You're viewing a single thread.
What disgusts me most about conservative voters and capitalists is most of them are so ignorant to admit that capitalism requires balance by virtue. You cannot exist in an environment where everyone is free to have money and buy things with that money and there will always ben enough supply for demand without serious guardrails to ensure it. What MAGA stands for is the idea that capitalism should be highly regulated, highly balanced, and highly fair. These people believe that to their core. They just… don’t vote that way. They’re so arrogant, so propagandized, they’ll continue to vote for the people that wish to continue destabilizing the balance.
I pity conservative voters. They've been brainwashed by Fox News for decades if not their entire lives
I actually find that both MAGA folks and modern conservatives are big on Laissez-faire capitalism.
I still believe that fits the definition:
- An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.
I add the highlighting to point out that in order for a society to stay fair, it must be regulated. If they believe that a free market should be everlasting, they should also believe that enabling the capitalist overclass would be detrimental to that goal. They tend to vote, however, for that same overclass that seeks to destroy the balance, and destroy any semblance of a “laissez-faire” market.
Like, an example. Trump says he wants to add a 10-20% tariff on all imports. Is that a “laissez-faire” government? However, if you explained to these people, without Fox News, what that meant.. rhey’d clearly say it was some planned-economy Argentine shit.
What MAGA stands for is the idea that capitalism should be highly regulated, highly balanced, and highly fair.
Oh fuck right off, no they do not.
That's market socialism you're describing, and MAGA bigots definitely don't stand for it, much less understanding that "capitalism" isn't synonymous with "market economy", much much less caring about actual economics, and more just getting to be in a group of likeminded bigots.
I agree, in that most MAGA don’t really believe in much of anything, if a belief must stand a rigorous showing of competence. However, America has been a country championing socialist policy for almost 100 years. Even those spouting Trumpian garbage believe in liberalism. They just have labels and made-up feelings provided to them by the capitalist overclass, convincing them to destroy themselves.
However, America has been a country championing socialist policy for almost 100 years.
Uh, what?
You have horrible social security and labour laws. If anyone has been "championing socialist policies", it's the Nordics, or if talking labour rights especially, France definitely more than the US.
The American anti-socialist rhetoric is so bad it has its own name. Even very moderate socialist policies are often disparaged as "communism".
There's so much libertarianism online now, mostly affected by said American rhetoric, that I've actually met an idiot here in Finland who genuinely argued that homelessness and unemployment is a conscious choice by anyone suffering either.
You sound a bit like Peter Thiel in this clip (played on John Oliver) where he is pretending Trump's rhetoric has deeper meaning.
Since most aren't gonna listen here's the transcript:
Peter Thiel: I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump, take Trump seriously, but not literally. And so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment or things like that, It's not, the question is not, you know, are you gonna build a wall like the Great Wall of China, or, you know, how exactly are you gonna enforce these tests? What they hear is, we're gonna have, we're gonna have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.
Cut back to John Oliver
Oliver: Oh, yeah, that is definitely the sense I got from watching those Trump rallies. Yes, while we are all furiously chanting, "build that wall", we all understand in this context, wall is a clever use of metonymy, or a figure of speech in which 1 word, wall in this example, is used as a stand-in for a saner, more sensible immigration policy. Now, if you will, let's unpack "Trump the bitch".
So you just downvote me, because you didn’t quite understand.
Brother, I’m happy the government of Finland is strong in the face of Russian fascists. But Republicans are not. And in America today, waving around John Oliver clips about “how obviously America is trash for 18 reasons” only exists to destroy a narrative with Trumpian citizens — those same citizens that wish to use their voting power to demolish the institution. They already have SCOTUS. Technically, they’ve already won the election.
So you just downvote me, because you didn’t quite understand.
Made my drink spill out my nose for laughing so hard.
No, "brother", it's you who doesn't understand. And this not understanding — willfully so even — is a hallmark of the American spirit.
Saying "the US has been championing socialist policies for 100 years" is the same as saying "China has been championing personal freedom for 100 years".
"Waving around John Oliver America Bad clips" = "I don't have the cognitive capabilities to pay attention to an award winning journalistic show that sources it's claims so thus everything addressed in it is shit"
The US still doesn't have a direct presidential election, I don't think you've quite understood what that means.
You’re right, the phrasing is generous. I mean even 100 years ago, it’d be far more about championing white rights. If reconstruction went better… but that’s my point. I think we have differing definitions of the word “championing”. It does not mean to be the best, but rather the support for exists. And America has been pushing for these ideals. In comparison to so some other country, that isnt inundated with capitalist cowboys and slave stories — sure, nice. Even some countries that have those were able to. But still, those in America have championed for social rights, and fundamental programs exist that prove that. You just think it means “best in the world”, and after watching all the Olympics, I forgive you.
I think we have differing definitions of the word “championing”.
No, we don't. You're trying to pretend we do, to get out of having said something utterly silly.
It's far sillier to try those sort of semantical shenanigans than just admitting to having said something silly in the first place.
And America has been pushing for these ideals
You had segregation just 60 years ago, you still don't have limitless sickleave or even mandatory maternity leave. You have homeless people — who actually have jobs — shitting on the streets and dying from completely treatable things like infections, because they can't afford the insane prices of healthcare. Education is more or less a joke, you're literally burning books.
America has been actively suppressing socialist policies (and complete governments). That's a fact. Not an argument. Not an opinion. And definitely not up to semantics.
You’ve never heard of Social Security? I personally think it’s important to highlight the fundamental pieces of government that already work using systems people could classify as “socialist”. You pay in. You get you cut. The government uses everyones money as leverage.
The context, is the current population is quite literally on the precipice of throwing out modern liberal democracy all together.
I agree, of course, there are many other components to being human in America that the government isn’t properly established to deal with. But people who already hate the idea of socialism, they should understand that America grew to what it is, what it was, in part because of those policies.
It’s also a much better story to wrap yourself in than WW2 dominance and trickle-down horse-shit, and the ever-constant reminder of failed reconstruction and native demolition. America came together once, in the darkness of the Depression, to build a foundation. The last several generations, even those that existed when these programs were established, have existed to destroy and steal and gut. But Reagan told us all it was the government’s fault, and in the golden hue of the 1980s, who the fuck needed Social Security? It was those same government programs that saved Americas cities, that built Americas roads. Many of the tracks may be gone, but they’ve all been replaced with internet cables — similarly a public enterprise.
America is not a socialist country, it’s constitution needs rewritten. But so much of what makes America what it is, what Americans understand America to be, is solely because of social liberalism. And all of these people that are voting Trump, they should understand that. Because Trump literally stands for demolishing all of it.
Ok yes. In the 1930s the United States came shockingly close to socialist revolution over the Great Depression and as such we won massive concessions that have been in the process of being eroded since the end of wwii, but especially since the 80s. Such a massive propaganda campaign combined with anti communist crackdowns happened that we basically surrendered social security and couldn’t implement universal healthcare
See this guy understands what I’m saying.
To say that America is “number 1” is not what I was saying, it was that at the heart of the American governmental systems lies a true socialist foundation. That’s why it’s been hammered for so long, because it’s what should have propelled America into the 21st century.
Like I’m often the defender of the American socialist tradition both on Lemmy and over in America, but I wouldn’t call it a foundation. We have deep socialist roots for sure, but they’re concessions and arguments. It’s the foundational conflict of our nation: a slave empire built on the idea that all men are created equal. It resulted in a breeding ground for anarchists and fascists.
Those concessions are important and they led to a lot of prosperity, but don’t forget that by the 50s we had McCarthy. We should’ve toppled it and showed the ussr what communism can be
You’ve never heard of Social Security?
Oh, you've never heard of the The Democratic People's Republic of Korea? As you can see from the name, they're definitely democratic.
The US social security is a bad joke compared to other developed nations.
To say "USA has been championing socialist policies for 100 years" is on the same level as saying "China has been championing personal freedom for 100 years".
The US doesn't even have direct presidential elections, which by the standard of developed democratic nations is extremely weird.
There's a lot there I don't need to comment on. I'm challenging you on your "America has been championing socialist policies for 100 years" comment.
Compared to European social security and labour laws, US socialist policies and labour laws are pretty much on the level of developing nations — if that.
Case in point; Among 41 countries, only U.S. lacks paid parental leave
Are you honestly trying to use public roads as an example of "having championed socialist policies"? Not exactly the most novel or progressive policy, I would say.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - Homelessness
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-benefits-are-modest
Social Security benefits in the United States are lower than many other developed countries.
You have people who are employed full time, some even in two jobs, who still have to live and shit on the street.
"Championing socialist policies" lol
Literal strawman nonsense, look at this man go. I think you should understand that America is attempting to erode a woman’s right to vote. That’s what I’m saying. That all these people that think America should continue down the path of abandoning modern democracy should look into Americas past and understand the points in time in which it has championed for rights.
Thats the way you use that word. You’re literally admitting you’re ESL and can’t use English as well as I can. You’ve built a massive strawman on this simple fact. Other commentors can see my point. You can’t. Sorry.
Like I actually can’t believe you’ve built this massive of a strawman, it’s incredible. All because you don’t know the definition of a word. That’s literally all you go back to, as well. Nothing else I say matters. You just masturbate to your strawman, Mr Fin.
You don't understand what a strawman argument is.
ESL? No, that's "English as a second language". Mine is technically third. My English is better than 60% native speakers (a large 60min test by a professional). And that counts countries which aren't on the level of developing nations when it comes to literacy figures
America is attempting to erode a woman’s right to vote.
America has been championing socialist policies for 100 years.
So which one do you believe in this one?
It's quite hilarious how often I end up teaching Americans English. While this is my third language, I'm fairly sure I've used it longer, more and in more academic contexts than you have. That's why I don't make up meanings for words when someone proves me wrong.
champion verb
vigorously support or defend the cause of.
"he championed the rights of the working class and the poor"
Once I answered your arse-ignorant "well when did your country" bullshit you got shaken and started shifting your asinine goalposts. The US has never CHAMPIONED socialist policies, let alone even using them. Still don't.
It's incredibly ironic how you think saying "you got the wrong definition" will work, and how "other commentors can see". Yes, they can. They will be able to even check the definition (which I've linked btw, but you ofc haven't, as your definition of the word is made up) and see that "champion" doesn't exactly mean what you pretend it does. :)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/champion
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/champion
Even if you forgo the most used definitions, and try to find a niche one that's even remotely similar to how you're using it...? Nah. The closest ones still will have at least "enthusiastic" in them. The way you use it to say "America has been championing socialist policy for 100 years" is incorrect.
America has been actively suppressing socialist policies, socialist movements and even socialist countries. These are facts.
So I don't know what "English" you're using, but here in the real world "champion" doesn't mean "actively fighting against".
"Mr. Fin"
See you can't even write Finn, which is the demonym for a Finnish person. You use the noun which means a literal fin. Like those things fish have. :D
"championing socialist policy"
If it wasn't so worrying that people like you exist, it'd be kinda hilarious.
I also said a century. I mean when was Social Security setup in your country? I don’t think you understand the ideological war being fought in America.
I mean when was Social Security setup in your country?
So nothing I showed matters, the Red Scare doesn't matter, the current situation doesn't matter, you ignore (willfully) literally everything that proves your sentence to be insanely inaccurate and very ironic.
Most actual paying social security systems started right around WWII. Do you think your "championed for a century" will be correct with the first US social security starting in 1940?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_in_Finland
In the last years of the nineteenth century, Finnish social policy had as its goal the lessening of class friction. The few existing pieces of social legislation addressed the needs of specific groups rather than of society as a whole.
According to the Finnish sociologist Erik Allardt, the hallmark of the Nordic welfare systems is their comprehensiveness. Unlike the welfare systems of the United States or most West European countries, those of the Nordic countries cover the entire population, and they are not limited to those groups unable to care for themselves.
We don't have people (who are employed even) shitting on the streets. We have guaranteed maternity leaves, limitless sick days.
Just how brainwashed or ignorant does one need to be to say the US was more a "champion of socialist policies" than the Nordics...?
In 1906, the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland, which later became the Republic of Finland, was the first country in the world to give all women and all men both the right to vote and the right to run for office. Finland was also the first country in Europe to give women the right to vote.[5][6] The world's first female members of parliament were elected in Finland the following year.
You still had segregation less than 61 years ago. And still don't have the labour laws that are considered utterly basic in most developed nations.
I do understand the ideological war fought in America, because I exist on the internet and a significant portion of it deals with US politics.
The only reason we're speaking English now is because you only know English. Ie I know more than you and are accommodating your level of knowledge and trying to get you to improve it.