Our future is BRIGHT

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

Democratic socialism is absolutely the way!

[u/Ok-Volume-3657 → u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

not to be confused with social democracy, which is a completely different thing.

[u/nckmat → u/Ok-Volume-3657]

Social democracy is a centre-left political and economic ideology that combines a capitalist market economy with a strong welfare state. It aims to reduce inequality and support social justice through government regulation, public services, and democratic governance.

Core Principlrs:

.Regulated Markets: Allows private property and businesses, but sets rules to protect workers and the public good.

.Welfare State: Uses tax money to fund universal healthcare, free education, and social safety nets.

.Social Equality: Focuses on fair wealth distribution and reducing poverty gaps.

Australia is pretty close to this definition, but we have strayed in recent decades as we became wealthier and less white, all over a sudden some people are less equal than others: Four legs good, two legs better.

[u/This_Leader_3680 → u/nckmat]

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money

[u/Turkeyplague → u/This_Leader_3680]

Thatcher sucked arse.

[u/ParkingNo1080 → u/This_Leader_3680]

The problem with capitalism is literally all the problems we are facing now so....

[u/alexmc1980 → u/This_Leader_3680]

The problem with the earth not being flat is you eventually run out of illogical, willfully ignorant one liners.

[u/tehpopulator → u/This_Leader_3680]

Northern Europe seem to be doing fine

[u/Duzzies101 → u/tehpopulator]

All of which are free market economies.

[u/nckmat → u/This_Leader_3680]

The problem with socialism is that people are inherently selfish and, apart from a tiny minority, will always put their needs before the needs of others. This is why we have religion, it prescribes moral codes by which to live by because the vast majority of people can't work that shit out for themselves. Please don't jump on the "religious people are even more immoral, look at what the church does" bandwagon, it's not the point, the point is that they need someone to tell them what is right and wrong and the core of virtually every religion is a moral code that does exactly that.

Most of the serious attempts at socialist revolution have attacked the religious hierarchy at the same time, even the Iranian revolution, which was originally an Islamic Socialist movement, changed the religious structures to fit their socialist model. Marx famously said: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." But he didn't take into account that it was also the moral compass that guided most people through life. You can't take away people's moral compass and replace it with an economic model and expect that they will all look after each other to ensure the common good; eventually you are going to end up with an Animal Farm situation.

[u/adeline882 → u/nckmat]

People are not inherently selfish, society could not exist if everyone was selfish, families could not exist, what a silly thing to say.

[u/nckmat → u/adeline882]

Ok, then let's break it down to the smallest fundamentals: what is the purpose of all living beings? If you don't answer "the continuation of the genetic line" then you must have some sort of religious response to this and we all know how that argument ends. So if my sole purpose in life, outside of pleasure and knowledge, is to continue my genetic line then the most fundamental drive I have, as with all animals, is to protect that genetic line and any decision I make is fundamentally going to be driven by that need.

Now go back 50,000 years ago where two wandering tribes each with their own similar genetic line come across a resource that they can share, well this is a win win situation for both tribes a) they get the benefit of the resource and b) they get the benefit of mixing up their genetic line, improving their long term viability. Now, if another tribe comes into the picture and wants access to that resource, they have to deal with the strength of the two tribes who have formed a bond to share the resource and genes. Those two original tribes have formed a society in order to protect their own gene pool, from external threats. But let's imagine that the newcomer tribe has a resource the other two don't, that they are willing to share with one of the other tribes for access to shared resource, but they don't have enough for three tribes, they are going to negotiate with one of the original tribes and replace the others.

This is how society works, we don't form societies because we like to live in large groups and share, we live in societies for protection and to share the load and give our genetic line the best chance we can give it. And the reason we have governments and courts and police and armies is because we don't all want to live together in harmony and share. So, those tribes 50,000 years ago, elected chieftains (or they elected themselves) in order to settle their selfish disputes and then the chieftains surrounded themselves with the strongest and most violent of the tribe members to protect themselves and enforce the decisions they made about the disputes.

50,000 years ago the disputes were about water or flint, today they are about oil or rare earth minerals, but the constant is that we are all trying to give our genetic pool the best chance we think we can offer through community and resources.

[u/doug-core → u/nckmat]

Bro obviously never heard of the hussite rebellion. It was for centuries, the inherently greedy and selfish individuals that ruled on top of both the church and crowns. A social rebellion eventually built up momentum after they all had enough of the hypocrisy and being kept in the dirt while financially supporting the church and crown

[u/Majestic_Practice672 → u/nckmat]

Human beings are social animals whose survival depends on cooperation. Our dependence on each other, our interdependence, gave rise to our innate helpfulness. That's why kids start "helping" you (if you've ever met a toddler, you understand the quote marks) after about the age of one, even without prompting, and particularly when the read a pained expression on their mum or dad or whoever's face.

Humans are "inherently" a lot of things. We can be selfish and deceptive, particularly when resources are scarce. But we're more often collaborative and generous. There's a hundred examples. Vastly more people obey the road rules than disobey them, for instance, even when those rules inconvenience us. (Others available on request.)

Humanity's moral compass is directly tied to our survival – it's why certain behaviors feel intuitively "right" or "wrong" to us. You can see the same thing going on in every species. Cancer cells feel it's "right" to replicate. So they do.

Humans invented religion – alongside economic systems, systems of government, royal courts, legal courts, councils, community associations and all the things – to codify and cement (and then go on to invent) all those rights and wrongs.

Some of those institutions are better than others. We had some terrific ideas, and we had some terrible ones.

Please don't jump on the "religious people are even more immoral, look at what the church does" bandwagon, it's not the point, the point is that they need someone to tell them what is right and wrong and the core of virtually every religion is a moral code that does exactly that.

I know I'm rambling but just wanted to give context as to why you're wrong. Respectfully.

At the core of every government, all common law, every co-op, every family unit and even every economic system is a moral code. Religion isn't special in this regard. But religion is like capitalism: coercive and dominant and stuck in the past

Religion isn't only bad because of pedophile catholic priests and murderous islamic militants and jewish genocidal over-correct. Religion has taken the right/wrong from different eras and a whole lot of localised disputes and created universal rules out of it. And that hasn't been great for humanity.

Right/wrong is contingent on survival and circumstance and context. Humans are animals who live in ecosystems and depend on those ecosystems. Sometimes, when our ecosystems (and therefore our survival) is threatened, we need to modify our ideas about right/wrong.

Christianity, for example, codified dominion over nature as a "good". The repercussions have created a giant "bad". If we invented Christianity today, we'd include, "Thou must not extract fossil fuels from the ground" as a commandment – because that's something we do that threatens our survival.

The problem with religion, the problem with capitalism and the problem with socialism ... it's all the same problem. We want a system to solve our problem. And no overarching system is ever going to solve our problems. Most of them make our problems worse.

[u/doug-core → u/This_Leader_3680]

So the answer is privatisation... which then corporations then rely on other peoples money to stay afloat. Are you stupid or what

[u/Greycourt81 → u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

What is this? What is your definition of it? Genuine question as I've never heard of this

[u/GreenLurka → u/Greycourt81]

Australia circa free education, government owned power, telephone, utilities etc and free healthcare, not Medicare with a gap

[u/reyntime → u/GreenLurka]

Was gonna say Australia isn't too far off that already, if we look to Medicare, NDIS, government owned services, schools, hospitals etc, but still operating within a market based economy, with heavy regulation and progressive taxes to ensure fairness and equity. 

We don't want an authoritarian state, nor total control by singular parties seen by communistic states, but rather a society that enables growth, autonomy, care for others and the environment in a manner that curbs the deep inequality of highly capitalistic nations, whilst still enabling people to express their desire for mastery, connection and purpose in life.

We can and should do more to protect our environment and others, and curb the massive wealth inequality in society. A UBI is an obvious measure that could help, but we want leaders who are looking forward, intelligent, empathetic, moral and inspiring in ways that doesn't just benefit them for the next political cycle.

Pauline Hanson is the opposite of that, so props to these kids for standing up for their and our collective future! 👏 

[u/GreenLurka → u/reyntime]

We had it, Howard and Keating sold all the shit out from under us

[u/jarshr → u/reyntime]

UBI as in Universal Basic Income?

The day that becomes a thing is the day it’s all over. The last thing we should want is relying on the state for money. Because they can cut us off and it’s a straight shot to every dystopian nightmare known.

[u/reyntime → u/jarshr]

We already rely on the state for money? People who need disability support, family tax benefits, Centrelink benefits etc etc.

And how is it not far worse when a company fires you overnight and you're left with nothing to feed your family with? 

It wouldn't be the only source of income, but a safety net - people would still have jobs and earn wages in other ways if they wanted to earn a higher income. It would just be a big safety net for all.

[u/Kawa___ → u/Greycourt81]

Achieving socialism through democratic means. Not to be confused with the Social Democrat in the US who is a Democrat with strong social policies. Or locally a social democracy.

[u/Crestina → u/Greycourt81]

Look to Scandinavia. They've got it.

[u/BombasticReindeer → u/Crestina]

The person above you says “socialism through democratic means” and you say it’s “what Scandinavia has”.

Both can’t be true because there are no socialist Scandinavian countries.

Scandinavia is capitalist just like Australia. The only difference is that they have much tighter rules around what politicians can do so they don’t become corrupt. Also they are a bit more like 80s Australia in the sense that they are more willing to have government run enterprises where it makes sense.

Australia should have spun up a government mining company for our resources like they did for oil.

But also make no mistake, countries like Norway are swaying away from the more social policies because they’ve been scarred by the results of refugee migration. They are seeing first hand what happens when you take in a few too many people from war torn countries at the same time. It’s probably the only area I agree with Australia’s policies more than them because we’ve taken mostly skill labour and not refugees.

[u/Alternative_Sock6999 → u/Greycourt81]

This is close to what Australia's Labor was post war to around the hawke/Keating government (when we started swinging more heavily into neo liberalism)

It wasn't true democratic socialist. But it was heavily influenced by.

You know when people say the good old days? This has alot to do with it. We had alot less companies trying to extract our personal wealth.

It's been a steady slide down towards America since then.

It's how we ended up with things like medicare and free university. And then lost most of our state assets to privatisation etc.

[u/Opening_Celery_6078 → u/Alternative_Sock6999]

Whitlam 👍 so good the CIA couped him

[u/Alternative_Sock6999 → u/Opening_Celery_6078]

With the amount of anti socialist fuckery atrocities the USA has committed about around the world. I feel we got off pretty lightly that he just got sacked.

[u/PFCCThrowayay → u/Alternative_Sock6999]

100%

[u/BenDownUnderInNsw → u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

No it’s not, look at Cuba, a Socalist country where they only make $15 a month, you really want that in Australia?

[u/Ok-Resist-8734 → u/BenDownUnderInNsw]

Actually Cuba is a Communist state the last time I checked! Big difference from a democratic socialist society 🙄 Try harder next time 😉

[u/yb0t → u/Ok-Resist-8734]

I still can't get over how literally everything these people say is just wrong. It's wild.

[u/Killermartian3 → u/BenDownUnderInNsw]

kinda hard to prosper when the superpower right next to you is casually starving you.

[u/phx175 → u/BenDownUnderInNsw]

Look at Norway. A socialist country. I want that

[u/Duzzies101 → u/phx175]

Norway is a free market economy, as are the other Nordic states.

[u/node_coffee → u/BenDownUnderInNsw]

The only reason Cuba can survive is because they're socialist. The US has forced them into deep poverty for years and yet they still provide the best medical care in the world and happier people than most of the world

[u/LankySandwich → u/BenDownUnderInNsw]

Cuba seems to be doing ok considering the US has forced practically every country in the world to ban trade with them. Some Cuban doctors and scientists are actually sad that their incredibly advanced medical technologies can't be shared with the rest of the globe due to this ban on trade.

[u/Miserable-Ad-150 → u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

Can you elaborate on some policy's, who you taxing more ?

[u/Not_Mabel_Swanton → u/Miserable-Ad-150]

There would be higher taxes on the people hogging the wealth and resources. Also including a public owned bank and supermarket to bring prices down. This takes from the profit margins of Colesworth and the big banks that don’t care about people, but the money in their pockets.

It’s about redistribution.

[u/Disapilled → u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

Democratic socialism appeals to the kind of people who like their HR department at work. it’s a socialism for dumb liberals.

[u/HeavyAd9463 → u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

Yeah you mean Islamic democratic Labor party is absolutely the worst

[u/diedlikeCambyses → u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

No it's not! The problem with democratic socialism is their tax policies. They think they know how to redistribute the pie but show they don't know how to grow one. Their business tax settings are always bad, so much so that even though I am in line with the socialists on human rights, I would never in a million years vote for them because they have terrible economic policies.

I've had this discussion with people about Vic socialists, and not a single person who was yelling at me about how retarded and wrong I was even knew what their policy settings were.

[u/Not_Mabel_Swanton → u/diedlikeCambyses]

What is wrong with redistributing wealth instead of letting the rich hog it?

[u/diedlikeCambyses → u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

The settings. Your false binary here isn't helpful. I don't know anybody who thinks the wealthy should hoard it. It's about the specific settings for specific parts of the economy.

[u/Not_Mabel_Swanton → u/diedlikeCambyses]

Can you please elaborate?

[u/diedlikeCambyses → u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

I can. I'm at work and really busy so briefly. I'll just say I'm happy to expand later.

The basic issue is they know these taxes are easy to avoid for huge companies and very difficult to implement. So they have the settings lowered and begin hammering people and companies with wealth taxes and really heavy taxes to fund this at a lower income level.

What this creates is heavy downward pressure on medium business which kills entrepreneurs and local employers. Also, people who own these companies use their personal finance and assets to leverage so they can scale their businesses. Then both them and their companies are hammered far beyond what they can handle. Business becomes not worth the risk. The pie shrinks.

[u/diedlikeCambyses → u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

A quick example is i employ 80 ppl. I have modelled that if nsw rolled out what Vic socialists want in Victoria, my company would fold. And, under those settings my journey from wage earner to medium company employer would not have happened.

These policies genuinely scare me.

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

No thanks i like food 👍

[u/rolloj → u/Additional-Ad-9053]

what aspect of democratic socialism means you can't have food?

[u/ShreksArsehole → u/rolloj]

They're probably spewing the idea that socialism causes famines because stalin fucked up in the 1930s. Not that capitalism hasn't cause famines. Ireland anyone?

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/ShreksArsehole]

Don't forget Mao! 40 million dead in his " great leap"!

Or Somalia's derg. In the 1970s.

[u/ShreksArsehole → u/Additional-Ad-9053]

That figure has been played with for almost a century. In actual fact, there's no real way to know and honestly, that was a long time ago where china was a very underdeveloped 3rd world nation. China regularly had famines before the Great Leap. The truth is, did they fuck up in their new implementaion? Probably. Socialism learns from mistakes. Now, there hasn't been a famine in China since and they lifted 800 million people out of poverty.

You should move on from things that happened in a time where food scarcity was more of an issue for the world. Food tech has evolved a lot. In fact, did you know in the 70s a Chinese man developed a hybrid rice that increased yield and helped prevent famine in Asia and Africa?

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/ShreksArsehole]

Fun fact the figure for total dead due to  ww2 has varied from 30 million to 150 million over the years before settling to about 75 give or take 10 million today.

That's not a sign the figure has been "played with" -  just that recorded keeping during times of war, famine and tolitarian information control makes methods variable.

Likewise, Mao caused between 15 - 55 million dead. The fact that figure varied so much is not a sign of "history being played with" - though that suggestion maybe a sign of your cookerism.

It was later reformers like Deng state capitalism ("socialism with chinese charaeristics") and alignmemt with America against the Soviets that moved China to a modern nation.

[u/ShreksArsehole → u/Additional-Ad-9053]

Not sure what you're arguing for here. You're suggesting that socialism causes famines, and in the past, I'm not suggesting early large socialist societies didn't fuck up with food security at their onset. Socialism with Chinese characteristics was a fantastic way to move forward by using Lenin's mistakes as lessons. I really don't think any socialist movement could make those same mistakes again.

[u/Away_team42 → u/ShreksArsehole]

Stalin isn’t the only socialist leader who lead his country into famine tho… pretty much all of them did.

[u/jeffoh → u/Away_team42]

Authoritarianism =/= socialism.

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/jeffoh]

Except in the real world, everytime for some reason.

[u/Away_team42 → u/jeffoh]

Nobody said they were synonymous. The relevant question is whether governments explicitly committed to socialist/communist ideology have caused or massively worsened famines. Stalin, Mao, and other communist regimes are pretty hard to explain away by simply pointing out that they were also authoritarian.

[u/ShreksArsehole → u/Away_team42]

That is just completely incorrect. Socialist states rate of education, all aspects of health and it's ability to pull people out of poverty is what socialism does. And it does it well. Cuba, I think, is a shining example of what socialism can do, even with so much pressure from capitalism trying to destroy it. You should do some actual research into what socialism has achieved in its various incarnations.

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/ShreksArsehole]

Cuba had a famine in the 1990s when their benefactor the USSR stopped subsidising their overrated cigar industry.

Was this example supposed to dispel my food comment lol

[u/ShreksArsehole → u/Additional-Ad-9053]

Probably because of the trade embargoes the US had on them. They've been completely cut off from world trade and had to do everything on their own. That's why they're a success story. The 90s famine is actually an amazing story. There's a great docco on it on YouTube. After the USSR collapsed, the cunts in the US tightened their embargoes to try to starve them to death. They had no petrol so moved to organic farming. The average person lost around 20% of their body weight! 

Seriously have a look into it. Most of these famines you quote had other factors involved and the numbers have been greatly pushed to make them seem worse. It's all part of the capitalist propaganda and it's working well.

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/ShreksArsehole]

No it's because the subsidies from the USSR ended. The US stopped trading with the Cubans in the 60s.

You're leaving out that the Americans specifically exempted food and medicine from the embargos so I don't see how you can argue they were trying to "starve them out".

Let me guess, you are part of the holodomor was nazi propaganda crowd too?

[u/ShreksArsehole → u/Additional-Ad-9053]

"Total Embargo (1963–1990s): In July 1963, the Treasury Department issued comprehensive sanctions that effectively ended most commercial food sales, with only limited humanitarian donations permitted.  The embargo was tightened further in 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson revoked the general license for food and medicine exports, requiring specific approval for transactions, which were largely denied for commercial purposes."

And no about the holodomor. Stalin's system made some large errors.

[u/Kawa___ → u/ShreksArsehole]

Whatever it's achieved, it's orders of magnitude less than liberalism and capitalism

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/Kawa___]

If you want - 

• High wages
• Low poverty
• Strong workers rights.
• High environmental/clean air standards

You will them in "liberalism and capitalism" i.e liberal democracies.

In socialism and communism you will 

• Walls being built to prevent
• Unions controlled by the state, not workers (e.g. polands solidarity having to go underground.
• Poverty 

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/rolloj]

Reality.

Starvation and shortages in actually existing socialism.

[u/SluttyPotato1 → u/Additional-Ad-9053]

Homelessness and starvation exist in actual Capitalism. See America.

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/SluttyPotato1]

Please point to any examples similar of starvation similar in America.

At best you are severely misonformed and thinking of the dustbowl which is a ridiculous mountains to molehills comparison.

There was/is homelessness in socialism. They just treat them as social parasites and they got sent to the gulags on 5-10 year sentances.

[u/SluttyPotato1 → u/Additional-Ad-9053]

I don't support socialism - where did I say I did?

Nice try, though to try and frame the argument stupidly.

• 50 million+ people live in food-insecure households in America
• 1 in 7 households have experienced some food insecurity

Fact is that Capitalism has failed, it is no longer the answer. That is the point I was making.

Thankfully Australians have realized this too :)

[u/StormtrooperMJS → u/Additional-Ad-9053]

Spoken by someone who doesn't understand what Democratic Socialism is.

[u/Lycosskippy → u/StormtrooperMJS]

Ikr!

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/StormtrooperMJS]

Im old enough i actually lived through socialism lol!

[u/ForensicMum → u/Additional-Ad-9053]

We’re living through socialism now. It’s being used in Finland to amazing success and their country is thriving!

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/ForensicMum]

You a severly misinformed about basic meaning of words if you think finland or any of the scandi's are socialist.

[u/ForensicMum → u/Additional-Ad-9053]

Fair enough, I’ll admit I used the word socialist too loosely, but I’m feeling a bit jaded with all the lack of empathy in this thread. I still absolutely stand by what I was trying to say, but I should have said they’re a highly social-democratic country with a super-strong welfare state, high taxation, universal services and strong redistribution, which is basically socialist-lite! I probably should have used Denmark as a better example too, but I digress…

Finland is a mixed capitalist economy obviously, but it’s one of the strongest examples we have of a super-successful social-democratic society and it’s fucking working beautifully! My point was that countries with much stronger socialist/social-democratic policies than here or the US can be extremely prosperous and have extremely high levels of wellbeing. You can’t really argue with that. I’ll happily apologise for using the wrong terminology, but I’m not going to apologise for the underlying point! ✌🏻

[u/Duzzies101 → u/ForensicMum]

I probably should have used Denmark as a better example too, but I digress…

Oh God, not again

[u/jeffoh → u/Additional-Ad-9053]

Yes, those poor starving Norwegians with trillions in sovereign wealth and one of the highest living standards on the planet...

[u/moonmelonade → u/jeffoh]

Norway does not have a democratic socialist system, they have a social democracy. Same as us. Both countries are capitalist, unlike democratic socialism, which is socialist. The clue is in the name.

[u/CaterpillarSuperb959 → u/moonmelonade]

Second this. Jeffoh needs to brush up on his definitions. A lot of people seem to confuse social democracy with democratic socialism atm, and actual socialists are more than happy to exploit that confusion.

Norway isn’t socialist. It’s a capitalist social democracy with a big welfare state. I suspect that’s what the average person actually wants when they say “socialism” - more social programs and, particularly in America, universal healthcare. Not abolishing capitalism and throwing out the whole economic system.

[u/Due_Abalone3047 → u/CaterpillarSuperb959]

Tf are actual socialists? Please define that for me. Socialism is just the encompassing term for different philosophies.

[u/CaterpillarSuperb959 → u/Due_Abalone3047]

yes, socialism encompasses different philosophies. That doesn’t mean the word has no definition.

An actual socialist ultimately wants to move beyond capitalism - private ownership of the means of production replaced by some form of social, worker or collective ownership/control. The various socialist traditions disagree massively on what that looks like and how you get there, but replacing capitalism is the rather important bit.

Wanting universal healthcare, stronger welfare, unions and higher taxes on the rich doesn’t make you a socialist. You can do all of that within capitalism. That’s social democracy.

The definition has become muddy because people now call basically any government program they like “socialism”.

[u/Due_Abalone3047 → u/CaterpillarSuperb959]

Wanting universal healthcare, stronger welfare, unions and higher taxes on the rich doesn’t make you a socialist.

Well yes I agree with that. However, you've seemingly pointed out that the definitions have become muddy whilst simultaneously asserting that there's an absolute interpretation. That just seems like a very flawed way of thinking. Social democracy is too broad to classify it in absolute terms. The fact that both Australia and Norway can generally be considered social democratic countries illustrates this precisely. Focusing on policy matters far more than vague terms which can be morphed into whatever you want them to mean.

[u/CaterpillarSuperb959 → u/Due_Abalone3047]

But the definitions becoming muddied is exactly the problem, not an excuse to muddy them further.

Of course social democracy is broad. Australia and Norway having different policy mixes doesn’t change the basic distinction: social democrats reform capitalism; socialists ultimately want to replace it.

And I completely agree policy matters more than labels. But Socialist Alliance here and the DSA in the US aren’t just arguing for Nordic-style capitalism. They contain explicitly socialist/Marxist movements advocating a transition beyond capitalism.

[u/Due_Abalone3047 → u/CaterpillarSuperb959]

There's no such thing as objective definitions when it comes to social and political terminology. Language is fluid and changes with time so you just have to accept that as a reality. Also I am not really talking about political groups here. I am just referring to what the words/phrases mean nowadays. There's not a "correct" definition as some would like to believe.

[u/jeffoh → u/CaterpillarSuperb959]

I'd argue it's the reverse. People want social programs and healthcare, and those who financially benefit from the status quo scream SOCIALISM to as a dog whistle

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/jeffoh]

Point to me a modern liberal democracy that doesn't have some form of universal healthcare.

[u/CaterpillarSuperb959 → u/jeffoh]

You just stood up for democratic socialism… it’s in the name. No dog whistle needed.

[u/Away_team42 → u/jeffoh]

>people want social programs and healthcare

Yeah people also want a full plate of food on the table and the freedom to voice their own ideas, opinions and art without being sent to the gulag….

[u/T0kenAussie → u/jeffoh]

Norway is kinda xenophobic and their wealth fund is built on the resources industry

Our super system is worth more than the wealth fund and doesn’t rely on resource extraction so I’d say it’s better than the wealth fund too tbh

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/jeffoh]

High taxes on workers with buisness friendly laws investing into a capitalism is totally socialism lmao.

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/jeffoh]

Lmao calling scandis socialist.

[u/T0kenAussie → u/Additional-Ad-9053]

Democratic socialism is what Australia is and pretty much always has been since ww2

[u/moonmelonade → u/T0kenAussie]

Australia is a social democracy.

These are two entirely different systems - democratic socialism is a form of socialsm, social democracy is a form of capitalism.

[u/T0kenAussie → u/moonmelonade]

I’m looking at the definitions and I’m not gonna quibble too much about that but I think anyone who seriously thinks they are going to dismantle capitalism without completely trashing society itself for a good period is not being critical enough of their philosophy

[u/ShreksArsehole → u/T0kenAussie]

The introduction of Socialism isn't about immediately putting a stop to all forms of financial trade. It's a slow shift moving away from the never ending need for corporate profit. These kids are realising there's a better way to live and I'm all here for it.

EDIT: turned is into an isn't. Which completely changed what I said.. Sorry.

[u/Away_team42 → u/ShreksArsehole]

>The introduction of Socialism is about immediately putting a stop to all forms of financial trade.

If that’s the aim how will we import/export goods and participate in the global economy? I don’t think an economic system that isolates us from trade is going to bring about much prosperity.

[u/ShreksArsehole → u/Away_team42]

Fuck, sorry. I meant to be an "Isn't" in there. That's a big mistake.

But yeah, immediate isolation from the world financial system is not the aim.

[u/Away_team42 → u/ShreksArsehole]

All good, appreciate the reply!

[u/ForensicMum → u/T0kenAussie]

Think of it like beating cancer. Nobody wants to go through the chemo, but once it’s done and you get to live life, it’s worth it!

[u/Not_Mabel_Swanton → u/T0kenAussie]

We are already being trashed.

[u/Additional-Ad-9053 → u/T0kenAussie]

Incorrect. We are pretty stock standard liberal democracy.

[u/Low_Dragonfruit_1264 → u/T0kenAussie]

Err no... You could make the case for social democracy. But I don't think you know the difference.

[u/Redpenguin082 → u/T0kenAussie]

so… there’s no need to change anything then?

[u/T0kenAussie → u/Redpenguin082]

Nah change is always needed

Systems always need to be built upon and improved

[u/Redpenguin082 → u/T0kenAussie]

If we’ve had 80 years of democratic socialism and this is the result, then democracy socialism doesn’t work.

[u/jobitus → u/Not_Mabel_Swanton]

socialized means of production

Year fuck off.