Idgaf, death to America

“Frame” the US Army…? Bro the great satan doesn’t need any framing, its sins are dripping from its fangs and claws.

I didn’t claim anything tho…?

I was being pedantic. There is no such thing as Stalinism, that article is a joke. Stalin was just a Marxist Leninist.

Lol like that makes any difference?

What’s Stalinism 🤔

The real rich don’t pay any income tax tho? Not sure what you mean. Sure the high-income developers and engineers and lawyers etc. would become a richer, but they are not the rich, are they? The owners of the businesses they work at are. And they don’t pay income taxes.

Just play as Sweden to get the hang of things 🤷‍♂️

Hummmm… I can think of a couple more historical events that follow a similar pattern…

Luddites were not anti-technology. They saw the progress of technology IN a primitive capitalist system and understood that technology would never benefit them, and always be used to subjugate them more.

If technology only benefits 0.1% of the world, and leads to the world dying, does it benefit humanity at all?

I do understand all that. But explain this, how are all these commodity producing worker owned business regulated? How do they operate on a market? Who sets and controls this market? Who ensures collective property of the means of production?

Socialism as an economic model with the workers owning the means of production kinda still has commodity production, money etc. otherwise the whole concept of a collectively owned business makes no sense.

Unless you advocate for the complete atomization of groups into self-sufficient cells that have no organisation between them, to me you are still describing a state.

Also, can’t workers be in direct control of their means of production in a socialist state? What mechanically or physically impedes that? Like coops were a major part of the soviet model, right?

How long do you envision the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism to take then?

(Also also, Marx did talk a lot about “lower stage” communism or socialism later in life. Also about how a revolution could move towards a completely free worker’s state instead of going through an authoritarian phase - he had correspondence with a revolutionary peasant woman in Russia about this it’s really interesting, if I find it I’ll share).

I think that definition of socialism is insufficient. It sounds like an end-goal. I thought we were all communists. We wanted the dissolution of all hierarchy, of the state and of classes, of money and work.

Socialism was then just born as a way to define what comes right after capitalism, and right before communism.

We can still all agree that those are two different socialisms in themselves. It won’t look the same right after capitalism from right before communism.

But getting back to it, how does your socialism maintain itself without markets? How does it protect itself? How does it function without regulations? You imply a state with your definition and don’t even realise it.

But capital that stops dies, and if you are outcompeted you stop. So you always have to do better than everyone else. And capital has to accumulate exponentially to keep growing, and not stop and die.

The mechanics of the system make sustainable growth impossible. Tweaking the surface of the system will never change that core.

You may disagree with the idea of the necessity of a socialist state, but saying it’s “not a thing” is just ignorant.

What even is socialism to you?

wat

Like out of all arguments against a socialist state, saying it’s like cancer which is like capitalism is… dumb? Like how? Which socialist state metastasised and “grew” without natural limits? What even is this argument?

Not them, but Red Headed Stranger is probably one of my favourite concept albums ever.

Cmon man… Sure it had issues, but acting like Cities Skylines didn’t completely revolutionise city builders is insane.

Zimbabwe is not sovereign monetarily. The US is the most monetarily sovereign country in the world. They can literally print trillions and it doesn’t do anything to inflation. It has happened multiple times already!! Like why would people deny reality?

Your conclusion makes no sense. California can’t afford the policies because states don’t print their money, the federal government does. And California doesn’t get much help from the federal government. So it’s constrained by what it can tax locally.

Those policies would work perfectly and cause no budgetary issues if the federal government paid for them by printing money.

The massive printing of money from 2008 to COVID really not make people realise that? We CAN pay for everything. The government just has to print for the money, and use it for that instead of bailing out the capitalists over and over.

Damn revolution bad? I guess we should just lie down and accept how things are then. Better the death of millions of people, billions very soon, from the system that exists; than thousands from a revolution. You are very wise.