>>109938208>No, it isn't. Having more people dependant on the government for handouts is a step towards increasing the power of said government.That's just a fantasy sold to you in order to facilitate your oppression.
First, look at countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, which built some of the most expansive welfare states in the world (universal healthcare, unemployment insurance, pensions, child allowances). By your logic, those should have slid toward centralized authoritarian control. Instead, they consistently rank among the strongest liberal democracies, with high civil liberties, strong rule of law, competitive elections, and robust private sectors. Social programs increased redistribution; they did not eliminate pluralism or concentrate unchecked executive power.
Consider the United States during and after New Deal under Franklin D. Roosevelt. Programs like Social Security dramatically expanded federal social spending. Yet the constitutional structure remained intact, opposition parties continued to win elections, and the Supreme Court continued to strike down federal actions. The expansion of welfare programs did not morph the U.S. into a dictatorship. In fact, many historians argue that stabilizing economic insecurity helped prevent more extreme political movements from gaining traction during the Great Depression.
Now compare that with regimes that became genuinely authoritarian. Adolf Hitler did not rise to power by promising expansive welfare dependency; he rose through nationalist mobilization, suppression of opposition, paramilitary violence, and the dismantling of democratic constraints. Augusto Pinochet did not build his regime on mass social handouts; he consolidated power through military force and repression. Authoritarian expansion historically correlates much more strongly with erosion of institutional checks, control of media, suppression of dissent, and executive consolidation, not with the existence of unemployment insurance or public healthcare.
The “dependency equals power” argument overlooks reciprocity. In democratic systems, governments that provide benefits remain electorally accountable to the very people receiving them. Welfare states are not unilateral power grabs; they are policy choices repeatedly reaffirmed (or modified) through elections. If dependency automatically translated into permanent power, we wouldn’t see alternation of parties in high-spending democracies.
So the historical pattern is clear: social programs increase redistribution without increasing authoritarian control. The real historical red flags for expanding state power are things such as what the Republican party is doing: attacks on institutional constraints, pluralism, and civil liberties.
> I should have realised I was talking to someone who was both stupid and insane. I suppose otherwise you couldn't be a leftist, right? Rather comical considering the origins of the terms left and rightWhat I am saying follows the origins of the terms left and right. The problem is that the US is so deep into right-wing ideology that many citizens have lost view of where they are.
> Go ahead and describe how your petplay fantasy is wholesome for the classWhy should it be "wholesome"? The point is that you're acting like a cat that's wholly dependent on a system that you neither appreciate nor understand. Meanwhile, people who actually understand what's happening are ensuring that you're as happy even as you scratch them.
> Do you think this line has any weight coming out of a propagandist like you? You're not even ashamed of how your fallacious your way of thinking is.
>The only good thing about leftists is that you create a delusional hell in your own heads when you can't objectively view how politics works.The fact that you take satisfaction in believing your political opponents are delusional says a lot about your mindset. You have been convinced that the very people that help you are your enemies, and that kind of antagonism is self-destructive. It narrows your ability to understand opposing arguments, reinforces confirmation bias, traps you in a feedback loop where contempt replaces curiosity. It weakens your political reasoning, because you stop testing your views against serious counterarguments.
