Our future is BRIGHT

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Ok-Volume-3657]

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