Whenever someone calls something "socialist", ask them to explain socialism to you and watch their argument fold like a wet blanket. They usually have no idea. In fact, many would love a healthy dose of Northern European socialism in their lives, as long as you call it "Owningthelibism" or something.
This is why we can't have nice things.
I had multiple times experiences like that with American redditors.
They would say that socialism is nazism because National Socialism.
So yeah, didn't know really what to answer to such level of ignorance.
"Learn how German Komposita work, you illiterate dipshit!" is a pretty straightforward and effective reply.
I've always countered that with the following :
Yes, Nazi's, the very trustworthy group that would not lie about calling themselves socialists for propoganda and popularity reasons (post ww1 German public had popular sentiment with socialist ideas). The same ones that went out of their way to then kill Jews, communists, socialists, and other individuals that believed in socialistic ideals.
I'm also sure that the democratic peoples republic of Korea has very fair and free democratic elections!
If they continue arguing about it after that then I know they're a lost cause
Capitalism with social programs is better than without, but that's not socialism. It's just not neoliberalism.
Ok so you posted a random image of a cartoon teenager. Is this supposed to convey an idea in any way?
Concentration of power with those "social services", making people pay higher taxes many times for unfair reasons. Socialism has all the power on the State with no or little room for individuals themselves to make their businesses and companies, companies that'll thrive will be friends with the king and create a monopoly in that country. Putting everything in the hands of the State is a recipe of disaster.
Socialism has all the power on the State with no or little room for individuals themselves to make their businesses and companies, companies that'll thrive will be friends with the king and create a monopoly in that country.
China has tons of small and big businesses and it's still socialist.
Putting everything in the hands of the State is a recipe of disaster.
Tell me you don't understand what the word socialism means without telling me you don't understand what the word socialism means.
When you say "no room to make business." That's where I think the fundamental disagreement is rooted. Socialism is inherently built on the idea that what you are building in a capitalist system is exploiting labour. The people you bring in should have ownership of the company too in a socialist system, not the state. What you're describing is a communist dictatorship. State programs should be run by the state just as they are in most countries now. You certainly don't want companies running your government.
•
Bless the cold war brainwash with loads if patriotism on USA citizens. It seems to still be working.
There are "socialists" running around who don't know what socialism is. Hint: it has nothing to do with government-subsidized services.
Yeah but they're still linked. Like, yeah socialism has nothing to do with welfare programmes. However in the real world where a government is involved government welfare programmes are the most obvious tools that the government uses to enact socialism. Talking about one leads into talking about the other. Unless we're talking anarchy.
Attica! Attica!
While that's technically true. It's not truly accurate. Considering that at the time a lot of these terms were coined. Healthcare was either nonexistent or a much different thing. Nationalizing basic needs makes a lot of sense in, and is often an agenda of socialist and communist systems.
Just because they don't match or evolved past those archaic definitions doesn't make you more right or them less ultimately. We might large that they should go further. But there's no true Scotsman Naval gazing is only counterproductive.
i love all kinds of socialist shit:
socialized medicine
socialized housing
socialized transportation
you know what kinda' socialism SUCKS though? Socialized risk, where corporations get to distribute their burdens but hoard all their profits.
THAT kind of socialism needs to fucking die.
But that engine is somewhat socialist. It evenly distributes fluids throughout, each component having the same amount of influence on whether or not the engine as a whole can function. One stops working and the others all stop in solidarity.
Everything I like is socialist, trains? Socialist. Gardening? Socialist. Cooking a huge meal where someone else does the dishes? That's socialism.
It’s true. Everything I don’t like is socialist. And referring to things that don’t work as socialist no matter the context is an excellent idea, I’ll be doing that from now on.
Why wouldn’t you come into a thread and enthusiastically declare yourself a dickhead weirdo
Because I’m considering the audience. If a socialist is calling me a dickhead, then I’m probably right.
Again, why would you say something like that in this thread/community/instance?
I'm not requesting you to answer. I'm requesting you to reconsider your approach to this scenario
I feel like this is a teaching opportunity. I'm no teacher, and certainly no academic, but socialism is a political stance that socializes basic needs, such as healthcare, transportation or education (primary and secondary). "Socialization" means every single citizen pays for those through the tax system, every year or so, proportionally to their own income. This allows everyone, regardless of their status, to enjoy good health, regular trains and buses, and a complete education, all without paying extra. It also prevents these basic amenities from falling into the wrong hands, ie those of capitalists who would gladly hike up prices, taking avantage of the fact that they're vital things. It is something to strive for. I hope I helped make this notion clearer. Cheers
Ancaps when the
when the corporate conglomerate that owns their house demands they pay the property tax fee or else they go to private jail (it's not a state)
I guess it doesn't translate as well as I thought it would. I mean a response in good faith. French calls those first-degree, as opposed to sarcasm which would be second-degree
I guess that book would be written by someone who calls everyone who they disagree with a "right-wing extremist".
No, they're all violently discussing things, terribly defending your rights of saying your mind and defending more of those horrible things like stable families, no concentration of power and you having the control of your money instead of giving it all to the government in taxes. Meanwhile leftists are peacefully burning stuff, lovely degrading others' properties and making those magical explicit parades in public. No, only lefties are good. Right bad.
I already have the right to say my mind and it doesn't help my living situation at all, meanwhile right-wingers thankfully utilise their right to call for my death, the concentration of power is all in businesses which right-wingers consistently protect, and wtf does it mean to defend stable families?
Undoing all the tax, benefits, and public services I've ever had wouldn't get me out of poverty. Undoing the business and the non-worker class price gouging and manipulating of me and my family, and instead having a better incentive than profit, absolutely would.