses the word socialism differently. It’s a difference in how the words are used and the time they are used. If we consider socialism shared responsibility, we have it America in many ways but we are hesitant to expand it. That’s because of our fear of large government power.

      If we me socialism as the workers owning the means of production. Well no country does that. Normally it’s the government owning everything and the workers being abused such as the Soviet Union or Cuba. That’s the large governments Americans dislike.

      • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, socialism isn’t taxing the rich, it is or at least have always led to brutal dictatorships because the real one is just communism with extra steps.

        Social-democracy on the other hand is wonder for the people (see Sweden etc) in real life.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m a conservative and read a wonderful article on why conservatives should be leading the charge to a social democracy like Sweden. It really changed my views on why we should be skippering certain endeavors. Just neither party here has really embraced the basic concept.

          An example was national health care allowed people to be more entrepreneurial since that is a large risk to not have insurance here.

  • Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Do you guys realize the world is larger than the memeverse and there are real people who lived under “socialist” governments?

    Jesus H. Christ, all you need my dear is a holiday in Cambodia.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      I may not want the USSR at all, but a large majority of Russians want it back: https://www.statista.com/chart/7322/25-years-soviet-union-collapse-ussr/

      Now, a large part of this is also obviously due to wanting to be a part of a more powerful state, which the USSR was in comparison to the Russian Federation, but this point isn’t great. I could make the same point and say that we should send pro-Capitalists to Somalia, it just doesn’t work well logically.

      • Jax@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Information provided by the Levada Center, which is currently declaring an 82% approval rating for Putin.

        Gonna go ahead and say that this isn’t a reliable statistic.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Putin is a dictator, and a terrible fascist leader, but he does legitimately have a high approval rating, mainly because you can’t go against him without putting yourself in trouble. I would not say that that means an unrelated question isn’t reliable, especially because Putin is a fascist and the USSR was Socialist, if anything it’s anti-putin to want the USSR back,

  • Tja@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    No. My impressions are based on having lived it before the iron curtain fell.

  • UsernameHere@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months 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/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months 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.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months 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/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months 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.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months 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.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months 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/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months 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?

  • z00s@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    “Most powerful empire the world has ever known”

    Lol Americans

    The Romans conquered the known world with pointy sticks and diplomacy.

    The US hasn’t been on the winning side since ww2 despite having nukes and spyplanes.

    Even the British Empire spanned the globe, and all they had was cannons, rum, and syphilis.

    • Jack@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah they may not incorporate other countries like previous empires, but their sphere of influence is undeniable unfortunately.

  • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months 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.

  • ARg94@lemmy.packitsolutions.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months 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!