Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Having lived in the capital of capitalism my entire life, I can assure you that this evil is pretty monumental, which is why I doubt socialism would be worse than the rampant unchecked greed I see here every single day 
I get why people feel that way, we obviously form our opinions based on what happens to us individually…but I hear way, WAY more stories about victims of the capitalism machine than those who’ve suffered under socialism, it really seems like the ratio skews heavily in one direction. Then again, the same logic behind “Move to another country if you think yours is so bad” is a knife that cuts both ways; would love to see someone who hates socialism come to America, I’d bet money they start seeing the follies of capitalism real fast after they’re forced into wildly underpaid manual labor while watching their bosses add another zero to the end of their net worth
To suffer under socialism, you need an incompetent government and/or an authoritarian regime pulling the strings. To suffer under capitalism, you just need to let it do its natural thing.
Bit of a key difference there
Bit of a key difference there
when you suffer under socialism is because of anything but socialism got it
if this is true show me a non suffering socialist society
Once again, socialism is an umbrella term. Majority of attempts to implement socialism were after revolutions or another forcible takeovers of government. It always leads to internal power struggles and civil wars. It would make no difference if you replace socialism with other ideologies or economic systems when it comes to shitty government and authoritarianism. The fallacy is pretending socialism and suffering are symbi like authoritarianism and facism. If that was true, the China wouldn't have lifted 800M people out of poverty with their socialist policies.
They suffered under authoritarianism.
They suffered under authoritarianism.
You can turn that umbrella into a tent, socialism is still the shared ownership of the means of production and a centrally planned economy.
China has a hybrid system that worked because greedy American corps outsourced their entire industry to save 30% margin costs.
Without America first becoming rich, there is no industrialized China.
China has a hybrid system that worked because greedy American corps outsourced their entire industry to save 30% margin costs.
Without America first becoming rich, there is no industrialized China.
The New York Time's frauds that pushed the Weapons of Mass Destruction Lie must be crying tears of joy to know the Times is still supporting terrorists.
Remind me how many US Troops have died in the Middle East since the Time's despicable lies?
This is a historic thing for them.
We would actually be better off with Big News Morgans...
[automerge]1767576051[/automerge]
Marxist-lenism necessitates a one part rule and so does maoism, authoritarianism is a feature of it not something different.
China actually only improved their economy after opening up their markets to the west, aka “capitalizing”. Do you attribute that to capitalism as well?
I don’t associate all socialist policies to authoritarianism, but a core tenet of socialism is the abolishment of private property and capital owners, and authoritarianism is required for that.
[automerge]1767652170[/automerge]
It’s becoming quite clear that Van doesn’t understand any of these terms and just thinks “socialism is when government does stuff”
China actually only improved their economy after opening up their markets to the west, aka “capitalizing”. Do you attribute that to capitalism as well?
I don’t associate all socialist policies to authoritarianism, but a core tenet of socialism is the abolishment of private property and capital owners, and authoritarianism is required for that.
[automerge]1767652170[/automerge]
It’s becoming quite clear that Van doesn’t understand any of these terms and just thinks “socialism is when government does stuff”
A nonsense. We all have capitals. Perhaps you are talking about the dictatorship of the proleteriat and stripping people who privately owns the means of production from their power. But this doesn't necessarily involve killing.
I don't know why you are talking about that. Do you exploit people and are somehow afraid?
Not necessarily centralized. Socialism would actually be decentralized. You are talking about communism, as the state of transition between some call a capitalist society and some other call a socialist ones (but sometimes the names change)
Authoritarism is not a feature in this case. It's a possible byproduct. Just like any other societies. Trump is authoritarian at the moment for ex.
Not necessarily no. There are various ways to achieve a stateless and shared society
I don't know why you are talking about that. Do you exploit people and are somehow afraid?
Not necessarily centralized. Socialism would actually be decentralized. You are talking about communism, as the state of transition between some call a capitalist society and some other call a socialist ones (but sometimes the names change)
Authoritarism is not a feature in this case. It's a possible byproduct. Just like any other societies. Trump is authoritarian at the moment for ex.
Not necessarily no. There are various ways to achieve a stateless and shared society