You’re right, but one thing I’d like to point out about nature of voting in a democracy (and this isn’t about immigration itself): voter turnout is never 100% for anything, and winners are often decided by a handful (local elections) or couple of thousands of votes (state, federal).

Okay, so about immigration I’ll just make this point, from another thread:

So, let’s say a democratic country favors pro-choice policies, but then has an influx of immigrants who are anti-abortion, and now that population is greater. That’s a change of values because the population shifted to a majority opinion which favors a different view point. If a country has an idealized view of how it wants to be, then I think it’s fair to expect immigrants to integrate and assimilate. I don’t think that has anything to do with xenophobia or not excluding different cultures, as long as the core values of a country are maintained. For example, if a country wants to maintain a democratic socialist society, and a greater population of capitalists immigrate to it, then I think that socialist society would want to restrict immigration as well.

The above point is to demonstrate how democracies are fragile, and that not all immigration policies are necessarily xenophobic or racist.

Because I think the people who criticize the nordic model are simply biased towards achieving an outcome where the workers seize the means of production. That’s why, to them, anything else is wrong, or simply an untenable solution. I am saying that their point of view is not only incorrect, but also lacks insight outside of their own way of thinking.

The Nordic model, but authoritarian people only care about winning, not solutions.

Edit lol @ downvoters constantly butthurt that their Marxist pov is challenged

Disagree, but I propose this: the universe is infinite, maybe then we should just have a planet where the socioeconomic system is capitalist, and another one where the socioeconomic system is communist/marxist. I don’t care about winning or being right. I want to live freely, and I want that for others as well.

Better nations on Earth already use what’s known as the Nordic model to help offset the adverse effects of capitalism. Cue (and queue) people who’ll say that “that only works because the ‘imperialists’ exploit the global south”. So again, let’s just make it easier for people who don’t want to live in a world like that.

It’s a little silly equating one (albeit learned and genius) guy’s opinion as something which will work across the board for everyone, everywhere. There’s nothing democratic about socialism, just as there’s nothing democratic about the unregulated and oligarchic capitalism we have today.

At a very simple and human level, there are a number of explanations for why some elites and intellectuals gravitate towards socialism, this has been discussed to death in many places, but here’s an accessible article.

https://iea.org.uk/why-intellectuals-are-so-upset-by-the-injustices-of-capitalism/

To add some economist perspectives, here’s another article

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/free-market-or-socialism-have-economists-really-anything-to-say

What I find interesting from the above article is that China currently does very efficient market socialism, which tbh if the U.S. was to implement would make the U.S. a more powerful economic force to contend with. The caveat will be that U.S. citizens will no longer have the right to means to production, or land ownership. Such systems have no respect for individual liberties. The relative rate of poverty and inequality in the U.S. does not merit this kind of shift versus what it sacrifices.

The only countries which have issues with capitalism are the economic loser countries. Here’s the problem though, there are so many examples of countries which could have been economic losers, but instead turned it around for them because those countries had good sense and controlled their levels of corruption. The only people in countries who have problems with capitalism are the economic losers. The best way to correct those woes is through taxation and social programs, not a forced or authoritarian formula of break-shit-and-take-shit.

Edit I won’t respond to any comments to my post, I just don’t have the time to poke at this today lol, but don’t take my no response as a signal of agreement, just saying

/lazyposting

I can’t take anything you’re saying seriously because it’s just delusional, I am sorry.

Why do I say what you’re saying is delusional. Look, you’re opining about some made up thing I said (btw, I said 50% as a rough figure looking at the color bar, it’s 45.8%), but you’re neglecting that the many, many capitalists nations have MUCH LESS POOR PEOPLE PER CAPITA than China. So what exactly am I supposed to do, take their way of governance as something to aspire to? No, thank you. I am not anti-social and I hope better for others.

Stalin’s USSR proved that elitism and greed infects all economic tools and social ideologies. We also see this in China because no one is effectively allowed to own their home, the land is leased by the government. So consider this, if socialists like Stalin care so much about people, and the CPP is the modern equivalent of an anti-capitalist (not pure socialist) state, then what do you do with the 45.8% people making $10 per day (the US is at a hellish 2.2%). Why hasn’t China fixed their poverty by now?

In Stalins USSR, why were there bread lines for the common folk while their leaders had caviar and chocolate.** I am sure that’s because they weren’t “real” socialists, and I am sure you’ll do better!

Let’s also remember, that Stalin stole properties from the gentry, and made them mixed housing, but he and his family still lived in mansions. These are historical facts, just because you don’t like the people who say them doesn’t erase them from existence or history.

https://hum54-15.omeka.fas.harvard.edu/exhibits/show/russian_dacha/joseph-stalin-s-dacha--the-ric

I also find it hilarious that communists will preach socialism to those who reside in capitalist countries, completely neglecting that converting to Stalin or China type socialism will make the average American poorer because at least 60% of Americans actually own their own property, the land is not leased. So power to the minority 40% or 2.2% making less than $10 per day? The revolution surely will be great for the majority!

I am not saying there aren’t things to fix, I just find the communists and socialists arguing with such passion and zeal and sophistry to be inherently disingenuous because the facts show that they’re only interested in enriching themselves, so they mobilize people instead of armies to achieve that goal.

Wealth per citizen by country, fyi: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

Some leaders of a country indeed do not have its best interests in mind because they’re self-interested. This is why it helps to have an educated public, and a democratic system of governance. When I look at all the countries subjugated by imperialists, I notice that each one of them has its own reasons for failing and succeeding, that’s all I am saying. It’s easy to distract your citizens by saying that all your problems are the fault of those greedy capitalists.

It is not questionable that Socialism was better for the Soviets than Tsarism or Capitalism. This is an established fact, as life expectancy doubled, literacy rates over tripled to over 99% (more than any western country), science and technology dramatically improved, wealth disparity lowered and total wealth raised dramatically. The return of Capitalism caused 7 million excess deaths.

You’re whitewashing history. Yes, when you go from relatively less to relatively more, you’ll experience improvements like life expectancy and child height. But that doesn’t mean anything when compared to the bigger picture of a failing and disingenuous social and economic model. There have been many analyses on the quality of life under the Soviet Union, and I’ll specifically mention only these sources since you’re so intent on painting a picture of harmony and glory

https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/myths-about-the-soviet-union-inequality-poverty-and-quality-of-life/

https://www.adamsmith.org/research/back-in-the-ussr

https://www.ranker.com/list/life-in-the-soviet-union/kellen-perry

I am not interested in “winning” for one economic tool or another. What I don’t like is someone pretending the bad stuff didn’t happen, or blaming all the bad stuff on someone else. It’s childish and disingenuous.

As for the idea that “individualism” is punished in Socialism, the reality is that individualism can better flourish under it. There is no need to have Capitalists dictate production and exchange, rather than the whole of society. I think it would benefit you greatly to read some basic theory and history of AES countries if you want to bat against them in service of something else.

No, this is just rose glasses idealism and isn’t backed by any facts or history. What is backed by facts is that humans are greedy, self-interested and self-preserving in any scenario.

From a source (linked below):

As the 1990s progressed, the Stalinist period and the first half of the twentieth century in general increasingly retained the attention of scholars interested in the Soviet Union. Everyday Soviet life was seen as a history of repression, rationing, privation, famine, “survival strategies,” control, and social stratification. It was intimately tied to the campaign for Soviet culturedness (kul’turnost’), meaning the inculcation of proper manners and taste, which began in the second half of the 1930s. In these years, the regime recognized the legitimacy of consumption, notably through slogans proclaiming that life “became better and gayer” with the introduction of luxury consumer goods (Soviet champagne, caviar, chocolate, perfume, etc.), which were nonetheless accessible only to groups that the regime considered privileged.

Indeed, the distribution of objects as rewards was central to the social policies of Communist countries. Following the October Revolution, the distribution of noble and bourgeois property among workers and Bolshevik leaders at all levels, which was part of an urban campaign for housing redistribution, lent concrete meaning to the reversal of social hierarchies and confirmed the right of the neediest citizens to oppress those who were once the most privileged within the latter’s own apartments, which were now transformed into communal residences.

https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_ANNA_682_0305?lang=en

One more for reference:

Soviet beggars found themselves in an ambivalent situation. The authorities wanted to exclude them from the future Communist society, but, incapable of solving the begging problem, they simply concealed it from the 1930s until the mid-1950s so as not to contradict the USSR’s image as a prosperous state —even as they made it impossible to devise any form of welfare policy towards them. The launch of a program aimed at solving the begging problem in the second half of the 1950s led to a debate in the press, which exposed the contradictions between the official discourse and social reality.

The Nordic model isn’t a socialism model which works for socialism purists, but it makes the most sense for those who don’t want to be subjected to oppression from one source or another.

I didn’t misunderstand anything about BRICS, I said exactly what you’re saying, that these countries succeeded because they were more unified in their approach to outside instigators. Corruption (greed) and lack of unity has been the bane of the failure examples you’re citing.

Please spare me the oppression politics slogans. You can’t live your life on other people’s charity anymore than you can run a country on the good will of others. People will always be assholes to each others, and it’s the responsibility of leaders in a country to give a shit and figure out how to make their country survive. Look at the history of Singapore, and how much outside influence tried to destabilize it. The point is that the root cause of failure in many nations is within, not without.

As for the USSR, while it certainly had very real problems, ultimately the Socialist system was a dramatic improvement on the Tsarist regime and was far superior to modern Capitalism.

I don’t know, this is questionable. A lot of science and tech achievements were more related to competition with capitalists nations. It’s hard to say at this point, nothing happened in a vacuum.

Capitalism must be replaced with Socialism. The Nordic Model is not “sensible,” it’s dying.

The Nordic Model is socialism, it just co-exists with a regulated capitalism. You’re wrong about any death of this model, if you look at GDP growth https://www.nordicstatistics.org/news/nordic-gdp-growth-returns-to-pre-pandemic-levels/. It has its issues, but it’s a far better alternative to becoming subjugated by Stalin-like overlords and/or having everyone be equally poor.

You’re just going to have to live with the fact that some people will always reject the centralized proletariat control of production because 1) people, even in socialist systems, will always be greedy and cannot be trusted, and 2) people desire individuality and autonomy. A persons life is finite, they’re not here to be a slave for capitalist or to be a bee in the hive mind, there needs to be a system which lets someone exercise their individuality and autonomy without creating social ruin.

I mean, every country to date has been an ethnostate of one type or another, with the exception of what America wanted or purported to be. I’d add Canada and Australia to that as well. Have a look at these socialists states, which one isn’t centered around a dominant ethnicity? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states. So I don’t think using the label of “ethnostate” to disparage democratic counties is justified.

Second, I agree that the global south is heavily exploited, but that seriously discounts successful countries in BRICS or East Asia. We need to understand why those countries succeeded, and others could not, and a lot of the failures of global south actors have to do with corruption and lack of solidarity with each other. Granted, imperial powers instigated instability in every continent, but it didn’t work many times, especially in East Asia. Africa is a great example of failing to realize its potential, a unionized Africa would be a force to reckon with. The “global south” needs to stop blaming convenient scapegoats for many of its own problems. You can’t be like, oh once we fix greed everything will be okay! How do you ever propose to fix greed? Even if the whole world agrees to be socialist, examples like Stalins USSR show us that greed exists to corrupt any economic and political model. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise.

I am not saying we have to be capitalist, I am saying it’s disingenuous to say that greed occurs because of capitalism, and not the other way around. You don’t have to dismantle the whole world to start taxing wealthy people at a higher rate, and start using those funds in a sensible way like they do in the Nordic model.

Cool, also read about it on neutral sources

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

Capitalism sucks because of oligarchs and kleptocrats, and socialism also sucks because of oligarchs and kleptocrats.

Remember Stalin and his style of socialism? Just because one hell sucks doesn’t mean another hell is better.

The only type of socialism which has made any kind of sense in recent times is the Nordic Model.

Edit let’s not kid ourselves about the “greatness” of socialist countries when China has 50% poverty rate

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-rate-by-country

Here’s also a great article on how everyday life was like in the Soviet Union, https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_ANNA_682_0305?lang=en

I think your point is valid, but what I am saying is we shouldn’t begrudge the past its lack of perfection. Let’s look at where people are now, and where they can go from here.

Looking for answers in the past is often a fools errand. We need to shed the baggage of our forefathers.

On the surface it seems like these comparisons are valid, but there’s truly a world of difference in how America deals with its people.

The fact still remains that skilled immigrants can come to America and make a life for themselves. It doesn’t matter who they are. Or that non-white or non-Christians can get elected to the U.S. congress.

America started out with an idealism it’s failing to live up to, and it’s the fault of those who indulge realpolitiks over that idealism. This isn’t an America problem, there’s a rot that’s taken over the soul of humanity. We’re casting aside intellectualism and enlightenment for realpolitiks.

Make no mistake though, people cannot be trusted so you always have to protect yourself. But there’s no civilization without ideals for humanity.

Sorry to disappoint but I am sure a gen AI model can help with that!

Why are you posting

He skipped the part where he’s wearing fire immune equipment, so in fact he could still be weak to fire damage. Just get him later

Anything that gives me 1/3 fewer cries is a win.