this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
196 points (85.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43801 readers
788 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
First, please define what you mean by socialism. That word encompasses a lot of very different forms of government, even when it's used "correctly", and it's typically not.
The Nazis called themselves socialists, and I'm not moving there.
When many people say socialism, what they mean is capitalist democracy with a strong social safety net, strong government regulation, and highly progressive taxation.
Edit: for the love of god, please do a little bit of reading about socialism before reinforcing my point that this word is used terribly. We won't take the wiki as ultimate truth, but please read. Be better. Read and think first. Comment later.
Let's go with that definition since that's what most people think of as socialist.
The question doesn't need to be hypothetical. I am moving to a country exactly like that. From the US.
Lack of modern health care coverage alone is enough to justify it. A bonus is that the quality of life across the board is significantly higher.
Where at and howβd you pull that off? Inquiring minds want to know
I read that Denmark releases a list every six months of the skills and degrees that are allowed to immigrate, or get priority or something like that. From looking at the last one I assume they value education, the liberal arts and humanities a lot more than the US.
It ends up being a catch 22. When you want to leave the US because of a lack of upward mobility, social services, jobs in your field, and you can't save because of healthcare, rent, and debt, then how can you have enough money to move to another state, much less another country?
Can't answer the where at, but most likely by having an in demand skill and/or a job already lined up. Either that or they had family there. Immigration away from here is basically impossible otherwise.
Yep. Sucks being trapped here forever unless I get a PhD or get rich.
They have qualifications. Or relatives. Or something of value to offer.
If you have a PhD or MD (additionally, you know, just straight money), you can emigrate to a lot of places. Probably most places.
Portugal and a lot of effort (Plus cash to invest).
Basically going through the Golden Visa process (Which has changed substantially the last year, happy to explain more if curious)
That is objectively not socialism (any definition of socialism that begins by defining it as a form of capitalism is fundamentally confused)
That said, Iβd agree that it is a widespread misunderstanding today. And what people mean when they say socialism is usually actually social democracy (which despite sounding like the word socialism is a mixed system based on capitalism)
Using that misunderstanding as the definition I would definitely live in many of those countries. Many have some of the highest qualities of life in the world, low rates of poverty, universal access to good healthcare and education, and good social mobility.
E.g Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Germany
Exactly. This is what the person you are responding to is saying as well.
They state that the above definition of socialism is wrong as it defines it as a from of capitalism with social features. But under the condition that this is meant he would move into these countries.
It's actually not even that. The Wikipedia page talks about free and mixed market in socialism.
That's capitalism.
It uses the word literally.
Yes.. Please reread my last comment more slowly.. particularly the first two paragraphs.
I swear. This place is way more toxic than Reddit.
I can't imagine someone being so condescending there on a topic like this.
Please read the Wikipedia article. We don't have to agree that Wikipedia is an ultimate source of truth, but it is a pretty good article.
I don't think I'll be able to communicate anything more to someone who tells me to "read more slowly".
You're the one who responded to their comment without actually reading it, why are you complaining about them?
Provided there is an appropriate amount of technocracy (decisions made by experts rather than politicians), it'd be hard for me to think of a better form of government.
Anyway, this was largely the US until Regan. Social safety net could've been stronger, but that had to evolve. Same as in Europe.
Except , racism. Addressing that is not a part of any definition of socialism that I'm aware of. Equality is certainly going along with the spirit of this definition of "socialism"
"Socialists of Lemmy, would you move to a country that someone who has absolutely no idea what socialism is thinks is socialist?"
Lmao.
@nodsocket @PetDinosaurs > OP: what socialist policies would you implement?
> commenter: what do you mean by socialism?
> OP: let's go with an incorrect definition of socialism. what social democrat policies would you implement?
Lol. Lmao, even
I would love to.
No, "most people" do not consider that to be what socialism is. Particularly those of us who live in countries with the aforementioned policies. Here we've had real socialists who wanted to take away our fundamental individual rights, amongst them the right to ownership, which frankly is a scary idea.
A lot of our regulations and limits on the free market don't have a socialist bent at all, but are intended to defend our individual liberties against large corporations, which if left unchecked can become corporate institutions, something the US has fallen victim to.
I'd consider these policies as important, if not moreso than our social welfare systems. The social mobility and safety provided by these are meaningless if an arbitrary decision by google, amazon or some bank can singlehandedly ruin your life.
Why couldn't that what you just described be called something different other than "socialism" then? Sounds like a bad move to make it fall under that same umbrella especially since that term is very frowned upon if not straight out forbidden in a few European countries for example.
It is, the term for this type of system is called Social Democracy which is not a synonym for socialism, but people (Americans at least) confused and conflate the two terms to the point that theyβve become one and the same in the minds of many people who donβt really understand the terms or their origins.
Because we're too busy categorizing this stupid shit into bins of "good" and "bad" when reality is a greyscale between these two. These are fairly reasonable points and should be viewed as a more centrist POV, but since we (read: primarily North America) have a tribal "us vs. them" animosity about it we lump many reasonable ideas together on each end of the spectrum. Things like not having to go bankrupt when you or a loved one needs an emergency hospital visit somehow automatically gets lumped in with the other extreme "socialist" ideas just to solely argue against it and not budge from their end of the extreme.
Fucking Preach! I do not understand this mentality of one team or the other.
Wow, yes this is so true for many discussions online and increasingly offline as well. Nuance seems to be not welcomed. Sometimes even suggesting there might be nuance or the topic might be more complicated than black and white already puts you firmly in the enemy camp.
Words, used in non technical contexts, mean what people mean when they use them.
Descriptive. Not proscriptive.
Incidentally, most people suck at communication
See, this is the kind of shit I'm talking about when I drag these pseudo-eugenicist techbros. How you gon classify who's 'great and greater'? Doming hammers, calipers, and speculae? You finna start talkin bout achilles heel lengths and skull dimples now? You know saying some downright ghoulish shit then deleting-and-running doesn't make you seem any less ghoulish, right? "Oh, nah MS10k, life's just split into the greats and not-greats and if you're not-great you're a fuckin serf to your betters" I sincerely hope you fuckin hear yourself someday
So in your view these people are inherently more 'great' than others? What would you call these people who are so above average? The over people? The overmen? The ubermensch.. oh whoops
Are you seriously trying to compare that statement to Nazi ideology?
Yes. I think that great artists and scientists and chefs and authors and teachers and those that work hard contribute more to society than others.
The Nobel prizes are being announced this week.
The work of Katalin KarikΓ³ and Drew Weissman saved millions. Most people are not capable of that.
Yes I think subdividing humanity into the great people who perform all the work, and the lowly masses that exist to serve them is at the heart of Nazi ideology so I am making that comparison.
Wtf is wrong with you?
Why on earth is what I said any more Nazi than the OP's "most people suck at communicating"?
No one is saying anything remotely like what you're proposing.
Unless you're proposing some brave new world dystopia, some people will achieve more than others.