You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Socialist Poverty Formula
First of all kiddo, Socialism isn't when the government does stuff. Just because governments does stuff means not that they are Socialist. You would be calling everyone, including Reagan that did stuff in the government so the government could do less, Socialist.
Second of all kiddo, Socialism isn't Social Democracy. Social Democracy is the Capitalist defense mechanism against Marxists, Anarchists and any other sub-type of radical Socialists. The only reason Europe had the big Social Democracy boom was in response to the USSR's existence, workers on the verge of revolts and the USA providing funds (remember the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine?) to these countries to rebuild. If one of the three hadn't existed, than Europe would be on a whole different course but eventually subside to Social Democracy because of how pecked up their economy was from WWII.
Third of all kiddo, you clearly don't understand that people inherently like to do shit. Because humans are antsy little pecknecks in nature and Socialism allows that to happen in a higher stage than what Capitalism can offer right now. Workers in Socialism don't make products on Revenue or on Capital (difference between Unproductive and Productive Labor, respectively, in a Capitalist system is the former doesn't reproduce Capitalism in a M-C-M' fashion and the latter adds on to the economy and can be reinvested back into it). They, the workers in Socialism, make products since it comes to benefit THEIR GREED and their satisfaction, in Capitalism they only benefit the Capitalist at the end of the day.
Fourth of all kiddo, the "private" economy, or really the Capitalist economy, is what is being superseded from existence and replaced with a Socialist economy in Socialism. Anyways, wealth is useless even for Capitalist dictum, since wealth has to many far-flinging connotations like being "gross wealth" or "luxury wealth" or even "having a lot wealth." All three principally disagree with each other on many levels of the proper realm they belong to and the level of empirical evidence. Even then, "wealth" isn't inherently tied to the "private" economy since Capital has to be invested outwards to the State because that Unproductive labor based on Revenue still makes a decent chunk of change for the Capitalists when contracted to get products assembled for the State.
Fifth of all kiddo, mass murder is as inherent in Socialism as it was under Feudalism, Slave Societies and Capitalist nations. Just because one contingent element seems to be repeating in each of that type of society means not that it inherently has it, that's just a simple problem of induction right there. Anywho, you need to pull heavily cited stats that don't contradict with existing stats to prove your point on mass murders. Because if a study has many holes in it, it is not worth my time and equally not yours either.
Sixth and finally of all, if a country deals with Capital continually, produces for profit and Capital and the ruling class is the bourgeoisie (the Capitalists), then I am sorry kiddo but that ain't Socialism and you know that to be true. Otherwise I might as well call Britain during post-Thatcher Socialist because they scaled back some of Thatcher's privatization projects and still kept NHS which by your dictum is ridiculously Socialist even though Capitalists still own the Means of Production, utilize Capital to enforce their position in society and the fact that even stupid Social Democrats like Corbyn are being lauded as demons by the Tories and LibDems.
Kiddo, your post is bad and you should feel bad. And I don't expect you to agree with any of this, but I will attack you for such. Anyways, call me a Liberal, it's out of my control if you have dense definitions for words and you think that because someone doesn't do Conservative actions to all the way where we have radicals that don't want markets to dictate their lives that they're liberal. Just do everyone a solid and read Marx, otherwise if you're going to reverberate Wikipedia arguments don't talk about Socialism and tell us what a Socialist is and isn't just like how people in general who aren't doctors don't tell doctors what they should and shouldn't do.
All states are socialist. Forcible transfer of wealth is state socialism. I haven't seen a modern state that does not use the forcible transfer of wealth in its funding schemes, so I have not seen a modern state that is not socialist. All of these modern socialist states are only different by degrees: the degree to which they are willing to steal from people, and the degree to which they restrict people's freedoms.
If you want to demonstrate non-state, 100% voluntary, large-scale socialism, I would love to see it tried.