Message from @FridgeNuker
Discord ID: 651424974070087692
oh, it's about the size of Maine... wow...
MCP looks like police of vice and virtue in disguise.
@ETBrooD. Socialism isn't just wealth distribution. That can just be a "tax to fund services capitalism" deal. That happens a lot in European countries. SOCIALISM is a system where production and services are not under private control. The state will have Monopoly powers over products and services and the economy that is concerned with those things. A lot of socialists point at particular European countries and say "see, it works there". But they're wrong, those countries are capitalism based (often tourism) and tax the fuck out of their citizens and the money is redistributed through welfare and health care systems. Or, they give cash back to people who buy certain things like electric cars. Again, that's not socialism.
A country can have many or few socialist policies, each socialist policy adds to the overall standing of the country. There are two essential ideas that can be turned into policies, one is the redistribution of wealth (e.g. taxes), the other is the collectivization of the means of production. There are a few more fringe ideas that can also be considered socialist, but those two are the major ones.
So socialism is of course not *just* wealth REdistribution (emphasis on RE, because it's about involuntary distribution, i.e. using force/coercion rather than negotiation), as I have also said so myself.
Every single socialist policy is socialist, but of course the whole country can still be considered capitalist if the sum of all policies are more capitalist than socialist.
So therefore "socialism is xyz" as a complete package of set ideas paints a false picture of what socialism is, as there is a wide range of policies that would be considered socialist, and the argument that a country can only be either-or, and not a mix between capitalism and socialism, is wrong.
At which point exactly a country should be considered capitalist or socialist (how many socialist policies must be or must not be in place) isn't something that has been decided by anyone, it's just a label to roughly identify a country's sum of its policies.
E.g. most people would argue the US is more capitalist and should therefore be considered a capitalist country. But others would argue that it has so much socialism that it should be considered mixed.
An example that demonstrates why the amount of wealth redistribution is so crucial in deciding the label of capitalism or socialism is if taxes are raised to 100% for example. In such a case it'd be abundantly clear that the country must be considered mainly socialist because no capital ever gets to be private in the first place. Even with the means of production in private hands it would be overwhelmingly socialist.
Likewise if the means of production are entirely collectivized, even if taxes are at 0% it would have to be considered a mostly socialist country.
I personally would argue that redistribution of wealth brings more socialism than collectivization of the means of production does.
But that'd be more an example of it not being always obvious what constitutes more/less socialism.
Sweden is actually a very socialist country, not entirely, but far more than many other European countries. Denmark is even more socialist.
This is where the debate between socialists and capitalists often fails, because both sides often fail to consider other influences besides the economic system. Natural resources, culture, socio-political situation, etc. etc. etc.
Ugh, wow. I succinctly laid it out for and you reply with confused ways to keep changing the meanings of words instead of refuting any point with clear and argumentation. I give up. Stay a socialism apologist with your word salads, enjoy.
I'm not changing the meaning of words, could you please back that claim up?
I'm not apologizing for socialism either, wtf are you even thinking?
I'm one of the most staunch proponents of capitalism
did you guys watch the latest short fat otaku video ?
its pretty interesting, and explains many of the talking point regarding facism and socialism, in a rather eloquent way
@FridgeNuker. If by FASCIST you mean a guy who likes getting rid of regulations that deny freedom and cost people $$$, he's guilty.
If, on the other hand, by fascist you mean he has the characteristics of radical, authoritarian ultranationalism, with dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, you're a bit off.
I don't think he is serious , no one can say Trump is a facist with a straight face
I figured he was kidding
That's why I didn't go for engaging in a debate
I mean, the biggest threat the US faces is how the left twists language
Language creates reality
and that should be a priority when looking into what will happen with your country
It's the underlying Marxism/postmodernism that facilitates that language issue.
That's why I am very clear with my definitions
exactly
thats how they managed to fuck our country in the current crisis
So does that Crowder guy. Before he starts debating, he makes sure there are clear, agreed on definitions.
every number said we were doing great
but they create a reality in which numbers and data don't matter
everyone they dont like is a nazi or a facist
they consider china and venezuela to be perfectly viable "goverments" and yet criticise any use of police force