!agree

You linked a facebook post?

Besides Alex Jones was known for fear mongering, lying, slander and pretty much scamming people into buying his worthless products

He was adding nothing to the political debate, and the little he did add was mostly lies

I understand your worries about limiting free speech

But in the end it was a move by private companies not the state

Depends on the reason. If I regulatly lie about them, cause trouble on flights and am just a bad customer... then its reasonable

Its their business

Trusting private companies to abide to societal norms by themselves and to care for the people and not their own interests is quite a leap

Companjes do what benefits their pockets

Jesus

If you wish true freedom of speech among internet platforms, then it is up for the state to intervene to make it legally binding

Until then, it's company policy

It is true, they control what's in the platform, they control what you see. But it's up to you to not be solely reliant on one company to get your narrative from

Alex Jones has his own platform and website

Youtube, Facebook and twitter were merely one of his distributors

If you understand the process then you know that he has other options

Doesn't that just show that they have been given too much power?

Exactly, private companies need to be kept in check

The market cares little for free speech

Wouldn't the forces of the free market have made a new online video sharing platform to compete against youtube with all the freedoms?

@Fitzydog you buy domains

@Fitzydog money always buys you what you need, it's a free market afterall

Basically uphold the laws of free speech regardless of the situation

The state can intervene if this right is infringed upon

@turtwig is that true?

Wow

I never really liked steve jobs... this does little to help

The only socialist aspect of Nazism were the state funded economic projects and welfare systems

They banned them

Hitler banned workers unions to appease the industrialists

Despite the party unions, worker unions or other form of worker representation of such was illegalised as it was considered bolshevism

These were more to get workers to support the party rather than actually represent them

Privatisation itself is completely anti socialist

The term would be corrupt captalism

They weren't state run

In time of total war they were, not during peace

Well obviously I can't. During peace time the industry was privately owned by the industrial magnates that supported hitler for his antil socialist ideas. During the war when industry needed to be centralised for the war effort of course thr state took over

It wasnt for ideological reasons, more so to support the war effort

He had certain socialist elements, but concluding that he was far left for it is a huge stretch

@DanConway socialism, as marx said is the stepping stone to communism by which the state has complete ownership of industry and the means of production. Private property does not exist and the economy is centrally planned to the needs of the workers.

Well he coined the term

So may as well use his definition

@DanConway that's my threshold

Democratic socialists are those that transition to socialism by means of a democratic vote

Same, I cant avoid the typos, sorry

Exactly

Communism would be the next step by which the state transfers the power to the people. A step we have not yet seen

I forgot the abolition of classes of course. Vital

@DanConway ideally yes. If you define the resources by needs, not wants ie clothing, food, shelter, medicine etc... of course a modern economy is incapable of supporting this without a universal method of payment

So no would be the answer

You can't

Innovation comes from different factors. Mostly competition, but also from scarcity

Or scarcity and needs

Think of the first settlements in the neolithic times. Agriculture is very vasic. However the more the population grows, the more scarcity and pressure there is. So you are forced to innovate to satisfy the growing demands. There is no competition present

By the time of thr first settlements hunter gatherer society had come to an end

But do they have permament settlements?

By the time a society reaches the point of a permanent settlement, you stop becoming a hunter gatherer society.

Of course Other societies still need to catch up

But this is besides the point

It wan example

Didnt want to delve too much into it

A need for another train track comes mostly by the need to have to transport more goods along it because it is reaching a point of inefficiency (consumption of fuel, carts and goods sent)

Of course but take into account the incredible difficult russian environement.

Production is a good indicator

Units produced by time and consuption

Overbuilding was certaiy an issue because of the terrible bureaucracy

Decentralisation

Smaller communities in charge of local production

Each area makes a count of what it makes and what it needs, and they intertrade. Basic Ricardian economics

Thats where the central state steps in

National defence would be task for the central state

Basically the state would take care of infrastructure, defence, justice and police, and thr regions of production

The wants of the proletariat would be put on the list of needs and evaluate their importance collectivelly

Ie need a new car or need a need tractor, tractor would ve chosen

Hierarchy will always be present in society, it's ridiculous to argue against it

There would be the worker class, the bureaucratic class, the judiciary class and military (drafted civilians)

Do drafted armies not have officers?

Officers are taken through volunteers that undergo military academic training

Ncos though

They are very low ranks of authority

Exactly

But still somewhat of an officer

@Deleted User no way mate

@Deleted User you fucking madman 😂

@Deleted User why do you think so?

I see

The inquisition cleaned them out though

It's an it

So be respectful pls

Jokes aside, I think it's wrong to generalise and have her be what constitutes 'the left' Moderate leftists that also cringe at that sort of behaviour.

Because they're not loud. These SJWs and far leftists often are seen and heard because they make the most noise. They appear to be everywhere because they know how to get attention, basically be loud and obnoxious.

Why is that?

You assume that all leftists are socialists though

These radicalism and populisms on the right and left have risen as a result of each other

Indeed Neoliberalism is a response to the threat of the rise of socialist ideals of the 80s

Globally

UK, US, Chile

Indeed