this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2023
-1 points (33.3% liked)

World News

31475 readers
729 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

NATO members in general are too comfortable relying too much much on the U.S. defense umbrella. It is something the U.S. has been warning NATO members about for a long time. It’s meant to be a collective defense. What’s happening in Ukraine should be a loud wakeup call.

I'm fine with NATO members relying on the US defense budget as long as they spend their money on socialist programs at home. The US could provide the best socialist safety net on the planet, and still outspend the rest of the world 40:1 on defense if it would just tax the rich. Tax capitol gains like income as well, and 80% tax on everything over 20 million a year, 95% tax on everything over 200 million a year, and 99% tax on everything over 1 billion a year.

Boom now we can do the best socialized medicine on the plan and have enough left over to build a couple hundred new NATO bases where ever member states want them.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Welfare programs in capitalist countries are not socialism. "Socialism program" would be collectivisiation of the means of production.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Welfare programs in capitalist countries can be socialism.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, by definition they aren't. You added the "-ism" incorrectly, you should stop at "social programs".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You seem to have a pretty narrow definition of socialism. I think most people would not use the term as narrow as you do no matter what quoted text you are about to post in response.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh? Share yours then so we can compare.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From simple Wikipedia: "Socialism is a political ideology that aims to make people equal. It generally focuses on equality of wealth (eg. similar wages, housing, education, healthcare), although since the 1960s, it has often focused on equality of power. It is normally considered left-wing, because it seeks to change society."

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

??? You seem to have not only weird definition of socialism, because it's totally not it, but even different wikipedia. Here's what it says, in the very beginning (your definition is nowhere there):

Social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. Which is basically as broad definition as possible, everything left of succdems fit right in.

For the lulz, i searched for your definition, and it had only a single result, here. Specifically, a comment down below:

Concluding, i guess it must be true, since the well known socialist theoretician BAD BOY BUBBY said so /s