4 ms·

[flagged]

swinglock 1y ago
You sure know a lot about socialism and words, for someone that doesn't know that these social democrats are called so because it's literally the name of their parties.
- henearkr 1y ago
  Well you sure know a lot about words, but could you change or rearrange them please, because right know I have trouble to make sense of your comment :/
  - swinglock 1y ago
    They are socialists. It's not a slur.
    - henearkr 1y ago
      Ok, thank you, that's clearer. But the whole point, on my side, is to emphasize that in some cases "socialist" means "authoritarian communist" (that's been only when the word is used by some Americans) and in some cases (the most of the time e.g. if you are dialoguing with somebody from Europe) it means something else. See my other comments for more.
ExoticPearTree 1y ago
As somebody who lived its early years in a socialist country, all I can tell you is that socialism does not work. Never did, never will.
- somewhereoutth 1y ago
  Assuming you are living in a modern economy - including the US - around half of it is owned/run by the government, i.e. half of it is socialist (social ownership of the means of production)
- henearkr 1y ago
  A lot of EU countries are liberal-socialist, and it works really well. Canada has a more important socialist component than the US, and it serves them well. I wonder if you really did not understand my first post, or if it is just your take at flameware.
  - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
    Its not about flamewars. Its about the fact that socialism doesn’t work. Have you watched the news lately? EU is a shitshow right now. France is going downhill really fast, Germany - I don’t even about them. And the rest is scrambling with their own issues. Oh yes, Canadian free healthcare, right? Where a doctor might see you in 6-12 months. If you die in the meantime, tough luck. No, socialism doesn’t work. You know, everyone is a lefty until they start their own company, and then they quickly realize what a bunch of crap that ideology is.
    - henearkr 1y ago
      Lol, well the large demonstrations in France are because people demand more social, not less ;) So, here you are, people are pretty much happy with socialism, they are angry when you try to take it from them. Also, I've read a lot a different version than yours: "ppl are righties up until they fell ill". Which happpens a lot more than creating a corporation. Ah and the result is quite life-and-death, which failing a startup is not (is common). Ah and NO you won't have to wait in Canada if you have an emergency. And even an advanced cancer will be treated quickly, you won't have to wait months of course (or ppl would die of waiting, which the system avoids effectively).
      - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
        > Lol, well the large demonstrations in France are because people demand more social, not less ;) Nice try, but no. They want the government to fix the deficit by not increasing their taxes or lowering their benefits. Which means the government needs to shrink.
        1y ago
luqtas 1y ago
capitalism can also be interpreted as something which "serves the modern, specialised multifunctional community by doing your job." to "profit then use the sum to upgrade society" what the heck you place socialism as something towards <the overall happiness of the society, and not focusing on increasing material wealth>? first that socialism is a temporary state towards communism, that despite, it doesn't need to pursue communism. see China. second; WHY DO YOU WANT TO CENTRALIZE POWER TOWARDS A SELECTED GROUP OF PEOPLE? Karl Marx is fine, but it's a european guy who lived in 1800s. socialism and capitalism are essentially the same with the difference of the hope of donation of power coming from the public vs. the private... you need to be quite naive to believe the goverment will do the good without corruption. much more people with power allowing their goods to be taken. see our history before capitalism
- henearkr 1y ago
  You just proved my point: you use the radical variant of the meaning of the word "socialist", without even acknowledging that it is not the only one. Have you heard of SocDem, or "social democracy"? It is everywhere. Even in ones of the most successful democracies on this planet.
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    It's odd to call people who promote capitalism socialists. They might have historically believed in gradual transition away from capitalism, but today they seem entirely happy with capitalism with a little corporatism in labor markets. Socialism is mostly branding.
    - henearkr 1y ago
      This is where there is a misconception. This use of the word "socialist" (the use that is NOT meaning "communist dictatorship") is quite equivalent to "politically left". For example, it correlates with free healthcare, free education. This is not in opposition to "capitalism". It is more, like, "maybe profit (financially) less, but care more"?

[flagged]

You sure know a lot about socialism and words, for someone that doesn't know that these social democrats are called so because it's literally the name of their parties.

henearkr 1y ago
Well you sure know a lot about words, but could you change or rearrange them please, because right know I have trouble to make sense of your comment :/
- swinglock 1y ago
  They are socialists. It's not a slur.
  - henearkr 1y ago
    Ok, thank you, that's clearer. But the whole point, on my side, is to emphasize that in some cases "socialist" means "authoritarian communist" (that's been only when the word is used by some Americans) and in some cases (the most of the time e.g. if you are dialoguing with somebody from Europe) it means something else. See my other comments for more.

ExoticPearTree 1y ago

As somebody who lived its early years in a socialist country, all I can tell you is that socialism does not work. Never did, never will.

somewhereoutth 1y ago
Assuming you are living in a modern economy - including the US - around half of it is owned/run by the government, i.e. half of it is socialist (social ownership of the means of production)
henearkr 1y ago
A lot of EU countries are liberal-socialist, and it works really well. Canada has a more important socialist component than the US, and it serves them well. I wonder if you really did not understand my first post, or if it is just your take at flameware.
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago
  Its not about flamewars. Its about the fact that socialism doesn’t work. Have you watched the news lately? EU is a shitshow right now. France is going downhill really fast, Germany - I don’t even about them. And the rest is scrambling with their own issues. Oh yes, Canadian free healthcare, right? Where a doctor might see you in 6-12 months. If you die in the meantime, tough luck. No, socialism doesn’t work. You know, everyone is a lefty until they start their own company, and then they quickly realize what a bunch of crap that ideology is.
  - henearkr 1y ago
    Lol, well the large demonstrations in France are because people demand more social, not less ;) So, here you are, people are pretty much happy with socialism, they are angry when you try to take it from them. Also, I've read a lot a different version than yours: "ppl are righties up until they fell ill". Which happpens a lot more than creating a corporation. Ah and the result is quite life-and-death, which failing a startup is not (is common). Ah and NO you won't have to wait in Canada if you have an emergency. And even an advanced cancer will be treated quickly, you won't have to wait months of course (or ppl would die of waiting, which the system avoids effectively).
    - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
      > Lol, well the large demonstrations in France are because people demand more social, not less ;) Nice try, but no. They want the government to fix the deficit by not increasing their taxes or lowering their benefits. Which means the government needs to shrink.
      - 1y ago

luqtas 1y ago

capitalism can also be interpreted as something which "serves the modern, specialised multifunctional community by doing your job." to "profit then use the sum to upgrade society" what the heck you place socialism as something towards <the overall happiness of the society, and not focusing on increasing material wealth>? first that socialism is a temporary state towards communism, that despite, it doesn't need to pursue communism. see China. second; WHY DO YOU WANT TO CENTRALIZE POWER TOWARDS A SELECTED GROUP OF PEOPLE? Karl Marx is fine, but it's a european guy who lived in 1800s. socialism and capitalism are essentially the same with the difference of the hope of donation of power coming from the public vs. the private... you need to be quite naive to believe the goverment will do the good without corruption. much more people with power allowing their goods to be taken. see our history before capitalism

henearkr 1y ago
You just proved my point: you use the radical variant of the meaning of the word "socialist", without even acknowledging that it is not the only one. Have you heard of SocDem, or "social democracy"? It is everywhere. Even in ones of the most successful democracies on this planet.
- Aloisius 1y ago
  It's odd to call people who promote capitalism socialists. They might have historically believed in gradual transition away from capitalism, but today they seem entirely happy with capitalism with a little corporatism in labor markets. Socialism is mostly branding.
  - henearkr 1y ago
    This is where there is a misconception. This use of the word "socialist" (the use that is NOT meaning "communist dictatorship") is quite equivalent to "politically left". For example, it correlates with free healthcare, free education. This is not in opposition to "capitalism". It is more, like, "maybe profit (financially) less, but care more"?