nifty

Because I think the people who criticize the nordic model are simply biased towards achieving an outcome where the workers seize the means of production. That’s why, to them, anything else is wrong, or simply an untenable solution. I am saying that their point of view is not only incorrect, but also lacks insight outside of their own way of thinking.

The Nordic model, but authoritarian people only care about winning, not solutions.

Edit lol @ downvoters constantly butthurt that their Marxist pov is challenged

Dont care if this is fake, just feel like floating some ideas in case someone fr is stuck like this.

— try volunteering with online-only things which don’t require social interaction, like maintaining a code base, maintaining a wiki (on a topic of your choice), doing translation/digitizing or other services for a library.

— do work via Amazon mechanical Turks or similar services.

— read about how to self-care for autistic personalities, or people with neurodivergent traits. Just read everything you can find on the topic.

— volunteer for non-invasive research with universities, like answering psych questions. You’ll get some pocket change. I’d advise against volunteering for clinical stuff where you inject stuff into your body or take pills, it’s too risky.

— join an online dnd group, or other game group.

— don’t talk to people about being vulnerable or lonely, unless you can tell the difference between predators (who prey on lonely people) and normal people.

— get a certification in something, whatever you like. Doesn’t have to be programming or coding related. At least start learning for it, and preparing for it in some way. Don’t spend money on training materials till you know what you want for real. If you don’t have money for training materials, do a gofundme.

— volunteer at your local library, or national parks service to clean up trails.

— volunteer with your local church or food bank or homeless shelter.

— I cannot stress this enough, don’t open to strangers you don’t know/trust unless you’re sure they’re not a predator. Emotionally vulnerable people are like moths to a flame for such people. Read about the signs of narcissistic or cult-like influencer personalities.

And idk what else, but I’ll leave it here. Don’t know if the above would work for everyone, and I am open to corrections

Disagree, but I propose this: the universe is infinite, maybe then we should just have a planet where the socioeconomic system is capitalist, and another one where the socioeconomic system is communist/marxist. I don’t care about winning or being right. I want to live freely, and I want that for others as well.

Better nations on Earth already use what’s known as the Nordic model to help offset the adverse effects of capitalism. Cue (and queue) people who’ll say that “that only works because the ‘imperialists’ exploit the global south”. So again, let’s just make it easier for people who don’t want to live in a world like that.

DEI is for all identities, not just POC. Creating more process is part of the the CIA field manual for fighting fascists, hence the question, are more bureaucratic jobs being created in some misguided attempt to “fight US imperialism”?

I am asking these questions because we already have EO laws and ADA policies. We also have anti-harassment policies. What does DEI add that’s new other than create more bureaucratic jobs?

From my perspective, DEI just creates divisions between groups by splitting people into distinct identities.

Please stop. I literally made this thread a while back

https://lemmy.world/post/15392191

I believe in people getting opportunities. What I don’t like are thought police, or thought correction officers.

Left authoritarianism is still authoritarianism.

I also don’t take it for granted that someone talking about “empathy” or “compassion” necessarily doesn’t have ulterior motives.

So riddle me this, why is it hard to believe that DEI type policies could be plot by some organization or country against the U.S. when there’s literally a field manual which says that such policies should be used against “fascists”. People on Lemmy call the U.S. imperialist all the time.

“To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions. Discriminate against efficient workers; complain unjustly about their work.”

So is this why DEI exists?

It’s a little silly equating one (albeit learned and genius) guy’s opinion as something which will work across the board for everyone, everywhere. There’s nothing democratic about socialism, just as there’s nothing democratic about the unregulated and oligarchic capitalism we have today.

At a very simple and human level, there are a number of explanations for why some elites and intellectuals gravitate towards socialism, this has been discussed to death in many places, but here’s an accessible article.

https://iea.org.uk/why-intellectuals-are-so-upset-by-the-injustices-of-capitalism/

To add some economist perspectives, here’s another article

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/free-market-or-socialism-have-economists-really-anything-to-say

What I find interesting from the above article is that China currently does very efficient market socialism, which tbh if the U.S. was to implement would make the U.S. a more powerful economic force to contend with. The caveat will be that U.S. citizens will no longer have the right to means to production, or land ownership. Such systems have no respect for individual liberties. The relative rate of poverty and inequality in the U.S. does not merit this kind of shift versus what it sacrifices.

The only countries which have issues with capitalism are the economic loser countries. Here’s the problem though, there are so many examples of countries which could have been economic losers, but instead turned it around for them because those countries had good sense and controlled their levels of corruption. The only people in countries who have problems with capitalism are the economic losers. The best way to correct those woes is through taxation and social programs, not a forced or authoritarian formula of break-shit-and-take-shit.

Edit I won’t respond to any comments to my post, I just don’t have the time to poke at this today lol, but don’t take my no response as a signal of agreement, just saying

/lazyposting

I can’t take anything you’re saying seriously because it’s just delusional, I am sorry.

Why do I say what you’re saying is delusional. Look, you’re opining about some made up thing I said (btw, I said 50% as a rough figure looking at the color bar, it’s 45.8%), but you’re neglecting that the many, many capitalists nations have MUCH LESS POOR PEOPLE PER CAPITA than China. So what exactly am I supposed to do, take their way of governance as something to aspire to? No, thank you. I am not anti-social and I hope better for others.

Stalin’s USSR proved that elitism and greed infects all economic tools and social ideologies. We also see this in China because no one is effectively allowed to own their home, the land is leased by the government. So consider this, if socialists like Stalin care so much about people, and the CPP is the modern equivalent of an anti-capitalist (not pure socialist) state, then what do you do with the 45.8% people making $10 per day (the US is at a hellish 2.2%). Why hasn’t China fixed their poverty by now?

In Stalins USSR, why were there bread lines for the common folk while their leaders had caviar and chocolate.** I am sure that’s because they weren’t “real” socialists, and I am sure you’ll do better!

Let’s also remember, that Stalin stole properties from the gentry, and made them mixed housing, but he and his family still lived in mansions. These are historical facts, just because you don’t like the people who say them doesn’t erase them from existence or history.

https://hum54-15.omeka.fas.harvard.edu/exhibits/show/russian_dacha/joseph-stalin-s-dacha--the-ric

I also find it hilarious that communists will preach socialism to those who reside in capitalist countries, completely neglecting that converting to Stalin or China type socialism will make the average American poorer because at least 60% of Americans actually own their own property, the land is not leased. So power to the minority 40% or 2.2% making less than $10 per day? The revolution surely will be great for the majority!

I am not saying there aren’t things to fix, I just find the communists and socialists arguing with such passion and zeal and sophistry to be inherently disingenuous because the facts show that they’re only interested in enriching themselves, so they mobilize people instead of armies to achieve that goal.

Wealth per citizen by country, fyi: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

Some leaders of a country indeed do not have its best interests in mind because they’re self-interested. This is why it helps to have an educated public, and a democratic system of governance. When I look at all the countries subjugated by imperialists, I notice that each one of them has its own reasons for failing and succeeding, that’s all I am saying. It’s easy to distract your citizens by saying that all your problems are the fault of those greedy capitalists.

It is not questionable that Socialism was better for the Soviets than Tsarism or Capitalism. This is an established fact, as life expectancy doubled, literacy rates over tripled to over 99% (more than any western country), science and technology dramatically improved, wealth disparity lowered and total wealth raised dramatically. The return of Capitalism caused 7 million excess deaths.

You’re whitewashing history. Yes, when you go from relatively less to relatively more, you’ll experience improvements like life expectancy and child height. But that doesn’t mean anything when compared to the bigger picture of a failing and disingenuous social and economic model. There have been many analyses on the quality of life under the Soviet Union, and I’ll specifically mention only these sources since you’re so intent on painting a picture of harmony and glory

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/myths-about-the-soviet-union-inequality-poverty-and-quality-of-life/

https://www.adamsmith.org/research/back-in-the-ussr

https://www.ranker.com/list/life-in-the-soviet-union/kellen-perry

I am not interested in “winning” for one economic tool or another. What I don’t like is someone pretending the bad stuff didn’t happen, or blaming all the bad stuff on someone else. It’s childish and disingenuous.

As for the idea that “individualism” is punished in Socialism, the reality is that individualism can better flourish under it. There is no need to have Capitalists dictate production and exchange, rather than the whole of society. I think it would benefit you greatly to read some basic theory and history of AES countries if you want to bat against them in service of something else.

No, this is just rose glasses idealism and isn’t backed by any facts or history. What is backed by facts is that humans are greedy, self-interested and self-preserving in any scenario.

From a source (linked below):

As the 1990s progressed, the Stalinist period and the first half of the twentieth century in general increasingly retained the attention of scholars interested in the Soviet Union. Everyday Soviet life was seen as a history of repression, rationing, privation, famine, “survival strategies,” control, and social stratification. It was intimately tied to the campaign for Soviet culturedness (kul’turnost’), meaning the inculcation of proper manners and taste, which began in the second half of the 1930s. In these years, the regime recognized the legitimacy of consumption, notably through slogans proclaiming that life “became better and gayer” with the introduction of luxury consumer goods (Soviet champagne, caviar, chocolate, perfume, etc.), which were nonetheless accessible only to groups that the regime considered privileged.

Indeed, the distribution of objects as rewards was central to the social policies of Communist countries. Following the October Revolution, the distribution of noble and bourgeois property among workers and Bolshevik leaders at all levels, which was part of an urban campaign for housing redistribution, lent concrete meaning to the reversal of social hierarchies and confirmed the right of the neediest citizens to oppress those who were once the most privileged within the latter’s own apartments, which were now transformed into communal residences.

https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_ANNA_682_0305?lang=en

One more for reference:

Soviet beggars found themselves in an ambivalent situation. The authorities wanted to exclude them from the future Communist society, but, incapable of solving the begging problem, they simply concealed it from the 1930s until the mid-1950s so as not to contradict the USSR’s image as a prosperous state —even as they made it impossible to devise any form of welfare policy towards them. The launch of a program aimed at solving the begging problem in the second half of the 1950s led to a debate in the press, which exposed the contradictions between the official discourse and social reality.

The Nordic model isn’t a socialism model which works for socialism purists, but it makes the most sense for those who don’t want to be subjected to oppression from one source or another.