yes so revolution

reset the system

no they wont become couch potatoes because they only are allowed shares if *they are actually working for the company*

and yea, youll get higher inflation than 1.7% or whatever it is now

but in a system where wages are higher and increase faster

thats fine

it only hurts old people because savings are depleted faster

but guess what

its socialism

we have stronger pensions

okay but you dont get how government revenues work in socialism do you

lets start from the top

you know what happens when you nationalise big companies?

*governments control its profits*

and since youll have a shitload of SOEs, you dont actually have to increase debt to get more government revenue, *you will naturally have more revenue from the SOEs*

when i refer to higher wages, *im talking about higher wages with respect to inflation*

you know why competition is good?

right on, but guess what

in market socialism, *not all businesses have to be government owned*

ie *competition still exists*

you heard of co-operatives bud? for a start, but also in demsoc, you can allow for SMEs to be privately owned

and when the SMEs become large enough, you mandate mutualisation or nationalisation

can i just reiterate a very simple point

when the government owns a company, the entire population shares in its profits

a private company shares its profits *amongst a small band of shareholders*

why the fuck, are you arguing for such a system that keeps profits segregated?

unless youre actually wealthy, *you dont benefit from this system*

did i say everyone deserves the same amount?

you know market socialism has inequality built into it right?

you dont actually, since you cited that as a reason

thats a principle of communism, not DemSoc

am i arguing for paying managers (ceos and board directors) less?

no i think that meme is debunked

im not actually arguing for board members to be paid less, theyre workers too

my issue is that shareholders do *nothing but provide capital and vote on directors* yet they take *most of the profits*

yes, and im happy for those who take risk to be compensated

but in the case where it leads to an outcome of ridiculous inequality, we need to impose restrictions to cap the snowball effect

some inequality is good, absolutely

unlimited inequality is indefensible

so the first place to look is the shareholders

"muh people are muh people"
OR
"muh people are better than yours"

case closed

i swear most racists have had like 1 bad experience with the other race and were like *nope, never again*

are you aware that higher carbon concentrations are leading to ocean acidification along with ocean warming?

do you not recognise this will affect marine species?

how about all the ocean pollution? toxic waste and plastic dumping?

smooth-brained take bro

how much wealth do you have? @lemonsaw

all euro countries are communist hence they all have UBI

you cant just lie this openly man

its simply a fact that all of europe is a communist circle jerk

and you are a gullible boy

maybe the US bombed Reuters and AP?

less government means more big business

this isnt a dichotomy of "more government, more corporate power" and "less government, less corporate power"

you can have governments that *dont* favour big business

oh wait i forgot the american population are too stupid to turn up to primaries

and now you sit in your own poo

@michael market socialist

what mate

i love how you completely rekt my argument

strong name

mayb u dont get it

MAYB

tell me what you think it means

XACTLY

thank you for the compliment

guess what

im not a feminist

not a feminist

anyone here listen to luke gromen?

the euro wont last for much longer

@Deleted User
*believe in very little government, and no money*

this would be anarcho-communism....

i guess it could be "libertarian socialism" too

mutualism maybe?

collectivist anarchism

this problem you mention is that of a libertarian ideology

its an issue for *all* strains of libertarian

rather than socialism alone

>dumb ancap is typing an essay...

i think anarcho communism does have a government though

so it has "rules"

just doesnt have police/military

so the rules are based on "communitarianism"

thy love for thee community

same with any strain of libertarianism

well it has governing bodies

just doesnt have any way to "enforce" them

probs

ye

its an oxymoron

humans wont volunteer nearly enough of their produce for it to be classed as communism

so without a way to enforce the redistribution, it wont happen

so i take it your roles are troll lmao

>ancap libertarian centrist

who likes "rules and enforcement"

ahkk

still >libertarian centrist

how dis

i guess youre a social libertarian with centrist economics?