You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] Horrux ago  (edited ago)

"Social Democracies" as you so pedantly call them, are simply DEMOCRACIES with SOCIALIST programs and leanings in their governance structures.

But "some people" confuse hardcore, pure, even extremist socialism with ANY kind of socialism. I guess subtlety can't be learned? Or if it could, they would be the ones failing at it?

Bottom line is, most civilized countries have socialist measures in their governments, without enough of those, you have either totalitarianism on the government's part, or universal slavery on the "capitalist" part. Guess where the USA is headed to? =D

1
0

[–] irelandLost 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Nope. Providing public services is not the same thing as socialising the means of production. Police force, public roads, public education, even public healthcare are not socialist systems because these are not really productive areas of the economy. Socialism is when productive areas of an economy are brought into collective control via the state. So the Norwegian oil industry would be an example of socialism, but the British NHS is not.

0
0

[–] Horrux ago  (edited ago)

And this is where you fail. You see, making production a public enterprise is not THE ONLY aspect of socialism. The FUNDAMENTAL (not simply operational, but actually fundamental) tenet of socialism is to diminish inequity.

Socialist extremism requires that all means of production be made public and everything be split evenly, which of course never happens. Obviously, the major problem with such an ideology is the removal of any positive incentive for doing more, or doing better.

But of course making means of production public is not the only way to even things out. It really isn't a way to accomplish that goal anyway. It's simply a way to make things as inefficient as possible. So your definition of "socialism", be it justified by shittypedia or whatever else, is wrong, it is obtuse and it fails at understanding the underlying philosophy of the programs and structures that are called by that name. Or not.

Of course, muritards and shillypedia will want you to think in the absolute and retarded terms you so proudly spout out, and not actually REASON about the fundamental tenets, their ramifications and applications. Because of course there is an agenda. Make murikkkans st00pid = good. Make them uninformed, disinformed, make them believe made-up BS! After all, they couldn't possibly be allowed to build the strongest military force and not be the most brainwashed people, because then they might use said military force for something else than what (((they))) want. Nah, let's keep the slogan "land of the free" and fluoride the water to make them real dumb so they believe it, and then (((we))) can do whatever we want and sell it to them as "freedom" and "prosperity". But I digress.

If you entirely deregulate a capitalist economy, within a very few generations it will be indistinguishable from slavery, because that's exactly what it will be: Super-rich Big Boss, under-bosses teetering on the edge of being rich and very motivated to keep squeezing their underlings who have barely enough for lodging, food and whatever else is REQUIRED to keep them going without revolting. Think REAL HARD (if you can), but I mean REALLY STUDY the evolution of the inflation-adjusted purchasing power of the median family over the last 60 years and see the trend: that's exactly where your darling "capitalism" is headed : MAXIMUM INEQUITY.

Moreover, it is worth remembering that LABOR is what creates VALUE, not capital.­ Sure, capital POTENTIATES the power of work, and as such, he who provides the capital should be allowed to share in the additional wealth creation that his capital allows. But not to STEAL IT ALL, which is exactly what your darling "capitalism" does.

Enter moderate socialism, where the top earners pay more taxes and the lowest earners don't pay any, and where the state provides a level of protection against the savagery of capitalism. Many nations have had such a balanced capitalist economy and moderate socialist (not ABSOLUTE EXTREMIST socialist) governments and have developed societies where life is good and happy.

But power corrupts and (((they))) are doing their thing, so even those nations are now falling prey to the disease of ever-increasing inequity. And it's not just the "one has more than the other" type of inequity. That's totally fine and needs to stay. It's the "one has a hella lot more than the other because he takes what is not his to take from the other who is then destitute". Again, power corrupts. Will you argue that it doesn't?