Out of the 49 EU countries nigeria has a gross gdp greater than all but the top 13...on par with sweden and belgium

Now nigerian also has wayyy more people but taking that into effect our gdp per capita should be on par with like china or chile, other “newly first world countries” not f***ing $2000/yr like it is now

Man please don’t tell me about our country. We are corrupt not because of. “Fear coups” but because we literally elect s***ty right wing, miliarist and religious nut-backward psychos. No seriously our current president was literally involved in a coup in the 80s.

We could fully mobilize our economy to provide a more equitable standard of living tomorrow if we wanted. Wtf will europe do? We’re richer than most of them

These issues are too complex man not everything is about global north vs the south

Fine US developed SK...I listed wayy more than SK. You also have many South American countries that are making similar shifts into more higher income countries (chile, columbia,urugauy, brazil under lula etc)

The system isnt as black and white that it’s naturalistic for the west to be wealthy and the rest of the world to be death poor, certainly the west has had a part in causing destruction of a lot of poor countries but for others they have the capacity to grown wealth, and actively are, and they have the capacity to, and actively aren't.

"Some people just see socialism as oh the govt gonna come take all your stuff and they can't get past that"

yea because it's true. how do you think socialism would start anyway?

We've already seen how that type of s*** is a facade and how the current economic system couldn't care less about people who would need rental assistance, I don't know if you're from the U.S. or not but the fact people only got one relief check the entire last year is telling

because US isnt center left so we dont have a solid welfare state in place. it doesnt mean it cant happen. didnt canada give its citizens like 2k?

its one thing to argue for the US to have a bigger wefare state. but to argue for socialism dont sit well with me because it's inherently unjust

youre the only one making some strawman here with your last sentence. the fact is, the global north does engage in exploitation of the global south. the fact is, these social democracies you champion do depend on that exploitation. If the US had universal healthcare and free college tomorrow, guess what, that doesn't stop the exploitation of the global south by multinational companies. It just means higher wages for those in the US. And thats all social democracy cares about, a nice little comfy standard of living domestically, so it can turns it back towards those who do the labor abroad to keep that system afloat. you haven't wrestled with this idea in what it really means, you just keep obfuscating the issue and providing contextless facts about economies and some idealistic version of the world where material conditions don't exist and history is nonexistent.

What about the idea of internationalist standards for multinationals?

A wage reflective of the minimum wage of their workers in welalthy countries? Strong enforced standards on climate? The policy of setting a global tax rate so they dnt leave when one country raises theirs?

Unjust because you want to earn a living by renting out property? just curious. or why else is it unjust

And also sure, yeah, we need healthcare for everyone, a much larger welfare state, all that stuff, but what's going to be there guarding against things getting this bad again because we've gone back and forth in this country making progress and then going backwards,

the system has to adjust greatly to get rid of a lot of these things

all nice little ideals. but they don't line up with how things work

if your goal is "a little less exploitation", leaving in place the structure of class society, then there's nothing more to talk about. you want to live in a utopia fantasy land, especially since there is no way of ever implementing this global social democracy.

I'm too tired for all this rn im not at my most alert but i seen the thread was popping.

socialism is unjust becuase its im living so i deserve s***.

also how do you think the workers would "own the means of production".... think about it

how would more houses be built = taking land. land doesnt just come from nowhere.

its just a matter of time before under socialism your land is taken your homes etc.

also if two people agree to do something why shouldnt they be allowed to do it?

if i have $100 and buy lemons and make lemonade then i hire you to help sell them why should we not be able to negotiate a wage?

I will say though at least for the united states there is such a large bridge to gap from how people are conditioned in the capitalist world, to getting to be a socialist.

It makes sense that people aren't aware of it because any positives of it are effectively erased from U.S. education and glossed over, neglected...

bruh

synopsis don't even quote that one

i actually have him on ignore lmao

How do you think the ruling class got that land and those factories? By exploiting workers

So the minister of housing in this ideal system gonna live in the same kind of house as the custodian in the building he works at and he gonna be cool with that?

Cowboypeebop tagging in for Synopsis over the past hour

U kind of just said a bunch of unrelated random s*** but I'll try to give u an honest response

Okay, if socialism means people have the right to food, water, shelter, healthcare, education, then yeah, you're right on that first definition, I believe it is just, for those things to be human rights.

Workers own the means of production by seeing more of the money they earn by their own labor instead of someone who is not doing that work day in and day out getting such a high percentage. You can't really have many workplaces without... workers, so it's just a matter of them being able to live more comfortably rather than some ultrawealthy person at the top squeezing the maximum amount of profits that are unnecessary from people when their workers are struggling and having to work multiple jobs. And this is the main goal of capitalism is to profit as much as possible at the exploitation of the labor, to get the most possible out of them in total disregard for whether it's fair pay. It's not fair pay

I'm confused about what you're trying to say on the third sentence. There are plenty of homes for everyone to have one, the point is to have no more evictions.

If two people agree to do something? That's so vague and doesn't really say anything

And the last sentence you're sharing the labor so obviously you would divide that up fairly to the amount of work you did. The main point is that workers are undervalued and the richest people are PREPOSTEROUSLY rich like

According to Business Insider, Bezos has made $152,207 per minute — and $2,537 per second — based on the year-over-year change in his net worth.Feb 18, 2021

while somebody else may get paid $7.25 an hour and work full time and they still don't even go to the doctor cause they can't afford it

yall cant counter it. cause its true

nah i was typing

I think this ideal system would work if some kind of AI is in charge. Like the Director in travelers

bro what are you talking about

"Workers own the means of production by seeing more of the money they earn by their own labor instead of someone who is not doing that work day in and day out getting such a high percentage"

If someone put more money into a business why should they not see more of the profits?
If I am buying all the equipment you use why should i not get a cut of profit?

Also if you were to give the workers the means of production would business owners be compensated or would you take it by force?

"You can't really have many workplaces without... workers, so it's just a matter of them being able to live more comfortably rather than some ultrawealthy person at the top squeezing the maximum amount of profits that are unnecessary from people when their workers are struggling and having to work multiple jobs"

why not have regulations where a certain percent of a business income most go to grunt workers (cashiers laborers etc) similar to how nfl salary minimum works where the 52 players on a team have to get a combined total of atleast x amount.

"I'm confused about what you're trying to say on the third sentence. There are plenty of homes for everyone to have one, the point is to have no more evictions"

there are not plenty of homes (especially if we exclude high rise apartments/condos) who says who gets what? what happens if all the homes are full? Do you start taking peoples land?

"If two people agree to do something? That's so vague and doesn't really say anything"

Under socialism rent would cease to exist, why should I not be able to rent something I own? Say I own a car why should I not be able to rent it out to people? Or say my house is in a nice location and i have a basement apartment why can't i rent that?

"And the last sentence you're sharing the labor so obviously you would divide that up fairly to the amount of work you did"

a better example what if i own 1 pitcher of lemonade and i get you to sell cups of it. would we be allowed to do a 20-80 split with me taking 80% under your ideal form of socialism? or do you get all the profits?

I mean at the end of the day the system is run by normal people that can easily become the new ruling class. Better chance of it working if some sort of artificial intelligence is in charge

You think we should have a government ran by robots...