The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

@elodea

am I to take you agree with 0% of this video?



0% for this video?

what exactly is your take on these examples?

actually this video is (unfortunately. I know you guys hate Last Week Tonight) much more informative and puts things into more perspective.

also yay for 2010 patent on cellphones suing apple and samsung on which both have settled.

I can promise you that I will never moderate based on my own biases. So long as a post doesn't violate the forum rules it will remain exactly as is, regardless of whether I disagree with the content or not.

As it happens, I hadn't seen Elodea's response to you before I posted that, and this is my first time back to the forum since Friday (I've been away)

You do realise I specifically talked about

a) "communism", and

b) "Communism"

There's a difference between the two that I outlined in the post you didn't quote properly. Something something, mental gymnastics

Elodea, when you posted those graphs, did you not notice that quite a few of the countries at the top were in fact socialistic?



Some of the most socialist countries:

• Denmark
• Finland
• Netherlands
• Canada
• Sweden
• Norway
• Ireland
• New Zealand
• Belgium

Note that they are all high-rated across all graphs. They have high minimum wages, good social security and good to live in.

Which places are not socialist? Latvia, Estonia, Honduras, Mexico, Pakistan, Cambodia, Philippines, Indonesia and Hong Kong at the very least. They're pretty much all mid-low rangers. Hongkong scores good at the top two and medium at the bottom two.

So what conclusion do we have to draw from this? because it seems your socialist demon doesn't exist.

Seems like socialist countries are doing pretty fine. In fact, judging from the above graph, it seems that there's no nice plot to be made of socialism vs any of the four graphs.

The narrative is against you. Your own graphs are against you. It seems that as long as a system is implemented right, it's not better or worse than the other.

Glad i took a break from this thread when i did. All these responses would have had me pulling my hair back then.

Why are you saying this? We've already covered this ground. The role of government in a free market society is the use of their monopoly on force to defend against other uses of force in order to create a space free from compulsion and coercion. From theft to fraud to war. There is no other justifiable use of force other than in self defense.

Tell me, what is a minimum level? Who decides this? Where are your example outcomes? Even your own country recognised they needed to reform welfare drastically under hartz 4. Stop looking at the best sounding emotional solution and look at what the best real world solution is for helping the poor. Free markets have lifted more people from poverty than ever before and there are numerous real world examples of this with a 100% track record. Where was the minimum level of wellbeing in china that lifted 600-700 million people out of poverty in just 20-30 years in a free market miracle?

What socialistic program has even come close to these kind of outcomes? Trillions and trillions on the US war on poverty, yet poverty rate remaind unaffected. Laughable really.

You clearly don't understand what capitalism is. A voluntary transaction under no duress cannot be anything else than by mathematical definition a win/win. This is the magic bullet that makes free markets work, and a lack of their understanding makes one wrongly believe wealth redistribution is the best game in town.

Tell me, when you buy an ipod voluntarily for $600, is it worth more or less than $600 to you? Obviously more, otherwise you wouldn't agree to buy it. If you sell an ipod voluntarily for $600, is it worth more or less than $600 to you? Obviously less, otherwise you wouldn't agree to sell it. I value the ipod more than the money or vice versa. That is exactly how capitalism works and you trying to say that the sky is pink doesn't magically make it so.

Seriously, i thought you of all people in this thread were atleast capable of intellectually honest discussion.

First, we already dealt with education, supply shocks to a labour market, price taking, good business being aligned with employee goodwill, and the ability for the worker to say no to unfair contracts etc. already so this is just malevolent strawmanning. You keep hammering the same points over and over again like a broken record regardless of what has been said.

Second, it's ironic that you would argue on the principle of preventing contributors of capital from taking a portion of the profit from workers but then argue for robin hood welfare policies that forcibly take profit from other workers 'producing too much'. lol. Why do you think the huge number of asians that immigrated to western countries are doing so well? They almost always came from poverty fleeing oppressive governments with nothing but work ethic in their pockets. To put it in relatable terms, how many indians and asians do you think have been helped by free market enterprises such as franchises and small business restaurants?

Third, why are there so many poor people in the first place? Was it war? From history we know definitively what the most effective method of pursuing economic prosperity for a society is. You seem to forget that the world has recovered remarkably and consistently over 70 years since WW2 specifically confined to countries which adopted free market principles regardless of whether they emerged from it as a winner or a loser. East and west germany show definitevly the effect trend of both elements within a mixed economy of wealth redistribution and free markets independant from one another. Sure, I can eat a bit of battery acid in my cereal every day and still be somewhat ok but I'd rather not thanks.

Fourth, capitalism and libertarianism actually allow and promote voluntary associations such as nonpolitical unions. Unions are literally companies that find profit in defending the wellbeing of uninformed workers via membership fees.

Fifth, I am only replaceable to you with certain types of work. I cannot program, and you cannot do financial accounting. Did you know that everyone who has ever immigrated to america came with basically no material possessions? Yet at the time somehow the german piano makers did better than the irish welfare queens. People generally always have skills, and if they don't the best solution is not to subsidise their continued unproductivity but to maximise the markets ability to absorb them into gainful employment from which they can gain those skills.

You want to talk about the large number of poor and uneducated immigrants coming into european countries such as Germany? People immigrate despite having no money all the time and for you to say otherwise is kinda ridiculous - see the US mexico border, asian immigration into the west, or even your own country for heavens sake. I am all for immigration for those seeking greater economic prospects to better themselves. You cannot however have immigration and a welfare state at the same time because now the government is screwing around with price signals and the draw is not for the opportunity to participate in productive labour. It's painfully obvious to the rest of the world how out of whack price signals and incentive have become because of government intervention.

It sounds nice to say that employers can just force people to work and take all their profit (debunked LVT/marxism), but reality again tells a very different story. These people aren't even coming because of jobs. http://speisa.com/modules/articles/...ermany-of-1-million-migrants-54-got-jobs.html Your governmental intervention caused the problem in the first place and now you blame the free people of the market for not dealing with the unnatural supply shock fast enough for your liking. All I see are controls on top of controls on top of controls in the most inelegant and hacky set of instructions ever.

Don't start with this emotional demagoguery of immigrants having no skills either. Among other things they come with the knowledge of their own unique cuisine and culture, both products which other immigrant cohorts have successfully monetized.

Germany does well inspite of wealth redistribution, not because of it. East and west germany is specifically a science experiment that delineates both these elements from a mixed economy and observes their effects independantly. I also suggest you look up the history of German welfare reform. They have always been trending downwards with more caps and limitations on who is eligible and how much you can take out.

Reality check: these countries are not as socialistic as you seem to want to believe and a lot of their wealth was derived and accumulated historically during times of free market Laissez-faire.

https://mises.org/library/how-modern-sweden-profits-success-its-free-market-history

Like all dishes, there are always a number of different ingredients of different quality.
Economic freedom index: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Sweden: http://www.heritage.org/index/country/sweden

Delineate causes and effects as is proper in applying the scientific method. Just because I ate some hamburgers while working out a lot does not mean eating the hamburgers made me fit.

*edit* Oh and whoever it was that said something like "communism and Communism", that was so laughable I don't even remember your name. pineapples and Pineapples. Two different things guys!

And the other guy who said socialism is different from communism? lmao no, the means of the control of production are merely instituted differently in financial means. 30% tax rate means 30% ownership. Again, so silly that i don't remember your name.

Vladimir Lenin
"The goal of socialism is communism."

On the one hand you put in so much work into finding statistics that empower your arguments on the other hand you throw in arguments that sound like you are an American who was raised under a doctrine of "socialism is communism is evil".

I am leaving this discussion here, you are obviously very set on your ways. You dont want to see that "overall economic growth" does not mean "everybody wins" and therefore, if we want to be a caring society, we need to deal with the "evil" of state welfare. OK. Maybe you are wrong, maybe you are right. Most likely we are both wrong on most things. The one certain thing is that neither your nor mine productivity profits from more walls of text.

I develop software for a living, what do you expect?

@cola_colin What-If blog is awesome.

Also...

Compared to communists? Sure they aren't. But they're also not crashing and burning, they're doing fine and scoring high on happiness.

How much more simple does this need to be put? Why on earth does 'compared to communism' matter at all? Just because i eat a little bit of battery acid instead of a lot every morning with my breakfast and don't seem to be horrifically dying does not mean i should be doing that. This isn't rocket science.

Nordic countries are not crashing and burning because their free markets are propping up socialist drag just like in every other mixed economy in the world. One has a positive trend, the other has a negative trend. One creates wealth, the other spends it.

https://mises.org/library/how-modern-sweden-profits-success-its-free-market-history

Please don't make me re-quote myself from the very post you respond to anymore.

And here we go again with the same old boring happiness fallacy that conveniently ignores some hard truths.

• happiness is subjective, has no objective index, and lacks definition
• It means different things in different cultures and languages
• Different cultures reinforce different attitudes, social behaviours, and customs
• Some cultures value ones own happiness as a life goal more than other cultures.
  
• Socially liberal policy and culture such as drug legalisation or gay marriage (freedom) plays a large role separated from economic policy.
• Timing matters, like if i borrow against, or steal the future earning potential of unborn children in order to pay for the welfare of currently alive voters.
• It changes from season to season
• Geographical location, climate, and weather plays a large role
• Population density matters
• The poor are just as likely to be as happy as the rich because of lower expectations. Happiness = reality - expectations. There are two parts on the right hand side.
• Demographics matter. Older people have lower expectations and are more likely to be 'happier'
• That these indexes are largely based on the Cantril ladder where a person rates whether they can see themselves having a better life and not whether they are happy, conveniently biasing against societies where people have a greater vision of their horizon of opportunity.

But hey let's just ignore all that and assume we can trust these happiness indexes for arguments sake. Why is Indonesia the happiest country in the world? Maybe we should take a page from their book and institutionalise vigilante murder against drug users and dealers. Why are the people of nepal so happy? Maybe we should all build mountains and become poor mountain people. Happiness indexes can be used to justify anything.

Why are hundreds of mixed economies from all different types of cultures less happy than the US while only a handful in a largely monocultural scandinavia are more happy?

Why are Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland such huge consumers of anti-depressants compared to other countries?

Honestly, it is ridiculously pavlovian for you to suggest that the road to happiness is handing over 50% of your life to someone else who claims they know better than you to the point that they will enforce it at the barrel of a gun. Sounds an awful lot like slavery

Go get a job in government and see how things actually work. There is no better cure for this disease that ails you. Government has made a business of helping the poor, trading other peoples money for their own political power. And like any good business, they don't want to lose their customers. God forbid the poor stop being poor.

it kinda is for you though.

Communism and socialism aren't interchangeable words nor are they the same thing nor even remotely close.

also USSR-style communism that seems to terrify you so ....doesn't exist in this world.

you seem to think there's some mutated form of the glorified USSR in operation in the world today.

whether you go to Russia France or wherever you're effectively in capitalism.

there's nowhere capitalism isn't. capitalism won.

one distinctive trait of socialism that seemingly you might not have known is that socialism doesn't exist as opposed to capitalism. On the contrary : socialism only exists as a flavor of capitalism. Marxist Communism did want to exist as the anti-thesis to capitalism but when certain countries today qualify their regimes as "communism" they are referring to it's modern distorted definition which again is pretty much run with capitalism (the only exception I can think of being north korea).

by anybody's reasonable standard if the majority of all interaction happen in your society thanks to the trade of money than you're in capitalism.

USSR and early russia still hoped to convert their system to a majoritarily "take turns" and trade system and in the best case scenario remove money from the equation entirely.

what ended up happening? Gucci bags. supermarkets. everyone in russia has at least a little bit of money and everyone uses it and multinationals are just as firmly implanted and just as happy camper as in any other country.

I don't know why you have this aversion; this allergy to the words socialism and communism as if they somehow corrode you as battery acid would. it's kinda like watching a vampire hiss at garlic it's hilarious and rather misinformed on your part.

you clearly still do not know what either socialism (in any of it's meanings/forms) or communism (in any of it's meanings/forms) are.

what lol? Forced transaction is not the anti-thesis of voluntary transaction, it's just a flavour? Yea, and I guess slavery is just a flavour of voluntary work. Nice analysis 10/10, would pay for this kind of intellectual power.

This will be fun. Since i'm so hilariously misinformed, please enlighten me tatsu. What is capitalism and what is socialism? Was Vladimir Lenin equally as misinformed as me when he said the goal of socialism is communism? And what exactly are progressives progressing towards?

well is Lenin alive today?

I was right.

news check we are actually in 2016..

history websites exist and I don't think in Australia they teach any other kind of history. so yeah USSR never reached it's loosely defined "goals" (who the **** was even at the head of USSR according to you ? it's not a very fuckin obvious answer according to me. you'd have to specify a year first) and is not a nation in existence today so moot point.

also "Please don't make me re-quote mehseeephhh bleh bleh bleh" (I did spend some time defining socialism vs communism)

I did try my best over this thread to lay safety nets for people in case of the traditional "USSR = communism = socialism" pitfalls.

it really did nothing. someone wants to have a bias there's no stopping them.

Lenin and Marx and Stalin and Putin weren't misinformed most of them were very deliberately misinform-ing whereas one tried to inform. the one who tried to inform was a lone guy with no influence the others were dictators with global influence so who's side of the story do we remember especially when we're so-called militants of freedom? you guessed it the dictator's side. because just like money taught us to do we listen to the bigger mouth.

"but we hate them! (and what they say)" ---thaaaaaaaaaaat reaaally isn't the point.

it's like a country mile off the mark.

lemme illustrate it : you can hate a guy who's an advocate that xlugon doesn't have a third moon all you want; it doesn't make you any less wrong about the number of moons it has since xlugon has no moons.

you get it? you shouldn't be bothering with xlugon's satellites in the first place there are other fires to tend.

it's a bit abstract but I find sometimes abstraction is the key to detaching personal investment from a topic and seeing it for what it is.

you're getting all worked up over the 1950 USSR propaganda (do you even have color TV ... there's like been lots of other media to look at since...) when none of what it represents is active in today's Russia.

I've got a close friend who went a couple months in Russia. gave me the nitty gritty view from a European's perspective on this dictatorship.

turns out none of the Russians stand behind putin. they like that he's charismatic and all but they can't wait to get out from under his reign. turns out they go shopping just like we do. MORE way way more than we do. like they're fuckig nuts about it. they spend the kind of money we wouldn't dare when it comes to getting through the month. Sure most of them still remember the dark age they experienced post USSR at the beginning of russia when supermarkets had a fill up come everyone would rush in and in a third of a day everything would be emptied out until the next month and people would go hungry.

that was the result not of someone trying to apply a radical solution unilaterally but of someone taking the idea as their motive and justification for them on the throne of totalitarian power. **hint hint**

what I've been trying to tell you is that all all-inclusive "solutions" (like the one you champion) to society really really sound like they could work on paper but ultimately all turn into dictatorships because when things get unstable and unsure (like say trying to change economic/political regime drastically) the evil of human nature starts to come out in the form of opportunists who live among the people of your society who have always been of a "fuckk everybody else" "i love me" mindset see it as their big day to reward themselves with a big juicy dictatorship with yours truly at the reigns.

It only makes sense. it's human nature. you can't expect a billion people to not fuckk up for a month or so.

Some slightly do which puts some others in a scared and uncertain mood about the change and lastly the guy who just wants to see the world burn but not before he's done enjoying the global barbecue down to the last BBQ sauced rib steps up and says "hey now don't you worry. I know just what this communism thingy needs! a strong leader. uphold ME. ....or I execute you"


it really isn't rocket science.

communism means two different things depending on who spoke it and the word just got stolen (but hey I'm a fair man they can keep it) from a well-meaning guy.

socialism is a concept unrelated to a will to revoke capitalism (and it's semantic meaning nomaded a bit as well) it is the idea that working together in a capitalistic society is; first and foremost; achievable and also a good idea.

socialism has never been used as a means to start a civil war or a heath for dictatorship.

the fact that Marx mentions it makes perfect sense because all ideas are only mutations inspired from other ideas. there's his source. There's no denying "working together" sounded good to Marx's ears; ergo getting closer to socialism was indeed getting him closer to his yet-to-be-named Frankenstein.

So i guess general relativity is false because Einstein is dead. oh my god is this real life.

I'm not letting you get away so easily Tatsu. I'll paypal you $1000 if you can produce the quote explaining and laying out your definitions. You just keep saying socialism and communism but never actually lay out what you think they are, what their goals are, and how they achieve them. "karl marx's communism" or "karl marx's socialism" or "world wide majority" or "urban dictionary" means nothing to me. All i care about is "tatsu's socialism" and "tatsu's communism" and what that is. Define it clearly please.

I have been quite rigorous explaining free market capitalism so if you want to present any kind of counter argument, I expect you to do the same.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, so here we go again.

North Korea, USSR, Communist china
= big bucket of battery acid inn your breakfast cereal
= very bad
= you die

Modern mixed economies with socialist policies
= small doses of battery acid
= bad
= not big enough to kill you
= will stunt your growth.

What happens when you refuse to pay your taxes in support of any particular governmental policy? Oh that's right, the police come and lock you up in jail. How is that anything but authoritarian and dictatorial in nature?

what? I'm not a self proclaimed omnipotent god like a socialist thank you very much. Who am I to dictate 'all inclusive solutions' onto people or replace the plans of individuals with my own. Who am I to know what is in the best interest of every other person? They should be left alone to do what they want within the framework of the non-aggression-principle because this is the moral thing to do. Theft is bad kids.

You know what, let me give you my easily understandable definitions of socialism/communism and capitalism. Maybe this will help encourage you to do likewise.

Socialism: Hi i'm alive, give me stuff because I am breathing. If you don't give me stuff, I'll put a gun to your head or get someone else to put a gun to your head to force you to give me stuff.

Democratic Socialism: Hi Bob, we all voted to take your stuff because you have more than we do. You are obviously cheating somehow because everyone is equally good and equally deserving. How could you produce so much value for society? You should be ashamed! There are more of us than you. Hands up, give it over or else.

Communism: Why are you socialist pansies mucking around with wealth redistribution, taxes, government run enterprises, and employment regulations? Come now, we can be honest among fellow comrades. We all know the goal is to get rid of those nasty 'bourgeois' capital owners who are creating all this inequality and oppressing us the proletariat. Why don't we just actually do it and rid the world of this evil once and for all. Nationalise everything, none of this mixed economy stuff is needed because socialism and public ownership is obviously the best.

Capitalism: You have stuff, I have stuff. I can't have your stuff unless you voluntarily agree to trade me your stuff for my stuff.

Crony Capitalism: These socialists are really great! Look at all this government power they created. Hey, let's do what they did and bribe some people with guns to take other peoples stuff for us too! Why? oh um, the poor farmers! They won't survive the winter unless we give them other peoples money!

Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
no escape from reality.

holy **** I was right.

this really puts alot of dimension on things.

you really believe that crap?


'specially the socialism bit. can't wait for cola_colin to see this

this is gonna get old fast.

I too can "so just because one man said one thing one time no other man can say anything about the topic anymore?"

Lennin had his definition of communism and it pretty much represented the anti-thesis of Marx's. Stalin had his own and Putin and so on. D'you think they'd have been tearing statues of one another down to this day (or rather as late as three years ago. (you gotta hand it to these guys and admit they make it hard: there's a goddamn metric fton of these statues)) if they upheld these guys as their prophets?

....

hey, the free market capitalist in me can't pass up that offer.

before I b*tch out and do your bidding for that sweet sweet cash just a taunt :

i kinda had already done exactly what you asked.
working on getting that paypal.me link (preferably without the name)



ok you ready?

cuz this **** right here's worth GOLD (apparently)

the clear answer is that I can do "tatsu's socialism" because fortunately for it confusions on which one we're referring to don't really happen. you know? like when you say dude do you like police and a guy's like "the band or the law force?" (sitcoms do this better than me that was a lousy example). but I can't do "tatsu's communism" for the reasons explained above : you might have been referring to one or another or another.

see if you had asked for "tatsu's Marxist Communism" or "tatsu's Stalinist Communism" I could have met your demand 100% right out the gate. but seeing as you're dangling an empty promise (what's the justification/reason of being for that sly tactic in free market capitalism again?) in front of my nose I'm exxxxtra motivated so I'll just answer them all just in case and that way I should hit whatever your target was regardless.

prepend a "tatsu's" to each (I really do feel as if that's a tautology though seeing as we're on a forum and this is my post).

Marxist (and most likely, Trotskyist) Communism :
A nice idea (Everyone is equal, everything is shared) but one that falls to bits when greedy humans get in the way.

Leninist communism :
remember how I mentioned greedy humans?

Stalinist communism :
*prelude : tears down lenin's statues.
yeah same but now this guy's just like : wooooahh i don't give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuk backstab. backstab. backstab. mexican assassins. game of thrones.
*gets own statues torn down after death

Putinist communism (today's "communism"):
-*hits joint* wait so you're trying to tell me that we descended from those crazy fuckers mentioned above!??
dude you're high man that's impossible. just look around.

-I swear on my life, сука.

-Wooooaaaaaaahh.


oh I didn't cover what each of these regimes were like.
Marx's
oh how cute this one wants a try. back to the pen with you you cheeky devil. tickle tickle. who's a good boy? (never happened)
Lenin's
how are you supposed to describe this as a society? it wasn't.
it was mostly civil war all of the time. Lenin basically took power by force and held onto it that way. I can't say I know tons about this one guess i'll go read more.
Stalin's
furthest from whatever "communism's" supposed to be. (or ever was.)(regardless of definitions). on the basis of no freedom alone.

Trotskyists argue that the "Stalinist USSR" was not socialist (and certainly not communist), but a bureaucratized degenerated workers' state—that is, a non-capitalist state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, although not owning the means of production and not constituting a social class in its own right, accrues benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class.
(I'm probably not making this clear enough : it was somehow a billion times worse than Leninism and a yes there still wasn't any room for a "people's take" on politics. so I think that answers that)

Putin's
Still a dictatorship. calls itself communist but pretty far from it in light of how traitorous to the original anti-capitalist motives it is. more like capitalism than anything. there's no real centralized system controlling all input and output and the diverse age-old USSR agencies and bureaus are without much authority over the people. hard to define. there's a working functional army and police force. it's a somewhat socialistic capitalistic country. like socialistic minus the open-mindedness. different social tiers and it's accepted. like it's totally accepted that putin is rich and that tons of the Russian youth is rich. google "russian youths rich" or the like and see for yourself. there's no "hunt for the rich". you know these ideas when they were associated with the (then) word communism were back in USSR era. Back when USSR were cool with such things as the Nazi-Soviet Pact which is probably not something your remember them for. (seeing as they tallywhacked nazi germany pretty hard in the end).

in between stalin and putin? the slow disappearence of whatever communism ever was.

tatsu's socialism :
*aside :
this definition's pretty fuking good because it can't help but to explaining the misconception about communism = socialism and the reasons for confusion at the same time it explains standalone socialism. it puts the final nail in the coffin on all these issues.
*another aside :
oh and this is from urban dictionary. sorry but you didn't specify that you explicitly didn't want me to use urban as what would be my word-for-word opinion you just said you wanted my opinion and you didn't care about what urban said as an answer to me saying you could look up any definition on there and I'd pretty much agree with it. well... here's my favorite :


1. An economic system where the means of production, distribution and exchange is determined by the state/public sector in some form. Can be centralized, decentralized, democratic or undemocratic.

2. Description of a left-wing political position between social democracy (general acceptance of the market economy but thinks the public sector has a vital role in providing some goods and services) and communism (Marxism). Agrees in the state determining the means of production, distribution and exchange but wants to bring that about peacefully and democratically.

3. General description of the left: the belief that individuals should be judged on how they treat other people rather than on their job/race/sexuality, that people should have equality of opportunity, that in principle wealth should be distributed fairly to everyone who works rather than the minority who own most of the economy and most of the wealth and that an economy owned by a few individuals without a strong public sector to balance that is undemocratic and unjust.

4. A stage in history defined by Marx's theories as coming after capitalism and before communism where the means of production is owned by the state and run in the interests of the proletariat.

5. A label used by various Marxist-Leninist dictatorships with state-run economies in the 20th Century to justify their totalitarianism.

now this may just be me but........................................ do I get the vibe here that you were under the impression the expression "yours truly" means a literal "you"?

"yours truly" in urban lingo means "me".
in that sentence it would have referred sarcastically to the guy who I was talking about, the opportunist.

the problem isn't you, elodea (see how I do when I address people directly?) , it's humanity.

OH and i realized that I may (STILL) not really have answered your question about "tatsu's communism" above : I thought up another possible exact meaning of your question. perhaps you wanted to know which out of the different "communisms" I "prefer".

well it would be Marx's.

It's pretty shite and was only ever a fairy tale but to be honest even that beats "lie this is actually capitalism communism" or "anal friction communism" or "everyone I don't like dies communism".

if you're making me choose between the three different "real communisms" then now I know what it feels like to be an american in the current elections... although the easy victor, to me, would be "lie this is actually capitalism communism"

I still say, the private sector should be lightly moderated but allowed, and the government should have a socialist sector of economy to compete with the private sector as well. They already have a fully independently functioning military, complete with a lot of manufacturing, medical, living accommodations, ect., if civilians want a apply for a no-questions-asked job-corps style employment by the government, the government should be able to find those idle-hands some work. The private sector should still be allowed to do their thing, except I'm pretty sure for starters, Epi-pens would go down in price from competitive manufacturing.

@elodea yet another definition of "tatsu's" socialism