The Political Thread

[Andreyich]

why don't you all answer a question i don't want to x3

[Polymorpheus]

.

[SleepingSilence]

@catchamber You actually answered a straightforward question, simply wishing to get caught up to speed, and not have to read through an endless wave of braindead quips. 10/10

So, just going by the vague notion addressed. I want to make sure we're clear on something.

We're aware that capitalism can exist with social programs, and still not be socialism. Not everything paid for or serviced by the government makes something socialist. I know (or at least remember) you seem to disagree that socialism by its very definition is the Karl Marx, building block of all current and previous socialist countries, style of abolition of private propriety and elimination of private business that instead becomes owned by 'the worker'"

So maybe it would benefit everyone here, to classify exactly what socialism is for you? In detail, so we can understand why you don't believe that both of these things diametrically opposed one another. Because you can't really have Karl Marx's ideas mesh easily into one's free-market.

[Polymorpheus]

.

[SleepingSilence]

@catchamber Okay, so you believe that instead of a political system, it's a theory that aims for certain and specific goals. Still a little murky, but I can go along with that...

Do you believe anarchism successfully provides individual liberty? (This goes somewhere, I assure you.)

[Polymorpheus]

.

[Andreyich]

tfw something does not fit the definition of capitalism but its still capitalism apparently

[SleepingSilence]

@catchamber Okay, so three follow up questions.

1a. So given the first two statements, you acknowledge that socialism doesn't mean results either? So if you acknowledge all can fail, which of course they can. What evidence do you have that meshing socialism and capitalism would be an effective system?

1b. How is the collectivism ('well being of society at large') supposed to mesh with individualism? ('singing appropriate song') These things are opposites of each other...

2. What is Marxism and Communism under your definitions? What do they attempt to achieve? Since they're totally different from socialism.

3. And if Capitalism sole purpose is money. What is Corporatism? And what is Crony Capitalism? They aren't the same thing are they? If not, why do the sound the same under your definitions?

[Polymorpheus]

.

[Andreyich]

Tfw nordic social corporatism

[Dolerman]

@Pepperm1nts@tex

What do you do two politcally indentify yourself as?

I could take a guess but It always seems to be something different than want I originally thought.

@catchamber is an Anarcho-Socialist Hyper Capitalist for those wondering.

I dont fully understand it but it sounds cool.

@SleepingSilence So who is saying these 'braindead' quips? Someone in particular or the entire thread?

[Dion]

Tfw nordic social corporatism

@Andreyich

i hope the fuck not

unless you're ready for your system to collapse within a few generations because the burden on every subsequent generation gets larger and larger and the capacity to produce the funds for that burden becomes smaller and smaller

which sounds like an overall fun time because it allows you to literally import foreigners just to keep your shitty system going

unless you meant something else ofcourse

[Andreyich]

you can have economic social corporatism without the retarded bits that aren't actually part of the economy, i.e. promoting natalism of natives so you don't have to import third world rapefugees en masse. if money used for le tolerance classes and to uplift rocket scientists in wakanda was used at home it would most certainly be a sustainable system.

[Dion]

@Andreyich seems my good friends in the EU haven't gotten that message yet

if they ever will. totally agree with u btw

[tex]

@Dynamo Frokane I guess I would consider myself a naturally left-leaning centrist with conservative values. I don’t know much about economics or politics, and I condemn most people who consider themselves “well versed” in politics, because the vast majority of the time, nobody has a clue what they’re actually talking about.

Having and sharing opinions is fine and dandy, but a fair amount of the time, acting like your political opinions have more validity than others when you have no political background is tantamount to claiming omnipotence. Well, unless you’re a nazi or something. Then you’re just a moron.

Unfortunately, every other self-righteous tool thinks that they’re a learned economist because they read three articles on economics, and they heard somebody who might know what they’re talking about say something in a vaguely intellectual fashion. I try not to comment on topics I don’t fully understand at all, but I feel like most political arguments between average people are fruitless, vapid, and often devoid of fact. For that reason, and the fact that people get pissy if you don’t agree with them, I try to avoid political debate. Any time that I do get involved, it’s mostly just to point out how abysmally ignorant something is.

Of course, the same could be said about writing, art, or any other creative medium. But at least those topics are subjective.

[Pepperm1nts]

@Pepperm1nts
What do you do two politcally indentify yourself as?

@Dynamo Frokane

I would say I am something of a social democrat.

[Dolerman]

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

I would say I am something of a social democrat.

@Pepperm1nts

You've been put under the witch's spell.

[Pepperm1nts]

I'm out here taking part in diabolical rituals to give people healthcare and other terrible afflictions.

[Dolerman]

I'm out here taking part in diabolical rituals to give people healthcare and others terrible afflictions.

@Pepperm1nts

Oh so you think she's hot.

Why didn't you just say so? :D

[Polymorpheus]

.