Even im weirded out by how thoroughly the left was suppressed on reddit and other platforms. People on reddit only saw themselves mirrored and thought they were the only ones who existed.
Dozens of major leftist subreddits were literally banned, CTH being the most famous example, thousands of users received constant arbitrary 3 day bans over and over again with no explanation, the admins and mods who worked with them were pretty open about their suppression of the left
Yeah you keep telling yourself that horseshit, just ignore the fact the admins flatly said we were banned for “inciting violence” in the form of “KIll all slaveowners”
Also “brigading” that’s an interesting word, is that what you’re doing right now?
No because brigading is encouraging a subset of a website to raid something else. A single person cannot be brigading anything as a single person isn’t a brigade.
This community was banned for violating Reddit’s rule against promoting hate.
Doesn’t say anything about brigading.
And since we weren’t a hate sub in any way, my only conclusion is they think “kill all slave owners” is hate, since they LITERLALY complained about that and removed our comments saying so. john-brown
“Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and people that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.”
That’s Spez’s quote on the reason for CTH being banned. Looks like it was for all the threats of violence and harassment, which I absolutely regularly saw from CTH posters, and it had nothing to do with hatespeech.
Yes because only nazis oppose a system that does not achieve much other than mass murder leading to authoritarianism.
The British and American empires also led the anti-communist crusade. You’ll note the massive stacks of bodies and constant installation of puppet governments each one is responsible for.
If you think the Soviets weren’t less mass murder-y by a magnitude less than capitalist or monarchist governments you need to learn more about the constant stream of violence that capitalism produces. Even the massively exaggerated death counts of all socialist countries put together by anticommunists pale in comparison to just the British empire.
Also revolutions are the most authoritarian thing in existence. It is literally one class exercising control through physical violence and coercion against the class that has been socially murdering them and oppressing them until they collectively couldn’t take it anymore and were organized enough to fight back.
I’d say both are true. The left is actively suppressed on the platform AND the userbase is not that progressive (particularly on geopolitics) because of it being American-centric.
I mean Reddit’s director of policy, Jessica Ashooh, is former Deputy Director of the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Strategy Task Force — she’s literally a state department plant.
The reason in books: muggles will oppress or kill them, falls flat in the face of their overwhelming power. And the fact that they've never had much is an issue.
I don’t remember if it was a main book or one of those charity publications but she specifically decided to mention that witch burnings, when they caught a real witch, just resulted in the witch casting a spell that made fire tickle a bit.
I didn’t really think they actually covered that plot point well.
The biggest problem iirc is a duplicated loaf of bread has the same expiration date as the original, so you can’t actually make bread last forever with duplication without it getting moldy. Preservation charms wear off the same as muggle preservatives do.
But I don’t see why dried or smoked food couldn’t be duplicated for months or years. The biggest threat would be scurvy at that point.
Even with those limitations, duplication would still allow food producers to make less food go a longer way. Smaller farms could feed more people, reducing pollution. You could duplicate the food at the point of sale, which would drastically reduce transportation costs as well as traffic. Hell, cities could have small farms and fed themselves. It would also drastically reduce water consumption that is used in farming, reducing droughts. Producing and transporting food is a massive contributor to global warming. Farms and ranches take up tons of space, all that land could be returned to its natural state (I bet wizards could speed that up).
If wizards showed up with the cure to cancer and fed the hungry they’d easily have 1/5 of the world’s population on their side. Unfortunately the wizarding society is extremely exploitative of animals, even worse than the average muggle.
I get that wizards were persecuted and don’t want to have muggles expect them to solve all their problems, but they could literally save the planet.
Absolutely! Wizards can also cast longer-term enchantments in addition to duplicating food, so they could also provide self-stirring cooking pots and self-fueled stoves and self-cooling ice chests. That doesn’t even get in to Arthur Weasley tinkering like the flying Ford.
Does it, tho? Wizards are powerful, sure, but they’re severely outnumbered, and almost completely ignorant of technology. What’s your Avada Kedavra, that moves slow enough that untrained school children can dodge it, gonna do against the Mother of all Bombs? Or a nuke?
The issue is that wizards can instantly wage a guerilla war. All it takes is Muggle Studies being taken seriously and integration in muggle society. Then it's impossible to identify them. Wandless magic could be a focus to be certain you're never carrying an identifying marker.
Then the wizards don't need to attack. They can destabilize the economy by duplicating money, precious resources, etc. These will deteriorate eventually but cause chaos and devalue the economy for a time. Imagine taking a $100 bill and just duplicating it to prop up your car-wash business as a front. But that's baby-level chicanery.
The real sauce is the mind-control. Imperio (who cares if it's unforgivable when you're at war?) and more importantly the Memory Charm and False Memory spells. Let's just get in there, stun a very important person (start low, work up) and insert the memories you need to get them to act accordingly. Remove the memories of that transaction and boom! Access to the most powerful people in the world and the ability to influence them. Now a wizard has their finger (remotely) on the nuclear button!
Seriously. Voldemort was an idiot. He used basic terror tactics for years and the only reason he wasn't killed quickly was because Magical Britian was written to be as stupid as possible because Rowling was writing a children's story about incompetent leaders.
The person she told that to, Homer Hickam, had no say in the firing, expressed disappointment after, and helped her get another job after (though I do not recall if it was successful). In an era where companies are increasingly sensitive about what employees post online, she had it much much better than just about anyone else in the world fired for the same thing at least.
And really… perhaps I’m old fashioned, but posting stuff like that in the same tweet as your NASA offer was pretty poorly thought out. NASA doesn’t feel like the type of organization that wants its employees associated with messaging like that.
They obviously knew her twitter prior to offering the job and were actively monitoring it. The NASA guy doesnt just go around telling people to watch their language in tweets. They were keeping an eye on them, and they fucked up.
While I’m usually all for that sort of consequence to happen to someone who is legitimately being gross or creepy; I don’t think they should’ve actually fired her. Legitimately it should’ve been a stern warning and a request to apologize for the statement at worst.
Do I think it was a good idea to tweet it? Of course not. Was it unprofessional? Probably. I guess it depends on if the tweet or statement was made IRL or on Twitter via an alternate account.
I recall going to the UK after brexit, to a house party with family friends. I was hounded with how do you function with only a 2 week holiday. I then shared i had 4 weeks after 5 years. They were so confused that we could function with less than 6 weeks of vacation.
Burn out in the USA is a real thing. Our politicians will never vote for a mandatory vacation for anyone other than them selves
If you complain about it some Americans will just call you lazy. lol. Same thing with the cost of healthcare. They’ll just tell you to get a better job or better healthcare. They never speak about the root cause of the problem.
All consumer and enterprise equipment made in the last 10+ years natively support IPv6.
I object to this statement. You can buy name brand routers today that don’t implement it properly. Sure, they route packets, but they have broken stateless auto configuration or don’t respect DHCPv6 options correctly, and the situation is made worse because you don’t know how your ISP implements IPv6 until you try it.
God help you if you need a firewall where you can open ports on v6. Three years ago I bought one that doesn’t even properly firewall IPv6.
I tested a top-of-the-line Netgear router to find that it doesn’t support opening ports and once again doesn’t correctly support forwarded IP DHCPv6, which even if that works correctly, your Android clients can’t use it 🫠 Decades later there’s no consensus on how it should function on every device. This is a severe problem when you are a standard.
The state of IPv6 on consumer hardware is absolute garbage. You have to guess how your ISP implements it if at all, and even then you’re at the mercy of your limited implementation. If you’re lucky it just works with your ISP router. If you’re not, it’s a PITA.
The problem is mainly that IPv4 port forwarding is network address translation, but on IPv6 it’s instead IP forwarding with a firewall rule.
The latter is conceptually simpler, but it’s a different mechanism and one that most home routers don’t bother to implement. This is quite ironic because IPv6 was intended to restore end to end connectivity principles.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m quite happy with the standard. They are very few good implementations of that standard, and given the momentum of its predecessor, implementers just don’t care.
I absolutely hate how dependent we’ve gotten to IPv4. To the point that Amazon is charging almost $4 a month per IP. It used to be free. These assholes are buying IPv4 addresses so fast that they are literally driving up the price.
Is there a resource that you can recommend on learning IPv6 based on my knowledge on IPv4? A lot of resources I’ve seen are way over engineered for my feeble brain.
Like I know what IP addresses are and what port numbers are. I don’t understand the difference between how IPv6 addresses are assigned (both locally and generally speaking) and what makes it different from IPv4.
It absolutely can be DHCP. There’s two main ways to do it: stateless auto configuration, and DHCP. Super briefly, you can assign IP addresses the same way you used to if you want, or you can let devices pick their own.
I’m afraid I can’t recommend a great resource, but I really like the Wikipedia article because it’s very precise in its terminology. I appreciate that with learning a new subject. I’m not even that precise here. For example, I use the term IP forwarding more liberally than what it actually means.
This is why I use PFSense and Hurricane Electric as a v6 tunnelbroker. I have working functional IPv6 with SLAAC and DHCPv6 and full Routing Advertisements on my LAN running side-by-side so that no matter which the device implements how poorly; it gets an IPv6 address and it works and is protected by the firewall.
I really like stateless, but it bugs me that the router has to snoop on traffic if you want a list of devices. The good ones will actually do this, but most are blind to how your network is being used with IPv6.
And it really bothers me that Android just refuses to support DHCPv6 in any capacity. Seems like a weird hill to die on. There are too many legitimate use cases.
I run both because of this; and because SLAAC enables features in Desktop OSes that offer some level of additional privacy.
For example; Windows can do “Temporary IPv6 Addressing” that it will hand out to various applications and browsers. That IPv6 address rotates on a periodic basis; once every 24 hours by default; and can be configured to behave differently depending on your needs via registry keys.
This could for example, allow you to quickly spin up a small application server for something; like a gaming session; and let you use/bind that IPv6 address for it. Once the application stops using it and the time period has elapsed; Windows drops the IP address and statelessly configures itself a new one.
I also like the privacy extensions, but how often does your prefix even change? Most places I’ve seen you get a /64 announced and it basically never changes – so somewhat elementary to “break through” that regardless.
A /64 is more than enough though to prevent most casual attempts at entry; and does force more work / enumeration to be done to break into a network and do damage with. I’m not saying the privacy extensions are the greatest; but they do work to slightly increase the difficulty of tracking and exploitation.
With a /48 or even a /56; I can subdivide things and hand out several /64s to each device too; which would shake up things if tracking expects a /64 explicitly.
I actually use /55s to cordon off blocks inside the /48 that aren’t used too. So dialing a random prefix won’t help. You’d be surprised how often I get intrusive portsweeps trying to enumerate my /64s this way…and it doesn’t work because I’m not subnetting on any standard behavior.
You shouldn’t be forwarding anything - lan devices are directly accessible from the internet with ipv6. The router’s job now is to firewall inbound ipv6 packets. You should be able to simply open the inbound port for that device in particular.
Right, that’s how it should work. Unfortunately that’s not how it actually works most of the time in consumer.
Many devices don’t provide an option in the UI to open an inbound port on IPv6. For example, the latest and most expensive Linksys gaming router blocks all inbound connections and there are no options for different behavior. It doesn’t support opening any ports for v6.
The most recent TP link device I tested for my dad doesn’t even have a firewall. If you know the global IP, you can connect to any port you want.
And that’s why I abandoned cheap consumer routers many years ago… closest devices to implement ipv6 port management firewalling even half good was/is the ASUS devices. I got fed up and went pfsense and/or unifi one day and never looked back.
UDM handles ipv6 real good, and pfsense can even get /64 subs from an ATT router for all its lan interfaces.
Comcast has finally gotten around to giving hosts inside the firewall publicly routable IPv6 addresses, but port forwarding (which, by the way, can only be done through Xfinity’s website or mobile app which then connect to and configure the router through the ISP interface – if you go to the port forward configuration in the router’s webui, all you’ll see is a message that it’s now “easier than ever” to configure port forwards) can only happen on IPv4. Want to open a hole in the IPv6 firewall? Well that’s just too fucken bad.
Funny, I have an ancient DOCSIS modem from a company that went bankrupt ages ago which supports all these features flawlessly. Only thing it’s missing is DNS options, it’s hardcoded to use the ISPs DNS. Oh well.
Congrats! It’s scary, but this is when you finally have the freedom to live your unique life. Stay in touch with your close friends, everyone else will fade away. And remember, wear sunscreen.
I don’t understand, why not just mandate that parents should implement parental controls or something instead of blocking it for everyone? I think this is more the religious right agenda in action. Edit: not what pornhub did, but what TX was trying to do
Texas needs to control people because they believe in small government. How else do you display freedom and amall government other than restricting rights and punishing people? /s
Yes, this is part of their strategy to implement small government by controlling what hormones people can put in their bodies and whether they can have an abortion. The mandatory genital inspections for kids are also part of their small government initiative. #landofthefree
I really like the penis inspection day joke, because it constructs a narrative of systemic rape culture that would have easily been normalised if it were real, and draws attention to the normalisation. It gets people thinking about rape culture without even noticing that they’re thinking. And thereby vaccinates people against normalisation of systemic rape. I believe the shitposters who laughed at penis inspection day memes are more likely to understand the absurdity of actual anti-trans legislation.
In your own words, they are economic systems. What do you call a system built on Capitalism, but with a slightly larger welfare net? Socialism? No, you call it Capitalism.
You’re calling me brainwashed for correctly pointing out that Capitalism is Capitalism, even if you dress it up nicely?
#Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[
"wää wää wää no it’s not socialism, it’s capitalism, but I refuse to believe it and I don’t have to explain myself"
you
Please define socialism for me.
Because this an official definition
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or REGULATED BY the community as a whole. “we want a real democratic and pluralist left party—one which unites all those who believe in socialism”
Even the US has socialist policies, because “pure” capitalism is completely unworkable, because it kills the economy stone dead
Believe me, I’m not conflating Capitalism with markets. Capitalism is a specific form of market economy by which individual Capitalists buy and sell Means of Production, or Capital, by which they can pay Workers to use and create commodities via wage labor.
Examples of Socialist market economies include Market Socialism, a form of Socialism built on competing worker-owned co-operatives.
Examples of Socialist Market Economies do not include Capitalist Social Democracies, because the primary defining feature of Social Democracies is Capitalism with generous social safety nets, a kind of “human-centric” Capitalism.
You on the other hand are making the misconception that Socialism is simply when the government does stuff. You’re wrong, of course, as countless people here have pointed put.
Capitalism with regulation is still Capitalism. Socialism is when Workers share ownership of the Means of Production, simple as.
Examples of Socialist market economies include Market Socialism, a form of Socialism built on competing worker-owned co-operatives.
Honestly. Like seriously honestly adult adult honestly. Why the fuck do you not bother to spend 30 seconds checking concepts you have no idea about, and instead pull shit out of your arse?
Market socialism isn’t defined by worker cooperatives, it’s defined by socialism which utilises market economy. Like the socialist democracies of the Nordic countries.
You can’t even define capitalism, yet demand everyone is utilising it.
If a country doesn’t have a planned economy, you won’t admit it’s not capitalist. Which is so dumb I can’t even find the words to describe it.
Capitalism with regulation is still Capitalism. Socialism is when Workers share ownership of the Means of Production, simple as.
No, it simply isn’t. That’s like saying “you’re not gay as long as you don’t penetrate another mans anus, sexual attraction to men has nothing to do with being homosexual”.
The simple definition of socialism is when the means of production are owned OR REGULATED BY the government.
Which part of “OR REGULATED” do you not understand?
This is exactly what I meant with my first comments. Delusional fuckers like you, pretending all market economy is capitalism. Even the US doesn’t have “pure” capitalism, as the antitrust laws are by definition socialist policies.
I did define Capitalism, it’s a market based system by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital and Pay Workers wages to produce commodities.
I honestly almost suffocated. I laughed so hard I could barely breath, exactly like Risitas.
You seriously think you’ve “defined capitalism”? And to think you’re doing it in the exact way that shows I’m correct in that you’ve conflated capitalism with market economies? :DDD I can’t fucking believe this.
I’d like to keep pointing out how ridiculous this is, but I think you’re like a 14-year old yank or something and I don’t want to be that mean to kids.
Capitalism is defined by private ownership of industries and especially FOR PROFIT. (In case you were unaware, that’s what the “capital” in “capitalism” means.) FOR PROFIT*. That’s the main thing. Putting profit above everything, and being owned privately. The definition has nothing to do with “trading commodities and paying workers”. I… honestly I’m just slightly in loss of words at your stupidity.
Here in Finland our railroads aren’t private. Hell, there’s not even one single privately owned liquor store in the country. We still use market economies. Which means you are allowed to sell your time to an employer who has a private business, in exchange for money. Unlike the US though, we don’t even have a minimum wage set in the law. Why? Because our trade unions are so strong that there is a de facto minimum wage in all industries, so a de jure one isn’t even needed.
Capital does not mean “for profit,” Capital refers to the Means of Production. Market based economies driven by profit predate Capitalism, which is only a few hundred years old. If you’d read Capital, you would have known that.
Railroads being government owned and operated is an example of Socialism! Hooray, you did it! But that’s just one part.
Market economies are not when you sell your time to an employer. That’s wage labor. Market economies involve competing entities, and can take the form of mercantilism, Market Socialism, Capitalism, and many other forms of Market. What you describe is just Capitalism though, haha.
So if you lack a minimum wage, then I guess you’re admitting that you think the fact that the US has one makes it Socialist? Is whether or not something is Socialist just vibes to you?
You’re one of the most incoherent right-wingers I’ve encountered, I’ll tell you that much.
I love how you keep pretending you’ve read Das Kapital. “But markets existed before Marx!”
Yes. They did. And what exactly happened that made Marx assert that that era had been different from the era he was living in? The industrial revolution, which made it possible for people looking to profit to actually build such huge profits that they could grow their capitalist enterprises and keep growing them by exploiting the proletariat. Anyone who’s even read the Wikipedia article on Marx would know that ROFL. (I’m enjoying myself immensely, thank you.)
Before the industrial revolution, there was a different balance in the world. Lowly people just wanting to be rich simply had no opportunity to do that. After the industrial revolution, those people could become so rich, they rivaled the nobility, which is why we consider it the end of feudalism and the beginning of capitalism, AS MARX WRITES. Weird how much you’ve missed of the book you’ve definitely read, huh?
Greed existed before the industrial revolution, markets existed before the industrial revolution, and even government economies existed before it. But there wasn’t a way for those greedy fuckers to exploit people on a massive scale. With the industrial revolution, that way was shown to them. That’s what Marx’s whole book is about.
I’d say “nice try”, but it really, really wasn’t a nice try. Downright pathetic, in fact. :(
So if you lack a minimum wage, then I guess you’re admitting that you think the fact that the US has one makes it Socialist? Is whether or not something is Socialist just vibes to you?
We don’t lack a minimum wage, just like I said. We don’t have one in law. You don’t understand what “de jure” and “de facto” mean? :D This keeps getting better. Here, let papa explain. The trade unions prevent anyone from hiring someone without utilising the rules the trade union has set. This means that despite Finland’s government not having a law which regulates minimum law, no Finn can work anywhere without having a set minimum wage. That minimum wage just doesn’t come from the law. This really shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
Edit oh and “rightwinger”? What fucking logic are you using? :DDDDDD Please, send me what you’re smoking, I’m begging you :DDDD
I did give a simple definition of Capitalism, it’s a Mode of Production by which Capitalists buy and sell Capital that they pay workers Wages to use to create commodities. Commodities, by definition, are goods and services produced for sale, ie for profit.
I genuinely thought you at least knew what a commodity was, but given that you think I was ignoring profit when speaking about commodities, a concept tied fundamentally to the concept of profit, I can take that to mean that you truly haven’t read Marx, as one of the earliest chapters in Capital Volume I goes over the definition of Commodities.
I know about the Industrial revolution, and I similarly know that just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism. I am not sure why you are pretending I do not know that, the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie teamed up to overthrow the aristocracy in most monarchies, which is why it’s stated that feudalism gave way to Capitalism in the first place. Class conflict and the analysis of such is the foundation of Marxism.
That entire set of paragraphs was you just vomiting on your keyboard about stuff I already know and made no indication of not knowing, which is honestly goofy.
Believe me, I know what de jure and de facto are. Not having a minimum wage coded in law by the government would, in your own definition, mean that it is more Capitalistic than it is Socialist, because Socialism is regulation to you. This does not help your point. Like I said, it would be nice if the Nordic Countries actually became Socialist and the Unions took ownership and control of the Means of Production, instead of leaving them in the hands of Capitalists.
You are a right winger, because you support Capitalist ownership of the Means of Production. Until you shed that and support worker ownership, at best you will always be a center-right Social Democrat.
No, you didn’t. You wrote a sentence of vague gibberish, without any sources to back it up, despite just a few comments ago criticising Wikipedia as a bad source. Childish and utterly ridiculous.
for sale, ie for profit.
Selling something doesn’t mean you profit. If you buy 10 eggs for 10 dollars and sell those eggs for 10 dollars, how much profit did you make? Was there a trading of commodities? Yes, there was. Was there profit? No, there wasn’t.
It’s things like that which show you’ve not read Marx (or hardly anything, at all, actually), which is why I’m gonna quit this conversation after this comment; you’re a lying, pretentious pseudointellectual who refuses to argue this in good faith and can’t link a single source to back himself up.
You talk of communism as it’s not within socialism. Again. And you don’t understand how ridiculous that is. “For food, we have sandwiches, chips, spaghetti, and pasta.” is equally ridiculous a sentence as “Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so too should Capitalism give way to Socialism, and Socialism to Communism”
Again, repeating the “believe me”. If you look at how often you utilise it in your comments and pay attention to it, you might become a better liar.
Not having a minimum wage coded in law by the government would, in your own definition, mean that it is more Capitalistic than it is Socialist, because Socialism is regulation to you.
Again showing your ignorance. The dictionary definition of socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Do you think the trade unions are NOT a part of the “community as a whole”? (That’s a rhetoric question, as I said I’m quitting this, as you are quite funny, but after I’ve had a laugh or two, I start pitying the fact that people like you exist. You clearly aren’t ready to learn anything, keep lying and avoiding addressing your gibberish.)
You are a right winger, because you support Capitalist ownership of the Means of Production.
Oh I do? Wow, your logic is quite as impeccable as it has been the entire conversation. Please, do provide your reasoning for this. I’ would love to be able to show it to people
What exactly is vague gibberish? Which part didn’t make sense to you?
Yes, you can sell something and not make a profit, but the goal of commodity production is profit, not equal output from input. The Capitalist has no reason to pay people just to break even, the goal is profit, and as economies are measured as aggregates, that is the purpose of commodity production.
Communism is a post-Socialist form of economy. Socialism is defined as Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, while Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society.
Trade unions are a good thing, but not Socialism. Socialism requires ownership. Unions help offset some of the issues of Capitalism, yes, but until you get rid of the Capitalists, it’s still Capitalism.
Yes, you’re a right winger, because you are supporting Social Democracy as a framework. Social Democracy is Capitalism with expanded social safety nets, there are still Capitalists, still Capitalism, and very little worker ownership, but it certainly sounds nicer than what the US has!
Your greatest source is misinterpreting a line in Wikipedia? You think that means your Capitalism is actually Socialism despite relying on Capitalism, because the welfare net is larger? Lmao
“I refuse to look or acknowledge any data on the subject, so I’m correct”
Is the little kiddo having to backpedal and ignore the facts because he made a bit of a boo-boo in his rhetoric?
Please do elaborate on how I misunderstood something such as: “Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism” to mean what it says. Im sure you’ve a really good reasoning on how it ACTUALLY means that “social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within capitalism”
Your data is Wikipedia. That’s it. Read perhaps any Socialist literature and you’re immediately debunked.
If Social Democracy was truly under Socialism, then the Workers of your country would own the Means of Production.
A more accurate reading of what you are claiming is that Social Democracy takes influence from Marxism while rejecting the conclusions and thus the necessity for Socialism, instead relying on Capitalism.
Tell me, plainly, how you can have Socialism with Capitalists and Capitalism. Or, does Nestlé not exist in the Nordic Countries?
Here’s my source: Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
Want to go and read those books? No? I’m schocked.
The information from those books is listed on Wikipedia, yes. Are you so childish that you’ll now pretend “you can’t find real information on wikipedia”?
Weirdly enough, you don’t have ANY sources for the things you pull out of your arse. Almost as if you didn’t know what you were talking about and didn’t HAVE any sources for your faulty claims, because like I said, you’ve conflated market economies and capitalism and think socialism equals communism, because you don’t understand communism is just one form of socialism.
“How can you have socialism with capitalism”
Since I’ve already explained you keep conflating “capitalism” with “market economies”, the question is then translated into “tell me, plainly, how can you have socialism and market economies”, for which the answer is really quite simple for anyone literate. However, since you also conflate “socialism” with “communism”, then the question becomes “how can you have communism with market economies”, to which the answer is “you can’t, since communism relies on planned economies instead of market economies”.
That’s where your confusion comes from.
Due to our good regulations because of our social demoractic, well governed economies, capitalist companies can participate, but they can’t do the shenanigans they can do in less regulated markets. The degree of regulation is the question. Even the US doesn’t have “pure” capitalism. Things like the antitrust laws are by definition socialist policies, but this doesn’t mean the US is socialist in any way. It just means even they understand the necessity of regulation over “pure” capitalism, because “pure” capitalism is unsustainable as it leads to monopolies which then kill the economy.
This is why for example I can actually drink my tapwater and eat raw eggs that don’t even have to be refrigerated. This is why the quality of all products here is higher, and why it’s more expensive for companies like Nestle to try their bullshit here, which is why they mostly aim for developing countries. To avoid the regulation that comes with properly functioning social democracy.
If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too? It has plenty of regulations, more than Social Democracies do in many areas, in fact. Are you going to tell me that every country is actually Socialist if it doesn’t have a laissez Faire Capitalist economy, even if it uses Capitalism as the primary mode of production?
You want a source? Marx’s Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.
Social Democracy absolutely takes influence from Marxism, that’s perhaps what the source you list may be referring to, however the place where Social Democrats fight with Socialists on is Social Democrats believe Capitalism can be harnessed and benefited from, instead of needing to transition to a worker owned economy.
I am not confusing Capitalism with markets, again, Wikipedia defines Market Socialism as a market based economy of competing worker-owned entities. Your own source, against you! Ha.
Similarly, I am not confusing Socialism with Communism. Communism is a Post-Socialist society, one that is Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless. Communism is indeed one form of Socialism, as is Syndicalism, as is Anarchism, as is Council Communism, as is Market Socialism.
If Socialism is Capitalism with more regulations, is the United States Socialist too?
Not a bad question, if you’re honestly looking for conversation, but I get a feeling you’re trying a “gotcha” more than asking in good faith.
It’s more or less like sexuality; a spectrum more than anything black-and-white, even when people usually speak of it as either or (or “a mix of” = bi).
“Pure” capitalism doesn’t exist anywhere. It’s never even been tried as much as communism. Well, not in a developed, civilized world. What I mean by that is by the time that any sort of currency has become a thing, there’s also been regulation, even if not written. “Pure” capitalism would mean large, completely unregulated markets. There’s just no such thing, nor ever has been. Because capitalism is by it’s nature self-defeating. The competition which puts profit over anything means that the one who profits most, by any means necessary, will win and get to establish a monopoly that will then dry the market completely out.
Which is why the US, despite being so obviously politically and economically (having such few regulations and worker protections for a supposedly developed nation) capitalist, has things like a minimum wage (more or less) and antritrust laws. Because they help keep the capitalism from eating itself to death.
You want a source? Marx’s Capital. Read it, you might learn something, even if accidentally.
Nice try, but you haven’t, that’s quite obvious.
Also, laissez-faire is essentially “without intervention”, when we all know that companies wield just a megaton of political power in the US and interfere in politics constantly, in order to keep free of regulation.
“Takes influence from Marxism”
And which economic school of thought hasn’t been influenced by Marx in some way or another? Since you say you’ve read “Das Kapital”, you obviously didn’t forget who came up with the term “capitalism”? Wouldn’t — arguably — taking a name for your school of thought be counted as “being influenced by”? (No, I’m not being serious, I’m doing the same sort of gotcha-shit you did in to showcase you how silly it is.)
I’m still waiting on you to elaborate on how I “misunderstood” this sentence:
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism" (sourced from Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.)
Or you know, for you to source any of your hilarious bullshit
Oh, believe me, it’s a good-faith gotcha. Anyone who thinks one of the most Capitalist countries on the planet is Socialist has no idea what they are talking about.
I am well-aware of the concept of mixed economies. As an example, a truly centrist economy would have 50% of industry owned and controlled by workers, and the other 50% would be owned and controlled by Capitalists. Social Democracies lean heavily in the side of Capitalists and as such are Capitalist.
Capitalism is indeed self-defeating, that’s why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections, held largely at bay by strong unions. My hope is that one day the Nordic unions will take control and ownership of industry a la Syndicalism and finally become a group of actual Socialist countries.
Yes, the US has regulations. These do not make it more Socialist, rather, these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.
What part of my analysis makes it so “obvious” to you that I haven’t read Capital, despite everything I have stated thus far being in line with it, and everything you’ve stated being firmly against it?
Fair enough, many fields have been influenced by Marxism, but what I’m specifically stating is that Social Democrats agree with initial marxian analysis and see that there is benefit for working class power, but disagree with his conclusions, and thus prefer to direct Capitalism to benefit workers.
I have already explained how you’ve misinterpreted that same sentence multiple times: Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.
Explain to me exactly why you think Socialism is polite Capitalism. You keep thinking Socialism is mere government regulation, when it is in fact worker ownership. You cannot have Socialism with Capitalists, if you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it’s still Capitalist!
You’re extremely incoherent for a right-winger, even by right-winger standards.
You keep repeating “oh believe me”. You know why people like you say that? Do you know how liers also stress “I’m telling the truth”? Yeah, so… :)
No-one was talking about “mixed economies”. Learn to read.
that’s why the Nordic Countries are seeing steady rises in disparity and sliding of Worker protections,
None of that is remotely true. The laws keep improving all the time. I honestly don’t understand the need of people like you to literally make up things to pretend like you understand a thing? Just don’t reply. If you write less, people won’t be able to see what a moron you are.
these regulations are often bought and paid for by large Corporations to cement their power as Capitalists.
What the fuck are you smoking? “Yeah capitalist companies actually enjoy good regulations”
Social Democracy seeks to directly existing liberal Capitalist frameworks for the benefit of all, while maintaining existing power structures and hierarchies.
Call an ambulance, you’re having a stroke. That is meaningless drivel that in no way argues against the fact that social democracy is SOCIALIST as established by Eatwell & Wright 1999, pp. 80–103; Newman 2005, p. 5; Heywood 2007, pp. 101, 134–136, 139; Ypi 2018; Watson 2019.
no matter how much you cry and stomp your foot, you’re just a teenager equivocating, without any understanding of this. This shctick is getting old. It was entertaining for a while.
You’ve not provided a single source. Because there aren’t any, becuse you’re a teenager who keeps pretending he undestands something
you still have a business owner but the business is regulated, it’s still Capitalist!
TLDR “if private property exists it’s not communism”
Stomp your foot all you want kid. The truth doesn’t care.
Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism
I have been saying “oh believe me” because nothing you have stated is new to me, other than your lack of understanding of the difference between Socialism, Capitalism, and markets in general.
Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power. An example is Disney with IP protections, they seek to maintain absolute control over their aging IP and have lobbied the government to keep their power entrenched. Another example is tax filing companies like H&R block making the tax process incredibly inefficient and difficult for the average American, just so they can sell more of their services.
Please, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source. Why do they call Social Democracy Socialist if it is built on Capitalist frameworks, with individual business owners rather than the economy being owned and controlled by the workers?
You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.
It’s also really funny that you say I’m having a stroke as you reenact the REDRUM scene from the shining, lmao. Get help.
So you criticise Wikipedia as a source, and then when I keep asking you for sources for your arguments, you link three different articles about how income inequality is slightly higher in the recent years, and think it proves…? What? That your gibberish about political philosophy makes sense?
I’m having a hard time breathing, my eyes are watering. I really suggest you learn to check a thing or two on Google before opening your mouth :DDDDD
Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power.
“Companies like regulations”
No, companies like laws which favour them. They don’t like “regulations”, they like PROFIT. ANYTHING that increases their profit is something they like. That’s the base of CAPITALISM, dipshit.
Pease, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source
It’s right there in the pages, you’re welcome to check it out yourself. Or, if you don’t feel like it, make an argument against it?
You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.
Because you say so. When no-one agrees with your inane 70’s red scare logic.
“wyaa wyaa if it’s not full blown communism it’s not socialism but if even one thing is traded between two people it’s capitalism”
It proves that disparity is rising in Capitalist Social Democracies, like I said. Simple.
Companies like regulations that help them make profits, yes. No need to sling insults.
I’m not paying to read a source that you refuse to actually reference in any meaningful capacity outside of an appeal to authority, when I already know what Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Luxembourg, and so forth are talking about when they speak of and define Socialism, not the revisionist Capitalism that is Social Democracy.
Why is it “red-scare” logic when it’s written by Marx and all Marxists to come after him? That’s just Marxist logic!
2 people can trade things and it need not be Capitalism, you can have 2 worker co-operatives trade commodities and it’s Market Socialism. Simple.
No need to throw slurs at me, but it’s fitting for a right-winger to turn to those when they fail to use logic.
Edit: Credit where credit is due, you did in fact change from using a slur to using a more tame insult once I called you out, so at least you’ve got that going for you.
You are amazing. I wouln’t have had the patience to have that conversation.
Thank you for explaining people… well… Reality.
Just a bit of an off topic point:
I belive the use of “socialism” that the other comenter has is am apropiation or integration of socialisim into the kyriarchy. Defusing and making solcialism anti-revolutionary, taking away what it makes it dangerous and leaving a shell of it self.
Socialism is not anymore the controll of the means of production by the workers (simplify definition) but capitalism where they controlling group give you a bit of assurance and you have to thank them for it.
Thanks! I just take combating bourgeois nonsense seriously when I see it.
You’re correct, by adopting good, common sense social safety nets as “socialism,” Socialism becomes defanged. “We already have Socialism, why do you want any more?” Can become a cry against the Proletariat.
There are specific definitions and I'm sticking to them. If your economy has capitalists controlling companies with workers trading their labor for a wage underneath them, then it is capitalist, full stop.
Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something. I don't know the common typical structure for a nordic company.
You haven’t even read a single “basic definition” my man.
Here’s one :
Socialism
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
socialism
noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR REGULATED by the community as a whole.
If your economy has capitalists controlling companies with workers trading their labor for a wage underneath them, then it is capitalist, full stop.
Youre refusing (or unable, lol) to understand that “capitalism” does not equal market economies.
Selling things doesn’t mean capitalism. Trading goods doesn’t mean capitalism. Owning a company doesn’t mean capitalism. Having companies with workers doesn’t mean capitalism.
Jesus fucking God I’m tired of explaining concepts that my 8 year old niece could google and learn by her self in five minutes
“unless you have a planned economy you’re not socialist”
Yeah, exactly the point I’m making. Brainwashed morons think socialism means full planked economy, when it’s no such thing.
Fucking spend 2 min on Google, is it so much to ask?
You literally said “Unless your economy is full of co-ops or something [it’s not socialist]”.
You’re referring to the collectives of the Soviet union. A distinct feature of PLANNED ECONOMIES.
“I never anything about a planned economy.”
Yes, you did. And now you’re pretending you didn’t. Like pretending reality isn’t what it actually is. Trying to convince me something that happened didn’t happen. Is there a word for behaving like that…?
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.