(TikTok screencap)
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2025
1092 points (97.2% liked)
Political Memes
9144 readers
2608 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Why are you so socialist?" Because I care about people other than myself.
or because you have nothing to lose from it in your current situation
That's not true. Supporting socialism has nothing to do with one's financial situation, but rather about advocating for a more equitable society where everyone has access to basic needs.
it has to do, as you have nothing to lose. Never said it is only based on this, but it will have an effect. You'll be less tempted to vote for a party that will make you lose half your wealth if you're currently rich
That's a classic strawman argument. Just because someone supports socialism doesn't mean they're motivated by personal gain or a desire to take from the wealthy. It means they care about creating a more equitable society for all.
That's not what I meant to say. What I meant to say is you're less inclined to vote for socialism if you end up suffering economically for it. There sure are people that just want people to be equal, but it's pretty obvious to see that the proudest defenders of this are often the ones who would benefit the most of this, which is likely to be linked to what I said above.
It sure seems like many do. Saying that on lemmy is... bold
Yes, there's some truth to that. If someone with vast resources wanted to end world hunger today, they could make a significant impact. But let's be real, people tend to prioritize their own interests and comfort over the greater good.
So you admit socialism is an ideal that can never be realized?
Bro you have no idea what the term "socialism" even means. Get fucking educated
calm down
political topics really rile people up
Does it exist in the world today? If so, then I do know what it is. Is it a political philosophy that exists largely in books because most holistic attempts to implement it results in authoritarianism and institutional dysfunction? If so, then I know about that too. (Yes, and the ones the US toppled to maintain its interests, obvs. Are you suggesting those are the only “real” socialist countries?)
Maybe your fucking education was shit.
I understand that you think socialism is fundamentally flawed, I can tell from your tone. I am attempting to engage you politely despite your previous mischaracterizations of what I have said.
I would like to present some counterexamples. Countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have implemented socialist policies such as universal healthcare, free education, and a strong social safety net, and they've seen significant economic growth and social progress as a result.
In addition, the cooperative movement in countries like Spain and Italy has shown that worker-owned cooperatives can be highly successful and provide better working conditions and benefits for employees. And let's not forget about the Nordic model of socialism, which combines elements of market economics with strong social welfare policies to create a more equitable society.
But even within my own country (US), we've seen that periods of prosperity have often coincided with the implementation of social safety nets like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP. These programs have helped to reduce poverty and inequality, and they've also contributed to economic growth by putting money in people's pockets and stimulating demand.
Furthermore, many of the worker protections we take for granted today were implemented after the Great Depression, as a response to the failures of laissez-faire capitalism and the exploitation of workers. The Fair Labor Standards Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and other key laws that safeguard workers' rights were all enacted during this period.
It seems to me that socialism is not inherently flawed but rather it has been distorted or watered down in some cases, or implemented in ways that don't prioritize the needs of working-class people.
It depends - “socialism” can mean more than one thing. Not all implementations are fundamentally flawed.
Sweden has a total population less than New York and is 90% Christian. Norway is the size of LA and Chicago combined. Denmark only slightly larger, and all have very homogeneous populations. It’s fantastic they’ve been able to support those socialist programs, but compared to the enormous size and demographic complexities of the US, it’s not a fair comparison.
If you want those programs in the US (and I do), you have a ridiculously difficult challenge ahead that simply will not be met by wishing it so, or believing we can all just demand it as one people and it will happen. Which are the two main methods of political change those who proclaim themselves “left” on here seem to propose.
Institutional, national change must have a national party. People must constantly engage with that national party to keep it going in the direction they want.
Socialists on Lemmy don’t have that. What they seem to have is a lot of hate for Democrats and no solutions.
I'm not buying your strawman argument. I don't appreciate your mischaracterizations. What I said was that many people are selfish and act in their own interest. However, I believe most people are inherently good and are often victims of their environment. That's why I support socialism - it is a system that aims to address the root causes of inequality and promote the common good.
My point was that the American experiment in self-governance is an ideal we’re always reaching for. So despite our ancestors’ failure to deliver luxury gay space communism to one and all (or to prevent the destruction of the biosphere, or to protect the fairness of the vote . . . well, a lot of things, really) we still have a role to play in yrying to make it better.
My point is everyone working within the structures that exist to bring equity and justice doesn’t mean they’re all corporate genocidal shitweaels as is so often implied by “socialists” who are not part of that effort. Maybe they’re just regular people.
A society where everyone is responsible isn't doable. People are assholes, we're doomed either way
Laws can help though, one step at a time. Socialism isn't throwing the old system away entirely
Shouldn’t that be “we’re doomed any way”? Or are there just two options?
Totally agree, which is why I recommend using the Democratic party to implement more (and more) socialist policies. But I’m constantly told by “lefties” (of which, I assume some significant part consider themselves socialist) that Democrats are worse than Hitler and the only option is to just let republiQans win. Which, y'know, they did. And now it’s all this.
with socialism or without it, but yea should have said that
who the fuck says that? The political system is broken in the USA anyways. Only 2 sides.
Everyone who couldn’t bring themselves to vote, or to vote for Harris, because of the Biden administration’s inability to stop the genocide in Gaza. Search this comm in Sept-Oct of last year, you’ll see lots of examples.
"The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats." -Noam Chomsky
Sadly true
Yeah I'm a socialist who was born poor but now has a lot to lose. You're full of shit and only say things like this to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everyone else is as callous and selfish as you are.
good for you
And yea, keep making assumptions
So they are not a capitalist.
Socialism in political theory is the idea that, at minimum, some systems should be owned by the collective - that's it. The Road system in the US is largely a socialist project, for reference. USPS was also a socialist project before it was privatized. So is our now mostly defunded education system. Our fucking amazing national park system was also a socialist project to create jobs during the great recession. And the only reason that these things are going downhill is because we've defunded them.
Other things socialists want would be federally funded healthcare, a federally maintained train system, college being funded by US taxes, etc.
Yes, stalinism, communism, and Maoism are socialist ideologies. So is social democracy, the Nordic model, and various others.
You're brainwashed based on your reaction to that word.
Socialism is really broad. It's not just that (but yea it starts with it), but "so socialist" indicates the more "strict" or left-wing versions of socialism
You're brainwashed based on your reaction to my reaction
That’s liberal. I mean, you can fancy it up how you like, but in any state in the union that’s considered liberal.
Just not here, depending.
Only if you describe everyone left of center as liberal. There's a whole liberal capitalist population who don't want to make the changes required to ensure members of society are healthy and have the required care, because it would inconvenience them.
Yes. I do. The “liberal capitalists” you’re describing are right-wing.
These are the definitions 90% of the American public are using. Shitting on liberals by leftists is some European/East Asian/Australian bullshit. We don’t do that here.
Colloquially liberal as opposed to the more strict political philosophical definition.
If you are going with the latter none of the above statements are strictly liberal as liberalism is defined by a very personal property based capitalism forward structure and a focus on personal freedoms balanced by a set of assumed privileges.
By the political philosophy definition both Republicans and Democrats are liberal. A growing number of people find the issue of the USA's strict adhereance to old school philosophic liberalism the main problem of both parties since it does fuck all to check the accrual of personal property or provide safety nets. If you wanted to be more accurate by the change in social standard in the place you find yourself the above values in the post are safest "Progressive". At least keeping this definition in mind helps navigate a lot of the conversation of politics in many Lemmy instances.
Okay, well maybe they should stay out of discussions of the USA’s politics since they know sweet fuckall about it.
Political philosophy is fascinating, please keep it in the excellent universities (sorry, “colleges”) outside of the USA and let us try and fix this goddamned mess.
How else do you think you are going to fix this mess? Revolution is great for creating change but dollars to donuts you end up with shit systems unless you have a core of political science minded people in the pocket. That really was what made the original American revolution work - you had a core of people who were HEAVILY invested in the works of political science philosophers ( Locke, Hume etc.) and the dedication to replace the outgoing regime with something other than meatheaded revolutionaries who just replicate the same system over again with some new face.
It’s wonderful to have that knowledge, and agree with your characterization of the (racist, genocidal, slave-owning) founders.
The current mess does not need discussions of what socialism or communism or whatever flava of “left” the Lemmygentsia believe to be the One True Way. The current mess needs a fired-up national party to get in meeting rooms and Make Things Happen.
As it stands, the Democratic party is the only, and best, vehicle for that. So calling Democrats “liberal” as a slur or a dismissal is not only a waste of time, it’s actively supporting the fascism that is roaring ahead.
The contempt of, ignorance of, and utter lack of offering in any other respect regarding Democrats is a waste of time, countereffective, and pretentious. Fascinating and instructive though the core ideas may be.
Yeah, it’s lexicon vs literal definition.
How people generally use words often makes me wonder why we have dictionaries at all.
Some dictionaries are more perscriptivist, but even with the ones that change faster they're always playing catch up with how people use words. But in terms of "liberal" most of them have both definitions.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
The thing that bugs me these days is people (many of them here on Lemmy) that use "neoliberal" to mean "modern liberal" when that's not its original meaning at all. It really means "liberal in its 19th Century sense of free and unfettered capitalism" aka "modern conservative".
I’m concerned that some of you don’t have a lot of experience with the outside world.
In what way? I just acknowledged that most of America defines the word as anything left of Newt Gingrich.
Oh, sorry, not you. I agree and updooted accordingly. Some of the other comments, I meant.
It's also considered Christian, but PedoCon MAGA Nazis will deport you to a torture prison in El Salvador if you say it.
That’s be ause PedoCon MAGA Nazis wouldn’t know the “teachings” of “Jesus” if it kicked them in the nards.