A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
Our Goals
I'd watch US shows where sometimes people would get fired on the spot in in a dramatic way and thought it was just artistic license until I realized Americans literally have no protections and can be fired at will for no reason at all. It is horrifying. What's even worse is that people celebrate this as a "fluid labor market" , as if placing people under chronic insecurity is a virtue.
I have coworkers from other countries who came to America and asked me if the contract they signed was true - that they can be fired at will.
It's incredibly embarrassing.
I wouldn't call the US developed. There is development, with the sky scrapers, mega companies and billionaires, but there are also palaces built in South Africa, North Korea and Turkmenistan. North Korea and Turkmenistan have better infrastructure than the US. But I wouldn't call insane poverty rates, insane inequality, autocracy, oligarchy, insane incarceration rates, corrupt government and legal system, institutionalized racism and still legal slavery any form of modern development.
Developed
Not civilised
Hungary also did that under Orbán, but we were told once we will have enough "national billionaires", the money will start to trickle down. When the billionaires arrived and we asked when the money will finally trickle down, we were told money is not everything, and we're acting like "spoiled children".
Lol.
We got fed so much propaganda about this country growing up. Basically North Korea Lite.
So you say, that the US has the purest capitalism while everyone else has diluted it with some soviet communism?
No, there are approximately 190 fully capitalist countries, stop whitewashing capitalism. Capitalist countries also include: Afghanistan, Burundi, South Sudan, DRC and India. Stop with this evolutionist nonsense.
America has always been behind the rest of the world. They still do slavery for fuck sake.
27 countries? Which ones?
It's kinda why these types of posts should probably be discouraged. Posts like these should have sources.
To be fair they did say they had the lowest literacy rates
I need sources.
I need sources
How dare you not to believe a random anon
The Index of Economic Freedom is created by the Heritage Foundation, which should tell you all you need to know about that as a source.
It's not socialism
Bro, it's socialism.
Some of it is national socialism, so maybe don't get too enthusiastic about how the Brits segregate out their health care services or the Germans treat unemployed immigrants or the French handle non-native speakers trying to form a union.
But all of this has socialist economic organizing at its foundation.
Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production. Social democracy refers to a capitalist market economy supplemented by welfare programs, labor protections, and public services. The two terms are not interchangeable despite frequent misuse on the internet. You are describing and advocating for social democracy not socialism.
The two terms are not interchangeable despite frequent misuse on the internet.
The systems exist on a spectrum and implementations vary heavily by region, culture, and material capacity.
You are describing and advocating for social democracy not socialism.
I'm describing nationalized health care, which is socialist in character. I'm not advocating for any system in these posts, merely warning that nationalist tenancy can lead to segregated provision of service in an economy model.
The last person I engaged with in this sub tried to convince me that slavery is perfectly legal and universally practiced throughout the United States by every state and every institution. Feel free to look through my comment history if you're curious. The man was clearly not arguing from a rational position.
As a quick summary, he was claiming that the exception clause in the 13th amendment is effectively a blanket authorization for chattel slavery. It isn't. The Constitution contains numerous other amendments that establish and protect the rights of incarcerated people, even while they are serving sentences.
That said, this can go one of two ways. I can simply tell you that you're mistaken and leave it at that, or I can go point by point explaining why, with sources and supporting evidence. I'd rather not do the latter because it's a substantial amount of work, and I don't know whether you're interested in an actual discussion or just an argument.
Socialism is not a spectrum. It is, fundamentally, the public ownership of the means of production. Nothing more and nothing less.
Universal or nationalized healthcare, by itself, is not socialism. In most countries with universal healthcare, the means of production remain privately owned. Healthcare is financed or subsidized through taxation, while private hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and medical practices continue to operate alongside the public system.
I also don't understand why people advocate for socialism specifically. It has never demonstrated a consistently successful long-term track record. Countries that have attempted to organize their economies around it have generally struggled with inefficiency, poor management, and authoritarian tendencies.
If what you actually mean is social democracy or democratic socialism, that's a different discussion. Those systems are broadly compatible with market economies while supporting robust social programs, and those are approaches I generally support.
So my question is simple: why do you support socialism specifically?
It's not actually though. you're confusing nordic welfare states for socialism, there are even variants of socialism like market socialism with none of these.
Socialism is strictly about worker owned means of production.
I find myself correcting this misconception constantly. It is alarming how many people either don't know or don't understand what socialism actually means.
People routinely label any government subsidy, welfare program, or public service that benefits the population as "socialism." That is not what the term means. In political and economic theory, socialism is fundamentally about social or public ownership of the means of production, not simply the existence of government programs.
I suspect the persistence of this misconception is a combination of confirmation bias, the Dunning–Kruger effect, and simple stubbornness.