Yeah, it interferes with merit

My friend said socialism works like this: in capitalism, you get roughly 2/3 of your income. In socialism, you get 1/3.

I personally think we should keep captilism but heavily tax the 1% and socialize medicine, and maybe if it's going well, some schools and collages

I don’t get how having a free house is interfering with merit. Everyone deserves housing.

@SPRTNWRRYR1974 pretty good anaology, and in soviet russian income gets you

And yeah, the state shouldn’t mandate you a job, if you want a job, you should freely look for it and be hired based on your competence. That’s what I think.

But democratically having decisions in the office, that sounds good to me.

What if we prioritize education so that people can treat many of their own ailments? Obviously you can’t teach everyone to be a doctor, but a few years of medical courses would go a long way.

the reason my grandfather loved the navy so much was it was a fully functioning meritocracy

How so?

i mean dude... i wish i could give everyone everything. however the economic problem is that there are unlimited wants and limited resources and allocating resources based on what people don't have reduces the incentive

The only good hierarchy for me is the one based on how much each contributes to the society.

it just was, the higher ups were the best

i mean the government can give policies

to prevent homelessness

but to overturn the entire system to achieve that seems impractical

I don’t want to give everyone everything, a doctor obviously needs more and different things than a teacher, or than an artist.

Scarcity defined.

Because nobody needs everything.

Again, the needs of the people should be met, not their wants.

but, people should be allowed to strive for their wants as long as it does not deprive others of their needs

Yes, that’s a thing I can agree with, actually.

People can and should satisfy their own wants, the state should only provide what they need. Nothing else.

Because indeed, resources are limited.

social democracy somewhat does that

and it's a success

but not socialism still

Stalin dose sound Similar to Satan!

<:troll_face:726878856585281557>

I actually agree with social democracy, I already told you. At least they’re trying to solve the problems of capitalism while not FUCKING RIOTING

i'm never a advocate for violence

regardless if i agree with you or not

Yeah, violence sucks.

What I was thinking is that the president is a honorific leader while the parliament has the real power.

The parliament, which is composed of workers. But! Here’s the big twist! What if we had *gasp* political pluralism?

Explain 😗

So basically, while the official status quo would be socialist, opposition wouldn’t really be silenced. Because we need opposition to know what mistakes we do and to improve ourselves. If the opposition wins, then they can implement their own policies and can deviate from socialism. Again, the president doesn’t have any real power over the parliament, so they can peacefully transition towards whatever else, if that’s what the people chose.

That’s a dream because a socialist party wouldn’t win democratically due to many reasons <:KEK:726877368601411624>

Isn't that what the royal family kind of was?

Ah that sounds kinda cool. 😎 Except that the leader is not a king/queen, they’re a president.

Like a figure head but without actual power