By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aeolus451 on 21 January 2018
Edit Thread
Teeqoz said:
Aeolus451 said:

I presented my definition in another recent post. I thought that you would get what I meant but oh well. Yeah, I think he's socialist. He wants to redistribute the wealth from the rich and middle class to give to the poor via greatly increased social programs. He said he's okay with forcing people to do it.

If that's your definition of socialist, then basically everyone except for completely laissez faire liberalists are socialists lol. Nearly all tax is used to distribute some wealth from those that have to those that don't have. And tax isn't voluntary. So any politician that doesn't oppose nearly all taxes would be socialist by your definition.

 

At that point, I don't see why you even bother to call it "socialism" except for being able to compare it to Venezuela. Also, you didn't answer about what you thought of the Nordic countries. I'd like to hear what you have to say about them. Because judging by what your definition here they're socialistic as fuck haha. But that's just my interpretation of your opinion, so I'd like to hear how you see it yourself.

Fml. Ugh. Please stop assuming the extreme or something absurd. Of course, I don't mean taxing is socialist. Taxes are normal and vital to any kind of government. Excessive taxing or seizing accounts is more what I mean.

I forgot about the Nordic question. Sorry about that. A lot of replies to make that aren't simple. I think that some of them are flirting with it or dabbling in it but they aren't socialist. It affected their economies negatively when they applied it to their markets so they don't mess with it in relation to their markets but they do plenty of socialist like social programs which is fine as long as they overburden them or cause dependecy.