• PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    216
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    First, please define what you mean by socialism. That word encompasses a lot of very different forms of government, even when it’s used “correctly”, and it’s typically not.

    The Nazis called themselves socialists, and I’m not moving there.

    When many people say socialism, what they mean is capitalist democracy with a strong social safety net, strong government regulation, and highly progressive taxation.

    Edit: for the love of god, please do a little bit of reading about socialism before reinforcing my point that this word is used terribly. We won’t take the wiki as ultimate truth, but please read. Be better. Read and think first. Comment later.

    • nodsocket@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      When many people say socialism, what they mean is capitalist democracy with a strong social safety net, strong government regulation, and highly progressive taxation.

      Let’s go with that definition since that’s what most people think of as socialist.

      • Tyfud@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        75
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The question doesn’t need to be hypothetical. I am moving to a country exactly like that. From the US.

        Lack of modern health care coverage alone is enough to justify it. A bonus is that the quality of life across the board is significantly higher.

          • ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            10 months ago

            I read that Denmark releases a list every six months of the skills and degrees that are allowed to immigrate, or get priority or something like that. From looking at the last one I assume they value education, the liberal arts and humanities a lot more than the US.

            It ends up being a catch 22. When you want to leave the US because of a lack of upward mobility, social services, jobs in your field, and you can’t save because of healthcare, rent, and debt, then how can you have enough money to move to another state, much less another country?

          • Perfide@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Can’t answer the where at, but most likely by having an in demand skill and/or a job already lined up. Either that or they had family there. Immigration away from here is basically impossible otherwise.

          • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            They have qualifications. Or relatives. Or something of value to offer.

            If you have a PhD or MD (additionally, you know, just straight money), you can emigrate to a lot of places. Probably most places.

          • Tyfud@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Portugal and a lot of effort (Plus cash to invest).

            Basically going through the Golden Visa process (Which has changed substantially the last year, happy to explain more if curious)

      • xe3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        64
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        That is objectively not socialism (any definition of socialism that begins by defining it as a form of capitalism is fundamentally confused)

        That said, I’d agree that it is a widespread misunderstanding today. And what people mean when they say socialism is usually actually social democracy (which despite sounding like the word socialism is a mixed system based on capitalism)

        Using that misunderstanding as the definition I would definitely live in many of those countries. Many have some of the highest qualities of life in the world, low rates of poverty, universal access to good healthcare and education, and good social mobility.

        E.g Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Germany

          • Schneemensch@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Exactly. This is what the person you are responding to is saying as well.

            They state that the above definition of socialism is wrong as it defines it as a from of capitalism with social features. But under the condition that this is meant he would move into these countries.

            • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              It’s actually not even that. The Wikipedia page talks about free and mixed market in socialism.

              That’s capitalism.

              It uses the word literally.

          • xe3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Yes… Please reread my last comment more slowly… particularly the first two paragraphs.

            • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I swear. This place is way more toxic than Reddit.

              I can’t imagine someone being so condescending there on a topic like this.

              Please read the Wikipedia article. We don’t have to agree that Wikipedia is an ultimate source of truth, but it is a pretty good article.

              I don’t think I’ll be able to communicate anything more to someone who tells me to “read more slowly”.

              • Pelicanen@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                You’re the one who responded to their comment without actually reading it, why are you complaining about them?

      • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Provided there is an appropriate amount of technocracy (decisions made by experts rather than politicians), it’d be hard for me to think of a better form of government.

        Anyway, this was largely the US until Regan. Social safety net could’ve been stronger, but that had to evolve. Same as in Europe.

        Except , racism. Addressing that is not a part of any definition of socialism that I’m aware of. Equality is certainly going along with the spirit of this definition of “socialism”

      • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        10 months ago

        “Socialists of Lemmy, would you move to a country that someone who has absolutely no idea what socialism is thinks is socialist?”

        Lmao.

      • Iceblade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        No, “most people” do not consider that to be what socialism is. Particularly those of us who live in countries with the aforementioned policies. Here we’ve had real socialists who wanted to take away our fundamental individual rights, amongst them the right to ownership, which frankly is a scary idea.

        A lot of our regulations and limits on the free market don’t have a socialist bent at all, but are intended to defend our individual liberties against large corporations, which if left unchecked can become corporate institutions, something the US has fallen victim to.

        I’d consider these policies as important, if not moreso than our social welfare systems. The social mobility and safety provided by these are meaningless if an arbitrary decision by google, amazon or some bank can singlehandedly ruin your life.

    • Bruno Finger@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why couldn’t that what you just described be called something different other than “socialism” then? Sounds like a bad move to make it fall under that same umbrella especially since that term is very frowned upon if not straight out forbidden in a few European countries for example.

      • xe3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It is, the term for this type of system is called Social Democracy which is not a synonym for socialism, but people (Americans at least) confused and conflate the two terms to the point that they’ve become one and the same in the minds of many people who don’t really understand the terms or their origins.

      • Lukario@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because we’re too busy categorizing this stupid shit into bins of “good” and “bad” when reality is a greyscale between these two. These are fairly reasonable points and should be viewed as a more centrist POV, but since we (read: primarily North America) have a tribal “us vs. them” animosity about it we lump many reasonable ideas together on each end of the spectrum. Things like not having to go bankrupt when you or a loved one needs an emergency hospital visit somehow automatically gets lumped in with the other extreme “socialist” ideas just to solely argue against it and not budge from their end of the extreme.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Wow, yes this is so true for many discussions online and increasingly offline as well. Nuance seems to be not welcomed. Sometimes even suggesting there might be nuance or the topic might be more complicated than black and white already puts you firmly in the enemy camp.