WillStealYourUsername

she/her

  • 117 Posts
  • 758 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 17th, 2023
  • WillStealYourUsernameMto196•ruleEnglish
    4·
    9 days ago

    Haha no :P

    While some of those came about through socialist revolutions they were hijacked by the military who retained the socialist rhetoric. The actual state that followed the revolutions were never socialist, they were at best military dictatorships with some social policies comparable to social democracies.

    The USSR is interesting as it was a planned economy. The others are just state capitalist however.

    You should read about the revolutions and how they failed! It was never the socialism itself that failed, because it was never implemented in the first place! That’s the difficult part.

    In general the more egalitarian the system the more obstacles to implement as those who own things have less incentives to implement it (and will do whatever they can to squash it or redirect it). It’s not coincidence that liberalism came about only after we got capitalists and a sizeable middle class. We ddin’t get democracy because it is a good system, we got it because it was a way for capitalists and the middle class to gain political power. With socialism there is no upper class that will support the revolution, no businesses or government will be on our side because it directly threatens them.

    We have a word for those who claim they are a socialist yet support the states you mentioned. We call them tankies. Socialists and anarchists despise them because they are in many ways just like fascists, yet they try to worm their way into our spaces.

    Edit:

    I think that utopian socialism is beautiful, but it doesn’t take into account human behaviors like greed, hate, rancor, etc

    It specifically does! Also utopian socialism is not a thing these days!

  • WillStealYourUsernameMto196•ruleEnglish
    4·
    9 days ago

    Wasn’t really ever worth it. There has been calculable dehumanization, exploitation, and genocides all in the name of profit and efficiency. The quality of life going up for some of us in some parts (which is largely because of unions anyways) should not excuse the harm that capitalism has done and continues to do.

    As you say, the incentives in the system are not towards a prosperous and stable society, but towards maximizing how much you can squeeze out of people.

    So in my opinion it was never worth it is essentially what I’m saying.

  • WillStealYourUsernameMto196•ruleEnglish
    11·
    9 days ago

    Yes.

    As others have mentioned democratic socialism is a form of socialism.

    Socialism is a society where people own and run things together, without capitalism or feudalism or whatever. It is the idea that everyone should own their workplace and their home, either directly or through a state/community they own with everyone else in it. The spirit of socialism is removing all exploitative systems in favor of cooperative solutions. It would mean no renting out locales or apartments, and no bosses (as in owners) etc. There is also this idea that capital and currency should not be a thing as it tends to quickly go into the hands of a few over time, and so we are therefore often in favor of other systems of distributing goods.

    Social democracy is liberalism (a form of capitalism) but with social safety nets and systems to limit the harm that capitalism can do, such as strong unions and labor laws. Originally social democracy was implemented by socialists who wanted to slowly bring about socialism, but it has mellowed out a lot and now it’s just what you and I describe.

    Edit: I feel I should mention that social democracy is generally considered to be in decline. Union participation is down, things are being privatized, labor laws revoked. The socially democratic parties have not just mellowed out it seems, but have drifted right. They often seem more concerned with maintaining the status quo than with improving society.

  • WillStealYourUsernameMto196•ruleEnglish
    14·
    9 days ago

    This is democratic socialism. Allow capitalism, but keeping extremes in check, while providing a safety net.

    I see americans saying this fairly often, but what you describe is social democracy, not democratic socialism

  • WillStealYourUsernameMto196•Trans athletes ruleEnglish
    4·
    23 days ago

    They chose this topic because it is divisive. If we drop out of sports they will simply find another arena of life to eject us from. It’s not about sports for right wing politicians and interest groups, but about getting conservatives engaged in bigotry against us so they become angry and polarized and vote for bigoted parties.

    We can never make them happy with our behavior because our behavior doesn’t matter. The narrative they weave around us matters to them, not reality.

  • WillStealYourUsernametoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.world•a harry potter fan's guide to navigating pride monthEnglish
    3·
    2 months ago

    While I do agree that some go a bit hard on this it is true that buying the movies, the games, or official merch is directly harmful as the money is used to fund anti-trans lobbies. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect anyone to stop engaging with fanfiction or other things that doesn’t give Rowling cash, but I do understand why me and other trans people are upset when others cling to harry potter. It’s a sore point for us because we know what she stands for and are keenly aware of the bigotry even within the HP book series, not just Rowlings later statements. We are also aware that many simply do not care. Even if you tell them what the money is being used for people often don’t believe us, or choose to prioritize their indulgence into the fandom over preventing harm. Talking about HP does contribute to the popularity of the franchise and can therefore arguably indirectly hurt us. So I do ask that you have some understanding for why people are upset.

Moderates