• tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    There’s a tension between socialism and internationalism. If you’re going to tax the wealthy to give money to the poor, you run the risk of the wealthy leaving the country and more poor people arriving. There’s also the issue of many voters not being super solidaric with those who are not like them. In a sense, all socialism ends up being national by necessity. I don’t think that’s the worst thing ever. The policy combination of welfare and tight borders (or at least a citizenship that’s hard to get) does not inevitably lead to concentration camps.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      There’s no tension. They can leave but they can’t take everything with them. And even what they can take they can only do it for so long before they run out of places to run to.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      One big reason you need self-sufficency within individual socialist districts. Taxation is just a tool to rebalance the scales. But at the end of the day, socialists need sovereignty - control over their natural resources and freedom from outside economic extortion.

      That doesn’t preclude internationalism. But it does preclude imperialism.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Other way around. All socialism must be globalist or you’re simply exporting the exploitation. The fleeing of the oligarchy is irrelevant to actual socialism, as their stolen wealth should have been seized, and is only a problem for liberal welfare state models like social democracy.