From my experience living in a very socialist country; fair housing can be handled by rules instead of ‘nationalizing’. So the rules and pricing around them would be handled by the government, but not the houses themselves.
Because one school will be better than the other. Most likely the private school, because they charge money for parents to send their kids there in addition to the money they (unfairly) get from the government. So families with more money are more likely to send a kid to private school, which immediately creates social stratification between the private school kids and the public school kids.
The private school kids will perceive this inequity, even subconsciously, and internalize that they are better than the public school kids on some level. Often the private schools are religious too which is another can of worms.
I could keep going but I think that’s enough to get the point. Private schools shouldn’t exist. All the money given to them should be given to public schools so they are better for every kid no matter how much money their parents make.
In my country there are a few private schools but employers don’t care for them. They need to follow the official curriculum and the students will have to do the same official tests at the end of the year.
If private schools are going to exist they should have a minimum curriculum actually enforced so that students attending them aren’t put at a disadvantage.
For example, sex education should be required as part of health and human biology. Not it’s own separate, needlessly controversial thing.
Many private schools are religious and refuse to teach certain topics, or replace them with nonsense and it hurts their students.
But also don’t give them tax money. They rake it with their excessive tuition already.
Honestly anything that’s required to live in the society IMO should be socialized. That way no corporation can decided how much my life is worth. I also believe that capitalism has been an extremely powerful tool to bring wealth to the middle class. Socialized Capitalism maybe. Is that possible? Some European countries have done it I guess. I’m no expert or politician, just a working man. Maybe somehow it can be done.
Markets, not Capitalism, can be useful at lower stages of development. However, over time, they become more and more exploitative and inefficient, transforming into Imperialism across international lines. Public Ownership and Central Planning becomes more efficient with respect to the level of development of market industries.
What do you mean “socialist country thay works,” in a manner opposed to Communism? Are you calling the Nordic Countries “socialist,” despite reliance on hyper-exploitation of the global south and sliding worker protections, as a means to discredit AES countries?
in Austria we call it “sozialdemokratie” and i believed americans translate that to socialism.
wich is not national socialism or communism btw. and yes i do because, as i said, you can have a social base for your country and still habe a capitalist economy structure.
Social Programs within a Capitalist framework are concessions. In the European Countries, these social programs have been eroding over time, because the Workers do not have control. Moreover, the European Countries (and US, of course) rely on Imperialism, ie hyper-exploiting the Global South by exporting Capital and intentionally engaging in unequal exchange. These are parasitic countries that do not fund their safety nets inwardly, but externally, they only work like a leech works to produce food for itself, by taking from others.
Social programs are not “socialism,” nor are markets “capitalism.” What determines the nature of an economy is what is dominant, the will of Capital or the will of the People. That’s why Social Democracies are sliding into austerity, because the Workers never actually siezed control Capital still dominates the system and disparity rises as a consequence.
They can’t allow that. That’s called leaving money on the table. They will not be satisfied until they have every penny we earn, then, once that food source dries up, they’ll go after each other.
Nationalize:
It’s perfectly possible to have your capitalist desires and still have a nice socialist structure to protect the people.
Housing should be on that list as well
From my experience living in a very socialist country; fair housing can be handled by rules instead of ‘nationalizing’. So the rules and pricing around them would be handled by the government, but not the houses themselves.
A big one I’m missing is schools.
Fair enough, and yes. Education should definitely be on the list
Yeah just add schools that but also let private schools to exist
Yeah sure, allowing both nationalized and privatized sectors to coexist can lead to positive stuff.
It’s a great way for the rich to segregate themselves from the poor
Wait what is that sarcastic? I don’t get it. For us there is co existance of govt. and private schools, and both are being used by the public
Any time this happens it leads to greater social stratification.
Uh why?
Because one school will be better than the other. Most likely the private school, because they charge money for parents to send their kids there in addition to the money they (unfairly) get from the government. So families with more money are more likely to send a kid to private school, which immediately creates social stratification between the private school kids and the public school kids.
The private school kids will perceive this inequity, even subconsciously, and internalize that they are better than the public school kids on some level. Often the private schools are religious too which is another can of worms.
I could keep going but I think that’s enough to get the point. Private schools shouldn’t exist. All the money given to them should be given to public schools so they are better for every kid no matter how much money their parents make.
I’m mostly talking in the general sense.
In my country there are a few private schools but employers don’t care for them. They need to follow the official curriculum and the students will have to do the same official tests at the end of the year.
Allow private schools to exist but regulate them and give them no public funding.
If private schools are going to exist they should have a minimum curriculum actually enforced so that students attending them aren’t put at a disadvantage.
For example, sex education should be required as part of health and human biology. Not it’s own separate, needlessly controversial thing.
Many private schools are religious and refuse to teach certain topics, or replace them with nonsense and it hurts their students.
But also don’t give them tax money. They rake it with their excessive tuition already.
I agree, that’s what I meant by “regulate them and give them no public money”
Yes actually I think that’s what happening here
First of all in the list Education, without crucifixes above the blackboards
The internet and all the other utilities.
Honestly anything that’s required to live in the society IMO should be socialized. That way no corporation can decided how much my life is worth. I also believe that capitalism has been an extremely powerful tool to bring wealth to the middle class. Socialized Capitalism maybe. Is that possible? Some European countries have done it I guess. I’m no expert or politician, just a working man. Maybe somehow it can be done.
Markets, not Capitalism, can be useful at lower stages of development. However, over time, they become more and more exploitative and inefficient, transforming into Imperialism across international lines. Public Ownership and Central Planning becomes more efficient with respect to the level of development of market industries.
deleted by creator
thats kinda every socialist countrys baseline (that works) and its also why the american propaganda associates it with CoMMuNisM.
What do you mean “socialist country thay works,” in a manner opposed to Communism? Are you calling the Nordic Countries “socialist,” despite reliance on hyper-exploitation of the global south and sliding worker protections, as a means to discredit AES countries?
in Austria we call it “sozialdemokratie” and i believed americans translate that to socialism. wich is not national socialism or communism btw. and yes i do because, as i said, you can have a social base for your country and still habe a capitalist economy structure.
Social Programs within a Capitalist framework are concessions. In the European Countries, these social programs have been eroding over time, because the Workers do not have control. Moreover, the European Countries (and US, of course) rely on Imperialism, ie hyper-exploiting the Global South by exporting Capital and intentionally engaging in unequal exchange. These are parasitic countries that do not fund their safety nets inwardly, but externally, they only work like a leech works to produce food for itself, by taking from others.
Education, too. With funding based on region and per student.
Social programs are not “socialism,” nor are markets “capitalism.” What determines the nature of an economy is what is dominant, the will of Capital or the will of the People. That’s why Social Democracies are sliding into austerity, because the Workers never actually siezed control Capital still dominates the system and disparity rises as a consequence.
Removed by mod
They can’t allow that. That’s called leaving money on the table. They will not be satisfied until they have every penny we earn, then, once that food source dries up, they’ll go after each other.