this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2026
35 points (76.9% liked)

politics

31430 readers
2362 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
35
Ready to join the American socialist revolution? Take our quiz and find out (www.newsweek.com)
submitted 3 days ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 49 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Socialism used to be something we Americans picked up in our freshman dorm room and dropped right around the time HR walked us through the concept of a 401(k) match

I hate when people project their own failings onto everyone else to feel better about themselves...

Loads of people can personally accumulate wealth well past entry level.office work and not sell out their class.

Also pretty underhanded to call utility monopolies socialism when it's a capitalist monopoly. If basic services operate for profit, it doesn't matter if the city or a corp gets the profits. It shouldn't be free, but public utilities just should never turn a profit.

[–] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

The concept of a 401k should, to anyone with a working brain, push people towards socialism.

The idea that you should sacrifice what little compensation you get to plan for the unplanable next 50-60 years, and its really all on you, is total capitalist horseshit.

Anyone duped into supporting capitalism based on a 401k is such a mouth-breathing troglodyte, they shouldn't have the right to vote.

[–] criscodisco@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Surviving within the system doesn’t mean you believe in or support said system. I would much rather have my old pension that was eliminated at my last job than have my financial security hinge on the whims of a bunch of gambling addicts and AI bros.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Surviving within the system doesn’t mean you believe in or support said system

Cool, but that's not what the article said...

Socialism used to be something we Americans picked up in our freshman dorm room and dropped right around the time HR walked us through the concept of a 401(k) match

Like...

I quoted the literal words from the article, explained my issue with them...

And your response to that was essentially:

But what if it wasn't what they said, what if they said the opposite?

[–] criscodisco@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Why do you think I was disagreeing with you?

Take a breath, homie.

[–] I_Jedi@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Well, I do see value in the use of civil asset forfeiture to distribute housing. I would have to think for a second about signing up for privatized law enforcement if my local police force used that to get some mansions to themselves.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

. I would have to think for a second about signing up for privatized law enforcement if my local police force used that to get some mansions to themselves

The only way that seems logical is if you thought what I said about "basic services shouldn't operate for profit" somehow meant that no one providing labor for those services should be paid...

And then public employees would need to just seize what they need to survive.

But that can't be what you meant, can it?

[–] I_Jedi@lemmy.today -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I mean that acquiring a mansion for the price of a planted gun and claims of self-defense is a small price to pay. Think about it: A mansion can be YOURS without having to pay the full price. Surely you admit that the temptation of significant personal profit - protected by your other for profit LEO buddies who also have their own mansions - is very alluring, yes?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, that makes even less sense...

You've clearly misunderstood everything I've said, I just dont know how to clarify because I have no fucking clue how anyone would interpret it like you have.

[–] I_Jedi@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

I guess that settles it, then.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 1 points 2 days ago

I must have tested-out of socialism 101.

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm only familiar with local utilities, but are there public utilities that turn profits? What happens to the profits?

I know of private utilities that are owned by municipalities and they pay dividends back to the municipality which is used in the city budget. There is also Hydro One which is about 50% owned by various orgs and is publicly traded. They pay dividends but like $0.35 per share, quarterly.

[–] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Southern California Edison. Waste Management. Every internet company. Water and sewer are about the only public utilities that are handled by the city in my city.

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 1 points 2 days ago

The person I was replying to said public utilities shouldn't turn a profit, so I was asking about public utilities that turn profits, not privatized utilities.

[–] tomatolung@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

So stupid ass questions frankly. So loaded it should be a NYC hotdog.

  • 01| Would you take a 32-hour week if your pay stayed exactly the same?
  • 02| Have you ever paid extra for oat milk to protest an extractive food system?
  • 03| Have you ever waited 14 weeks for a library book rather than pay $16 for it?
  • 04| Have you ever worn a keffiyeh to Starbucks?
  • 05| Should health care be free at the point of use?
  • 06| Do you own an anti-capitalist tote bag?
  • 07| Should Washington own a piece of Intel to keep up with China?
  • 08| Have you ever announced that you were leaving X...on X?
  • 09| Do you belong to an HOA?
  • 10| Have you ever gone to therapy to talk about capitalism?
  • 11| Should ICE be abolished?
  • 12| Would you trust City Hall with your electricity?
  • 13| Should all public college be free, and existing student debt be canceled?
  • 14| Do you hate landlords but love your Airbnb?
  • 15| Do you support strikes when they inconvenience you?
  • 16| Would you shop at a government supermarket if the groceries were 30 percent cheaper?
  • 17| Should billionaires face aggressive wealth taxes?
  • 18| Should the United States abolish the Electoral College?
  • 19| Have you ever supported a free bus by not paying for one that wasn't free yet?
  • 20| Would you rather live in the America imagined by the 1912 Socialist Party than the America of 1912?

Edit: To be clear, this feels like a quiz you'd take from a women's health magazine, not a policy lead rational engagement. Provocation is the game, not reason.

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

Holy bad faith questions, Batman!

[–] MountainVeil@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago

Par for the course for Newsweek.

[–] JustPlainDave@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

1, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

Do I get to be a socialist?

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

1, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

Do I get to be a socialist?

  • 20| Would you rather live in the America imagined by the 1912 Socialist Party than the America of 1912?

we agree on some things, but i would totally prefer to live in 1912 america under socialists than what it actually was.

the 1912 socialist party platform was:

  • eight hour workday

  • abolition of child labor

  • direct election of senators

  • women’s suffrage

  • unemployment insurance

  • old age pensions

these are like the bare minimum and wouldn't even partially arrive for decades later in reality.

the actual America of 1912 was more like jim crow, 16 hour workdays, children in mines, no labor protections whatsoever.

[–] JustPlainDave@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

Fair enough. I didn't really have time to look it up when I commented.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)
  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. No, but I support a mass library system
  4. No, I try to avoid Starbucks to begin with
  5. Yes
  6. No, but this is irrelevant
  7. Nationalization in capitalist states is not socialism, just like marketization in socialist states is not capitalism. Washington owning Intel would be better for them, but this is a social democratic reformist measure, not a socialist one.
  8. Never been on X/Twitter
  9. No
  10. No
  11. Yes
  12. In a socialist society? Yes. In the present-day? More than a private company, sure.
  13. Yes.
  14. I hate both.
  15. Yes.
  16. I'd do it if they were the same price, of course I'd do it if they were cheaper.
  17. Yes
  18. Yes, but more than that the entire capitalist state needs to be broken and replaced with a socialist one, not simply tweaking the system that co-evolved with capitalism from its inception
  19. Kinda? Odd question.
  20. Yes.

Overall, completely horrendous tabloid quiz.

[–] sportsjorts@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 days ago

Fucking Newsweek can suck it.

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (5 children)

LMFAO! The latest Newsweek cover

[–] stinkytofuisgood@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Socialist democracy is not just socialism. Socialist democracy is good.

America mocks socialism and confuses it with communism and fascism.

Ironic, rich, predictable

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Socialism is inherently democratic, and is also inherently a pre-communist, transitional form of society. Social democracy is not "socialist democracy," it is capitalism with welfare.

[–] stinkytofuisgood@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I never said social democracy = socialist democracy

You're arguing with ghosts and shadows my friend

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Socialist democracy is just democracy in socialist countries, which has nothing to do with the article or those depicted on the cover. I thought you were talking about social democracy, considering these are social democrats.

[–] stinkytofuisgood@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I get the mix-up then. It's not about those depicted, it's the obvious implications based on how they're depicted

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

China's a socialist country on the path to communism. Newsweek is mocking social democrats by depicting them as though they are socialists and communists. The implication is that they are socialists, and not social democrats.

Are we in agreement, then? Reading your comment, it seems you think they are socialists.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I just want to point out that if you took the shirts off of three out of four men on this cover, they'd be absolutely shredded.

Wake me up when its the cover of Maxim.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Maybe Bernie is shredded too, he's keeping his mind young somehow

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I assumed Bernie was included.

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago

I wish those 5 were actually as left-wing as depicted here...

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Am I wrong, or is El-Sayed literally a landlord? Dude is a liberal, not a socialist.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

El Sayed is a good man, and there is nothing wrong with renting out your property in itself. Many don't have homes and need to rent, you want to leave it all to private equity and blackrock? How is that working out for you?

Spoken like someone with a house already.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I rent.

Looks like I found the landlord. Does it feel good to profit from human's universal basic need for shelter?

[–] TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

mind posting this without the paywall?

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Newsweek is said, by everyone, to be a right wing rag now more than ever.

[–] Casuls_Die_Thrice@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I rate either a 7 or 8

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Who's the guy in the glasses?

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not the Bernstern, who's the guy on the right side?

[–] Bobby_shmurda@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

ainsley earhardt

[–] begrudgedcarfolk@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 days ago

I'm convinced mamdani is a psyop, there's absolutely no reason to not replace the billionaire police chief, does he not want to fix the NYPD?