You must log in or register to comment.
Sure I’ll think about them, as soon as they cede all their wealth and give their companies to the workers.
Educate, agitate, organize. They will never do this willingly.
100% homie.
And if we don’t get it?
SHUT IT DOWN
Sieze it. If you’re interested, I have an introductory Marxist reading list.
I’m pretty well educated on marxist theory already, but I’ll always take more book recommendations!
Thanks! 🫡
That’s right, seize not freeze. :)
Nationalize:
- insurance
- hospitals
- prisons
- public transit
It’s perfectly possible to have your capitalist desires and still have a nice socialist structure to protect the people.
Housing should be on that list as well
From my experience living in a very socialist country; fair housing can be handled by rules instead of ‘nationalizing’. So the rules and pricing around them would be handled by the government, but not the houses themselves.
A big one I’m missing is schools.
Fair enough, and yes. Education should definitely be on the list
thats kinda every socialist countrys baseline (that works) and its also why the american propaganda associates it with CoMMuNisM.
What do you mean “socialist country thay works,” in a manner opposed to Communism? Are you calling the Nordic Countries “socialist,” despite reliance on hyper-exploitation of the global south and sliding worker protections, as a means to discredit AES countries?
in Austria we call it “sozialdemokratie” and i believed americans translate that to socialism. wich is not national socialism or communism btw. and yes i do because, as i said, you can have a social base for your country and still habe a capitalist economy structure.
Social Programs within a Capitalist framework are concessions. In the European Countries, these social programs have been eroding over time, because the Workers do not have control. Moreover, the European Countries (and US, of course) rely on Imperialism, ie hyper-exploiting the Global South by exporting Capital and intentionally engaging in unequal exchange. These are parasitic countries that do not fund their safety nets inwardly, but externally, they only work like a leech works to produce food for itself, by taking from others.
First of all in the list Education, without crucifixes above the blackboards
The internet and all the other utilities.
Honestly anything that’s required to live in the society IMO should be socialized. That way no corporation can decided how much my life is worth. I also believe that capitalism has been an extremely powerful tool to bring wealth to the middle class. Socialized Capitalism maybe. Is that possible? Some European countries have done it I guess. I’m no expert or politician, just a working man. Maybe somehow it can be done.
Markets, not Capitalism, can be useful at lower stages of development. However, over time, they become more and more exploitative and inefficient, transforming into Imperialism across international lines. Public Ownership and Central Planning becomes more efficient with respect to the level of development of market industries.
Social programs are not “socialism,” nor are markets “capitalism.” What determines the nature of an economy is what is dominant, the will of Capital or the will of the People. That’s why Social Democracies are sliding into austerity, because the Workers never actually siezed control Capital still dominates the system and disparity rises as a consequence.
I just want dental insurance to be included in basic health insurance plans for all. Nothing too radical.
Republicans: Best we can do is toothpaste coupons
That’s crazy talk. Your teeth aren’t part of your body or anything!
Luxury Bones
Too radical for the Republicans.
Based admin
I don’t condone the murder of the CEO of a healthcare insurance company who reject 32% of claims…
But I understand.
I’ll condone it
The ones that simp the hardest for the dead CEO were calling anyone who doesn’t love Netanyahu’s genocide a trumper.
Curious, what are these turbolibs and how do I identify them on Lemmy?
They usually have lemmy.world handles. Not saying you are, but the admins and many of the mods of .world are said turbolibs and shaped their instance around it
Thank you, as someone newer to the lemmy.world, I’m just getting my bearings and have tons to learn here. Doing some poking around and it looks like lemmy.ml may be a better home for me 😁
They’re thought about all the time. So far only one person made it past that.
deleted by creator
Any chance you could share, blurring out the names of course?
- Promoting murder
- Planning homicide
- Call for violence
- Given the timing with a murder of a health insurance CEO, the OP appears to be supporting murdering.
- advocating violence
Took me a while to understand; fwiw, the above are explanations people are giving when reporting posts
Yeah, I was answering the question asked of me.
Just a reminder but the bourgeoisie are the “middle class”, and that the CEO who was killed is part of a capitalist oligopoly.
The bourgeoisie haven’t been targeted here, an aristocrat has.
Aristocrats were an offshoot of feudalism, the bourgeoisie are the Capital Owners. The “middle class” is the petite bourgeoisie, who are Capital Owners that must labor, ie small business owners. This was the bourgeoisie, not an aristocrat.
The aristocrats were largely disposed of via bourgeois revolution. Now there is a haute bourgeoisie, like Brian Thompson (net worth >$40M), and a shrinking petite bourgeoisie, A.K.A. the middle class.
Absolutely, I just meant that the inhuman monster who was killed wasn’t bourgeoisie, he was an aristocrat. These are rich families that stay rich by exploiting the poor and (few remaining) bourgeoisie.
In end stage capitalism you’re oligarchy, poor, or soon to be one of the two.
He wasn’t an inhuman monster, he was a product of the capitalist system. When he dies, someone else replaces him, as the the system demands.
And, in Marxists terms anyway, he was not an aristocrat. The bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocracy hundreds of years ago. Capitalism is a different mode of production from feudalism. He was a member of the capitalist class, he was bourgeois.
Surprised cowbee didn’t post this but I think you need this: Leftist Reading List
he’s probably the closest thing that americans can have to an aristocrat; but, traditionally, aristocrats had more relative wealth and influence than this ceo did.
marxists & leninists have definitions for lots of words that have been adopted by everyone of the last century+ but pop culture likes to redefine those words every few years and seeing the pop culture definitions clash with the accepted definitions is a really common sight here, given pronounced m/l userbase and i love seeing it because it keeps reminding me that i’m so americanized that i can understand that aristocrats like this ceo are more bougie that the bourgeois. lol
and in a sense, he is an aristocrat because he has significant enough influence in government policy to permanently enrich himself and his allies just like the aristocrats of the past did and his children will likewise hold similar wealth and influence, effectively creating a modern day feudal dynasty.
Turbolibs
Bourgeoisie is the middle class though. Not the rich
Wow, downvoted for using the definition of a word smh
Maybe define your terms, “bourgeoisie” and “middle class”, and explain where you’re getting these definitions from.
- https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie
- https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Middle_class_(disambiguation)
The term “middle class” has been so hopelessly redefined in so many disparate ways that it’s best to avoid using it altogether. All it does is muddy the conversation.
The Bourgeoisie was the “middle class” when the aristocracy were the upper class. The majority of the world is under Bourgeois rule, not aristocratic rule, any longer, ergo the Bourgeoisie is the upper class.
Bourgeoisie does not simply mean “middle class,” it refers to a class of Capitalists. You don’t adjust what the word means, but its context.
