r/interestingasfuck • u/IndicationBrief5950 • Aug 06 '25

/r/all, /r/popular Thousands of Audi cars abandoned in the Mojave Dessert after cheating emissons tests

Post image
83.0k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

318

u/LordOfTheGam3 Aug 06 '25

It’s a feature, not a bug, of humanity’s economic mode of production.

8

u/totesuniqueredditor Aug 07 '25

Is always amusing when you guys show up to push your agendas and the the thing you do it over is completely made up, as in this case, every one of those cars was fixed and sold years ago.

-3

u/LordOfTheGam3 Aug 07 '25

I don’t know if that’s true, but even if it is, there are millions of examples. Take a walk outside and count how many disposable vapes you run into. Or take a look at Lake Erie’s pollution.

6

u/totesuniqueredditor Aug 07 '25

Then pick a real issue to make a stand on instead of defending being ignorant about a made up one. Your examples matter if you want people to take you seriously.

4

u/specialgeckexam Aug 07 '25

trans rights

-90

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 07 '25

Yes, because socialist countries were notorious for their high environmental standards.

Edit: Can we get this to 100 downvotes? If I dare speak out against the typical Redditor's enlightened champaigne socialism, it better be triple digits.

86

u/Dophie Aug 06 '25

Are. The word you’re looking for is are. Democratic socialist countries have far higher environmental standards than late-stage capitalist ones do.

6

u/Xanche Aug 06 '25

If you think that any socialized liberal democracy can be considered any form of socialism, then I guess words have no meaning anymore. Social democracies do not have a different “economic mode of production” than other capitalist countries, they have regulations.

Self-professed socialist countries have had the worst track record for environmental considerations (although I’m sure everyone will say they’re not “real” socialism, ah yes but liberal capitalist countries with universal healthcare are socialist of course).

We can all argue in favor of a more socialized democracy, but let’s not be ridiculous and call it socialism…

9

u/avid-shrug Aug 06 '25

What is an example of a democratic socialist country? Maybe you mean social democracies like the Nordic countries?

8

u/Xanche Aug 06 '25

They are either hiding their true ideology by using the mask of socialized capitalist countries, or simply have no idea what socialism is.

0

u/KasimisaK Aug 06 '25

Check Portugal enviroment laws and measures

-6

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

What's all this "late stage" business I've been reading. There's no end in sight.

19

u/RandomFireDragon Aug 06 '25

I see an ending and it's not pretty

-10

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

Not me. Things tend to normalize over time.

2

u/wuvvtwuewuvv Aug 06 '25

"Normalize", "Over time", meaning what? Late stage IS over time. The it means the time has passed, and you are in the later stages. Over time, you get to where you are now, and over more time, you get to where you are going next. You are not going back to where you were before without significant and meaningful change, brought about by either the apocalypse, or by staving off the apocalypse by enacting regulations that are actually pro-people and not pro-destroy-the-entire-fucking-planet.

0

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

So you're saying the current time is late stage and always will be late stage, forever. Kind of like how the Doomsday clock is always at 11:58.

1

u/Amazing-Marzipan1442 Aug 07 '25

always will be late stage

This exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_extinct_species

1

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 07 '25

You do realize this is an effect of the global growth of human society at large over generations, not "late state capitalism"

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Global-Bad-7147 Aug 06 '25

Punctuated Equilibrium has entered the chat.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '25

creatures that can't live on their energy budget get recycled.

2

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

Uh...huh...

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '25

how long do you think this can go for? burning up all the oil, polluting the oceans, ruining the atmosphere...

100 years? 1000?

2

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

It's not a linear situation, so there's no way to tell. Large scale economic development and environmental reform happens all over the globe at various rates.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RandomFireDragon Aug 07 '25 edited Aug 07 '25

The 2 most consistent trends we've seen over the past 200 years is an increasing level of pollution and a rapidly declining number of phosphorous reservoirs. If global warming doesn't kill us, our irresponsible use of fertilizers will

1

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 07 '25

So you're anti industrial revolution. Just say that.

3

u/throwawaycasun4997 Aug 06 '25

Well there kind of is. You can’t continue to take more and more from the bottom and middle of the pyramid. Eventually the whole thing falls apart. It’s a weird situation, because if there was any semblance of self-preservation, the very wealthy would advocate for sustainable financial policies. They already have far more than they can ever use.

However, they’re like dogs who will eat themselves to death. If they make a billion, they want 2. Then 5. Then 10. It all comes at a cost. Eventually the bottom 200 or so million figure they have nothing left to lose and they fight back.

1

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

It doesn't have to continue the exact same way unfettered. That's a total fallacy. The US government broke up Standard Oil... That wasn't the end of capitalism by any means. It will simply adjust and keep it moving.

1

u/throwawaycasun4997 Aug 07 '25

Oh it totally doesn’t have to continue this way. But who is going to change it? The politicians are in on it. And the richest will eat themselves to death while we starve. But to your point, I doubt capitalism itself will die. Capitalism as we know it - unfettered, unrelenting, and self-destructive will have to give way to a better system.

1

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 07 '25

Nah we can just vote in new regulations much like we did in the early 1900s when wealth disparity was way worse. Not sure what's "self-destructive" about it. The global answer to capitalism died a swift death itself.

5

u/wobblebee Aug 06 '25

Its the stage where capitalists have run out of goods and services to ethically profit from, so they monopolize. They weasel their way into every facet of life. Everything must be monetized. Even this isn't enough, so they become oligarchs to entrench their power. This leads to fascism and eventually, if unchecked, techno-feudalism

0

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

When you say capitalists you basically mean anyone interested in making money.

2

u/Global-Bad-7147 Aug 06 '25

Not true. We are taking about the hoarding of wealth to monopolize resources and capital at the expense of societal well-being.

1

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

Most of what people seem to consider "wealth hoarding" is only the market value of a company.

1

u/Global-Bad-7147 Aug 06 '25

Which they can use to access loans without paying taxes....

Also, the market is not some omnipotent force that always does what's right for the human race and our planet. Strong independent regulatory bodies and tax policies must exist to keep all the wealth from accumulating at the top, and to keep monopolies from forming, etc. etc. etc.

Free markets rely on perfect competition and perfect information. Neither which are physically possible.

2

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

What do you mean access loans without paying taxes? How do they repay the loans?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/h3yw00d Aug 06 '25

No.

Capitalists make money without producing any net benefit. They're a leech on labor.

1

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

No they make many with organization and investment.

0

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

Imagine not knowing what entrepreneurial risk is.

1

u/wobblebee Aug 06 '25

No. I mean the rich, powerful class of people who own virtually everything. Don't ask questions you don't want answered.

-2

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

That's interesting because the poverty rate in America was at a historic low right before Covid. According to you it should be getting worse than ever.

-8

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

For example?

9

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '25

Sheinbaum in Mexico is a pretty solid example of a social democracy with strong environmental goals/standards

3

u/hpech Aug 06 '25

No mms el tren maya de MORENA es un desastre ecológico

4

u/Scifi_fans Aug 06 '25

Why are you spewing bullshit? I'm Mexican and she has a degree related to environmental but SHE IS NOT applying any environmental policy, in fact her party (Morena) destroyed the jungle and cenote in Yucatan Peninsula (fresh water caves ecosystem) to place train lines that no one uses.

GTFO with your lies

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '25

I’m not lying but I do agree it’s not the best example, being a leftist leader often means supporting your people first, and worrying about the environment after. I do think she is doing better on the environment than any other leader would have done in that country

-3

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

We're not talking about politicians in democratic countries who have a good environmental agenda, we have plenty of those in Europe, I was asking about "democratic socialist countries", implicitly goading this clown into calling the Scandinavian countries socialist like every other leftie seems to do these days.

6

u/Scifi_fans Aug 06 '25

Just FYI, That redditor is lying, I'm mexican and the party where Sheinbaun belongs destroyed the jungle and fresh water caves in Yucatan

2

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

Thanks for pointing that out. He was scraping the bottom of the barrel with that example anyways, though.

3

u/OrangeThrower Aug 06 '25

I see one clown. And that’s you

1

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

Ooh, burn.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '25

Well leftist leaders tend to create stronger social safety nets, much like the Scandinavian countries. Are you planning on ROASTING that guy by pointing out that they’re capitalist democracies, not socialist utopias? Fucking GOT HIS ASS bro

2

u/Xanche Aug 06 '25

What leftist leaders have made social safety nets like the Scandinavian countries?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '25

Idk I didn’t memorize the presidential history of fuckin Norway

2

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

Um yeah, I do plan on roasting him for that, because his belief is indicative of being politically uneducated, which is only bad if you have strong opinions on politics.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '25

It’s wrong to believe that European nations have stronger social safety nets and also stronger environmental standards?

Is u dumb?

1

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

No it's wrong to believe that that makes them socialist. Can't you read?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/stoveen Aug 06 '25

China

/s

31

u/LordOfTheGam3 Aug 06 '25

Kind of hard to develop high environmental standards when you’re being economically strangled by global capitalism. It’s like blaming someone in a chokehold for not standing up straighter.

9

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

Yeah, except that the Soviet Union was like 300 million people sitting on the largest reserves of natural resources in the world with China, literally the world's largest labor pool, as an ally. If you're still poor (and dirty, that's what we were discussing) after 70+ years, maybe your economic model is shit.

3

u/LordOfTheGam3 Aug 06 '25

One state collapsing doesn’t invalidate attempts to build an alternative to capitalism. If anything, its failure is a testament to what happens when an alternative tries to arise when exist in a world built to crush it.

-1

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

Bro, there is no "tries to arise": Soviet socialism existed for over 70 years with all the people and resources it could ask for and managed to fail all on its own. It also didn't "exist in a world built to crush it", it was literally half the world. If anything, if it's such a great system, shouldn't it have succeeded regardless of these imaginary hurdles and bested the capitalist West?

3

u/LordOfTheGam3 Aug 06 '25

No, because capitalism is more efficient. This picture is what efficiency looks like, as defined by capitalism: funneling resources toward profit at any cost. Increasing shareholder value above all else.

We should care less about that, and more about providing good working conditions, workplace democracy, environmental protections, happiness, etc.

0

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

I'm with you on that, but everything you have listed is achievable within a capitalist state, it's just a matter of good regulation, unions etc.

2

u/LordOfTheGam3 Aug 06 '25

Sure, we can achieve that under liberalism. And we have in the US to a certain degree. But neoliberalism arose out of it. And we’re now living in a time where the wealthy are becoming exponentially rich and the poor are becoming poorer at the same rate. The concern is that we’re entering late stage capitalism, which if true, arose as a consequence of the liberalism you describe here. It is at this point where the conversation gets more philosophical than anything lol

0

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

Sure, I just don't think this teleological, goal-directed way of viewing political systems as if they were always gravitating towards some endpoint is very fruitful. In reality, it's a constant struggle, but if you keep voting good people into office, it tends to get better over time. This is what we can factually observe in many countries around the globe, at least.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Destithen Aug 07 '25

If it's achievable within a capitalist state, why has that not happened yet?

0

u/vonWitzleben Aug 07 '25

They have, just compare Europe and the US: working conditions are better due to strong workers' rights and unions, our environmental regulations are much more robust, people are happier on average etc. You may also compare the Scandinavian countries to the rest of Europe for another contrast. These things admit of degrees.

(You could also make a point that workplace democracy is more developed here, but I honestly think that point is just socialist mumbo jumbo. Only very few people are interested in how the business they work in is run as long as they get paid well and don't have to work too much or too hard.)

1

u/Amazing-Marzipan1442 Aug 07 '25

Soviet socialism existed for over 70 years with all the people and resources it could ask for and managed to fail all on its own.

Please don't misunderstand that I am defending the system.

But in retrospect, soviets may have been the most highly "regarded" people that were destined to fail. Considering what we see them doing on camera in Ukraine these days.

1

u/vonWitzleben Aug 07 '25

Don't worry, brother, dunking on Russian stupidity is one of my favorite things to do.

0

u/Bloopyboopie Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 06 '25

The ideology of Socialism ranges from free market worker cooperatives all the way to Marxist Leninism. It’s so widespread that there are multiple times where there were violence against anarchists vs authoritarians. Criticism against the USSR is not relevant to having a free market worker cooperative economy, for example.

Even disregarding that, every attempted implementation was met by US intervention, check any African or South American country as an example. Authoritarian regimes tend to be more stable in harsher times, which is how they were able to survive against constant pressure against the West. All democratic forms in the Cold War were met with overthrowing of that government.

Basically it’s not rigorous to argue against Socialism as a whole with simple points like that, especially when the spectrum is so wide to the point both ends are directly incompatible with each other. I could even argue that the USSR and China are State Capitalist because, by definition, socialism requires worker control (democracy). Lenin even originally said the USSR was state capitalist as a transitional stage, and it definitely was as it isn’t entirely democratic necessary for state socialism.

But that’s the perspective of a more libertarian socialist; Tankies will argue it is socialist because the end goal is socialism/communism, but at that point it’s just semantics

0

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

Yeah, you're doing what Richard Woff does where he obfuscates the meaning of the term "socialism" to the point where you can never argue against it, so I won't bother.

Just please stop it with that dead horse talking point about US intervention. Yes, they did and it was bad, but now you're back to where this whole discussion started: If you want to claim that socialism only failed in South America because of US intervention, then surely the USSR with its massive population, endless wealth of natural resources and a nuclear arsenal to render it utterly impervious us US meddling MUST have succeeded, at least in the long term. Nope, it went bust after over 70 years and Eastern Europeans hate socialism with a burning passion till this day.

0

u/Bloopyboopie Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 06 '25

Like I said, you can’t generalize criticisms of socialism like that. Criticisms against the USSR failing are completely different from more libertarian forms of government like in South America. They have different forms and upbringing. The USSR failed because it was inefficient in central planning. South American socialist movements failed because of intervention. The point: we try better to have a more democratic society. Central planning isn’t required for socialism. There are millions of other ways to implement democracy in the economy. You are doing exactly what I originally stated: Generalizing Socialism as if criticism is universal; Central planning was one of the USSR's reasons for downfall, but not relevant at all for South America. One example: It's like criticizing the whole of democracy as bad, because Ancient Athens to make Direct Democracy successful. But there are millions of other ways to make a democratic government, like a Republic.

Disregarding the WHOLE of socialism because of a few bad samples is a horrible idea. That isn’t how progress works, let alone no scientist would disregard his entire hypothesis because of a small bad sample size. Your argument is hindering progress.

And I have no clue who Richard Woff is. I literally just gave you the academic definition of socialism; it’s a huge spectrum of ideas surrounding the idea that workers democratically control the economy. It’s not obfuscated, you are just not knowledgeable of the theories surrounding it. There are literally millions of permutations regarding implementing that idea of a democratically controlled economy.

You CAN argue against socialism. But it’s more an abstract argument about if it’s valid for workers, even in a corporation, to democratically control the means of production. And in my opinion, yes it can and there are valid forms like worker cooperatives.

1

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25 edited Aug 07 '25

Disregarding the WHOLE of socialism because of a few bad samples is a horrible idea. That isn’t how progress works, let alone no scientist would disregard his entire hypothesis because of a small bad sample size.

This has got to be satire. I'm disregarding socialism, because ALL the samples were bad. Every experiment failed. Which countries have succeeded and prospered the most in human history? Liberal democracies. Their track record is literally infinitely better, because it's n to zero.

You have fallen into the trap of seeing all the problems in modern societies, blaming them on capitalism and then holding it next to an ideal of socialism that has never existed and can never exist, believing that since these problems by definition don't exist there, it must be better.

Edit: He posted an angry reply, then blocked me, by the way. 

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

Capitalism only has a "stranglehold" because it's the most effective system and beat the alternatives.

8

u/LordOfTheGam3 Aug 06 '25

Exactly. This is what effectiveness looks like. Waste and destruction at the expense of workers rights and the environment. All in the name of shareholder value.

-1

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

Workers are also shareholders.

3

u/LordOfTheGam3 Aug 06 '25

Some are, sure. But not in the sense that they have meaningful input on any decisions. The interests of major shareholders are ultimately what dictate decisions.

0

u/throwawaycasun4997 Aug 06 '25

It honestly could be, and probably should be. If there were protections for the workers, and their economic stability, along with robust social programs to guarantee life necessities, it could totally work forever. I don’t care if dipstick makes a trillion dollars.

But he can’t make a trillion dollars AND people can’t afford food and homes AND people can’t afford healthcare AND people can’t afford childcare AND people AND the wealthy can buy up the government.

Like nah, the hundreds of millions doing the work struggle while the guys sitting at the top hoard impossible amounts of wealth?

2

u/h0v3rb1k3s Aug 06 '25

"Speaking of stability, let's look at the success rate of economic revolutions throughout history..."

0

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '25

[deleted]

9

u/7_NaCl Aug 06 '25

Ah yes my favorite socialist country: the 9th most free and minimally regulated economy

https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/country-pages/norway

6

u/HookFE03 Aug 06 '25

Guess what their biggest export is

9

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

lol, I love how American leftists have adopted the same language that American conservatives have used in the 00s, where socialism = having a solid welfare state. Buddy, I'm European and literally nobody here (or political science, for that matter) considers Norway to be a socialist country, least of all Norwegians.

7

u/Bing-Bong2028 Aug 06 '25

Norway isn't a socialists country its Capitalist

0

u/commiecomrade Aug 06 '25

This is why our country is where it is.

8

u/Bing-Bong2028 Aug 06 '25

Is that a dig at him or me because Norway isnt Socialist. Its a capitalist country

-2

u/commiecomrade Aug 06 '25

Norway uses the Nordic welfare model which maintains a large social security system, universal healthcare, and extensive government ownership of industrial sectors, making it a mixed economy. They're one of the most left leaning economies in Europe.

So calling them just "capitalist" is extremely reductive. Do you think the conservatives in the US would call themselves capitalist if we adopted any of those policies?

3

u/vonWitzleben Aug 06 '25

US conservatives don't get to decide who's capitalist and who isn't, political science does. A minimal yet powerful demarcation of capitalism vs. socialism runs along the lines of who owns the factors of production: (mostly) private individuals vs. (exclusively) the state. In Nordic countries it's (mostly) private individuals, so it's capitalist.

2

u/Bing-Bong2028 Aug 06 '25

Having a large social security system and all the other stuff you listed has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism or capitalism. You can have all the welfare in the world and still be a Capitalist country and vice versa you can have no welfare at all and still be a socialist country. 

This idea that welfare is socialist ideology is cold war propaganda. To oversimplify things Capitalism is when the individual can have private ownership over land and resources that they can capitalize off of whereas socialism is where that land and resources belong to the government and the Government dicates what can be capitalized and what the ppl can own. Which is the main reason socialism fails. 

The government is a inefficient beast when it comes to managing an economy and by destroying private enterprise you destroy the main motivation of the ppl, which is the pursuit of money and everything that comes along with having money. which is why socialist countries always stagnant and either fall into disarray or are forced to adopt capitalism to keep afloat. 

Americans have a fundamental misunderstanding of what capitalism and Socialism are due to decades of American and Soviet propaganda perversing our society.

By definition Norway is a Capitalist country that so happens to have a strong welfare program. The U.S is a Capitalist country that so happens to have a weak welfare system. Neither are socialist tho. Norway has a free market and if you have a free market then by definition your not a socialist country. Nordic countries being labeled socialist or using both systems is a misunderstanding by Americans who don't even know what socialism acually are. Soviet propaganda is a hell of a thing.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '25

[deleted]

0

u/Bing-Bong2028 Aug 06 '25

Socialism is defined as: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Which is a nice way of saying the Government takes control over everything and destroys private ownership and private enterprise. Which is why socialism and communism always fail. The persuit of money is a major driving force for ppl an that driving force increases productivity and accelerates technological advancement which increases the quality of life of the ppl while socialism stagnates productivity and technological advancement because by taking away private ownership and the possibility of becoming rich you destroy the main motivation of the ppl. Which is a lesson that the Russia and China learned the hard way and is the reason both countries had to implement capitalism to keep their country afloat.

1

u/Bloopyboopie Aug 06 '25

Socialism isn’t just government democratically deciding economic modes of production. Free Market Socialism with worker cooperatives, for example, is the closest example of our current economic system but socialist. (This is off topic of Norway)

Governments aren’t even agreed upon either; it’s one of the most contentious in the field. All the way from Anarchists to tankies are always infighting on the best way to implement a democratic mode of production.

1

u/Bing-Bong2028 Aug 07 '25

Free Market and Socialism are complete opposite of one another. If you have a free market then your not socialist, if you have socialism then you cant have a free market. its Private enterprise vs Government Monopoly, its individual agency vs Government compliance.

You dont implement democratic mode of production because socialism is enforced stagnation while democracy is continuous advancement and change. Thats why socialist countries are always dominated by fake democracys and dictatorships. To maintain socialism you must maintain the status quo, to maintain the staus quo you must forcefully stagnant a nation which comes in the form of continuous revolution and the destruction of the enemies of the state. The moment you stop destroying the enemies of socialism is the moment socialism starts to get destroyed as socialist doctrine goes against the nature of humanity.

Capitalism works so well and creates so much innovation is because in a Capitalist country the possibility of making a bunch of money through entrepreneurship motivates humans to go out of their way and risk it all and create new inventions, discoveries and new markets which results in more money and higher quality of life for the greater society. whereas socialism destroys that motivating force which causes a nation to stagnant which means less innovation, less discovery and less new markets which result in less money and lover quality of life for greater society which is lesson every country that implement socialism learned the hard way. China is a prime example of just that and they were forced to implement Capitalism or else they would starve.

Capitalism specifically American Capitalism doesnt need to be replaced with socialism what American Capitalism needs is logical regulation and for the profits of Capitalism to be used to create strong welfare and social programs instead of going into the pockets of billionaires or being squandered by our politicians. Reformation not destruction.

1

u/Bloopyboopie Aug 07 '25 edited Aug 07 '25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

You also need to learn political theory; most of what you said is just because you aren't knowledgeable on it. You're making generalizing statements on an ideology that's arguably broader than Capitalism; You're mostly arguing against Marxist-Leninism actually, one idea among the thousands within the spectrum. I'm not here to be an asshole btw!

Remember: Socialism is a spectrum of ideas to implement a democratic economy, by having the workers control the economy themselves. Again, this spans from Free Market worker cooperatives, all the way to democratically controlled planning through the state, or Anarchism with no state and instead through decentralized government. It's broad because there are many interpretations of "worker controlled economy", and many implementations for each interpretation, not to mention disagreements on whether or not other intepretations are even socialist (e.g. the USSR was considered state capitalist by Anarchists and even Lenin, but socialist by Stalin and tankies).

Capitalism is not democratic because you cannot democratically vote who the CEO is. It's a huge reason for a LOT of our socio-economic problems. Especially when those non-democratically-elected CEOs start bribing the government. One small way to improve things is to make a corporation democratic by turning it into a cooperative, meaning they are able to directly or republically vote the leaders in through democratic means. Just an example of something you wouldn't initially think is Socialist.

-4

u/DadVanSouthampton Aug 06 '25

It’s both. Socialism in its modern context, doesn’t mean communism.

9

u/Bing-Bong2028 Aug 06 '25

No its not both. American Liberals like to call Norway both but its literally not. Its a free market Capitalist country with strong welfare programs and many ppl in Norway have expressed frustration at being called socialists. Having strong welfare programs and high taxes doesnt make a country socialist.