Fucking Newsweek can suck it.
Socialism used to be something we Americans picked up in our freshman dorm room and dropped right around the time HR walked us through the concept of a 401(k) match
I hate when people project their own failings onto everyone else to feel better about themselves…
Loads of people can personally accumulate wealth well past entry level.office work and not sell out their class.
Also pretty underhanded to call utility monopolies socialism when it’s a capitalist monopoly. If basic services operate for profit, it doesn’t matter if the city or a corp gets the profits. It shouldn’t be free, but public utilities just should never turn a profit.
The concept of a 401k should, to anyone with a working brain, push people towards socialism.
The idea that you should sacrifice what little compensation you get to plan for the unplanable next 50-60 years, and its really all on you, is total capitalist horseshit.
Anyone duped into supporting capitalism based on a 401k is such a mouth-breathing troglodyte, they shouldn’t have the right to vote.
Surviving within the system doesn’t mean you believe in or support said system. I would much rather have my old pension that was eliminated at my last job than have my financial security hinge on the whims of a bunch of gambling addicts and AI bros.
Surviving within the system doesn’t mean you believe in or support said system
Cool, but that’s not what the article said…
Socialism used to be something we Americans picked up in our freshman dorm room and dropped right around the time HR walked us through the concept of a 401(k) match
Like…
I quoted the literal words from the article, explained my issue with them…
And your response to that was essentially:
But what if it wasn’t what they said, what if they said the opposite?
Why do you think I was disagreeing with you?
Take a breath, homie.
Well, I do see value in the use of civil asset forfeiture to distribute housing. I would have to think for a second about signing up for privatized law enforcement if my local police force used that to get some mansions to themselves.
. I would have to think for a second about signing up for privatized law enforcement if my local police force used that to get some mansions to themselves
The only way that seems logical is if you thought what I said about “basic services shouldn’t operate for profit” somehow meant that no one providing labor for those services should be paid…
And then public employees would need to just seize what they need to survive.
But that can’t be what you meant, can it?
I mean that acquiring a mansion for the price of a planted gun and claims of self-defense is a small price to pay. Think about it: A mansion can be YOURS without having to pay the full price. Surely you admit that the temptation of significant personal profit - protected by your other for profit LEO buddies who also have their own mansions - is very alluring, yes?
I’m sorry, that makes even less sense…
You’ve clearly misunderstood everything I’ve said, I just dont know how to clarify because I have no fucking clue how anyone would interpret it like you have.
I guess that settles it, then.
I must have tested-out of socialism 101.
I’m only familiar with local utilities, but are there public utilities that turn profits? What happens to the profits?
I know of private utilities that are owned by municipalities and they pay dividends back to the municipality which is used in the city budget. There is also Hydro One which is about 50% owned by various orgs and is publicly traded. They pay dividends but like $0.35 per share, quarterly.
Southern California Edison. Waste Management. Every internet company. Water and sewer are about the only public utilities that are handled by the city in my city.
The person I was replying to said public utilities shouldn’t turn a profit, so I was asking about public utilities that turn profits, not privatized utilities.
So stupid ass questions frankly. So loaded it should be a NYC hotdog.
- 01| Would you take a 32-hour week if your pay stayed exactly the same?
- 02| Have you ever paid extra for oat milk to protest an extractive food system?
- 03| Have you ever waited 14 weeks for a library book rather than pay $16 for it?
- 04| Have you ever worn a keffiyeh to Starbucks?
- 05| Should health care be free at the point of use?
- 06| Do you own an anti-capitalist tote bag?
- 07| Should Washington own a piece of Intel to keep up with China?
- 08| Have you ever announced that you were leaving X…on X?
- 09| Do you belong to an HOA?
- 10| Have you ever gone to therapy to talk about capitalism?
- 11| Should ICE be abolished?
- 12| Would you trust City Hall with your electricity?
- 13| Should all public college be free, and existing student debt be canceled?
- 14| Do you hate landlords but love your Airbnb?
- 15| Do you support strikes when they inconvenience you?
- 16| Would you shop at a government supermarket if the groceries were 30 percent cheaper?
- 17| Should billionaires face aggressive wealth taxes?
- 18| Should the United States abolish the Electoral College?
- 19| Have you ever supported a free bus by not paying for one that wasn’t free yet?
- 20| Would you rather live in the America imagined by the 1912 Socialist Party than the America of 1912?
Edit: To be clear, this feels like a quiz you’d take from a women’s health magazine, not a policy lead rational engagement. Provocation is the game, not reason.
Holy bad faith questions, Batman!
Par for the course for Newsweek.
1, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
Do I get to be a socialist?
1, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18.
Do I get to be a socialist?
- 20| Would you rather live in the America imagined by the 1912 Socialist Party than the America of 1912?
we agree on some things, but i would totally prefer to live in 1912 america under socialists than what it actually was.
the 1912 socialist party platform was:
-
eight hour workday
-
abolition of child labor
-
direct election of senators
-
women’s suffrage
-
unemployment insurance
-
old age pensions
these are like the bare minimum and wouldn’t even partially arrive for decades later in reality.
the actual America of 1912 was more like jim crow, 16 hour workdays, children in mines, no labor protections whatsoever.
Fair enough. I didn’t really have time to look it up when I commented.
- Yes
- Yes
- No, but I support a mass library system
- No, I try to avoid Starbucks to begin with
- Yes
- No, but this is irrelevant
- Nationalization in capitalist states is not socialism, just like marketization in socialist states is not capitalism. Washington owning Intel would be better for them, but this is a social democratic reformist measure, not a socialist one.
- Never been on X/Twitter
- No
- No
- Yes
- In a socialist society? Yes. In the present-day? More than a private company, sure.
- Yes.
- I hate both.
- Yes.
- I’d do it if they were the same price, of course I’d do it if they were cheaper.
- Yes
- Yes, but more than that the entire capitalist state needs to be broken and replaced with a socialist one, not simply tweaking the system that co-evolved with capitalism from its inception
- Kinda? Odd question.
- Yes.
Overall, completely horrendous tabloid quiz.
LMFAO! The latest Newsweek cover
Socialist democracy is not just socialism. Socialist democracy is good.
America mocks socialism and confuses it with communism and fascism.
Ironic, rich, predictable
Socialism is inherently democratic, and is also inherently a pre-communist, transitional form of society. Social democracy is not “socialist democracy,” it is capitalism with welfare.
I never said social democracy = socialist democracy
You’re arguing with ghosts and shadows my friend
Socialist democracy is just democracy in socialist countries, which has nothing to do with the article or those depicted on the cover. I thought you were talking about social democracy, considering these are social democrats.
I get the mix-up then. It’s not about those depicted, it’s the obvious implications based on how they’re depicted
China’s a socialist country on the path to communism. Newsweek is mocking social democrats by depicting them as though they are socialists and communists. The implication is that they are socialists, and not social democrats.
Are we in agreement, then? Reading your comment, it seems you think they are socialists.
I just want to point out that if you took the shirts off of three out of four men on this cover, they’d be absolutely shredded.
Wake me up when its the cover of Maxim.
Maybe Bernie is shredded too, he’s keeping his mind young somehow
I assumed Bernie was included.
I wish those 5 were actually as left-wing as depicted here…
deleted by creator
Am I wrong, or is El-Sayed literally a landlord? Dude is a liberal, not a socialist.
El Sayed is a good man, and there is nothing wrong with renting out your property in itself. Many don’t have homes and need to rent, you want to leave it all to private equity and blackrock? How is that working out for you?
Spoken like someone with a house already.
I rent.
Looks like I found the landlord. Does it feel good to profit from human’s universal basic need for shelter?
Newsweek is said, by everyone, to be a right wing rag now more than ever.
mind posting this without the paywall?
I rate either a 7 or 8
Who’s the guy in the glasses?
Not the Bernstern, who’s the guy on the right side?
ainsley earhardt
I’m convinced mamdani is a psyop, there’s absolutely no reason to not replace the billionaire police chief, does he not want to fix the NYPD?
