top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 193 points 2 months ago (46 children)

Many people do give some of their money or belongings to those less fortunate already. It's called charity. Socialists want to create a world where charity isn't necessary.

  • source
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    I think of it where charity is not optional. Seriously though there would be charities but for more niched things. Not to make sure vets (who get more healthcare than most of the country) get healthcare or children get healthcare. I swear the charity commercials from when I was a kid about children in africa are now about children in the us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (10 children)

    vets (who get more healthcare than most of the country)

    You may be overestimating the quality of VA hospitals.

    ETA: Just to clarify, I’m not trying to negate their point. I’m just mentioning that veteran healthcare isn’t actually all that great. There’s a good reason so many vets end up crazy and homeless in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Literally any healthcare>>>No healthcare

    There were times in my life that I would not go to the hospital unless I was literally dying for fear of the costs. A ton of people in the US are like that, and imagine how many ignore weird pains or symptoms that then progress into serious conditions that could've been treated if they'd have gotten checked out earlier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Ohhh, veterans.

    I thought you had specific healthcare for veterinarians and I thought that was very niche

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    you may be underestimating nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Just to clarify I do agree with the point you were making. I was just commenting on the fact that veteran healthcare in the US isn’t actually that great, and not as easily accessible as some think it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    oh I get it but honestly I have seen it in action and for a veteran living in a major area it seems light years above typical. Most things I hear come down to long term care facilities, which are bad for ones the poor end up in if not worse, and people living in the stix. Which again the poor there just are getting nothing. I was in no way trying to say what they get is great just that it is additional to what the non veteran gets. I see a lot of veteran and first responder thing (another profession with generally better benefits than average) and talking about wounds but I tell you its better to be shot as a first responder or veteran than as a teacher although even they tend to at least have benefits. Its real bad if you make your money in the gig economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Veterans generally rate their VA provided healthcare higher than civilians rate their civilian healthcare in the US. The whole myth that the VA is significantly worse than the regular system is just that; a myth. Outcomes and patient satisfaction trend higher in VA hospitals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    My take from what I’ve been told is it’s great as long as you can stay healthy enough to make it through the bureaucratic crap. With VA hospitals, you get to take all the fun and games of a regular hospital admin and throw in a bunch of government red tape.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -25 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    You want a lot of things and have no plan to get there useless populist

    Good to see the idiots on twitter still arguing like children

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Ah, the classic "I'm a narcissist so I can only see that other people want things only for themselves" view. Most who are socialists want it so everyone can have their basic needs met, not because they themselves want free things. It's about caring for others, which you clearly are unable to comprehend.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -31 points 2 months ago* (28 children)

    They also want to do that at gunpoint.

    Minor detail you forgot to mention.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Capitalism is enforced at gunpoint. Can we condemn that, too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    You mean like when you can't loot other people's shit?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    What? No, I meant like when people said they didn't want to work 12 hours a day 6 days a week anymore, and then the capitalists had the police shoot them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    They don't want that. They just understand that the capitalists will literally kill them and they have to be prepared for that. This is not speculation, it's historically accurate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 2 months ago* (5 children)

    No, socialism doesn't work unless you force people into it. Socialism can theoretically be voluntary inside a capitalist system. No one forbids you to form a collective. Except no one joins such collectives except lazy rejects and people wanting free shit. There is a real reason hippie commune attempts have all fallen apart.

    Capitalists will only kill you if you're trying to take their shit by force, which is entirely reasonable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago

    What are you talking about? Capitalists literally hire death squads and murder people all over the world to protect their profits from exploiting countries that their host nations invaded and colonized

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    There is a real reason hippie commune attempts have all fallen apart.

    Ignoring the extreme scenario of hippie communes, things like "we want paid sick time", "we don't want to work more than 8 hours a day", and "we want to be paid in real money not company scrip" are pretty reasonable demands. All of that was met with violence by the capitalists. The police and sometimes army used violence, and then the leaders that survived were often jailed. So it's not like capitalism just naturally is stable. It's held in place by force.

    Capitalists will only kill you if you’re trying to take their shit by force, which is entirely reasonable.

    Why is it their stuff?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Democratic socialists do not want to impose socialism on people through violent force.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    They also dont want socialism. They want reform just like centrists.

    Not one DSA candidate has called for the means of production to be in the hands of the workers.

    Not one has said we should get rid of capitalists.

    Not one has said we should get rid of for profit banks and insurance.

    They do talk about single payer healthcare but that is just a social program and not socialism.

    Its all reform unless we(the workers)seize the means of production and I havent heard one peep about that from the DSA.

    So, no, the DSA aren't socialists at all, they are at best reformists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Many members of DSA would like to see a significant proliferation of worker owned co-ops.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    I just wish this was talked about more. I know AOC has mentioned co-ops before, but we're in need of proper legislation, and a legal framework, to support and recognize them. For the purpose of gaining access to capital (via bank loans) if nothing else. There are almost no drawbacks, and so many upsides. Aside from needing to learn how to actually work with other people, they're legitimately better in basically every way to traditional businesses.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Cooperatives aren't exactly socialist, though. This is a confusion of socialism that is ultimately reductive, removing firms from their place in society, both with respect to the broader economy and the state.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I'm not even super into the DSA, but this is just incorrect. Plenty of folks in the DSA talk about genuine worker democracy. Look at the different tendencies within the DSA rather than the individual candidates. The DSA's rank and file is much further to the left than AOC and Mamdani, and IMO this is a good thing because that's how you build actual socialist mass movements, rather than Bernie Sanders 2.0

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    What in the actual fuck are you talking about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Read other replies to my comment to find out. Mind the vote score, too. The vicious savages aren't hiding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Crying about "viscious savages" because people took away your internet points just makes you sound like a pampered little bitch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    That isn't what socialism is, but it is however exactly what Jesus told people to do. And yet she - a Christian - seems to hold the idea in contempt. Curious.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I don't love religion, but many churches do make some attempt to help the poor in the areas where they run.

    There are a lot of churches that are closer to a mafia with intent and fees.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago

    "Google is your friend."

    It might be her friend but it isn't ours!

  • source
  • [–] 57 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Side note: Google is NOT your friend.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Isn't that how people who decry socialism define it, not really how socialism actually works?

    It's really more a description of welfare, which is something that can be utilized by socialism, but doesn't define it.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    A century and more of propoganda in the US has led to the perception that any regulation or check or balance on the private sector is socialism.

    The average American is extremely brainwashed from a young age and is mostly incapable of questioning their presumptions on this. They're trained to happily lick the boot of their Epstein class and accept the status quo. Only a few break out of the trance in their lifetimes, that is, if something breaks the cosmic cycle of production and consumption they live by.

    Hopefully for theirs and the world's sake the pendulum will swing back hard and they will embrace some type of spiritual successor to FDR / an American born version of Zohran Mamdani to run the country.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 49 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    Dear Capitalists,

    If you want capitalism so bad, be sure to "donate" a billion to the campaign of your favorite politician and use socialism to transfer wealth from the people to you without having to actually sell them anything, then use those billions to buy your own island...

    Oh wait they are already doing that, sorry

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Thats still all capitalism. There is no socialism in capitalism even when the wealthy make huge wealth transfers.

    Why is it so hard to understand that all socialism is is when workers control the means of production just like capitalists do in capitalism.

    If they control the means then it is capitalism, if we(the workers) control it then that's socialism.

    Transferring wealth is just that, wealth transfer.

    Having the national purse pay for bailouts is not socialism.

    This idea of getting something for nothing is not socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    You're absolutely right but everything that sides with labor over capital is considered socialism in the US. Banning child labor, two day weekend, Medicare/Medicaid, social security... These were all labelled socialist policies at one point or another.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    It doesn't matter what is and is not socialism, friend.

    They call it socialism in the USA, and have for many decades. I'm taking them at their own word.

    In USA, our politicians call transfer of wealth "socialism" when they don't approve of that wealth transfer. Also, many use the word "communism" interchangeably with socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Google's my third biggest enemy.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Ask your average blue collar Republican voter what they hate about socialism and they will perfectly describe capitalism

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    The average socialist describes socialism as a liberal, democratic, capitalist center left government.

    People would lose their shit if the government started going after private ownership.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    "build one big insurance company to provide coverage for everyone. And no gaps or deductibles. And they can't discriminate who's allowed to join. And let the government administrate it so a single company can't screw you over unfairly."

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    pay at the pump auto insurance..

    included into the cost of each gallon of gas.

    universal coverage, no uninsured drivers, clear & transparent funding source.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    How's that going to work with the switch over to electric cars?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    This is only socialism if it pertains to the workplace and you are talking about "one big union" not insurance; that would be a social program.

    Roads and infrastructure; not socialism.

    Insurance and consumer protection; not socialism.

    Single payer Healthcare; not socialism.

    Firefighter, police and military; not socialism.

    Democracy in the workplace; now thats what I call socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    "Well if you hate Hitler's genocide, we shouldn't all have to collectively do something about it. Buy your own gun, get yourself to Germany, and start fighting Nazis yourself!"

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Well that is just it, the wealthy of the US were totally on board with the Nazi. Industrialists like Ford help to bankroll the Nazi Empire by building factories and saying they could keep all the profits. Not to mention IBM developing the number system for the tattoos on Jewish prisoners and helping with the logistics of sending them to the death camps

    Hitler didn't even want to kill the Jews at first, he wanted to exile them and sent envoys to see if other countries would take them. When the wealthy of the US found out they went and lobbied against this and stroked more anti-jewish sentiment in Europe to ensure the final solution would happen. Hell, even Hitler said he based the Holocaust after the Native American genocide the US committed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    US was fully onboard with eugenics leading up to WWII. There's a whole lotta retconning going on.

    Not the least of it is that US were the heroes in WWII. We were "neutral" until the thing was half through, and even then barely even fought the Germans. History props America up, because one of our biggest exports is "history"...but we're the third-stringers who soaked up the glory when we finished the game 30 points up...while we were brought in with a couple minutes left and up by 50.

    Us milennials are the worst of it. We got taught by boomer history teachers who heard endless exaggerated war stories from their dads and uncles and had that to feed their already stubborn attitudes. Or worse, Vietnam vets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago*

    For real, the US is the source of the fascism which pisses me off when people say the US stopped the fascists. They are the fucking fascist and Italy and Germany were offshoots from the US.

    If the US citizens hadn't invested the time and money in the European Axis then perhaps WWII would have never happened. That is speculative, of course, but it really feels the US is responsible especially after walking away from governance in the aftermath of WWI. I digress though.

    You are absolutely correct as the Soviet Union did all the heavy lifting taking on around 80 percent of the Nazi forces. It was definitely the undoing of Germany when they attacked Russia, but if they hadn't we may be living in a far worse world for minorities than we have now. Unfortunately, it feels like thanks to the US spreading fascism around the world we are heading there anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago

    I’m scared for our society, nobody willing to actually educate themselves outside of social media

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    I mean the proof is in the pudding.

    We can all see how the conservative "pull yourself up by your boostraps trickle down" ideology is (isn't) working for the majority of our society, including the vast majority of conservatives.

    I'm not some tree hugging ultra-lib. But the bottom line is capitalism simply isn't sustainable. It causes rampant pollution and an ever-widening wealth gap between the haves and have nots. We haven't even been utilizing capitalism that long in the big picture and it's already absolutely catastrophic for our environment. It's just not sustainable. It needs to be HEAVILY regulated if it keeps existing at all. And one thing I know for absolute certain is you get the opposite of regulation when you hire conservatives/regressives.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    Here, I'll give up all means of production that I personally own and aren't for personal use.

    Done.

    (Ok I'm not giving up my retirement account until we have an effective pension system because I'm not an idiot, but other than that done)

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Wait, wait... Jesus Christ literally said that. No, seriously. It was something like, "if you want to follow me, surrender your Earthly possessions" and "A thief cannot rob your ephemeral wealth, unlike stuff in your house." Paraphrased poorly, but that's the gist of it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    That's Buddhism, not socialism.
    But hey, good news! This is America, which means you're free to whichever religious ideology you want, with no chance of persecution whatsoever.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    Capitalism is LITERALLY forcing other people to give away all of their belongings.

    In capitalism, you just don't have any remaining belongings to give away.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Capitalism is LITERALLY forcing other people to give away all of their belongings

    can you explain this some? im not very knowledgeable about economic systems

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    The goal of capitalism is to use exploitative systems so that you gain others' money and they don't gain yours.

    The whole idea of investment is that you hire people to work for you and then they don't get the full value of the work they do, and it goes to you. That's how your employer makes money.

    Same for landlords and basically all of the wealthy people in capitalism.

    And when you aren't making enough money, you start making things so expensive that they can't afford homes, healthcare, food, and other necessities, like what's happening now.

    There's no need for homelessness or poverty to exist. Those things are choices made by the wealthy.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›