• ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    American try to care one iota for your fellow man or really anyone other than yourself challenge (impossible):

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      14 days ago

      During covid, going to a rural area in the US really got to me. The population is so individualistic / freedom-brained / “i do whatever I want all the time”, that their grandmothers all dying meant nothing to them. I got mine keeps meaning smaller and smaller groups of people.

      • yucandu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        14 days ago

        Which is surprising because up here in Canada, the socialism started with the farmers. And it’s still going on with coop feed and grain silos and harvester sharing. Farmers don’t let other farmers starve, in Canada.

      • Spectre@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        14 days ago

        I got mine keeps meaning smaller and smaller groups of people.

        What does this mean?

        • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          USonians used to be more community-focused. In the 1950s polio was eradicated due to massive community efforts, showing that they were willing to do things to benefit their community.

          Nowadays they won’t even do the same to benefit their extended families.

          • Spectre@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            14 days ago

            But when he says “smaller and smaller groups of people” does he mean that this kind of mentality isolates people to increasingly smaller groups?

            • Dhs92@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              14 days ago

              It used to apply to different groups in the past.

              Fuck you, my community got ours

              Fuck you, my friend group got ours

              Fuck you, my family got ours

              And now we’re finally at

              Fuck you, I got mine

    • blade_barrier@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      Socialism is the complete opposite of that. Socialism destroys horizontal connections and institution of family.

  • yucandu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    Lisa’s only mistake was saying yes.

    Just do every single thing in socialism, but change every single word. Call it Americanism.

    Proletariat? No, just “worker”.

    Bourgeoisie? No, just “elites”.

    Capital? “Stuff”. Like how in baseball they say a pitcher’s got good “stuff”. Use your human stuff.

    Class Consciousness - “common sense”.

    Dialectical Materialism - Idk I’m still trying to figure out wtf that one means.

    • Spectre@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      14 days ago

      Dialectical materialism -> Scientific materialism to distinguish it from the common usage of the world “materialism”

    • NostraDavid@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      Dialectical Materialism

      How about “a tug-of-war between owners and workers for jobs, resources, and technology”

      Three examples:

      Factory Work and Labour Unions

      Early 20th-century factory jobs involved long hours, low pay, and unsafe working conditions. When workers tried to unionize, factory owners often resisted, viewing unionized labour as a threat to profits. This created a direct conflict: owners wanting to keep costs low vs. workers demanding better wages and safer workplaces.

      Automation in Warehouses

      Warehouses (e.g., Amazon fulfilment centres) are increasingly adopting robotic systems to speed up sorting and packing. Employees might feel pressure to meet higher performance metrics set by a partly automated workflow, while also fearing that further automation will reduce human jobs. Here, the “tug-of-war” is between technological efficiency (and profit) vs. workers’ job security and well-being.

      Tech Industry Outsourcing

      Companies sometimes outsource tech-related jobs to countries with cheaper labour costs. This lowers expenses for the company but can lead to local layoffs and economic hardship for employees in higher-wage regions. The conflict revolves around the benefit of increased profit margins for the company vs. the material needs of domestic workers who lose their livelihoods.

      • Taalnazi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Nederlands
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Too long, I’d suggest “boss-busting”, after “rentbusting”. Or “bosses keeping workers hostage”, maybe?

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    14 days ago

    about what youd expect for a country thats been the global epicenter for anticommunist propaganda.

  • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    14 days ago

    I can’t remember where I copied this from originally but it seems pertinent here

    Americans are, of course, the most thoroughly and passively indoctrinated people on earth. they know next to nothing as a rule about their own history, or the histories of other nations, or the histories of the various social movements that have risen and fallen in the past, and they certainly know nothing of the complexities and contradictions comprised within words like ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism.’

    Chiefly, what they have been trained not to know or even suspect is that, in many ways, they enjoy far fewer freedoms, and suffer under a more intrusive centralized state, than do the citizens of countries with more vigorous social-democratic institutions.

    This is is at once the most comic and most tragic aspect of the excitable alarm that talk of social democracy or democratic socialism can elicit on these shores.

    An enormous number of Americans have been persuaded to believe that they are freer in the abstract than, say, Germans or Danes precisely because they possess far fewer freedoms in the concrete.

    They are far more vulnerable to medical and financial crisis, far more likely to receive inadequate health coverage, far more prone too irreparable insolvency, far more unprotected against predatory creditors, far more subject to income inequality, and so forth, while effectively paying more in tax (when one figures in federal, state, local and sales taxes, and then compounds those by all the expenditures that in this country, as almost nowhere else, their taxes do not cover).

    One might think that a people who once rebelled against the mightiest empire on earth on the principle of no taxation without representation would not meekly accept taxation without adequate government services.

    But we accept what we have become used to, I suppose. Even so, one has to ask, what state apparatus in the “free” world could be more powerful and tyrannical than the one that taxes its citizens while providing no substantial civic benefits in return, solely in order to enrich a piratically overinflated military-industrial complex and to ease the tax burdens of the immensely wealthy.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    Socialism in america only exists for corporations. “Hey bankers! Screwed up again? Here’s more money to play with.”

    • NostraDavid@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 days ago

      The USA actually spends several billions, if not trillions on Medicare (meant for the old) and Medicaid (meant for the poor, and single mothers, and young children) combined.

      In 2023, the federal government spent about $848.2 billion on Medicare, accounting for 14% of total federal spending.

      source - and that’s just Medicare.

      I agree with you that it’s weird that corporations get a bailout, instead of selling the company to competitors, but no need to act like the USA doesn’t spend a TON of money on its citizens, keeping their head above water :)

  • miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    14 days ago

    Meanwhile, socialist Norway’s wealth fund could maintain everyone’s standard of living for 400 years if they stopped working right now.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      norway isnt socialist. they just excel at exporting capitalism’s issues to the third world.

      • yucandu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        14 days ago

        In a democratic state, things like universal healthcare are also called “socialized medicine” because it is an example of the people owning the means of production in that particular industry.

        That’s why most countries are what we call “mixed economies”, that mix elements of capitalism and socialism.

        Norway mixes in a higher ratio of socialism to capitalism than most countries. But they don’t export any more of capitalism’s issues to the third world than other countries. It’s something to emulate, not discredit.

            • JacksonLamb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              14 days ago

              Pretty sure no one with universal healthcare calls it “socialized medicine”. That’s just a buzzword Americans use to scare each other.

              It’s not a means of producing anything other than health. Health is seen as a human right and it makes sense even in most western capitalist countries for it to be extended to everyone.

              • yucandu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                14 days ago

                I’m Canadian. It’s what the founder of our healthcare system, Tommy Douglas, called it.

                And yeah, it’s the people owning the means of producing health. Socialist healthcare.

                Americans scare people with these references to brutal authoritarian dictatorships that call themselves “socialist” but the real cause of all these problems is that they weren’t democratic, not that they socialized industries.

                Anyways, maybe it’s just my autism making me literal as fuck, but I think you guys need to clear that up. This is what the people owning the means of production looks like. It’s always going to be adjacent to capitalism, whether it’s a socialist industry in a capitalist country, or a socialist country in a capitalist world.

                • JacksonLamb@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  14 days ago

                  Interesting, thanks for the Canadian history lesson Perhaps that’s where the Americans got their weird terminology from.

                  you guys need to clear that up

                  Who needs to do what? I’m not sure what I said that somehow gave you the impression I was an American.

                  My society pays for universal free healthcare, like everywhere in the civilized world.

              • yucandu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                13 days ago

                A democracy is a state in which the government is owned and controlled by the people.

                • blade_barrier@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  No wtf. Democracy is state that holds elections. Wtf is “owned and controlled by the people”? How are people supposed to control the government? The government is controlled by govt officials. Common people don’t control shit. How can a government be owned by people? Is government even a property that can be owned? That doesn’t make any sense.

        • umbrella@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          and in a demoratic world norway wouldnt be doing tax-free extrativism in my country (and others’), so that you can pay for your socialized medicine in a capitalist economy, where the money to finance it has to come from the poor. in this case we are your poor.

          • yucandu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            14 days ago

            Socialized medicine is always cheaper than capitalist medicine. It’s inherently more cost effective for people to pool their money together. It isn’t paid for by some rich miner buying mining rights in some other country.

          • stickly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            14 days ago

            I’m not sure how that link is supposed to refute anything? It says basically what the comment above says without using the phrase “mixed economies”.

            If you meant the power structure and public/private balance is heavily capitalist for Nordic countries then you’d probably want to post something else supporting that statement.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      14 days ago

      Whenever people say this they neglect to point out that all the money came from selling oil.

      • miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        14 days ago

        They forget to point out that only dumbfuck yanks would consider Norway to be socialist, so the comment, in a meme community, is misleading from the get-go.

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 days ago

      Norway is a capitalist country. It us an OECD hanger-on to the US-led imperialist world order.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      Norway isn’t socialist. And by “everyone” you mean just Norwegians, even though Norway’s wealth was built on the backs of people in the global South.

      Not to mention that Norway’s public wealth is being claimed by the capitalist class, just like in every western country

  • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    13 days ago

    Don’t make me laugh, it’s not socialism! it’s bro-ism, 'cause, I got you bro. If everyone got their bros and we all bros then we can do absolutely anything bro!

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 days ago

        You don’t get, socialism doesn’t exist, it can’t hurt you, it was just a boogeyman created by the billionaires so you’ll go back to the wagie cage. There’s only bro-ism

        • blade_barrier@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          I live in a post soviet country so I experience the impact of socialism to this very day. It’s appalling.

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            You experience our destruction, we stole the world from you are we’re coming for seconds. Let us in more, let us finacialze you, your dreams will have advertising in them, we will strip whatever is left of your public transporter for copper, we will put your nana in the streets after converting her house into empty condos and stealing her pension. This is what happens when you let to imperial powers come in and loot your dwellings.

  • lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 days ago

    Wait, isn’t socialism all about class solidarity? “Working together regardless of class to fight a common enemy” sounds more like nationalism where at the end the upper class profits most. Unless we are talking about a classless society but that’s not “regardless of class” but “with no class distinction” which sounds very similar when I think about it.

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      Socialism is about making the working class the ruling class. It is explicitly about oppressing the bourgeois class, which is itself the current ruling class oppressing the working (and other) classes. The idea is to take the means of production and run it for ourselves rather than the profit of a class defined by merely owning factories, buildings, tools, etc.

      The cartoon may be confused.

    • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      14 days ago

      Socialism is about the government playing a central role in the economy to ensure wealth and resources are distributed more fairly, rather than being concentrated in the hands of corporations or individuals. Socialism can still allow for private businesses and a market economy, but key industries and services are often publicly controlled to prevent excessive inequality.

      • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        Socialism is not about the government’s size. Socialists, particularly Marxists, emphasize using the state and nationalization after proletarian revolution to reflect the working class’ interests and build socialism, but the size of the state itself is not what makes something socialist, both because (1) socialists seek to eventually end the state itself once productive forces and consciousness are sufficiently advanced and (2) capitalist states can also have large governments, generally to serve the interests of the ruling class, albeit sometimes in a roundabout way.

      • lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        14 days ago

        That’s state socialism, a specific kind of socialism that wants to keep the state apparatus, not realizing that it will always (re)create a ruling class. Different from Libertarian Socialism which unironically want a stateless society, not as a never to reach end goal.

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          14 days ago

          Socialism is always about recreating a ruling class: it is to make the working class into the ruling class.

          There is no practical alternative to this. Imagine trying the only way: to immediately end class relations. You’ve won the revolution. Your ideological brethren are in power and the Great Workers’ Council is going forward with your plan. How are you going to force people to end class relations? Won’t it require a state? Who is enforcing the end of relations? If someone buys up an extra-big plot of land and starts charging tenants rent, reinventing semi-feudal relations, who is going to stop them? And what are you going to do about the bourgeoisie who still exist, especially those overseas, and are working against you to reopen your country for exploitation?

          All of these basic realities require a state. And you cannot simply end all class relations instantaneously, as the wider public will not all agree with you ideologically. Unless you plan extreme forms of oppression for the entire population, you will need to deal with the remnants of various class relations in various forms, engaging, ideally, in a process that will whittle them away. That entire process will be recreating a ruling class, i.e. the working class, to impose this process on the other classes.

  • Basic Glitch@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    13 days ago

    She’s got a work on her sales pitch. “Probably one of the greatest… Oh it’s not for you, it’s more of a Shelbyville idea…”

  • Commiunism@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    14 days ago

    “if we all work together regardless of class” collaborationism is bourgeoisie propaganda and is not tolerated here, Comrade. Please face the wall.

  • deathbird@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    14 days ago

    “All classes working together” as a counterpoint to socialism? Where have I heard of this before…?

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      It’s because it’s impossible. The classes will always be in conflict until the communism is reached, so it depends which class is in power.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    14 days ago

    Of course, you could just talk about “Tax The Rich” or “Bring Back the New Deal” but then how could people know you read Karl Marx?

    • JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      I’ve been thinking a lot recently about how to rephrase socialist ideals as capitalist bills for the sake of America.

      I want to propose a “Proof of Economic Viability Bill” somewhere if I can find the right influence point.

      Basically, financial advisors suggest that people should pay no more than 30% of their income towards living expenses. Knowing that the vast majority of Americans only have income from their primary job, this means that any business should be expected to pay no less than 30% of their income, evenly divided across the entire workforce (cart pusher to CEO), as a “living expense allotment” to prove they can afford to pay their workers enough to live and stay afloat. This will push out companies who are doomed to fail because of a lack of available workforce, allowing more economically viable options to reign king.

      Edit to add: you can make this sound a little nicer to the maga crowd by telling them they can reduce wages by doing this. I don’t necessarily care that you’re paying minimum wage as long as you can afford to put your worker in a home and fill their stomach.

      • yucandu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

        Stop using polysyallabic words like “proletariat” when trying to appeal to the American working class who read at a 5th grade level.

        Seriously. Like the guy in Severance said. Apologize for the word. It’s too long.

        • JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          14 days ago

          No no, you just have to use the right ones that they like. The “magic words” so to speak. Investors really like “economic viability” because it means they can instantly look at a company and see if they can make money off it. Politicians just so happen to be interested in a lot of the same things as investors for some reason.

      • stickly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        14 days ago

        You just described what the minimum wage was supposed to be, and plenty of red blooded American patriots already hate that.

        • JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          I realize my other comment didn’t actually properly answer your concern. You are right about this being the equivalent of minimum wage. However, the meaning of wages have changed since the time when those laws were made. We don’t need companies to prove they can pay their people for today, because we have technology that lasts hundreds of years if properly maintained. We need them to prove they are economically viable forever.

        • JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          You’re absolutely right. However, if you use the right magic words you can convince them that it will be good for them. Constituents will be happy because their bills will be guaranteed to be paid by their company, and investors will be happy because they can look at a company and instantly see whether they can make money off it. It just so happens that politicians tend to be into the same things as investors

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        14 days ago

        I go even simpler.

        The New Deal.

        Make the GOPs explain why we could pay salaries that let one earner support a family of four in 1940 and can’t do it today.

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 days ago

      It’s the opposite, actually.

      The people who talk about “tax the rich” or the New Deal don’t actually do anything, they are armchair activists who have no real idea of how they would ever accomplish this outside of pretending the Democratic Party, which constantly opposes them and crushes such ideas, is the vehiclr, and the way to make it happen is complaining on the internet.

      Communists know that actually addressing our collective problems is a much more difficult task, nothing less than the overthrow of capitalism, something that would need to survive attempts at cooption by liberal power structures like the aforementioned party. So we build from the ground up, educating one another and developing practice so that we can balance growth, education, and having impact through actions. We go to the meetings, we run the meetings, we teach one another, we organize the protests and marches, we build the strategic mutual aid events, we embed with workers’ spaces and unions, we embed with and build from within the marginalized so as to be of them. Communist organizing is adding a part-time job on top of your other obligations.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        14 days ago

        Yes, we should definitely not have something like Sweden or the old New Deal. We should let children grow up in poverty, let old people suffer, and let the planet burn while we sit around discussing Trotsky and the Second International in hopes that the revolution will come.

        iirc de La Cruz got less than 100,000 votes.

        • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          14 days ago

          Yes, we should definitely not have something like Sweden or the old New Deal.

          I think you need to refamiliarize yourself with what I said, as this is not it.

          We should let children grow up in poverty, let old people suffer, and let the planet burn while we sit around discussing Trotsky and the Second International in hopes that the revolution will come.

          I said something that is the exact opposite of sitting around, actually. Do your best to read a little more carefully before sharing opinions.

          iirc de La Cruz got less than 100,000 votes.

          And?