I've already criticized actually-existing-socialisms. Your question is redundant...and still no real engagement with anything I've said.

so you do agree that socialism results is far lower freedom than capitalism

Do I agree that actually existing socialisms of the past have been repressive?
yes.
Do I believe that capitalism is also repressive?
yes.
Did/does liberty exist in either?
no.

Does freedom exist in capitalism?
no.

You didn't answer

Because it's a nonsensical question with at least two undefined terms

Because you're extremely positivst and ideological, I can only assume that by "socialism" you mean your interpretation of actually existing socialisms? And freedom is completely undefined. I would give it the same treatment I just gave liberty, but that was completely ignored.

*farts for 40 seconds on lolo's head* this is how you sound

I already proved to you that any kind of liberty whatsoever in lefism is an oxymoron.

That includes anarcho syndicalists, left libertarians and communists

If this is the level of discourse that is fostered here, I can find more interesting people to talk to.

You haven't proved anything.

These people are kids that think they are smart.

In fact, you've made a show of failing to engage even slightly with a thing I've said.

Presumably because it's over your head.

or has the mental development of a rebellious teenager

Sure.

hey lolo have you ever lived in a country under communist regime

You do use a lot of fancy words which tends to reduce the value of discussion

wrong. That improves the discussion.

Playing dumb isn't an improvement on anything.

Yeah, but there's a time and a place

Looks like you used a thesaurus to stick random long words in at places

Not anywhere as dumb as anarcho communism though

If this isn't the time and place for legitimate discussions of politics and relevant terms, then I will show myself the door.

@lolo hey lolo have you ever lived in a country under communist regime

@lolo

You cannot "dumb down" complex concepts. As I said already, that abridges the meaning and reduces meaningful contemplation to an exercise in calculation/description.

Marcuse has some great chapters on this, if anyone is interested.

You cannot dumb down complex concepts. This hurts the meaning and reduces discussion to mere description. That would be a more clear way to say it.

Dumb people use words like that for self aggrandizement

"hurts" =/= abridge.

discussion =/= contemplation

@lolo by your lack of answer i take that as a "no"

typical

If the collective reading level here is middle school, then sure.

You can keep having dumb discussions. I'll leave.

if then, you are equivalent to an infant in ITS crib

all commumists are

Sure, there are minor linguistic differences but the basic meaning is the same.

The purpose of language is communication

G O N E