• TheMurphy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I’ve lived in a country with socialism for my entire life, and have studied the laws in my own and other countries without socialism.

    I will talk about socialism as it is in Scandinavia, more specifically Denmark. Here’s a few things other than paid education and free healthcare:

    • Getting paid to study: You get paid to study as soon as you turn 18. In that way you don’t need a job while you studying. Basic salary when living away from parents: 1.000 USD/month.

    • UBI: In Denmark we have UBI for people being poor, basically. If you don’t have a job, is sick and can’t work, or any other reason you might be screwed, you get paid by the government to… well yeah, exist basically. You have to meet some requirements and actively trying to get better or find a job though, which seems fair I think. If the government thinks it’s not possible to get better, you can get the money permanently for the rest of your life without doing anything. (this is used for people with disabilities, both mental and physical, both born with it or obtained later in life)

    • Shared heating system: This is maybe the biggest “socialism” thing I can mention. In Denmark your house or apartment can be hooked up to a country wide heating system, which means we all share the same heat. This is a way to make heat distribution centralised, which has major advantages such as; price, availability, maintenance. (Fun fact: every data center build in Denmark needs to be hooked up to this system, as they will “donate” all their excess heat from their servers to the central heating system)

    • Flex jobbing: If you are no longer able to work 37 hours a week, you can be a flex worker. This basically means that you can work 15 hours a week and still get paid a full salary. The government will cover the rest of the pay and also cover some expenses for the company having the flex worker. This system is great for peoples mental health, as they still can feel a part of society even though they can’t work full time. While they still can live a worthy life because their pay is fine. It’s a win-win for the country, the companies and the people needing this.

    I could go on, but I don’t want to be that guy praising my own country all the time. We Scandinavians tend to do that.

    • Too Ren@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Denmark is not socialist, nor is it capitalist. It like essentially every other “capitalist” country is a mixed economy. In some aspects countries like the US are more “socialist” like in agricultural policy.

      • TheMurphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Can you explain how the US has a more socialist agricultural policy? I don’t think I’m familiar with it.

        • yesman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          US agriculture policy isn’t Socialist in that workers control the production, but “socialist” in the since that the government controls the markets through subsidies.

          For example, in the 70s their was a crash in dairy prices. To the point where farmers were dumping milk down the drain. (yay capitalism) The Carter admin, seeing the dairy industry as essential to national security (dairy was a way bigger part of the diet back then), bought massive amounts of milk at above market price to keep the farmers afloat.

          You may have heard of “government cheese” as a pejorative toward welfare. Well, that’s where the cheese came from, all that milk that the government owned. People remember the children that got free cheese, but not the farmers who got government cash.

  • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    A friendly reminder that socialism is not communism. The latter is closer to capitalism as it’s just state-owned instead of privately owned. However, socialism and capitalism can coexist, which cannot be said the same about communism.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      So communism is closer to capitalism because it’s state-owned?

      Why are we trusting the output of your brain again?

    • Urist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Socialism is a political philosophy and movement encompassing a range of economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.[3][4][5]

      Hard disagree. Capitalism with a handful of social systems implemented is not socialism.

  • boblin@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    It provides a safety net by pooling the resources of the community to support the less fortunate. This prevents people from having to sacrifice their long term goals because their short term needs may not be otherwise met.

    Also in contrast to capitalism that treats society as a zero sum game (“I can’t get ahead unless I take something from someone else”) socialism is a benefit multiplier (“I’m part of the community. By making the life of everyone in the community better I’m also improving my own life”).

  • Cosmicomical@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    What I like is that when there is progress, the progress is actually experienced by everybody and not just by a wider or narrower elite.

    For instance, I love robotics but I can’t stand that adding robots to society results in unemployment. You can’t just let the owners scoop up all the capital gain.

  • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    that it holds that social practices are created from social practice and not inherited from immutable law, enabling criticism of the underlying machinations of society without being hindered by the argument that such machinations are an inherited and instinctual product of nature and thus unalterable.

  • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    I like some of the goals of it (like evening out the ecumenical inequalities), but I don’t think socialism is the right way to do it. Democratic welfare state systems found in Western European countries are much better solutions (and hasn’t turned into authoritarian tyrannies).

    UBI might also be a good option, but currently there have been no large scale implementation of it yet.

    • Urist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      You cannot even out the real inequalities without demolishing the capitalist class, pretty much by definition. If you want to make everyone equal part of the capitalist class, that is pretty much socialism by definition.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        You cannot even out the real inequalities without demolishing the capitalist class

        Absent rhat happening, you still can improve the situation quite a lot with strong, well enforced regulations on their activities.

        Employment laws are usually a good place to start.

  • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    It addresses the crudeness of the hand that deals some people, rather than assume equal opportunism is automatic.

  • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    I like the idea of a deliberate and rational society. Unfortunately we need to be cautious with this kind of thing and pay attention to where others have failed in the past.

  • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    To me, it’s all about rational return on investment providing economic incentives to achieve what we want to achieve.

    My favorite example to explain what I mean is my own personal health insurance. I have a chronic medical condition that requires constant medication, frequent visits to specialists, and expensive medical tests and procedures. There is simply zero chance that I will ever pay enough in a monthly premium to cover what I cost. Meaning I am always a net financial loss for a private, for-profit insurance company.

    This gives a private company every incentive in the world to obstruct and deny my care in hopes that I’ll get frustrated and give up, or maybe even die and get off their books forever.

    The government, on the other hand, has a positive financial incentive to keep me healthy. If I am healthy, I am working, paying taxes, buying goods and services that contribute to the economy, and hopefully contributing something beneficial to my community. Only the government (acting as a proxy for “society”) naturally profits from insuring my healthcare.

    This is why I believe we should have fully socialized medical care. Because there are some specific things that only the government has natural positive economic incentives that align with what is beneficial for the general public.

    Whatever those things are, they should be socialized. And generally those things are basic life sustaining things like food, housing, medicine, education, utilities.

    I’m fine with privatized capitalism in a very restricted, heavily regulated niche form. But all the basic necessities should be socialized.