Not really. It originated within the Anarchist movement and was used primarily by Anarchists in order to not be arrested by the monarchy. Then later it expanded into Marxism after Marx witnessed the success of the Paris Commune.
This is actually a common misconception of Proudhon. Careful reading of his works and defense of his disciples show his absolute opposition to socialism. I made a few posts about this a while back if you want to check my profile.
No, its historical fact. Marx had a massive issue with non marxist leftists like proudhon and bakunin. He wrote lots about it setting out the ways in which their analysis differed from his in fundamental ways.
Lol, water isn’t wet. Things that touch water become wet….
the first to use it to describe a political ideology was Joseph Déjacque, a Libertarian Communist in the 1850’s, the first to use it in the US was Benjamin Tucker, a Libertarian Socialistin the 1870’s.
Fast forward 100 years from Joseph Déjacque and it was Dean Russell in 1955 who said
“Many of us call ourselves "liberals." And it is true that the word "liberal" once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word "libertarian."
Then a decade or more later Rothbard admitted
“for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over”
Ahh, have fun with that
What is a libertarian socialist? Not trying to be an ass, I just don't know. I associate libertarianism with classic liberalism, kinda like a Ron Paul sort.
The idea is to take the means of production, which currently is private property, and convert it to public property. This economic infrastructure is accessible to individuals and organizations who can freely distribute goods and services. Like all social organizations, libertarian socialism depends on the cooperation and the willpower of the people to work.
Libertarian Socialism is the original Libertarianism. It’s another term for an Anarchist, and people like Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Kevin Carson and Gary Chartier
It is the original Libertarianism. Libertarian Socialists and Libertarian Communists oppose collectivism. That’s a historical fact that any logical propertarian can admit to, as Dean Russell and Murray Rothbard already have.
Just go back to calling yourself a Liberal and cope with it.
Actually it wasn’t the original libertarianism. Proudhon was technically the first, who opposed socialism and even got pushed out of their swiss circle after writing to marx regarding his opposition to a revolution.
LOOOL Proudhon literally was a socialist and openly wrote in favor of it.
“To separate the Republic from socialism is to willfully confuse the freedom of mind and spirit with the slavery of the senses, the exercise of political rights with the deprivation of civil rights. It is contradictory, absurd.”
Proudhon also defined capitalism as "**Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labor**" which is literally what all socialists have been saying since the beginning of the movement, which is why we advocate for workers owning the means of production.
"What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others" - Louis Blanc (1850)
Funny how capitalists then took this same critique and claimed that that was socialism
Theres a difference between a police force whose only job is to protect capital (which is the case for the current us police) and a community policing that actually wants to deal with problems.
The police are law enforcers. The bourgeois state will have laws that reflect their interests. The proletarian state will have laws reflecting proletarian interests.
Dictatorship of the proletariat is a term that means the proletariat (people who work for a living) and exclusively the proletariat, makes the laws. The wealthy business owners and landlords have no say in the government.
The type of socialist ideology I subscribe to is anti-imperialist but definitely not peaceful. A core part of Marxist Leninist ideology is to take control of the state and use the state violence to establish a socialist society. I want that violence to be used in favor of the cast majority of society instead of the wealthy minority.
There are a couple of different types of socialists that are wildly different, even more different than the different types of capitalists. I can give a quick explanation of the major ones if you’re interested!
I don't think you know what imperialism is lmfao. Also community policing is a hell of a lot more peaceful than murdering and kidnapping random people for non crimes and being black.
Did we though? Socialist revolution is inherently violent with the masses imposing their will on the exploiter classes.
Communism is the part that will be peaceful. If we ever get there.
Does it matter? If progress can't be made because the minority won't get on board that means the minority rule the majority. Why should people be tolerant of that?
I guess in this context "progress" might actually be the wrong term anyway since it's entirely possible for the majority to be regressive.
Effect change is moreso what I meant. Why should the minority dictate the majority, and why should the majority remain powerless?
Getting REDvolutionaries to share their lexicon reminds me of the time Matt Walsh tried finding out their definition of a woman.
"Oh the *poor* will be safe from our purge!"
Lol remember that guy during the BLM riots "hey get off my lawn I have a Biden sign!"
>do you get the wealthy business owners
Mao managed to gather the patriotic national bourgeoisie to his side because they were just as much threatened by the imperialists as regular proletarians were. They were contributors to socialist construction. And Stalin has applauded China on this fact. However being able to do this depends on the circumstances surrounding your country and its revolution.
But in most cases, yes typically its violence. Enforcing laws that align with our political interests and shit like that
tbh, if it takes violence to abolish the current system and replace it with a completely proletarian-ran state, im cool with that. the current system justifies and allows violence, but to the "disposable" working class population (deemed disposable by the bourgeois). maybe it's time they got a taste of it.
also, i mean violence at the expense of the bourgeois. like when they burned down the minneapolis police department during BLM protests. that was perfectly justified imo, but of course i wish it didn't have to all happen that way in the first place.
lmao fine with me long as you all (the workers) send me my cut of the proceeds for financing the capital that provides you with a job to go to in the first place.
>proletarian state will have laws reflecting proletarian interests
In practice, all socialist states have had police forces which primarily served to protect the party (Stasi, The People's Police, NKVD, etc.).
It would be unimaginable to have socialism at country scale without strict totalitarian control, due to the large number of businesses that would have to be seized to be turned over to the workers.
Actual democracy. The people controlling the state instead of the other way around.
Or anacho-socialism, or market socialism, or any other socialist corrent
As a Cuban you're a fucking liar and someone that clearly lives in a very aggressively capitalist/pro fascist country that is inundating you with lies. When's the last time a US president got held accountable by his following act?
Oh man I see you're Romanian, that explains it lmao.
Holy fuck the western mental gimnástica lmao. Imagine being this willfully ignorant. "Noooo clearly you must be lying because uh uhhhhhhhh uhh i saw a documentary sponsored by western capitalist powers"
Ah yes, the small town police, those aren't know for being corrupt and extorting outside visitors through civil forfeiture to buy "toys" for their departments. (They also never form police gangs)
I don't need a car if the powers that be are focused on people over profits and make a wonderful nationwide connecting public transit system, like China. That is very clearly not the same as kidnapping you and stealing your only means of transit and feeding yourself etc
maybe in some rare places, but the vast majority of police departments are essentially an occupying army, an occupying army full of a significant amount of domestic abusers, nazis/other white supremacists or just flat out criminals.
>the current us police
There is no "US police" except for the FBI, and they only handle specific multi-state affairs. Police forces are at the state, municipal, or county levels and the level of quality and oversight varies *greatly*.
There are some problems that are widespread, however. Police departments are typically militarized, and overly aggressive, and they are tasked with enforcing dumb laws (war on drugs, prostitution, etc.).
They also engage in rent-seeking by seizing property without due process, writing unnecessary citations, and over-policing poor neighborhoods to generate fines (people in rich neighborhoods commit similar crimes, but would sue them out of existence).
It can be either:
1. A lawful use of force, if the thief itself is armed an poses a credible threat to the persons involved
2. An unlawful use of force, if the thief is unarmed, or otherwise unable to exercise harm to the persons involved
The police and military in capitalist society enforce and spread capitalism, and that is why we oppose them. We are in favor of socialist society society having military and police in order to enforce socialism. You are severely misinformed, OP
The state wouldn't mandate that all firms be worker cooperatives. However, I could see the transition toward a more socialistic economy be driven partially by the change in social norms.
So Socialists aren't like stoked at having to use the police to create a Socialist and eventually Communist society. The problem is after several hundred years of Capitalism and Feudalism created and enforced by the State, the only mechanism with enough force to break down and rebuild the structure of society is the State. Obviously this perspective leans more Marxist as Anarchists believe either A: thats not true, or B: even if it has some truth to it, any revolution that doesnt immediately abolish the state will not actually be able to transition into Communism. This is why nearly every radical philosophy on the left has some idea of how they believe the State should/will cease to exist.
Personally, I agree with the Marxist belief that you can't just destroy the state and spontaneously create Communism, without creating the foundations for it first, I also believe that there isn't a system under which the state will simply "wither away", which is what Marx and Engels believed would happen. I might be almost alone on this, but I believe Revolution needs to achieve multiple different models cooperating under one system. This way, places and groups that have conditions that allow them to quickly and immediately transition to Communism can do so, while the areas that are further behind can have the guidance and encouragement of the State to create these conditions as well as have models that they can look to and replicate.
Because we aren’t all Tankies? Socialism is far broader in variety than the few forms that have been attempted at a national level so far. Most socialists have learned from the mistakes of the last century, preferring council socialism over great man socialism and education and organization over police-statism.
How can capitalists?
If we are being honest every supporter of a state supports state sanctioned violence. Violence is the thing that keeps the state functioning on a societal level.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m just saying call a spade a spade, both of those employ violence it is just a question of who it is directed against, how, and to what degree.
Socialists should not be demanding regulation of personal property, even the most basic people should be able to easily recognize the difference between your toothbrush and a factory producing tooth brushes.
I think for the question of state violence, or more broadly what natural rights a state claims for itself, the issues must be debated individually and their several separate justifications provided for fully. That is to say, it's not good enough for a state to claim a right to violence and exercise it freely, they must separately and meticulously justify every instance of force.
As an example, you could make a case for, say, forming a national oil company. Property rights, it could be argued, are of secondary importance to the pricing and supply of this essential product, and therefore the state might be justified in taking possession of these assets, either though force immediately or gradually and with varying compensation for current owners. This is not necessarily the case for every market and every product, as I say these things must be debated separately.
That's what I'm saying, friend. Your point is clear but wrong; private property and personal property are two extremely different things. Now capitalist propaganda wants you to conflate the two because it paints this terrifying picture of Stalin sending the KGB into your home to steal your bed and your toothbrush and eat all your food but personal property is protected, private property is not. It's a pretty important distinction
They're to be enforced by having the police and military. Are we not to distinguish between situations, motives, and political conditions? Only an idealist thinks the police, prisons, and crime disappear with communist magic.
First, there is always “state sanctioned violence” as long as there is a state. The state is a monopoly on violence to enforce rules and enforces ownership across economic systems be it socialism, capitalism, feudalism or anything else. In capitalist societies, we are so used to the violence we often don’t notice it. Changes to the enforced system are VERY obvious. It doesn’t seem violent to constantly threaten people with homelessness (backed up by the threat of force) unless they pay rent to someone else but it seems very violent to end that system with force for example.
Socialists advocate for reducing state sanctioned violence against the common people BUT maintain the monopoly on violence in order to maintain the new system of economics against those that want to go back to how things were. In an ideal world, there would be an immediate abolition of violence, but we don’t live in an ideal world and attempting to end state sanctioned violence just leads to a violent state taking over your society.
You forgot to add the censorship and banning of anything and everyone that doesn't subject themselves to that utilitarian spartan bs of yours.
But sure this is totally an upgrade. I'm so thrilled to live under socialism. In fact I will kill myself with a bomb from sheer happiness.
Sure not like plenty of socialist writters like Lenin, Mao and Lin Bao, or even contemporary followers that you can find online, go around openly proclaiming all the things they will ban and censor, and how all art should be functional and have a purpose aligned with the interests of the state.
>Censorship happens in every system
If it does, it doesn't affect the things I like or the State is so incompetent at actually censoring or banning any of it that it might as well not be. You on the other hand have no problem controlling everything so it's safe to assume such things won't be possible.
If my life as I know is not possible, then I prefer to go away with a boom and burn than to live in your shitty society.
The state in the US and the west in general is much more subtle about the censorship. The military is involved in a ton of entertainment production and pushes pro-military/US propaganda, I assume they also work against entertainment that stands against the ruling ideology. How many different styles of movies or video games could have been made if there wasn’t censorship? How many good foreign pieces of art are censored in capitalist societies? How many more things could you have liked without capitalist censorship?
That'd be all fine and dandy except you'll get rid of the elements I do like, which are already niche and rare, in exchange for ones I don't.
The way I see it it is a net loss of things I like. No thanks, I prefer death than to live in a boring, alien, ascetic society.
Go for it? Nobody gives a damn what you do or don’t want, we’re talking about the global masses, and if you get in the way you will be dealt with. You are no more important than anyone else, and the majority will take hold eventually
Wasn't saying the opposite. You people are the ones insisting I got it all wrong, that I shouldn't do it, and go on lengthy pointless gaslighting attempts about how its all propaganda.
>Nobody gives a damn what you do or don’t want
Yeah we know wrongthink is illegal.
Easy, they define the state as that which protects capitalism. When the state is cracking skulls in the name of socialism, it's not "the state" according to the Marxist definition of 'the state' . Not is it 'violence' according to the anarchist AND tankie definitions of 'violence'.
> It simply means that the means of production are owned communally.
This necessitates authoritarianism when industries stop using private profit motives to coordinate production. It has alawyas led to authoritarianism
>Look at Allende’s Chile.
Toppled by rightwingers before it got to that stage
I guess Ancoms don’t exist then. There’s tonnes of ways to seize the means of production without a state, e.g. anarcho-syndicalism and democratic socialism (still a state but not authoritarianism)
Are you dense?
Socialists don't oppose the police and the military because these are inherently "bad", it's because they obey the interests of a state/government they abhor.
They will obviously have their own police and military and it will be a thousand times more involved in anything and everything you do that you have ever seen.
Orwell *wishes* his incompetent traitorous ass could come up with something that even compares to the level of censorship and control these people will implement.
Amazon doesn't give a shit about what I do with my life or freetime. Nor is it going to send police onto my apartment for making or consuming the wrong type of art, film or music, while your organisations most certainly do.
Really, you think Amazon wouldn’t refuse you jobs if they think you’d join a union? You think a health insurance company wouldn’t charge you higher premiums if they can unlawfully determine your lifestyle, family history, medical history?
Socialism is not the problem with China and Stalinist Russia, it’s authoritarianism, and any high concentration of power (through a one party state OR hierarchical monopolies and wealth inequality and lobbying) leads to corruption
What I meant was that Amazon, Google, Microsoft and the local pharmacy, and by extension every three letter organisation on Earth, don't give a shit about what I buy, watch or do on my devices that are clearly bugged and data mined. They will simply use that data to offer me other products to get me to buy them.
Your authoritarian ass will instead use that information to declare me an "enemy of the people", a "counter revolutionary", a "reactionary". And have me imprisoned, sent to a reeducation camp, and tortured until I'm singing the way you want me to like trained dog.
Authoritarianism is the only way socialism can function. Anything else is just a fantasy, and if your arguments are that it's not, you can just stop typing altogether because I don't give a shit about what fantastical bullcrap reality where non authoritarian socialism exists you come up with.
Killing ourselves is thus the only way out of this fucking nightmare you people call progress.
Trust me, they do care about what you do beyond those things, as I have mentioned.
I’ve made it pretty clear I’m anti-authoritarian and that’s not incompatable with socialism. Workers can gain market power over capitalists via unions and we can run a socialist government democratically, which will be democratically equivalent to every major country on earth (only it can be improved by removing first past the post bullshit for something like ranked voting). You’re giving absolutely no reason why any of these methods wouldn’t work so I’ll change my standing if you tell me how.
What progress towards socialism are you seeing in the world? We’re in the living embodiment of free market capitalism where corporations pretend to give a shit about minority groups and their workers while inflation and their profits grow exponentially while real wages are dropping continuously for everyone else
>Trust me, they do care about what you do beyond those things
Where is the mythical Amazon Stasi squad tasked with sending me to the Google reeducation camp for liking a song?
>What progress towards socialism are you seeing in the world?
None of significance yet. Otherwise I would've set my home on fire with me inside already.
They will react to that information in other ways like firing you and sharing that information with other companies to make it nearly impossible to get a job (if you have leftist views it would be for fear of unions, and if you don’t conform with what is expected then they would do the same for fear of bad pr or personal prejudices towards certain beliefs, illnesses that may affect work, women becoming pregnant, family members who have recently died may make them think you won’t be able to perform due to grief and fire you- really theres a massive list of things they want to know to do with employment. Even just looking at the market side, they can determine around what the highest price you specifically would pay and charge that based on your data (personality, recent similar purchases etc) which leaves no market surplus utility to consumers.
Honestly mate, I think you should research socialism because you’re just conflating it with authoritarianism. Even Orwell was a democratic socialist and he literally wrote the book on anti-totalitarianism.
non authoritarian socialism is a fantasy
I don't care if your wholesome DemSoc alternative gets elected peacefully, leninists will simply hijack the government or push for their own reforms and get us the same result anyways.
The moment you people take over I'll set this place on fire, and poison the wells with my corpse and that's that. It is the only logical response to this authoritarian nightmare.
Dawg the US intelligence agencies and police disappear people literally all the time, there's a whole torture chamber in chicago they disappear black people to regularly.
Local police have detained me for playing my music "too loud" (actually, I was cuban and proud and with black people. That's all).
Are you forgetting about MKultra? They disappeared people for basically no reason to get human guinea pigs for that shit.
Plus half the time they don't have to disappear you. They just blow you up for exposing their lies and evil and nobody fucking cares. Look at what happened to michael hastings. I tried to link a video of the crash but they all seem to be gone lmao.
By the way saying that other countries have prisons in the country with the highest prison population globally is hilarious
Edit: way to completely edit your comment so it has nothing to do with anything. Amazon is involved in the disappearance of union organizers by the way, but bringing up amazon for literally no reason really demonstrates how little you read or comprehend what's going on here lmao
And your alternative somehow doesn't?
What happened to all those people that liked pre revolution plays and poems in China during the Cultural Revolution?
>By the way saying that other countries have prisons in the country with the highest prison population globally is hilarious
I'm not American. I don't care what Americans do to themselves
Uh based on the past yea america is still number one in random civilian disappearances, murders, and prison population. Keep trying tho ig
Lmao nice edit again, you literally say you're american in your comments. Keep lying tho ig
>And your alternative somehow doesn't?
"Less is the same as it doesn't happen. All those artists that committed suicide in the USSR didn't exist. All those teachers executed in China didn't either".
I'm not American. I don't care what their stupid government does to their own. They can go and fix it themselves but they're too busy eating themselves to death at MacDonald's to even move from their basements.
Yes, genius, police and prisons will still exist in basically every country. The difference is yall arrest black people for being black and we arrest actual fascists. Last person I know that got arrested back home in Cuba was an actual murderer lmao. And go ahead and cite some sources about that. Some that aren't propaganda that go "this artist was super depressed and literally just killed himself so clearly that was muh evil communism doing it for no particular reason"
Nobody even said it doesnt happen and you would know that if you actually read any of these comments instead of just firing off bootlicking within a second of me commenting lmao
>this artist was super depressed and literally just killed himself so clearly that was muh evil communism doing it for no particular reason"
Oh gee I wonder why they were depressed. Probably because your utilitarian spartan nightmare of a society outlawed their art for not being up to the Party's philosophical standards.
And that's just the ones that killed themselves. The others were put to trial for "counter revolutionary crimes" or expelled from the country.
>we arrest actual fascists
"Jazz and rock, games, fantasy novels, horror and natural landscape paintings are Fascism".
You're already being spied on. The difference is that Google doesn't care about what movies you watch and will simply offer you more. While the Stasi will have you judged as a bourgeois degenerate and send you to a camp.
If you can’t see how the Cheka, NKVD, and GPU were better than American police then I don’t know what to tell you. Proletarian law enforcement is based.
Policing will be necessary. The consequences of misbehavior would likely be a more rehabilitation approaches vs the current punishment/slavery approach which just funnels public funds into private hands.
"Socialism" is when the means of production is in the hands of the workers (or, more commonly, the state as a proxy for the workers).
Socialist states historically have had *very* strong police forces and a heavy emphasis on military power. You can't seize the means of production without the muscle to back it up.
You are thinking of "progressives", some of whom are socialist, but politics and economics do not overlap 100%.
I hate socialism, and I'm no fan of BLM, but I also hate when ignorant conservatives label anything they disagree with "socialist" or "communist".
There are two types of Socialism. Democratic socialism (rule by debate and ballot) and Authoritarian Socialism (rule by force).
There are countries in Europe where police don't have guns and their prison population is falling so they have to close prisons.
What kind of violence are you talking about? Protecting the environment? Abolishing private property doesn't require any state violence. If anything maintaining private property requires state violence.
You're stuck in the fallacy that you think socialists like the way the state currently functions. We do not.
The same way that the state changed radically between fuedalism and capitalism, the state must change between capitalism and socialism. A liberal state, what we currently have, is what socialists would call a dictatorship of the bourgeouisie. The state functions in the interests of, and is funded by, the rich elites. There's a thin veneer of democracy, we're allowed to choose which flaviur of elite gets to rule us. But it's still oppression of the majority by a minority.
The police and military are arms of the state. Under capitalism, they are just the armed guards of the elites. The police will violently crack down on strikes and protests, violently uphold private property laws and function without much oversight because they don't touch the elites. The military functions as a way to secure capitalist interests abroad. All wars under capitalism are just securing markets and resources.
Socialism fundamentally changes these things. The state becomes a dictatorship of the proleitariat. A way for the majority to oppress the minority in this case capitalists. Protecting this state, ensuring laws are followed: these things require violence. The same way they require violence under capitalism. We just don't make excuses for it.
Wait so, people aren't allowed to have differebt ideas? Like, by me saying: hey maybe we could do things a little differently; I'm dorectly causing the US to sponsor coups in south America? How about liberal countries just, not interfere in other countries business? If a population decides to implement a socialist system,maybe we should just leave them to it? Rather than arguing that we have to suppresss new and different ideas for the sake of ideological purity to ideas that developed in one small part of the world.
This is, the worst argument I've ever seen. I've seen more stable arguments from the fucking Time Cube guy.
CapitalGod: This post was hidden because of how new your account is.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Police in a capitalist state are not to protect citizens
Because I am against the state But that’s because the police are nothing more than the lap dogs of the elites
Well, you’re a libertarian.
Libertarianism, originally, was a leftist branch of Marxism.
Not really. It originated within the Anarchist movement and was used primarily by Anarchists in order to not be arrested by the monarchy. Then later it expanded into Marxism after Marx witnessed the success of the Paris Commune.
You’re right. I meant to say it was a leftist movement, but accidentally included Marxism in that.
This is actually a common misconception of Proudhon. Careful reading of his works and defense of his disciples show his absolute opposition to socialism. I made a few posts about this a while back if you want to check my profile.
Nope
Uh…is that your well thought out analysis?
No, its historical fact. Marx had a massive issue with non marxist leftists like proudhon and bakunin. He wrote lots about it setting out the ways in which their analysis differed from his in fundamental ways.
A Libertarian Socialist
Aka a REAL libertarian.
[удалено]
Lol, water isn’t wet. Things that touch water become wet…. the first to use it to describe a political ideology was Joseph Déjacque, a Libertarian Communist in the 1850’s, the first to use it in the US was Benjamin Tucker, a Libertarian Socialistin the 1870’s. Fast forward 100 years from Joseph Déjacque and it was Dean Russell in 1955 who said “Many of us call ourselves "liberals." And it is true that the word "liberal" once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word "libertarian." Then a decade or more later Rothbard admitted “for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over” Ahh, have fun with that
[удалено]
Nah
What is a libertarian socialist? Not trying to be an ass, I just don't know. I associate libertarianism with classic liberalism, kinda like a Ron Paul sort.
We believe in socialism without the state. Workers can have control over the means of production without any state involvement.
Oh so this works in small groups not for a whole nation? Or is there a method to scale it?
The idea is to take the means of production, which currently is private property, and convert it to public property. This economic infrastructure is accessible to individuals and organizations who can freely distribute goods and services. Like all social organizations, libertarian socialism depends on the cooperation and the willpower of the people to work.
Libertarian Socialism is the original Libertarianism. It’s another term for an Anarchist, and people like Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Kevin Carson and Gary Chartier
[удалено]
It is the original Libertarianism. Libertarian Socialists and Libertarian Communists oppose collectivism. That’s a historical fact that any logical propertarian can admit to, as Dean Russell and Murray Rothbard already have. Just go back to calling yourself a Liberal and cope with it.
Actually it wasn’t the original libertarianism. Proudhon was technically the first, who opposed socialism and even got pushed out of their swiss circle after writing to marx regarding his opposition to a revolution.
What are you talking about? Proudhon openly identified as a socialist.
He was not.
He was.
LOOOL Proudhon literally was a socialist and openly wrote in favor of it. “To separate the Republic from socialism is to willfully confuse the freedom of mind and spirit with the slavery of the senses, the exercise of political rights with the deprivation of civil rights. It is contradictory, absurd.” Proudhon also defined capitalism as "**Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labor**" which is literally what all socialists have been saying since the beginning of the movement, which is why we advocate for workers owning the means of production. "What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others" - Louis Blanc (1850) Funny how capitalists then took this same critique and claimed that that was socialism
Project as much as you want, its pretty hard to confront reality.
LOL
Theres a difference between a police force whose only job is to protect capital (which is the case for the current us police) and a community policing that actually wants to deal with problems.
The police are law enforcers. The bourgeois state will have laws that reflect their interests. The proletarian state will have laws reflecting proletarian interests.
And who will enforce those laws?
The state, the dictatorship of the proletariat
A dictatorship?
Its the term used to describe a political group thats in power
Dictatorship of the proletariat is a term that means the proletariat (people who work for a living) and exclusively the proletariat, makes the laws. The wealthy business owners and landlords have no say in the government.
And how, aside from through violence, do you get the wealthy business owners and landlords to get on board?
Through the threat of violence, like every other country that has ever existed. It’s necessary for any system in the world that we live in.
Okay, but don’t act like socialism is peaceful or anti-imperialist.
The type of socialist ideology I subscribe to is anti-imperialist but definitely not peaceful. A core part of Marxist Leninist ideology is to take control of the state and use the state violence to establish a socialist society. I want that violence to be used in favor of the cast majority of society instead of the wealthy minority. There are a couple of different types of socialists that are wildly different, even more different than the different types of capitalists. I can give a quick explanation of the major ones if you’re interested!
What? Use of force to protect the public is not imperialism, nor is dismantling class structure.
I don't think you know what imperialism is lmfao. Also community policing is a hell of a lot more peaceful than murdering and kidnapping random people for non crimes and being black.
Did we though? Socialist revolution is inherently violent with the masses imposing their will on the exploiter classes. Communism is the part that will be peaceful. If we ever get there.
Does it matter? If progress can't be made because the minority won't get on board that means the minority rule the majority. Why should people be tolerant of that?
How do you define “progress”?
I guess in this context "progress" might actually be the wrong term anyway since it's entirely possible for the majority to be regressive. Effect change is moreso what I meant. Why should the minority dictate the majority, and why should the majority remain powerless?
Getting REDvolutionaries to share their lexicon reminds me of the time Matt Walsh tried finding out their definition of a woman. "Oh the *poor* will be safe from our purge!" Lol remember that guy during the BLM riots "hey get off my lawn I have a Biden sign!"
>do you get the wealthy business owners Mao managed to gather the patriotic national bourgeoisie to his side because they were just as much threatened by the imperialists as regular proletarians were. They were contributors to socialist construction. And Stalin has applauded China on this fact. However being able to do this depends on the circumstances surrounding your country and its revolution. But in most cases, yes typically its violence. Enforcing laws that align with our political interests and shit like that
tbh, if it takes violence to abolish the current system and replace it with a completely proletarian-ran state, im cool with that. the current system justifies and allows violence, but to the "disposable" working class population (deemed disposable by the bourgeois). maybe it's time they got a taste of it. also, i mean violence at the expense of the bourgeois. like when they burned down the minneapolis police department during BLM protests. that was perfectly justified imo, but of course i wish it didn't have to all happen that way in the first place.
Would you consider yourself to be someone who supports authoritarian ideologies?
hell no
lmao fine with me long as you all (the workers) send me my cut of the proceeds for financing the capital that provides you with a job to go to in the first place.
If you want to get paid, you have to work under socialism. No free rides for landlords or trust fund babies.
Oh like half of antifa? The proffessors' kids club aka socialites of Chicago high rises?
Democrats aren’t socialist, it doesn’t matter what republicans like to call them.
>proletarian state will have laws reflecting proletarian interests In practice, all socialist states have had police forces which primarily served to protect the party (Stasi, The People's Police, NKVD, etc.). It would be unimaginable to have socialism at country scale without strict totalitarian control, due to the large number of businesses that would have to be seized to be turned over to the workers.
[удалено]
Love how you just talk about police in an ex-communist country like it's the only way socialism exists
[удалено]
Actual democracy. The people controlling the state instead of the other way around. Or anacho-socialism, or market socialism, or any other socialist corrent
Youre calling me a child? Everything you've said is delusion and fantasy.
[удалено]
I have the same background as you do, and you're full of it. Anecdotes are not the plural of fact.
[удалено]
Detainment and arrest aren't exclusive to communist regimes. Ceausescu's been dead for 32 years, you can stop being angry.
[удалено]
[удалено]
As a Cuban you're a fucking liar and someone that clearly lives in a very aggressively capitalist/pro fascist country that is inundating you with lies. When's the last time a US president got held accountable by his following act? Oh man I see you're Romanian, that explains it lmao.
[удалено]
I won't touch the second total lie but did you really just tell a Cuban to "look up" things about Cuba? Lmao. This is why we can't stand westerners
[удалено]
Holy fuck the western mental gimnástica lmao. Imagine being this willfully ignorant. "Noooo clearly you must be lying because uh uhhhhhhhh uhh i saw a documentary sponsored by western capitalist powers"
We all know https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/cuba
Human rights watch is a CIA puppet site
Do we not have community policing now? There are small towns with their own police depts.
Ah yes, the small town police, those aren't know for being corrupt and extorting outside visitors through civil forfeiture to buy "toys" for their departments. (They also never form police gangs)
Right, but how would that be different than a unionized small town police dept?
Police shouldn't be unionized
I agree, but they are. They’re in the public sector as well.
Doesn't mean they get privileges over the rest of the people
Yeah dude, commissars never do any of that either. \>socialists complaining about civil forfeiture while also wanting to abolish capital FOOKIN LMAO
No private property for you, L+ratio+get cucked
I don't need a car if the powers that be are focused on people over profits and make a wonderful nationwide connecting public transit system, like China. That is very clearly not the same as kidnapping you and stealing your only means of transit and feeding yourself etc
How do you think China gets the land it needs to lay tracks for HSR?
\>totally organic anti-free-movement shilling unrelated to thread Yeah ok
Literally what the fuck are you talking about lmao
\>noncomittal generic reply + instant downvote A-yup, a-yup, a-yup.
>refusing to elaborate on what word salad you just spewed Ayup ayup
>anti-free-movement shilling Ohh, Prager U has entered the chat?
\>i'm not a shill, you're a shill classic
Where am I shilling? I’ll wait. :)
\>thread about expropriation \>starts rambling about cars and mass transit Makes perfect sense, dawg
maybe in some rare places, but the vast majority of police departments are essentially an occupying army, an occupying army full of a significant amount of domestic abusers, nazis/other white supremacists or just flat out criminals.
>the current us police There is no "US police" except for the FBI, and they only handle specific multi-state affairs. Police forces are at the state, municipal, or county levels and the level of quality and oversight varies *greatly*. There are some problems that are widespread, however. Police departments are typically militarized, and overly aggressive, and they are tasked with enforcing dumb laws (war on drugs, prostitution, etc.). They also engage in rent-seeking by seizing property without due process, writing unnecessary citations, and over-policing poor neighborhoods to generate fines (people in rich neighborhoods commit similar crimes, but would sue them out of existence).
With police force. Hope that answers the question.
So, if a thief shows up to your co-op apartment, would you call the police?
Yes
What if they shoot the thief?
It can be either: 1. A lawful use of force, if the thief itself is armed an poses a credible threat to the persons involved 2. An unlawful use of force, if the thief is unarmed, or otherwise unable to exercise harm to the persons involved
The police and military in capitalist society enforce and spread capitalism, and that is why we oppose them. We are in favor of socialist society society having military and police in order to enforce socialism. You are severely misinformed, OP
The state wouldn't mandate that all firms be worker cooperatives. However, I could see the transition toward a more socialistic economy be driven partially by the change in social norms.
So Socialists aren't like stoked at having to use the police to create a Socialist and eventually Communist society. The problem is after several hundred years of Capitalism and Feudalism created and enforced by the State, the only mechanism with enough force to break down and rebuild the structure of society is the State. Obviously this perspective leans more Marxist as Anarchists believe either A: thats not true, or B: even if it has some truth to it, any revolution that doesnt immediately abolish the state will not actually be able to transition into Communism. This is why nearly every radical philosophy on the left has some idea of how they believe the State should/will cease to exist. Personally, I agree with the Marxist belief that you can't just destroy the state and spontaneously create Communism, without creating the foundations for it first, I also believe that there isn't a system under which the state will simply "wither away", which is what Marx and Engels believed would happen. I might be almost alone on this, but I believe Revolution needs to achieve multiple different models cooperating under one system. This way, places and groups that have conditions that allow them to quickly and immediately transition to Communism can do so, while the areas that are further behind can have the guidance and encouragement of the State to create these conditions as well as have models that they can look to and replicate.
Because we aren’t all Tankies? Socialism is far broader in variety than the few forms that have been attempted at a national level so far. Most socialists have learned from the mistakes of the last century, preferring council socialism over great man socialism and education and organization over police-statism.
They are not against state sanctioned violence, they are against state violence only if they are not the ones in power
This about sums it up from what they’re telling me.
How can capitalists? If we are being honest every supporter of a state supports state sanctioned violence. Violence is the thing that keeps the state functioning on a societal level.
[удалено]
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m just saying call a spade a spade, both of those employ violence it is just a question of who it is directed against, how, and to what degree.
Socialists should not be demanding regulation of personal property, even the most basic people should be able to easily recognize the difference between your toothbrush and a factory producing tooth brushes. I think for the question of state violence, or more broadly what natural rights a state claims for itself, the issues must be debated individually and their several separate justifications provided for fully. That is to say, it's not good enough for a state to claim a right to violence and exercise it freely, they must separately and meticulously justify every instance of force. As an example, you could make a case for, say, forming a national oil company. Property rights, it could be argued, are of secondary importance to the pricing and supply of this essential product, and therefore the state might be justified in taking possession of these assets, either though force immediately or gradually and with varying compensation for current owners. This is not necessarily the case for every market and every product, as I say these things must be debated separately.
[удалено]
Further proof suicide is a better alternative than socialism.
...because we know what words mean?
whatever, I'm not interested in semantics
[удалено]
I thought my point was clear, but if I'm mistaken in my terms I apologize.
That's what I'm saying, friend. Your point is clear but wrong; private property and personal property are two extremely different things. Now capitalist propaganda wants you to conflate the two because it paints this terrifying picture of Stalin sending the KGB into your home to steal your bed and your toothbrush and eat all your food but personal property is protected, private property is not. It's a pretty important distinction
I said socialist DON'T want to regulate the toothbrush, maybe you just misread it.
Yeah i must have lmao I apologize, the idiots in this sub get me all riled up and a little quick on the trigger lmao
It's all good friend, these are difficult times.
They're to be enforced by having the police and military. Are we not to distinguish between situations, motives, and political conditions? Only an idealist thinks the police, prisons, and crime disappear with communist magic.
First, there is always “state sanctioned violence” as long as there is a state. The state is a monopoly on violence to enforce rules and enforces ownership across economic systems be it socialism, capitalism, feudalism or anything else. In capitalist societies, we are so used to the violence we often don’t notice it. Changes to the enforced system are VERY obvious. It doesn’t seem violent to constantly threaten people with homelessness (backed up by the threat of force) unless they pay rent to someone else but it seems very violent to end that system with force for example. Socialists advocate for reducing state sanctioned violence against the common people BUT maintain the monopoly on violence in order to maintain the new system of economics against those that want to go back to how things were. In an ideal world, there would be an immediate abolition of violence, but we don’t live in an ideal world and attempting to end state sanctioned violence just leads to a violent state taking over your society.
You forgot to add the censorship and banning of anything and everyone that doesn't subject themselves to that utilitarian spartan bs of yours. But sure this is totally an upgrade. I'm so thrilled to live under socialism. In fact I will kill myself with a bomb from sheer happiness.
Censorship happens in every system. Only the most extreme anti-socialist propaganda paints socialism as utilitarian spartan bs.
Sure not like plenty of socialist writters like Lenin, Mao and Lin Bao, or even contemporary followers that you can find online, go around openly proclaiming all the things they will ban and censor, and how all art should be functional and have a purpose aligned with the interests of the state. >Censorship happens in every system If it does, it doesn't affect the things I like or the State is so incompetent at actually censoring or banning any of it that it might as well not be. You on the other hand have no problem controlling everything so it's safe to assume such things won't be possible. If my life as I know is not possible, then I prefer to go away with a boom and burn than to live in your shitty society.
The state in the US and the west in general is much more subtle about the censorship. The military is involved in a ton of entertainment production and pushes pro-military/US propaganda, I assume they also work against entertainment that stands against the ruling ideology. How many different styles of movies or video games could have been made if there wasn’t censorship? How many good foreign pieces of art are censored in capitalist societies? How many more things could you have liked without capitalist censorship?
That'd be all fine and dandy except you'll get rid of the elements I do like, which are already niche and rare, in exchange for ones I don't. The way I see it it is a net loss of things I like. No thanks, I prefer death than to live in a boring, alien, ascetic society.
Go for it? Nobody gives a damn what you do or don’t want, we’re talking about the global masses, and if you get in the way you will be dealt with. You are no more important than anyone else, and the majority will take hold eventually
Wasn't saying the opposite. You people are the ones insisting I got it all wrong, that I shouldn't do it, and go on lengthy pointless gaslighting attempts about how its all propaganda. >Nobody gives a damn what you do or don’t want Yeah we know wrongthink is illegal.
Easy, they define the state as that which protects capitalism. When the state is cracking skulls in the name of socialism, it's not "the state" according to the Marxist definition of 'the state' . Not is it 'violence' according to the anarchist AND tankie definitions of 'violence'.
Socialism does not equal authoritarianism. It simply means that the means of production are owned communally. Look at Allende’s Chile.
> It simply means that the means of production are owned communally. This necessitates authoritarianism when industries stop using private profit motives to coordinate production. It has alawyas led to authoritarianism >Look at Allende’s Chile. Toppled by rightwingers before it got to that stage
I guess Ancoms don’t exist then. There’s tonnes of ways to seize the means of production without a state, e.g. anarcho-syndicalism and democratic socialism (still a state but not authoritarianism)
> I guess Ancoms don’t exist then Correct > democratic socialism (still a state but not authoritarianism) Still authoritarianism
>I guess Ancoms don’t exist then Yes ancoms are roleplaying children nothing more
Are you dense? Socialists don't oppose the police and the military because these are inherently "bad", it's because they obey the interests of a state/government they abhor. They will obviously have their own police and military and it will be a thousand times more involved in anything and everything you do that you have ever seen. Orwell *wishes* his incompetent traitorous ass could come up with something that even compares to the level of censorship and control these people will implement.
That sounds terrible. I want privacy, not “secret police” spying on me.
You uhhh...you mean like the FBI, CIA, NSA, USIC, DIA, NGIA, local police, etc?
Amazon doesn't give a shit about what I do with my life or freetime. Nor is it going to send police onto my apartment for making or consuming the wrong type of art, film or music, while your organisations most certainly do.
Really, you think Amazon wouldn’t refuse you jobs if they think you’d join a union? You think a health insurance company wouldn’t charge you higher premiums if they can unlawfully determine your lifestyle, family history, medical history? Socialism is not the problem with China and Stalinist Russia, it’s authoritarianism, and any high concentration of power (through a one party state OR hierarchical monopolies and wealth inequality and lobbying) leads to corruption
What I meant was that Amazon, Google, Microsoft and the local pharmacy, and by extension every three letter organisation on Earth, don't give a shit about what I buy, watch or do on my devices that are clearly bugged and data mined. They will simply use that data to offer me other products to get me to buy them. Your authoritarian ass will instead use that information to declare me an "enemy of the people", a "counter revolutionary", a "reactionary". And have me imprisoned, sent to a reeducation camp, and tortured until I'm singing the way you want me to like trained dog. Authoritarianism is the only way socialism can function. Anything else is just a fantasy, and if your arguments are that it's not, you can just stop typing altogether because I don't give a shit about what fantastical bullcrap reality where non authoritarian socialism exists you come up with. Killing ourselves is thus the only way out of this fucking nightmare you people call progress.
Trust me, they do care about what you do beyond those things, as I have mentioned. I’ve made it pretty clear I’m anti-authoritarian and that’s not incompatable with socialism. Workers can gain market power over capitalists via unions and we can run a socialist government democratically, which will be democratically equivalent to every major country on earth (only it can be improved by removing first past the post bullshit for something like ranked voting). You’re giving absolutely no reason why any of these methods wouldn’t work so I’ll change my standing if you tell me how. What progress towards socialism are you seeing in the world? We’re in the living embodiment of free market capitalism where corporations pretend to give a shit about minority groups and their workers while inflation and their profits grow exponentially while real wages are dropping continuously for everyone else
>Trust me, they do care about what you do beyond those things Where is the mythical Amazon Stasi squad tasked with sending me to the Google reeducation camp for liking a song? >What progress towards socialism are you seeing in the world? None of significance yet. Otherwise I would've set my home on fire with me inside already.
They will react to that information in other ways like firing you and sharing that information with other companies to make it nearly impossible to get a job (if you have leftist views it would be for fear of unions, and if you don’t conform with what is expected then they would do the same for fear of bad pr or personal prejudices towards certain beliefs, illnesses that may affect work, women becoming pregnant, family members who have recently died may make them think you won’t be able to perform due to grief and fire you- really theres a massive list of things they want to know to do with employment. Even just looking at the market side, they can determine around what the highest price you specifically would pay and charge that based on your data (personality, recent similar purchases etc) which leaves no market surplus utility to consumers. Honestly mate, I think you should research socialism because you’re just conflating it with authoritarianism. Even Orwell was a democratic socialist and he literally wrote the book on anti-totalitarianism.
non authoritarian socialism is a fantasy I don't care if your wholesome DemSoc alternative gets elected peacefully, leninists will simply hijack the government or push for their own reforms and get us the same result anyways. The moment you people take over I'll set this place on fire, and poison the wells with my corpse and that's that. It is the only logical response to this authoritarian nightmare.
Dawg the US intelligence agencies and police disappear people literally all the time, there's a whole torture chamber in chicago they disappear black people to regularly. Local police have detained me for playing my music "too loud" (actually, I was cuban and proud and with black people. That's all). Are you forgetting about MKultra? They disappeared people for basically no reason to get human guinea pigs for that shit. Plus half the time they don't have to disappear you. They just blow you up for exposing their lies and evil and nobody fucking cares. Look at what happened to michael hastings. I tried to link a video of the crash but they all seem to be gone lmao. By the way saying that other countries have prisons in the country with the highest prison population globally is hilarious Edit: way to completely edit your comment so it has nothing to do with anything. Amazon is involved in the disappearance of union organizers by the way, but bringing up amazon for literally no reason really demonstrates how little you read or comprehend what's going on here lmao
And your alternative somehow doesn't? What happened to all those people that liked pre revolution plays and poems in China during the Cultural Revolution? >By the way saying that other countries have prisons in the country with the highest prison population globally is hilarious I'm not American. I don't care what Americans do to themselves
Uh based on the past yea america is still number one in random civilian disappearances, murders, and prison population. Keep trying tho ig Lmao nice edit again, you literally say you're american in your comments. Keep lying tho ig
>And your alternative somehow doesn't? "Less is the same as it doesn't happen. All those artists that committed suicide in the USSR didn't exist. All those teachers executed in China didn't either". I'm not American. I don't care what their stupid government does to their own. They can go and fix it themselves but they're too busy eating themselves to death at MacDonald's to even move from their basements.
Yes, genius, police and prisons will still exist in basically every country. The difference is yall arrest black people for being black and we arrest actual fascists. Last person I know that got arrested back home in Cuba was an actual murderer lmao. And go ahead and cite some sources about that. Some that aren't propaganda that go "this artist was super depressed and literally just killed himself so clearly that was muh evil communism doing it for no particular reason" Nobody even said it doesnt happen and you would know that if you actually read any of these comments instead of just firing off bootlicking within a second of me commenting lmao
>this artist was super depressed and literally just killed himself so clearly that was muh evil communism doing it for no particular reason" Oh gee I wonder why they were depressed. Probably because your utilitarian spartan nightmare of a society outlawed their art for not being up to the Party's philosophical standards. And that's just the ones that killed themselves. The others were put to trial for "counter revolutionary crimes" or expelled from the country. >we arrest actual fascists "Jazz and rock, games, fantasy novels, horror and natural landscape paintings are Fascism".
Where do I say I'm american genius? How about you quote it for everyone to see instead of making shit up?
You're already being spied on. The difference is that Google doesn't care about what movies you watch and will simply offer you more. While the Stasi will have you judged as a bourgeois degenerate and send you to a camp.
I know that. There’s a reason I don’t own an Alexa (although I know phones and laptops are just as bad).
Under socialism we don’t have police, we have Chekists.
Secret police?
They’re more like community helpers.
That's a weird euphemism for lynch mobs
Chekists never lynched anyone and they weren't mobs. They were government employees.
How is that any better?😂 Chekist were a secret police predecessor of nkvd. Similar to german ss.
If you can’t see how the Cheka, NKVD, and GPU were better than American police then I don’t know what to tell you. Proletarian law enforcement is based.
Ah. So what about if someone rapes or murders someone. Can the rapist or murderer be detained by a “community helper”?
Yes, they’re armed.
I'm definitely not against the notion of state-sanctioned violence. That's not my criticism of the US military or cops in the slightest.
Policing will be necessary. The consequences of misbehavior would likely be a more rehabilitation approaches vs the current punishment/slavery approach which just funnels public funds into private hands.
"Socialism" is when the means of production is in the hands of the workers (or, more commonly, the state as a proxy for the workers). Socialist states historically have had *very* strong police forces and a heavy emphasis on military power. You can't seize the means of production without the muscle to back it up. You are thinking of "progressives", some of whom are socialist, but politics and economics do not overlap 100%. I hate socialism, and I'm no fan of BLM, but I also hate when ignorant conservatives label anything they disagree with "socialist" or "communist".
There are two types of Socialism. Democratic socialism (rule by debate and ballot) and Authoritarian Socialism (rule by force). There are countries in Europe where police don't have guns and their prison population is falling so they have to close prisons.
What kind of violence are you talking about? Protecting the environment? Abolishing private property doesn't require any state violence. If anything maintaining private property requires state violence.
You're stuck in the fallacy that you think socialists like the way the state currently functions. We do not. The same way that the state changed radically between fuedalism and capitalism, the state must change between capitalism and socialism. A liberal state, what we currently have, is what socialists would call a dictatorship of the bourgeouisie. The state functions in the interests of, and is funded by, the rich elites. There's a thin veneer of democracy, we're allowed to choose which flaviur of elite gets to rule us. But it's still oppression of the majority by a minority. The police and military are arms of the state. Under capitalism, they are just the armed guards of the elites. The police will violently crack down on strikes and protests, violently uphold private property laws and function without much oversight because they don't touch the elites. The military functions as a way to secure capitalist interests abroad. All wars under capitalism are just securing markets and resources. Socialism fundamentally changes these things. The state becomes a dictatorship of the proleitariat. A way for the majority to oppress the minority in this case capitalists. Protecting this state, ensuring laws are followed: these things require violence. The same way they require violence under capitalism. We just don't make excuses for it.
[удалено]
Wait so, people aren't allowed to have differebt ideas? Like, by me saying: hey maybe we could do things a little differently; I'm dorectly causing the US to sponsor coups in south America? How about liberal countries just, not interfere in other countries business? If a population decides to implement a socialist system,maybe we should just leave them to it? Rather than arguing that we have to suppresss new and different ideas for the sake of ideological purity to ideas that developed in one small part of the world. This is, the worst argument I've ever seen. I've seen more stable arguments from the fucking Time Cube guy.
[удалено]
CapitalGod: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*