• x00z@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Nationalize:

    • insurance
    • hospitals
    • prisons
    • public transit

    It’s perfectly possible to have your capitalist desires and still have a nice socialist structure to protect the people.

      • Gingernate@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

      • x00z@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

          • x00z@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            3 days ago

            Yeah sure, allowing both nationalized and privatized sectors to coexist can lead to positive stuff.

            • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              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

              • x00z@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                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.

          • Glytch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Allow private schools to exist but regulate them and give them no public funding.

            • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              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.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • DankDingleberry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      thats kinda every socialist countrys baseline (that works) and its also why the american propaganda associates it with CoMMuNisM.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        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?

        • DankDingleberry@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          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.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

    • Zerush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      First of all in the list Education, without crucifixes above the blackboards

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

  • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I don’t condone the murder of the CEO of a healthcare insurance company who reject 32% of claims…

    But I understand.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    The ones that simp the hardest for the dead CEO were calling anyone who didn’t love Netanyahu’s genocide a trumper.

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 days ago

    ShitLibs when somebody kills/harms/insults a capitalist, a warlord (“defense contractor”), a capitalist dictator, a war criminal, or anyone with power:

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Sure I’ll think about them, as soon as they cede all their wealth and give their companies to the workers.

  • theonlytruescotsman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    4 days ago

    Just a reminder, if you think what happened on DDD Day was murder and not self defense, you don’t have a problem with violence, you just hate when poor people do it.

        • darthelmet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          101
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Oh god. I was reading through the page and this gem was down in the section on the response from healthcare companies:

          Another executive was quoted saying “What’s most disturbing is the ability of people to hide behind their keyboards and lose their humanity.”

          Says the people who hide behind keyboards, phone calls, employees, doctors, guards, police as they hurt people they don’t know. Talk about losing your humanity.

          • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            53
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            Your quote is included in this Financial Times piece (archived version) but it’s immediately followed sorry, preceded by my favorite. And by favorite, I mean one of the most vile things I’ve ever heard.

            One former Cigna executive recalled how the US health insurer used to frequently face threats when claims were denied. “We’d have times when you’d deny proton laser therapy for a kid with seizures and the parent would freak out,” said the former executive.

            Proton Laser Therapy is used to precisely kill tumors. You know, like tumors in a brain that are causing seizures. How dare those parents “freak out” just because you are refusing to cover their child’s cancer treatment? These fuckers are completely out of touch. They honestly think they have the moral high-ground letting kids die in order to increase shareholder value. I now really understand why the guillotine was invented.

            • Sanctus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              The private health industry needs to die, and all executives with it. I can’t tell if those words are worse than straight up hate speech with the nonchalant way it is worded. He doesnt even consider the lives of those children as real at all. That denying those claims is denying life. This is the prevailing attitude at huge conglomerates and I’ve had my fill. They deserve what they dish out, death.

            • Pandantic [they/them]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              3 days ago

              I was reading a Facebook post about how UHC denied a kid their anti-rejection meds for a liver transplant because there was a cheaper one the kid had already had a bad reaction to, and they thought he should give that one a try again first… 🤦

            • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              That has to be one of the most depraved and appalling things I’ve ever read. I just got a piece of mail from cigna telling me to sign up for their supplemental insurance before something terrible happens to me.

              I think I’ll use it to curse their CEO and lackeys instead. I don’t know if that shit works, but it might offer some catharsis after finding out they deny epileptic children with cancer treatment and are baffled when parents “freak out.” Seriously, those inhuman husks can eat shit and choke.

              • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                3 days ago

                Cigna has a new policy, starting 2025, that you can only get your medications covered at either CVS or Walgreens. Not both. So now I have to move two prescriptions to CVS which is way farther away and I prefer Walgreens. This Walgreens is always out of stock on two of my prescriptions, so they forced my hand.

                They didn’t even send a letter, just an email about it. A bunch of people are going to get a very expensive surprise.

                I know it’s not on the level of murder, I’m just kinda surprised they went through with it after what happened.

          • eldavi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            ·
            4 days ago

            they’ve become like politicians or lawyers or police or soldiers who don’t care about the damage they’ve inflicted on millions of people’s lives and believe that what they’re doing is justified because it’s for some “greater good” and never mind that the people they’re harming were never part of that greater good.

          • Ascend910@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            4 days ago

            I will not hesitate to leave my keyboard and go fight the revolution to help seaze control of the means of production

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I can hold two ideas at the same time here, where I understand why it happened as a consequence of rampant evil on behalf of the ownership class, and it’s a natural comeuppance after pushing the wrong person too far. (I think we’re all shocked it took this long to happen.)

      But also, unfortunately as much as we love a good revenge story, planting 3 slugs into another human being, even a nasty one, in cold blood, is not self-defense. The goal of self defense is the reduction of an attacker’s ability to cause direct and imminent harm to the defender.

      This was assault, and it was murder, and we can reason about the justification behind it, but I sadly don’t really know what it will change, besides the bourgeois getting allocated even more of our money to have protection detail and hold their board meetings in walled enclaves or yahts away from the populace.

      Violence begets violence. Blood begets blood, and those who live by the sword will die by it also. I think any sane rational person can agree this guy reaped what he and his ilk sowed every day, but still be against slaying human beings on the streets to make a point.

      Edit: Knew I was just asking to get ratio’d for not 100% full-throttle stanning the trending narrative, but the actual responses (that I saw) were thought-provoking and well reasoned, so I appreciate that.

      Sometimes it seems people forget the value of discourse and only care about “how popular is my opinion right now.”

      • theonlytruescotsman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 days ago

        Self defense is also applied when defending others. It’s nice to think someday we might be above violent reaction to violent action. But until there’s an alternative, we’re not, and we shouldn’t be.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Do you think UHC is going to change its policies in any major way because of this? If it was self-defense, it was not very good self-defense. Like any other employee in a giant corporation, the CEO is easily replaced with someone else who will do the exact same job. Possibly an even better (from the company’s perspective) job.

          This does nothing to help all of the people who are being destroyed by the for-profit insurance industry.

          I would say revenge makes more sense.

          • theonlytruescotsman
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            If they’re smart, they will. If they’re not smart they will need to hope they can afford to give their security team better health insurance than they themselves offer, otherwise we will see repeats of the reason you’re personally allowed to be outside of your company owned work house.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              I have no idea why you think any corporate employee isn’t kleenex, but they are.

              A CEO can’t decide to put people above profits because they will be replaced if they do.

              CEOs are not emperors. The problem isn’t individual CEOs, the problem is capitalism.

              • AhismaMiasma@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                3 days ago

                Idk how you can take such a strong stance against police for being police but not CEOs. If a cop stops doing their job, they too will be replaced with someone who will.

                Please stop defending executives causing harm.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Please explain how calling CEOs replaceable kleenex and hating capitalism is a defense of CEOs.

                  Am I not hating capitalism the right way?

                  (Gotta love getting downvoted on .ml in the last comment for calling capitalism the problem, BTW. Guess you all became conservatives.)

  • ryedaft
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Don’t eat the rich 🥺😉

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      They usually have lemmy.world handles. Not saying you are, but the admins and many of the mods of .world are said turbolibs and shaped their instance around it

      • BendingHawk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Thank you, as someone newer to the lemmy.world, I’m just getting my bearings and have tons to learn here. Doing some poking around and it looks like lemmy.ml may be a better home for me 😁

    • explodicle
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      If they’re “anti-violence” and it doesn’t even cross their mind that they’re defending wage slavery.

  • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    4 days ago

    Just a reminder but the bourgeoisie are the “middle class”, and that the CEO who was killed is part of a capitalist oligopoly.

    The bourgeoisie haven’t been targeted here, an aristocrat has.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Aristocrats were an offshoot of feudalism, the bourgeoisie are the Capital Owners. The “middle class” is the petite bourgeoisie, who are Capital Owners that must labor, ie small business owners. This was the bourgeoisie, not an aristocrat.

      • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        4 days ago

        Absolutely, I just meant that the inhuman monster who was killed wasn’t bourgeoisie, he was an aristocrat. These are rich families that stay rich by exploiting the poor and (few remaining) bourgeoisie.

        In end stage capitalism you’re oligarchy, poor, or soon to be one of the two.

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          He wasn’t an inhuman monster, he was a product of the capitalist system. When he dies, someone else replaces him, as the the system demands.

          And, in Marxists terms anyway, he was not an aristocrat. The bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocracy hundreds of years ago. Capitalism is a different mode of production from feudalism. He was a member of the capitalist class, he was bourgeois.

        • eldavi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          he’s probably the closest thing that americans can have to an aristocrat; but, traditionally, aristocrats had more relative wealth and influence than this ceo did.

          marxists & leninists have definitions for lots of words that have been adopted by everyone of the last century+ but pop culture likes to redefine those words every few years and seeing the pop culture definitions clash with the accepted definitions is a really common sight here, given pronounced m/l userbase and i love seeing it because it keeps reminding me that i’m so americanized that i can understand that aristocrats like this ceo are more bougie that the bourgeois. lol

          and in a sense, he is an aristocrat because he has significant enough influence in government policy to permanently enrich himself and his allies just like the aristocrats of the past did and his children will likewise hold similar wealth and influence, effectively creating a modern day feudal dynasty.

  • Dupree878@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Bourgeoisie is the middle class though. Not the rich

    Wow, downvoted for using the definition of a word smh

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      The Bourgeoisie was the “middle class” when the aristocracy were the upper class. The majority of the world is under Bourgeois rule, not aristocratic rule, any longer, ergo the Bourgeoisie is the upper class.

      Bourgeoisie does not simply mean “middle class,” it refers to a class of Capitalists. You don’t adjust what the word means, but its context.