Socialism means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules
What you're describing is "social democracy" — capitalism with safety nets, where production is still controlled by owners rather than workers. "Socialism" explicitly implies worker control of production. "Nordic socialism" could more accurately be called "Nordic social democracy."
"Communism" refers to a classless, stateless society where everyone has what they need, no one is exploited or coerced, and there are no wars. It's an aspirational vision for the future, not something you can do right after a revolution when capitalism still rules the world.
How is it healthy that some rich investor gets to play golf all day because he can afford to buy backhoes and hire people to use them? How is it healthy that he earns more money if he pays them less, or that he alone is in charge of resources that a whole community worked to produce? What is healthy about any of this?
What you are describing is the entire fucking premise of socialism: workers cannot afford the means of production, so production ends up controlled by a handful of wealthy capitalists with perverse incentives and no loyalty to the rest of the human race. An entire tradition of thought is dedicated to how unhealthy that is.
First of all, that means food is poorly distributed. You are just disputing the cause.
And yes, conflict if a major cause of hunger. But what is a major cause of conflict? Fucking poverty. Al Qaeda doesn't recruit from fucking Beverly Hills. Another major cause: US intervention, for the sake of profit and geopolitical dominance, with the dominance ultimately also being for the sake of profit. The world economic system functions as a huge siphon that extracts wealth from the global south and funnels it to wealthy countries where the major institutions of finance are located. Western financial instruments like the IMF and World Bank, alongside direct political and economic pressure, enforce austerity in poor nations, dismantle social safety nets, depress wages, and privatize resources, and this very predictably results in underdevelopment and poverty, which fucking benefits the west because lower wages mean larger profit margins, lower prices and greater market share for the western companies that source their labor there. It's a fucking global sweatshop economy. And there are consequences to this, when everyone is fucking poor and uneducated and young men see no future for themselves except to become soldiers. It means conflict, which means starvation.
Cool link! Yeah I dig this stuff. It sucks that so often Brutalist buildings seem unloved. It's a shame to see weeds growing on a beautiful monument like that. And Tallinn tower looks rad, this is the first time I've seen it.
Hot take but I also dig creative brutalist buildings like Boston City Hall and the Boston Government Services Building. I just like how permanent it looks, like cold war architects were reminding people to think of the future. But I'm probably in the minority.
It would be cool to spend some of my time gardening and landscaping to make the community look better. Having greenery around me and seeing public spaces that look cared for and lived in always puts me in a better mood. For that matter, we could bring back some of the skilled decorative trades and start embellishing buildings with stone and wood carving, tile work, tapestries, rugs, relief sculptures, and stuff like that. Maybe we could develop some new aesthetics instead of copying ostentatious old buildings. I just like when you can tell someone put attention and time into a building, and it's not all disposable prefab that will get torn down in twenty years.
Most early Bolshevik policies were more situational than ideological. The main priorities were to repel threats and industrialize as quickly as possible. They expected to be crushed by industrialized capitalist powers unless they reached parity.
the civics lesson comes off as condescending, because it's stuff everyone learned in high school. and it also seems to take the stance that process is more important than results, at a time when a lot of people could use some results and the process does not seem to be working. the flippancy of the hexbear users in this thread comes from those two things - the perception that you're being condescending, and frustration at your apparent priorities, which differ from theirs.
Hexbear argues that the Democrats could help a lot more people if they were more forceful. The counterargument appears to be "but if they were forceful, they would be using the same tactics as the Republicans." That just seems like the wrong set of priorities to me.
the argument is that Manchin is the designated "vote no guy," blocking legislation the corporate donors oppose while allowing the rest of the democrats to say "gee I'd like to help my constituents but I can't." People point out the apparent lack of serious pushback or pressure on Manchin from the rest of the democrats.
What you're describing is "social democracy" — capitalism with safety nets, where production is still controlled by owners rather than workers. "Socialism" explicitly implies worker control of production. "Nordic socialism" could more accurately be called "Nordic social democracy."
"Communism" refers to a classless, stateless society where everyone has what they need, no one is exploited or coerced, and there are no wars. It's an aspirational vision for the future, not something you can do right after a revolution when capitalism still rules the world.