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
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...
Post automatically merged:
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.
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.
Post automatically merged:
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
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
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
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
Post automatically merged:
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
"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.
"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?
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
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
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.
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.