Americans who believe in Socialism, if you were given the opportunity to immigrate to a country with socialist policies, would you?
"If you hate the Death Star so much, why don't you go live on Alderaan?"
Goddamn
Death Star blows up Alderaan.
"Why would socialism do this?!
The notion that free* healthcare, free* education, subsidised transport, government provided unemployment supports etc is even labelled “socialist” strikes me as particularly American.
Having lived for quite a long time in canada, I think most Americans would love the it.
Semi related - The USA is already socialist if you consider they have more spent per capita on healthcare, and pay for things like roads, police, fire departments, schools and the like. On the last point, they pay all the way through High School and then significantly subsidize universities as well. It's all a matter of degree. In the usa, we socialize on many fronts, and then pay companies more than we would pay to socialize the same service and consider that better. Imo, it's very much not.
I'm not sure if spending more per capita means "socialize" healthcare. Isn't the problem with US healthcare is that "accessing healthcare at any time without the worry of financial burden" is not currently true for everyone?
Socialism isn't a welfare state, socialism is when the workers own the means of production.
Don’t forget the farmers who are subsidized.
There are no countries with socialist policies.
Can you name a country that has workplace democracy? No? Then there isn't a socialist country out there.
Would I move to the social democracies of the world? I love norway and whatnot politically (as much as a communist can love the state of any country)... but I love having warm air and nature I can enjoy without a coat much more.
Doesn't any country with cooperatives have workplace democracy?
Norway is cheating because they have many natural resources to sell.
What is workplace democracy? Would love to finally hear some socialist philosophy from someone that isn't a goddamn Hexbear user.
Yeah, they're really indoctrinated by chinese propaganda, I can't stand them, and I'm a damn communist.
Workplace democracy can work a vast number of ways, and I can't claim to have figured out what the best way of doing it is, and this is one of the most contentious areas in socialist theory, but I'll give a relatively easy to understand example:
A business running democratically, instead of having a CEO who decides everything, could have weekly meetings where everyone gets together and decides what is needed, pay structure, schedules, etc, building decisions through consensus, and then falling back to a vote if people disagree, they could also work like a modern democratic republic and have the workers elect people to various positions, and then maintain heirarchy, if the business is far too large for consensus building to work.
The way a business works currently, under capitalism, is often with a CEO at the top, who controls a group of people directly below him, and so forth, this results in bad divergent incentives, due to the keys to power problem (if you're not familiar, watch this: https://invidious.asir.dev/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs ). One such example is if i'm a walmart employee, do I give a fuck if walmart does well? No. As long as they don't go out of business, i'll be paid the same, who gives a fuck how well the business does if I'm not a partial owner and have no say?
What does a "workplace democracy" mean?
I'm envisioning that's the janitor having a vote in where the brain surgeon makes the next cut.
That's a possible interpretation of "the people control the means of production", but that's just ridiculous.
Well, that is a pretty ridiculous interpretation.
Workplace democracy would most likely and most broadly refer to all employees of a company having a say in how the company is run. Either by voting on policies and changes, or by electing people to various executive/representative roles, much the same way that current Western democracies work.
An example of the janitor voting on where the surgeon makes a cut makes about as much sense as us voting on where the president flies in his helicopter. At best, it doesn't pass the make sense test, and at worst is a bad faith interpretation of what people mean when they say "workplace democracy"
It's quite simple, right now businesses are structured in a totalitarian manner, socialism seeks to overthrow that totalitarian regime within your workplace, there's a number of ways to do this, nobody is suggesting the janitor should decide how a surgeon does his job, we just want to eliminate the useless position of CEO, and replace it with democratic systems managed by the people who work the jobs.
An easy to understand version of this would be if every company was transformed into a worker co-op, but that of course is only one of many models for socialism.
It is important to note that the government is not the worker, and therefore government control over the means of production DOES NOT COUNT.
hat's a bad faith interpretation of "the people control the means of production".
I want you to consider the difference between the work needed to complete a task, and the work needed to manage a workplace: for one of those tasks, only the experts in that task can meaningfully contribute to the outcome, whereas for the other, everybody who is part of the workplace has meaningful input.
I don't know about your experience, but everywhere I've worked there have been people "on the ground" who get to see the inefficiencies in the logistics of their day to day jobs; in a good job a manager will listen and implement changes, but why should the workers be beholden to this middleman who doesn't know how the job works?
I've also had plenty of roles where management have been "telling me where to cut".
It means the janitor has a vote on how their duties are done
Social Security is a socialist policy.
As is Medicaid and Medicare.
As is SNAP and EBT.
I live in a country with socialist policies already called The United States of America.
But we could use lots more. So I'll stay here, and I'll try to make it that way.
I also have a vested interest in furthering the socialist policies in the US. I would very much like to stay here since my life, my family, my friends, etc are all here. I just want this country to improve in ways I only see possible through socialism and moving from an individualist culture to a collectivist one.
Something that is a social policy does not imply that it is a socialist policy
In the way the words are being used here, it absolutely does.
There's been a lot of propaganda for a long time that "socialist" countries are authoritarian, abusive, and usually dictatorships, so by that measure, of course you would have to make the argument you do, but the fact of the matter is that socialist policies are just policies where we pool resources as a group to provide a public good. It's opposite would actually be free market capitalism, where you have to subscribe to a fire service to protect your house (it worked that way on the US once, feel free to Google it).
The methods of governing are a completely separate axis, ranging between power vested solely in an individual or small group, and true democracy.
It is absolutely possible to have countries that are democratically socialist, or free market dictatorships. Just because America is still mainly a democracy doesn't mean we can't look at it's policies and see a clearly socialist component of public services. In my mind the truly perplexing thing is how people can label things like a tax to provide everyone access to free books and other media, taxes that support universal fire and police protection, and taxes that support free education for everyone (through high school only!) and say they are just normal non-socialist things, and then look at taxes that would pay for higher level education, for health protection, or for childcare so you are always able to go earn a living, and suddenly they are foaming at the mouth and screaming "socialism!"
But trying to derail an entire conversation by arguing about one word is a lot easier than trying to actually address the points of an argument, so we see that a lot.
Are you implying that US has socialist policy overall? In your country the term socialist is used as something negative lol. "Look at this loser he is a god damn socialist"
I moved to Germany from the US this year. There is subsidized public transit, universal healthcare, minimum vacation time, a heavy union culture, strong renter-favored laws (although capitalist for profit housing is still an ever growing plague).
As others pointed out, the terminology isn't a great tool for debate without an agree upon definition. But yes, I would move to a country that cared about people over profits.
If you mean the modern idea of socialism, like the nordic nations, then absolutely get me the fuck out of rugged-individuals-at-eachother's-throats-land please, these people are fucking nuts in the not fun way.
If you're talking about one of the formerly socialist nations that the United States intentionally took covert action against and destabilized to keep the regional markets open for our capitalists to sociopathically exploit like Venezuela, then no thanks, I've already seen enough of that trademark American for private profit cruelty played out domestically in our innumerable tent cities in every American population center.
https://time.com/5512005/venezuela-us-intervention-history-latin-america/
Your response got me curious and I've read the entire worldhappiness article you linked. Are you saying you dislike the Nordic countries? If yes, why? The article explains quite thoroughly why living there people feel happy.
No friend, I meant the opposite.
I live in the US, a gold plated dystopia. I would be very much prefer to live in the Nordic nations. I dislike the United States, I see the Nordic nations as role model nations.
The question here is "What Counts as Socialism?" Because for most Americans, a functioning society already counts as Socialism. No need to be afraid that your kid gets shot in school? Non-ruinous healthcare for everyone? No need to work at 80 just to survive and pay your rent? Workers rights?
For many Americans this is Socialism or Communism (the same people could not be pressed to tell the difference between those terms).
These kinds of questions, aimed at any ideology, will result in a "no" for the average person unless they can take their friends and families with them.
To be fair, a lot of people have left their families behind to leave Europe and enter the US.
The bulk of that immigration happened in the 19th and early 20th century when European countries were the most capitalistic and economically stratified.
I feel like a lot of redditors are joining because I see a lot of down votes but only one response.
Yes that is true, but the average person in those countries in the 1800's was starving which changes things a lot.
I took your question as "people living in the US or Europe, would you move to a socialist country" so the average person in that would not be starving, so family and friends matter more.
No, I want to fix my own country.
An admirable objective but... likely or even possible? Maybe it just needs to go back in the oven for a few generations.
Are you suggesting that improvement is impossible? If it can only get worse, then it is imperative to push back in defense.
How can we do nothing and still look our children in the eyes?
100% if that country is in northern Europe. Hard nope if it's in South America.
I'd buy a ticket tomorrow if there was a job for me in a Scandinavian country and I didn't need to speak the language immediately.
Soft same. Norway would be awesome. I love the cold.
Ireland is calling you. Cost of living is high but check it out.
Not wanting to learn a language of the country you live in, is kinda asocial tbh
I agree with a blend of socialism and capitalism, and in the right places. The US has healthcare in the same category as PlayStations. I don't think this makes sense.
We should believe in healthy, educated Americans as a common ground. And if you want to save up for a PlayStation, go for it.
Ironically, since the government hasn't fully stepped in to provide healthcare, coverage has moved to the private sector. So you still have socialist healthcare, just with shitty insurance companies trying to find ways to make billions of dollars from sick individuals.
I think we can do better. Do you?
This is kinda where I'm at.
I believe no American citizen (either natural born or immigrant) should have to work just to live a safe life.
Everyone should have access to a safe, well kept, secure, climate controlled home with internet access, 3 meals a day, and Healthcare.
After that, if people want to "work extra" and save up for legit luxuries and not necessities for life, then let them. Let the people who want to flaunt their wealth have their Lamborghini, while the rest of us are living comfortable with an Electric SUV if you have a family/Electric Coupe if alone(or even better. A walkable city!)
To add to this, I can't help but notice that pretty much all private sector businesses in control of quality of life have become extremely greedy. There was a time in the 70s where your home wasn't that expensive, wages were comfortable, retirement was expected, and something like healthcare, with private insurance companies, was not expensive. Even hospital visits without insurance were still feasible.
This makes the capitalism model appealing. We have the freedom to run a business, the government is small, regulations are light, and everyone gets along. It makes sense that old folks are out of touch with how rampantly expensive everything is, because they have their $20k home paid off, they got their social security and pension, and they're on Medicare (which is ironically a social program). There is little reason to change anything for your personal benefit if you are already retired.
However, the business model of making as much money as possible has caught up, and when you're getting charged $70 for a Tylenol pill (but don't worry, insurance covers it), you know there is a serious problem. "But my insurance covers it" is exactly what they want you to think to let this continue for a few more decades.
I love Japan's bike roads. Anyway yeah we can do so much better. End corporate power.
There's no need for any privatization. We can simply have a market socialist economy that works on the principles of worker and customer owned companies.
Basically, we can have utility companies (and that type of stuff) be owned equally by the citizens they serve, have all the other companies be heavily antitrust regulated and owned equaly by the workers of said companies through the worker cooperative corporate structure.
Conflict of interest things (like healthcare) can simply be government programs.
This way, we preserve the market and the Playstation while at the same time ensuring that Sony makes more moral choices and pays all their workers fairly.
There's no need for Uber rich people to even exist, functioning examples of worker cooperative companies exist (For example, Mondragon Group in Spain).
I belive profit itself should be eliminated, we can do just fine without it.
There's no need for any privatization. We can simply have a market socialist economy that works on the principles of worker and customer owned companies.
Basically, we can have utility companies (and that type of stuff) be owned equally by the citizens they serve, have all the other companies be heavily antitrust regulated and owned equaly by the workers of said companies through the worker cooperative corporate structure.
Conflict of interest things (like healthcare) can simply be government programs.
This way, we preserve the market and the Playstation while at the same time ensuring that Sony makes more moral choices and pays all their workers fairly.
There's no need for Uber rich people to even exist, functioning examples of worker cooperative companies exist (For example, Mondragon Group in Spain).
I belive profit itself should be eliminated, we can do just fine without it.
Social(ist) policies are extremely removed from socialism. The countries people list here, aka Canada, Danmark and Ireland among others are extremely capitalist still. This thread is therefore useless.
Yeah, I feel like "a country with strong social safety nets" would be a better way of putting it
Socialism has a TON of historical baggage
As a German, I think I would. Given that it is good and just.
Pretty sure we Germans already live in such a country, don't we?
I would argue that Germany is not a socialist country. Politics are targeted at the already wealthy and cooperations.
I'm not versed enough in politics and history to give detailed examples. I'm just a normal guy. However, I'm currently listening to the Jung & Naiv podcast on Spotify.
In episode 661 they discuss the development of the housing sector since the 1950s and very little in the 18th century. The important information is that the housing sector grew from being socialist to being a housing market.
I think they mention that in the 50s there existed a "Kostenmiete" (Cost-rent). That would only be allowed by law to be as high as it needed to be to cover the costs for building the house/flat. The owners were not allowed to make profit exceeding 3.5%. Any profit had to be put into housing again to keep the housing sector growing. Around that time the state was heavily supporting housing unions and other groups (not cooperations) to build housing. The state itself built 500.000 !!! appartments a year. Last year the interview says they built 6 appartments. Six, in case you thought you read a typo.
¯(ツ)/¯ At least in the housing market we are not socialist anymore and it becomes worse every year. Education becomes worse every year. The medical sector becomes worse every year. Public transport becomes worse every year. Loans do not keep up with inflation. Everything becomes more expensive.
Yes, we are better off than many. But are we not just richer slaves with more benefits than others? The interview says that there exist studies that estimate 11 million households to qualify for social housing. In some cities that is 60% of their population. 60% quality for social housing. Are we alright?
My impression is that Germany is considered a social democracy. Maybe it is towards the milder end of the spectrum but still fits the definition.
As an outsider I think Germany has got a lot of things right, and found a good balance. Not perfect, but good.
This is basically the million dollar question and also the source of confusion, when one person thinks of socialism they could be thinking of either social democracy, like modern Germany, or a communist state like the DDR.. so depending on your point of view, you’ll have a different answer
Im from the US, and Ive always looked at Germany with envy, though I'm definitely not a fan of their decisions regarding Nuclear energy, or lack thereof
Probably. If I could get a job with the same standard of living, the moving costs were paid (do not overlook this, it's insane), the paperwork was trivial or non existant, sure. Bonus perks would be language classes and walkability/bikeability.
It depends on what "socialism" entails, but US capitalism has failed me and mine, has caused so much suffering in my friends and family.
Why would I move somewhere that America is planning a military coup?
I’m an American who has lived in the UK and Australia. Socialised medical systems are fucking amazing.
Fuck, if someone could pay the costs to relocate me to Norway and set me up with roughly the same job and equivalent house there, I would move in a heartbeat.
We have socialist policies here in the US. We just have fewer of them than other countries.
My favorite example that I think you could consider is the United States program to assist citizens with ESRD, in some cases I think the entire cost is covered. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_Stage_Renal_Disease_Program
That really depends. Are we talking immigrate to somewhere with functional socialist policies, or to a psuedo dictatorship with what looks a whole lot like strong man fascism except they promote a few (most often failed or failing) socialist programs? Because I have no interest in moving to a failed state like Venezuela. I'm not going to slaughter and eat a bunny.
Probably not. This is my home and I want to make socialism here.
I think a better question would be "if you had to choose another country to live in based on its government policies, which would you choose?" If I was up for moving to another country, I'd go to one of the "socialist" Nordic countries in a heartbeat, but I've already destroyed my social life once with a long-distance move and I don't think I could handle doing it again.
I did! Hello from Scotland . . .
Sounds horrible. Quality of life must be terrible there!
We visited in May and decided we are going to end up there. Already considering what we might be to do to make it happen.
Yes. Looking hard at the Nordic countries.
I mean I already do, we have publicly funded services like firefighters and emergency medical care, the problem is the shit like that we don't do because sounding too socialist scares the boomers
Yes.
Next question.
Yep, in a second.
If I never again have to research which of my health providers are in or out of the insurance network for the coverage tied to my new job, or spend a full business week debugging a cascading collection of healthcare company bureaucratic and billing fuck-ups, or be nervous about layoffs making my health insurance exorbitantly expensive, it’ll be too fucking soon.
I'm a Canadian, but if I had to pick another country to live in it'd be one of the Scandinavian countries. They always top the global charts on happiest and healthiest people and that's almost exclusively due to governments providing very generous social programs. I wouldn't even have to adjust to the cold weather! The hardest part would be learning how to pronounce things like tjugosju
If I was given a chance to emigrate to Finland, I would jump at the chance. I might be willing to emigrate to Norway. Possibly Czechia, Slovakia, or Hungary.
I'm very much a pro-2A kind of anarchist/libertarian socialist; there are not many countries that preserve the individual right to keep and bear arms while also having state-level socialist policies.
You can have a gun in any county in Europe, you just have to get some training and pass a test first. Also, Hungary isn't all that great right now, with their totalitarian president, pro-russian views and huge brain drain. Looks like Slovakia is moving in the same direction.
Legally true perhaps, not practically true. Some countries limit cartridges that can be used; a firearm that uses 5.56 x 45mm, 9 x 19mm, or 7.62 x 51mm would be off-limits entirely in some countries because those are "military" cartridges. Other countries limit firearm types (e.g., all assault-style weapons--box-magazine fed semi-automatic gas-recoil-operated rifles--and anything even remotely similar are banned for non-police/military use in many places). Many places place significant hurdles in front of people that want to get the appropriate licenses and permits such that it's nearly impossible.
It's kinda like how Hawai'i legally allows people to get carry permits, but practically speaking has only issued 7 in 21 years.
I've spoken to a few people in Finland, and they say that getting the training is hard because the classes (?) are limited, you have to attend a certain number within a specific time period, and they fill up really fast making it easy to miss your time window. But once you do meet that requirement, it's not too difficult to get permitted to own assault-style rifles, pistols, etc., and if you can get the rifle/handgun, you can get the suppressor (and they are so much cheaper there!).
Hadn't realized that Hungary and Slovakia were both going heavily authoritarian; that's a bummer.
Respectfully (truly - not the shitty Internet trolling version of it), it is very confusing to me that the right to bear arms would be a factor in this decision. My perception is that 2A rights are prized precisely because they offer protection against a government that is overstepping bounds or acting dishonestly/aggressively. In this hypothetical situation where you're moving to a country where the government is acting in a way that you approve of so much that you want to immigrate there - why do you need a gun? Is it as a safety net in case the government changes, or as a symbolic exercise of a right that you value even without practical applications, or for some other reason?
Genuine question, I would love to understand this viewpoint (which is, to me, very foreign - I've never been under any illusion that my ownership of a gun would have any effect if the government seriously decided to do something to me)
Even when a gov't is acting in the best interests of the people--rather than in the best interests of the powerful--yes, that can always change. The ability of the people to be armed, where the people are armed, can act as a check on gov't power. Moreover, it's worth noting that there have been no socialist revolutions that have been peaceful; entrenched tyrannical gov'ts never ceded power back to the people willingly.
Beyond that, you run into issues of personal protection; even when police are well-trained and always do the right thing, they can not practically protect every single person in a country at the same time. Where I currently live, the absolute best-case scenario for an emergency response is about 15 minutes; given that, it makes sense for people to own firearms and train in their use, for the same reason that you should own a first aid kit with trauma bandages and tourniquets, and have (and test) your fire extinguishers.
I’ve never been under any illusion that my ownership of a gun would have any effect if the government seriously decided to do something to me
Well, you're simply wrong there. Look at the standoff at the Bundy ranch (source)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff], or the follow-up standoff at the wildlife preserve (source)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge]. In both cases, the militants being armed--combined with media attention, and the gov't awareness of how badly Waco and Ruby Ridge had gone--made the gov't very hesitant to attempt to use force directly against the militants. It's also worth pointing out that the Bundys themselves ended up being acquitted due to the outrageous misconduct of the gov't in both cases (although some militants were convicted and sentenced to relatively minor time in jail, less than most of the insurgents of 6 Jan received). Or, if you find the Bundys to be particularly distasteful--and I do--you can look at the Wounded Knee Occupation in 1973 for more noble militants. Personally, I see resistance to harmful gov't as being a positive thing by itself, even if you lose; the saying is that it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees, and I would agree with that. (Although, in the case of many people--black/brown, gay, trans, religious minorities, etc.--the choice is to fight and die, or die anyways.)
With agressive and paranoid attitudes like that, and in your other comments, youre better off staying in the states. We dont need that bs here.
Respectfully, a Finn.
Don't y'all still have a blackface festival anyway; or am I thinking of one of your neighbors?
Having spoken to a number of other Finns, my attitudes aren't that far off from them.
PS - Russians are at your doorstep, and you think that not being armed is a good idea? Does Continuation War Pt. II sound like a good idea to you?
So according to most people commenting here the spectrum of socialist countries goes something like this:
no socialism (USA) - some meaningless socialist policies but not real socialism (Europe) - absolutely nothing for a very long time - socialism (North Korea and China)
Nice...
In a heartbeat.
But not just any country. I don't like cold weather.
That shouldn't be a problem anywhere in the near future.
Makes cuddling more fun but Im also from Minnesota so take my bias with a grain of leftse
Grain of snow, bud.
What are you waiting for then? Go on, come over to argentina and join in the destroyed economy and ridiculous insecurity, I'll swap places with you!
Dude, I think you don't know what "socialism" mean.
"socialist"
I don't want to leave my family, my community or the places I live near that I love. But if I could trade out my government for Iceland's or Norway's, I would in a heart beat.
Exactly. Immigration is hard, and very costly in more ways than just literally going to another place. Changing one's government is, too, but in different ways that are distributed over the society it governs.
So if I was alone and without family or friends or language or a job to tie me to the place I live? Absolutely I would emigrate to somewhere more socialistic, not least because I'd be in a prime position to benefit from it, but also because I think it's morally right to organize society in a way that protects its most vulnerable.
A country having socialist policies would not be a primary reason. It would be whether this hypothetical country's socialist policies translate to a better life for myself and my family.
What's the weather like?
Based on existing socialist countries? So cold that the air explodes upon contact with human skin
Then I will remain a subversive in the country of my birth,
Absolutely. There is no hope or faith in me for settler-descent Americans; I literally think it's more likely I die at the hands of a cop in this country than any other possible way. If I knew I'd never have to worry about the exorbitant exit tax, and knew I had a paying job and comfortable shelter on the other side, I'd go as far as to learn the lingua franca and never think about America again other than to "damn, I'm fuckin glad I got out of there before this NEW SHIT happened."
But since the job market is a fraud in and of itself, techbros are by-and-large sociopathic ghouls, there isn't a such thing as a boss that doesn't steal enough of one's paycheck week to week to make flight from America impossible, and most actually-existing socialist nations have lists of pre-existing conditions they don't admit; that's outside of my means, and ultimately an idealist waste.
I feel like leaving would be an admission that things cannot change, that the fight is not worth fighting. I find that kind of mindset is not good, one must always be ready to stand for what they believe to be right or can they truly say they believe in it?
I don't believe Americans are capable of such radical change-- or any radical change, for that matter. I genuinely don't; and this country's history would suggest that it likes to shoot down those who try to change it in the streets; so why would I stick my neck out like that for people I manifestly don't trust and can't believe in?
If it was someplace in Europe, absolutely. I would have zero qualms about ditching this dystopia. Sure, other places have their issues, but few are as bad the the US. With the far right takeover of the Supreme Court, it won't be very long until the "land of the free" is no freer than Russia or China.
I'd emigrate to the DPRK if I could, and if they'd take me.
It costs something like $3,000 to renounce U$ citizenship, and that's only if you're able to get citizenship somewhere else.
Even for the few people with skills in demand elsewhere, it's prohibitively expensive.
Emigrating from the US was the best decision of my life
No. I would stay here to work toward improving social programs in the U.S.
Sure, Denmark sounds nice. Before they decided to start genociding the disabled I'd have gone with Canada.
Is this because of the three times a nurse suggested MAID at a bad time or is Canada actually doing something
MAID isn't available for people with mental health issues. It's mainly for people with debilitating terminal diseases. They almost did pass it for people with mental health issues though which is frightening to say the least.
Canada's actively trying to talk patients into the program in order to free up beds..
I would if my career and hobby were the same as it is here. No other place on this rock is though.
There's Lemmy in Canada too!
My grandmother was born in the US not quite 2 years after her parents immigrated. I think semi-often that if she had been born in Sweden I'd be eligible for a passport. I suspect that if the barrier to entry were that low I'd have made the move.
I've recently connected with distant family in Norway. I've visited Norway 3 times. I would love to relocate to Norway.
Fucking yesterday
If I was going to be selfish, yes, I would move to a country that has more progressive policies and government. I refuse to be selfish though. I'm in medical school and hoping to become an ER physician in the safety net county hospitals for the express purpose of doing everything I can to help the people that have no way of escaping. I probably would have a pretty easy time taking my medical degree and moving almost anywhere because doctors are in demand pretty much everywhere, but it would be against everything I stand for and would be in complete opposition to my goals. I know that I won't be able to move the needle very much, and as an ER physician I'd be making a difference just to my patients and perhaps my community, but I still have to try. I want everyone to be able to access food, housing, education, and healthcare equally and I can't work towards that reality if I just run away from the worst of it.
Sure, as long as it is unopposed the world and has access to every natural resources on earth.
If I could find somewhere with good social and economic policies and good weather, I'd already be living there. But all the good places are cold.
It’s Always Sunny In Phila… Australia
No because most of those places are too cold
That's what the saunas are for, tho. Nothing beats a good winter.
Probably not, I am fortunate enough to live in a great place with plenty of wilderness nearby. With friends and family to boot. I'd rather fix what we already have :)
I hope it's fixable ! :)
I think it is! :)
If by socialist policies you mean ruled by a communist party then hell yes. It would be a dream come true to live in for example China.
In theory I could just move back to England, but right now I'm quite happy where I'm at. If a job opportunity came up, who knows?
One problem is the stereotypically ideal socialist countries -- the Scandinavian ones -- have very tough immigration rules
They also have unique circumstances around racial / cultural homogeneity and sovereign wealth / resources that help with cohesiveness and generous benefits -- and those can't be easily replicated
It depends on the country as socialism covers a very wide range. If you look at Sweden and China they are very different forms of government.
China doesn't even consider itself a socialist country. Does Sweden?
Define socialism. The original and technically correct definition and the colloquial modern definition are wildly different from one another.
Yup! My youngest son wants to when he is old enough.
If I can keep my current quality of life or have a better one, sure.
There's a reason why countries with consolidated healthcare are generally happier. Bet you can guess why.
You're going to get two answers here, corresponding to the two kinds of socialists: "My kind of socialism doesn't exist yet" and "Yes I'd immigrate to the secretly highly-developed and free nation of North Korea"
It looks like you've got a lot of people that call their version of capitalism "socialism" as well.
Yes I'd immigrate to the secretly highly-developed and free nation of the Netherlands.
So it sounds like you're in the category that holds a definition of socialism that overlaps with capitalism. Words have the definitions we give them, so that's not wrong, but I'm guessing this question was asked about the more traditional "classlessness" or "worker control of the means of production" definitions, in opposition to capitalism.
I'm going to stick in the US until they seem about to start trans genocide on a national level, then I'm moving to the socialist country with the best lgbt rights at the time (My bet is on Vietnam, maybe China though who knows) (besides Cuba but theyre not taking US refugees)
I'm more useful here but I also don't want to die.
I'm not sure those are necessarily the best countries... China seems a lot like the early 2000s US on the issue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_China
There are literally child trans Healthcare clinics in tier 1 cities now. Regardless, Vietnam and especially Cuba are much better, Cuba being the leading country for lgbt rights in the world, and there isn't a push to kill trans people in any of the countries.
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.
Let's go with that definition since that's what most people think of as socialist.
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.
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
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"
"Socialists of Lemmy, would you move to a country that someone who has absolutely no idea what socialism is thinks is socialist?"
Lmao.
@nodsocket @PetDinosaurs OP: what socialist policies would you implement?
commenter: what do you mean by socialism?
OP: let's go with an incorrect definition of socialism. what social democrat policies would you implement?
I would love to.
Lol. Lmao, even
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.
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.
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.
Words, used in non technical contexts, mean what people mean when they use them.
Descriptive. Not proscriptive.