• @x00z
    link
    English
    733 days ago

    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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        43 days ago

        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.

        • Cowbee [he/they]
          link
          fedilink
          32 days ago

          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.

      • @x00z
        link
        English
        213 days ago

        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.

        • @AngryCommieKender
          link
          63 days ago

          Fair enough, and yes. Education should definitely be on the list

          • @x00z
            link
            English
            83 days ago

            Yeah sure, allowing both nationalized and privatized sectors to coexist can lead to positive stuff.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              13 days ago

              Wait what is that sarcastic? I don’t get it. For us there is co existance of govt. and private schools, and both are being used by the public

              • @x00z
                link
                English
                22 days ago

                I’m mostly talking in the general sense.

                In my country there are a few private schools but employers don’t care for them. They need to follow the official curriculum and the students will have to do the same official tests at the end of the year.

              • @MutilationWave
                link
                23 days ago

                Any time this happens it leads to greater social stratification.

                  • @MutilationWave
                    link
                    33 days ago

                    Because one school will be better than the other. Most likely the private school, because they charge money for parents to send their kids there in addition to the money they (unfairly) get from the government. So families with more money are more likely to send a kid to private school, which immediately creates social stratification between the private school kids and the public school kids.

                    The private school kids will perceive this inequity, even subconsciously, and internalize that they are better than the public school kids on some level. Often the private schools are religious too which is another can of worms.

                    I could keep going but I think that’s enough to get the point. Private schools shouldn’t exist. All the money given to them should be given to public schools so they are better for every kid no matter how much money their parents make.

          • @Glytch
            link
            33 days ago

            Allow private schools to exist but regulate them and give them no public funding.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              32 days ago

              If private schools are going to exist they should have a minimum curriculum actually enforced so that students attending them aren’t put at a disadvantage.

              For example, sex education should be required as part of health and human biology. Not it’s own separate, needlessly controversial thing.

              Many private schools are religious and refuse to teach certain topics, or replace them with nonsense and it hurts their students.

              But also don’t give them tax money. They rake it with their excessive tuition already.

              • @Glytch
                link
                22 days ago

                I agree, that’s what I meant by “regulate them and give them no public money”

    • Cowbee [he/they]
      link
      fedilink
      42 days ago

      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.

    • DankDingleberry
      link
      83 days ago

      thats kinda every socialist countrys baseline (that works) and its also why the american propaganda associates it with CoMMuNisM.

      • Cowbee [he/they]
        link
        fedilink
        32 days ago

        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?

        • DankDingleberry
          link
          2
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          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.

          • Cowbee [he/they]
            link
            fedilink
            32 days ago

            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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 days ago

      They can’t allow that. That’s called leaving money on the table. They will not be satisfied until they have every penny we earn, then, once that food source dries up, they’ll go after each other.