4 ms·

Libertarians and Conservatives can all wish for a smaller government and slash things apart in America - it's not going to change the fact that America is a cor

Libertarians and Conservatives can all wish for a smaller government and slash things apart in America - it's not going to change the fact that America is a corrupt socialist country which runs semis, bails out billionaires, subsidizes farmers, and uses taxpayer money to enrich business owners. The only difference between American socialism and Argentinian socialism was that Argentinian socialism pretended to help the poor but America doesn't even pretend to help the poor.

thankyoufriend 11mo ago
How do you define socialism? I don't believe that we the people or the state collectively own the means of production in any major industry. Private ownership by capitalists is still the dominant economic system in the US.
- nine_zeros 11mo ago
  The US literally purchased shares of Intel - thus owning means of production. The US also bails out a group of people all the time. The group is called the rich. Furthermore, it subsidizes select groups like big ag. Except these, the US is predominantly capitalistic but so was Argentina. Their populace was fed up with the pretense of helping the poor while bailing out oligarchs. America doesn't seem to pretend to help the poor. Poors are undesirables.
  - flave 11mo ago
    Owning part of one company in one sector is not socialism unless you think nearly every country in the world since the invention of the limited company is socialist? “Bailing out the rich” isn’t socialist is it? What do you think “socialist” means? I don’t think you understand why the word “socialist” scares so many people. It’s not a word you can just slap on anything to make it “bad”, many people are actually scared about the underlying ideas not the word. Some Americans seem to just think socialism=bad “because the CIA and the NYT does propaganda”. You may think America is bad and I may agree with you, that doesn’t make it socialist. In the GDR you couldn’t start a private enterprise without a license. Any enterprise doing anything. In socialist Burma, there were no privately-owned factories _at all_. In Czechoslovakia the constitution banned a private company from employing anyone other than the owner of the company. In Soviet Russia you needed a permit to move city. If you were a farmer you were unlikely to get that permit. You work for the collective farm, the government set the price they would pay you for your produce, and you couldn’t move city to a new job. I hope these examples show why “the us government is socialist partly because it owns shares in Intel and partly because it’s a lender-of-last-resort for rich people” sounds fatuous.
    - nine_zeros 11mo ago
      I'll tell you why you are wrong - you are wrong because you think that real socialism is only one that maps exactly to a prior example. You think it can't be real socialism if there is even one edge case that differs from a pre-existing example. Your argument is a variant of the straw man fallacy. Look it up.
      - thankyoufriend 11mo ago
        I think myself and the other poster are mainly taking issue in your use of a specific term "socialism." I think you could argue that if the US owned 51% stake in Intel, you could argue that would be socialism. I've heard the term "socialize" applied in similar conversations such as "privatize the profits, socialize the losses," which I believe is a more accurate rephrasing of your original point.
readthenotes1 11mo ago
"America doesn't even pretend to help the poor." Snap, Chip, ssi, ssdi, medicaid, medicare (since recipients don't pay their way), ACA subsidies, progressive income tax (half of us pay no federal tax at all), 1-12 schooling/daycare (often with free lunch, sometimes also free breakfast) Big brothers/sisters, salvation army, habitat for humanity, red cross, food banks too numerous to list, Shriners hospitals Oh, forgot about the billions Los Angeles has spent on homeless housing America at least "pretends"
- etc-hosts 11mo ago
  A Socialist would argue the private money spent use to the private charities you just listed should have gone to the government through taxation originally, and that the government should provide services and a safety net for all instead. Shriners are cool though.
- nine_zeros 11mo ago
  > Snap, Chip, ssi, ssdi, medicaid, medicare (since recipients don't pay their way), ACA subsidies, progressive income tax (half of us pay no federal tax at all), 1-12 schooling/daycare (often with free lunch, sometimes also free breakfast) Literally the things held hostage for politics right now? How can you claim America helps the poor when we are literally living a government shutdown where poor are held hostage? > Big brothers/sisters, salvation army, habitat for humanity, red cross, food banks too numerous to list, Shriners hospitals These are not government. This is about people helping people. Some American people are helpful to each other. But the societal unit of government isn't - aka - there are people who don't want to help others at all. > America at least "pretends" American people try really hard - especially in blue states. But American government system holds people hostage. The work requirements, the constant paperwork, the sudden ineligibility - this is all uniquely American - designed to not disburse the benefits that people may be entitled to. America has the pretence of programs but if they truly wanted to help the poor, they'd make the programs truly usable - not hostage to political processes and eligibility corner cases.
  - readthenotes1 11mo ago

thankyoufriend 11mo ago

How do you define socialism? I don't believe that we the people or the state collectively own the means of production in any major industry. Private ownership by capitalists is still the dominant economic system in the US.

nine_zeros 11mo ago
The US literally purchased shares of Intel - thus owning means of production. The US also bails out a group of people all the time. The group is called the rich. Furthermore, it subsidizes select groups like big ag. Except these, the US is predominantly capitalistic but so was Argentina. Their populace was fed up with the pretense of helping the poor while bailing out oligarchs. America doesn't seem to pretend to help the poor. Poors are undesirables.
- flave 11mo ago
  Owning part of one company in one sector is not socialism unless you think nearly every country in the world since the invention of the limited company is socialist? “Bailing out the rich” isn’t socialist is it? What do you think “socialist” means? I don’t think you understand why the word “socialist” scares so many people. It’s not a word you can just slap on anything to make it “bad”, many people are actually scared about the underlying ideas not the word. Some Americans seem to just think socialism=bad “because the CIA and the NYT does propaganda”. You may think America is bad and I may agree with you, that doesn’t make it socialist. In the GDR you couldn’t start a private enterprise without a license. Any enterprise doing anything. In socialist Burma, there were no privately-owned factories _at all_. In Czechoslovakia the constitution banned a private company from employing anyone other than the owner of the company. In Soviet Russia you needed a permit to move city. If you were a farmer you were unlikely to get that permit. You work for the collective farm, the government set the price they would pay you for your produce, and you couldn’t move city to a new job. I hope these examples show why “the us government is socialist partly because it owns shares in Intel and partly because it’s a lender-of-last-resort for rich people” sounds fatuous.
  - nine_zeros 11mo ago
    I'll tell you why you are wrong - you are wrong because you think that real socialism is only one that maps exactly to a prior example. You think it can't be real socialism if there is even one edge case that differs from a pre-existing example. Your argument is a variant of the straw man fallacy. Look it up.
    - thankyoufriend 11mo ago
      I think myself and the other poster are mainly taking issue in your use of a specific term "socialism." I think you could argue that if the US owned 51% stake in Intel, you could argue that would be socialism. I've heard the term "socialize" applied in similar conversations such as "privatize the profits, socialize the losses," which I believe is a more accurate rephrasing of your original point.

readthenotes1 11mo ago

"America doesn't even pretend to help the poor." Snap, Chip, ssi, ssdi, medicaid, medicare (since recipients don't pay their way), ACA subsidies, progressive income tax (half of us pay no federal tax at all), 1-12 schooling/daycare (often with free lunch, sometimes also free breakfast) Big brothers/sisters, salvation army, habitat for humanity, red cross, food banks too numerous to list, Shriners hospitals Oh, forgot about the billions Los Angeles has spent on homeless housing America at least "pretends"

etc-hosts 11mo ago
A Socialist would argue the private money spent use to the private charities you just listed should have gone to the government through taxation originally, and that the government should provide services and a safety net for all instead. Shriners are cool though.
nine_zeros 11mo ago
> Snap, Chip, ssi, ssdi, medicaid, medicare (since recipients don't pay their way), ACA subsidies, progressive income tax (half of us pay no federal tax at all), 1-12 schooling/daycare (often with free lunch, sometimes also free breakfast) Literally the things held hostage for politics right now? How can you claim America helps the poor when we are literally living a government shutdown where poor are held hostage? > Big brothers/sisters, salvation army, habitat for humanity, red cross, food banks too numerous to list, Shriners hospitals These are not government. This is about people helping people. Some American people are helpful to each other. But the societal unit of government isn't - aka - there are people who don't want to help others at all. > America at least "pretends" American people try really hard - especially in blue states. But American government system holds people hostage. The work requirements, the constant paperwork, the sudden ineligibility - this is all uniquely American - designed to not disburse the benefits that people may be entitled to. America has the pretence of programs but if they truly wanted to help the poor, they'd make the programs truly usable - not hostage to political processes and eligibility corner cases.
- readthenotes1 11mo ago