198
Americans who believe in Socialism, if you were given the opportunity to immigrate to a country with socialist policies, would you? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
251 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [S] 55 points 2 years ago (8 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 73 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 18 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Where at and howโ€™d you pull that off? Inquiring minds want to know

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 12 points 2 years 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 57 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

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

    That said, Iโ€™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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 3 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent