3 ms·

> Let's see... Relativization of private property, media censorship, taxes on accumulated capital, religious persecution. This is red-scare rhetoric, not commu

by piva00 3y ago

> Let's see... Relativization of private property, media censorship, taxes on accumulated capital, religious persecution. This is red-scare rhetoric, not communism. > Who cares? Anyone trying to have a discussion/debate about ideologies, like what you are trying to do. Words have meaning, in a discussion this meaning matters. If you don't care, then you don't care for the discussion, you are just soapboxing.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
> This is red-scare rhetoric, not communism. It's not "rhetoric" at all, it's literally what he's doing. His strategy has always been to slowly install socialism small bits at a time so that nobody notices. Therefore it's obvious what his objective is when he starts saying you should have to "mediate" with someone who invades your private property instead of having access to the justice system or the right to use force. Why can't you see? > Anyone trying to have a discussion/debate about ideologies It's the 21st century, we don't "debate" communism anymore. I'm not at all interested in the academic difference between these terms. They're history. The whole problem is we got these fools trying to install this cancer in my country in the first place.
- rcarr 3y ago
  Why do you throw the word socialism about as if it is exactly the same as communism? The Nordic nations are socialist democracies and they’re regarded as some of the best run and happiest places on earth, with a business friendly environment that allows for entrepreneurs to take risks because they know there is a social safety net to fall back on if it doesn’t work out. The left and right can be both right and wrong simultaneously. You’re meant to adapt policies for the contextual situation. In fact, this is the entire point of a democracy, to oscillate between opposing ideologies throughout time as the flaws of one become apparent to such an extent that the incumbent system starts showing weakness, disgruntling the populace to such an extent that they course correct the system by electing the opposing ideology.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    > Why do you throw the word socialism about as if it is exactly the same as communism? Because I don't respect them enough to even make the distinction. I feel bad even saying the words "communist" and "socialist". I really don't want to give any legitimacy to ideas that caused misery, famine, oppression, genocide every time they were put in practice anywhere. I want those ideas to literally fade from people's minds instead of being studied as if they were serious subjects. I've had the privilege of reading posts written by citizens of formerly communist states here on HN. That's all the evidence I need. It's not pretty. > The Nordic nations are socialist democracies and they’re regarded as some of the best run and happiest places on earth, with a business friendly environment that allows for entrepreneurs to take risks because they know there is a social safety net to fall back on if it doesn’t work out. So what you're telling me is there's supposedly socialist nations in Europe right now that allow businesses to accumulate capital. Doesn't make any sense.
    - rcarr 3y ago
      > So what you're telling me is there's supposedly socialist nations in Europe right now that allow businesses to accumulate capital. Doesn't make any sense. Yes. You're welcome to put your HN contrarian hat on but that is the generally agreed upon consensus. Left unchecked, free market capitalism turns into authoritarian feudalism which is pretty much what is happening around the world in Western nations right now. Left unchecked, socialism turns into communism and all the horrors that entails. Both are bad outcomes. When you are veering toward the extremes, you counter with policies from the opposing ideology. If not, you get a selfish, complacent and corrupt ruling class that ends up sliding into authoritarianism accompanied by "misery, famine, oppression and genocide" regardless of the ideological label you started out with. It is a frequent occurrence for Conservative governments across the globe to temporarily nationalise companies and/or industries, often times for years, if the private sector have been found to run them into the ground. Case in point: the UK conservatives nationalised several banks in the financial crisis and recently nationalised a substantial amount (almost half) of the UK rail network. The stance you are subscribing to is an extreme one.
      - 3y ago

by piva00 3y ago

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> This is red-scare rhetoric, not communism. It's not "rhetoric" at all, it's literally what he's doing. His strategy has always been to slowly install socialism small bits at a time so that nobody notices. Therefore it's obvious what his objective is when he starts saying you should have to "mediate" with someone who invades your private property instead of having access to the justice system or the right to use force. Why can't you see? > Anyone trying to have a discussion/debate about ideologies It's the 21st century, we don't "debate" communism anymore. I'm not at all interested in the academic difference between these terms. They're history. The whole problem is we got these fools trying to install this cancer in my country in the first place.

rcarr 3y ago
Why do you throw the word socialism about as if it is exactly the same as communism? The Nordic nations are socialist democracies and they’re regarded as some of the best run and happiest places on earth, with a business friendly environment that allows for entrepreneurs to take risks because they know there is a social safety net to fall back on if it doesn’t work out. The left and right can be both right and wrong simultaneously. You’re meant to adapt policies for the contextual situation. In fact, this is the entire point of a democracy, to oscillate between opposing ideologies throughout time as the flaws of one become apparent to such an extent that the incumbent system starts showing weakness, disgruntling the populace to such an extent that they course correct the system by electing the opposing ideology.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > Why do you throw the word socialism about as if it is exactly the same as communism? Because I don't respect them enough to even make the distinction. I feel bad even saying the words "communist" and "socialist". I really don't want to give any legitimacy to ideas that caused misery, famine, oppression, genocide every time they were put in practice anywhere. I want those ideas to literally fade from people's minds instead of being studied as if they were serious subjects. I've had the privilege of reading posts written by citizens of formerly communist states here on HN. That's all the evidence I need. It's not pretty. > The Nordic nations are socialist democracies and they’re regarded as some of the best run and happiest places on earth, with a business friendly environment that allows for entrepreneurs to take risks because they know there is a social safety net to fall back on if it doesn’t work out. So what you're telling me is there's supposedly socialist nations in Europe right now that allow businesses to accumulate capital. Doesn't make any sense.
  - rcarr 3y ago
    > So what you're telling me is there's supposedly socialist nations in Europe right now that allow businesses to accumulate capital. Doesn't make any sense. Yes. You're welcome to put your HN contrarian hat on but that is the generally agreed upon consensus. Left unchecked, free market capitalism turns into authoritarian feudalism which is pretty much what is happening around the world in Western nations right now. Left unchecked, socialism turns into communism and all the horrors that entails. Both are bad outcomes. When you are veering toward the extremes, you counter with policies from the opposing ideology. If not, you get a selfish, complacent and corrupt ruling class that ends up sliding into authoritarianism accompanied by "misery, famine, oppression and genocide" regardless of the ideological label you started out with. It is a frequent occurrence for Conservative governments across the globe to temporarily nationalise companies and/or industries, often times for years, if the private sector have been found to run them into the ground. Case in point: the UK conservatives nationalised several banks in the financial crisis and recently nationalised a substantial amount (almost half) of the UK rail network. The stance you are subscribing to is an extreme one.
    - 3y ago