- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
American try to care one iota for your fellow man or really anyone other than yourself challenge (impossible):
During covid, going to a rural area in the US really got to me. The population is so individualistic / freedom-brained / “i do whatever I want all the time”, that their grandmothers all dying meant nothing to them. I got mine keeps meaning smaller and smaller groups of people.
I got mine keeps meaning smaller and smaller groups of people.
What does this mean?
USonians used to be more community-focused. In the 1950s polio was eradicated due to massive community efforts, showing that they were willing to do things to benefit their community.
Nowadays they won’t even do the same to benefit their extended families.
“Fuck you I got mine”
But when he says “smaller and smaller groups of people” does he mean that this kind of mentality isolates people to increasingly smaller groups?
It used to apply to different groups in the past.
Fuck you, my community got ours
Fuck you, my friend group got ours
Fuck you, my family got ours
And now we’re finally at
Fuck you, I got mine
Dont you love individualism 🥰 /s
Which is surprising because up here in Canada, the socialism started with the farmers. And it’s still going on with coop feed and grain silos and harvester sharing. Farmers don’t let other farmers starve, in Canada.
That’s not what socialism is. Socialism didn’t “start with the farmers”. That’s a ridiculous thing to say
That’s not really Socialism, though. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist by themselves, just like an arm cannot be a human. They all exist in their contexts. A worker cooperative in an economy dominated by private Capital is not an instance of Socialism, as it depends on the broader Capitalist system.
Socialism, in reality, refers to a broader economy where public ownership is primary, while Capitalism refers to a broader economy where private ownership is primary. All Socialist societies have had public and private Capital, and all Capitalist societies have had public and private Capital, it matters most which one has the power.
I recommend reading my post here on common problems people run into when determining Modes of Production.
A worker cooperative in an economy dominated by private Capital is not an instance of Socialism, as it depends on the broader Capitalist system.
I’ve already addressed how this absolutism doesn’t track with logic, I just hope people stop repeating it so we can get some actual socialism in this world.
It’s the opposite of absolutism, actually. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, where large firms are held in public control, and smaller firms that aren’t are often formed in cooperative structures. A cooperative in a Socialist economy exists in a different context than a cooperative in a Capitalist economy.
Advocacy for Socialism isn’t necessarily based in mystical properties of participating in a collectivized structure, but more of a materialist question of efficiency. As firms grow to large sizes, it becomes more efficient to publicly own and plan them.
The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy
No they don’t, they have a capitalist economy. Absolutely nothing about China is socialist. You are eating up and regurgitating their propaganda without question.
Advocacy for Socialism isn’t necessarily based in mystical properties of participating in a collectivized structure, but more of a materialist question of efficiency.
This is more of that vague word salad I referred to earlier. You didn’t say anything here. “mystical properties of participating in a collectivized structure”, “materialist question of efficiency”, these phrases don’t mean anything. You’re just stringing polysyllabic words together to sound smart.
Can you elaborate beyond saying “nuh uh?” If the primary aspect of production in an economy is in the Public Sector, as it is in the PRC, it’s Socialist.
Moreover, the concept that production gets complex, and that as this increases it becomes more effective to plan from above with a view of the whole economy, is not “word salad.”
Socialism is the complete opposite of that. Socialism destroys horizontal connections and institution of family.
Lisa’s only mistake was saying yes.
Just do every single thing in socialism, but change every single word. Call it Americanism.
Proletariat? No, just “worker”.
Bourgeoisie? No, just “elites”.
Capital? “Stuff”. Like how in baseball they say a pitcher’s got good “stuff”. Use your human stuff.
Class Consciousness - “common sense”.
Dialectical Materialism - Idk I’m still trying to figure out wtf that one means.
Dialectical materialism -> Scientific materialism to distinguish it from the common usage of the world “materialism”
You people have good luck with this? I haven’t. I don’t find that you can just “trick” people into believing in socialism by changing the words. The moment if becomes obvious you’re criticizing free markets and the rich and advocating public ownership they will catch on.
Correct, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.
Being honest with what you want and why has a far better track record, we see this in Socialist revolutions and in mg own personal experience with outreach.
I have the rather controversial opinion that the failure of communist parties doesn’t come down the the failure of crafting the perfect rhetoric or argument in the free marketplace of ideas.
Ultimately facts don’t matter because if a person is raised around thousands of people constantly telling them a lie and one person telling them the truth, they will believe the lie nearly every time. What matters really is how much you can propagate an idea rather than how well crafted that idea is.
How much you can propagate an idea depends upon how much wealth you have to buy and control media institutions, and how much wealth you control depends upon your relations to production. I.e. in capitalist societies capitalists control all wealth and thus control the propagation of ideas, so arguing against them in the “free marketplace of ideas” is ultimately always a losing battle. It is thus pointless to even worry too much about crafting the perfect and most convincing rhetoric.
Control over the means of production translates directly to political influence and power, yet communist parties not in power don’t control any, and thus have no power. Many communist parties just hope one day to get super lucky to take advantage of a crisis and seize power in a single stroke, and when that luck never comes they end up going nowhere.
Here is where my controversial take comes in. If we want a strategy that is more consistently successful it has to rely less on luck meaning there needs to be some sort of way to gradually increase the party’s power consistently without relying on some sort of big jump in power during a crisis. Even if there is a crisis, the party will be more positioned to take advantage of it if it has already gradually built up a base of power.
Yet, if power comes from control over the means of production, this necessarily means the party must make strides to acquire means of production in the interim period before revolution. This leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that communist parties must engage in economics even long prior to coming to power.
The issue however is that to engage in economics in a capitalist society is to participate in it, and most communists at least here in the west see participation as equivalent to an endorsement and thus a betrayal of “communist principles.”
The result of this mentality is that communist parties simply are incapable of gradually increasing their base of power and their only hope is to wait for a crisis for sudden gains, yet even during crises their limited power often makes it difficult to take advantage of the crisis anyways so they rarely gain much of anything and are always stuck in a perpetual cycle of being eternal losers.
Most communist parties just want to go from zero to one-hundred in a single stroke which isn’t impossible but it would require very prestine conditions and all the right social elements to align perfectly. If you want a more consistent strategy of getting communist parties into power you need something that doesn’t rely on such a stroke of luck, any sort of sudden leap in the political power of the party, but is capable of growing it gradually over time. This requires the party to engage in economics and there is simply no way around this conclusion.
i agree that we shouldnt be dishonest about it, socialists have to be openly socialist, i just think the terminology we use is kind of shitty and outdated. ‘elites’ certainly rolls off the tongue better than ‘burgeoisosdisoie’ and means just about the same thing, except its already on peoples vocabulary.
Historically, this just doesn’t work, and it even risks supporting PatSoc movements like the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA), also known as “MAGA Communism.” Essentially Imperialism combined with Communist aesthetics.
In the lead-up to the Russian Revolution, there was disagreement over the necessity of reading theory. The SRs thought it was unneccessary, and got in the way of unity. Lenin and the Bolsheviks disagreed, as theory informs correct practice. The SRs became a footnotez and the Bolsheviks succeeded in establishing the world’s first Socialist state. One of Lenin’s most fanous lines, from What is to be done? is “without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary practice.”
As studying theory is necessary, people will realize you’re repackaging Socialism. This will backfire, and people will realize they’ve been tricked. This will hurt the movement.
As for Dialectical Materialism, in a nutshell it’s the philosophical backbone of Marxism. It’s an analytical tool, focusing on studying material reality as it exists in context and in motion through time, as well as their contradictions. If you want an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list that will teach you the fundamentals, I have one here that I made.
I don’t think we should be emulating Lenin or the USSR. I think that’s what is backfiring.
“Read theory” is how they trick us, forcing us into dogmatic religious-like application of historical texts.
Why don’t we write theory? Marx and Lenin weren’t gods. They got things wrong.
I think we should absolutely be learning from Lenin and the USSR. I don’t see what is “backfiring,” if you could elaborate on that I’d appreciate it. The thing is, the USSR broadly got many things unquestionably correct. They also had missteps, and we can learn from those just as much as we can from their achievements. The PRC learned from what succeeded and what failed in the Soviet Union, and is currently overtaking everyone else.
As for reading theory and “dogmatism,” this is indeed a problem, but not as big a problem as avoiding theory. You might find it fitting to start with Oppose Book Worship, which deals with just the problem of overly-dogmatic comrades that only ever read theory. You must read theory and test it via practice, each informs the other.
As for new theory, there is new analysis all the time! Much of older theory absolutely holds up, especially Marx and Lenin, but new theory exists too. I am currently reading Michael Hudson’s Super-Imperialism, which analyzes the modern form of the US Empire and how it extracts wealth as a debtor country. The reading list I made has older theory I consider essential, as well as newer works.
5·16 days agoOne might say that Marx is like Newton, describing/discovering many things and setting a foundation for their field. Saying “we shouldn’t read Newton because his stuff is old” or that his ideas are wrong simply because they are old is ludicrous. Both of them probably had things they got wrong, sure, and newer theory corrects this, but they still set the foundations.
While one might not read Newton directly in school, so for some Marxist theory it is too (see Elementary Principles of Philosophy teaching DiaMat), but Marxs books that haven’t been superseded in this way should still be read.
Fantastic way of putting it! People have iterated on Marx and Lenin, but the basic building blocks were first set by Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc, and as a consequence modern theorists use those tools in new conditions. You must still engage with these tools to have a better idea of how they apply to modern contexts.
Similarly: Saying we shouldn’t read theory, is akin to saying we shouldn’t learn science. You are going to have a very difficult time doing particle physics if you have no understanding of the world. Exactly as we say that without theory you are just going to be redoing the same stuff, so would every scientist have to rediscover the basics.
100%, excellent point comrade. For any onlookers, the concept she is describing here is the foundation of Marx’s notion of Scientific Socialism, analyzing human development as a science like any other in order to master its trajectories. Just like fire was once dangerous and sporadic for cavemen, the advancements in understanding how to start and control fire leaped development forward. So too can mastering the laws of human societal progression and organization.
I think we should absolutely be learning from Lenin and the USSR.
Learning from their mistakes. Not emulating a failed brutal authoritarian dictatorship.
I don’t see what is “backfiring,”
Americans fear the word “socialism” because they associate it with brutal authoritarian dictatorships. Your love of Lenin and the USSR isn’t helping with that.
The PRC learned from what succeeded and what failed in the Soviet Union, and is currently overtaking everyone else.
The only thing the PRC learned was to abandon socialism. Canada is more socialist than the PRC.
You keep linking books to read. I think we’ve read enough. It’s time to start writing.
The USSR wasn’t a “failed brutal authoritarian dictatorship,” though. They democratized the economy, ended famine in a country where that was regular, over tripled literacy rates from the low 30s to 99.9%, dramatically lowered wealth inequality while maintaining high economic growth, defeated the Nazis, proved that a publicly driven and planned economy works well, provided free and high quality healthcare and education, and more.
The USian fear of countries that went against the US Empire’s dominance and provided an alternative to it based in Red Scare propaganda is a problem that must be confronted, not thrown under the bed and avoided. If we are to establish Socialism, we must be honest about it.
As for the PRC and Canada, this is much the opposite. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy driven by Marxist economics. Large firms and key industries like banking and steel are overwhelmingly in public ownership and control, while the private sector is overwhelmingly populated by self-employed people, cooperatives, and small businesses. Canada, on the other hand, is driven by private property and Imperialism.
If you write without reading and learning from your predecessors, you’ll repeat their mistakes and fail to replicate their successes. This is throwing away perfectly good tools, and is what doomed the SRs in Russia and why the Bolsheviks succeeded.
They democratized the economy,
They had absolutely no democracy.
ended famine in a country where that was regular
They deliberately caused famine.
dramatically lowered wealth inequality while maintaining high economic growth
They were ended by the very corruption and wealth inequality you claim they lowered.
defeated the Nazis,
With the help of capitalist empires.
proved that a publicly driven and planned economy works well
It did not work well.
provided free and high quality healthcare and education
We do that in Canada, too.
The USian fear of countries that went against the US Empire’s dominance and provided an alternative to it based in Red Scare propaganda is a problem that must be confronted, not thrown under the bed and avoided.
Yet you dismiss everything bad ever said about the USSR as “Red Scare propaganda” to conveniently throw it under the bed and avoid it.
As for the PRC and Canada, this is much the opposite. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy driven by Marxist economics.
China has banks. Stock markets. Billionaires. Absolutely nothing about their economy is socialist or is driven by marxism.
You can’t back these statements up with any evidence. You just make bold proclamations and assert them as true because you said they were, and if anyone doubts you they just have to “read theory”.
Large firms and key industries like banking and steel are overwhelmingly in public ownership and control, while the private sector is overwhelmingly populated by self-employed people, cooperatives, and small businesses.
None of what you just said here is true.
If you write without reading and learning from your predecessors, you’ll repeat their mistakes and fail to replicate their successes.
Yes, but unfortunately you have dismissed everything you have read as “Red Scare propaganda”, or likely “Yellow fever propaganda”.
They had democracy. Read Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan, or read this infographic:
They did not deliberately cause famine. There is no reason for this in the first place, as that weakened their economy and starved millions.
The Soviet Union was not ended because it lowered wealth inequality. Wealth inequality was lowered until after the Socialist system dissolved. What caused the dissolution of the USSR was a combination of various factors such as Gorbachev’s liberal reforms ceding power over large firms to Capitalists, a huge amount of GDP spent on the millitary to protect against the US, and the continuing to plan by hand rather than use computers at scale later on as production complicated.
As for defeating the Nazis, there was some degree of assistance from the Allies, but 80% of the combat against the Nazis was done by the Soviets. They outweighed the contributions of every other allied power combined, by several times.
As for the economy, it worked very well, actually, until later on in its life. I recommend reading Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? and looking at the following data on GDP growth:
Canada has some safety nets, sure. I never said you cannot have safety nets without Socialism, we were talking about the effectiveness of the Soviet Union, which had those safety nets before Canada despite being lower in development levels than Canada.
I don’t actually dismiss everything bad about the Soviet Union as propaganda, only propaganda. I have quite a few critiques of the USSR in this comment alone, however it’s hard to discuss the genuine faults when your view of the USSR is based in fiction.
China indeed has private property and banks, even billionaires, however the economy is driven by Public Ownership. Marx spoke about how the large firms were to be nationalized, and that small firms would be nationalized as they developed, gradually. This is because of Marx’s concept of Historical Materialism and Socialism as an economic inevitability as time progresses. You yourself have been railing against theory, why should anyone trust your opinion on Marxism?
Everything I said about the PRC is true, though.
I never needlessly or dogmatically dismissed anything, and unlike you I brought reciepts. The important issue here is your repeated unwillingness to look at facts, simply denying them without offering anything to support your claims or debunk mine. There’s nothing to work off of that way.
Dialectical Materialism
How about “a tug-of-war between owners and workers for jobs, resources, and technology”
Three examples:
Factory Work and Labour Unions
Early 20th-century factory jobs involved long hours, low pay, and unsafe working conditions. When workers tried to unionize, factory owners often resisted, viewing unionized labour as a threat to profits. This created a direct conflict: owners wanting to keep costs low vs. workers demanding better wages and safer workplaces.
Automation in Warehouses
Warehouses (e.g., Amazon fulfilment centres) are increasingly adopting robotic systems to speed up sorting and packing. Employees might feel pressure to meet higher performance metrics set by a partly automated workflow, while also fearing that further automation will reduce human jobs. Here, the “tug-of-war” is between technological efficiency (and profit) vs. workers’ job security and well-being.
Tech Industry Outsourcing
Companies sometimes outsource tech-related jobs to countries with cheaper labour costs. This lowers expenses for the company but can lead to local layoffs and economic hardship for employees in higher-wage regions. The conflict revolves around the benefit of increased profit margins for the company vs. the material needs of domestic workers who lose their livelihoods.
Too long, I’d suggest “boss-busting”, after “rentbusting”. Or “bosses keeping workers hostage”, maybe?
about what youd expect for a country thats been the global epicenter for anticommunist propaganda.
I can’t remember where I copied this from originally but it seems pertinent here
Americans are, of course, the most thoroughly and passively indoctrinated people on earth. they know next to nothing as a rule about their own history, or the histories of other nations, or the histories of the various social movements that have risen and fallen in the past, and they certainly know nothing of the complexities and contradictions comprised within words like ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism.’
Chiefly, what they have been trained not to know or even suspect is that, in many ways, they enjoy far fewer freedoms, and suffer under a more intrusive centralized state, than do the citizens of countries with more vigorous social-democratic institutions.
This is is at once the most comic and most tragic aspect of the excitable alarm that talk of social democracy or democratic socialism can elicit on these shores.
An enormous number of Americans have been persuaded to believe that they are freer in the abstract than, say, Germans or Danes precisely because they possess far fewer freedoms in the concrete.
They are far more vulnerable to medical and financial crisis, far more likely to receive inadequate health coverage, far more prone too irreparable insolvency, far more unprotected against predatory creditors, far more subject to income inequality, and so forth, while effectively paying more in tax (when one figures in federal, state, local and sales taxes, and then compounds those by all the expenditures that in this country, as almost nowhere else, their taxes do not cover).
One might think that a people who once rebelled against the mightiest empire on earth on the principle of no taxation without representation would not meekly accept taxation without adequate government services.
But we accept what we have become used to, I suppose. Even so, one has to ask, what state apparatus in the “free” world could be more powerful and tyrannical than the one that taxes its citizens while providing no substantial civic benefits in return, solely in order to enrich a piratically overinflated military-industrial complex and to ease the tax burdens of the immensely wealthy.
Socialism in america only exists for corporations. “Hey bankers! Screwed up again? Here’s more money to play with.”
I appreciate the sentiment, but the public sector supporting the private is not “socialism.” Socialism describes an economic formation where public ownership is primary in an economy, ie where large firms are publicly owned and controlled. Segments of an economy cannot be Socialist or Capitalist just like an arm cannot be a human, it can only exist in the context of the whole.
Socialism, in reality, refers to a broader economy where public ownership is primary, while Capitalism refers to a broader economy where private ownership is primary. All Socialist societies have had public and private Capital, and all Capitalist societies have had public and private Capital, it matters most which one has the power.
I recommend reading my post here on common problems people run into when determining Modes of Production.
Original commenter: jokes in class solidarity
Response: « I appreciate the attempt, but what you said was wrong on sooooo many levels, in this essay, I will… »
There is legitimately a problem with miscommunication on the Left, getting on the same page helps information flow more effectively.
I understand what you mean, really. I just think the methods of circulating that info can sometimes seem or feel ecclesiastic.
In my opinion, context and rhetoric matter. That’s why I joked a little. But I don’t mean no harm, truly. And I appreciate what you do.
That’s of course a fair point, and I did laugh, I am extremely guilty of “essay posting” and try to minimize that when I can while still getting my point across. And I appreciate the compliments, too! Right now there is a big influx of new users from Reddit, so I’m being more of a stickler than usual as in my experience this legitimately does have an impact on the broader stances on Lemmy, given its size.
I see ! Thank you for that :)
No problem! Have a good one! 🫡
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
European countries aren’t Socialist, though, and they depend on Imperialism to fund their safety nets like the US does, it’s just that in the US this money goes pretty much straight into the pockets of the bourgeoisie outright, instead of also funding safety nets.
The USA actually spends several billions, if not trillions on Medicare (meant for the old) and Medicaid (meant for the poor, and single mothers, and young children) combined.
In 2023, the federal government spent about $848.2 billion on Medicare, accounting for 14% of total federal spending.
source - and that’s just Medicare.
I agree with you that it’s weird that corporations get a bailout, instead of selling the company to competitors, but no need to act like the USA doesn’t spend a TON of money on its citizens, keeping their head above water :)
That’s because the American healthcare system is infected with middle men parasites.
I live in the USA and its so bad i just cant interact with most people. They are basically entirely vibes based. They dont research anything if they hear a new claim they decide if its true based on if they feel like its true. You can literally show them evidence and most will be like “nah thats bs”. I made a comment on 小红书 recently about how 54% of americans read below a 6th grade level and my replies are FULL of americans saying “uh i can read” … can you really?
Truth is literally just your belief. What’s your problem with people “feeling like it’s true”?
Truth is material reality. People feeling like magic is real doesn’t make it so, and if you cede ground to these solipsists then you can’t get anywhere as a society.
Uhuh. Let’s say truth is material reality. What is material reality?
What actually exists in the real world.
So I guess there are things that don’t actually exist in the real world. They exist in some other worlds? What are other worlds except for real world? What are the criteria to determine if somehing exists in the real world or not.
You’re trying to make an argument for solipsism, and against science. If you truly believed this, then you’d have no problem walking in front of an oncoming truck, as it may as well not be “real,” but you and I know that’s not true. Instead, we can know the real world through testing and confirming material reality and how it works through the advancement of science.
You’re trying to make an argument for solipsism, and against science
- No, I don’t. I’d actually call myself a primitive realist.
- Science and solipsism is not a dichotomy.
If you truly believed this, then you’d have no problem walking in front of an oncoming truck, as it may as well not be “real,”
Believed what? At what point in our conversation did I state my beliefs?
Instead, we can know the real world through testing and confirming material reality
Maybe stop spawning unnecessary entities? Here you say there’s real world and then there’s material reality. Wtf are those and what’s the difference between them? Are there other worlds? Are there other realities? Just stop for a second and try to comprehend what you’re writing.
Don’t make me laugh, it’s not socialism! it’s bro-ism, 'cause, I got you bro. If everyone got their bros and we all bros then we can do absolutely anything bro!
I like to swap out “ism” with “frame”. In this case broism becomes broframe.
Unfortunately, socialism discourages and eventually kills off broism.
You don’t get, socialism doesn’t exist, it can’t hurt you, it was just a boogeyman created by the billionaires so you’ll go back to the wagie cage. There’s only bro-ism
I live in a post soviet country so I experience the impact of socialism to this very day. It’s appalling.
You experience our destruction, we stole the world from you are we’re coming for seconds. Let us in more, let us finacialze you, your dreams will have advertising in them, we will strip whatever is left of your public transporter for copper, we will put your nana in the streets after converting her house into empty condos and stealing her pension. This is what happens when you let to imperial powers come in and loot your dwellings.
😨 …
Fuck pensions btw, pensions are communist shit and should be abolished.
That just means your pension plan is a deer slug
“All classes working together” as a counterpoint to socialism? Where have I heard of this before…?
It’s because it’s impossible. The classes will always be in conflict until the communism is reached, so it depends which class is in power.
How come you picked that instance over tankietube?
Oh they give 20 gigs of space, I made a tankietube account after but already started posting on this instance so just kept going with it.
Tankietube has unlimited storage
oh nice, I’ll start posting on there at some point
Whats funnier is that when you count how many times Homer went to the hospital… unless if lives in a « socialist » country… he would be homeless
Maybe that’s why Lisa is spreading socialist propaganda. Bc her family directly benefits from it
What about anarchism?
Anarchism is preferable to Capitalism, of course, but as a former Anarchist I find Marxist theory and historical practice to be more evidently effective.
What type of anarchism?
“All classes working together” is called capitalism
Yep, this is the concept behind “Social Democracy.” Class collaborationism is a myth used to justify the perpetuation of Capitalism, not ending it.
The mob is absolutely right
In what manner?
Lisa is trying to sell socialism to people under the pretext of “all people work together”, greater good for all mankind and other fairytales. She’s just feeding them propaganda. Fuck Lisa.
Socialism is certainly the necessary path forward, I don’t think that amounts to just “feeding people propaganda.”
There’s no path forward. We are not moving forward. That’s just socialist progressivist belief. Some believe in Buddha, some believe in Allah, socialists believe in path forward.
And OF COURSE socialism is the only path forward according to socialism. Who would’ve thought.
“Forward” as in progressing in complexity of production and improving key quality of life metrics.
My name is not “Socialism,” Socialism is not a living, breathing being either.
What’s a complexity of production? Why do we want to progress in complexity of production? Shouldn’t we be trying to reduce complexity? And who defines the “key quality of life metrics”? If socialists define those, then surely socialism is necessary to improve those metrics. But I guess different people can have different metrics. Catholic Church, for example, may take the percentage of people going to heaven after death as a key quality of life metric. In this case, socialism would be absolutely devastating for quality of life.
You can simplify where you can, but as technology advances it gets more complex to manufacture. You can’t reasonably build a cell phone in your garage from base components.
As for quality of life metrics, things like literacy rates and life expectancies, home ownership and mortality rates. The Catholic Church should not determine this as they do not base their beliefs in known material reality.
I am fairly certain that you’re a troll, though, so I don’t see much point in continuing this.
Apple’s ecosystem is socialism and people seems to love it
In what manner is a Capitalist company’s ecosystem able to be considered Socialism? Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors for entire economies, not slices of one company.
