UwUpeans, so great, and so horrid at the same time.

You sir/madam/gentlebeing, are a most delightfully twisted individual.

We’re learning in real time that the ICC and UN are great tools, until they disagree with you, at which point they can be ignored and even threatened.

Sounds like great news, no?

Just as we had a time before fungus digesting plant matter, we’ve now had a time before fungus digesting plastics.

“Soon” we’ll get bacteria and insects doing the same, and all our plastic buildings will need to be protected just as the wood ones.

Maybe, it also has symbolic value, and might demoralise the civilian populace, whose support is crucial to the continued state support.

It still seems a weak move as infrastructure should be a more effective target, but who knows how many layers of distractions and attacks of opportunity really happen in the field?

Yes, as the blurb says in the fourth word or so.

Edit: did the math and counted up to the fourth word

Also work as pocket eggs, a portable snack

To the Mun!

Inb4 Kelpians…

And then democratic socialism happened in the 1980s and onward.

Interesting.

What you’re saying is well aligned, but from a fundamentally different viewpoint. Socialism doesn’t (by itself) address any of the things in your summation. The closest I can explain it in terms that could make sense to you is just the first part: “people shouldn’t be earning a living”.

I think ideological socialism just axiomatically starts from a different perspective. A person (traditionally a citizen) shouldn’t have to earn their right to live, rather it’s our shared interest that all of us can live our best lives. From that perspective work is only relevant as a way to create wellbeing (sense of purpose, creating things, being helpful, etc), economy comes only in the implementation and how we fund the society that allows the ideal.

And that’s where different groups have tried different things, planned economy has had mixed success, capitalism within the social framework is the current fashion in most of Europe/World, but you also have kibbutzes/communes, homesteading, and multigenerational and/or sectarian communes.

All these are different implementations of socialism, and none of them are founded on the idea of work, salary or expenses. They typically start from other ideals, where the economic policy simply becomes a tool.

What a neatly succinct way to put your understanding, well phrased.

It’s unfortunately conflating economic policy with social policy, and is quite divorced from anything happening since 1917. Most of Europe lives in democratic socialism, which combines none of A), with none of B).

From the power perspective you’re mostly right though, in socialism it’s the citizen that has rights, in capitalism it’s capital. Meaning that voting and influence stems from different fundamental perspectives, sometimes different enough that they aren’t opposed (like in most western DemSoc).

Economic socialism typically means that the purpose of the economy is to raise the standard of living for the citizens, this typically means providing healthcare, infrastructure like roads, housing and clean water, and affordable goods. And usually leads to equalising tax structures, with progressive taxation of the affluent, and higher tax burden in the things that exploit/hinder the societal good, like companies, damaging luxuries (like alcohol, sugar) and pollution.

Ideologically it typically means that every citizen has the right to a comfortable and fulfilling life, where emphasis and understanding differs across the world. And it typically translates to citizens having equal, unalienable rights, with support structures in place for the more vulnerable. That could be that official documents are made available in multiple languages, more flexible voting arrangements, advocacy and support for infirm, elderly and marginalised groups. I’d simplify it as: every citizen is entitled to a comfortable and fulfilling life, and all the support they need to live it.

Politically the focus is on common good, with as little individual impingement as possible. Universal healthcare and education are great investments in the national economy, so is child and elder care, which frees up the workforce from other chores. Support for the arts, hobbies, and recreational spaces is common, as is public beautification, public forums, parks/nature preserves.

But none of this is in necessary opposition to capitalism, which isn’t a political system of governance more than economic anarchy. Capitalism doesn’t by itself have any aims, ideology, or principles about voting rights, it simply wants capital to produce more capital, and would in the extreme not have any voting rights beyond what you can create with your capital.

In the US it translates through liberalism to policy, where small governance leaves more room for individually powerful citizens, of which capital is increasingly the dominant party.

Oh goodness, they look fabulous