Social programs take the capital (means of production) from the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor

It is blatant socialism

hahaha

alright hun

Social Democrats are just socialist whores cloacked in brotherly love

Involuntary redistribution of wealth is socialism any way you cut it

i'm curious about what your definition of 'extreme' is that it includes bernie sanders and excludes breitbart though

Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth, Social Democrats are the lowest form of politicians.

The fact breitbart pushes basic conservatism, while socialists like Bernie Sanders are outside the overton window.

Campodin probably unironically believes the military is socialist.

@ham addition i'm curious about what your definition of 'extreme' is that it includes Breitbart and excludes Bernie Sanders though

@εïз irma εïз no, the military is a basic and essential role of the state

Socialism =/= Redistribution of wealth

Marx and Proudhon vehemently disagreed over everybody getting the same equitable amount of wealth.

You're just in a bubble.

@εïз irma εïз where did I say the same?

You said that social programs are socialist because they redistribute wealth to the poor from the rich.

@Doctor Anon i never called breitbart extreme, i said that i personally considered them to be hard-right

The logical conclusion of that is that socialism means redistribution of wealth.

But Bernie not hard left?

Ironic

not really

<:YouTried:459545653723398144>

@εïз irma εïз that is not logical at all, give an argument or there is no logic

Hahahaha >Bernie is not hard left

I'm not making an argument, I'm interpreting what you said. And no, an argument is not a prerequisite for logic.

You said social programs were socialist because they redistribute wealth. Is this not what you said?

Bernie. Not hard left

What drugs are you on commie

Bernie is certainly hard left within American politics but that's not saying much considering both parties are corporate shills.

Within political philosophy as a whole he's just a left libertarian.

yeah i’ve been saying this from an international point of view

There is no "international" standard for that

i would consider bernie to be hard-left in an american context only but not compared internationally

@εïз irma εïз argument is the basis of logic

It's subjective to each country

Okay, Campodin. You made no argument. You made a statement. You have no logic.

@ham addition

Say something of substance or say nothing at all.

k

Maybe I just imagined you saying this.

I don't get enough sleep.

Involuntary redistribution of wealth is Socialism

Shut up you filthy commie

@εïз irma εïз look higher

Socialism is the proletariat owning the means of production, and more specifically in an orthodox Marxian sense the stage where the proletariat has their MOP owned on behalf of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Because I made my argument here: Social programs take the capital (means of production) from the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor

Hurr Durr they disagreed on yes or no who gives a shit the majority of people see it as Socialism

Hurr Durr that's not real Socialism

???? You said the same thing.

Anon, I have some very bad news for you. Socialism isn't whatever contrived definition Dennis Prager gave you in a five minute YouTube ad meant to slander people he disagrees with. 😢

Commie

Socialism is a coherent political theory.

I'm a fascist, I just understand words better than you do.

Socialism is not a political theory

@εïз irma εïз you are an idiot. I specifically said the redistribution of means of production.

Socialism is gay

Except that's exactly what it is.

Campodin, you are confusing means of production with fruits of labor.

@campodin excuse zexy, he's a special breed of commie

The worker doesn't own the means of production in social programs nor is the means of production "redistributed". What the fuck does this even mean?

@Doctor Anon I've noticed

socialism is definitely a political

also ginasfs

Wrong

It's gay

Campodin cannot even explain the basic ideas he's attempting to articulate, he would rather call me an idiot.

How is the MOP redistributed in social programs?

it's not great but it's not gay

@εïз irma εïз capital is the means of production. If you are taking it from one person and giving it to another it is being redistributed

says the commie who can't formulate a formidible counter argument and instead goes on the offensive

No, that's fruits of labor.

🤦

Look at the word. Means. Of. Production.

Basic example is a factory.

The capitalist controls the factory, not the worker.

The fruits of labor come from the factory.

Means of production =/= Capital

@εïз irma εïз how do they get the factory? First by having capitol

ty @εïз irma εïз

And?

How does this make sense at all?

I buy an apple with money. Is the apple money now?

No, it's an apple.

The factory is the MOP, the factory is not capital.

The factory is wealth

You have an extremely basic misunderstanding of the words you're using that could be rectified with a simple Google search.

It is directly translatable into capitol

Took me less than a second to Google that.

You are simply wrong.

how is money the means of production but not factories 🤔🤔🤔

I never said they weren't @ham addition

The entire dichotomy between socialism and capitalism is that in socialism the MOP (factories for example) are owned "socially" (by the workers) and in capitalism the MOP (factories) are owned by capitalists who extract surplus labor from the proletariat.

but money isn't the means of production

It literally has nothing to do with the fruits of labor being translatable to capital.

also spelling capital as capitol pisses me off

when ur wrong so u just call people an idiot 🔥 👌 😂 👌 🔥

I called you an idiot for saying I said the same thing

From my perspective you were saying it was the same thing, and from your perspective you were mistaken in the words you were using which caused me to misunderstand what you were actually trying to say.

You're wrong either way.

good point

Is the owner on? <@&452955165624893451>

You're assumption that means of production is only material just shows that you know nothing about being a "capitalist"/entrepreneur. They only have what you call means of production because they have the capital (happy?). By turning capital into "means of production" you are simply turning it into real wealth. That real wealth can be directly transferred back into capital. Capital and real wealth are equivalent. That apple example you gave is a means of production, aka real wealth. It can be turned right back into capital by selling it again.

If you take capital from a wealthy person you are necessarily removing his means of production (or if you prefer potential means of production). Alternatively he could take that capital, invest it, and create more capital. Thus his capital was used to produce more capital.

Yeah but that's not what socialism is. Socialism is quite succinctly the ownership of the means of production by the workers, not the redistribution of it by capitalists OR government.

IT's the same principle as when a worker gets a paycheck. If the fruits of their labor is being distributed to them by the capitalist do they then work in a socialist system?

Of course they don't.

Dictatorship of the proletariat is a distinct concept from a welfare state, succeeding a proletariat revolution that takes over the function of the state.

Means of production is similarly a distinct concept. A welfare state has the MOP firmly in the hands of capitalists.

What? Being paid for your labor is not redistribution, it is a fair trade

But it's the same as if government took money from the "capitalist" class (the wealthy) and gave it to you through social programs.

Which is already a horribly false equivalency because it's not overt redistribution of wealth, they're meant to be temporary programs most of the time.

Socialism is when everyone says "gib me dat"

Point is, you're confusing MOP which in a socialist system must be *controlled by* the workers. It says nothing about capital being translated from the result of production. That is completely irrelevant. It's literally about the workers directly controlling the MOP.

Government redistribution is not fair trade

This is just a bad false equivalency meant to make Bernie into a communist.

Who cares if it's fair trade? I'm not a socialist, it's irrelevant if I think it's fair or not.

I'm just explaining how socialists think.

The only way for social programs to be socialist is if the proletariat took over the government and established a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which case it would barely be recognizable as a welfare state.

When the people enacting social programs are a ruling class, not the workers, how is it socialist?

This is a direct contravention of the meaning of the word.

@εïз irma εïз if the mop are collectively owned then if it were to be sold each person would receive a partial amount of the amount it was sold for. Even then, the distribution of capital has been distributed. If they pool their capital to buy more mop they now all collectively own it again. You cannot separate mop from capital.

How are they "buying more MOP"? This would just turn them into a capitalist. Socialism is collective ownership, not redistribution of wealth.

Socialism is wholly incompatible with a capitalist welfare state on a foundation level.

The Nordic Model isn't socialist, Nords have said so themself.

Nords are also moving away from social programs

That doesn't actually change anything though.

The Nordic Model is a system that's been around for a few decades, they said the Nordic Model isn't socialist.

Even the "socialist" parties people talk about are self-labeled as social democrats.

Democratic socialist is a meaningless populist term.

@εïз irma εïз anything can be used as currency, the workers could trade their mop for corn and then trade the corn again for some other mop

But corn isn't MOP. <:HyperLmao:459545665517780993>

For a farmer it is

The farm that makes the corn is the MOP. If you buy a farm you become a capitalist.

No, it isn't.

Corn isn't MOP for a farmer, the farm is the MOP for the farmer.

The farm and the corn

No, just the farm. Only the farm is the MOP.

Means. Of. Production. What is involved in production.

That could be a factory or a farm.

Whomever controls the farm of the factory as an individual is, according to socialist theory, a capitalist.

If the farm is collectively owned, then it is socially owned, it is socialist.

That was the philosophical foundation for collective farms in the USSR.

They were doled out by the state which was nominally a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Anon you know it's unbecoming to passive-aggressively give me the libtard tag because I know more about something than you do.

I mean, I think I've been pretty clear I'm third position.

And clear in my distaste of liberals.

there should be a different tag for that

A farmer without seed cannot produce. The actor and the acted upon are interchangeable, logically speaking.

But they aren't interchangeable. You're being reductionist.

Thus the seed and the farm are means of production

Uhhhh. Sure. But then the individual owns the farm, and the individual is a capitalist.

It's not a socialist farm.

Presumably the farmer employs people.

If that farm was socially owned by everybody working there it would be socialist.

Same thing for a factory.

Maybe we should stick to a factory as an example so you can avoid sophistry.

the whole workers are entitled to their labor is such a dumb concept as you can trace it all the way back to the person who harvested the resources for the manufacturing

Because of fucking course the lumberjack is entitled to woodworking plant because he cut down the trees for them to use

Self-employed people already own their MOP. Why would a lumberjack own a factory? The people in the factory own the factory collectively.

Capitalism and socialism are byproducts of industrialization.

im talking about marxist ideology's idea of workers being entitled to their labor

Yeah, a lumberjack owns their labor. They cut down a tree and self it for themselves.

They aren't entitled to a factory's labor. The factoryworker in the factory is entitled to that labor.

No he owns the woodworking plant too as created the resources for them to use

It's his labor first and foremost

No, when he sells it to the factory for refinement as a raw resource it's no longer his.

There was an exchange where he gave up the entirety of his labor without a capitalist as a medium.

Although Bordiga will tell you that's not real socialism because there's capital involved.

Marxism breaks down as even remotely logical past the state socialism stage.

>no state

thats a joke

It's what Marx wanted.

Correct

he wanted society to organize on confederate lines as communes, which is the root of communism.

Which is clearly an issue while imperalism and other states exist

Which is why socialism in one country is anti-Marxist.

Bukharin and Trotsky were true communists.

True, which is why it's great they failed

The Comintern was just an exercise of Soviet influence.

There's quite a serious reason why Ukraine and Catalonia failed compared to the USSR

it does matter when studying socialism tho to understand what you're talking about

you can't just say "it sucks"

Socialism is fine when it's not rooted in egalitarianism, marxism or complete redistribution of wealth

"both suck" isn't very informative

egalitarianism is the only part of socialism with any merit

>egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is slave morality.

Yes lets ignore all of biology and merit because retards deserve the same vote as 200 IQ mega geniuses

If you can't accept some people are better than others in every way then you deny reality

you can't be better than someone ontologically

and what's wrong with a little slave morality

Because it is resentiment of what makes humans strong and progress, rather than morality based on reality.

When you are by all means more qualified to speak on an issue you deserve the authority to overtake the opinion of someone with zero merit in the subject

sure

That is anti-egalitarian

They have been treated differently

They now have a right or opportunity above the pleb with no knowledge or authority

thats a good thing

well what do you mean by overtake?

I think reducing egalitarianism to everybody has equal merit is disingenuous.

yeah not everyone is equally as good at everything

the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

Seems like it aims for complete social equality

You don't have the same rights or opportunities as someone with higher merit

This is the reason I watch anime.

We need a "Dont know, need more information" option in these polls.

Not gonna lie, I'm pretty ignorant about certain topics.

I just don’t answer the ones I know nothing about

You don’t have to answer every one

Social programs violate private property, turning it into the property of the state. Thus being collectively owned by all and distributed as the state sees fit.

Theoretically the state could tax all your wealth and then redistribute it at will so long as it was legal.

Bernie Sanders even started in one interview he wasn't against 100% taxation

is it racist to have racial preferences for dating?

@O. paxarbolis no but it makes you shallow

@O. paxarbolis no it's a good thing

me: yes, but who tf cares, people are too scared of being called racist

I'm making the case that in practicality there is no distinction @Deleted User

Then refute what I said

karl marx wasn't a fan of social welfare

so ideologically they're completely separate

@Deleted User and state ownership is collective ownership, I already addressed this

i didn't see that explanation

What the state owns is collectively owned by all. The state under their system has the right to tax everything. Meaning that the state theoretically can or does own everything.

yeah well the means of production tax isn't a common thing in social democracies

@Deleted User I don't know their system or how it is set up

@Deleted User I'd rather not talk about that as I'm not knowledgeable enough to discuss it.

"I don't really know anything about this topic but I have strong opinions and if you disagree with me you're an idiot." Surely you realize you're setting yourself up for failure.

My argument addresses specifically social democrats, I don't know enough about their system

I already did, repeatedly and thoroughly.

But I have nothing better to do with my holiday.

Bernie Sanders is a supporter of the Nordic Model.

Bernie Sanders doesn't understand the Nordic model

You don't either though. How can you make that statement authoritatively?

Because he has made factually inaccurate statements about it

Yeah, he doesn't understand it at all. Progressive taxes are actually terrible for the economy, which is why the Nordic Model is regressive.

The theft of the socialist label and anti-rich sentiment is just populist appeal.

Norway has more business freedom than America does.

@εïз irma εïз on that I'd agree

They're very much capitalist countries that use the same welfare programs you claim would make them socialist.

So you're making contradictory statements.

No I'm not

<:WhatDid:459545655527079946> <:YouDo:459545654058811392> <:ToMyDrink:459545654323314710>

Why not?

First off, socialism is not wealth distribution. Secondly, wealth distribution is not giving MOP to the people who receive the money in said distribution scheme. Thirdly, you cannot use point #1 to argue that point #2 is socialist for that reason.

If you chose not to read my explanation of this above then I can understand why you're still misunderstanding.

I never claimed the Nordic model was socialist. I claimed social programs are socialist