• umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    a socialist state would not spend public money so corporations can profit from waging endless war instead of just having solid healthcare.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      all of the above listed counties have very solid healthcare and are not entirely socialist. what’s your point?

      socialism is not a requirement for being a place that treats people with respect and dignity; nor is it a silver bullet

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        it is a requirement if you want to do that without oppessing brown people elsewhere.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          the important thing is not socialism: it’s a government that deals with negative externalities

          socialism tends to do better at that simply because often it often does better at long-term planning (but that’s not a given either), but capitalism without corporate bullshit, stock markets, etc (ie actual ownership over a business rather than just ownership over a vague thing where you’re only concerned with line goes up not long term business health) has pretty much the same drivers: long term sustainability and this holding others to account for their negative externalities