Socialist or liberal?

Spuck- · Aug 7, 2018

shnurgleton said:
What kind of jobs? I'm geniunely curious about what is being automated besides manufacturing, self checkout, and, uhhh, roombas

Also I'd argue that automation does create a new bucket of jobs like yours. Maybe not as many as are being eliminated but I think it isn't insignificant

Radiologists, for one highly paid example that's already declining, as software gets more efficient. Software testers and engineers, insurance underwriters, accountants etc etc, there's a lot and it keeps growing.

The thing about jobs like mine is, that it, conservatively, replaces about ten people doing the manual equivalent. You quickly start to run out of jobs for people. this is one of the reasons that universal basic income will become inevitable if we keep on like this.

bane833 · Aug 7, 2018

More socialism then liberalism but I'm not really against capitalism as long as it's strictly regulated.

blinky · Aug 7, 2018

MadJakeChurchill said:
So someone is not going to do anything at all. Enjoy being democratically excluded by assembly vote.

Communists always always have funny definitions of "voluntary."

shnurgleton · Aug 7, 2018

MadJakeChurchill said:
So someone is not going to do anything at all. Enjoy being democratically excluded by assembly vote.

...what? I'm asking what would happen if people in a marxian socialist state refuse to work but workers are needed. Would there be coersion in order to get the labor needed to sustain society, or would something else happen to address the problem?

tulpa said:
This may or may not be true, but what society or method of economic organization is not coercive?

MadJakeChurchill is arguing that under marxian socialism there is no labor coersion so that's what I'm trying to figure out

Horp · Aug 7, 2018

OrangeNova said:
I'm sure a lot of people aren't reading OP and just voting.

Highly likely. Lets hope so.

MadJakeChurchill · Aug 7, 2018

shnurgleton said:
...what? I'm asking what would happen if people in a marxian socialist state refuse to work but workers are needed. Would there be coersion in order to get the labor needed to sustain society, or would something else happen to address the problem?

MadJakeChurchill is arguing that under marxian socialism there is no labor coersion so that's what I'm trying to figure out

I'm not talking about "Marxian socialism" (assuming you mean Marx-Len-Mao), I'm talking about libertarian socialism. No state from the get-go. No unjustified hierarchy.

People make a crap ton of surplus value. Having that directly available to the community rather than given in the form of monetary value to an already-well-off intermediary ensures that any hypothetical worker or supply shortage is completely eliminated.

phonicjoy · Aug 7, 2018

Funyarinpa said:
I don't know the definitions, connotations and consequences of either to properly identify with one of these, I'm afraid.

I suppose you could say my "realistic" ideal would be a system where basic living necessities and civil liberties are guaranteed by government (and thus wherein healthcare etc. cannot be monetized) but a free market exists for non-residential goods and services.

Basically capitalism where being "poor" can be a valid way to live, I suppose. I realize how stupid that sounds but the most plausible way to go about this, for me, is having publicized, affordable, accessible healthcare/transport/utilities while establishing a livable UBI.

Welcome to social democracy!

phonicjoy · Aug 7, 2018

MadJakeChurchill said:
I'm not talking about "Marxian socialism" (assuming you mean Marx-Len-Mao), I'm talking about libertarian socialism. No state from the get-go. No unjustified hierarchy.

Thats Anarchism. And you didn't answer his question for that situation either.

linkboy · Aug 7, 2018

hydrophilic attack said:
social democrat, taking the best of both worlds

free market and free enterprise can efficiently balance supply and demand of commodities and consumer products ,but certain utilities and services will more equitably and efficiently be provided by the government. furthermore, aggressive transfer systems help balance out excessive economic stratification caused by the free market. heavy regulations help preserve the environment and workers' rights

civil liberties should be protected and preserved by the government

Sums up what I believe perfectly.

shnurgleton · Aug 7, 2018

MadJakeChurchill said:
I'm not talking about "Marxian socialism" (assuming you mean Marx-Len-Mao), I'm talking about libertarian socialism. No state from the get-go. No unjustified hierarchy.

Stateless socialism is something I'm definitely not familiar with. Is this just basically a society consisting of small labor co-ops and communes?

phonicjoy said:
Thats Anarchism.

Yeah it does sound more anarchist than socialist. Or maybe like the Thomas Jefferson agricultural society

TheGhost · Aug 7, 2018

Neither, I'm a regular Democrat, what people here call a moderate. Which makes me a very bad person apparently.

MadJakeChurchill · Aug 7, 2018

phonicjoy said:
Thats Anarchism. And you didn't answer his question for that situation either.

Edited. And that's libertarian socialism/anarcho-communism.

Gluka · Aug 7, 2018

Social democrat. The past century proved pretty conclusively that the free market is very efficient at allocating resources, but the excesses of capitalism have also grown out of control to disastrous effect. Gradual changes towards a more equitable form of capitalism is the most realistic path forward. That said, the overton window in America shifted so far to the right that "capitalism" has become synonymous with laissez-faire lunacy and policies resembling a continuation of the New Deal are seen as radically socialist - by both sides. This has, for instance, created a situation where members of the DSA can, without a shed of introspection, sneer at Elizabeth Warren for endorsing capitalism while their representatives run on a policy platform indistinguishable from European social democracy.

Deleted member 8561 · Aug 7, 2018

MadJakeChurchill said:
I am absolutely not a fan of mass-murdering, gulaging Stalin but this is completely not true.

Do you even know what it was like to be a peasant under the Tsar? Mass starvation was rampant (millions dead ever winter), the vast majority of people couldn't read and never went to school. Industry? Ha. That didn't exist. Russia was the poor man of the world. The USSR brought skyrocketing literacy rates, mass employment, urbanization and development at rates unseen before.

Right before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russians were on 1000 calories a day more than Americans, and were much more educated on average.

Mass employment?

The USSR crashed and burned because their entire planned economy was a pile of shit and they had a major unemployment problem. Not working in the USSR was literally a crime, the entire system was full of corruption and people doing menial tasks to avoid jail time in labor camps. Yes, they had free education, which is something the US should adopt, that doesn't change the fact that what they actually produced as a nation was rubish and copy cat. You don't exactly hear stories of people in the West smuggling computer goods from the East, or the fact that it took years for an average citizen to even get a hold of an automobile (if they were approved for one in the first place)

Yes, Russia rapidly industrialized, the discussion is the effect of the planned economy that was put into place, and the results aren't exactly all that inspiring.

Deleted member 2752 · Aug 7, 2018

blinky said:
Communists always always have funny definitions of "voluntary."

They can't be straight, because it would sound like the horrible dictatorship it is.
There's already a poster in this thread that wants to force veganism on everyone. Because they decided that you don't need anything else.

phonicjoy · Aug 7, 2018

MadJakeChurchill said:
I'm not talking about "Marxian socialism" (assuming you mean Marx-Len-Mao), I'm talking about libertarian socialism. No state from the get-go. No unjustified hierarchy.

People make a crap ton of surplus value. Having that directly available to the community rather than given in the form of monetary value to an already-well-off intermediary ensures that any hypothetical worker or supply shortage is completely eliminated.

That pre-supposes that people work in those areas where a surplus is to be made.

And that comes back to my core issue with these kind of ideas: there is never a plan for practical implementation.

tulpa · Aug 7, 2018

shnurgleton said:
MadJakeChurchill is arguing that under marxian socialism there is no labor coersion so that's what I'm trying to figure out

Right. It just seemed to me that what you were saying suggested that our current system isn't really that coercive, which I would dispute. I think pretty much all systems of human organization have some element of (at least the threat of) coercion. Personally, I would probably accept that a socialist state would require some mechanism of coercing the small number of people who are fully fit and able to work but choose not to into work, whether that be through social pressure or the levers of the state. I'm not an anarchist. But people differ in the way they approach this question.

Mockerre · Aug 7, 2018

Oheao said:
So, I was very curious as to how the userbase on here was sectioned. Now, I know that many people use these terms in multiple fashions, but for the sake of a consistent source from which to base our notions on, I'll be referring to socialism and liberalism in these fashions:

Socialism - An economic model in which capitalism would be overthrown and replaced with a system based on common ownership of the means of production, the elimination of wage labour and a market economy, and (either by necessity to be considered socialist or an eventuality of socialism) the elimination of the state

Liberalism - An ideology rooted in capitalism, and generally based upon the principles of freedom of speech, rule of law, equality of opportunity, etc. The state plays a necessary role in liberalism, with its legislative system providing the legitimacy to property and speech rights and its judicial system which punishes those who break the laws, along with a police force that uses violence in order to maintain the system.

Now, already you can see some inherent flaws with this comparison. The former is referring to an economic model while the latter is actually an ideology that is founded on the basis of another economic system, so inevitably this will not be a 1:1 match. However, I would definitely consider myself a socialist, I am not fond of liberalism, for a wide variety of reasons. The principle reason being that, while equality of opportunity is often touted, it is in fact a hierarchical system in which mass participation is required in order to properly function (with capitalism, specialized work required vast amounts of labour in order to have properly-functioning factories). This system necessitates violence to exist, as it needs to both ensure that people participate within the system and that people don't revolt against the system.

However, even liberalism itself has many different sub-sections. Many people here I would consider liberals, judging by the common support for reform of the system, rather than revolution itself. Many people also endorse a stronger welfare system and a stricter set of rules in regards to the financial backing of politicians, in order to achieve equality of opportunity and rule of law.

So, I will insert a poll to see what most people here would describe themselves as, I know that there are probably some users who do not fit either definition, but I would assume that it is a minority of users.

This is a flawed dychotomy and it should not be compared. You can be both or neither, or one of them. Socialism - capitalism and liberalism - conservatism are the correct dychotomies.

Boiled Goose · Aug 7, 2018

Kirblar said:
Because management is a skill. Because we're not a hive mind where people can predict other people's actions and organize independently without someone taking the lead. We use speech and social interaction to manually create these hierarchies because they allow us to form conglomerates and communities that are exponentially more than the sum of their parts.

Yes, police actions are against citizens of the country. Like say, those who rape/murder other citizens of the country and need to be detained for the protection of the whole.

You sound like you're still in school and haven't ever had to interact with any type of large-scale organization in your lifetime, nor have you ever been the victim of violence that would require police intervention.

Sounds like you have a very narrow world view informed by privilege
In many countries the police is basically non existent in daily life and if you're poor, it only hurts you.

Society still somehow mostly operates. You need a legal system and some detectives, but police itself is not really super necessary.

Deleted member 8561 · Aug 7, 2018

tulpa said:
No, I think your response is an attempt to railroad me down the "not real communism" rhetorical rabbithole rather than engage with the materialist conception of history that Marxism operates under. What are the working examples of communism you refer to? Even the USSR didn't refer to itself as communist, but rather as a Union of Socialist Soviet Republics ruled by a Communist party. Once again, those who follow this model view communism as a system that society will transition into once the historical conditions for it exist, rather than something that people can suddenly declare.

I don't know if you're really engaging with the comparison to feudalism, but let me have another go at it. Someone living in and supporting a feudal society would treat the concept of capitalism with the same skepticism and disdain you subject communism to. Since capitalism did not exist at the time, any economic system other than feudalism might seem impossible. But the inherent contradictions within feudalism eventually caused its transition into capitalism. That is the materialist dialectic. I'm not arguing for communism, I argue for socialism. Marxists don't believe communism is something people sit together and decide to establish, but rather a process of the withering away of the structures of the state in a post-socialist society. I think the way your line of questioning is framed suggests you might not have studied Marx in much detail.

Then perhaps the question is whether we enable a system where the technological process that enables post-scarcity is monopolized by a relatively small group of people who have appropriated those resources from the commons, or whether that automated production process is taken into collective ownership.

The technology that grants post-scarcity is clean, cheap energy (aka solar and wind + battery storage). When producing and up-keeping energy demand is near free, that's when you start knocking at the door of post-scarcity, but even that's not really going to change the current economic model because there are still jobs that need to be done even when the benefits of free energy become real.

Kongroo · Aug 7, 2018

In the U.S, liberalism is basically just light consvervatism. I swear corporate democrats are so mild on every position, it's like they don't believe in anything.

Grass roots candidates like Ocasio-Cortez are the only way forward for anyone left leaning.

Deleted member 8561 · Aug 7, 2018

Boiled Goose said:
Sounds like you have a very narrow world view informed by privilege
In many countries the police is basically non existent in daily life and if you're poor, it only hurts you.

Society still somehow mostly operates. You need a legal system and some detectives, but police itself is not really super necessary.

I would love to hear this point of view during the 1980's while living in New York City.

tulpa · Aug 7, 2018

TheLostBigBoss said:
The technology that grants post-scarcity is clean, cheap energy (aka solar and wind + battery storage). When producing and up-keeping energy demand is near free, that's when you start knocking at the door of post-scarcity, but even that's not really going to change the current economic model because there are still jobs that need to be done even when the benefits of free energy become real.

Right. My argument is that the workplace and economic system should be controlled through common decision-making processes, what we would refer to as democracy in the political sphere, rather than as a dictatorship of the management.

MadJakeChurchill · Aug 7, 2018

TheLostBigBoss said:
Mass employment?

The USSR crashed and burned because their entire planned economy was a pile of shit and they had a major unemployment problem. Not working in the USSR was literally a crime, the entire system was full of corruption and people doing menial tasks to avoid jail time in labor camps. Yes, they had free education, which is something the US should adopt, that doesn't change the fact that what they actually produced as a nation was rubish and copy cat. You don't exactly hear stories of people in the West smuggling computer goods from the East, or the fact that it took years for an average citizen to even get a hold of an automobile (if they were approved for one in the first place)

Yes, Russia rapidly industrialized, the discussion is the effect of the planned economy that was put into place, and the results aren't exactly all that inspiring.

Your argument was that the living standards of the average citizen decreased. I have shown to you that's flat-out wrong. Please look at images and surviving accounts of feudal Russia, please.

It's strange that you set these benchmarks for a country that only just went through the equivalent of their Industrial Revolution. How many workers in the UK owned cars in the 1700s? Before Ford, how many Americans owned a car? You're totally out of whack there.

Re copycats: so? Copyright is a protectionist method for an alleged "free market". All of Europe stole designs off each other at a similar period of development, Japan did the same when it had its massive boom. You're applying the ethics of a 21st century late-stage capitalist society on a country that went through the most disruptive revolution in its history and was fighting a fascist war machine designed to trample over it.

Deleted member 2752 · Aug 7, 2018

MadJakeChurchill said:
How many workers in the UK owned cars in the 1700s? Before Ford, how many Americans owned a car?.

Very few, I'd imagine

shnurgleton · Aug 7, 2018

tulpa said:
Right. It just seemed to me that what you were saying suggested that our current system isn't really that coercive, which I would dispute. I think pretty much all systems of human organization have some element of (at least the threat of) coercion. Personally, I would probably accept that a socialist state would require some mechanism of coercing the small number of people who are fully fit and able to work but choose not to into work, whether that be through social pressure or the levers of the state. I'm not an anarchist. But people differ in the way they approach this question.

I see the difference between the two being the coercing agent. Where in a pure capitalist sense it is self interest/sustenance, in socialism it is social pressure via the state. Which one produces the better result is a good question which quickly becomes more complex as you begin to qualify both beyond their pure forms

phonicjoy · Aug 7, 2018

MadJakeChurchill said:
I am absolutely not a fan of mass-murdering, gulaging Stalin but this is completely not true.

Do you even know what it was like to be a peasant under the Tsar? Mass starvation was rampant (millions dead ever winter), the vast majority of people couldn't read and never went to school. Industry? Ha. That didn't exist. Russia was the poor man of the world. The USSR brought skyrocketing literacy rates, mass employment, urbanization and development at rates unseen before.

Right before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russians were on 1000 calories a day more than Americans, and were much more educated on average.

There are a million things you can criticise the USSR for (crimes against humanity and cruel displacement of minorities) and you totally should. However, they were ruthlessly efficient at industrialising and educating the largest country in the world.

No we don't. We can eat a plant-based and mycoprotein diet just fine. Coercion is no longer necessary. This is what I mean by pre and post. You're refusing to engage with our current material conditions and are arguing from a purely non-existent view of humanity.

That's a sick naturalistic fallacy you got there.

Under socialism, money wouldn't exist. Money is a way to remove the worker from their production and (used to) be an analogy for mineral wealth. If wealth inequality is eliminated, money would serve no function.

I came across this, which sheds some doubt on the calorie thing, but in any case one needs more that a basic calorie intake to live a long and normal life.

Horp · Aug 7, 2018

Mockerre said:
This is a flawed dychotomy and it should not be compared. You can be both or neither, or one of them. Socialism - capitalism and liberalism - conservatism are the correct dychotomies.

You are correct, but the thing is that many of the countries with good, humane, social policies go for social democracy, which some people refer to as "democratic socialism". But the matter of fact is that these countries (like sweden) are completely capitalistic. So you have countries that people call "socialist", that are 100% capitalist.

MadJakeChurchill · Aug 7, 2018

mnz said:
Very few, I'd imagine

Exactly, my friend. Why are we going "whoa, where are all the cars?" to a country that didn't have the plants to make cars in the first place?

What you should be asking of the USSR is "why did 60% of all produced cars go to party officials? Seems like a new class of red bureaucracy to me..."

Mockerre said:
This is a flawed dychotomy and it should not be compared. You can be both or neither, or one of them. Socialism - capitalism and liberalism - conservatism are the correct dychotomies.

Conservative Liberalism is a thing, though. The majority party in the Netherlands (VVD) is conlib, CDU (Merkel) is too, the Tories are as well. The definitions in the OP are perfectly fine and widely accepted.

tulpa · Aug 7, 2018

Horp said:
You are correct, but the thing is that many of the countries with good, humane, social policies go for social democracy, which some people refer to as "democratic socialism". But the matter of fact is that these countries (like sweden) are completely capitalistic. So you have countries that people call "socialist", that are 100% capitalist.

Speaking as a socialist, I agree with you. It's unfortunate that politicians like Sanders have muddied the water on what socialism means, when the policies he argues for are liberal capitalism, and similar to the policies of many European conservative parties.

Tygre · Aug 7, 2018

Gluka said:
Social democrat. The past century proved pretty conclusively that the free market is very efficient at allocating resources, but the excesses of capitalism have also grown out of control to disastrous effect. Gradual changes towards a more equitable form of capitalism is the most realistic path forward. That said, the overton window in America shifted so far to the right that "capitalism" has become synonymous with laissez-faire lunacy and policies resembling a continuation of the New Deal are seen as radically socialist - by both sides. This has, for instance, created a situation where members of the DSA can, without a shed of introspection, sneer at Elizabeth Warren for endorsing capitalism while their representatives run on a policy platform indistinguishable from European social democracy.

What world do you live in?

I want to live there too, rather than the one where the free market has allocated resources in such a way that over the past century average global temperatures have risen by 1°C, and where if we didn't intervene those same forces would see that reach 4°C in less than a century more.

The free market is shitty at dealing with externalities. It's efficient in the same way it's efficient for me to throw my trash out of the car window rather than having to take it home and put it in the bin.

Mockerre said:
This is a flawed dychotomy and it should not be compared. You can be both or neither, or one of them. Socialism - capitalism and liberalism - conservatism are the correct dychotomies.

Nonsense. There is no dichotomy between liberalism and conservatism. They go absolutely hand in hand.

The current governments of the UK and US are both Liberal and Conservative.

phonicjoy · Aug 7, 2018

Horp said:
You are correct, but the thing is that many of the countries with good, humane, social policies go for social democracy, which some people refer to as "democratic socialism". But the matter of fact is that these countries (like sweden) are completely capitalistic. So you have countries that people call "socialist", that are 100% capitalist.

Is a country completely capitalistic when for instance health care is publicly funded?

Deleted member 8861 · Aug 7, 2018

phonicjoy said:
Welcome to social democracy!

I see. Thanks!

Deleted member 8561 · Aug 7, 2018

MadJakeChurchill said:
Your argument was that the living standards of the average citizen decreased. I have shown to you that's flat-out wrong. Please look at images and surviving accounts of feudal Russia, please.

It's strange that you set these benchmarks for a country that only just went through the equivalent of their Industrial Revolution. How many workers in the UK owned cars in the 1700s? Before Ford, how many Americans owned a car? You're totally out of whack there.

Re copycats: so? Copyright is a protectionist method for an alleged "free market". All of Europe stole designs off each other at a similar period of development, Japan did the same when it had its massive boom. You're applying the ethics of a 21st century late-stage capitalist society on a country that went through the most disruptive revolution in its history and was fighting a fascist war machine designed to trample over it.

Sorry, what I should have said is compared to the West their living standards were less, which was a key reason that the faith in communism was eroded over the years during the Cold War. Obviously compared to the 1910-1940's, living standards would be higher.

It's not strange at all, the USSR and the US competed with rivaling economic models and social models. If you want to compare economies, you can compare the USSR post-war economic model to the US post-war economic model in terms of service and quality of living.

And no, I'm not talking about copyright inherently, I'm talking about the literal production of goods that when copycatted was miles below quality that was produced in the West.

I find it strange you're trying to basically excuse the failures of a major super power.

Deleted member 2317 · Aug 7, 2018

hydrophilic attack said:
social democrat, taking the best of both worlds

free market and free enterprise can efficiently balance supply and demand of commodities and consumer products ,but certain utilities and services will more equitably and efficiently be provided by the government. furthermore, aggressive transfer systems help balance out excessive economic stratification caused by the free market. heavy regulations help preserve the environment and workers' rights

civil liberties should be protected and preserved by the government

Well said.

phonicjoy · Aug 7, 2018

Tygre said:
What world do you live in?

I want to live there too, rather than the one where the free market has allocated resources in such a way that over the past century average global temperatures have risen by 1°C, and where if we didn't intervene those same forces would see that reach 4°C in less than a century more.

The free market is shitty at dealing with externalities. It's efficient in the same way it's efficient for me to throw my trash out of the car window rather than having to take it home and put it in the bin.

Externalities wouldn't dissapear in a socialist society though. And our current models do have ways of dealing with that stuff. That the majority of people are unwilling to vote for these measures is besides the point.

Horp · Aug 7, 2018

phonicjoy said:
Is a country completely capitalistic when for instance health care is publicly funded?

Yeah you are right. Not completely in that sense. What I mean is that apart from certain base things (health care, police), the rest is capitalism. The economical system is capitalistic. Well regulated but absotely capitalistic.

tulpa · Aug 7, 2018

shnurgleton said:
I see the difference between the two being the coercing agent. Where in a pure capitalist sense it is self interest/sustenance, in socialism it is social pressure via the state. Which one produces the better result is a good question which quickly becomes more complex as you begin to qualify both beyond their pure forms

I think the threat of starvation is a pretty coercive force, and I would argue it's more coercive than the idea of suffering some significant social disadvantage if one chooses not to participate in work.

Deleted member 22490 · Aug 7, 2018

tulpa · Aug 7, 2018

phonicjoy said:
Is a country completely capitalistic when for instance health care is publicly funded?

Yes, because a capitalist society that funds certain services through taxation is just... every capitalist society. Unless you're one of the people that believe that when the state builds a highway, this is an example of socialism in action.

phonicjoy · Aug 7, 2018

tulpa said:
I think the threat of starvation is a pretty coercive force, and I would argue it's more coercive than the idea of suffering some significant social disadvantage if one chooses not to participate in work.

How is people fighting for survival anything to be working towards?

MadJakeChurchill · Aug 7, 2018

TheLostBigBoss said:
It's not strange at all, the USSR and the US competed with rivaling economic models and social models. If you want to compare economies, you can compare the USSR post-war economic model to the US post-war economic model in terms of service and quality of living.

How? This is such a weird comparison to make. A country that just got out of the biggest civil war it's ever experienced, and America living off that massive boom from protectionist capitalism. They're two completely different contexts.

Deleted member 22490 · Aug 7, 2018

phonicjoy said:
Is a country completely capitalistic when for instance health care is publicly funded?

Yes. It's still capitalistic even though healthcare is publicly funded.

tulpa · Aug 7, 2018

phonicjoy said:
How is people fighting for survival anything to be working towards?

You're right, although I'm not sure you realize that comment was referring to capitalism.

HarryHengst · Aug 7, 2018

bane833 said:
More socialism then liberalism but I'm not really against capitalism as long as it's strictly regulated.

Sounds like you would like market socialism.

phonicjoy · Aug 7, 2018

tulpa said:
Yes, because a capitalist society that funds certain services through taxation is just... every capitalist society. Unless you're one of the people that believe that when the state builds a highway, this is an example of socialism in action.

Well, it's not pure capitalism either. There is no market for highways where people bid for access or something.

MadJakeChurchill · Aug 7, 2018

phonicjoy said:
How is people fighting for survival anything to be working towards?

You're talking like that isn't the reality for billions of people daily under capitalism.

tulpa · Aug 7, 2018

phonicjoy said:
There is no market for highways where people bid for access or something.

That is exactly what happens in the United States.

Deleted member 2752 · Aug 7, 2018

Helio said:

Is that supposed to be a burn? That's like the whole idea.

phonicjoy · Aug 7, 2018

tulpa said:
You're right, although I'm not sure you realize that comment was referring to capitalism.

I wasn't. Thanks. But that is not the case for people living in a social democracy. We have safety nets that are actually adequate. I feel like a lot of the points socialists are trying to make here come from living in a kind of extremist capitalist country.

Socialist or liberal?

Socialist or liberal?

Socialist

Liberal

Neither (please specify)

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account

user requested account closure

Story Director

user requested account closure

user requested account closure

User requested account closure

user requested account closure

User-requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure