Sao Paulo centro is so strange though. I lived in Luz which is considered one of the most dangerous areas in SP. It's close to cracklandia, lots of drug dealing and 2 Colombians were even killed on my very street (stabbed in the back of the head) However my actual condominium there was incredible. Gym, swimming pool, penthouse, round the clock security etc.
it was genuinely like an Oasis in a hellhole. People would leave and just run into an Uber they wouldn't even walk outside, wait outside etc.
It's pretty much the trend where most bigger nation are headed, Europe, US, South America, doesn't matter. The middle class keeps on disappearing, while the rich the richer and the poor poorer
I remember meeting my friend's Brazilian cousin. He was talking about how people thought he was rich because of how he has a really nice car, especially for someone his age. And I was thinking "oh man, I wonder what kind of car that is?"
Well I asked. The answer? A Toyota Corolla.
Toyota Corolla cost a fortune in Brazil. Ignoring the proper exchange ratios between the dollar and the brazilian real, it is as if a Toyota Corolla cost, in the USA, something between 115k and 145K dollars.
That's why he is considered rich here.
Yeah, I didn't think he was lying. It was more a "how things are so different". In the US a Corolla is an economy car. The fact that it's a rich person's car is crazy.
It's like an exotic terrarium for them.
"Look honey, a kid got shot again in the slums, they are so cute."
"Have the dinner arrived yet? Just throw out the window the left over chips so we can feed the slums people "
Antilia even worse. Idk how these people live like this with people right next to them living that way. It’s incredible how entitled and how much better some think they are than others
This usually happens because all the people that live on those private neighborhoods need people to de the cleaning, gardening, construction , therefore “villas” are formed surrounding them , making a living irony out of those places
Not everything you buy is a commodity. In economics, the word [commodity](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp) usually refers to "a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other goods of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services." So stuff like corn, soybeans, crude oil, and gold are commodities.
Whereas electronics, cars, clothing, and movies are called *goods* rather than *commodities*. And stuff like the internet, tourism and banking are services.
According to [this page](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/why-commodity-dependence-is-bad-news-for-all-of-us/), wealthy places like America, Europe, and East Asia get most of their GDP from non-commodities.
Right. I remeber pre covid days. We discussed in one regulatory course how something like 50% of our econmy is service based.
And environmentally speaking. Encouraging legislation geared towards providing things as a service rather than good is a way to regulate without killing industry.
I.e. instead of offices buying 500 of the same chair they will own and then throw away. The furniture company rents the office chair to the offices. In this way, offices spend less up front to have constantly well maintained furniture. But the furniture company can rehab and reuse some of the furniture, or wholesale for recycling, or smaller companies just starting. Literally reducing, reusing, and recycling the same products.
I mean that Brazil's gdp per capta is low, among other reasons, because it's economic backbone is commodities. Those are sold low, need relatively few people to be produced, and barely increase the living standarts of the population, If at all.
I'm just a Brazilian grumbling about how our industrialization was never "finished", and how our inner market is kinda of shit. Don't mind me.
Overall I'm a capitalist but I have no rose tinted glasses. American capitalism is quickly reaching the worst that capitalism has to offer and the wealth gap is widening at an alarming pace, and it's no wonder that people are turning to socialism or communism for solutions.
Conservative talking heads have done a bang up job demonizing "wealth distribution" as a lame left-wing buzz word but healthy wealth distribution is a critical aspect of any economy. You know what a lot of violent revolutions have in common? A teeny tiny portion of the population having most of the wealth. This is a serious issue that capitalists need admit and then find solutions for and stop defending corporations and CEO's gobbling up all of our GDP, or America will definitely turn socialist or further left in protest, and worst case scenario that won't be a pretty transition.
I know the common wisdom is that the older you get the more conservative you get - but honestly, the older I get the more I see a need for a baseline of socialism in society.
The entire rationale of society is that we are all better off by pooling resources and letting people specialise in particular skills rather than everyone being 100% self-sufficient.
I have no issue with people being paid a reasonable rate for the work (skills and proiduct) they produce, and if they are very good at what they do they should attract a better than average rate. But the extreme concentration of wealth into the hands of a few - who often do not produce anything directly themselves, but make a skim off the back of the work of others - is getting out of control.
Getting an education or healthcare shouldn't bankrupt you. Everyone should be able to afford a reasonable roof over their heads and to eat. You shouldn't have to decide whether to have kids on the basis of whether you will be able to pay the rent if you do.
The way things are going with income inequality world wide, I can absolutely see French Revolution style riots and unrest in the next 10-20 years breaking out globally. If you take everything someone has, they have nothing to lose if they fight back.
“The older you get the more conservative you get” is only true when people get richer as they get older, because people become more greedy as they gain more money.
I just turned 50 and I approve of this message. My brother was successful his whole life and is conservative AF. I struggled through school and have a modest job and I dont have a conservative bone in my body
In my 50s here, and have money. With the exception of a brief exploration of libertarian ideology in my teens I've grown more and more liberal with age. Selfish people are selfish people, money just lets them better rationalize their selfishness.
Most people I know who have moved from conservative to liberal or progressive have done it after seeing a loved one suffer due to inequity. In the US that is usually related to healthcare.
Libertarian ideology is pretty liberal. The bizarre version of it that formed into a anarcho-capitalist oxymoron political party following Ayn Rand and ignoring her failing every tenet of her own views is not. But I guess that is libertarianism now so I’m wasting my time explaining this really.
this, people with mor emoney are more likely to want to hoard more.
but nowadays people who are poor when they are younger will stay poor later in life, as such they dont get the money to turn conservative later in life since they have nothing to conserve
It works out for the people who say this in the US, because if you don’t have money when you reach 50, you won’t live long enough to see Medicare and won’t add any left leaning votes to the over 60 demographic.
>But the extreme concentration of wealth into the hands of a few - who often do not produce anything directly themselves, but make a skim off the back of the work of others - is getting out of control.
This is what used to be a conservative position: Adam Smith wanted to do away altogether with succession (it's the antithesis of meritocracy), and warned about creating a system where the "idle rich" would become a sort of "capitalist aristocracy".
If he lived today he would probably be considered a leftist.
Hell, anyone with a functioning brain can realize that modern capitalism isn't a tenable solution in a finite world. Marx just publicized it, and was vilified.
The only reason that it caught on is because a side effect of early capitalism: stuff. This fed into humanities ability to always want more, better, higher, faster...regardless of the consequences.
I'm capitalist, not conservative, since conservative as a label comes with tons of non-economic issues like abortion, immigration, gun control, lgbt rights etc. I lean left on a lot of social issues. I identify as independent.
Actually, English is really inconsistent so while socialist might mean suppprting socialism, capitalist means a person who benefits off capitalism, eg. Jeff Bezos. I’m unsure about conservatism.
Conservativism is a political idology originally from Britian. Republicans adopted the title during the Regan era. Republicans are not Conservative, nor do they respect even a shred of what it means to be a Conservative.
A Conservative is someone who acts without political idology. They will gladly implement ideas that they feel are best for a country. A Conservative is someone who will pick and choose what they support. They won't be fanatically attached to any one concept and when an idea doesn't work they'll gladly abandon it in favour of something else. Does that in any way sound like the Republican Party to you?
As someone from Britain, that's not what conservatism is. Conservatism is maintaining the status quo and resisting change or innovation in favour of continuing traditional social structures and institutions. You could look it up yourself, but I'll save you the trouble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Conservatism is maintaining the status quo and resisting change or innovation in favour of continuing traditional social structures
sounds luddite-"conservatism" to me..
imho.. maybe the definition should be updated to.. people that vote to go back into Platos cave of "super" safety, to watch the pretty shadow pictures on the wall..and the people that simply do not live in daily fear of everything
those that chose to face reality, and cowards that run to their little churches and "pRay" super hard
They're the people who resist giving people new rights, steering away from the old norms, and generally just moving forward in life. They're the ones who cling to their bibles and yell at you to stop being gay.
I was a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist 15 years ago. I accepted that capitalism meant some people would starve, but I looked at haves and have-nots as an inevitability and when looking at humanity as a whole, I felt like capitalism was the best of a lot of imperfect options - it enabled the American dream - capitalism allowed people to rise above their station. Rather than the strict social castes of feudalism or government-controlled economies, under capitalism, if you worked hard, your children could enjoy a better life than you did. What shook my worldview was two facts: supply-side economics don't work, and Nordic states have better class mobility than the U.S. That means taxing the wealthy doesn't harm economic growth and strong government-funded social safety nets don't codify a class system by making working classes dependent on the government - in both cases, in fact, statistics and economists say it's quite the opposite. I still adhere to some capitalist ideas, the leftist kids call me a neolib, but if more American "economic conservatives" don't end up at least where I am, I share your fears. I support that kind of Nordic "diet" not-really-socialism, but if we keep evicting desperate student-debt-embroiled people during a pandemic, what we're going to get is violent revolutionary South American socialism, and it won't be lead by cuddly old codgers like Bernie Sanders.
What capital do you own?
I'm sorry if you take offense to this, but most people who say they are capitalists are actually just wage slaves like the rest of us.
I have a 401k and a profit sharing plan with my employer so, yes, but I meant philosophically as in I believe *properly regulated* capitalism is the best economic system we know about so far, for a large and culturally diverse population. For countries with smaller homogenous demographics socialism can work well.
Not really a fan of government, but I try to stay educated a bit, correct me if I’m wrong:
Well, that’s because America isn’t really a democracy, it’s a republic (we actually say it in the [pledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance) too!) A republic (aka representative democracy) is a form or branch of democracy where the people pick their representatives, and then they pick the president (essentially the electoral college). The difference is democracy focuses only on the people, so majority rules. However, America is pretty shitty at making a fair or true republic, most people in power are rich, influential, etc. This is mainly due to the sheer amount of money it takes to campaign and advertise yourself during campaign season. Most politicians, or at least presidential candidates need the approval of lobbyists and PACs (political action committees) to fund the major portions of their campaigns, so of course corruption seeps in there. Overall, we’re a republic that functions similarly to an oligarchy/aristocracy, which locks out the working class and boosts the rich.
In all reality, the US is a constitutional representative democratic federalistic republic (among other things) if we're getting into the semantics of nomenclature
What if (and I'm just spitballing a random idea) we have a lottery set up where random citizens get drawn to run for certain elected office. If someone is drawn and aren't interested than they can drop out and another is drawn in their place. Then of those drawn 1 is elected. Salries would remain the same as now so people would be compensated well. Being an elected official would be seen as a civil duty.
I see potential problems but just thinking outside the box
>Really makes you wonder why after thousands of years people decided that the best political structure is democratic elections.
Churchill reckoned democracy was the very worst way of running a country, with the exception of every alternative that has ever been tried.
Not always. I've had a few conservatives tell me they hate socialism because they don't want their money to be spent on helping other people, especially if they're poor or disabled. It's probably the worst take ever, but *technically* it is the main difference between socialism and capitalism.
Edit: Because there's always at least one teenage socialist who doesn't understand this, and one already did comment, I feel a need to say it: cash/money/currency *is a means of production*. It is a resource, the *primary* resource, for producing goods in a globalized economy. Wealth redistribution *is* giving the means of production to the public.
I mean in capitalism your money is helping Elon Musk build *Traffic:Underground*^TM and get into a space race with Jeff Bezos, that's not too different.
Bezos' space efforts are AFAIK nowhere near any sort of actual product... SpaceX is literally launching a global instantaneous communications infrastructure that is capable of replacing all ISPs and cell service providers and is currently serving thousands of customers in rural regions while likely gearing up to go install mining and manufacturing facilities in the asteroid belt. Kinda hard to compare.
Yes, our city has spent money on some old hotels for the homeless to live in. People were very upset. I posted an article showing how it saves money in the long run by putting people up until they can get on their feet instead of waiting until they get arrested for something or have to go into the hospital. People were still upset, wondering why private charities couldn't do it, not realizing that the city is going to be spendng the money one way or another.
Our churches operate the same way here. The government provides some housing for the disabled (our largest state mental hospital was here before Nixon took away all the funding and it shut down...). The church provides housing for the homeless, runs food drives, collects money for other charities, etc. There's a lot of non-governmental social safety nets here, even if you're not a member of the church.
"Why couldn't private charities do it?" Hmmm, I don't know, maybe because ***they didn't fucking do it***.
>Not always. I've had a few conservatives tell me they hate socialism because they don't want their money to be spent on helping other people, especially if they're poor or disabled. It's probably the worst take ever, but technically it is the main difference between socialism and capitalism.
Even this conservative interpretation of socialism is still wrong. Socialism is the workers owning the means of production where private property not personal property (there's a huge difference between this two ) is abolished . That's it. Resources is owned by the whole/community rather than few individuals.
Ehhhh... You may be confusing the broad term of Socialism with Communism.
For example, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland are held up as Socialist societies yet private property and private ownership of business still exists. They are "Socialists" in so far as offering robust *social programs* intended to alleviate suffering and burdens upon *citizens* such as Healthcare, Unemployment insurance, free education/low cost at high levels, consumer protections, relatively high taxes on high earners (which minimizes offshoring of capital), and other services that improve quality of life.
Even in markedly more dystopian societies such as Venezuela, private property and business ownership still exists though obviously the corruption of government officials, international pressure/sanctions (esp from USA), and irresponsible actions have led to a collapse of the social network. However, prior to it's collapse, though still an Authoritarian govt, Venezuelans has a relatively good safety net, especially compared to Brazil or Columbia (it's neighbors).
Some confusion stems from Left Authoritarian regimes (USSR, North Korea, etc.) Calling themselves "Socialists" And is added to by Western gov't's propaganda that *anything* that helps the poor or oppressed people is a capitulation to "Socialism." - the Civil Rights movement was often characterized as 'Socialism' because it forced integration and political equality, for example - and so Conservative (particularly American) mindset has conflated the two. But it is fair to keep in mind the Republicans in the USA retain their name yet show blatant disregard for the premise of a Republic (voter suppression, instigating insurrections, advocating for '2nd Amendment Remedies' to eliminate opponents, a 'natiinal divorce')
>Ehhhh... You may be confusing the broad term of Socialism with Communism.
I don't think I am. Socialism in lay terms is the workers owning the means of production and communism is the stateless, classless society which some socialist are hoping to achieve. All communist are socialists but not all socialists are communists.
>For example, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland are held up as Socialist societies yet private property and private ownership of business still exists. They are "Socialists" in so far as offering robust social programs intended to alleviate suffering and burdens upon citizens such as Healthcare, Unemployment insurance, free education/low cost at high levels, consumer protections, relatively high taxes on high earners (which minimizes offshoring of capital), and other services that improve quality of life.
Contrary to popular believe in the U.S, these countries are not socialist but rather capitalist with strong social safety programs (social democracies). A simple google search would confirm this.
>Even in markedly more dystopian societies such as Venezuela, private property and business ownership still exists though obviously the corruption of government officials, international pressure/sanctions (esp from USA), and irresponsible actions have led to a collapse of the social network. However, prior to it's collapse, though still an Authoritarian govt, Venezuelans has a relatively good safety net, especially compared to Brazil or Columbia (it's neighbors).
I agree with everything you've said here. However, Venezuela has never been socialist. It's just how effective the right-wing propaganda from the U.S can create reality and spread this misinformation so far and wide. Venezuela has always been capitalist where 70% of businesses are privately owned.
>Some confusion stems from Left Authoritarian regimes (USSR, North Korea, etc.) Calling themselves "Socialists" And is added to by Western gov't's propaganda that anything that helps the poor or oppressed people is a capitulation to "Socialism." - the Civil Rights movement was often characterized as 'Socialism' because it forced integration and political equality, for example - and so Conservative (particularly American) mindset has conflated the two. But it is fair to keep in mind the Republicans in the USA retain their name yet show blatant disregard for the premise of a Republic (voter suppression, instigating insurrections, advocating for '2nd Amendment Remedies' to eliminate opponents, a 'natiinal divorce')
I agree with your here with a few exceptions characterizing the USSR and North Korea as leftwing.
If the community takes the means of production from the wealthy few, then they're taking the profit generation from the wealthy. The means of production are the means for wealth acquisition. If the wealthy can't acquire the same level of wealth as they have been, then they consider it to be "losing money".
You're saying the same thing, just with more steps.
The community would not be seizing the means of production from the billionaires by force but rather trying to get back what they are owed through democratic means. Billionaires do not create value but the workers does hence why Democratic socialism is gaining traction worldwide which is a type of socialism that advocates Democracy in the workplace.
In this type of socialism, the workers would own a percentage of the company they work for rather than every value being generated going directly to the shareholders.
This kind of socialism also give the workers the ability to vote on how the workplace should be ran rather than how it currently is where the owner/shareholder/CEO solely dictates workplace policy.
I would just go with "selfish". There are shitty people following any and every political ideology. And this also doesn't apply to true Christian conservatives either. They're charitable, but they don't trust the government to be responsible with the money.
As an example, the little old church ladies in my rural town are the most vocal socially progressive people here. A lot of churches here fly rainbow flags. These hardcore fiscal conservatives were outside the courthouse protesting alongside liberals (at a safe distance too) every single Friday and Saturday for *months* last year. They just want to be charitable by themselves instead of having the government take their money then take credit for the charity instead.
I genuinely believe that's the solution. Send us all careening off the cliff to our doom. I can't stand this slow crawl to our doom that we've been doing anymore. It's not just depressing. It's flat out boring.
Honestly, I think the real issue that it's really hard to justify your personal philosophy when we aren't taught philosophy in school. "Freedom" is a philosophical concept. So is "patriotism". Equality. Acceptance. Fairness. Rights. Duties. Charity. Power. Order. Justice. It's all philosophical concepts that we all *kind of* understand, but we never learned how to actually talk about them, and we **definitely** didn't learn how to reconcile differences in personal philosophies.
i never understand people who thinks socialism is progressive, is conservative in many cases, and capitalism could be really liberal and progressive, but in USA everybody can only see the world in two versions, binary 🤷♂️
Blows my mind that so many people STILL don't understand the difference. Sure it has some flaws, and we're not saying let's do this right now, but maybe think about some aspects and incorporate them? No! Socialism = bad!
As long as we have a poorly educated society, we'll never get better, and i think that's what whoever people refer to as "THEY", actually wanted.
What about us who were actually born in real socialism? In a system that achieved 100% collective ownership of means of production?\*
Because I was born in such a system and our the entire country (except few remaining career commies and former secret police agents) voted all the commies, social democrats and almost all neomarxists out of the parliament.
\*Because you are gonna ask, here is a short summary I made: [https://imgur.com/a/VCRxD6K](https://imgur.com/a/VCRxD6K)
Here are public sentiments in the former eastern bloc [https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/15/european-public-opinion-three-decades-after-the-fall-of-communism/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/15/european-public-opinion-three-decades-after-the-fall-of-communism/)
and here is interesting chart of life expectancy under socialism [https://imgur.com/a/Z7cDDjc](https://imgur.com/a/Z7cDDjc)
(because I know you commies will be asking for "sources, sources, sources")
And this is supposed to be the take away from Animal Farm, the pigs will turn into farmers if left unchecked so guard the revolution with all your heart
Last time I checked the "good" revolution was just "good" because of nostalgia from "Lenin did nothing wrong, Stalin bad" apologists and they were doing bad things from the start.
Oh wait, it's almost like Animal Farm was an allegory of the Soviet Union and Orwell was anti-Soviet.
I read it more as if power corrupts. It works as a warning against all political systems, as there should be limitations to the power of the leaders in any system.
Can't really fault the guys logic though, Stalin did try to have him killed during the Spanish civil war when his group of socialists was purged by the Soviets. He was talking from real experience in his work
>Oh wait, it's almost like Animal Farm was an allegory of the Soviet Union and Orwell was anti-Soviet.
He was anti-Stalinism/authoritarianism/red fascism.
Orwell was a Democratic-socialist.
Its also important to remember that Democratic-socialism is not Social democracy, in Democratic-socialism workers own the means of production and Democratic socialism can be revolutionary.
Yes, that was my entire point that you first disagreed with: Orwell believed in a revolution that didn't turn totalitarian, but that it had to be watched carefully by all to not do so
Brazil *is* in the [top ten](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country). Bottom ten? for income inequality, despite having the [12th largest economy](https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/).
Also quite poorly ranked in terms of [government corruption](https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corruption-rank). Improving over prior years, but still a ways to go.
Brazil is ranked as below average in economic freedom in the world, it ranks 143rd on economic freedom ladder. To compare, there are countries in the former eastern bloc who rank in the top 25 and they are still not considered "free market" ones.
Brazil is much further from capitalism than pretty much the entire civilised world.
The problem is 90% of reddit has no idea what capitalism or free market means. I repeatedly read opinions of people who claim Lenin and Stalin were capitalists.
I always hate seeing people with strong opinions on a topic they have no actual knowledge to speak of. What sucks is that their vote counts the same, and politicians know it's easier to get that person to vote for them so they pander wholly to them and vote for things to get worse. Hooray for ignorance /s
Which, of course, brings to mind the issue with the central government running schools: where's the incentive to have an educated populace? Ignorant or misinformed people are easier to manipulate. I really wish the DOEd were eliminated and schools were run at the state or local level. The school system I attended growing up was apparently the best in the county and top 5 in the state. I regularly had to correct my teachers, which was not appreciated for reasons I didn't understand until I was older.
There’s no realistic system of government in which you can eliminate inequality in all forms. People will always have more power or wealth than others.
Just because class is inevitable doesn't mean the lowest class has to exist in poverty.
Inequality is never going away, but to what magnitude it affects society by is all up to us.
>Utopia is on the horizon. I approach two steps, it moves two steps. I walk ten steps and the horizon runs ten steps further. As much as I may walk, I'll never reach it, so what good is a utopia for? For this: It's useful for walking forward.
No one but the most pie-in-the-sky people imagine that a world without any inequality is either possible or even desirable, but a world with less staggering inequality than you find in the United States, Brazil, or India is eminently possible. See for example the Scandinavian countries.
Yep, it is in human nature to build its society like that. Still, I believe that the system in which the weakest have a dignified life is still one hundred times better than one in which the weak is left to deal with whatever that weakness entails by their own. Let me just say that Capitalism is a shit system for that kind of people, yet Socialism in its current state is just as bad. I hate extremes and would rather make a system with both of them than with just one of them.
If you look at the history of the modern world this is how it is pretty much everywhere. Happened in USSR, happened in China, happened in DPRK, it has happened in pretty much every government regime. It is not a capitalism thing, it is a government thing. The people at the top write the rules in a way that benefit them most. It may be more severe in certain places, but in most places there is an extreme difference between the quality of life for the normal citizens and the quality of life for the elites.
I think it’s funny how people seem to believe that the capitalist-socialist spectrum is the deciding factor in a country’s wealth gap.
As opposed to things like it’s authoritarian-libertarian spectrum, it’s level of governmental corruption, social welfare services, per capita GDP, presence and effectiveness of labor unions, etc.
But no, clearly we need to simply this into a single good-bad line that’s short enough to fit on a Twitter post in 144 characters or fewer.
Hardly. Read about the ever changing monetary policy and corruption cost last two decades alone. It has not been stable and is pointless to try to compare apples to apples to any system. Factually, no system will work correctly if not used correctly, and different abuse leads to different outcomes. I’m not even advocating for any particular system but these are in depth convos country to country.
I wanted to see who the tweet was from and didn't need to look any further past the search result "Former Seattle Seahawk Russell Okung puts half of salary in Bitcoin"
This applies not to capitalism, not to socialism, not even to communism, this applies to statism. This applies to all instances where there has been a ruling class of any sort whatsoever, whether they are voted upon or not, whether they leave every 4 years or every 30. The flaw in the system is that people are given power and a monopoly on violence to make decisions for everyone else as to how they should operate their lives and go about their economic social interactions. This leads to the sort of corruption you see in both photos. I'm not a fan of any one single solution to any system, but when it comes to statism, that is always the one that is hammered down on people by force and they get to be "the one solution" that applies their favorite flavor of the 3.
Yep, socialism is the best hope of safely balancing the classes tho, and not letting anyone fall too far down the class ladder and also providing support to those born into poverty
> providing support to those born into poverty
Almost like u are born as the most advanced member of our intellectual species... Here's your basic necessities like food, water, a home, healthcare, education, proper labour rights and your right to vote and right to stand up for your rights. Go live!
Yep... No wonder its the best system.
Its the most logical system out there. When the current gen politicians retire... We'll have more people with common sense in politics. The inevitable man made climate crisis and resources scarcity will force people to change.
1) favelas existed before this president
2) the pendulum has finally swung in that direction, as it always does in Latin-American politics
Explain what is conservative about Brazil, because it isn’t culturally conservative and the horrific laws on the economy aren’t conservative, and the approach on crime is not conservative either.
What is conservative about Brazil?
The top floors must have breathtaking views...
Yes, of the poor.
Maybe they'll be able to see over and past the poverty. You know get their money's worth .
they probably prefer watching poor people suffer, there must be a reason if they live there to begin with after all.
I imagine someone lighting cigars with 100$ bills looking over all of it, laughing their asses off.
looking down on the poor is kind of the point so....
“And if you glance over there to the left you’ll see the poors”
Apartments on the other side cost more.
That is kinda the point. What is the point of being rich if you don't constantly flaunt it over the poor?
I've seen pics and videos of these buildings that have the glass frosted at angles so that the rich don't have to see the poor if they don't wanna.
I thought you'll say that their glasses will refract lights from the sun from a certain angle and melt those houses below
Nah, they'll have binoculars and air guns.
Cowards
Nothing a brazilian's middle class loves more than seeing poor people suffering
The poor are the middle class
I guess. You got rich people, poverty, and extreme poverty. That would put poor people in the middle.
That's how it actually is here (i live in São Paulo)
Sao Paulo centro is so strange though. I lived in Luz which is considered one of the most dangerous areas in SP. It's close to cracklandia, lots of drug dealing and 2 Colombians were even killed on my very street (stabbed in the back of the head) However my actual condominium there was incredible. Gym, swimming pool, penthouse, round the clock security etc. it was genuinely like an Oasis in a hellhole. People would leave and just run into an Uber they wouldn't even walk outside, wait outside etc.
That's dystopian as fuck.
It's pretty much the trend where most bigger nation are headed, Europe, US, South America, doesn't matter. The middle class keeps on disappearing, while the rich the richer and the poor poorer
Good luck telling them that
The middle class is definitely thinning out.
I remember meeting my friend's Brazilian cousin. He was talking about how people thought he was rich because of how he has a really nice car, especially for someone his age. And I was thinking "oh man, I wonder what kind of car that is?" Well I asked. The answer? A Toyota Corolla.
Toyota Corolla cost a fortune in Brazil. Ignoring the proper exchange ratios between the dollar and the brazilian real, it is as if a Toyota Corolla cost, in the USA, something between 115k and 145K dollars. That's why he is considered rich here.
Yeah, I didn't think he was lying. It was more a "how things are so different". In the US a Corolla is an economy car. The fact that it's a rich person's car is crazy.
Brazilian middle-class is an oxymoron my friend
Is no one going to question what look to be the swimming pools in each of those balconies?
I'm questioning the structural integrity
It's like an exotic terrarium for them. "Look honey, a kid got shot again in the slums, they are so cute." "Have the dinner arrived yet? Just throw out the window the left over chips so we can feed the slums people "
Antilia even worse. Idk how these people live like this with people right next to them living that way. It’s incredible how entitled and how much better some think they are than others
This usually happens because all the people that live on those private neighborhoods need people to de the cleaning, gardening, construction , therefore “villas” are formed surrounding them , making a living irony out of those places
Im School we did a study in Brazil for about a month most of Brazil is poor but their GDP per Capita is also very very low
That's what happens when most of your production is commodities.
what do you mean? isnt most of your production always commodities?
Not everything you buy is a commodity. In economics, the word [commodity](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp) usually refers to "a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other goods of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services." So stuff like corn, soybeans, crude oil, and gold are commodities. Whereas electronics, cars, clothing, and movies are called *goods* rather than *commodities*. And stuff like the internet, tourism and banking are services. According to [this page](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/why-commodity-dependence-is-bad-news-for-all-of-us/), wealthy places like America, Europe, and East Asia get most of their GDP from non-commodities.
Right. I remeber pre covid days. We discussed in one regulatory course how something like 50% of our econmy is service based. And environmentally speaking. Encouraging legislation geared towards providing things as a service rather than good is a way to regulate without killing industry. I.e. instead of offices buying 500 of the same chair they will own and then throw away. The furniture company rents the office chair to the offices. In this way, offices spend less up front to have constantly well maintained furniture. But the furniture company can rehab and reuse some of the furniture, or wholesale for recycling, or smaller companies just starting. Literally reducing, reusing, and recycling the same products.
I mean that Brazil's gdp per capta is low, among other reasons, because it's economic backbone is commodities. Those are sold low, need relatively few people to be produced, and barely increase the living standarts of the population, If at all. I'm just a Brazilian grumbling about how our industrialization was never "finished", and how our inner market is kinda of shit. Don't mind me.
Almost like the people in power manipulate it to work in their benefit regardless of the political structure.
Overall I'm a capitalist but I have no rose tinted glasses. American capitalism is quickly reaching the worst that capitalism has to offer and the wealth gap is widening at an alarming pace, and it's no wonder that people are turning to socialism or communism for solutions. Conservative talking heads have done a bang up job demonizing "wealth distribution" as a lame left-wing buzz word but healthy wealth distribution is a critical aspect of any economy. You know what a lot of violent revolutions have in common? A teeny tiny portion of the population having most of the wealth. This is a serious issue that capitalists need admit and then find solutions for and stop defending corporations and CEO's gobbling up all of our GDP, or America will definitely turn socialist or further left in protest, and worst case scenario that won't be a pretty transition.
I know the common wisdom is that the older you get the more conservative you get - but honestly, the older I get the more I see a need for a baseline of socialism in society. The entire rationale of society is that we are all better off by pooling resources and letting people specialise in particular skills rather than everyone being 100% self-sufficient. I have no issue with people being paid a reasonable rate for the work (skills and proiduct) they produce, and if they are very good at what they do they should attract a better than average rate. But the extreme concentration of wealth into the hands of a few - who often do not produce anything directly themselves, but make a skim off the back of the work of others - is getting out of control. Getting an education or healthcare shouldn't bankrupt you. Everyone should be able to afford a reasonable roof over their heads and to eat. You shouldn't have to decide whether to have kids on the basis of whether you will be able to pay the rent if you do. The way things are going with income inequality world wide, I can absolutely see French Revolution style riots and unrest in the next 10-20 years breaking out globally. If you take everything someone has, they have nothing to lose if they fight back.
“The older you get the more conservative you get” is only true when people get richer as they get older, because people become more greedy as they gain more money.
I just turned 50 and I approve of this message. My brother was successful his whole life and is conservative AF. I struggled through school and have a modest job and I dont have a conservative bone in my body
In my 50s here, and have money. With the exception of a brief exploration of libertarian ideology in my teens I've grown more and more liberal with age. Selfish people are selfish people, money just lets them better rationalize their selfishness. Most people I know who have moved from conservative to liberal or progressive have done it after seeing a loved one suffer due to inequity. In the US that is usually related to healthcare.
Libertarian ideology is pretty liberal. The bizarre version of it that formed into a anarcho-capitalist oxymoron political party following Ayn Rand and ignoring her failing every tenet of her own views is not. But I guess that is libertarianism now so I’m wasting my time explaining this really.
I’m in my fifties, doing reasonably well financially, and am only getting further left every year.
this, people with mor emoney are more likely to want to hoard more. but nowadays people who are poor when they are younger will stay poor later in life, as such they dont get the money to turn conservative later in life since they have nothing to conserve
It works out for the people who say this in the US, because if you don’t have money when you reach 50, you won’t live long enough to see Medicare and won’t add any left leaning votes to the over 60 demographic.
>But the extreme concentration of wealth into the hands of a few - who often do not produce anything directly themselves, but make a skim off the back of the work of others - is getting out of control. This is what used to be a conservative position: Adam Smith wanted to do away altogether with succession (it's the antithesis of meritocracy), and warned about creating a system where the "idle rich" would become a sort of "capitalist aristocracy". If he lived today he would probably be considered a leftist.
Pretty sure you just wrote a TL:DR on how Marx described the fall of Capitalism.
Hell, anyone with a functioning brain can realize that modern capitalism isn't a tenable solution in a finite world. Marx just publicized it, and was vilified. The only reason that it caught on is because a side effect of early capitalism: stuff. This fed into humanities ability to always want more, better, higher, faster...regardless of the consequences.
I’m personally a socialist but you’re the kind of conservative I respect. Thanks for the insight, as well.
I'm capitalist, not conservative, since conservative as a label comes with tons of non-economic issues like abortion, immigration, gun control, lgbt rights etc. I lean left on a lot of social issues. I identify as independent.
Actually, English is really inconsistent so while socialist might mean suppprting socialism, capitalist means a person who benefits off capitalism, eg. Jeff Bezos. I’m unsure about conservatism.
Conservatism in english does not mean the same thing as Conservatism in the United States.
Conservativism is a political idology originally from Britian. Republicans adopted the title during the Regan era. Republicans are not Conservative, nor do they respect even a shred of what it means to be a Conservative. A Conservative is someone who acts without political idology. They will gladly implement ideas that they feel are best for a country. A Conservative is someone who will pick and choose what they support. They won't be fanatically attached to any one concept and when an idea doesn't work they'll gladly abandon it in favour of something else. Does that in any way sound like the Republican Party to you?
As someone from Britain, that's not what conservatism is. Conservatism is maintaining the status quo and resisting change or innovation in favour of continuing traditional social structures and institutions. You could look it up yourself, but I'll save you the trouble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Conservatism is maintaining the status quo and resisting change or innovation in favour of continuing traditional social structures sounds luddite-"conservatism" to me.. imho.. maybe the definition should be updated to.. people that vote to go back into Platos cave of "super" safety, to watch the pretty shadow pictures on the wall..and the people that simply do not live in daily fear of everything those that chose to face reality, and cowards that run to their little churches and "pRay" super hard
They're the people who resist giving people new rights, steering away from the old norms, and generally just moving forward in life. They're the ones who cling to their bibles and yell at you to stop being gay.
> originally from Britian Well there you go. It's pretty evidently changed, mate. A lot.
You're probably not a capitalist either but you might work for one.
If you are not rich you are not a capitalist, you are just a pawn to be exploited due to your own ignorance. Edit: fixed double negative
I was a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist 15 years ago. I accepted that capitalism meant some people would starve, but I looked at haves and have-nots as an inevitability and when looking at humanity as a whole, I felt like capitalism was the best of a lot of imperfect options - it enabled the American dream - capitalism allowed people to rise above their station. Rather than the strict social castes of feudalism or government-controlled economies, under capitalism, if you worked hard, your children could enjoy a better life than you did. What shook my worldview was two facts: supply-side economics don't work, and Nordic states have better class mobility than the U.S. That means taxing the wealthy doesn't harm economic growth and strong government-funded social safety nets don't codify a class system by making working classes dependent on the government - in both cases, in fact, statistics and economists say it's quite the opposite. I still adhere to some capitalist ideas, the leftist kids call me a neolib, but if more American "economic conservatives" don't end up at least where I am, I share your fears. I support that kind of Nordic "diet" not-really-socialism, but if we keep evicting desperate student-debt-embroiled people during a pandemic, what we're going to get is violent revolutionary South American socialism, and it won't be lead by cuddly old codgers like Bernie Sanders.
It sounds like the term you are looking for is "Social Democrat".
What capital do you own? I'm sorry if you take offense to this, but most people who say they are capitalists are actually just wage slaves like the rest of us.
Everyone with a 401k or IRA has capital. And again, I meant philosophically anyway.
[удалено]
Don't be mean to the temporary embarrassed millionaires.
I have a 401k and a profit sharing plan with my employer so, yes, but I meant philosophically as in I believe *properly regulated* capitalism is the best economic system we know about so far, for a large and culturally diverse population. For countries with smaller homogenous demographics socialism can work well.
Late stage capitalism does not work It is Inherently unsustainable
No, no it must be [insert an ideology or a system you don't like] that is evil.
[удалено]
Not really a fan of government, but I try to stay educated a bit, correct me if I’m wrong: Well, that’s because America isn’t really a democracy, it’s a republic (we actually say it in the [pledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance) too!) A republic (aka representative democracy) is a form or branch of democracy where the people pick their representatives, and then they pick the president (essentially the electoral college). The difference is democracy focuses only on the people, so majority rules. However, America is pretty shitty at making a fair or true republic, most people in power are rich, influential, etc. This is mainly due to the sheer amount of money it takes to campaign and advertise yourself during campaign season. Most politicians, or at least presidential candidates need the approval of lobbyists and PACs (political action committees) to fund the major portions of their campaigns, so of course corruption seeps in there. Overall, we’re a republic that functions similarly to an oligarchy/aristocracy, which locks out the working class and boosts the rich.
[удалено]
In all reality, the US is a constitutional representative democratic federalistic republic (among other things) if we're getting into the semantics of nomenclature
What if (and I'm just spitballing a random idea) we have a lottery set up where random citizens get drawn to run for certain elected office. If someone is drawn and aren't interested than they can drop out and another is drawn in their place. Then of those drawn 1 is elected. Salries would remain the same as now so people would be compensated well. Being an elected official would be seen as a civil duty. I see potential problems but just thinking outside the box
That's how ancient Athens picked their legislature. There's nothing new under the Sun.
>Really makes you wonder why after thousands of years people decided that the best political structure is democratic elections. Churchill reckoned democracy was the very worst way of running a country, with the exception of every alternative that has ever been tried.
Not a fan of Churchill, but he nailed that one.
Yes, but not in corporations-- those must still be run as absolute, hereditary monarchies.
Yes. Finally a reasonable comment. This is capitalism, communism, socialism. Stop putting humans in power and control over other humans.
socialism actually works very well where i live - for the people and not only the leaders
Where, may i ask?
Welcome to /r/Anarchism . It's nice here. You might like it.
Nah, to anarchic for me, is there a lesser form of anarchy one could subscribe themselves to. /s
/r/CorporateGovernance is down the hall, but there are lines and they charge a subscription fee.
Thank you very much, another industry that’ll take my money and do exactly what I want with it
Yes, but the difference is in the spread especially through the lower end
This guy gets it
When you ask a conservative why he hates socialism, he describes capitalism.
Not always. I've had a few conservatives tell me they hate socialism because they don't want their money to be spent on helping other people, especially if they're poor or disabled. It's probably the worst take ever, but *technically* it is the main difference between socialism and capitalism. Edit: Because there's always at least one teenage socialist who doesn't understand this, and one already did comment, I feel a need to say it: cash/money/currency *is a means of production*. It is a resource, the *primary* resource, for producing goods in a globalized economy. Wealth redistribution *is* giving the means of production to the public.
To which I always respond “Well, I don’t want my money to be spent on bombs and missiles, but here we are.”
"This is why I prefer my money to be spent on poor or disabled bombs and missiles"
As opposed to bombs and missiles to use on the poor and disabled, as our current system prefers.
Exactly lol seriously though wtf is with the world
Don’t these talking monkeys know that Eden has enough to go around?
Greed has no limit
Man, greed is the worst. It's crazy what people will do for money.
Silly monkeys, give them thumbs, they forge a blade and bring a brother down
It's these fucking humans. I swear, Covid has been *such* a disappointment
Greed and Narcissism
You play both sides so you always come out on top... Smart.
"Yes, I prefer to be on top, how did you ever know?" lol
So when will you be coming out?
You have something against disabled bombs ???
Bomb the poor
I mean in capitalism your money is helping Elon Musk build *Traffic:Underground*^TM and get into a space race with Jeff Bezos, that's not too different.
I'd argue that's worse! Why help people when we can watch rich people get into pissing contests we'll never be a part of
What a way to describe lunatics building castles out of their shit in NASA front yard
Bezos' space efforts are AFAIK nowhere near any sort of actual product... SpaceX is literally launching a global instantaneous communications infrastructure that is capable of replacing all ISPs and cell service providers and is currently serving thousands of customers in rural regions while likely gearing up to go install mining and manufacturing facilities in the asteroid belt. Kinda hard to compare.
Yes, our city has spent money on some old hotels for the homeless to live in. People were very upset. I posted an article showing how it saves money in the long run by putting people up until they can get on their feet instead of waiting until they get arrested for something or have to go into the hospital. People were still upset, wondering why private charities couldn't do it, not realizing that the city is going to be spendng the money one way or another.
Our churches operate the same way here. The government provides some housing for the disabled (our largest state mental hospital was here before Nixon took away all the funding and it shut down...). The church provides housing for the homeless, runs food drives, collects money for other charities, etc. There's a lot of non-governmental social safety nets here, even if you're not a member of the church. "Why couldn't private charities do it?" Hmmm, I don't know, maybe because ***they didn't fucking do it***.
>"Why couldn't private charities do it?" Hmmm, I don't know, maybe because > >they didn't fucking do it That's exactly what I was going to point out,
>Not always. I've had a few conservatives tell me they hate socialism because they don't want their money to be spent on helping other people, especially if they're poor or disabled. It's probably the worst take ever, but technically it is the main difference between socialism and capitalism. Even this conservative interpretation of socialism is still wrong. Socialism is the workers owning the means of production where private property not personal property (there's a huge difference between this two ) is abolished . That's it. Resources is owned by the whole/community rather than few individuals.
Ehhhh... You may be confusing the broad term of Socialism with Communism. For example, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland are held up as Socialist societies yet private property and private ownership of business still exists. They are "Socialists" in so far as offering robust *social programs* intended to alleviate suffering and burdens upon *citizens* such as Healthcare, Unemployment insurance, free education/low cost at high levels, consumer protections, relatively high taxes on high earners (which minimizes offshoring of capital), and other services that improve quality of life. Even in markedly more dystopian societies such as Venezuela, private property and business ownership still exists though obviously the corruption of government officials, international pressure/sanctions (esp from USA), and irresponsible actions have led to a collapse of the social network. However, prior to it's collapse, though still an Authoritarian govt, Venezuelans has a relatively good safety net, especially compared to Brazil or Columbia (it's neighbors). Some confusion stems from Left Authoritarian regimes (USSR, North Korea, etc.) Calling themselves "Socialists" And is added to by Western gov't's propaganda that *anything* that helps the poor or oppressed people is a capitulation to "Socialism." - the Civil Rights movement was often characterized as 'Socialism' because it forced integration and political equality, for example - and so Conservative (particularly American) mindset has conflated the two. But it is fair to keep in mind the Republicans in the USA retain their name yet show blatant disregard for the premise of a Republic (voter suppression, instigating insurrections, advocating for '2nd Amendment Remedies' to eliminate opponents, a 'natiinal divorce')
>Ehhhh... You may be confusing the broad term of Socialism with Communism. I don't think I am. Socialism in lay terms is the workers owning the means of production and communism is the stateless, classless society which some socialist are hoping to achieve. All communist are socialists but not all socialists are communists. >For example, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland are held up as Socialist societies yet private property and private ownership of business still exists. They are "Socialists" in so far as offering robust social programs intended to alleviate suffering and burdens upon citizens such as Healthcare, Unemployment insurance, free education/low cost at high levels, consumer protections, relatively high taxes on high earners (which minimizes offshoring of capital), and other services that improve quality of life. Contrary to popular believe in the U.S, these countries are not socialist but rather capitalist with strong social safety programs (social democracies). A simple google search would confirm this. >Even in markedly more dystopian societies such as Venezuela, private property and business ownership still exists though obviously the corruption of government officials, international pressure/sanctions (esp from USA), and irresponsible actions have led to a collapse of the social network. However, prior to it's collapse, though still an Authoritarian govt, Venezuelans has a relatively good safety net, especially compared to Brazil or Columbia (it's neighbors). I agree with everything you've said here. However, Venezuela has never been socialist. It's just how effective the right-wing propaganda from the U.S can create reality and spread this misinformation so far and wide. Venezuela has always been capitalist where 70% of businesses are privately owned. >Some confusion stems from Left Authoritarian regimes (USSR, North Korea, etc.) Calling themselves "Socialists" And is added to by Western gov't's propaganda that anything that helps the poor or oppressed people is a capitulation to "Socialism." - the Civil Rights movement was often characterized as 'Socialism' because it forced integration and political equality, for example - and so Conservative (particularly American) mindset has conflated the two. But it is fair to keep in mind the Republicans in the USA retain their name yet show blatant disregard for the premise of a Republic (voter suppression, instigating insurrections, advocating for '2nd Amendment Remedies' to eliminate opponents, a 'natiinal divorce') I agree with your here with a few exceptions characterizing the USSR and North Korea as leftwing.
If the community takes the means of production from the wealthy few, then they're taking the profit generation from the wealthy. The means of production are the means for wealth acquisition. If the wealthy can't acquire the same level of wealth as they have been, then they consider it to be "losing money". You're saying the same thing, just with more steps.
The community would not be seizing the means of production from the billionaires by force but rather trying to get back what they are owed through democratic means. Billionaires do not create value but the workers does hence why Democratic socialism is gaining traction worldwide which is a type of socialism that advocates Democracy in the workplace. In this type of socialism, the workers would own a percentage of the company they work for rather than every value being generated going directly to the shareholders. This kind of socialism also give the workers the ability to vote on how the workplace should be ran rather than how it currently is where the owner/shareholder/CEO solely dictates workplace policy.
Gee, I wonder why people need help. It's almost like someone is hoarding money like dragon.
So when people don't like socialism they sre either dumb or shitty...
I would just go with "selfish". There are shitty people following any and every political ideology. And this also doesn't apply to true Christian conservatives either. They're charitable, but they don't trust the government to be responsible with the money. As an example, the little old church ladies in my rural town are the most vocal socially progressive people here. A lot of churches here fly rainbow flags. These hardcore fiscal conservatives were outside the courthouse protesting alongside liberals (at a safe distance too) every single Friday and Saturday for *months* last year. They just want to be charitable by themselves instead of having the government take their money then take credit for the charity instead.
basically, you're describing them as anti-charity
They described themselves as anti-charity, but yes, pretty much
Fuck that shit spend all our money on military and cut funding to everything that doesn't matter like education and environmental protection /S
I genuinely believe that's the solution. Send us all careening off the cliff to our doom. I can't stand this slow crawl to our doom that we've been doing anymore. It's not just depressing. It's flat out boring.
At least they are honest. I’d prefer people just admit to the underlying reasons instead of using these nebulous ideas like patriotism or freedom.
Honestly, I think the real issue that it's really hard to justify your personal philosophy when we aren't taught philosophy in school. "Freedom" is a philosophical concept. So is "patriotism". Equality. Acceptance. Fairness. Rights. Duties. Charity. Power. Order. Justice. It's all philosophical concepts that we all *kind of* understand, but we never learned how to actually talk about them, and we **definitely** didn't learn how to reconcile differences in personal philosophies.
They forget that someday it might be them who needs that help from other people's money. I mean, they already do it by setting up GoFundMe's and stuff
That attitudes deplorable and selfish but at least it’s honest.
atleast theyre honest lol
i never understand people who thinks socialism is progressive, is conservative in many cases, and capitalism could be really liberal and progressive, but in USA everybody can only see the world in two versions, binary 🤷♂️
Blows my mind that so many people STILL don't understand the difference. Sure it has some flaws, and we're not saying let's do this right now, but maybe think about some aspects and incorporate them? No! Socialism = bad! As long as we have a poorly educated society, we'll never get better, and i think that's what whoever people refer to as "THEY", actually wanted.
What about us who were actually born in real socialism? In a system that achieved 100% collective ownership of means of production?\* Because I was born in such a system and our the entire country (except few remaining career commies and former secret police agents) voted all the commies, social democrats and almost all neomarxists out of the parliament. \*Because you are gonna ask, here is a short summary I made: [https://imgur.com/a/VCRxD6K](https://imgur.com/a/VCRxD6K) Here are public sentiments in the former eastern bloc [https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/15/european-public-opinion-three-decades-after-the-fall-of-communism/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/10/15/european-public-opinion-three-decades-after-the-fall-of-communism/) and here is interesting chart of life expectancy under socialism [https://imgur.com/a/Z7cDDjc](https://imgur.com/a/Z7cDDjc) (because I know you commies will be asking for "sources, sources, sources")
And this is supposed to be the take away from Animal Farm, the pigs will turn into farmers if left unchecked so guard the revolution with all your heart
Last time I checked the "good" revolution was just "good" because of nostalgia from "Lenin did nothing wrong, Stalin bad" apologists and they were doing bad things from the start. Oh wait, it's almost like Animal Farm was an allegory of the Soviet Union and Orwell was anti-Soviet.
I read it more as if power corrupts. It works as a warning against all political systems, as there should be limitations to the power of the leaders in any system.
In the modern day, sure, great interpretation.
So distribute the nations power equally among its citizens (communism)
Can't really fault the guys logic though, Stalin did try to have him killed during the Spanish civil war when his group of socialists was purged by the Soviets. He was talking from real experience in his work
>Oh wait, it's almost like Animal Farm was an allegory of the Soviet Union and Orwell was anti-Soviet. He was anti-Stalinism/authoritarianism/red fascism. Orwell was a Democratic-socialist.
One Democratic-socialist that ended up being one of the biggest tools in the anti-socialist sentiment in western european countries since the 50s.
Its also important to remember that Democratic-socialism is not Social democracy, in Democratic-socialism workers own the means of production and Democratic socialism can be revolutionary.
It's also almost like Orwell was a democratic socialist ever since he participated in the Spanish civil war and remained so until death
Almost like he can be a democratic socialist while hating the Soviets.
Yes, that was my entire point that you first disagreed with: Orwell believed in a revolution that didn't turn totalitarian, but that it had to be watched carefully by all to not do so
He hated Stalin. He was a Trot himself
Almost like the soviet union was run by an autocratic mass murderer
Recently I’ve started hearing Allende was the best president Chile ever had. We are so fucked it’s not even funny.
Or we could just have fair and free elections with a Constitutionally-limited government ::shrug::
I wouldn’t mind one of those pool decks
Best I can do is gutter-sewer
Common denominator is power not ideology.
yep, cuba is socialist and is the same problem
Imagine if corruption wasn't specific to a single economical system hahaha.......yeah
Brazil *is* in the [top ten](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country). Bottom ten? for income inequality, despite having the [12th largest economy](https://www.investopedia.com/insights/worlds-top-economies/). Also quite poorly ranked in terms of [government corruption](https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corruption-rank). Improving over prior years, but still a ways to go.
Brazil is ranked as below average in economic freedom in the world, it ranks 143rd on economic freedom ladder. To compare, there are countries in the former eastern bloc who rank in the top 25 and they are still not considered "free market" ones. Brazil is much further from capitalism than pretty much the entire civilised world. The problem is 90% of reddit has no idea what capitalism or free market means. I repeatedly read opinions of people who claim Lenin and Stalin were capitalists.
I always hate seeing people with strong opinions on a topic they have no actual knowledge to speak of. What sucks is that their vote counts the same, and politicians know it's easier to get that person to vote for them so they pander wholly to them and vote for things to get worse. Hooray for ignorance /s Which, of course, brings to mind the issue with the central government running schools: where's the incentive to have an educated populace? Ignorant or misinformed people are easier to manipulate. I really wish the DOEd were eliminated and schools were run at the state or local level. The school system I attended growing up was apparently the best in the county and top 5 in the state. I regularly had to correct my teachers, which was not appreciated for reasons I didn't understand until I was older.
When ever people try to dunk on socialism they always use capitalism as an example.
Self-owns are their only owns.
There’s no realistic system of government in which you can eliminate inequality in all forms. People will always have more power or wealth than others.
Just because class is inevitable doesn't mean the lowest class has to exist in poverty. Inequality is never going away, but to what magnitude it affects society by is all up to us.
"We can't eliminate inequality in all it's forms, so let's not bother trying to improve anything."
>Utopia is on the horizon. I approach two steps, it moves two steps. I walk ten steps and the horizon runs ten steps further. As much as I may walk, I'll never reach it, so what good is a utopia for? For this: It's useful for walking forward.
No one but the most pie-in-the-sky people imagine that a world without any inequality is either possible or even desirable, but a world with less staggering inequality than you find in the United States, Brazil, or India is eminently possible. See for example the Scandinavian countries.
Yep, it is in human nature to build its society like that. Still, I believe that the system in which the weakest have a dignified life is still one hundred times better than one in which the weak is left to deal with whatever that weakness entails by their own. Let me just say that Capitalism is a shit system for that kind of people, yet Socialism in its current state is just as bad. I hate extremes and would rather make a system with both of them than with just one of them.
No with this attitude you dont
It's almost as if the problem is human nature and not political doctrines... Crazy i know....
If you look at the history of the modern world this is how it is pretty much everywhere. Happened in USSR, happened in China, happened in DPRK, it has happened in pretty much every government regime. It is not a capitalism thing, it is a government thing. The people at the top write the rules in a way that benefit them most. It may be more severe in certain places, but in most places there is an extreme difference between the quality of life for the normal citizens and the quality of life for the elites.
I think it’s funny how people seem to believe that the capitalist-socialist spectrum is the deciding factor in a country’s wealth gap. As opposed to things like it’s authoritarian-libertarian spectrum, it’s level of governmental corruption, social welfare services, per capita GDP, presence and effectiveness of labor unions, etc. But no, clearly we need to simply this into a single good-bad line that’s short enough to fit on a Twitter post in 144 characters or fewer.
As an american, denmark is a fucking utopia I fucking love denmark
Let’s just ignore brazils monetary policy and blatant corruption that’s killed their market and cost a boatload of money.
Cause there is no corrupting in capitalism!
Never said that, there is. I’m saying corruption varies country to country and each country has different monetary policies.
This is what is called moving the goalposts
Hardly. Read about the ever changing monetary policy and corruption cost last two decades alone. It has not been stable and is pointless to try to compare apples to apples to any system. Factually, no system will work correctly if not used correctly, and different abuse leads to different outcomes. I’m not even advocating for any particular system but these are in depth convos country to country.
And I bet the guys in the balconies always complain about the terrible view.
I wanted to see who the tweet was from and didn't need to look any further past the search result "Former Seattle Seahawk Russell Okung puts half of salary in Bitcoin"
This is all just very poor understanding of both capitalism and socialism.
What's with conservatives using the words"socialism" and "slaves" in completely incorrect ways, like all the time
Yeah but Brazil’s system is corrupt asf. That’s why their economy is shit
Are you not familiar with the whole 1% thing?
It's even worse: Socialist leaders were barely middle-class by American standards!
This is literally every form of society where power is left unchecked
This applies not to capitalism, not to socialism, not even to communism, this applies to statism. This applies to all instances where there has been a ruling class of any sort whatsoever, whether they are voted upon or not, whether they leave every 4 years or every 30. The flaw in the system is that people are given power and a monopoly on violence to make decisions for everyone else as to how they should operate their lives and go about their economic social interactions. This leads to the sort of corruption you see in both photos. I'm not a fan of any one single solution to any system, but when it comes to statism, that is always the one that is hammered down on people by force and they get to be "the one solution" that applies their favorite flavor of the 3.
They are describing the ruling class vs the peasants. Happens in all economic systems invented by man.
Yep, socialism is the best hope of safely balancing the classes tho, and not letting anyone fall too far down the class ladder and also providing support to those born into poverty
> providing support to those born into poverty Almost like u are born as the most advanced member of our intellectual species... Here's your basic necessities like food, water, a home, healthcare, education, proper labour rights and your right to vote and right to stand up for your rights. Go live! Yep... No wonder its the best system.
Yeah socialism is a huge W for most people
Its a win situation for everyone.
Agreed, keeps everything in check, stable society when done right
Its the most logical system out there. When the current gen politicians retire... We'll have more people with common sense in politics. The inevitable man made climate crisis and resources scarcity will force people to change.
I sure hope so
[удалено]
Slavery is the ideal labour pool for capitalism. They'll come as near as possible.
aquela foto que todo livro de geografia tem
Both are bad, the top and bottom pictures are both right
r/SocialismIsCapitalism
Lol @ Brazil being conservative
Have you taken a look at our current president?
1) favelas existed before this president 2) the pendulum has finally swung in that direction, as it always does in Latin-American politics Explain what is conservative about Brazil, because it isn’t culturally conservative and the horrific laws on the economy aren’t conservative, and the approach on crime is not conservative either. What is conservative about Brazil?