this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
784 points (99.9% liked)

World News

55413 readers
2351 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 35 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (10 children)

Random, but why is she called "socialist"? Is she going to ban capitalism (stock markets, public companies, private properties, bonds, etc.)? Or are we simply calling her socialist because she's closer to European capitalism (balanced, kept in check, regulated) rather than US capitalism?

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

It makes a certain kind of sense to me. Making capitalism serve social goals is obviously a mix of philosophies but if capitalism is serving socialistic ends, isn’t socialism prioritized?

The essence of socialism, to me, is serving the social good as top priority. Not centrally managing the economy. Capitalism can be a “how” with socialism as the “why.”

[–] MrFinnbean@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Im really confused.

Is she going to ban capitalism (stock markets, public companies, private properties, bonds, etc.)?

This is communism.

Socialist think that goverment funds should be used to help its people. You know.. Society. Schools, healthcare, public infra. Things like that. Socialism does not mean banning private schools and hospitals, or that nobody could not own any land.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I think you misunderstood my "property" word in the context of socialism. Both in communism and socialism, owning properties for means of production, labor, etc. is generally restricted, but the difference here is that in socialism you can (generally) own your own housing. Yes, this includes banning private hospitals and private schools for profit

[–] MrFinnbean@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

No it does not mean banning anything.

Goverment sets certain stantard of public healthcare and education, but if you want something outside of it, or for some reason, like long wait time for surgery etc. you can go to private sector.

[–] Triasha@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Pretty sure she is socialist in the "when the government does things" sense, not the "will end capitalism" sense.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 hours ago

There is a very long tradition of gradualist reformist socialism, that goes all the way back to the 2nd International.

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 28 points 9 hours ago

Her party is democratic socialist, center left, not socialism, left.

[–] DosDude@retrofed.com 90 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Socialist is not a bad word. Only in the US it's a bad word, because socialism means billionaires need to earn less, and the billionaires won't allow that.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 15 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

I never said it's a bad word, but as someone from the east, socialist sounds a bit over-the-top for just healthcare, socialism (social policies) is part of any well balanced capitalism system for me.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 26 points 13 hours ago

Here in Europe elements like healthcare still fall under socialism.

Im not sure how the Mexican government operates, but typically it's not all-or-nothing. Just because a socialist gets elected doesn't mean they suddenly have the power to completely overturn a country and kick capitalism out. Such changes would require overwhelming majorities.

However, socialists would strive to implement those elements of their idealogies they can.

[–] DosDude@retrofed.com 5 points 13 hours ago

Agreed. But the context of the area needs to be accounted for. Socialist ideas compared to the old status quo.

[–] nlgranger@lemmy.world 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I wish European capitalism was anywhere near what you seem to think. It's just less worse... for now.

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 1 points 9 hours ago

Than the PPE and its ilk.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 21 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Being a socialist doesn't mean you have to ban capitalism the moment you get power. Or at all. There are many ways to be socialist and do socialist policy. The overarching ideology is the belief we can do better than capitalism by distributing the resources we create according to amount of work and need, instead of profit maximization. How and how quickly we achieve that differs between different kinds of socialists. Sometimes dramatically.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 6 points 13 hours ago

I can't find anything about her calling herself a socialist, but she's definitely to the left of most European politicians. Of course she's working from a less development and more rightwing starting point so her policies seem like common sense to Europeans, but equating her with folks like the SPD based on that would be wrong. You don't really get this kind of anti-neoliberal, overt social democracy from mainstream European parties anymore.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 1 points 13 hours ago

Those Europeans you speak of call themselves socialist too, but they still with the capitalistic system and control the redistribution mechanisms bolted on.