• fomo_erotic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    NATO members in general are too comfortable relying too much much on the U.S. defense umbrella. It is something the U.S. has been warning NATO members about for a long time. It’s meant to be a collective defense. What’s happening in Ukraine should be a loud wakeup call.

    I’m fine with NATO members relying on the US defense budget as long as they spend their money on socialist programs at home. The US could provide the best socialist safety net on the planet, and still outspend the rest of the world 40:1 on defense if it would just tax the rich. Tax capitol gains like income as well, and 80% tax on everything over 20 million a year, 95% tax on everything over 200 million a year, and 99% tax on everything over 1 billion a year.

    Boom now we can do the best socialized medicine on the plan and have enough left over to build a couple hundred new NATO bases where ever member states want them.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Welfare programs in capitalist countries are not socialism. “Socialism program” would be collectivisiation of the means of production.

          • emerty@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Must of missed the whole market socialism thing in the Nordics and under Blair in the UK?

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Market socialism examples are Yugoslavia and Poland in the 70’s. Nordics have capitalism with (currently being cut) social safety nets, one of prime characteristics of socialdemocracy, ideology that do not promote socialism but capitalism with “human face”, as Nomad said, based on Keynes work. Blair and his followers in many countries went much off even that into the neoliberalism.

              • emerty@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah you’re right. I think it originated from Adam Smith? Vietnam would probably be described as market socialist

                The Nordic model has social policies

                Blair described his as an alternative to socialism

                In the United Kingdom, Third Way social-democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism and said: “My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice. … Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly.”[7] Blair referred to it as a “social-ism” involving politics that recognised individuals as socially interdependent and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen and equal opportunity.

          • Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            You seem to have a pretty narrow definition of socialism. I think most people would not use the term as narrow as you do no matter what quoted text you are about to post in response.

              • Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                From simple Wikipedia: “Socialism is a political ideology that aims to make people equal. It generally focuses on equality of wealth (eg. similar wages, housing, education, healthcare), although since the 1960s, it has often focused on equality of power. It is normally considered left-wing, because it seeks to change society.”

                • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  ??? You seem to have not only weird definition of socialism, because it’s totally not it, but even different wikipedia. Here’s what it says, in the very beginning (your definition is nowhere there):

                  Social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. Which is basically as broad definition as possible, everything left of succdems fit right in.

                  For the lulz, i searched for your definition, and it had only a single result, here. Specifically, a comment down below:

                  Concluding, i guess it must be true, since the well known socialist theoretician BAD BOY BUBBY said so /s