"Maybe you don't live in a first world country but surprise, we do all of the things you listed here."
yeah i shouldn't have agreed with this entirely before that was my mistake, its just that these discussions have been so ridiculous that at some point it'd inevitable that i'd miss something anyway
using america as an example
in terms of healthcare have you missed the recent debates on that? (socialists have been advocating for socialised healthcare)
in terms of education i suppose you have a point there
in terms of putting everyone to work... that's not a policy america has (again socialists have been advocating for this)
gun control... again this not a policy (and again socialists have been advocating for this)
abortion... well yeah you have a point there
blaming all of the ills of society on the rich... well you know i'm sure you can see the pattern by now
"YOU equated social security with socialism when you listed Hitler's "socialist policies", somehow you didn't realise that most of those policies are also implemented in practically ever developed country today."
most countries have been going down a socialist path... and your point is? did i ever deny that?
"Your definition of capitalism is a fantasy, it doesn't work like that in the real world, and it never did."
its ideal capitalism but yes it doesn't work like that because the social needs of the community exert some degree of control on how businesses operate and didn't say otherwise
as i said before what actually happens is that there is some compromise between both capitalism and socialism although many times thoughtout history things have tilted too far to the socialist end and resulted in situations like hitler's germany and soviet russia
"Are you in denial about Hitler privatizing the economy?"
how did hitler guarantee jobs for everyone in germany if the economy was privitised?
"Nice, which socialist literature did you read? Let us all know, I eagerly await to see."
i've studied the history of the jacobins and the illuminists all the way back to the knights templar... as i've said i'm sure i know more about the history of these ideas than you do but that's irrelevant
Yeah, we have social services because of the increasing demands of everyday life. But how you do it, whether it's private or government, doesn't really matter as long as it goes through the capitalist mode of production. Social services are provided by taxes, which come from people's wages from their jobs. Modern society is defined by capital accumulation and commodity production. Social democrats, a group of people who would agree with your definitions of socialism, like their social services by the government but also like the capitalist mode of production. But I don't, it's a weak definition.
The Nazis liked this system and effectively wanted to transformed the country into one giant state corporation, it's your boss with some benefits as long as you remain loyal to the Nazi regime. The Soviet system was based around workplace participation and democracy but eroded away from the increasing authoritarianism from the Soviet central leadership, but had eliminated the capitalist mode of production. You see the difference?
Authoritarianism is currently rising in the West as wealth becomes more concentrated in a few group of people and the government begins to serve their interests over everyone else. If the government acts in a way they don't like, they'll just move somewhere else and take everything with them, which is why governments are reluctant to act on radical policies.
I mean I was expecting at least some John Locke or Adam Smith or Rousseau, this wasn't unexpected by still somehow disappointing.Last edited by Leadified - on 07 February 2018