this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
56 points (78.6% liked)

Asklemmy

46589 readers
1639 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/27293783

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

all of the above listed counties have very solid healthcare and are not entirely socialist. what’s your point?

socialism is not a requirement for being a place that treats people with respect and dignity; nor is it a silver bullet

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

As @[email protected] said, the Nordics can only provide the safety nets they do while paying generally high wages while still maintaining enormous profits for their bourgeoisie because they expropriate vast sums from the Global South via Imperialism, manifested in outsourcing manufacturing for pennies and through large loans. They are Landlords in country form.

They aren't alone in this, of course, the whole of Western Europe generally does it, and the US Empire is the biggest at it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

it is a requirement if you want to do that without oppessing brown people elsewhere.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

the important thing is not socialism: it’s a government that deals with negative externalities

socialism tends to do better at that simply because often it often does better at long-term planning (but that’s not a given either), but capitalism without corporate bullshit, stock markets, etc (ie actual ownership over a business rather than just ownership over a vague thing where you’re only concerned with line goes up not long term business health) has pretty much the same drivers: long term sustainability and this holding others to account for their negative externalities

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

What you describe as "corporate bullshit" and "stock markets" are just a symptom of later stages of Capitalism. You cannot maintain the small stages forever, eventually they will coalesce into large firms and syndicates. You can't simply bust up monopoly either, manufacturing gets so complex that it needs to be done by large companies to handle the scale.

This process doesn't stop, though, it becomes better and more efficient to publicly own and plan these large firms as they get larger and larger. This is why Socialism is a necessity regardless.