this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
1606 points (98.8% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

5690 readers
512 users here now

Rules:

Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).

Icon credit C. BrΓΌck on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I've never seen subsistence living as a core belief of any large number of socialists. At least, no larger than the average amount of people in the general population that also find subsistence living to be a good idea.

Most socialists understand that many goods can't be fully produced by any one individual, and that we get a benefit from working together as a group. Hell, most of Socialist ideology revolves around groups of workers owning the means of production, and a government/society that shares resources between people to keep everyone as reasonably comfortable as possible.

The notion that subsistence living is something that more socialists would support than the average person isn't exactly something I've seen to be true in my personal experience. In fact, I see a lot more of that on the very much anti-socialist right, what with all the homesteading and "rugged independent man" stereotypes you'll see thrown about over there.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're right, subsistence living in an individual level is impossible. There's a lot of Americans though, and they could do subsistence living if they worked together. Again, you and I aren't disagreeing. We just need to make sure to use the right words. Even if subsistence living isn't a commonly held thought, it's one with a more positive connotation than Isolationism. We should use words with negative connotations to describe negative bills

[–] tree_frog@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

All right so you were just being pedantic.

Because my examples did not make it sound appealing lol

And I personally prefer to use neutral words, as folks have a lot of defense mechanisms toward words with negative connotations.

Meaning, they will just tune it out.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, you're right. I'm being pedantic. I should have forewarned that, my bad.

And you're also right that people tend to tune out negative words. At first, sure. But, assuming you're American, I bet I could cause some cognitive dissonance in you if you I use the right ones. Isolationism isn't one of those yet, but in 30 years we need that word to sound the same as "Feudalism"

[–] tree_frog@lemm.ee 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

No you did mention maybe you're being pedantic, that's why I brought it back up. I wasn't trying to be a bitch lol

And yeah, isolationist really is a more accurate term. However I'm thinking that the right has indoctrinated their voter base against it.

I don't have hard evidence for that argument, it's just the vibe I get living here.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I can't say for sure how much indoctrination has happened, but I remember hearing "isolationism" as a sort of bogeyman in history classes. So there's at least that for some people

[–] tree_frog@lemm.ee 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I picked up that connotation learning about world war II and how that played out.

But I don't exactly trust our education system to have gotten that message to everybody. Especially with all the noise from the white nationalists.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

You don't have to trust the education system. Pay attention to the words that media outlets use to scare people. Use those words against the enemies, because that's what scares them