Controversial General Political Discussion

[Roo]

The textbook definitions of it???

Just your definition

for example I am for

A national health service
Progressive taxes, specially on the rich
Strong workers rights
Regulations
Government stake in energy industries

what would you call me
[automerge]1767653024[/automerge]

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?

I’m talking about previous murder of capital owners in societies that transitioned into socialism, socialism requires the remove all of capital owners and private ownership. It’s not just the elites who lose their stuff. Read more about socialist revolutions

 

[Uncle Van]

Just your definition

for example I am for

A national health service
Progressive taxes, specially on the rich
Strong workers rights
Regulations
Government stake in energy industries

what would you call me

"My" definition is the actual definition of socialism which is, copy and paste:

"Socialism is an economic and political system advocating for collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. It aims for a more egalitarian society by ensuring wealth is distributed equitably, often through social ownership of major industries and government-provided services like healthcare and education. Different forms exist, ranging from state control to cooperative or community ownership, with variations in market involvement. "

How am I supposed to know what you are with just a portion of your beliefs and what you stand for? With that alone, you have socialistic stances. I never once advocated for a socialist government or said that socialism is inherently good or bad.

I said that the idea that socialism in any form is bad, especially when using authoritarian regimes to prove it, is extremely flawed. I repeatedly brought up examples of socialist policy benefitting the people by restricting and regulating capitalism.

 

[Roo]

"My" definition is the actual definition of socialism which is, copy and paste:

"Socialism is an economic and political system advocating for collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. It aims for a more egalitarian society by ensuring wealth is distributed equitably, often through social ownership of major industries and government-provided services like healthcare and education. Different forms exist, ranging from state control to cooperative or community ownership, with variations in market involvement. "

How am I supposed to know what you are with just a portion of your beliefs and what you stand for? With that alone, you have socialistic stances. I never once advocated for a socialist government or said that socialism is inherently good or bad.

I said that the idea that socialism in any form is bad, especially when using authoritarian regimes to prove it, is extremely flawed. I repeatedly brought up examples of socialist policy benefitting the people by restricting and regulating capitalism.

You realize, literally what we’ve been saying it’s here?

often through social ownership of major industries and government-provided services like healthcare and education. Different forms exist, ranging from state control to cooperative or community ownership, with variations in market involvement. "

This literally tells you that it’s for the abolishment of capital and private property lmao. How exactly does one get there? Oh yeah authoritarianism

it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Unfettered socialism just ends finishing in a poor anarcho-communism society. So like the capitalism you mentioned it does need regulating

funny you mentioned China, because like Vietnam they went from being full communist to opening their markets eventually

 

[Uncle Van]

You realize, literally what we’ve been saying it’s here?


This literally tells you that it’s for the abolishment of capital and private property lmao. How exactly does one get there? Oh yeah authoritarianism

it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Unfettered socialism just ends finishing in a poor anarcho-communism society. So like the capitalism you mentioned it does need regulating

funny you mentioned China, because like Vietnam they went from being full communist to opening their markets eventually

I again ask what point you are trying to make? You keep screaming things at me that I never denied.

 

[Roo]

I again ask what point you are trying to make? You keep screaming things at me that I never denied.

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

To suffer under socialism you don’t need an incompetent or authoritarian regime. You let it run wild like capitalism and eventually you’re in whatever utopia Lenin wanted. Except in the real word you’re dirt poor and starving

 

[Logiko]

I’m talking about previous murder of capital owners in societies that transitioned into socialism, socialism requires the remove all of capital owners and private ownership. It’s not just the elites who lose their stuff. Read more about socialist revolutions

A few things to precise here:

1. No society moved toward a stateless and classless system (what would be socialism here). It was always prevented by force by other capitalist nation, notably the US or through international sanctions and international isolations.

2. The transition toward socialism (a stateless and classless society) doesn't mean the disappearance of private property. It means that no people will privately owns the means of production and instead people will share the means of production. There will therefore be no monopoly or people with the ability to exploit others.

You will still be able to own objects and stuff. This will not go away.

3. A revolution can take different forms. Authoritarism is not the only option and is not similar to the dictatorship of the proleteriat which is also, one of the option. There are others. I myself, for ex, would prefer a revolution from the bottom rather than the top.

 

[Uncle Van]

To suffer under socialism you don’t need an incompetent or authoritarian regime. You let it run wild like capitalism and eventually you’re in whatever utopia Lenin wanted. Except in the real word you’re dirt poor and starving

You don't have to be authoritarian to implement socialist policy.......you keep using examlles of socialism at its worst, typically when it is pushed by dictators.
[automerge]1767654199[/automerge]

A few things to precise here:

1. No society moved toward a stateless and classless system (what would be socialism here). It was always prevented by force by other capitalist nation, notably the US or through international sanctions and international isolations.

2. The transition toward socialism (a stateless and classless society) doesn't mean the disappearance of private property. It means that no people will privately owns the means of production and instead people will share the means of production. There will therefore be no monopoly or people with the ability to exploit others.

You will still be able to own objects and stuff. This will not go away.

3. A revolution can take different forms. Authoritarism is not the only option and is not similar to the dictatorship of the proleteriat which is also, one of the option. There are others. I myself, for ex, would prefer a revolution from the bottom rather than the top.

You're talking about communism, a type of socialism.

 

[Roo]

You don't have to be authoritarian to implement socialist policy.......you keep using examlles of socialism at its worst, typically when it is pushed by dictators.
.

and you don’t have to be exploitative to implement a capitalist policy… yet here you are saying capitalist unfettered leads to suffering while socialist doesn’t?
[automerge]1767654386[/automerge]

A few things to precise here:

1. No society moved toward a stateless and classless system (what would be socialism here). It was always prevented by force by other capitalist nation, notably the US or through international sanctions and international isolations.

2. The transition toward socialism (a stateless and classless society) doesn't mean the disappearance of private property. It means that no people will privately owns the means of production and instead people will share the means of production. There will therefore be no monopoly or people with the ability to exploit others.

You will still be able to own objects and stuff. This will not go away.

3. A revolution can take different forms. Authoritarism is not the only option and is not similar to the dictatorship of the proleteriat which is also, one of the option. There are others. I myself, for ex, would prefer a revolution from the bottom rather than the top.

Wait, do you think only rich people own business? You understand what I meant by private property right?

Anyways you said people usually blame tragedies under socialism that were caused by capitalism. I gave you a direct example of one occurring under a socialist transition. Would you blame their murder on capitalism?

 

[Logiko]

You're talking about communism, a type of socialism.

The problem is that the names are used and overused. It's difficult to say "I'm talking about that" because everyone has different usage and definition. Here to be more precise, I'm talking about a broad classless and stateless and decentralized society that would arrive after a form of revolution after capitalism.

I think it's enough in a debate with the right.

 

[Roo]

The problem is that the names are used and overused. It's difficult to say "I'm talking about that" because everyone has different usage and definition. Here to be more precise, I'm talking about a broad classless and stateless and decentralized society that would arrive after a form of revolution after capitalism.

I think it's enough in a debate with the right.

They were mostly interchangeable until Leninism took off

 

[Logiko]

Wait, do you think only rich people own business? You understand what I meant by private property right?

As long as we are talking about the same thing, there should be no problem. Put aside "rich" and "not rich". We should rather talk here about those who own and those who don't own the means of production.

Owning the means of production, means having the power to establish rules that will eventually lead to exploitation. As such. This system must go.

Private property as "I own a watch", will not go away.

Anyways you said people usually blame tragedies under socialism that were caused by capitalism. I gave you a direct example of one occurring under a socialist transition. Would you blame their murder on capitalism?

It depends on the context. Would you call the killing of a resistance against an oppressor "murder" ? Violence is always contextual. Precise me the context of these violence and we will see.

They were mostly interchangeable until Leninism took off

That's because Marxism is mostly a reading grid on the world. The interesting part is the way the knowledge resulting will be applied.

 

[Uncle Van]

and you don’t have to be exploitative to implement a capitalist policy… yet here you are saying capitalist unfettered leads to suffering while socialist doesn’t?

Exactly.

Capitalism by design is to support the owner class and help those with capital extract capital from others, creating more poverty. A pure capitalist society means unfiltered free market with no government interfering with the people. That system has failed miserably, and there's a reason why capitalism has been modified so much with socialistic regulation and restriction.

Capitalism in its purest form creates the same suffering as authoritarian-backed socialism.

I never once said that socialism cannot cause suffering. I blatantly said, numerous times, that using dictatorships to imply that socialism in any form is bad is stupid. I also said that socialism needs authoritarianism to cause mass suffering, because thats what every example of socialist suffering shows.

 

[Roo]

I also said that socialism needs authoritarianism to cause mass suffering, because thats what every example of socialist suffering shows.

Because you conflate socialist policies with socialism as a whole, yet don’t do the same with capitalism.

you don’t see a flaw here?
[automerge]1767655386[/automerge]

It depends on the context. Would you call the killing of a resistance against an oppressor "murder" ? Violence is always contextual. Precise me the context of these violence and we will see.

Yes because in a Marxist world view a small gas station owner is oppressing their employees.

 

[CoC: Color of Clowns]

https://theintercept.com/2026/01/03/minnesota-fraud-video-somalis-nick-shirley-source/

Unnamed Source in Viral Minnesota Somali Fraud Video Is Right-Wing Lobbyist Who Called Muslims “Demons”

David Hoch, identified only by first name in Nick Shirley’s video, got info for his anti-Somali campaign from a GOP state House staffer.

“EVERY Somali in MN is engaged in fraud. ALL of them,” Hoch posted on the now-deleted Instagram account.

In November, he posted, “Even the Blacks have had enough of the demon Muslims.”


You mean the real frauds... were lying racist white bois sucking up to the US Blubberment, and lying to try to get in good favor with Daddy Diddling Donnie? I'D BE SURPRISED, IF I WAS DUMB, RATHER THAN JUST NUTTIER THAN RAGNIR

When you trust liars, your intelligence suffers. Most polite way I can say it.

 

[Natalija]

Did I say that? Did I say that I'd rather live in Venezuela? Where did you derive that insinuation from my post from, Nat? I certainly can't find the thread connecting those two ideas. "If capitalism is so fucking good then why don't you go give living in Somalia a shot. I bet you would've loved the Weimar Republic." That's my equivalent of your argument

That was not your argument, but "capitalism isn't great" is just empty words. There's nothing better that we know of.

 

[Natalija]

Without these sanctions and without US's interventions, Venezuela could have become a much better place.

Lmao

 

[Natalija]

You don't have to be authoritarian to implement socialist policy.......you keep using examlles of socialism at its worst, typically when it is pushed by dictators.

We've been over this yesterday, Van...

 

[Uncle Van]

Because you conflate socialist policies with socialism as a whole, yet don’t do the same with capitalism.

you don’t see a flaw here?

Nope. In a socialist society, you will have to adopt authoritarianism to bring about capitalism by force after overthrowing the government and creating massive instability. Same for bringing about socialism by force in a capitalist society.

Authoritarianism isn't symbiotic with capitalism or socialism. It is a matter of circumstance. Almost every attempt to bring about socialism were through chaos, and socialist society had to deal with aftermath of great political and economic instability.

There is a reason why nations are adopting hybrid mixes of socialism and capitalism, many resembling social democracies aka baby capitalism.
[automerge]1767656324[/automerge]

We've been over this yesterday, Van...

Is socialism in every form bad? I don't recall that being answered.

 

[Logiko]

Lmao

I don't seem to believe me here.

There's nothing better that we know of.

Socialism is much better. At least on paper. Much more scientific, much more ethical, much more human. It's the rationnal option overall.

 

[Natalija]

Is socialism in every form bad? I don't recall that being answered.

I don't seem to believe me here.


Socialism is much better. At least on paper. Much more scientific, much more ethical, much more human. It's the rationnal option overall.

I'm going to try one more time here;


Every example of socialism, aka economic system with social ownership of the means of production, is shit. There's no good example in existence.

USSR, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Vietnam etc. etc. The countries which recovered from that of course switched to capitalism, including China.