Whenever someone calls something “socialist”, ask them to explain socialism to you and watch their argument fold like a wet blanket. They usually have no idea. In fact, many would love a healthy dose of Northern European socialism in their lives, as long as you call it “Owningthelibism” or something.
Yes, Nazi’s, the very trustworthy group that would not lie about calling themselves socialists for propoganda and popularity reasons (post ww1 German public had popular sentiment with socialist ideas). The same ones that went out of their way to then kill Jews, communists, socialists, and other individuals that believed in socialistic ideals.
I’m also sure that the democratic peoples republic of Korea has very fair and free democratic elections!
If they continue arguing about it after that then I know they’re a lost cause
Concentration of power with those “social services”, making people pay higher taxes many times for unfair reasons. Socialism has all the power on the State with no or little room for individuals themselves to make their businesses and companies, companies that’ll thrive will be friends with the king and create a monopoly in that country. Putting everything in the hands of the State is a recipe of disaster.
Socialism has all the power on the State with no or little room for individuals themselves to make their businesses and companies, companies that’ll thrive will be friends with the king and create a monopoly in that country.
China has tons of small and big businesses and it’s still socialist.
When you say “no room to make business.” That’s where I think the fundamental disagreement is rooted. Socialism is inherently built on the idea that what you are building in a capitalist system is exploiting labour. The people you bring in should have ownership of the company too in a socialist system, not the state. What you’re describing is a communist dictatorship. State programs should be run by the state just as they are in most countries now. You certainly don’t want companies running your government.
Yeah but they’re still linked. Like, yeah socialism has nothing to do with welfare programmes. However in the real world where a government is involved government welfare programmes are the most obvious tools that the government uses to enact socialism. Talking about one leads into talking about the other. Unless we’re talking anarchy.
While that’s technically true. It’s not truly accurate. Considering that at the time a lot of these terms were coined. Healthcare was either nonexistent or a much different thing. Nationalizing basic needs makes a lot of sense in, and is often an agenda of socialist and communist systems.
Just because they don’t match or evolved past those archaic definitions doesn’t make you more right or them less ultimately. We might large that they should go further. But there’s no true Scotsman Naval gazing is only counterproductive.
Whenever someone calls something “socialist”, ask them to explain socialism to you and watch their argument fold like a wet blanket. They usually have no idea. In fact, many would love a healthy dose of Northern European socialism in their lives, as long as you call it “Owningthelibism” or something.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
I had multiple times experiences like that with American redditors.
They would say that socialism is nazism because National Socialism.
So yeah, didn’t know really what to answer to such level of ignorance.
“Learn how German Komposita work, you illiterate dipshit!” is a pretty straightforward and effective reply.
I’ve always countered that with the following :
If they continue arguing about it after that then I know they’re a lost cause
Capitalism with social programs is better than without, but that’s not socialism. It’s just not neoliberalism.
🤓
Ok so you posted a random image of a cartoon teenager. Is this supposed to convey an idea in any way?
What makes countries where the State has high power fail then?
Not socialism.
Concentration of power with those “social services”, making people pay higher taxes many times for unfair reasons. Socialism has all the power on the State with no or little room for individuals themselves to make their businesses and companies, companies that’ll thrive will be friends with the king and create a monopoly in that country. Putting everything in the hands of the State is a recipe of disaster.
China has tons of small and big businesses and it’s still socialist.
That’s literally what the Chinese flag stands for, but these chunderheads would never know it.
“Bu-bu-but they’re a bunch of [insert super racist remarks about Asian ppl]”
Chinese companies are basically extensions of the government.
When you say “no room to make business.” That’s where I think the fundamental disagreement is rooted. Socialism is inherently built on the idea that what you are building in a capitalist system is exploiting labour. The people you bring in should have ownership of the company too in a socialist system, not the state. What you’re describing is a communist dictatorship. State programs should be run by the state just as they are in most countries now. You certainly don’t want companies running your government.
Tell me you don’t understand what the word socialism means without telling me you don’t understand what the word socialism means.
The fuck
deleted by creator
Bless the cold war brainwash with loads if patriotism on USA citizens. It seems to still be working.
There are “socialists” running around who don’t know what socialism is. Hint: it has nothing to do with government-subsidized services.
Yeah but they’re still linked. Like, yeah socialism has nothing to do with welfare programmes. However in the real world where a government is involved government welfare programmes are the most obvious tools that the government uses to enact socialism. Talking about one leads into talking about the other. Unless we’re talking anarchy.
Attica! Attica!
While that’s technically true. It’s not truly accurate. Considering that at the time a lot of these terms were coined. Healthcare was either nonexistent or a much different thing. Nationalizing basic needs makes a lot of sense in, and is often an agenda of socialist and communist systems.
Just because they don’t match or evolved past those archaic definitions doesn’t make you more right or them less ultimately. We might large that they should go further. But there’s no true Scotsman Naval gazing is only counterproductive.