You’ve never heard of Social Security? I personally think it’s important to highlight the fundamental pieces of government that already work using systems people could classify as “socialist”. You pay in. You get you cut. The government uses everyones money as leverage.
The context, is the current population is quite literally on the precipice of throwing out modern liberal democracy all together.
I agree, of course, there are many other components to being human in America that the government isn’t properly established to deal with. But people who already hate the idea of socialism, they should understand that America grew to what it is, what it was, in part because of those policies.
It’s also a much better story to wrap yourself in than WW2 dominance and trickle-down horse-shit, and the ever-constant reminder of failed reconstruction and native demolition. America came together once, in the darkness of the Depression, to build a foundation. The last several generations, even those that existed when these programs were established, have existed to destroy and steal and gut. But Reagan told us all it was the government’s fault, and in the golden hue of the 1980s, who the fuck needed Social Security? It was those same government programs that saved Americas cities, that built Americas roads. Many of the tracks may be gone, but they’ve all been replaced with internet cables — similarly a public enterprise.
America is not a socialist country, it’s constitution needs rewritten. But so much of what makes America what it is, what Americans understand America to be, is solely because of social liberalism. And all of these people that are voting Trump, they should understand that. Because Trump literally stands for demolishing all of it.
Ok yes. In the 1930s the United States came shockingly close to socialist revolution over the Great Depression and as such we won massive concessions that have been in the process of being eroded since the end of wwii, but especially since the 80s. Such a massive propaganda campaign combined with anti communist crackdowns happened that we basically surrendered social security and couldn’t implement universal healthcare
To say that America is “number 1” is not what I was saying, it was that at the heart of the American governmental systems lies a true socialist foundation. That’s why it’s been hammered for so long, because it’s what should have propelled America into the 21st century.
Like I’m often the defender of the American socialist tradition both on Lemmy and over in America, but I wouldn’t call it a foundation. We have deep socialist roots for sure, but they’re concessions and arguments. It’s the foundational conflict of our nation: a slave empire built on the idea that all men are created equal. It resulted in a breeding ground for anarchists and fascists.
Those concessions are important and they led to a lot of prosperity, but don’t forget that by the 50s we had McCarthy. We should’ve toppled it and showed the ussr what communism can be
Oh, you’ve never heard of the The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? As you can see from the name, they’re definitely democratic.
The US social security is a bad joke compared to other developed nations.
To say “USA has been championing socialist policies for 100 years” is on the same level as saying “China has been championing personal freedom for 100 years”.
The US doesn’t even have direct presidential elections, which by the standard of developed democratic nations is extremely weird.
There’s a lot there I don’t need to comment on. I’m challenging you on your “America has been championing socialist policies for 100 years” comment.
Compared to European social security and labour laws, US socialist policies and labour laws are pretty much on the level of developing nations — if that.
Are you honestly trying to use public roads as an example of “having championed socialist policies”? Not exactly the most novel or progressive policy, I would say.
I also said a century. I mean when was Social Security setup in your country? I don’t think you understand the ideological war being fought in America.
I mean when was Social Security setup in your country?
So nothing I showed matters, the Red Scare doesn’t matter, the current situation doesn’t matter, you ignore (willfully) literally everything that proves your sentence to be insanely inaccurate and very ironic.
Most actual paying social security systems started right around WWII. Do you think your “championed for a century” will be correct with the first US social security starting in 1940?
In the last years of the nineteenth century, Finnish social policy had as its goal the lessening of class friction. The few existing pieces of social legislation addressed the needs of specific groups rather than of society as a whole.
According to the Finnish sociologist Erik Allardt, the hallmark of the Nordic welfare systems is their comprehensiveness. Unlike the welfare systems of the United States or most West European countries, those of the Nordic countries cover the entire population, and they are not limited to those groups unable to care for themselves.
We don’t have people (who are employed even) shitting on the streets. We have guaranteed maternity leaves, limitless sick days.
Just how brainwashed or ignorant does one need to be to say the US was more a “champion of socialist policies” than the Nordics…?
In 1906, the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, which later became the Republic of Finland, was the first country in the world to give all women and all men both the right to vote and the right to run for office. Finland was also the first country in Europe to give women the right to vote.[5][6] The world’s first female members of parliament were elected in Finland the following year.
You still had segregation less than 61 years ago. And still don’t have the labour laws that are considered utterly basic in most developed nations.
I do understand the ideological war fought in America, because I exist on the internet and a significant portion of it deals with US politics.
The only reason we’re speaking English now is because you only know English. Ie I know more than you and are accommodating your level of knowledge and trying to get you to improve it.
Literal strawman nonsense, look at this man go. I think you should understand that America is attempting to erode a woman’s right to vote. That’s what I’m saying. That all these people that think America should continue down the path of abandoning modern democracy should look into Americas past and understand the points in time in which it has championed for rights.
Thats the way you use that word. You’re literally admitting you’re ESL and can’t use English as well as I can. You’ve built a massive strawman on this simple fact. Other commentors can see my point. You can’t. Sorry.
Like I actually can’t believe you’ve built this massive of a strawman, it’s incredible. All because you don’t know the definition of a word. That’s literally all you go back to, as well. Nothing else I say matters. You just masturbate to your strawman, Mr Fin.
ESL? No, that’s “English as a second language”. Mine is technically third. My English is better than 60% native speakers (a large 60min test by a professional). And that counts countries which aren’t on the level of developing nations when it comes to literacy figures
America is attempting to erode a woman’s right to vote.
America has been championing socialist policies for 100 years.
So which one do you believe in this one?
It’s quite hilarious how often I end up teaching Americans English. While this is my third language, I’m fairly sure I’ve used it longer, more and in more academic contexts than you have. That’s why I don’t make up meanings for words when someone proves me wrong.
champion
verb
vigorously support or defend the cause of.
“he championed the rights of the working class and the poor”
Once I answered your arse-ignorant “well when did your country” bullshit you got shaken and started shifting your asinine goalposts. The US has never CHAMPIONED socialist policies, let alone even using them. Still don’t.
It’s incredibly ironic how you think saying “you got the wrong definition” will work, and how “other commentors can see”. Yes, they can. They will be able to even check the definition (which I’ve linked btw, but you ofc haven’t, as your definition of the word is made up) and see that “champion” doesn’t exactly mean what you pretend it does. :)
Even if you forgo the most used definitions, and try to find a niche one that’s even remotely similar to how you’re using it…? Nah. The closest ones still will have at least “enthusiastic” in them. The way you use it to say “America has been championing socialist policy for 100 years” is incorrect.
America has been actively suppressing socialist policies, socialist movements and even socialist countries. These are facts.
So I don’t know what “English” you’re using, but here in the real world “champion” doesn’t mean “actively fighting against”.
“Mr. Fin”
See you can’t even write Finn, which is the demonym for a Finnish person. You use the noun which means a literal fin. Like those things fish have. :D
“championing socialist policy”
If it wasn’t so worrying that people like you exist, it’d be kinda hilarious.
You’ve never heard of Social Security? I personally think it’s important to highlight the fundamental pieces of government that already work using systems people could classify as “socialist”. You pay in. You get you cut. The government uses everyones money as leverage.
The context, is the current population is quite literally on the precipice of throwing out modern liberal democracy all together.
I agree, of course, there are many other components to being human in America that the government isn’t properly established to deal with. But people who already hate the idea of socialism, they should understand that America grew to what it is, what it was, in part because of those policies.
It’s also a much better story to wrap yourself in than WW2 dominance and trickle-down horse-shit, and the ever-constant reminder of failed reconstruction and native demolition. America came together once, in the darkness of the Depression, to build a foundation. The last several generations, even those that existed when these programs were established, have existed to destroy and steal and gut. But Reagan told us all it was the government’s fault, and in the golden hue of the 1980s, who the fuck needed Social Security? It was those same government programs that saved Americas cities, that built Americas roads. Many of the tracks may be gone, but they’ve all been replaced with internet cables — similarly a public enterprise.
America is not a socialist country, it’s constitution needs rewritten. But so much of what makes America what it is, what Americans understand America to be, is solely because of social liberalism. And all of these people that are voting Trump, they should understand that. Because Trump literally stands for demolishing all of it.
Ok yes. In the 1930s the United States came shockingly close to socialist revolution over the Great Depression and as such we won massive concessions that have been in the process of being eroded since the end of wwii, but especially since the 80s. Such a massive propaganda campaign combined with anti communist crackdowns happened that we basically surrendered social security and couldn’t implement universal healthcare
See this guy understands what I’m saying.
To say that America is “number 1” is not what I was saying, it was that at the heart of the American governmental systems lies a true socialist foundation. That’s why it’s been hammered for so long, because it’s what should have propelled America into the 21st century.
Like I’m often the defender of the American socialist tradition both on Lemmy and over in America, but I wouldn’t call it a foundation. We have deep socialist roots for sure, but they’re concessions and arguments. It’s the foundational conflict of our nation: a slave empire built on the idea that all men are created equal. It resulted in a breeding ground for anarchists and fascists.
Those concessions are important and they led to a lot of prosperity, but don’t forget that by the 50s we had McCarthy. We should’ve toppled it and showed the ussr what communism can be
Oh, you’ve never heard of the The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? As you can see from the name, they’re definitely democratic.
The US social security is a bad joke compared to other developed nations.
To say “USA has been championing socialist policies for 100 years” is on the same level as saying “China has been championing personal freedom for 100 years”.
The US doesn’t even have direct presidential elections, which by the standard of developed democratic nations is extremely weird.
There’s a lot there I don’t need to comment on. I’m challenging you on your “America has been championing socialist policies for 100 years” comment.
Compared to European social security and labour laws, US socialist policies and labour laws are pretty much on the level of developing nations — if that.
Case in point; Among 41 countries, only U.S. lacks paid parental leave
Are you honestly trying to use public roads as an example of “having championed socialist policies”? Not exactly the most novel or progressive policy, I would say.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-paradigm-shift-in-social-policy-how-finland-conquered-homelessness-a-ba1a531e-8129-4c71-94fc-7268c5b109d9
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - Homelessness
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-benefits-are-modest
You have people who are employed full time, some even in two jobs, who still have to live and shit on the street.
“Championing socialist policies” lol
I also said a century. I mean when was Social Security setup in your country? I don’t think you understand the ideological war being fought in America.
So nothing I showed matters, the Red Scare doesn’t matter, the current situation doesn’t matter, you ignore (willfully) literally everything that proves your sentence to be insanely inaccurate and very ironic.
Most actual paying social security systems started right around WWII. Do you think your “championed for a century” will be correct with the first US social security starting in 1940?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_Finland
We don’t have people (who are employed even) shitting on the streets. We have guaranteed maternity leaves, limitless sick days.
Just how brainwashed or ignorant does one need to be to say the US was more a “champion of socialist policies” than the Nordics…?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage#:~:text=In 1906%2C the autonomous Grand,women the right to vote.
You still had segregation less than 61 years ago. And still don’t have the labour laws that are considered utterly basic in most developed nations.
I do understand the ideological war fought in America, because I exist on the internet and a significant portion of it deals with US politics.
The only reason we’re speaking English now is because you only know English. Ie I know more than you and are accommodating your level of knowledge and trying to get you to improve it.
Literal strawman nonsense, look at this man go. I think you should understand that America is attempting to erode a woman’s right to vote. That’s what I’m saying. That all these people that think America should continue down the path of abandoning modern democracy should look into Americas past and understand the points in time in which it has championed for rights.
Thats the way you use that word. You’re literally admitting you’re ESL and can’t use English as well as I can. You’ve built a massive strawman on this simple fact. Other commentors can see my point. You can’t. Sorry.
Like I actually can’t believe you’ve built this massive of a strawman, it’s incredible. All because you don’t know the definition of a word. That’s literally all you go back to, as well. Nothing else I say matters. You just masturbate to your strawman, Mr Fin.
You don’t understand what a strawman argument is.
ESL? No, that’s “English as a second language”. Mine is technically third. My English is better than 60% native speakers (a large 60min test by a professional). And that counts countries which aren’t on the level of developing nations when it comes to literacy figures
So which one do you believe in this one?
It’s quite hilarious how often I end up teaching Americans English. While this is my third language, I’m fairly sure I’ve used it longer, more and in more academic contexts than you have. That’s why I don’t make up meanings for words when someone proves me wrong.
Once I answered your arse-ignorant “well when did your country” bullshit you got shaken and started shifting your asinine goalposts. The US has never CHAMPIONED socialist policies, let alone even using them. Still don’t.
It’s incredibly ironic how you think saying “you got the wrong definition” will work, and how “other commentors can see”. Yes, they can. They will be able to even check the definition (which I’ve linked btw, but you ofc haven’t, as your definition of the word is made up) and see that “champion” doesn’t exactly mean what you pretend it does. :)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/champion
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/champion
Even if you forgo the most used definitions, and try to find a niche one that’s even remotely similar to how you’re using it…? Nah. The closest ones still will have at least “enthusiastic” in them. The way you use it to say “America has been championing socialist policy for 100 years” is incorrect.
America has been actively suppressing socialist policies, socialist movements and even socialist countries. These are facts.
So I don’t know what “English” you’re using, but here in the real world “champion” doesn’t mean “actively fighting against”.
“Mr. Fin”
See you can’t even write Finn, which is the demonym for a Finnish person. You use the noun which means a literal fin. Like those things fish have. :D
“championing socialist policy”
If it wasn’t so worrying that people like you exist, it’d be kinda hilarious.