Message from @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ
Discord ID: 540595951094726669
if they form unions
and the unions make up the government
If the workers control the government
they are no longer workers
dumbass
That is collective ownership through the state
It's not owning the means of production. It CAN be an ATTEMPT at socialism but it is not sociaalism.
Jesus.
"you can't work and be in government at the same time" <:brainlet:508484031625691156>
El gringo
You're misreading
take time to read up
So any government owners are workers
cool
so socialism is state control
Misreading what, precisely?
My point was proven
Anyways, you've succeeded in making yourself look retarded.
So much for everyone else losing the argument
@(((El Gringo Narigón))) That's only according to marxist socialism
@(((El Gringo Narigón))) Any market intervention is socialist, socialist policy. While the economy may not be socialist, that policy is. Because socialism also tries to abolish the market, by removing market forces.
Marxist socialism sees state socialism as the transition phase
This guy is relying on Marx's definition, and strictly so
or really
"Anyways, you've succeeded in making yourself look retarded.
So much for everyone else losing the argument"
Marxist-leninism does
Well looks like you guys did lose
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You're using the Marxist-Leninist definition of socialism...
Is the USSR the only example of socialism? Surely not
according to you
it isn't
So why rely on their single definition?
No it isn't
theres many others
IT IS
I can give a huge list
oh, okay
I thought you were going to argue it wasn't their definition
@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ Unless the policy is actually the government taking over an industry, it's more a move towards fascism as it's indirect regulation, not actual takeover.
@The Big Oof so wait...how are you defining socialism?
No el gringo