• lunarul@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    the government has the right to first refusal

    the transfer/sale of a home to a specified individual can be arranged through the government

    And time and time again this has lead to people in the government abusing this power and assuring for themselves and their families a completely different standard of living than the rest of the population. I’ve lived in a socialist country and the end was not pretty.

    It sounds great on paper and has proven great on small scales (with the option to leave the community if you want), but on larger scales human nature always messes things up.

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Sure, so let’s try nothing, because the current system works so well. I mean, what with us having solved homelessness, having equality, and fixing the climate, I can’t imagine why we should do something different.

      I understand that you’ve had a bad experience, and I also understand that the real world examples of nation states claiming to be socialist have been less than ideal, but, as a species, we have to decide what is more important, because we’re running out of time. I’m not a Soviet fan boy or a tankie, I’m an anti authoritarian, libertarian socialist. But it’s a bit like the US election right now. I don’t like Kamala, but I’ll take her over Trump, and continue to work outside of that to achieve my actual goals. I don’t like state socialism, but it’s better than what we’ve got. If the biggest problem with socialist states has been corruption in the upper echelons of power, then that is excellent real world data to draw from when we considering alternatives to both our current system and the experiments of the past. Strict transparency, more citizen involvement, less concentration of power. Sure, again, not my ideal system, but it’s something better. We have examples to draw from, both in failures and successes. Yugoslavia had a lot more personal freedoms than the USSR, and a strong focus on worker cooperatives. Cuba has managed to create one of the best healthcare systems in the world with shoestrings and belt buckles. The USSR gives us an example of just how quickly progress can be made in areas like industrialization, crucial information that could help us in the transition to renewable energy. The US and Western Europe have created citizenry that are unwilling to accept, at least in theory, authoritarian, iron-fist control. We absolutely can create something that blends these philosophies, but it is imperative that it’s focus be on the creation of an egalitarian society that works towards ending tyranny, which includes the tyranny of workers, and seeks to solve the climate crises. We do not have a choice if we want to survive the next few decades.

      • lunarul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sure, so let’s try nothing, because the current system works so well.

        Not where I was going with it. There are definitely a lot of things that should be done, especially in the US, which I wouldn’t even call socialist, just common sense (like universal healthcare). But you can’t tell people “you’re not all equal” and suddenly they all believe it. That’s why most socialist countries were also authoritarian. Maybe over many generations of progressive change things can go differently.

        • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Most socialist states have been authoritarian because most of them of were authoritarian before their socialist movements. They are a product of their own cultures. In addition, most are authoritarian because they’re attempting to recreate the successes of the Soviet revolution, and using their system as a baseline.

          Also, my first paragraph in that comment was aggressive and I apologize for that. I should have come better than that. But the fact remains, socialism is not the problem. Authoritarianism is. They’re not one and the same, nor is one required for the other.

    • Juice@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Human nature? Which part of human nature? Humans are multifaceted. Also, there has never been an example of socialism in practice, even moderate social democracy that secured domestic mineral and oil resources for its own people, that hasn’t come under direct attack, invasion, embargo, sanction, etc., by western capitalist powers. It usually isn’t human nature messing things up, its direct capitalist imperialist intervention.

      Also what model of human nature are you using? I prefer the dialectical construction of Benedict Spinoza in his book Ethics, have you ever considered what you mean by it or where you picked it up from? I see a lot of hand waving about human nature from people, but no description of what it actually is. How do you know you aren’t using a flawed concept in your determination?