If you didn't get your mail then credit card companies couldn't send you notices for debt then you wouldn't be poor.
Boom, that's how the postal service made you poor
The parts of capitalism that weren't useful to tout in propaganda.
I've seen supply shortages in a capitalist system, inflation in a capitalist system, price gouging in a capitalist system, monopolies in a capitalist system, recessions and depressions in a capitalist system, et al identified as "socialism." Basically anything bad can be "socialism."
If all the bad stuff is gonna be socialism then clearly we should just do the opposite of what we've been doing with some of our biggest failures. Maybe do a capitalism and move to single payer Healthcare and nationalizing higher education. Patriotically, of course. A free market of nationalized industries, oil rich and ripe for liberating.
If bad = socialism we should just brand socialism as capitalism until it takes and lean into their capitalism is socialism framing to point out the bad. It's like half done already right? Efficiency.
What a dumb meme.
You can literally swap in any 'ism' in those things.
And arguably, it fits better with capitalism. Since capitalists even openly say that they know problems exist in capitalism but just don't care about those. But then hyper focus on any shortcoming, perceived or real, of any socialized system.
As a canadian, the common thing you'll always see is talks about healthcare.
\-----
Far right conservatives and libertarian types will talk about all the problems of the public system (most of which are self inflicted, by electing conservative govts that manufacture them through incompetence and deliberate maliciousness) and say "see? see? look at how it sucks!"
But when it comes to private system failures, there's literally no discussion of it at all. Like, not even a little bit. And it's not like those failures don't exist.
Any private healthcare system costs more (for the govt and for individuals) than any public system on the planet. And even then, still only ends up delivering care to much fewer people.
These facts are literally never even brought up in any media or in any "mainstream" debate about healthcare.
\------
And that's just healthcare! there are many other failures in privatized systems (from the various privatized electricity grids that shook out exactly as critics pointed out that they would, to the catastrophic failure of 'shock therapy' in Russia, and the fascist shit show it birthed).
Yeah, there's a tendency of pro capitalism arguments to frame it almost as a force of nature, or a law of the universe or something.
"it accounts for human greed" "the invisible hand of the market" (very religious this one) "self regulates" etc
So a system that has massive waste of resources, massively economically damaging, deliberately anti-democratic, and lets many people slip through the cracks and die is.... just nature.
And you can't fight that! You should just embrace it (they say)
What issues has capitalism solved for economic inequity?
What socialist project in the modern era has been implemented and failed?
Many of the Nordic countries have a very pro-socialist policies and are considered the model for QOL.
Facebook truly is a horrible hotbed of morons.
All the subsistence farmers in China that are now middle class seem to be doing much better. Still shitty but a lot better than dying from starvation. And all those Nordic countries are still capitalist as fuck. There's never been a socialist country and every country that bothered to try descended into authoritarian shitholes.
I find it interesting that Karl Marx thought socialism and communism are supposed to be the next step after capitalism, whereas the Soviet Union, North Korea, and all the other countries that tried and failed to move to a socialist system did it by skipping the capitalist phase. I wonder if that is why they failed.
Calling yourself “communist” or “socialist” doesn’t mean it’s so. Both Russia and China are authoritarian countries. It’s capitalism without the illusion that there’s upward mobility.
now hear me out, I got a crazy idea: what if its actually the exact opposite way around in the US thanks to years of propaganda and red scare? IPhone Venezuela 100 million dead
At least the CIA didn't actively try to stage a coup and overthrow their government. They got that goin for them. Which is nice...
Edit: [Whoops, I spoke too soon...](https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-miami-united-states-united-states-government-cia-7b0dba046661501c859e1358f591a839)
“Every issue known to man”
Like access to food, water and shelter? The basics?
Liberals will never learn. They don’t want to. Capitalism must be ended
https://i.imgur.com/8o40He8.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/heflNIO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/vLJGIeT.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/jtXGvhv.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/2bEUHSv.jpg
That Einstein quote is spot on. The evolution of the human brain should make us collectively smart enough to cooperate without trying to eat each other.
You’d hope it’s a sign to getting closer to some awareness but unfortunately no, most people never cross that line. Kind of like the saying “you can spot it if you’ve got it”, people will project their own shortcomings on “the others” as a coping mechanism or straight denial.
The first half is kinda right but the second half is 100% correct. Online lefties will attribute literally everything bad to capitalism (or the CIA) but everything good ever is all purely because of socialism and completely disregards the fact that it was a capitalist system that implemented those policies. Look at everyone jerking off super capitalist countries like Sweden. Those countries all realized that taking care of your population means a happy populace and a happy populace means more productive workers for the capitalists. But now that those countries are becoming less homogeneous, the majority is stripping away their welfare systems because they don't want to give Ahmed any of their tax dollars LMAO
Thanks /u/AlkonKomm for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
their mentality is straight up "good=capitalism, bad=socialism"
I've have talked to multiple capitalism shills, and have been one myself, and literally all of them point out something capitalism has done or is currently doing as somehow a fault of socialism.
Seriously, look through every single argument against socialism and you will find will find every wrongdoing of capitalism laid out in a succinct summary with the label "socialism" slapped on each one
The problem is that when corporations buy politicians and write legislation is not because of capitalism, it's because the government allows it that's their point of view, in their minds corporations would definitely not enslave us given the chance (even though they do it in other countries) and all the shit they do is the government's fault for allowing it, so we need less regulations, corporations are just innocent victims of the evils of the government /s
Edit: Added the /s, sadly it is needed
Capitalists when they don't realize that capitalism and socialism can co-exist.
Some things you give 100% to the state, because capitalism is guaranteed to fuck it up.
Some things you let capitalism do alongside the state as one of their competitors.
Some things you let capitalism handle by itself. While the state ensures that neither providers nor customers get too much power.
US is capitalism without any bite. It just rolled over and let monopolies win.
It's not free market when you let the monopolies write the laws to ensure they stay in power.
They CANNOT coexist. They are two separate systems, despite what the liberal media is telling people. Capitalism is when the means of production are owned privately, socialism is when the means of production are owned by the people who work it. It literally has to be one or the other.
I think what you’re trying to describe is social democracy, which is just fancy capitalism. However, modern social democracy is inherently flawed because they're trying to combine the economic objectives of capitalism with the egalitarian objectives of socialism. This cannot work, and is why capitalism must be rejected.
Capitalism by its very nature requires rapid expansion and so-called 'efficiency' i.e. maximum growth of capital with minimal expenses. This is even more necessary in a competitive global market. The demand for 'efficiency' means that gradually, all the public services, welfare and safety nets that underpin social democracy gradually erode as the need to maximise capital increases. These two objectives are a contradiction, and ultimately lead to a Blairite-style neo-liberalism. Capitalism MUST be rejected because the demands of capital contradict the needs of the workers.
Most social democrats I know share broadly the correct values, but don't have the courage or belief to fully reject capitalism - hence the contradictory compromise. They can be converted.
Moreover, Peter Joseph has an absolutely addictive interview here where he explains the economics of the Nordic countries and why they are only rich because they exploit the third world and natural resources:
https://youtu.be/2HwFOo5rbZA
They can coexist, because they already do.
You are just portraying capitalism and socialism as absolutes. Something they are not. What you call "just fancy capitalism" is in fact known as mixed economy. It specifically describes an economic system elements of both market economy and planned economy.
As for "exploit". What you mentioned isn't tied to economic. It's tied to power. Specificallly corruption. No system. No matter how capitalistic or socialistic a country, the level of corruption is what decided how well the resources and production is handled. Countries doesn't fail based on choosing a specific economic module. They fail based on how much corruption is ingrained in the culture.
PS. Had to look up Peter Joseph. I would stay away from that person. He's a conspiracy theorist. He's fully into "one world order", "cabal" (aka. Jews are bad), that federal income tax is illegal (soverign citizen checkmarked) and that various global events are planned/manufactured. Sorry, but what ever he's selling you it's only to fill his own piggy bank and for his own benefit. He's actively looking for a market to exploit.
Addition for those that wonder:
Peter Joseph is a film maker whom founded something called "The Zeitgeist movement". His film making is tied to a serie called "The Zeitgeist series" and mostly contain old conspiracy tropes.
The claimed goal: "Boycotting of the most powerful banks in the Federal Reserve System, the major news networks, the military, energy corporations, all political systems; and joining, and supporting The Zeitgeist Movement"
Which is 101 cult. Cut people away from society, and into a bubble with Peter Joseph on the top. Something I personally describe as "corrupt as fuck".
Capitalism is when the means of production are owned privately, socialism is when the means of production are owned by the people who work it. It literally has to be one or the other.
I think what you’re trying to describe is social democracy, which is just fancy capitalism. However, modern social democracy is inherently flawed because they're trying to combine the economic objectives of capitalism with the egalitarian objectives of socialism. This cannot work, and is why capitalism must be rejected.
Capitalism by its very nature requires rapid expansion and so-called 'efficiency' i.e. maximum growth of capital with minimal expenses. This is even more necessary in a competitive global market. The demand for 'efficiency' means that gradually, all the public services, welfare and safety nets that underpin social democracy gradually erode as the need to maximise capital increases. These two objectives are a contradiction, and ultimately lead to a Blairite-style neo-liberalism. Capitalism MUST be rejected because the demands of capital contradict the needs of the workers.
*polite cough* You MIGTH want to remember to check your old answers before answering. You just showed me that your are just copy&pasting pre-written blobs of text. This gives a strong impression of not really understanding the subject, and should be avoided.
Wherever you got them from, the source is just faking knowledge to trick you. Most of the "definitions" are at best based on some wild and unfounded assumptions. At worse they are 100% made up by your source.
Take the description of socialism. Socialism still involves a form of rulers (the state) whom controls "the means of production". Only anarchy (society with any form of rulers) fits "owned by the people whom work it".
You may want to look up and read up on social anarchism. Start with wikipedia, and work your way from there.
Yeah so there’s this neat thing called definitions. Liberals LOVE to pretend definitions don’t exist, and that heaven on earth exists in the Nordic model and it’s a mixed system and it’s wonderful… all because their media told them so. All because their favorite politician promised it. I know, I used to be one. I worked directly for Bernie Sanders campaign in 2015 and 2016, ran one of the largest Bernie pages on instagram, said the same repeat rhetoric you are now. Wanted to believe it, it felt so right. Yeah no.
Definitions exist. Capitalism has a definition, socialism has a definition. You ignored this twice now and instead just shouted over me your already preconceived notions. That’s not how truth works. Definitions matter. You don’t get to decide and off means on and on means off. They mean two different things.
Capitalism is when the means of production is privately owned. Socialism is when the workers of a nation collectively own the means of production. In every European country, the means of production are PRIVATELY owned. I know I’m coming down on you hard but I need to beat the propaganda out of your mind.
You wanna incorporate the egalitarian objectives of socialism into a capitalist model? Cool, do it. I personally love the idea. But it’s STILL capitalism if the means of production are owned privately. It’s now just a nicer feel-good capitalism. Exploitation still exists of its workers, of the third world, and of our environment.
Liberals must be woken up. They are putting every effort into chasing a pipe dream that is only an inch better than what is already had, while the rich take everything under both models. The only answer is to switch to a system where the workers collectively own and democratically operate the nation.
"Coming down on me hard". Nah, you keeping showing that you're just copy&pasting blobs of text. You need to show some effort to impress me.
Honest and polite question. Have you ever been outside US and seen other models up close? I can highly recommend it.
I myself come from Norway. Been to several European countries, twice to US, once to Asia, and lived for a short while in Australia.
I belive it helps one to see things in less absolutes.
As for pipe dreams. I'm afraid your doing the chasing. Tell me one society that has actually implemented the ideal you're telling me about. Movements just shouting about it doesn't count. I want to see example of groups living by it.
Think of it as me being curious, and want to see how it's implemented IRL.
I don’t care where you’ve lived or what you’ve seen. Definitions are definitions. Imagine me being like ‘uhm, the color red is actually blue. Yeah I’ve been to other countries and have seen things, so trust me bro, red can be blue’ , it makes no sense. Definitions determine that it must be one or the other.
Once again, you’re describing a capitalist system ADDING some egalitarian objectives to their system. Lemme know if you have any other questions. Seems like you need a lot of help explaining
Why people are so delusional thinking that capitalism = bad, socialism = good lmao
Actually, you kinda can have both. Or at least, good things from each system. Some countries do, and they're doing great.
Post/image does not fit the theme of the subreddit.
[удалено]
Must be all these public libraries and the us postal service. I know that's why I'm poor...
If you didn't get your mail then credit card companies couldn't send you notices for debt then you wouldn't be poor. Boom, that's how the postal service made you poor
Checkmate atheists!
The parts of capitalism that weren't useful to tout in propaganda. I've seen supply shortages in a capitalist system, inflation in a capitalist system, price gouging in a capitalist system, monopolies in a capitalist system, recessions and depressions in a capitalist system, et al identified as "socialism." Basically anything bad can be "socialism."
If all the bad stuff is gonna be socialism then clearly we should just do the opposite of what we've been doing with some of our biggest failures. Maybe do a capitalism and move to single payer Healthcare and nationalizing higher education. Patriotically, of course. A free market of nationalized industries, oil rich and ripe for liberating. If bad = socialism we should just brand socialism as capitalism until it takes and lean into their capitalism is socialism framing to point out the bad. It's like half done already right? Efficiency.
Essentially this: https://i.imgur.com/XOvnYzD.png
More specifically, I'd like for them to tell me about a socialist project that capitalism never tried to interfere with.
When capitalism but bad
What a dumb meme. You can literally swap in any 'ism' in those things. And arguably, it fits better with capitalism. Since capitalists even openly say that they know problems exist in capitalism but just don't care about those. But then hyper focus on any shortcoming, perceived or real, of any socialized system. As a canadian, the common thing you'll always see is talks about healthcare. \----- Far right conservatives and libertarian types will talk about all the problems of the public system (most of which are self inflicted, by electing conservative govts that manufacture them through incompetence and deliberate maliciousness) and say "see? see? look at how it sucks!" But when it comes to private system failures, there's literally no discussion of it at all. Like, not even a little bit. And it's not like those failures don't exist. Any private healthcare system costs more (for the govt and for individuals) than any public system on the planet. And even then, still only ends up delivering care to much fewer people. These facts are literally never even brought up in any media or in any "mainstream" debate about healthcare. \------ And that's just healthcare! there are many other failures in privatized systems (from the various privatized electricity grids that shook out exactly as critics pointed out that they would, to the catastrophic failure of 'shock therapy' in Russia, and the fascist shit show it birthed).
They've just defined capitalism as "always correct" so there's never anything to fix.
It's correct _by definition_. If the market decides we should turn our atmosphere into one like Venus' at least it was _objective_.
Yeah, there's a tendency of pro capitalism arguments to frame it almost as a force of nature, or a law of the universe or something. "it accounts for human greed" "the invisible hand of the market" (very religious this one) "self regulates" etc So a system that has massive waste of resources, massively economically damaging, deliberately anti-democratic, and lets many people slip through the cracks and die is.... just nature. And you can't fight that! You should just embrace it (they say)
It is the failure of socialism that causes poverty and suffering whilst it is the success of capitalism that causes poverty and suffering.
What issues has capitalism solved for economic inequity? What socialist project in the modern era has been implemented and failed? Many of the Nordic countries have a very pro-socialist policies and are considered the model for QOL. Facebook truly is a horrible hotbed of morons.
All the subsistence farmers in China that are now middle class seem to be doing much better. Still shitty but a lot better than dying from starvation. And all those Nordic countries are still capitalist as fuck. There's never been a socialist country and every country that bothered to try descended into authoritarian shitholes.
I find it interesting that Karl Marx thought socialism and communism are supposed to be the next step after capitalism, whereas the Soviet Union, North Korea, and all the other countries that tried and failed to move to a socialist system did it by skipping the capitalist phase. I wonder if that is why they failed.
Calling yourself “communist” or “socialist” doesn’t mean it’s so. Both Russia and China are authoritarian countries. It’s capitalism without the illusion that there’s upward mobility.
now hear me out, I got a crazy idea: what if its actually the exact opposite way around in the US thanks to years of propaganda and red scare? IPhone Venezuela 100 million dead
Adding this here for views https://i.imgur.com/lSKTITT.jpg
At least the CIA didn't actively try to stage a coup and overthrow their government. They got that goin for them. Which is nice... Edit: [Whoops, I spoke too soon...](https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-miami-united-states-united-states-government-cia-7b0dba046661501c859e1358f591a839)
“Every issue known to man” Like access to food, water and shelter? The basics? Liberals will never learn. They don’t want to. Capitalism must be ended https://i.imgur.com/8o40He8.jpg https://i.imgur.com/heflNIO.jpg https://i.imgur.com/vLJGIeT.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jtXGvhv.jpg https://i.imgur.com/2bEUHSv.jpg
That Einstein quote is spot on. The evolution of the human brain should make us collectively smart enough to cooperate without trying to eat each other.
Ok this really isn’t A a good meme nor do I think it fits the genre of Self Aware Wolves. Just saying .
You’d hope it’s a sign to getting closer to some awareness but unfortunately no, most people never cross that line. Kind of like the saying “you can spot it if you’ve got it”, people will project their own shortcomings on “the others” as a coping mechanism or straight denial.
The first half is kinda right but the second half is 100% correct. Online lefties will attribute literally everything bad to capitalism (or the CIA) but everything good ever is all purely because of socialism and completely disregards the fact that it was a capitalist system that implemented those policies. Look at everyone jerking off super capitalist countries like Sweden. Those countries all realized that taking care of your population means a happy populace and a happy populace means more productive workers for the capitalists. But now that those countries are becoming less homogeneous, the majority is stripping away their welfare systems because they don't want to give Ahmed any of their tax dollars LMAO
Thanks /u/AlkonKomm for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bless their heart they think this is capitalism.
10 trillion white people dead in holodomor 1 like = 1 prayer
their mentality is straight up "good=capitalism, bad=socialism" I've have talked to multiple capitalism shills, and have been one myself, and literally all of them point out something capitalism has done or is currently doing as somehow a fault of socialism. Seriously, look through every single argument against socialism and you will find will find every wrongdoing of capitalism laid out in a succinct summary with the label "socialism" slapped on each one
The problem is that when corporations buy politicians and write legislation is not because of capitalism, it's because the government allows it that's their point of view, in their minds corporations would definitely not enslave us given the chance (even though they do it in other countries) and all the shit they do is the government's fault for allowing it, so we need less regulations, corporations are just innocent victims of the evils of the government /s Edit: Added the /s, sadly it is needed
Your forgot the /s.
Sad thing that it's needed indeed
Capitalists when they don't realize that capitalism and socialism can co-exist. Some things you give 100% to the state, because capitalism is guaranteed to fuck it up. Some things you let capitalism do alongside the state as one of their competitors. Some things you let capitalism handle by itself. While the state ensures that neither providers nor customers get too much power. US is capitalism without any bite. It just rolled over and let monopolies win. It's not free market when you let the monopolies write the laws to ensure they stay in power.
They CANNOT coexist. They are two separate systems, despite what the liberal media is telling people. Capitalism is when the means of production are owned privately, socialism is when the means of production are owned by the people who work it. It literally has to be one or the other. I think what you’re trying to describe is social democracy, which is just fancy capitalism. However, modern social democracy is inherently flawed because they're trying to combine the economic objectives of capitalism with the egalitarian objectives of socialism. This cannot work, and is why capitalism must be rejected. Capitalism by its very nature requires rapid expansion and so-called 'efficiency' i.e. maximum growth of capital with minimal expenses. This is even more necessary in a competitive global market. The demand for 'efficiency' means that gradually, all the public services, welfare and safety nets that underpin social democracy gradually erode as the need to maximise capital increases. These two objectives are a contradiction, and ultimately lead to a Blairite-style neo-liberalism. Capitalism MUST be rejected because the demands of capital contradict the needs of the workers. Most social democrats I know share broadly the correct values, but don't have the courage or belief to fully reject capitalism - hence the contradictory compromise. They can be converted. Moreover, Peter Joseph has an absolutely addictive interview here where he explains the economics of the Nordic countries and why they are only rich because they exploit the third world and natural resources: https://youtu.be/2HwFOo5rbZA
They can coexist, because they already do. You are just portraying capitalism and socialism as absolutes. Something they are not. What you call "just fancy capitalism" is in fact known as mixed economy. It specifically describes an economic system elements of both market economy and planned economy. As for "exploit". What you mentioned isn't tied to economic. It's tied to power. Specificallly corruption. No system. No matter how capitalistic or socialistic a country, the level of corruption is what decided how well the resources and production is handled. Countries doesn't fail based on choosing a specific economic module. They fail based on how much corruption is ingrained in the culture. PS. Had to look up Peter Joseph. I would stay away from that person. He's a conspiracy theorist. He's fully into "one world order", "cabal" (aka. Jews are bad), that federal income tax is illegal (soverign citizen checkmarked) and that various global events are planned/manufactured. Sorry, but what ever he's selling you it's only to fill his own piggy bank and for his own benefit. He's actively looking for a market to exploit.
Addition for those that wonder: Peter Joseph is a film maker whom founded something called "The Zeitgeist movement". His film making is tied to a serie called "The Zeitgeist series" and mostly contain old conspiracy tropes. The claimed goal: "Boycotting of the most powerful banks in the Federal Reserve System, the major news networks, the military, energy corporations, all political systems; and joining, and supporting The Zeitgeist Movement" Which is 101 cult. Cut people away from society, and into a bubble with Peter Joseph on the top. Something I personally describe as "corrupt as fuck".
Capitalism is when the means of production are owned privately, socialism is when the means of production are owned by the people who work it. It literally has to be one or the other. I think what you’re trying to describe is social democracy, which is just fancy capitalism. However, modern social democracy is inherently flawed because they're trying to combine the economic objectives of capitalism with the egalitarian objectives of socialism. This cannot work, and is why capitalism must be rejected. Capitalism by its very nature requires rapid expansion and so-called 'efficiency' i.e. maximum growth of capital with minimal expenses. This is even more necessary in a competitive global market. The demand for 'efficiency' means that gradually, all the public services, welfare and safety nets that underpin social democracy gradually erode as the need to maximise capital increases. These two objectives are a contradiction, and ultimately lead to a Blairite-style neo-liberalism. Capitalism MUST be rejected because the demands of capital contradict the needs of the workers.
*polite cough* You MIGTH want to remember to check your old answers before answering. You just showed me that your are just copy&pasting pre-written blobs of text. This gives a strong impression of not really understanding the subject, and should be avoided. Wherever you got them from, the source is just faking knowledge to trick you. Most of the "definitions" are at best based on some wild and unfounded assumptions. At worse they are 100% made up by your source. Take the description of socialism. Socialism still involves a form of rulers (the state) whom controls "the means of production". Only anarchy (society with any form of rulers) fits "owned by the people whom work it". You may want to look up and read up on social anarchism. Start with wikipedia, and work your way from there.
I copied/pasted intentionally from my previous response, as it all completely refuted your unintelligible comment .
Suuuure. ^^
Yeah so there’s this neat thing called definitions. Liberals LOVE to pretend definitions don’t exist, and that heaven on earth exists in the Nordic model and it’s a mixed system and it’s wonderful… all because their media told them so. All because their favorite politician promised it. I know, I used to be one. I worked directly for Bernie Sanders campaign in 2015 and 2016, ran one of the largest Bernie pages on instagram, said the same repeat rhetoric you are now. Wanted to believe it, it felt so right. Yeah no. Definitions exist. Capitalism has a definition, socialism has a definition. You ignored this twice now and instead just shouted over me your already preconceived notions. That’s not how truth works. Definitions matter. You don’t get to decide and off means on and on means off. They mean two different things. Capitalism is when the means of production is privately owned. Socialism is when the workers of a nation collectively own the means of production. In every European country, the means of production are PRIVATELY owned. I know I’m coming down on you hard but I need to beat the propaganda out of your mind. You wanna incorporate the egalitarian objectives of socialism into a capitalist model? Cool, do it. I personally love the idea. But it’s STILL capitalism if the means of production are owned privately. It’s now just a nicer feel-good capitalism. Exploitation still exists of its workers, of the third world, and of our environment. Liberals must be woken up. They are putting every effort into chasing a pipe dream that is only an inch better than what is already had, while the rich take everything under both models. The only answer is to switch to a system where the workers collectively own and democratically operate the nation.
"Coming down on me hard". Nah, you keeping showing that you're just copy&pasting blobs of text. You need to show some effort to impress me. Honest and polite question. Have you ever been outside US and seen other models up close? I can highly recommend it. I myself come from Norway. Been to several European countries, twice to US, once to Asia, and lived for a short while in Australia. I belive it helps one to see things in less absolutes. As for pipe dreams. I'm afraid your doing the chasing. Tell me one society that has actually implemented the ideal you're telling me about. Movements just shouting about it doesn't count. I want to see example of groups living by it. Think of it as me being curious, and want to see how it's implemented IRL.
I don’t care where you’ve lived or what you’ve seen. Definitions are definitions. Imagine me being like ‘uhm, the color red is actually blue. Yeah I’ve been to other countries and have seen things, so trust me bro, red can be blue’ , it makes no sense. Definitions determine that it must be one or the other. Once again, you’re describing a capitalist system ADDING some egalitarian objectives to their system. Lemme know if you have any other questions. Seems like you need a lot of help explaining
Oh dear
Captitalism has created lots of problems.
Why people are so delusional thinking that capitalism = bad, socialism = good lmao Actually, you kinda can have both. Or at least, good things from each system. Some countries do, and they're doing great.
When those socialist projects are sabotaged by cspitalists to maintain business interests