this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
958 points (98.2% liked)
Brand New Sentence
172 readers
751 users here now
Showcasing the brazen and nouveau in English communication.
- Be cool to each other.
- Post title must be the sentence, include username if available.
- Link for context if possible.
- Tag NSFW where applicable.
I'm looking for another mod, someone chill. DM me if you're interested.
founded 6 days ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let me ask a very simple question:
What, exactly, is wrong with socialism?
QUICKLY.
It's not the problem with socialism, but communism which most popular version came from USSR, came with authoritarianism and extreme corruption, but so does fascism.
I think social democracy, like we see in Nordic countries is much better. They seem to put a lot of effort fighting corruption.
IMO strength of institutions (whether the society is ruled by law) and amount of corruption is what decides whether the system is good for citizens or not.
Social democratic governments objectively have the best metrics for well-being among all forms of government we've tried.
That doesn't mean it's the best possible form of government by any means but it does mean you need to make a strong case for why your system should be better.
Personally I think more could be done to reduce the power of the wealthy and the state in those countries, so I'd like to see more experimentation to move towards libertarian socialist policies but I don't think it's crazy to start with a social democratic foundation.
It's... it's... it's SOCIALISM!!!
The thing that's wrong with socialism is that we've spent almost 100 years teaching everyone's uncle that it's bad to give him a conversation topic that was tangentially related to WW2.
It’s not well defined.
People arguing for socialism could fall anywhere on the scale of supporting the UK’s NHs to North Korean style dictatorship.
Literally and figuratively: "everyone else." It's not the ideology, it's the implementation. Let me explain.
I'm of the opinion that the idea of everyone living on an even playing field, without the capitalistic intent to "exploit and extract", is noble and worthwhile. On paper, it works brilliantly - just like every other model for government. The problem comes in where it meets the real world, specifically around cultural values and psychology.
Right now, the biggest problems the US has boil down to a lot of people acting in an "my group vs your group" mentality. This is the biggest hurdle to overcome and really kills this whole thing in the cradle. Sometimes the dividing line is ideological, economical, geographical, political, or just plain bigotry of some flavor. No matter how you slice it, this behavior is anathema to socialism. You can't get people to organize in a manner that helps everyone, if a huge chunk of that group insists that's not right because it's fair. Without that kind of organization, you're left to force those values on people, which will be quite obvious and not without blow-back. Not to mention, doing so requires a governmental body strong enough to act out of unchecked corruption, which usually creates new problems.
Meanwhile, being a stupidly rich country means it's absolutely worthwhile for our home-grown billionaires to keep a death-grip on the levers of power. In the same way you or I aren't likely to vote against self-interest, the architects of corruption aren't likely to let action take place that loosens their grip. I'm not saying the economy needs to take a nose dive to put this engine fire out, but I'm at a loss to describe a way to end this particular part of our collective waking nightmare.
So you can't just "do a socialism" because of everyone else, and how those people will cite that everyone else is why that's not a good idea. And the people with the most power right now won't let it happen because there goes their meal/yacht ticket. So basically, "everyone else".
I think it's possible to get there, but there's no getting there in one big leap. Gradual change and a long period (a century?) of a hybrid model, where we have a little bit of everything going on until "being fair to everyone" wins out.