• @umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    162 days ago

    are they socialist? if they arent then good luck winning people back with a fundamental misunderstanding of whats wrong.

    • qaz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      They were in favour of UBI here, apart from that no afaik. They are also in favour of establishing a lobbyist registry for more transperency in national politics, which I quite liked.

    • @CanadaPlus
      link
      English
      1
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I mean, most people aren’t socialists. In Europe there’s usually a hard left option already, and it gets fairly few votes.

        • @CanadaPlus
          link
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Should I pick a European hard-left party and post it’s actual seat count, or is that irrelevant to the point you’re trying to make?

          • @x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 day ago

            Are you saying only a few people want health care and social safety nets? And that everybody wants companies to be more important than people?

            • @CanadaPlus
              link
              English
              0
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Ah, by “socialism” you mean, like, Norway. On Lemmy people usually mean the USSR when they say that. I think OP meant socialist like the USSR.

              Most of the Volt platforms I’ve looked at are pretty pro-welfare.

              • @x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 day ago

                Norway? You think it’s only one or a few countries?

                The UK, Australia, almost every European country. All of them have a lot of structures made possible by socialism. Even America has some socialist constructs.

                I think you might be thinking of “communism” which nowadays means the opposite. Like how neither Russia or China are actually communist. Both have an authoritarian state and lots of capitalism, with a tiny bit of socialism.

                • @CanadaPlus
                  link
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  I mean, the actual historical definition of socialism is “collective ownership of the means of production”, and the actual historical definition of communism is “a classless, stateless society that will inevitably follow capitalism, according to Marx”. The USSR only ever claimed to be working towards communism, and referred to themselves as “socialist”.

                  Nowadays the words can mean something different, depending on who uses them.

                  • @x00za@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 day ago

                    Well yes, but you misjudged what I said as I used the correct terms.

                    So my point is again, there are many people that believe in socialist constructs, and are therefor partly socialist.

                • @CanadaPlus
                  link
                  English
                  11 day ago

                  How have you been on Lemmy for over a year, and still not run into people who think it was?

                  (For my part, I think words have the definition we give them)