It's the bully who constantly has to tell everyone how great they are and acts like an asshole tworads everyone while they're actually very mentally broken, scared, dumb etc.
But I think the only and actual problem is education. The rest are just consequence. It's not for nothing than when the rest of the world thinks about an american, they see a fat dumbass bigot idiot. I know a lot of people are not like that, but it does not matter. As a country, this is how everybody sees you.
And for once, fix the root cause of the problem, not the symptoms.
I'd argue even with education, your defacto two party system still prevents true change/progress. Not sure if better education would be enough to change this.
The two party system worked for a long time because both sides were committed to the idea that a functional government was a good thing.
A multiple party system didn't save Germany from Fascists. When enough citizens decide their fellow citizens are the problem decent government becomes impossible.
a UNIPARTY, the gop and dinos are a coalition. not even a true 2 party system. DInos are allowed to throw people a bone once in a while so they dont form an uprising or take over the party
I think the education is a symptom of a deeper problem still, and that is corporate entities owning significant parts of the governing process, through lobbying, campaign financing and a rotating door of government positions and coproate advisers.
They want an uneducated population, because that is how they get a greater and greater share of the say in what the government does each election cycle. Getting Citizens United through was one of the worst they accomplished in recent years, but it won’t end there.
Oh yes, but I still think this is only possible because people are uneducated. Then, sure, it becomes a feedback loop. I have no idea how to fix USA and I think at that point it is beyond repair.
Even within free market logic free healthcare just makes sense. It enables people to more comfortably quit their job to start a business or take any better job. It also allows people more freedom to choose medical professionals based on their merits rather than on who their insurer says they can use.
The stupid thing is that even this isn't necessarily the case. Even in countries that have public healthcare, there are still private options for those who want "fancier" care. The true statement is that they would only be able to rip off the wealthy, instead of everyone in the country.
The problem is there's a false scarcity. Healthcare is expensive for people in the US right now, so the idea of paying for someone else's healthcare via universal healthcare doesn't sound like a good thing, it sounds like taking the money you need for your healthcare to pay for someone else's.
It's NOT like that, but people have it in their heads that it is. And it's very hard to change a made up mind when there are people rallying against it to protect their own private interests.
Oh no I totally agree with you. Not saying it justifies it or even that the math makes sense, but it feels that a lot of times when you have people who dissent against universal healthcare the reason I stated is why.
I can’t fathom how anyone is against free healthcare
"We CaN'T aFfOrD iT! wE wIlL rUn OuT oF mOnEy!"
Every fucking time it's suggested. Every fucking time, you get some clown screaming about how it costs too much and it will bankrupt the country and how health care will go away if you try to federalize it.
And under this government? Maybe they're right. Maybe American business leadership would just rip the wires out of the walls anyways. Look at what UK politicians have done to the NHS, ffs.
It's very possible that Americans don't have access to health care because we are simply too greedy and cruel and stupid as a population to value it above carpet bombing the Global South.
Because to them, the fight against the Others is so profoundly tied to their core identity that they would choose a rapacious trillionaire or low rent pedophile mob boss to lead them despite OVERWHELMING evidence either would gladly see them dead for a nickel.
Anyone not of their inner circle (church, Trump worship, family of they accede to the previous conditions) are the enemy. And they don't deserve even basic human rights. Unless they're a zygote/fetus, in which case they get a pass until birth.
Also not American. You don't think there's a perception that American is the greatest country in the West? It comes off thick with a lot of topics even discussed on the fediverse.
A good clip that I enjoy watching every now and then https://youtu.be/wTjMqda19wk
I'm sure many Americans would crow about these more positive things if they could but think about those posts that unironically brag about how "X about to find out why Americans don't have healthcare" while showing a picture of an airborne orphan crusher, or something.
It's all part of their true grit machismo, like hell yeah most brutal capitalist hellscape imaginable, if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. Honestly they revel in it.
You dont know this but some Americans are profoundly stupid. By some I mean more than any body can manage.
So just because you dont ride in those circles, dont think for a moment american exceptionalism isnt some sort of self defeating pride that will soon have my country on its knees.
Honestly FOX News might be the organization, which helped the term "socialism" the most in the US. When you call every good policy "socialist" then people wanting that will call themself that.
It's the abuse of the system, the tax hikes, the standard of care given vs the biased care we can exploit now and the amount of productivity lost is bad for the US. Why? Idfk, that's just what they tell us.
So I guess the only thing we can do is try to cha ge at least one of them.
Remember Obamacare? The socialized healthcare system where everyone had health insurance? We should go back to that.
and the amount of productivity lost is bad for the US. Why? Idfk, that’s just what they tell us.
The US would not loose productivity at all. For any health care system it is cheaper to prevent somebody from getting sick, then to pay for the treatment. So countries with such systems have good reason to have strong environmental and food regulation for example. Hence people are less sick and can therefore work.
The US has pretty decent/good air quality compared to a lot of countries both developed and under developed. At least we don't have to deal with what India, China or Brazil have to deal with when it comes to air quality. I mean it's not the greatest there's still people who live with air purifiers because of pollutants, toxins and generalized pollen but you can leave your house in every single state at any given time without choking or needing PPE.
Food could be better. Food here could be a lot better but you know what it is. It's the sickening supply and demand. Think about it we get year round produce because we ship it in. There's an Asian market that's near me and a (half dead) stop and shop 2 blocks from it. The Asian market has in-season only produce and has an on site butcher. A lot of other countries I hear do the same as the Asian market and I still have no idea if it's true but we have hydroponically grown food in the off-season.
The only areas in the US that actually rely on local produce are areas that have produce that they're known for. Like Georgia Peaches, Maine Blueberries and Massachusetts/New York Mcintosh Apples and then those areas are all tourist and rely on tourism. The FDA Doesn't give a fuck about our meat as much as we'd like to think, I mean our chicken wings can still have feathers and there's known low quality butchers. Our beef supply is being cut like there's no one even inspecting the fat vs lean meat ratio and everything that's lean has a lower shelf life because its more, "fresh," (after it's been treated) and the odds of a grass-fed cut of meat smelling like fish is higher than a non grass-fed cut of meat which are usually starting to gray and those are unless you go to a good quality butcher BUT THEN you face a sourcing issue which they're all known to get their meat from Costco or BJ's.
Pork is absolute trash in this country, I've been trying to stay away from pork.
Nah, been going on probably before the banana republics. Soon as the people of the banana republic fought back, the American capitalist would cry socialism, then the American army would come and squash the uprising. Hey Mr. tally man tally me banana.
Europe doesn't have socialism. This list is not even close to good. Europe is like, behind what I want. I want socialism. I want to nationalize big tech. Europe wants no part in nationalizing their tech. I don't want mandatory PTO, I want a union and representation and a funded pension. I want publicly ran and funded groceries and hospitals, not just universal health insurance. I'm a former libertarian and I want these things btw. It's not hard to convince a libertarian to be socialist. Europe is too capitalist for me.
Also 'developed' and 'non-developed' is modern colonial language. The original post reeks of liberalism. Not against you OP, I just hate looking to Europe for the future of America. America has fundamental issues that make it not really suited for european capitalism, but if the DSA has their way in the next decade or two we might have some good socialism in the US.
The modern use of the word Socialism means having significant publicly funded institutions. When people say they want socialism they mean they want more of it, because most likely they already have lots of publicly funded institutions - like police and fire protection, public libraries, unemployment compensation.... What they want is more, and Europe has more than the US.
Developed and non-developed are economics terms for different degrees of industrialization and overall wealth. they're not "colonial" language.
I agree and also would note that "developed" is the current, more sensitive term which specifically seeks to avoid unfair judgement in favor of a term that looks at metrics that measure general well being. You cannot tell me it's racist to acknowledge and want to improve the quality of life for billions of people who needlessly suffer disease, death, and other miserable preventable (with resources/education) situations.
Socialism is impossible. It cannot exist with a species like ours that is hardwired for greediness and self-preservation.
At the end of the day, too many people will look at socialism and see "this is bullshit, why should insert marginalised/oppressed minority get that when insert marginalised/oppressed minority that person identifies with gets less. Or just happen to be staunchly opposed to a population protected by the socialist system.
It's idealist. And I fucking hate capitalism. But at the end of the day the very best we can really hope for is capitalism with strong, firmly enforced and well thought out regulations.
We will get neither just so we are clear. But it's the best possible type of system in my mind.
You've convinced me. I will stop wanting socialism now. It can never happen. I accept the liberal order. Capitalism is a force of good. I will no longer vote for the democratic socialists. I will vote for the liberal establishment. I will be acting like a good citizen of western democracy. Yes this is good. Capitalism is the best humanity can do. It will never achieve anything better. If humanity were to exist for another 10,000 years, they will still be doing capitalism because we did it: We achieved the best we can ever do with capitalism and strong regulations.
You think idealism is bad, yet you believe "at the end of the day the very best we can really hope for is capitalism with strong, firmly enforced and well thought out regulations."
That is idealism. Capitalism will continue to kill people in other countries while you vacation every summer. Capitalism is good for you so you want it to continue. I'm sorry, but I can't live my life that way. You can, and good for you for that—I envy it. You need to learn that you have to pay more in taxes so people you don't see every day don't suffer. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink.
Is this an invitation to share more of my reasoning on why I think socialism is impossible? Or was there a circular argument that you heard in what I said?
So if I'm understanding you correctly, a constrained capitalism is idealism (fair) and somehow the farther left side of that is more realistic (absurd)?
If anything you're making my point for me.
You want to paint me as some defender of capitalism or accepting of it because of my creature comforts.....fill your boots, you don't know me. But at least get your logic in check.
Any government is possible. You do not know american history, or human history, enough or how the government works. If America continues after Donald Trump, then it will be something completely different than what it looked like before him. More and more Democratic Socialists are getting elected. Socialism is more and more likely the more socialists americans elect. My state house of representatives in Kentucky got one more. Times may be changing.
Your view of humans is wrong btw. You may be projecting.
Are you conflating democratic socialism with full blown socialism? That is most certainly not true socialism.
Evidence in my favor includes the Nordic countries, having a very firmly capitalist society with strong welfare policies. They blow the west out of the water on social outcomes.
But that's not socialism. That's exactly what I'm advocating for.
So do you think the Nordic countries are still too capitalist, or do you actually mean to argue that they're an example to follow? I guess it has to be the first?
Democratic socialism is not social democracy. The nordic model is social democracy (european capitalism I call it). Democratic socialism is socialism, the thing I keep saying I want.
Europe is capitalist, I want socialism. Europe, as a whole, is too right wing and not anti capitalist, pro socialist, and leftist enough for me. I want america to be more socialist than capitalist europe. I do not care about Europe's future politically or their choices. I am more than happy to take what works for them, but I won't base that idea off of a meme. I don't think capitalism works for everyone in this world, and I'm not okay with it working for just a few. I am willing to be taxed higher, and I am okay with you being taxed higher, to achieve a system that lets the US coincide with the rest of the world without killing people. This means European capitalism (social democracy) is not enough for me.
I don't care about the west. 'The west' is a mythological culture that doesn't exist. Anyone who uses 'the west' with me will be met with a blank stare unless you closely define what that means, because I don't believe anyone actually knows what that is. Democracy on its own accord is insufficient to establish pluralism, universalism, and cosmopolitanism. It needs socialism to achieve that. No amount of capitalistic regulation is going to bring in a multi-cultural state that treats every worker equally. Capitalism cannot treat its workers well. This is a fact. Capitalists may have offices in your 'western' countries that have high quality of life, but the actual bottom-tier laborers are in other places that don't have such high living standards, and capitalists in the west like this arrangement.
It cannot exist with a species like ours that is hardwired for greediness and self-preservation.
In general this is a myth, being a self interested economic agent is something we're trained to conform to, not something we do instinctually. Which isn't to say we are naturally suited for large scale cooperation, but what the Hobbesian perspective misses is that whatever behavior you're assuming is human nature has a context, and that context could be made very different.
That's a pretty interesting point and totally fair. I would like to think we would do better in a different context. My problem is the context for us I (mostly) believe to be inevitable.
If I'm hard-wired for greed and self-preservation, why do I let people go ahead of me in traffic? Why do I give money to beggars? Why do I vote for people who will raise taxes on me?
And why do so many other people do these things? If they are hardwired for greed and self preservation? Are they not human?
Our intelligence allows us to override our base instincts.
The hardware is self preservation and greed. You raise a human in the wild with no social connection what will you get? A cooperative person? Lol. No.
So many of you are so confident in your assertion that humans are cooperative by nature. That is laughable. We cooperate because we are smart enough (some of us) to figure out that cooperation is the best path forward. Take all the external factors out, introduce some danger and you'll see just how cooperative we are......
I disagree with your entire assertion, because there have been plenty of studies done that do not support it.
Humans are a social species by nature. We help each other on an instinctual level. We evolved that way, because it happened to be more effective for survival.
The people who behave in the way you describe, helping others only when it benefits them, are called sociopaths. They are unusual, and not the majority. Indeed, one of the ways in which they exploit us for their own gain is that normal humans feel good when they help someone.
Perhaps you do not feel this. Perhaps you have a bit of sociopathy. This does not necessarily condemn you, btw, most sociopaths do not become monsters, due to the benefits of cooperation that you describe.
I simply mention it because it may explain why you believe something which is inaccurate.
Lol.....man oh man that's quite the passive aggressive "you might be wrong cause you're fucked up"
You do realize that "feeling good" being altruistic is a selfish reason to do it. That is the benefit. Feeling good is a reward. You are literally describing doing something in order to get a positive reward which you then described as sociopathic. Just because the reward is "feeling good" doesn't make it any different. Are you a sociopath?
Obviously humans are a social species. The social part is only as functional as the social circle around it. You put a bunch of total strangers in an urgent life or death situation, do you really believe there will be any altrusim? Really? Come on now.......
We can absolutely be altruistic. The context is everything. What you would do with total strangers, high stakes and complete anonymity is what I'm talking about. Anything besides that and you have social factors influencing the picture, even if it's just about feeling good.
If you exclude the essential social nature of a human from your scenario, and somehow anonymise them... Where exactly does this apply? I have been in a survival situation with strangers. We all just worked together to do the right thing, and make sure everyone was safe.
If your proposed essential human selfishness is so limited that it means they mostly do the right thing...
Socialism isn't a binary concept any more than Capitalism is. You can have capitalist activity alongside freely available publicly funded institutions - national parks, libraries, etc. People who say they want socialism usually want a specific list of human needs publically funded. This is perfectly possible in a capitalist economy, as OP's list illustrates.
So what you're saying is the ideal system (or at least what most people who say they want socialism think is ideal is capitalism with strong, firmly enforced and well thought out regulations?
No, that's a tremendous oversimplification. I'm saying capitalism alongside publicly funded necessities for survival and wellbeing. Nobody starves, nobody is homeless. If you want it summed up as a slogan how about, "We don't leave our people behind."
I think your description isn't any less oversimplified than mine..... but whatever.
Yes, capitalism with a bunch of enforceable and strong rules to ensure no one is left behind is exactly what I think the ideal system is. Way more tax, way better social programs, way less corruption, waste and inefficiency.
We are literally hardwired for cooperation, as a hyper social species. Maybe do some scientific research before you go spouting off your garbage political opinions which aren't based in science.
Did you take your meds on the day you chose your user name?
Edit: if you actually believe in science (doubtful, you just use those words as a club) why don't you read up on some evolutionary psychology and come back and share with the class what you find.
You think you're the only racist developed country in the world?
Nah, mate. It's capitalism. Capitalism, as a system, always needs a powerful country to be its base, where capital can politically defend itself and control the political system to keep the corporations strong, and wield that country's military against any foreign country that refuses to accept the domination of the corporations.
It was Amsterdam at first, then Britain for a long while, then in the 19th century it started moving to the USA, where it prospered mightily.
Capitalism cannot let the people be the priority. It must hold profit above all else, it's the nature of the machine. This is not a decision made by a person, this is how the system of capitalism works.
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.
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".
Tired of calling what countries like Australia and Germany have as "universal healthcare".
It isn't. Simply isn't.
In the case of Australia most familiar with. It's a weird mix of public and private, with most medical costs covered under a private subsidy model, where your health service can change whatever, and you have to pay the gap between the Medicare rebate and what the services charges.
Doesn't cover dental, has a small rebate for physio and other allied health (again, private providers, public rebate) and covers a basic check up for eyes every 3 years only, but doesn't cover most optical.
The hospital system is also an absolute mess of a two-tiered system I won't get into here.
It's not fucking universal and I'm sick of people pretending like it is. It's just kilometres better than the USA, which is the lowest bar ever.
That's not at all how it works in Germany, though. Dental treatments are paid, as is medication. There is a surcharge for medication, which is capped at 10 Euros. And some dental options, which are not strictly necessary (debatable in many cases, I'll give you that!) are not included. Physio and optical costs are also included.
Some of the payments require a doctor's prescription in order to be accepted, but I would call that pretty fucking universal.
Nonsense. Dental treatments are slightly subsidised, but even with the subsidy are more expensive than paying outright in cash in France. They are only covered if you're, like, gonna die from a tooth infection or something, and then they'll remove it but not do anything about the missing tooth. The subsidy doesn't even fully cover simple fillings, which still cost more than 100€ even for shitty resin ones. Let alone a ceramic crown for a front tooth which is like 600-1000€. Why do you think everyone goes to Poland or Turkey when they need real dental care?
So clearly you haven't been to the dentist in Germany, or even read that very article you posted. Yes the 6-monthly checkup is covered, that's great. But the subsidy for fillings in molars, for example, only covers amalgam fillings. Dentists don't actually do those anymore, so you have to pay more than 100€ "extra" to get a resin one. The majority of other situations are similar to that. In the end, even though the rule says that medically necessary things are supposed to be covered, in practice they really aren't.
Universal healthcare means it covers all healthcare. If you're needing pay pay out of pocket to private providers, and it doesn't even cover a bunch of things, I refuse to call that universal - and so should you.
Universal means nothing, otherwise.
Medicare defenders really need to dream bigger, damn.
The definitions I've seen mention the ability for anyone to receive medical care without fear of financial hardship. Which I guess also isn't a perfect definition.
No it doesn't. What would that even mean. Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't medical care. You could classify any country as either having universal healthcare coverage or no healthcare coverage at all under that definition.
Healthcare is whatever medical professionals deem medically necessary, that's where I would draw the line.
I'm no doctor, but dentistry and optometry is most certainly medically necessary (at least, this is my understanding of what medical professionals say!), and those are largely NOT covered under Medicare.
"Universal" is a superlative. It makes sense that it should mean everything, yes.
Universal is a synonym of all. I'm dying on this hill.
Even if people think it's just it 'covers' everyone, how much it covers is relevant. My hyperbolic example is that just because it covers everyone doesn't mean we should call it universal if it doesn't cover everything (or extremely little in the case of the US). I'm saying, if we want to call it universal, it should actually cover you for everything you might actually need for your healthcare.
That is objectively not the case. Medicare does not cover you for a bunch of things, and as discussed in a previous comment, makes you wait months and months for medically necessary but you-won't-die-today surgery, when we have more than enough wealth in this country to pay for it all.
Universal healthcare should cover all medically necessary healthcare in a timely fashion, private health should receive no subsidy, and you should be ineligible for public healthcare when on private, to make it compete (it won't, it'll immediately be a bad deal, which it is).
This isn't pie-in-the-sky requests, it's possible, it would just hurt the profits of private insurance companies, and private clinic owners who charge way above the rebate and make you pay out of pocket costs. We can and absolutely should create a fully public system, where people are employees of the health service.
Just pay medical staff properly so we don't lose anyone to overseas, and let's make it universal.
Medicare isn't that good, is the point I was trying to originally make.
Imma be real I'm not reading that. But whatever it is, it isn't "healthcare for everyone." And that feels like the neat and simple answer here as opposed to whatever you're doing.
Aight, healthcare for everyone (even if it is not equitable, and doesn't cover a bunch of stuff) can be your definition.
TL;DR for you: Medicare isn't nearly as good as it should and can be, and it's kinda sad people call it a "universal healthcare" system.
Also no one forced you to reply. Am I supposed to feel bad for writing out my reasoning in a medium length comment? Just seems like you want to say someone is wrong without actually justifying your position.
The corrupt gop fuckers will recreate the commie folk devil that worked during the cold war, they will claim communism will end America they will turn voting for social democracy into national crisis
The tax system and healthcare system are genuinely fucked in the US. Both could be simplified greatly and benefit people, but those in the small handful of decision making power to do benefit from keeping it complex. The IRS is spineless, and private health insurance is disgusting.
I mean, there are reasons the tax system is as complicated as it is. A big part is that the government does not agree on what the system should do.
One half (ish) wants a progressive tax system that applies more tax burden the higher your income and wealth are, and uses a bunch of different taxes (of various levels of progressiveness and regressiveness) to do it.
One half thinks any tax on anyone other than the poor is a sin.
Hard to reconcile those two positions, but it's what got us here
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.
Invaed? That's too much work to even spell right. How about we just ask them nicely if they want to join and then just forge their enrollment paperwork?
Economic freedom is not freedom in general. Hell you could even define economic freedom in different ways. Like freedom to let business do whatever they want or the freedom to not have to worry about needing to finance certain basic things. It is loose term and it very much depends on your values.
Yeah, is specifically meant economic freedom, at least as it applies to me. More affordable housing (I could still afford my payment even if my salary dropped in half if absolutely necessary), no worrying to death about medical bills, etc. This even allowed me to start my farm business which I'd likey be too terrified to do in the US. All in all I feel much less fear and anxiety over monetary matters here (though wanting to travel internationally sucks right now due to the weak yen, which I suppose is a downside).
My only real point of friction is investing, but that's because I'm a US citizen still (until my parents pass, anyway) and that's not a Japan problem. I've heard that buying and selling gold has some weird rules, but that's not an issue I face.
Yeah, I specifically meant economic freedom, or at least what I feel I have the freedom to do without worried like I had in the US. I'm not a small business owner (just me for now), bout a house that doesn't break the bank without fear of not being able to afford it even at half my salary, and don't worry about medical bills.
I've heard there are weird laws around buying and selling gold, but I don't so I can't speak to that. The most friction I have is with investing because I still have US citizenship which is not a Japan problem.
I've heard that the justice system in Japan is absolute trash. Not only are many laws regarding things like recreational drug possession insanely punitive, they have a general conviction rate over 99%. Which is a major red flag imo. Makes you wonder how many people there have been wrongly convicted in order to keep the numbers up.
It also means the police will drag their feet or try to brush off people sometimes if they think it won't result in a conviction. I was specifically referring to the economic freedom I feel in my post as it was the subject, but yes the justice system here has issues
That is the most dystopian American-sounding thing I've heard all day, especially considering the source.
In this context I expect that "Economic Freedom" means "unregulated, social darwinist, robber baron playground, law of the jungle laissez-faire capitalism."
Brazil - slavery was abolished by ordinary law in 1888 ("Lei Áurea"), predating the current 1988 constitution, which then enshrined the prohibition directly in its text.
Mauritania - abolished slavery by decree in 1981, then criminalized it more explicitly through legislation in 2007, though this was statutory rather than a constitutional amendment.
India (1950) – Article 23 prohibits trafficking in human beings and forced labor, including slavery-like practices.
South Africa (1996) – Section 13 of the Bill of Rights bans slavery, servitude, and forced labor.
Germany – Article 1 combined with statutory law prohibits slavery under the broader human dignity clause.
Ghana (1992) – explicitly prohibits slavery in its Bill of Rights.
Ethiopia (1995) – its constitution includes a slavery prohibition.
Many Latin American constitutions (Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, etc.) contain explicit anti-slavery clauses, often tracing back to 19th-century independence-era abolition.
People acting like America is the only country that had slaves. Here's another list for your edification!
Portugal - among the earliest and largest traders, especially to Brazil
Britain - dominant by the 18th century, especially via Liverpool and Bristol
France - significant role, especially to the Caribbean (Saint-Domingue/Haiti)
Spain - mainly through licensing other nations (asiento system) to supply its colonies
Netherlands - major early trader, especially via the Dutch West India Company
Denmark - smaller but notable participant.
And what country has the most stringent laws concerning slavery and human trafficking that would be America. We hate human traffickers more than we hate pedophiles around here.
Are you fucking joking lmao. Those are all countries which have banned slavery.
America has never banned slavery. In fact, they baked it into the constitution.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States
Fucking disgusting country that still uses hundreds of thousands of slaves to this day!!
I've already addressed the constitutional aspect of slavery in the United States.
There is no form of slavery in the U.S. that is supported by either the government or the general public.
Slavery and human trafficking are among the most serious crimes you can commit in America and are prosecuted aggressively with severe penalties.
We do not have legal slavery. What we do have is significant wealth and wage inequality, which is an entirely different discussion worth having, just not here.
At this point, it feels like you just want to take cheap shots at America. That's your prerogative. We allow that sort of criticism here. Criticize the country all you want.
According to the ACLU, prisoners at the Louisiana State Pen (Angola) pick cotton and sugarcane for $0.02/hr. Many must work for up to 3 years without pay to be eligible for this wage.
Those who "choose" not to work are placed in solitary confinement, a practice that is considered torture in most first world nations.
America is one of the worst empires to ever exist lmao, you're not better than anyone at all.
Slavery and human trafficking aren't crimes at all in America. The president is a pedophile rapist human trafficker, and you use prisoners as slaves in almost every state!! You know nothing of your own country, or you're willfully evil to defend it!
I've done absolutely nothing to defend my country. In fact, I've been criticizing it quite heavily.
I'll correct you once again: slavery, pedophilia, and human trafficking are all extremely illegal in this country, and they are punished severely.
The fact that the people associated with the Epstein files, including our own president have not been arrested, held accountable, and punished is a black stain on our history that we may never fully recover from.
I think prison reform is a seperate topic from slavery, but you do give up your rights in prison, which would include the 13th amendment. Many countries have much more terrible prison conditions.
Either way in the 1800s slaves didn't have as much of a choice to be a slave, today prisoners mostly had a choice before committing a crime (though I acknowledge not every person in jail deserves or should be there). I just think that should be awknowledge before saying America still has "slaves". At the end of the day the law is what allows us to have the society we have today (for better or worse).
How is that disgusting? Admitting that you lose rights in prison? You're literally just trolling for a reaction. I can think of a handful of EU countries with much smaller populations that have it better. Comparing black slaves from the 1800s to modern day prisoners is what's disgusting
THIS is how CEO's make thier money, it's how the rich 1% stay rich - by exploiting people who let them exploit them based on outmoded tropes from the rich people of the last generation, who exploited people who had very little choice when it came to 'money'
Incarcerate the rich who own companies that don't pay living wages
Except if you actually toss folks a bone from the rich people's table they'll actually defend capitalism for you. I'm actually shocked there hasn't been a revolt already, it's not like the system is working for most people who labour under it.
America may be behind but sadly quite a few countries seem to keen on racing it right to the bottom. Nobody seems to learn from all the mistakes it is making.
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.
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.
you’re confusing nordic welfare states for socialism
Nordic states reorganized themselves from feudal agrarian military economies into industrial social welfare economies over the course of the late 19th and 20th centuries. Their party politics and bureaucratic reorganization was explicitly informed by socialist theories and economic models devised during that time.
Socialism is strictly about worker owned means of production.
Strong unions, state owned industries, and Democratic governance gives working Scandenavians direct say over and profit from their local economies
It being inspired by socialism doesn't change the fact that the workers don't own the means of production there and it is therefore not socialism. Them having more say because they have unions is not the same.
socialism is always in contrast to private ownership
The Nordic Model is public ownership of high value industry (most notably, the O&G industry). They also have universal healthcare and free education, which come as a byproduct of state owned and operated medical centers and schools. And strong union membership puts a public leash on private enterprises at the level of direct worker action.
"The government controls around 35% of the total value of publicly listed companies on the Oslo stock exchange, with five of its largest seven listed firms partially owned by the state.[34]" good, but not socialism. Free healthcare and schools are not related to socialism.
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.
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?
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.
Yeah because capitalism is just how things develop without excessive government intervention to prevent it. It's a lie to say capitalism is a choice. I guess technically you could say it's a choice between buying food from a farmer or starving to death, but really that's not much of a choice. The two biggest famines in history were cause by socialist countries taking direct control of the agriculture industry.
By death toll, number one was the Qing dynasty, very much not communist. Number 2 was communist China. You have to go all the way to number 11 before you hit the USSR.
It's more that they're diseducated IMO. To me, throwing vitriol at people because a decades-long campaign from the most powerful people on earth succeeded feels so similar to blaming the enslaved for not freeing themselves.
It's really frustrating and it blows to see so many people harming themselves out of hate, fear, and illiteracy, but how are they to know better? All they see elsewhere is hate against them for something they've been trained to identify with; no human responds to that.
I'm not trying to come off as offensive to insulting. I think the above is worth considering and might be productive :)
ETA: I want to respond to a lot of these replies but I'm at work so it'll be a bit. Lots of good conversation to be had :)
I’m American and I know better. What’s their excuse? Right and wrong are pretty universal. It shouldn’t take years of proper education to know not to hate someone for being born a certain way.
If you 'know better' then what's stopping you from recognizing that not everyone is cut from the same cloth?
A black person raised to believe in the Nation of Islam might be more militant in their support of black rights — does that make what they believe right? No, the NoI is a cult that believes white people were born in a lab 7000 years ago (amongst other crazy bullshit). MAGA is also a cult. You should read up on what defines cults and what kind of people are susceptible to them.
I'm not exactly making excuses for them, I hate MAGA. Nuance here, however, is very important.
This feels very much like the booststraps the owner class expects you to clime the social ladder with.
It shouldn’t take years of proper education to know not to hate someone for being born a certain way.
No one said anything else. My claim was that there exists a well established, well funded, and effective institution that diseducates this into people that wouldn't otherwise have it.
I agree with you mostly but don’t agree in calling people “diseducated”, I think it removes too much personal agency. Undermining education and replacing it with religious devotion is most definitely a goal of fascist wealthy class but we aren’t there yet.
Public education doesn’t make someone mentally incompetent, so no need to infantilize them. This “hate, fear, and illiteracy” are all choices they’ve made to identify with.
No one is born MAGA, they choose it for themselves. Their lack of self-discipline and unable to delay gratification and propensity to choose the path of least resistance may be preyed upon by the system but they always have a choice.
Its very similar to the food system in this country, it’s all engineered to feel good and make you addicted and overconsume. You still have the choice to eat less and exercise more but it’s hard. Some people are also predisposed to falling into it, so I do think you make a good point even if I don’t fully agree
I appreciate your response, it's well written and considerate.
I want to clarify that my use of the term diseducation is not primarily directed to public schools en masse, but rather the increasing role platforms like TikTok, television, and 'alternative' 'sources' of mis/disinformation play as a voice of authority in many areas of life. To me, disinformation and diseducation vary in that disinformation is intentionally misleading/false facts about a topic to form a particular stance such, whereas diseducation primarily affects a way of thinking or conducting "research" to yield more results over time. For example, I believe a religious take on something like creationism to be disinformation as it pertains to a single set of facts on a single topic, but I believe a religious framing of things like the origin of sin and human nature to be more diseducation as they affect an individual's framework for understanding that branches beyond a particular topic. Probably not the best example; I had a long day at work
I may be misinterpreting you a bit still, but if I reframe diseducation as propaganda, then I completely agree with your point. And it also presents a challenge we will face in perpetuity in the future. The technological progress of the internet has had an enormous positive impact on humanity but also comes with an enormous human cost as the worst of us weaponize it to gain money and power.
The beauty of a library is most librarians love their job and are altruistically motivated, which can help when they spot someone regularly checking out sketchy stuff. For example, "The Prince" by Machiavelli being checked out by some 22 year old would elicit a small conversation at the counter about why he's a bad person to learn from. Those types of small guiding interactions that encourage openness in thought don't exist on the internet. The internet is also entertaining enough to find its way into influencing people who aren't as likely to have a conversation like that at a library in the first place. There's a whole list of small things like that which have previously made access to info more likely to be positive that simply aren't in place on the internet, and it adds up a ton.
To me, throwing vitriol at people because a decades-long campaign from the most powerful people on earth succeeded feels so similar to blaming the enslaved for not freeing themselves.
It becomes more complicated when the campaign was created by propagandists from the 1940s and simply echoed through time by increasingly credulous buffons with more and more money.
At the same time, the "enslaved" keep signing up to join the military and the police, so that they can leverage their position to get access to the things they are trying to deprive everyone else of.
So it's a cycle of self-imposed violence and poverty. And it is one that people accept reflexively because it hurts other people who are lower than them on the social order.
At the same time, the “enslaved” keep signing up to join the military and the police, so that they can leverage their position to get access to the things they are trying to deprive everyone else of.
At least in my hometown, people are trained from birth that joining the military is a high honor and one of the bravest and least-selfish things one can do. There's a reason the military aims more recruiting effort towards teenagers than any other demographic, with 40% of the entire military (not just of new recruits) being under 25: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547615/figure/fig_3_2/?report=objectonly
So it’s a cycle of self-imposed violence and poverty. And it is one that people accept reflexively because it hurts other people who are lower than them on the social order.
Partly, yes. Keep in mind my original comment was in response to another, not a holistic self-standing claim. My opening sentence was a comparative, not a declaration of absolute fact.
Also to be clear, my use of enslaved was in reference to slavery in the USA, not the military which is an entirely volunteer (yes, the word volunteer is a heavy lift) force.
a decades-long campaign from the most powerful people on earth succeeded feels so similar to blaming the enslaved for not freeing themselves.
Yeah, but those people all received a public education (like I did) and have access to all humanity's knowledge at their fingertips. And they're still profoundly stupid. That's not a good look.
but how are they to know better?
Self education? I know a whole lot more than I did when I stopped having a formal education. I don't think it's right to just assume that people are sheep by default and have to have good educators to be reasonably intelligent. Especially in this day and age. It removes the expectation of personal responsibility that we should have for every adult.
Yeah, but those people all received a public education (like I did)
Consider the differences in public school quality of experience with regard to property tax, individual performance, class size, and elected school officials, state gov't, and decade of education.
Not saying you went to a great school or were a top performer with extra curricular opportunities or whatever, I just want you to consider the range in education quality in the US.
Yeah, but those people...have access to all humanity's knowledge at their fingertips
As well as disinformation. Without an adequate understanding of how to use it, as is prominent in those who couldn't afford college or were raised before the proliferation of the Internet, this can do far more potential harm than potential good.
Self education? I know a whole lot more than I did when I stopped having a formal education
There are many, many, many life factors that can make this virtually impossible to people, particularly the poorly educated. Again, how are they to decipher right from wrong when wrong is intentionally crafted to discredit right?
For some factors, consider:
Poor access to mental health medicine
Lack of motivation caused by the above
40 hour work weeks
Demanding home life
No access to library or internet (or no knowledge of the utility of either beyond paying bills)
I don't think it's right to just assume that people are sheep by default and have to have good educators to be reasonably intelligent
This isn't something we need to assume, and not something I assume. I believe this is widely understood as an explanation of why environmental factors are of the greatest (and best established) predictors of lifelong trajectory including continuing ed, economic success, and general success measures. (https://www.nber.org/papers/w14884) this is a link to the first article I found. If you'd like, I can send a link to my reference doc for a thesis I wrote that had over 60 studies with an aggregate 2 million lives covered with all the same finding, as well as 2 studies that debunked the leading study with the opposite finding.
I want to be clear that diseducation is not limited to schooling in youth but also inclusive of lifelong trainings, exposure to mis/disinformation, propagation, etc. One of the most popular narratives among right-leaning young men today is that higher ed is BAD. Not that it's a suboptimal economic investment, but that it actively harms your ability to think for yourself.
One final thing, I'm not trying to say we should forgive and forget. This is a very real issue and needs to be addressed seriously, and there absolutely is individual responsibility at play. Nuance is critical, though, and like most things the truth is in the middle.
Part of the problem is it's very easy to blame someone else for the state of the world and think their group does nothing wrong.
My country has all of that (healthcare/education are basically free). Workers rights are protected and stuff but taxes here are really high compared to the U.S.
scotus also reversed the ruling that potus can now fire at well on the 12 agencies, like cpbd, sec,,,,etc.
you can have both private a full public option. funny enough thats the military healthcare plan right now, but its not available to any of the civilians.
you can also judge the health of a country by the mortality/morbidity of mothers/woman. they pretty much have the worst outcome of neo and post natal morbidity, and mortality of all developed countries. worst if you are a POC, or black.
The phrase "true and fully capitalist" is a sentence incongruent with historical materialism. Mode of production is not about purity of ideology. It is about how things are made.
I suppose for now with the cost of living being the way it is and the amount of debt that no one can figure out who the US is in debt to, we’re not gonna see that happen for a while.
Man this tripped me up at first, usually the only people who use the term "common sense" are dipshit old men who think all the fake BS they spew is the basis for all human knowledge
The pageantry of the election will continue long after the purpose of the elections is exhausted.
We're going to have a day when people go to little tablets and poke at them with their fingers and hand over slips of paper listing who they wish were in charge for centuries to come.
The problem is the insistence on trying to force the word "socialism" onto people. The meaning of the word is completely nebulous, but to many people it's synonymous with the USSR. So by saying to want "socialism" you're automatically fighting an uphill battle by explaining distinction between what you mean by the word as opposed to other people's meaning of the word.
This is part of a larger problem of leftists generally being incapable of communicating with working class. If leftists abandoned the terminology and just said "we want universal healthcare, higher minimum wage, better working conditions" there would be a lot of support by the working class.
But the problem there is that you'd be largely indistinguishable from liberals who you're told to hate by monetized "influencers" on corporate social media. Corporate social media has emphasized the importance of identity over being effective, so leftists will continue to cling to the word "socialist" even while it hinders effectiveness on achieving goals that most people want. Then probably be angry at the working class for being "stupid" because they don't understand that you want the same things as them and it's their fault that they associate the word "socialism" with a country that had that word in it's name.
This is nonsense sure we could easily have those things but those things are half measures and whatever is being used to define "fully developed capitalist countries" is almost certainly arbitrary and questionable.
A lot of that "free healthcare" is like getting a bandaid and a bed to sleep on. Real surgeries and such cost money. People with money in places with "free healthcare" usually buy their own health insurance on top of the free stuff. In the USA, the basics are free if you can do paperwork. And if you can't do paperwork, you just end up with a bad credit score.
I had to pay $400 after waiting 4-5 months in serious pain (uncommon injury) for an appointment with a specialist and when I got there I was with him for maybe 3 minutes as he explained I was sent to the wrong place and gave me the number for the place I was supposed to go.
I never actually paid. I refused. I'm actually not sure if they ended up sending it to collections. I was in too much pain to give a shit about any of that. I just knew I wasn't going to willingly pay them.
Oh yeah, WITH insurance.
Our system isn't just a joke. It's a predatory scheme.
I have NEVER paid for healthcare and i have got some hard stuff on my family.
In case you want the "juicy" examples:
3 people dead from cancer where 2 of them lived more than 7 years with numerous treatments, including chemo.
3 heavy surgeries. The last was my father who got rammed by a van while riding his motorcycle. He got the full left leg in platinum. Probably cancer is more expensive but that one was all done in 11 surgeries in less than 2 years.
and guess what folks, the countries that have things like Universal health care, the citizen rights is taken away big time. Many of these countries that are supposed ahead of America, eating food is not a right, having children is not a right, etc.
308 replies
USA! USA!! 💥
Greatest country in the world apparently.
This show is feeling relevant every single day now.
https://youtu.be/fJh9t9h6Wn0
He just conveniently left out the slavery and racisms part, but he ain't wrong about current affairs
It's the bully who constantly has to tell everyone how great they are and acts like an asshole tworads everyone while they're actually very mentally broken, scared, dumb etc.
I live in a third world country, and I get asked now and then if I'd ever move to the USA, and my answer is always
"No, if I'm going to move to a country it must be better than the one I am currently living in"
For billionaires, it seems.
And they say that American exceptionalism is a myth
Hang on. They said, “except Us,” so you’re supposed to drop that letter. The chant is now “SA! SA!!” 🇿🇦
I think it then should be just "A" then... Ay?
Number one!
But I think the only and actual problem is education. The rest are just consequence. It's not for nothing than when the rest of the world thinks about an american, they see a fat dumbass bigot idiot. I know a lot of people are not like that, but it does not matter. As a country, this is how everybody sees you.
And for once, fix the root cause of the problem, not the symptoms.
I'd argue even with education, your defacto two party system still prevents true change/progress. Not sure if better education would be enough to change this.
The two party system worked for a long time because both sides were committed to the idea that a functional government was a good thing.
A multiple party system didn't save Germany from Fascists. When enough citizens decide their fellow citizens are the problem decent government becomes impossible.
I wouldn't say it worked. It was barely good enough while being quiet bad. Switzerland took usa's system and made it better, so much better. Anno 1848
well, at least people will be able to conceptualize this is a completely stupid system.
Right now they have the sport-fan mentality. Us vs Them, Me vs You, Good vs Bad. Baby view of the world.
(and it's not my de-facto :) )
a UNIPARTY, the gop and dinos are a coalition. not even a true 2 party system. DInos are allowed to throw people a bone once in a while so they dont form an uprising or take over the party
Moron. Go educate yourself. You're responsible for all the unnecessary evil and thousands of murders trump has brought upon this world.
I think the education is a symptom of a deeper problem still, and that is corporate entities owning significant parts of the governing process, through lobbying, campaign financing and a rotating door of government positions and coproate advisers.
They want an uneducated population, because that is how they get a greater and greater share of the say in what the government does each election cycle. Getting Citizens United through was one of the worst they accomplished in recent years, but it won’t end there.
Step 1: Reform the Supreme Court (term limits, mandatory retirement age of 65, etc). Step 1.5: Abolish Citizens United.
Oh yes, but I still think this is only possible because people are uneducated. Then, sure, it becomes a feedback loop. I have no idea how to fix USA and I think at that point it is beyond repair.
I can't fathom how anyone is against free healthcare. CHILDREN have to go without healthcare FFS CHILDREN. How can anyone justify that?
That's how they justify it. They're fucking ghouls
Even within free market logic free healthcare just makes sense. It enables people to more comfortably quit their job to start a business or take any better job. It also allows people more freedom to choose medical professionals based on their merits rather than on who their insurer says they can use.
It's also cheaper for everyone, and results in much better outcomes on average. It's truly win/win/win.
The only losers would be the insurance companies that would no longer exist. And fuck them.
The stupid thing is that even this isn't necessarily the case. Even in countries that have public healthcare, there are still private options for those who want "fancier" care. The true statement is that they would only be able to rip off the wealthy, instead of everyone in the country.
It doesn't make sense because it doesn't maximize the short term profits of a health care business.
No American capitalist wants this.
You can be hired. You can be fired. You can't go around quitting without your boss's permission.
That's long term thinking you fool. How does that help my next quarter!? Think of my bonus!
The problem is there's a false scarcity. Healthcare is expensive for people in the US right now, so the idea of paying for someone else's healthcare via universal healthcare doesn't sound like a good thing, it sounds like taking the money you need for your healthcare to pay for someone else's.
It's NOT like that, but people have it in their heads that it is. And it's very hard to change a made up mind when there are people rallying against it to protect their own private interests.
That's no reason to not have universal healthcare.
Sure, some people think as you describe, but they are the minority. We're supposed to be a representative democracy.
(many polls, pick your favorite)
bOtH pArTiEs think otherwise, unfortunately
Oh no I totally agree with you. Not saying it justifies it or even that the math makes sense, but it feels that a lot of times when you have people who dissent against universal healthcare the reason I stated is why.
They believe rights are a pie. And if someone else gets a piece of that pie, they will somehow end up with less pie.
"We CaN'T aFfOrD iT! wE wIlL rUn OuT oF mOnEy!"
Every fucking time it's suggested. Every fucking time, you get some clown screaming about how it costs too much and it will bankrupt the country and how health care will go away if you try to federalize it.
And under this government? Maybe they're right. Maybe American business leadership would just rip the wires out of the walls anyways. Look at what UK politicians have done to the NHS, ffs.
It's very possible that Americans don't have access to health care because we are simply too greedy and cruel and stupid as a population to value it above carpet bombing the Global South.
Funny how there's always money to bomb schools, on the other hand...
And to give to Elon Musk for him to lose. He went down from 1.45 trillion to 970 billion. Like what? Half a trillion dollars lost?
I don't even use numbers like that in a fucking video game...
That's the trading value of his companies that tanked though, not money spent.
He never had a trillion actual dollars.
"protect the children" mfs when children
Children can't work. So they shouldn't get any benefits actually.
The issue really seems to be old people. And where I live it's a whole lot easier for old people to vote.
They dont care 🤷
Because to them, the fight against the Others is so profoundly tied to their core identity that they would choose a rapacious trillionaire or low rent pedophile mob boss to lead them despite OVERWHELMING evidence either would gladly see them dead for a nickel.
Anyone not of their inner circle (church, Trump worship, family of they accede to the previous conditions) are the enemy. And they don't deserve even basic human rights. Unless they're a zygote/fetus, in which case they get a pass until birth.
And americans will tell you it's because they are better or different.
Gotta fund the military somehow, mirite?
The "military power" reputation took a huge hit this year too. Really? That bs is why they forego all these benefits for their people?
But...but...hellfire missiles go brrrrrr?
I'm not even American, but what the fuck are you even talking about, no one's saying that
Also not American. You don't think there's a perception that American is the greatest country in the West? It comes off thick with a lot of topics even discussed on the fediverse. A good clip that I enjoy watching every now and then https://youtu.be/wTjMqda19wk
Everyone knows about the American exceptionalism, but it exists despite these horrid humanitarian conditions, not because.
No one's gonna say "yeah I'm happy with being forced to eat dirt, I'm superior to you, that's why!"
I'm sure many Americans would crow about these more positive things if they could but think about those posts that unironically brag about how "X about to find out why Americans don't have healthcare" while showing a picture of an airborne orphan crusher, or something.
It's all part of their true grit machismo, like hell yeah most brutal capitalist hellscape imaginable, if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. Honestly they revel in it.
It's like Canadians and their cold winters.
You dont know this but some Americans are profoundly stupid. By some I mean more than any body can manage.
So just because you dont ride in those circles, dont think for a moment american exceptionalism isnt some sort of self defeating pride that will soon have my country on its knees.
Isn't this the case basically everywhere? Is there a culture or country that doesn't have profoundly stupid people in it?
I mean, we take it very seriously, though. There I go with american exceptionalism again.
There are plenty who don't, but there are an unfortunately large number who do
They're stupid, indoctrinated, uneducated etc. but they're very real
I've had people from all over the world tell me that the US is the greatest country in the world,
They were all stupid, racist and had never been there
Honestly FOX News might be the organization, which helped the term "socialism" the most in the US. When you call every good policy "socialist" then people wanting that will call themself that.
It's the abuse of the system, the tax hikes, the standard of care given vs the biased care we can exploit now and the amount of productivity lost is bad for the US. Why? Idfk, that's just what they tell us.
So I guess the only thing we can do is try to cha ge at least one of them.
Remember Obamacare? The socialized healthcare system where everyone had health insurance? We should go back to that.
The US would not loose productivity at all. For any health care system it is cheaper to prevent somebody from getting sick, then to pay for the treatment. So countries with such systems have good reason to have strong environmental and food regulation for example. Hence people are less sick and can therefore work.
The US has pretty decent/good air quality compared to a lot of countries both developed and under developed. At least we don't have to deal with what India, China or Brazil have to deal with when it comes to air quality. I mean it's not the greatest there's still people who live with air purifiers because of pollutants, toxins and generalized pollen but you can leave your house in every single state at any given time without choking or needing PPE.
Food could be better. Food here could be a lot better but you know what it is. It's the sickening supply and demand. Think about it we get year round produce because we ship it in. There's an Asian market that's near me and a (half dead) stop and shop 2 blocks from it. The Asian market has in-season only produce and has an on site butcher. A lot of other countries I hear do the same as the Asian market and I still have no idea if it's true but we have hydroponically grown food in the off-season.
The only areas in the US that actually rely on local produce are areas that have produce that they're known for. Like Georgia Peaches, Maine Blueberries and Massachusetts/New York Mcintosh Apples and then those areas are all tourist and rely on tourism. The FDA Doesn't give a fuck about our meat as much as we'd like to think, I mean our chicken wings can still have feathers and there's known low quality butchers. Our beef supply is being cut like there's no one even inspecting the fat vs lean meat ratio and everything that's lean has a lower shelf life because its more, "fresh," (after it's been treated) and the odds of a grass-fed cut of meat smelling like fish is higher than a non grass-fed cut of meat which are usually starting to gray and those are unless you go to a good quality butcher BUT THEN you face a sourcing issue which they're all known to get their meat from Costco or BJ's.
Pork is absolute trash in this country, I've been trying to stay away from pork.
Nah, been going on probably before the banana republics. Soon as the people of the banana republic fought back, the American capitalist would cry socialism, then the American army would come and squash the uprising. Hey Mr. tally man tally me banana.
Glad to see some political commentators catching on to this too.
Europe doesn't have socialism. This list is not even close to good. Europe is like, behind what I want. I want socialism. I want to nationalize big tech. Europe wants no part in nationalizing their tech. I don't want mandatory PTO, I want a union and representation and a funded pension. I want publicly ran and funded groceries and hospitals, not just universal health insurance. I'm a former libertarian and I want these things btw. It's not hard to convince a libertarian to be socialist. Europe is too capitalist for me.
Also 'developed' and 'non-developed' is modern colonial language. The original post reeks of liberalism. Not against you OP, I just hate looking to Europe for the future of America. America has fundamental issues that make it not really suited for european capitalism, but if the DSA has their way in the next decade or two we might have some good socialism in the US.
The modern use of the word Socialism means having significant publicly funded institutions. When people say they want socialism they mean they want more of it, because most likely they already have lots of publicly funded institutions - like police and fire protection, public libraries, unemployment compensation.... What they want is more, and Europe has more than the US.
Developed and non-developed are economics terms for different degrees of industrialization and overall wealth. they're not "colonial" language.
I agree and also would note that "developed" is the current, more sensitive term which specifically seeks to avoid unfair judgement in favor of a term that looks at metrics that measure general well being. You cannot tell me it's racist to acknowledge and want to improve the quality of life for billions of people who needlessly suffer disease, death, and other miserable preventable (with resources/education) situations.
Socialism is impossible. It cannot exist with a species like ours that is hardwired for greediness and self-preservation.
At the end of the day, too many people will look at socialism and see "this is bullshit, why should insert marginalised/oppressed minority get that when insert marginalised/oppressed minority that person identifies with gets less. Or just happen to be staunchly opposed to a population protected by the socialist system.
It's idealist. And I fucking hate capitalism. But at the end of the day the very best we can really hope for is capitalism with strong, firmly enforced and well thought out regulations.
We will get neither just so we are clear. But it's the best possible type of system in my mind.
You've convinced me. I will stop wanting socialism now. It can never happen. I accept the liberal order. Capitalism is a force of good. I will no longer vote for the democratic socialists. I will vote for the liberal establishment. I will be acting like a good citizen of western democracy. Yes this is good. Capitalism is the best humanity can do. It will never achieve anything better. If humanity were to exist for another 10,000 years, they will still be doing capitalism because we did it: We achieved the best we can ever do with capitalism and strong regulations.
You think idealism is bad, yet you believe "at the end of the day the very best we can really hope for is capitalism with strong, firmly enforced and well thought out regulations."
That is idealism. Capitalism will continue to kill people in other countries while you vacation every summer. Capitalism is good for you so you want it to continue. I'm sorry, but I can't live my life that way. You can, and good for you for that—I envy it. You need to learn that you have to pay more in taxes so people you don't see every day don't suffer. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink.
The best they ever have to offer is circular reasoning or no reasoning at all. Makes me wonder why they believe it.
Do they even realize when they're mixing feelings (or ideals) with facts? 🤷♂️
Is this an invitation to share more of my reasoning on why I think socialism is impossible? Or was there a circular argument that you heard in what I said?
So if I'm understanding you correctly, a constrained capitalism is idealism (fair) and somehow the farther left side of that is more realistic (absurd)?
If anything you're making my point for me.
You want to paint me as some defender of capitalism or accepting of it because of my creature comforts.....fill your boots, you don't know me. But at least get your logic in check.
Any government is possible. You do not know american history, or human history, enough or how the government works. If America continues after Donald Trump, then it will be something completely different than what it looked like before him. More and more Democratic Socialists are getting elected. Socialism is more and more likely the more socialists americans elect. My state house of representatives in Kentucky got one more. Times may be changing.
Your view of humans is wrong btw. You may be projecting.
Are you conflating democratic socialism with full blown socialism? That is most certainly not true socialism.
Evidence in my favor includes the Nordic countries, having a very firmly capitalist society with strong welfare policies. They blow the west out of the water on social outcomes.
But that's not socialism. That's exactly what I'm advocating for.
So do you think the Nordic countries are still too capitalist, or do you actually mean to argue that they're an example to follow? I guess it has to be the first?
Democratic socialism is not social democracy. The nordic model is social democracy (european capitalism I call it). Democratic socialism is socialism, the thing I keep saying I want.
Europe is capitalist, I want socialism. Europe, as a whole, is too right wing and not anti capitalist, pro socialist, and leftist enough for me. I want america to be more socialist than capitalist europe. I do not care about Europe's future politically or their choices. I am more than happy to take what works for them, but I won't base that idea off of a meme. I don't think capitalism works for everyone in this world, and I'm not okay with it working for just a few. I am willing to be taxed higher, and I am okay with you being taxed higher, to achieve a system that lets the US coincide with the rest of the world without killing people. This means European capitalism (social democracy) is not enough for me.
I don't care about the west. 'The west' is a mythological culture that doesn't exist. Anyone who uses 'the west' with me will be met with a blank stare unless you closely define what that means, because I don't believe anyone actually knows what that is. Democracy on its own accord is insufficient to establish pluralism, universalism, and cosmopolitanism. It needs socialism to achieve that. No amount of capitalistic regulation is going to bring in a multi-cultural state that treats every worker equally. Capitalism cannot treat its workers well. This is a fact. Capitalists may have offices in your 'western' countries that have high quality of life, but the actual bottom-tier laborers are in other places that don't have such high living standards, and capitalists in the west like this arrangement.
Analogy: it's more realistic to cut a tumor out and heal the patient than to keep it growing at an acceptable rate.
Ah yes, except for when the tumor is 90% of the body. Then you can't just cut it out.
Good analogy, I like it.
In general this is a myth, being a self interested economic agent is something we're trained to conform to, not something we do instinctually. Which isn't to say we are naturally suited for large scale cooperation, but what the Hobbesian perspective misses is that whatever behavior you're assuming is human nature has a context, and that context could be made very different.
That's a pretty interesting point and totally fair. I would like to think we would do better in a different context. My problem is the context for us I (mostly) believe to be inevitable.
If I'm hard-wired for greed and self-preservation, why do I let people go ahead of me in traffic? Why do I give money to beggars? Why do I vote for people who will raise taxes on me?
And why do so many other people do these things? If they are hardwired for greed and self preservation? Are they not human?
Our intelligence allows us to override our base instincts.
The hardware is self preservation and greed. You raise a human in the wild with no social connection what will you get? A cooperative person? Lol. No.
So many of you are so confident in your assertion that humans are cooperative by nature. That is laughable. We cooperate because we are smart enough (some of us) to figure out that cooperation is the best path forward. Take all the external factors out, introduce some danger and you'll see just how cooperative we are......
I disagree with your entire assertion, because there have been plenty of studies done that do not support it.
Humans are a social species by nature. We help each other on an instinctual level. We evolved that way, because it happened to be more effective for survival.
The people who behave in the way you describe, helping others only when it benefits them, are called sociopaths. They are unusual, and not the majority. Indeed, one of the ways in which they exploit us for their own gain is that normal humans feel good when they help someone.
Perhaps you do not feel this. Perhaps you have a bit of sociopathy. This does not necessarily condemn you, btw, most sociopaths do not become monsters, due to the benefits of cooperation that you describe.
I simply mention it because it may explain why you believe something which is inaccurate.
Lol.....man oh man that's quite the passive aggressive "you might be wrong cause you're fucked up"
You do realize that "feeling good" being altruistic is a selfish reason to do it. That is the benefit. Feeling good is a reward. You are literally describing doing something in order to get a positive reward which you then described as sociopathic. Just because the reward is "feeling good" doesn't make it any different. Are you a sociopath?
Obviously humans are a social species. The social part is only as functional as the social circle around it. You put a bunch of total strangers in an urgent life or death situation, do you really believe there will be any altrusim? Really? Come on now.......
We can absolutely be altruistic. The context is everything. What you would do with total strangers, high stakes and complete anonymity is what I'm talking about. Anything besides that and you have social factors influencing the picture, even if it's just about feeling good.
Edit: clarity
If you exclude the essential social nature of a human from your scenario, and somehow anonymise them... Where exactly does this apply? I have been in a survival situation with strangers. We all just worked together to do the right thing, and make sure everyone was safe.
If your proposed essential human selfishness is so limited that it means they mostly do the right thing...
Speak for yourself. Some of us are out here building communities with our own blood, sweat, and tears.
Socialism isn't a binary concept any more than Capitalism is. You can have capitalist activity alongside freely available publicly funded institutions - national parks, libraries, etc. People who say they want socialism usually want a specific list of human needs publically funded. This is perfectly possible in a capitalist economy, as OP's list illustrates.
So what you're saying is the ideal system (or at least what most people who say they want socialism think is ideal is capitalism with strong, firmly enforced and well thought out regulations?
No, that's a tremendous oversimplification. I'm saying capitalism alongside publicly funded necessities for survival and wellbeing. Nobody starves, nobody is homeless. If you want it summed up as a slogan how about, "We don't leave our people behind."
I think your description isn't any less oversimplified than mine..... but whatever.
Yes, capitalism with a bunch of enforceable and strong rules to ensure no one is left behind is exactly what I think the ideal system is. Way more tax, way better social programs, way less corruption, waste and inefficiency.
We are literally hardwired for cooperation, as a hyper social species. Maybe do some scientific research before you go spouting off your garbage political opinions which aren't based in science.
Edit: For anyone questioning the science
Did you take your meds on the day you chose your user name?
Edit: if you actually believe in science (doubtful, you just use those words as a club) why don't you read up on some evolutionary psychology and come back and share with the class what you find.
Enjoy the down votes, dumbass.
Nuh uh
You sure showed me, dumbfuck.
No u
I'm convinced the reason is "We can't do that, black people would get it. White people have the good jobs and will get that all on their own."
You think you're the only racist developed country in the world?
Nah, mate. It's capitalism. Capitalism, as a system, always needs a powerful country to be its base, where capital can politically defend itself and control the political system to keep the corporations strong, and wield that country's military against any foreign country that refuses to accept the domination of the corporations.
It was Amsterdam at first, then Britain for a long while, then in the 19th century it started moving to the USA, where it prospered mightily.
Capitalism cannot let the people be the priority. It must hold profit above all else, it's the nature of the machine. This is not a decision made by a person, this is how the system of capitalism works.
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.
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".
Yes, but the first one is not true.
Tired of calling what countries like Australia and Germany have as "universal healthcare".
It isn't. Simply isn't.
In the case of Australia most familiar with. It's a weird mix of public and private, with most medical costs covered under a private subsidy model, where your health service can change whatever, and you have to pay the gap between the Medicare rebate and what the services charges.
Doesn't cover dental, has a small rebate for physio and other allied health (again, private providers, public rebate) and covers a basic check up for eyes every 3 years only, but doesn't cover most optical.
The hospital system is also an absolute mess of a two-tiered system I won't get into here.
It's not fucking universal and I'm sick of people pretending like it is. It's just kilometres better than the USA, which is the lowest bar ever.
Yeah, similarly in Canada which actually is single payer so yay, but is constantly, constantly under attack by privatisation hawks.
It's a constant fucking struggle to keep the rich from raiding our commons. They're always grasping, groping, taking, draining. It's exhausting.
That's not at all how it works in Germany, though. Dental treatments are paid, as is medication. There is a surcharge for medication, which is capped at 10 Euros. And some dental options, which are not strictly necessary (debatable in many cases, I'll give you that!) are not included. Physio and optical costs are also included.
Some of the payments require a doctor's prescription in order to be accepted, but I would call that pretty fucking universal.
Nonsense. Dental treatments are slightly subsidised, but even with the subsidy are more expensive than paying outright in cash in France. They are only covered if you're, like, gonna die from a tooth infection or something, and then they'll remove it but not do anything about the missing tooth. The subsidy doesn't even fully cover simple fillings, which still cost more than 100€ even for shitty resin ones. Let alone a ceramic crown for a front tooth which is like 600-1000€. Why do you think everyone goes to Poland or Turkey when they need real dental care?
Ok, here's what is subsidised, assuming you speak German:
https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/wissen/gesundheit-pflege/krankenversicherung/alle-kassenleistungen-der-zahnmedizin-im-ueberblick-12921
Call that nonsense if you wish, I'm not going to enter into a discussion of that kind.
So clearly you haven't been to the dentist in Germany, or even read that very article you posted. Yes the 6-monthly checkup is covered, that's great. But the subsidy for fillings in molars, for example, only covers amalgam fillings. Dentists don't actually do those anymore, so you have to pay more than 100€ "extra" to get a resin one. The majority of other situations are similar to that. In the end, even though the rule says that medically necessary things are supposed to be covered, in practice they really aren't.
If it covers everyone, then it's universal. Doesn't mean that it can't be improved, but that's literally what universal healthcare coverage means.
Universal healthcare means it covers all healthcare. If you're needing pay pay out of pocket to private providers, and it doesn't even cover a bunch of things, I refuse to call that universal - and so should you.
Universal means nothing, otherwise.
Medicare defenders really need to dream bigger, damn.
I mean, no. It doesn't. And as an example off the top of my head, the NHS in the UK doesn't cover dental. It's still universal health care.
I'm not defending Medicare or anything here, id appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
Simply explaining what the term means.
We shall have to agree to disagree then. Calling a healthcare system that doesn't cover all available healthcare universal just doesn't make sense.
I can accept that's what people call it, but that's about it.
I think they're wrong.
By this logic the USA has universal healthcare, because a hospital must treat you for emergency, life-saving care, even if you're unable to pay.
So, the definition is absurd if it's just that a system covers everyone.
The definitions I've seen mention the ability for anyone to receive medical care without fear of financial hardship. Which I guess also isn't a perfect definition.
No it doesn't. What would that even mean. Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't medical care. You could classify any country as either having universal healthcare coverage or no healthcare coverage at all under that definition.
Healthcare is whatever medical professionals deem medically necessary, that's where I would draw the line.
I'm no doctor, but dentistry and optometry is most certainly medically necessary (at least, this is my understanding of what medical professionals say!), and those are largely NOT covered under Medicare.
"Universal" is a superlative. It makes sense that it should mean everything, yes.
Universal is a synonym of all. I'm dying on this hill.
Even if people think it's just it 'covers' everyone, how much it covers is relevant. My hyperbolic example is that just because it covers everyone doesn't mean we should call it universal if it doesn't cover everything (or extremely little in the case of the US). I'm saying, if we want to call it universal, it should actually cover you for everything you might actually need for your healthcare.
That is objectively not the case. Medicare does not cover you for a bunch of things, and as discussed in a previous comment, makes you wait months and months for medically necessary but you-won't-die-today surgery, when we have more than enough wealth in this country to pay for it all.
Universal healthcare should cover all medically necessary healthcare in a timely fashion, private health should receive no subsidy, and you should be ineligible for public healthcare when on private, to make it compete (it won't, it'll immediately be a bad deal, which it is).
This isn't pie-in-the-sky requests, it's possible, it would just hurt the profits of private insurance companies, and private clinic owners who charge way above the rebate and make you pay out of pocket costs. We can and absolutely should create a fully public system, where people are employees of the health service.
Just pay medical staff properly so we don't lose anyone to overseas, and let's make it universal.
Medicare isn't that good, is the point I was trying to originally make.
Rant over 😅
Imma be real I'm not reading that. But whatever it is, it isn't "healthcare for everyone." And that feels like the neat and simple answer here as opposed to whatever you're doing.
Aight, healthcare for everyone (even if it is not equitable, and doesn't cover a bunch of stuff) can be your definition.
TL;DR for you: Medicare isn't nearly as good as it should and can be, and it's kinda sad people call it a "universal healthcare" system.
Also no one forced you to reply. Am I supposed to feel bad for writing out my reasoning in a medium length comment? Just seems like you want to say someone is wrong without actually justifying your position.
I gave a reason and it fit in a couple sentences. Less is more my guy, no need to get salty about it.
It's because you have the most capitalist country, so you are number 1 in exploitation. Congratulations 👍🎉
Those other countries can merely dream of doing as little as we do for our workslaves!
The corrupt gop fuckers will recreate the commie folk devil that worked during the cold war, they will claim communism will end America they will turn voting for social democracy into national crisis
They are always lying
Americans also fall for it every time so that says a lot about the citizens
Americans, by and large, are, unfortunately, some of the dumbest humans to ever exist on this planet.
No doubt. Living here is to be surrounded by cynical monsters everywhere you go.
I'm hoping Mamdani can help shift people's perspectives here.
Obama made Healthcare companies more money than any President before him. He could have given us a public option but the big Democrat donors said no.
The tax system and healthcare system are genuinely fucked in the US. Both could be simplified greatly and benefit people, but those in the small handful of decision making power to do benefit from keeping it complex. The IRS is spineless, and private health insurance is disgusting.
I mean, there are reasons the tax system is as complicated as it is. A big part is that the government does not agree on what the system should do.
One half (ish) wants a progressive tax system that applies more tax burden the higher your income and wealth are, and uses a bunch of different taxes (of various levels of progressiveness and regressiveness) to do it.
One half thinks any tax on anyone other than the poor is a sin.
Hard to reconcile those two positions, but it's what got us here
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
Lol.
We got fed so much propaganda about this country growing up. Basically North Korea Lite.
Ah yes but the US has the "freedom" to not have all of those things.
Does all this winning start to hurt eventually?
Is it starting to rash?
If so, it's the dems' fault!
Thanks Obama
Good, America sucks.
OK, so how many of those developed countries do we have to invade to pump our numbers up?
Invaed? That's too much work to even spell right. How about we just ask them nicely if they want to join and then just forge their enrollment paperwork?
You want society to treat you like you belong to it?! You stupid fucks.
"Anyone who doesn't have to suffer is a slight against me because I had to suffer at some point!" Fucking assholes.
Guess what? I inherited money. It didn't make me stop advocating to help people or tax those with the most. These fuckers are inhuman.
But, honestly, we have to stop the socialist threat that will destroy our country because they want to feed people and that's UNAMERIKAN!
They sell it to a third of the population, and those people rabidly vote for corporate USA every year.
Yeah but we have mythical Freedom! and the whole world except us is mythically oppressed by socialist tyranny!
It's interesting that Japan is below the US in the main rankings. I feel more free here in almost every regard than I did as an adult in the US.
Economic freedom is not freedom in general. Hell you could even define economic freedom in different ways. Like freedom to let business do whatever they want or the freedom to not have to worry about needing to finance certain basic things. It is loose term and it very much depends on your values.
Yeah, is specifically meant economic freedom, at least as it applies to me. More affordable housing (I could still afford my payment even if my salary dropped in half if absolutely necessary), no worrying to death about medical bills, etc. This even allowed me to start my farm business which I'd likey be too terrified to do in the US. All in all I feel much less fear and anxiety over monetary matters here (though wanting to travel internationally sucks right now due to the weak yen, which I suppose is a downside).
My only real point of friction is investing, but that's because I'm a US citizen still (until my parents pass, anyway) and that's not a Japan problem. I've heard that buying and selling gold has some weird rules, but that's not an issue I face.
Yeah, I specifically meant economic freedom, or at least what I feel I have the freedom to do without worried like I had in the US. I'm not a small business owner (just me for now), bout a house that doesn't break the bank without fear of not being able to afford it even at half my salary, and don't worry about medical bills.
I've heard there are weird laws around buying and selling gold, but I don't so I can't speak to that. The most friction I have is with investing because I still have US citizenship which is not a Japan problem.
Phacking
I've heard that the justice system in Japan is absolute trash. Not only are many laws regarding things like recreational drug possession insanely punitive, they have a general conviction rate over 99%. Which is a major red flag imo. Makes you wonder how many people there have been wrongly convicted in order to keep the numbers up.
More info:
https://www.vox.com/world/2015/12/13/9989250/japan-crime-conviction-rate
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/japan-s-hidden-landscape-of-violent-crime
It also means the police will drag their feet or try to brush off people sometimes if they think it won't result in a conviction. I was specifically referring to the economic freedom I feel in my post as it was the subject, but yes the justice system here has issues
I mean, there's a reason there's literally an entire famous game series that's a satire of Japan's messed up law system.
So you say, that the US has the purest capitalism while everyone else has diluted it with some soviet communism?
Freedom to starve
Freedom for children to starve until they develop severe lifelong disorders and mental deficiencies.
Pull your bootstraps up harder!
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.
That is the most dystopian American-sounding thing I've heard all day, especially considering the source.
In this context I expect that "Economic Freedom" means "unregulated, social darwinist, robber baron playground, law of the jungle laissez-faire capitalism."
It's certainly does. Thank you.
America has always been behind the rest of the world. They still do slavery for fuck sake.
So does Europe. Modern slavery just doesn't use chains.
Ha, you think the rest of the world doesn't profit off slavery...
Who said that? There a ghost in here? Which countries have it baked into their constitutions? 13th amendment.
Are you kidding me?
Brazil - slavery was abolished by ordinary law in 1888 ("Lei Áurea"), predating the current 1988 constitution, which then enshrined the prohibition directly in its text.
Mauritania - abolished slavery by decree in 1981, then criminalized it more explicitly through legislation in 2007, though this was statutory rather than a constitutional amendment.
India (1950) – Article 23 prohibits trafficking in human beings and forced labor, including slavery-like practices. South Africa (1996) – Section 13 of the Bill of Rights bans slavery, servitude, and forced labor.
Germany – Article 1 combined with statutory law prohibits slavery under the broader human dignity clause.
Ghana (1992) – explicitly prohibits slavery in its Bill of Rights.
Ethiopia (1995) – its constitution includes a slavery prohibition.
Many Latin American constitutions (Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, etc.) contain explicit anti-slavery clauses, often tracing back to 19th-century independence-era abolition.
People acting like America is the only country that had slaves. Here's another list for your edification!
Portugal - among the earliest and largest traders, especially to Brazil
Britain - dominant by the 18th century, especially via Liverpool and Bristol
France - significant role, especially to the Caribbean (Saint-Domingue/Haiti)
Spain - mainly through licensing other nations (asiento system) to supply its colonies
Netherlands - major early trader, especially via the Dutch West India Company
Denmark - smaller but notable participant.
And what country has the most stringent laws concerning slavery and human trafficking that would be America. We hate human traffickers more than we hate pedophiles around here.
Are you fucking joking lmao. Those are all countries which have banned slavery.
America has never banned slavery. In fact, they baked it into the constitution.
Fucking disgusting country that still uses hundreds of thousands of slaves to this day!!
I've already addressed the constitutional aspect of slavery in the United States.
There is no form of slavery in the U.S. that is supported by either the government or the general public.
Slavery and human trafficking are among the most serious crimes you can commit in America and are prosecuted aggressively with severe penalties.
We do not have legal slavery. What we do have is significant wealth and wage inequality, which is an entirely different discussion worth having, just not here.
At this point, it feels like you just want to take cheap shots at America. That's your prerogative. We allow that sort of criticism here. Criticize the country all you want.
We're still better than you.
According to the ACLU, prisoners at the Louisiana State Pen (Angola) pick cotton and sugarcane for $0.02/hr. Many must work for up to 3 years without pay to be eligible for this wage.
Those who "choose" not to work are placed in solitary confinement, a practice that is considered torture in most first world nations.
You can read the full report here Captive Labor: Exploitation of Incarcerated Workers
Ok. Louisiana has one of the worst prison systems in America. The judicial system is irrationally racist against black men.
Congratulations on pinpointing one of the horrendous social issues that we have in America.
What country are you from?
Oh no, :( what's happening to all of your little comments? Bye bye comments! Bye bye mechoman!
Nothing, nothing happened to any of my comments.
There's no active slave labor in the United States. That is an objective fact.
America is one of the worst empires to ever exist lmao, you're not better than anyone at all.
Slavery and human trafficking aren't crimes at all in America. The president is a pedophile rapist human trafficker, and you use prisoners as slaves in almost every state!! You know nothing of your own country, or you're willfully evil to defend it!
Right.
I've done absolutely nothing to defend my country. In fact, I've been criticizing it quite heavily.
I'll correct you once again: slavery, pedophilia, and human trafficking are all extremely illegal in this country, and they are punished severely.
The fact that the people associated with the Epstein files, including our own president have not been arrested, held accountable, and punished is a black stain on our history that we may never fully recover from.
So, what country are you from?
all cool for down with murcia but please tell me where actually is. Yeah we have underpaid workers but slavery?
You should be embarrassed for not knowing about the 13th amendment.
you should be ashamed not knowing present vs past tense
Oh yeah they get rid of the part about using prisoners as slaves when I wasn't looking? Lol
I think prison reform is a seperate topic from slavery, but you do give up your rights in prison, which would include the 13th amendment. Many countries have much more terrible prison conditions.
Either way in the 1800s slaves didn't have as much of a choice to be a slave, today prisoners mostly had a choice before committing a crime (though I acknowledge not every person in jail deserves or should be there). I just think that should be awknowledge before saying America still has "slaves". At the end of the day the law is what allows us to have the society we have today (for better or worse).
Lmfao. You're disgusting. No, not very many countries have worse prisons than America, At least not other comparable western nations.
How is that disgusting? Admitting that you lose rights in prison? You're literally just trolling for a reaction. I can think of a handful of EU countries with much smaller populations that have it better. Comparing black slaves from the 1800s to modern day prisoners is what's disgusting
I'm guessing prison inmates, as outlined in tge constitution?
THIS is how CEO's make thier money, it's how the rich 1% stay rich - by exploiting people who let them exploit them based on outmoded tropes from the rich people of the last generation, who exploited people who had very little choice when it came to 'money' Incarcerate the rich who own companies that don't pay living wages
It's how they keep people under control. Keep them dumb, desperate and distracted. Now wonder the US has the best entertainment on the planet.
Except if you actually toss folks a bone from the rich people's table they'll actually defend capitalism for you. I'm actually shocked there hasn't been a revolt already, it's not like the system is working for most people who labour under it.
They've convinced half the population it's their own fault they're poor, and convinced the other half it's brown people's fault they're poor.
America may be behind but sadly quite a few countries seem to keen on racing it right to the bottom. Nobody seems to learn from all the mistakes it is making.
Don’t kid yourself. They’ve learned plenty.
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.
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.
Nordic states reorganized themselves from feudal agrarian military economies into industrial social welfare economies over the course of the late 19th and 20th centuries. Their party politics and bureaucratic reorganization was explicitly informed by socialist theories and economic models devised during that time.
Strong unions, state owned industries, and Democratic governance gives working Scandenavians direct say over and profit from their local economies
It being inspired by socialism doesn't change the fact that the workers don't own the means of production there and it is therefore not socialism. Them having more say because they have unions is not the same.
Workers control the means of production through the democratic state
they don't though, they regulate it and apply some pressure, but these are still privately held, socialism is always in contrast to private ownership.
The Nordic Model is public ownership of high value industry (most notably, the O&G industry). They also have universal healthcare and free education, which come as a byproduct of state owned and operated medical centers and schools. And strong union membership puts a public leash on private enterprises at the level of direct worker action.
"The government controls around 35% of the total value of publicly listed companies on the Oslo stock exchange, with five of its largest seven listed firms partially owned by the state.[34]" good, but not socialism. Free healthcare and schools are not related to socialism.
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.
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.
https://youtube.com/shorts/zMmjKRettxA
The systems exist on a spectrum and implementations vary heavily by region, culture, and material capacity.
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?
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.
Yeah because capitalism is just how things develop without excessive government intervention to prevent it. It's a lie to say capitalism is a choice. I guess technically you could say it's a choice between buying food from a farmer or starving to death, but really that's not much of a choice. The two biggest famines in history were cause by socialist countries taking direct control of the agriculture industry.
By death toll, number one was the Qing dynasty, very much not communist. Number 2 was communist China. You have to go all the way to number 11 before you hit the USSR.
They dum.
America is full of uneducated monsters who are too dumb to have a functional democracy
It's more that they're diseducated IMO. To me, throwing vitriol at people because a decades-long campaign from the most powerful people on earth succeeded feels so similar to blaming the enslaved for not freeing themselves.
It's really frustrating and it blows to see so many people harming themselves out of hate, fear, and illiteracy, but how are they to know better? All they see elsewhere is hate against them for something they've been trained to identify with; no human responds to that.
I'm not trying to come off as offensive to insulting. I think the above is worth considering and might be productive :)
ETA: I want to respond to a lot of these replies but I'm at work so it'll be a bit. Lots of good conversation to be had :)
I’m American and I know better. What’s their excuse? Right and wrong are pretty universal. It shouldn’t take years of proper education to know not to hate someone for being born a certain way.
If you 'know better' then what's stopping you from recognizing that not everyone is cut from the same cloth?
A black person raised to believe in the Nation of Islam might be more militant in their support of black rights — does that make what they believe right? No, the NoI is a cult that believes white people were born in a lab 7000 years ago (amongst other crazy bullshit). MAGA is also a cult. You should read up on what defines cults and what kind of people are susceptible to them.
I'm not exactly making excuses for them, I hate MAGA. Nuance here, however, is very important.
You nailed it; recognizing nuance is a critical skill
This feels very much like the booststraps the owner class expects you to clime the social ladder with.
No one said anything else. My claim was that there exists a well established, well funded, and effective institution that diseducates this into people that wouldn't otherwise have it.
Edit: formatting
Okie dokie
I agree with you mostly but don’t agree in calling people “diseducated”, I think it removes too much personal agency. Undermining education and replacing it with religious devotion is most definitely a goal of fascist wealthy class but we aren’t there yet.
Public education doesn’t make someone mentally incompetent, so no need to infantilize them. This “hate, fear, and illiteracy” are all choices they’ve made to identify with.
No one is born MAGA, they choose it for themselves. Their lack of self-discipline and unable to delay gratification and propensity to choose the path of least resistance may be preyed upon by the system but they always have a choice.
Its very similar to the food system in this country, it’s all engineered to feel good and make you addicted and overconsume. You still have the choice to eat less and exercise more but it’s hard. Some people are also predisposed to falling into it, so I do think you make a good point even if I don’t fully agree
I appreciate your response, it's well written and considerate.
I want to clarify that my use of the term diseducation is not primarily directed to public schools en masse, but rather the increasing role platforms like TikTok, television, and 'alternative' 'sources' of mis/disinformation play as a voice of authority in many areas of life. To me, disinformation and diseducation vary in that disinformation is intentionally misleading/false facts about a topic to form a particular stance such, whereas diseducation primarily affects a way of thinking or conducting "research" to yield more results over time. For example, I believe a religious take on something like creationism to be disinformation as it pertains to a single set of facts on a single topic, but I believe a religious framing of things like the origin of sin and human nature to be more diseducation as they affect an individual's framework for understanding that branches beyond a particular topic. Probably not the best example; I had a long day at work
I may be misinterpreting you a bit still, but if I reframe diseducation as propaganda, then I completely agree with your point. And it also presents a challenge we will face in perpetuity in the future. The technological progress of the internet has had an enormous positive impact on humanity but also comes with an enormous human cost as the worst of us weaponize it to gain money and power.
No doubt about that.
The beauty of a library is most librarians love their job and are altruistically motivated, which can help when they spot someone regularly checking out sketchy stuff. For example, "The Prince" by Machiavelli being checked out by some 22 year old would elicit a small conversation at the counter about why he's a bad person to learn from. Those types of small guiding interactions that encourage openness in thought don't exist on the internet. The internet is also entertaining enough to find its way into influencing people who aren't as likely to have a conversation like that at a library in the first place. There's a whole list of small things like that which have previously made access to info more likely to be positive that simply aren't in place on the internet, and it adds up a ton.
It becomes more complicated when the campaign was created by propagandists from the 1940s and simply echoed through time by increasingly credulous buffons with more and more money.
At the same time, the "enslaved" keep signing up to join the military and the police, so that they can leverage their position to get access to the things they are trying to deprive everyone else of.
So it's a cycle of self-imposed violence and poverty. And it is one that people accept reflexively because it hurts other people who are lower than them on the social order.
Not simply an issue of ignorance but of cruelty.
At least in my hometown, people are trained from birth that joining the military is a high honor and one of the bravest and least-selfish things one can do. There's a reason the military aims more recruiting effort towards teenagers than any other demographic, with 40% of the entire military (not just of new recruits) being under 25: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547615/figure/fig_3_2/?report=objectonly
Partly, yes. Keep in mind my original comment was in response to another, not a holistic self-standing claim. My opening sentence was a comparative, not a declaration of absolute fact.
Also to be clear, my use of enslaved was in reference to slavery in the USA, not the military which is an entirely volunteer (yes, the word volunteer is a heavy lift) force.
Yeah, but those people all received a public education (like I did) and have access to all humanity's knowledge at their fingertips. And they're still profoundly stupid. That's not a good look.
Self education? I know a whole lot more than I did when I stopped having a formal education. I don't think it's right to just assume that people are sheep by default and have to have good educators to be reasonably intelligent. Especially in this day and age. It removes the expectation of personal responsibility that we should have for every adult.
Consider the differences in public school quality of experience with regard to property tax, individual performance, class size, and elected school officials, state gov't, and decade of education.
Not saying you went to a great school or were a top performer with extra curricular opportunities or whatever, I just want you to consider the range in education quality in the US.
As well as disinformation. Without an adequate understanding of how to use it, as is prominent in those who couldn't afford college or were raised before the proliferation of the Internet, this can do far more potential harm than potential good.
There are many, many, many life factors that can make this virtually impossible to people, particularly the poorly educated. Again, how are they to decipher right from wrong when wrong is intentionally crafted to discredit right?
For some factors, consider: Poor access to mental health medicine Lack of motivation caused by the above
This isn't something we need to assume, and not something I assume. I believe this is widely understood as an explanation of why environmental factors are of the greatest (and best established) predictors of lifelong trajectory including continuing ed, economic success, and general success measures. (https://www.nber.org/papers/w14884) this is a link to the first article I found. If you'd like, I can send a link to my reference doc for a thesis I wrote that had over 60 studies with an aggregate 2 million lives covered with all the same finding, as well as 2 studies that debunked the leading study with the opposite finding.
I want to be clear that diseducation is not limited to schooling in youth but also inclusive of lifelong trainings, exposure to mis/disinformation, propagation, etc. One of the most popular narratives among right-leaning young men today is that higher ed is BAD. Not that it's a suboptimal economic investment, but that it actively harms your ability to think for yourself.
One final thing, I'm not trying to say we should forgive and forget. This is a very real issue and needs to be addressed seriously, and there absolutely is individual responsibility at play. Nuance is critical, though, and like most things the truth is in the middle.
Part of the problem is it's very easy to blame someone else for the state of the world and think their group does nothing wrong.
Oh come on. The US leads the world, by a healthy margin, in number of billionaires.
Not anymore. China has more billionaires than US. 1,100 vs 1,000 or so.
::: spoiler But the US has the world's first trilionaire, so suck it! just kidding of course. that's a terrible achievement :::
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
My country has all of that (healthcare/education are basically free). Workers rights are protected and stuff but taxes here are really high compared to the U.S.
Good question! The report is here but there's no such list that I could find.
https://static.heritage.org/index/pdf/2026/2026_indexofeconomicfreedom.pdf
scotus also reversed the ruling that potus can now fire at well on the 12 agencies, like cpbd, sec,,,,etc.
you can have both private a full public option. funny enough thats the military healthcare plan right now, but its not available to any of the civilians.
you can also judge the health of a country by the mortality/morbidity of mothers/woman. they pretty much have the worst outcome of neo and post natal morbidity, and mortality of all developed countries. worst if you are a POC, or black.
They've also been attacking tricare and the va like it's the nhs. (Aggressively, but without openly saying that's what they're doing)
im guessing service members have outlived thier usefulness as political pawns and cannon fodder.
Seems like a lot of them countries are trying to strip that stuff away though.
Guess who's influencing them to do so.
Those dastardly Australians of course.
we're being dragged down by a mental midget monolith
The phrase "true and fully capitalist" is a sentence incongruent with historical materialism. Mode of production is not about purity of ideology. It is about how things are made.
The american dream with the 80's victory music in the background, I can hear it
That's because the US is an Oligarchy, and has been for some time.
Lol. Who's the shithole country now?
I suppose for now with the cost of living being the way it is and the amount of debt that no one can figure out who the US is in debt to, we’re not gonna see that happen for a while.
How many of these were the other way around? As in DIF all of these flip or has the US always been behind? I'm guessing the latter.
Man this tripped me up at first, usually the only people who use the term "common sense" are dipshit old men who think all the fake BS they spew is the basis for all human knowledge
The answer to this is "Every other country is trash. Except us."
I'm not saying I think that, I'm saying this is the first thought my amercan friends who never left the states will have.
and still Trump has a 37% popularity
so mich winning
No way he gets reelected with these abysmal numbers
You are still clinging to the hope that there's gonna be an election?
The pageantry of the election will continue long after the purpose of the elections is exhausted.
We're going to have a day when people go to little tablets and poke at them with their fingers and hand over slips of paper listing who they wish were in charge for centuries to come.
The problem is the insistence on trying to force the word "socialism" onto people. The meaning of the word is completely nebulous, but to many people it's synonymous with the USSR. So by saying to want "socialism" you're automatically fighting an uphill battle by explaining distinction between what you mean by the word as opposed to other people's meaning of the word.
This is part of a larger problem of leftists generally being incapable of communicating with working class. If leftists abandoned the terminology and just said "we want universal healthcare, higher minimum wage, better working conditions" there would be a lot of support by the working class.
But the problem there is that you'd be largely indistinguishable from liberals who you're told to hate by monetized "influencers" on corporate social media. Corporate social media has emphasized the importance of identity over being effective, so leftists will continue to cling to the word "socialist" even while it hinders effectiveness on achieving goals that most people want. Then probably be angry at the working class for being "stupid" because they don't understand that you want the same things as them and it's their fault that they associate the word "socialism" with a country that had that word in it's name.
I think this is the cause of the majority of disagreements. Like, in everything.
Nah it's just internet troll culture. Say things in a controversial way to get a response and argue over semantics and accomplish nothing.
The people that actually want to make a difference actively make an effort to get people to agree with them, which is the opposite of troll culture.
This is nonsense sure we could easily have those things but those things are half measures and whatever is being used to define "fully developed capitalist countries" is almost certainly arbitrary and questionable.
You could easily have the things that most of the country asks for but have none of?
Weird...
A lot of that "free healthcare" is like getting a bandaid and a bed to sleep on. Real surgeries and such cost money. People with money in places with "free healthcare" usually buy their own health insurance on top of the free stuff. In the USA, the basics are free if you can do paperwork. And if you can't do paperwork, you just end up with a bad credit score.
I once had to pay $250 for just a 15-minute conversation with a doctor. With insurance.
I had to pay $400 after waiting 4-5 months in serious pain (uncommon injury) for an appointment with a specialist and when I got there I was with him for maybe 3 minutes as he explained I was sent to the wrong place and gave me the number for the place I was supposed to go.
I never actually paid. I refused. I'm actually not sure if they ended up sending it to collections. I was in too much pain to give a shit about any of that. I just knew I wasn't going to willingly pay them.
Oh yeah, WITH insurance.
Our system isn't just a joke. It's a predatory scheme.
Incorrect. Even getting a bandage and a bed would cost hundreds if not thousands even with great insurance.
Source: real life
I have NEVER paid for healthcare and i have got some hard stuff on my family.
In case you want the "juicy" examples:
Hope that helps.
The country is Spain by the way.
and guess what folks, the countries that have things like Universal health care, the citizen rights is taken away big time. Many of these countries that are supposed ahead of America, eating food is not a right, having children is not a right, etc.
You're an idiot
Don't breed
No one is this dumb. Get your ragebait out of here haha.