(TikTok screencap)

      • Resplendent606@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s not true. Supporting socialism has nothing to do with one’s financial situation, but rather about advocating for a more equitable society where everyone has access to basic needs.

        • Electricd@lemmybefree.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          it has to do, as you have nothing to lose. Never said it is only based on this, but it will have an effect. You’ll be less tempted to vote for a party that will make you lose half your wealth if you’re currently rich

          • Resplendent606@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’s a classic strawman argument. Just because someone supports socialism doesn’t mean they’re motivated by personal gain or a desire to take from the wealthy. It means they care about creating a more equitable society for all.

            • Electricd@lemmybefree.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              That’s not what I meant to say. What I meant to say is you’re less inclined to vote for socialism if you end up suffering economically for it. There sure are people that just want people to be equal, but it’s pretty obvious to see that the proudest defenders of this are often the ones who would benefit the most of this, which is likely to be linked to what I said above.

              or a desire to take from the wealthy

              It sure seems like many do. Saying that on lemmy is… bold

              • Resplendent606@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yes, there’s some truth to that. If someone with vast resources wanted to end world hunger today, they could make a significant impact. But let’s be real, people tend to prioritize their own interests and comfort over the greater good.

                • Optional@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  But let’s be real, people tend to prioritize their own interests and comfort over the greater good.

                  So you admit socialism is an ideal that can never be realized?

      • JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Socialism in political theory is the idea that, at minimum, some systems should be owned by the collective - that’s it. The Road system in the US is largely a socialist project, for reference. USPS was also a socialist project before it was privatized. So is our now mostly defunded education system. Our fucking amazing national park system was also a socialist project to create jobs during the great recession. And the only reason that these things are going downhill is because we’ve defunded them.

        Other things socialists want would be federally funded healthcare, a federally maintained train system, college being funded by US taxes, etc.

        Yes, stalinism, communism, and Maoism are socialist ideologies. So is social democracy, the Nordic model, and various others.

        You’re brainwashed based on your reaction to that word.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s liberal. I mean, you can fancy it up how you like, but in any state in the union that’s considered liberal.

      Just not here, depending.

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

        Only if you describe everyone left of center as liberal. There’s a whole liberal capitalist population who don’t want to make the changes required to ensure members of society are healthy and have the required care, because it would inconvenience them.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes. I do. The “liberal capitalists” you’re describing are right-wing.

          These are the definitions 90% of the American public are using. Shitting on liberals by leftists is some European/East Asian/Australian bullshit. We don’t do that here.

  • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    im further left than whoever made this, so dont take it the wrong way but this is a fucking stupid meme. Surely the libs can do better than this… whatever this is… right? Like… this is some boomer-tier stuff

    • degen@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I can never really tell how un/intentionally memey the boomer aspect is anymore, but my brain might be broken. It’s definitely a meme by libs, for libs though.

    • Alteon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      See that’s my only problem with other people on the left… Conservatives will always support other conservatives. They’ll vote for them regardless.

      Liberals, Progressives, leftists, they’ll kneecap other without hesitation because they can’t stand simple progress. They want radical change. And if you can’t provide that, then they won’t vote, they won’t support anyone, they’ll talk absolute shit about candidates, ideas, etc.

      God forbid anyone tries to sell progressivism to the public… You can always guarantee a leftist will come out of the fucking woodworks to poo poo on it because it’s just not left enough for them. Assholes.

      • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Liberals are not on the same end of the political spectrum as leftists. That is why leftists don’t like dealing with them or joining forces with them. Because 9 times out of 10, on issues leftists care about, liberals will side with the right wing.

          • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Liberals are not anti-capitalist Capitalism is on the right. Liberals are on the right. It really is that simple.

            The fundamental difference between the left and right is and has always been preservation of the current form of political economy (the right) vs progression to new form of political economy (the left). During the days of feudalism the right wanted to preserve feudalism and was represented by the landed aristocracy while the left was represented primarily by bourgeois revolutionaries pushing for a capitalist system. Today those bourgeois are on the right because they are trying to preserve the current system that sustains them while communists and anarchist are on the left because they recognize that this system does not work for them and are trying to build a new one. Liberals stand in the way of that and are therefore on the right

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Okay Vladimir.

              Look, it’s super-simple: Liberals want to tax the rich, Healthcare for all, Environmental protections, and publicly funded Education.

              You can say that’s impossible because of worker oppression or whatever but that’s simply not the case. It’s a matter of enough people voting for officeholders who will do the work to implement those things.

              Your socialist language is a pitfall and a barrier to practical, actual change.

      • Omega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Liberals, Progressives, leftists, they’ll kneecap other without hesitation because they can’t stand simple progress. They want radical change.

        Agreed 100%. And I’d expand it further (and more impactfully) many moderates would rather let the country delve into fascism than the mystery box of progressivism that (in their mind) might eventually lead to fascism or higher taxes when they finally become a billionaire.

        Moderates and progressives need to agree on a candidate (primary), then both sides need to support them.

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          We agreed on a candidate. (Bernie)

          And the Dems decided to railroad the other candidate through anyway. It makes absolutely perfect sense why progressives think liberals are full of shit.

          Hell, Dems are fighting harder against Mamdani right now than they are against Donald, a literal fascist president.