• skulblaka@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    God, how I wish that US Democrats were even half as absolutely based as the right wing makes them sound.

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    … I don’t think I have ever seen the rightoids more triggered, shitting and pissing, crying and whining.

    God damn.

    Oh well, stay mad I guess.

      • Alaknár@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        He already kinda’ did - his plan for the minimum wage increase to $30/hr is a five year plan (supposed to fully be enacted by 2030)

  • DeICEAmerica@lemmy.worlddeleted by creatorEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    Sue the fuck out of them. That’s how you deal with billionaires other than how that luigi guy did…

  • Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    For those that dont know the difference:

    Socialist: Wants to replace capitalism entirely. The idea is that workers or the state should own the means of production (factories, land, major industries) so wealth isn’t concentrated in private hands.

    Democratic Socialist: Wants to keep democracy and some market economy, but make it fairer. They push for strong social welfare, workers’ rights, public services, and limits on corporate power. Basically, capitalism with guard rails that prioritise people over profit.

    To dumb it down even further, think of Democratic Socialism as what you have today in the US, but with a safety net and better start for everyone in life.

    Even further for those of you with room temp IQs

    Socialist = smash capitalism. Democratic Socialist = make capitalism nicer.

    • Don_alForno@feddit.orgEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      Socialist: Wants to replace capitalism entirely.[…]

      Democratic Socialist: Wants to keep democracy

      I don’t know if you meant it that way, but the two are not exclusive. Democracy does not require capitalism and vice versa. Some would argue capitalism is counter to democracy because the concentration of wealth is a concentration of power that needs to be avoided in democracy.

      Socialism and even communism are originally deeply democratic ideas. Remember the soviet union? Of course Stalin just used it as a label, but *soviet means council. It should have been governed by a hierarchy of councils of increasing spheres of influence democratically deciding matters that concerned the people they represented (from city block council, factory council, […] up to national level). That was the original idea until the authoritarians took over.

      • masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.comdeleted by creatorEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        Some would argue capitalism is counter to democracy

        I’d say that capitalism is violently incompatible with democracy - that’s the whole reason they send violent goon squads out every time people start doing things democratically.

    • Comrade_Spood@quokk.auEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      Im pretty sure youre mixing up democratic socialist with social democrat

      A democratic socialist wants socialism, they just want to do it through gradual reform

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        That said a democratic socialist might appear as a social democrat when doing baby steps to gain power in the anti-socialist hellhole that is the US. Free buses, rent freeze at first, then replace capitalism from the NYC mayoral office. 😄

      • Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        11 months ago

        Maybe a little? The sweet spot is probably somewhere between these two, at least as far as I can see, there is a lot of overlap, if not in theory then in practice. No matter where America goes next, or what it calls itself, having a strong safety net and a great spring board for everyone to get a start in life would really go a long way, if not all the way, to finally realising the American Dream. If nothing else, the fact that Mamdani got elected is reason to dare to hope again. Something I dont think anyone has done in 20+ years.

        • bampop@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          11 months ago

          I still think it’s bad branding. A Democratic Socialist is, semantically, a Socialist. It implies that the social safety nets and limits on capitalism are intended as a stepping stone to full socialism, which I think most Americans don’t want. If that isn’t the intention, all the more reason to use a different branding. “Social Democrat” would not have the same connotation. It seems like the label has been worn proudly, especially by Bernie Sanders, for so long that it’s been accepted as the right label, but IMO it was a regrettable choice which makes it unnecessarily hard for the left to gain mainstream support.