Europe doesn’t have socialism. This list is not even close to good. Europe is like, behind what I want. I want socialism. I want to nationalize big tech. Europe wants no part in nationalizing their tech. I don’t want mandatory PTO, I want a union and representation and a funded pension. I want publicly ran and funded groceries and hospitals, not just universal health insurance. I’m a former libertarian and I want these things btw. It’s not hard to convince a libertarian to be socialist.
The modern use of the word Socialism means having significant publicly funded institutions. When people say they want socialism they mean they want more of it, because most likely they already have lots of publicly funded institutions - like police and fire protection, public libraries, unemployment compensation… What they want is more, and Europe has more than the US.
Developed and non-developed are economics terms for different degrees of industrialization and overall wealth. they’re not “colonial” language.
I agree and also would note that “developed” is the current, more sensitive term which specifically seeks to avoid unfair judgement in favor of a term that looks at metrics that measure general well being. You cannot tell me it’s racist to acknowledge and want to improve the quality of life for billions of people who needlessly suffer disease, death, and other miserable preventable (with resources/education) situations.
Socialism is impossible. It cannot exist with a species like ours that is hardwired for greediness and self-preservation.
At the end of the day, too many people will look at socialism and see "this is bullshit, why should insert marginalised/oppressed minority get that when insert marginalised/oppressed minority that person identifies with gets less. Or just happen to be staunchly opposed to a population protected by the socialist system.
It’s idealist. And I fucking hate capitalism. But at the end of the day the very best we can really hope for is capitalism with strong, firmly enforced and well thought out regulations.
We will get neither just so we are clear. But it’s the best possible type of system in my mind.
We are literally hardwired for cooperation, as a hyper social species. Maybe do some scientific research before you go spouting off your garbage political opinions which aren’t based in science.
Did you take your meds on the day you chose your user name?
Edit: if you actually believe in science (doubtful, you just use those words as a club) why don’t you read up on some evolutionary psychology and come back and share with the class what you find.
If I’m hard-wired for greed and self-preservation, why do I let people go ahead of me in traffic? Why do I give money to beggars? Why do I vote for people who will raise taxes on me?
And why do so many other people do these things? If they are hardwired for greed and self preservation? Are they not human?
Our intelligence allows us to override our base instincts.
The hardware is self preservation and greed. You raise a human in the wild with no social connection what will you get? A cooperative person? Lol. No.
So many of you are so confident in your assertion that humans are cooperative by nature. That is laughable. We cooperate because we are smart enough (some of us) to figure out that cooperation is the best path forward. Take all the external factors out, introduce some danger and you’ll see just how cooperative we are…
I disagree with your entire assertion, because there have been plenty of studies done that do not support it.
Humans are a social species by nature. We help each other on an instinctual level. We evolved that way, because it happened to be more effective for survival.
The people who behave in the way you describe, helping others only when it benefits them, are called sociopaths. They are unusual, and not the majority. Indeed, one of the ways in which they exploit us for their own gain is that normal humans feel good when they help someone.
Perhaps you do not feel this. Perhaps you have a bit of sociopathy. This does not necessarily condemn you, btw, most sociopaths do not become monsters, due to the benefits of cooperation that you describe.
I simply mention it because it may explain why you believe something which is inaccurate.
Lol…man oh man that’s quite the passive aggressive “you might be wrong cause you’re fucked up”
You do realize that “feeling good” being altruistic is a selfish reason to do it. That is the benefit. Feeling good is a reward. You are literally describing doing something in order to get a positive reward which you then described as sociopathic. Just because the reward is “feeling good” doesn’t make it any different. Are you a sociopath?
Obviously humans are a social species. The social part is only as functional as the social circle around it. You put a bunch of total strangers in an urgent life or death situation, do you really believe there will be any altrusim? Really? Come on now…
We can absolutely be altruistic. The context is everything. What you would do with total strangers, high stakes and complete anonymity is what I’m talking about. Anything besides that and you have social factors influencing the picture, even if it’s just about feeling good.
If you exclude the essential social nature of a human from your scenario, and somehow anonymise them… Where exactly does this apply? I have been in a survival situation with strangers. We all just worked together to do the right thing, and make sure everyone was safe.
If your proposed essential human selfishness is so limited that it means they mostly do the right thing…
It cannot exist with a species like ours that is hardwired for greediness and self-preservation.
In general this is a myth, being a self interested economic agent is something we’re trained to conform to, not something we do instinctually. Which isn’t to say we are naturally suited for large scale cooperation, but what the Hobbesian perspective misses is that whatever behavior you’re assuming is human nature has a context, and that context could be made very different.
That’s a pretty interesting point and totally fair. I would like to think we would do better in a different context. My problem is the context for us I (mostly) believe to be inevitable.
Socialism isn’t a binary concept any more than Capitalism is. You can have capitalist activity alongside freely available publicly funded institutions - national parks, libraries, etc. People who say they want socialism usually want a specific list of human needs publically funded. This is perfectly possible in a capitalist economy, as OP’s list illustrates.
So what you’re saying is the ideal system (or at least what most people who say they want socialism think is ideal is capitalism with strong, firmly enforced and well thought out regulations?
No, that’s a tremendous oversimplification. I’m saying capitalism alongside publicly funded necessities for survival and wellbeing. Nobody starves, nobody is homeless. If you want it summed up as a slogan how about, “We don’t leave our people behind.”
You’ve convinced me. I will stop wanting socialism now. It can never happen. I accept the liberal order. Capitalism is a force of good. I will no longer vote for the democratic socialists. I will vote for the liberal establishment. I will be acting like a good citizen of western democracy. Yes this is good.
You think idealism is bad, yet you believe “at the end of the day the very best we can really hope for is capitalism with strong, firmly enforced and well thought out regulations.”
That is idealism. Capitalism will continue to kill people in other countries while you vacation every summer. Capitalism is good for you so you want it to continue. I’m sorry, but I can’t live my life that way. You can, and good for you for that—I envy it.
So if I’m understanding you correctly, a constrained capitalism is idealism (fair) and somehow the farther left side of that is more realistic (absurd)?
If anything you’re making my point for me.
You want to paint me as some defender of capitalism or accepting of it because of my creature comforts…fill your boots, you don’t know me. But at least get your logic in check.
Any government is possible. You do not know american history, or human history, enough or how the government works. If America continues after Donald Trump, then it will be something completely different than what it looked like before him. More and more Democratic Socialists are getting elected. Socialism is more and more likely the more socialists americans elect. My state house of representatives in Kentucky got one more. Times may be changing.
Your view of humans is wrong btw. You may be projecting.
Are you conflating democratic socialism with full blown socialism? That is most certainly not true socialism.
Evidence in my favor includes the Nordic countries, having a very firmly capitalist society with strong welfare policies. They blow the west out of the water on social outcomes.
But that’s not socialism. That’s exactly what I’m advocating for.
So do you think the Nordic countries are still too capitalist, or do you actually mean to argue that they’re an example to follow? I guess it has to be the first?
Democratic socialism is not social democracy. The nordic model is social democracy (european capitalism I call it). Democratic socialism is socialism, the thing I keep saying I want.
Europe is capitalist, I want socialism. Europe is too right wing and not anti capitalist, pro socialist, and leftist enough for me. I want america to be more socialist than capitalist europe.
I dont care about the west. ‘The west’ is a mythological culture that doesn’t exist.
Is this an invitation to share more of my reasoning on why I think socialism is impossible? Or was there a circular argument that you heard in what I said?
Europe doesn’t have socialism. This list is not even close to good. Europe is like, behind what I want. I want socialism. I want to nationalize big tech. Europe wants no part in nationalizing their tech. I don’t want mandatory PTO, I want a union and representation and a funded pension. I want publicly ran and funded groceries and hospitals, not just universal health insurance. I’m a former libertarian and I want these things btw. It’s not hard to convince a libertarian to be socialist.
The modern use of the word Socialism means having significant publicly funded institutions. When people say they want socialism they mean they want more of it, because most likely they already have lots of publicly funded institutions - like police and fire protection, public libraries, unemployment compensation… What they want is more, and Europe has more than the US.
Developed and non-developed are economics terms for different degrees of industrialization and overall wealth. they’re not “colonial” language.
I agree and also would note that “developed” is the current, more sensitive term which specifically seeks to avoid unfair judgement in favor of a term that looks at metrics that measure general well being. You cannot tell me it’s racist to acknowledge and want to improve the quality of life for billions of people who needlessly suffer disease, death, and other miserable preventable (with resources/education) situations.
Socialism is impossible. It cannot exist with a species like ours that is hardwired for greediness and self-preservation.
At the end of the day, too many people will look at socialism and see "this is bullshit, why should insert marginalised/oppressed minority get that when insert marginalised/oppressed minority that person identifies with gets less. Or just happen to be staunchly opposed to a population protected by the socialist system.
It’s idealist. And I fucking hate capitalism. But at the end of the day the very best we can really hope for is capitalism with strong, firmly enforced and well thought out regulations.
We will get neither just so we are clear. But it’s the best possible type of system in my mind.
We are literally hardwired for cooperation, as a hyper social species. Maybe do some scientific research before you go spouting off your garbage political opinions which aren’t based in science.
Did you take your meds on the day you chose your user name?
Edit: if you actually believe in science (doubtful, you just use those words as a club) why don’t you read up on some evolutionary psychology and come back and share with the class what you find.
Enjoy the down votes, dumbass.
Nuh uh
You sure showed me, dumbfuck.
No u
Imagine being as removed and uncooperative as you.
Good luck in life!
Speak for yourself. Some of us are out here building communities with our own blood, sweat, and tears.
If I’m hard-wired for greed and self-preservation, why do I let people go ahead of me in traffic? Why do I give money to beggars? Why do I vote for people who will raise taxes on me?
And why do so many other people do these things? If they are hardwired for greed and self preservation? Are they not human?
Our intelligence allows us to override our base instincts.
The hardware is self preservation and greed. You raise a human in the wild with no social connection what will you get? A cooperative person? Lol. No.
So many of you are so confident in your assertion that humans are cooperative by nature. That is laughable. We cooperate because we are smart enough (some of us) to figure out that cooperation is the best path forward. Take all the external factors out, introduce some danger and you’ll see just how cooperative we are…
I disagree with your entire assertion, because there have been plenty of studies done that do not support it.
Humans are a social species by nature. We help each other on an instinctual level. We evolved that way, because it happened to be more effective for survival.
The people who behave in the way you describe, helping others only when it benefits them, are called sociopaths. They are unusual, and not the majority. Indeed, one of the ways in which they exploit us for their own gain is that normal humans feel good when they help someone.
Perhaps you do not feel this. Perhaps you have a bit of sociopathy. This does not necessarily condemn you, btw, most sociopaths do not become monsters, due to the benefits of cooperation that you describe.
I simply mention it because it may explain why you believe something which is inaccurate.
Lol…man oh man that’s quite the passive aggressive “you might be wrong cause you’re fucked up”
You do realize that “feeling good” being altruistic is a selfish reason to do it. That is the benefit. Feeling good is a reward. You are literally describing doing something in order to get a positive reward which you then described as sociopathic. Just because the reward is “feeling good” doesn’t make it any different. Are you a sociopath?
Obviously humans are a social species. The social part is only as functional as the social circle around it. You put a bunch of total strangers in an urgent life or death situation, do you really believe there will be any altrusim? Really? Come on now…
We can absolutely be altruistic. The context is everything. What you would do with total strangers, high stakes and complete anonymity is what I’m talking about. Anything besides that and you have social factors influencing the picture, even if it’s just about feeling good.
Edit: clarity
If you exclude the essential social nature of a human from your scenario, and somehow anonymise them… Where exactly does this apply? I have been in a survival situation with strangers. We all just worked together to do the right thing, and make sure everyone was safe.
If your proposed essential human selfishness is so limited that it means they mostly do the right thing…
In general this is a myth, being a self interested economic agent is something we’re trained to conform to, not something we do instinctually. Which isn’t to say we are naturally suited for large scale cooperation, but what the Hobbesian perspective misses is that whatever behavior you’re assuming is human nature has a context, and that context could be made very different.
That’s a pretty interesting point and totally fair. I would like to think we would do better in a different context. My problem is the context for us I (mostly) believe to be inevitable.
Socialism isn’t a binary concept any more than Capitalism is. You can have capitalist activity alongside freely available publicly funded institutions - national parks, libraries, etc. People who say they want socialism usually want a specific list of human needs publically funded. This is perfectly possible in a capitalist economy, as OP’s list illustrates.
So what you’re saying is the ideal system (or at least what most people who say they want socialism think is ideal is capitalism with strong, firmly enforced and well thought out regulations?
No, that’s a tremendous oversimplification. I’m saying capitalism alongside publicly funded necessities for survival and wellbeing. Nobody starves, nobody is homeless. If you want it summed up as a slogan how about, “We don’t leave our people behind.”
You’ve convinced me. I will stop wanting socialism now. It can never happen. I accept the liberal order. Capitalism is a force of good. I will no longer vote for the democratic socialists. I will vote for the liberal establishment. I will be acting like a good citizen of western democracy. Yes this is good.
You think idealism is bad, yet you believe “at the end of the day the very best we can really hope for is capitalism with strong, firmly enforced and well thought out regulations.”
That is idealism. Capitalism will continue to kill people in other countries while you vacation every summer. Capitalism is good for you so you want it to continue. I’m sorry, but I can’t live my life that way. You can, and good for you for that—I envy it.
So if I’m understanding you correctly, a constrained capitalism is idealism (fair) and somehow the farther left side of that is more realistic (absurd)?
If anything you’re making my point for me.
You want to paint me as some defender of capitalism or accepting of it because of my creature comforts…fill your boots, you don’t know me. But at least get your logic in check.
Analogy: it’s more realistic to cut a tumor out and heal the patient than to keep it growing at an acceptable rate.
Ah yes, except for when the tumor is 90% of the body. Then you can’t just cut it out.
Good analogy, I like it.
Any government is possible. You do not know american history, or human history, enough or how the government works. If America continues after Donald Trump, then it will be something completely different than what it looked like before him. More and more Democratic Socialists are getting elected. Socialism is more and more likely the more socialists americans elect. My state house of representatives in Kentucky got one more. Times may be changing.
Your view of humans is wrong btw. You may be projecting.
Are you conflating democratic socialism with full blown socialism? That is most certainly not true socialism.
Evidence in my favor includes the Nordic countries, having a very firmly capitalist society with strong welfare policies. They blow the west out of the water on social outcomes.
But that’s not socialism. That’s exactly what I’m advocating for.
So do you think the Nordic countries are still too capitalist, or do you actually mean to argue that they’re an example to follow? I guess it has to be the first?
Democratic socialism is not social democracy. The nordic model is social democracy (european capitalism I call it). Democratic socialism is socialism, the thing I keep saying I want.
Europe is capitalist, I want socialism. Europe is too right wing and not anti capitalist, pro socialist, and leftist enough for me. I want america to be more socialist than capitalist europe.
I dont care about the west. ‘The west’ is a mythological culture that doesn’t exist.
The best they ever have to offer is circular reasoning or no reasoning at all. Makes me wonder why they believe it.
Do they even realize when they’re mixing feelings (or ideals) with facts? 🤷♂️
Is this an invitation to share more of my reasoning on why I think socialism is impossible? Or was there a circular argument that you heard in what I said?