829

Being the Only Socialist in the Family Rule (midwest.social)

submitted 10 months ago by mossy_capivara@midwest.social to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 88 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

i don't know if i'm a socialist or whatever all i know is that i just want trans and gay people to be able to live their lives, women to not have men make decisions about their bodies, borders to be abolished, people to not want the earth to burn up, and to ducking just care about conserving endangered species.

bonus points for elected officials to behave like fucking grown ass adults for once.

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 56 points 10 months ago

I dont think anything you said would qualify you as a "socialist"

[-] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Counterpoint: If you ask most elected officials edit: in the US (of either party), any two of those as policy goals would make you a socialist.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 17 points 10 months ago

fuck the US, why is it relevant what they think?

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 10 points 10 months ago

You'll find out when we get done with our "Republic" arc and start the "Empire" one.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 16 points 10 months ago

you have been on the empire thing for literal decades

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 5 points 10 months ago

You ain't seen nothing yet, sheltered child of neoliberalism.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago

i live in a colony of neoliberalism, im seeing things on a daily basis.

some of which coming from a direct consequence of the empire's decisions. some of which comes from genocides past.

there was never a republic in the first place for us.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 2 points 10 months ago

And yet you wonder why it's important what America thinks?

Here's hoping you don't find out.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

im not wondering if its important or not, i'm saying its not. what is your point?

you seem to get what the empire is capable of, but you dont get that they are actually doing this stuff already as much as they can, everywhere. we are "finding out" by virtue of US's mere existence.

they will oppress us anyway so might as well think about freedom, and it doesnt matter whether or not the US would like socialism for itself or not, or how their deceiving politicians lie about it.

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Counter point, countries exist outside the US

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 14 points 10 months ago

Source?

[-] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Fair; I've amended my comment.

[-] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

And sometimes perception is reality.

[-] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 10 months ago

I think the abolition of borders falls under the umbrella of socialism

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

Socialism means one thing: democratic control over the economy. It's radically left-wing in most of the world, and because of that socialists also advocate for other radically leftist ideas. I'm one of the radical leftists that don't believe governments should exist at all in their current form, but that's not what makes me a socialist.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Socialism being more international isn't just because it's radical, but because Communism can only exist fully if there is no Capitalism anywhere to re-emerge. What you've said is correct, just incomplete IMO.

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago

isn't government not existing just a form of libertarianism? (not trying to argue or anything; just genuinely curious)

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

Kind of. Communism itself is described as a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society, and Anarchism is Stateless as well. Socialism is just collective ownership of industry.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 2 points 10 months ago

before chuds hijacked it, libertarianism was always associated with the left. it was variously called anarchism and libertarian socialism.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 4 points 10 months ago

Depends on whether you think socialism is inherently globalist, which I wouldn't say is necessarily true.

[-] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

It might as well be considering the history of cross-country support. Class above nation, after all.

[-] redprog@feddit.de 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Socialism by definition will take care of most if not all of these

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 39 points 10 months ago

That's a progressive outlook, but not a Socialist one, primarily because nothing you said has anything directly to do with Modes of Production.

A Socialist is someone who wants the Means of Production to be collectively shared, rather than privately owned. There are many forms of it, like Syndicalism, Anarchism, Marxism, Market Socialism, etc.

[-] Duranie@literature.cafe 8 points 10 months ago

So by your example, a socialist is someone who's not a dick? I can get behind that 😁.

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 10 months ago

basically :D

[-] tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Not necessarily. Those things can be fixed without instituting socialism (if they're fixable. That's not a given) and may even be done better without it based on socialism's real record!

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

Same. I believe in the abolition of hierarchy in all forms and a society based on community and co-operation and don’t believe that any human should have any lever on power or control over any other person.

So…I guess I do know. Never mind.