• Urist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The only wealth redistribution they allow is from the poor to the rich. Bonus points if they can:

    1. Increase tax pressure on the poor.
    2. Make it so the poor vote for tax cuts.
    3. Hand out said tax cuts to the rich.
    4. Profit from “donations”.

    The liberal play book is so dumb and yet so effective.

    EDIT: To all those that got offended by the dunk on liberals, consider this: When did your liberal government in practice and in a meaningful capacity increase tax pressure on the rich and allocate the increased funds to the benefit of the poor? Also, if you are not for more equitable redistribution of wealth, what are you even doing in this community?

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 month ago

        The corporation is the weapon the capitalist class uses to make liberal democracies into dictatorships of the bourgeoisie.

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 month ago

      They don’t only exploit human resources but also natural resources and communal resources.

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        The extraction of surplus value is usually done with no regard for and to the direct detriment of the well-being of the foundation on which value is being created.

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        I am living in a liberal (social) democracy and can give numerous reasons as to how and why it is currently failing, even as it is internally miles ahead of any shithole capitalist hellscape such as the US. Goals and ideals matter if they are based upon a factual understanding of material reality.

        I am much more interested in a qualitative argument about socialist policy founded on proper material conditions, rather than what you deem to be the historical, and thus I infer the inevitable future, truth of a socialist system.

        I am also not going to engage with effort if I do not see some effort in return, which I really do not at the moment.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Things rarely go “swimmingly” for the left because it fights against existing power structures, and those power structures fight back. And the countries that tend to have socialist revolutions also tend to start out with terrible conditions, bad enough for people to rise up, and then made worse by the devastation of conflict. Then they have to grapple with future threats from invasions, sanctions, and clandestine subversion.

        In spite of this, many socialist countries have made major improvements to people’s lives, especially in comparison to what the previous regime had been doing.

        For example, Cuba was a gangster state under the dictator Batista, who was in league with the American Mafia and plundered the country for his own profits and those of wealthy plantation owners. After the revolution, in spite of sanctions, life expectancy improved greatly surpassed the US, literacy skyrocketed, and the country now has the highest number of doctors per capita in the world, who are regularly sent abroad to provide aid. Cuba recently (2022) passed an amendment to its constitution which greatly strengthened LGBT rights and gender equality.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not really, the ones that had promise were conquered by capitalists, and all states should be abolished anyways.

        Do you have any examples of right wing governments that don’t primarily exist to protect the interests of their oligarchy?