this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
316 points (96.5% liked)

politics

30311 readers
2515 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

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

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TwinTitans@lemmy.world 20 points 18 hours ago (2 children)
[–] P1k1e@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] jestho@lemmy.zip 1 points 17 hours ago
[–] Radical_Socialist_t00t@lemmy.ca 2 points 14 hours ago

Not good enough. Wake me up when its Scientific Socialism and Capitalism is dead.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 23 hours ago

Good. Elected representatives funded by their constituents and others in the working class mean there's less of a risk they pull up the ladder behind them and fuck those who got them into power.

Doesn't mean this won't ever happen. That's why I said risk.

Long term goals are of course to ban Citizen's United, set a cap on money needed to campaign for an elected position, and pass Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).

[–] Microtonal_Banana@lemmy.zip 13 points 23 hours ago

Not so scary if you do five minutes of research.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 7 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

What socialism is happening? Who is advocating workers controlling the means of production? All I see are social programs being touted.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (7 children)

Who is advocating workers controlling the means of production?

That would be communism, not socialism. Lennonist communism is where the workers control the means of production in a collectivist but decentralized manner (Stalinist communism is where the state (Stalin) controls the means of production). Socialism is where the capitalists are allowed to maximize profit all they want (hell they keep most of that under the socialist model), but society guarantees a minimal quality of life (the social bit) by taxing the capitalists to ensure a base-level of universal health-insurance and/or housing for the masses.

Basically, socialism is the logical conclusion of FDR's New Deal.

[–] SaltyAmerican@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

What FDR did with a New Deal and socialism are not the same thing. FDR's goal was to save capitalism while feeding the working class stale bread crumbs so they do not demand better, so that they do not advocate for more socialism.

[–] insomniac20k@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Where are you getting this from?

[–] SaltyAmerican@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

It sounds like they just plucked it out of their ass.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] insomniac20k@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

The article you linked is what happens when you hire a “content marketer” to write for you. Not sure why the home of ancient aliens would be a definitive source.

The Wikipedia article is a better place to start.

[–] binux@sh.itjust.works 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Where did you get this definition of socialism from? There’s no such thing as as socialism that allows for capitalist ownership of the means of production; if a socialist says it’s fine, they’re not a socialist.

As per Einstein himself (in his article entitled “Why Socialism?”):

In [a socialist economy], the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilised in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.

As you can see, as the means of production are owned and maintained by society itself in a socialist economy, there would be no possibility for any aspiring capitalist to accrue those means for themselves, and thereby maximize their own profit. In theory they would just be another worker without any special economical advantage over anyone else.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

Where did you get this definition of socialism from? There’s no such thing as as socialism that allows for capitalist ownership of the means of production; if a socialist says it’s fine, they’re not a socialist.

The distinction between socialism and communism is well known and studied. The key differences are:

Communism:

All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on need. In practice, a strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

Socialism:

individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

You can find the basis of my quotes here, on the history channel's very own website. You can also see the clear distinction in Europe's current Democratic Socialism vs. Russia's Communist stuff.

[–] binux@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

The History channel? As in the channel that hosts and broadcasts “Ancient Aliens”? You’re not exactly helping your case here.

Additionally, you’re incorrect in your citing of the notion that all property in a communist state is communally owned. All private property is communally owned, but that only goes for anything falling into the category of productive assets used to generate profit and subsume labour. You’re by all means still entitled in such states to owning any personal property, i.e. various forms of entertainment, food, toiletries, housing, etc. The whole basis of your distinction pretty much falls apart through that correction alone.

For the sake of providing an external source, you can read further on socialist/communist ideas through this website, particularly the first two paragraphs which once again thoroughly deconstructs your false distinction of the aforementioned ideologies.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world -1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Just curious if your head hurts from banging it against so many walls...

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry, but the stupid people's website, Reddit, is that way ------>

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago

That's seems pretty rude for someone who is on your side. Maybe I'm missing your joke though.

My words were an expression of solidarity with you. I thought it was funny way to recognize you banging your head against the wall as the expression goes, but maybe you didn't get my joke?

I found it funny how you kept having to educate people and they seemingly didn't understand what you were saying.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that friend

[–] Faithless@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

Americans don’t understand that distinction.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago

Socialism is 1950's conservatism now.

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 4 points 19 hours ago
[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago

They had decades to figure out how to unite their base. Obama and Bernie's popularity gave them the building blocks. They remained willfully ignorant because they like those corporate checks too much.

[–] mrodri89@lemmy.zip 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Works for me. Give us universal basic income and universal healthcare. Take money out of politics. Give me an international high speed rail system. And paid by taxes higher education. Shut down the snooty universities.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

Alternatively workers should earn a pension for every hour they labour on behalf of someone else.

Anyone under a predetermined amount when they retire should be able to collect the difference between the what they received and what they are short.

Any business that does not pay enough to those working for them should have their taxes increased to double the difference, as a punitive action.

Also do this with other things

[–] treesquid@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'd be okay with just democracy taking over the Democratic party

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›