• Geek_King@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    134
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yep, and given my experience talking with other US citizens about universal healthcare, they’ll argue how it’s some how a bad thing. It’s just a reoccurring thing, people seem to be programmed to hate stuff that’d help them.

    • soviettaters@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tbf, universal healthcare sucks when it’s done poorly. Does anybody really trust the US government with our healthcare?

      • dammitBobby@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you trust a company that is required to provide profit to their shareholders by providing you the least possible amount of healthcare?

        Health insurance in the US is very complicated. It’s a feature, not a bug. They don’t want you to use it.

        Oh, but government death panels. Have you ever had to get a pre-authorization for care that would save your life? Or had a claim denied because that one person that was in the operating room while you were under anesthesia was out of network? Yeah, it’s actually corporate death panels.

      • Clent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        What? Are you Scott Adams?

        The right are the ones against things that would help us.

        • sab@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Trying to read in good faith, maybe the user meant to refer to (right wing) Libertarianism or neoliberalism.

          Back before “liberal” became the preferred slur the American right could say in public, they would often seek to brand their ideology as liberalism in order to draw legitimacy from the high standing of classic liberalism. Libertarianism has liberal roots, it just blows a single element (freedom from state intervention) completely out of proportions.

          Academically, the father of Libertarianism (Robert Nozick) makes for a fun and interesting read, but he was torn to shreds by John Rawls (and, in my opinion and less famously, Michael Otsuka). If I remember correctly he ended up abandoning his own theory. Still it seems to have a particular appeal to Americans and their obsession about the self made man, property rights, and private wealth accumulation.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Liberal means just freedom. BS about freedom only from state intervention was invented by capitalism.

          • Clent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Still oddly doing the lifting for the republicans.

            They don’t care for nuance.

            They’ll use your hatred for your liberals to hate americas left.

            Sucks that EU has the tankie problem, but with all due respect, quit your bitching. I wish that was the form of fascism I had to worry myself with.

            The America right is murdering the American left.

            We are not the same.

        • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You know fascism is not the only alternative to liberalism. Liberalism is a center-right ideology in most of the developed world - even the American politicians fascists use as Boogeymen are mostly Social Democrats not liberals.

          • sab@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The liberal parties generally used to be the left wing back in the day, promoting basic human rights and universal suffrage against the capitalists on the right wing seeking to keep up the pace of exploitation.

            When the socialists came along they placed themselves on the left of the liberalists, eventually rendering the old school liberal parties somewhere between the centre and the right. In America the two party system kept this from happening, which is why people complain that there’s no true left in the US.

            However, the socialists are also split. Social democrats tend to hold Locke in one hand and Marx in the other, embracing both socialist and liberal values. This is often to the disgust of the ideologically pure Communists, as it’s hard to be a Lockean without accepting a degree of property rights that they find unbearable.

            If you give up liberalism you generally slide very fast towards authoritarianism, be it on the left or on the right. It’s possible to imagine a non-liberal non-authoritarian society; it’s just very hard to imagine actually getting there.

            • uis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Somewhere in the world there is a country with personalistic resource autocracy, where autocrat and his minions are strong pro-corporate, pro-censorship and against pensions, universal healthcare and net neutrality. Far right autocracy not only exists, but even started war.

            • DessertStorms@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If you are pro capitalism, you’re on the right, no matter what you call yourself or how much you try and cling to past definitions of words, it’s as simple as that.

              Also fuck horseshoe theory and this idea that “extreme left” is authoritarian (when authoritarianism is incompatible with leftist thinking on every level. This means tankies aren’t on the left no matter how hard they protest) - one extreme wants you to be a literal slave to a capitalist dictator, the other wants you to have everything you need and be able to work towards a better society instead of for the benefit of like 10 people.

              Try actually learning about liberalism and the harm it causes before you somehow go blaming (actual) socialists (seriously?? The people who have never even been allowed to come close to power???) for the state of politics:

              https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/

              https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9

              https://truthout.org/articles/fascism-is-possible-not-in-spite-of-liberal-capitalism-but-because-of-it/

              https://nyanarchist.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/scratch-a-liberal-a-fascist-bleeds-how-the-so-called-middle-class-has-enabled-oppression-for-centuries/

            • Guildo@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re right, liberalism was left-wing a long time, ago. But this liberalism is gone, long time ago. You won’t find it anymore. That has no connection with socialism at all.

              If you read Marx, which indead you didn’t, you would say different things. The socialists didn’t try to fight liberalists, they just tried to explain to them why their views are wrong in some parts. This split the whole movement, but not because the socialists were wrong. It split, because the liberalists were naive and believed their own bullshit.

              Sorry, my english is very bad, but I also think it is very wrong to split communism and liberalism with the word authoritarianism. Communists want more freedom than liberalists can imagine. Their view is not focused on money and the system. And if they are stricter in their actions, than it’s only because they’ve learned that words are not enough. You have to fight people, who are against the true freedom of all people.

              • sab@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’ll give you one point - Communists indeed don’t tend to aim for authoritarianism. Even Marxist-Leninists claim it’s just a necessary step along the way - the final society will be complete freedom.

                I said as much in my comment - I just also pointed out the historical fact that efforts to implement a communist society without liberal ideals tends to slide towards authoritarianism real quick. China and the Soviet Union did not end up characterised by “more freedom than liberals can imagine”.

                Brave of you to make assumptions what I’ve read and not.

                • DessertStorms@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Even Marxist-Leninists claim is just a necessary step along the way

                  false

                  efforts to implement a communist society without liberal ideals tends to slide towards authoritarianism real quick. China and the Soviet Union did not end up characterised by “more freedom than liberals can imagine”.

                  China is a capitalist hellhole, and the Soviet Union never achieved communism, and using it as an example of what communism is is like using North Kore as an example of what a People’s Republic is.

                  I second how glaringly obvious it is that you’ve not read much of anything to do with communism at all that’s outside of the realm of mainstream propaganda. You can protest all you like, but your views speak for themselves.

                • Guildo@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I am sure you didn’t read Marx and if you did, you did not enough.

                  It’s hard to implement socialism, if it never was tried. You have only one try and if this try fails you have huge problems, cause everything is suddenly gone and than you have slavery, hunger etc. back. And also, if you try to build socialism, suddenly a lot of people are against you. You have to struggle with more problems, than you imagined. And that’s important to understand. You are suddenly enemy with everyone. Look at the russian civil war - they had to fight against several countries, even the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War It’s just crazy. And if you have to fight against several countries than people tend to ignore this and instead they’re saying “See, it doesn’t work.”.

                  So, yeah, you’re right, communists tend to authoritarianism, but not because they want to. They tend to it, because they have to. There is no choice.

                  • sab@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So, hypothetically if I had read Marx, what would I be saying differently? I’m curious to hear. :)

                    Regarding the “it has never been given a fair chance” argument, at least it’s better than trying to defend the state of affairs in countries that claimed to be implementing it. One could go as far as to say we almost agree - I said it’s “very hard to imagine actually getting there”, you said you “have only one try and if this try fails you have huge problems” and that you “have to struggle with more problems, than you imagined”.

        • Guildo@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know who Scott Adams is, but googled it. I am no racist.

          It’s just funny, you say sth. against the stupid and inhuman liberalism in the USA and suddenly some idiot comes and says sth. stupid. That’s what I meant - it’s a mental illness.

          And yes, the other people here are right. There is no left in the USA and it shows. It’s just right-wing or more right-wing.

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fuck liberals, but maybe you can get the point across without the ableism?
        People choose to be liberal, those of us who are mentally ill didn’t.