Dude you still don't stop worker exploitation, don't solve the contradiction of working and capitalist classes, don't end imperialism or colonialism (social democracy outsources exploitation to the third world), and just set up a future capitalist takeover and descent into neoliberal hell.
You really haven't read any theory. At all. Did you take one silly phrase and think you had something?! Your politics are immature and uninformed. Please read theory.
Because they don't own the means of production. Socialism isn't just redirecting capital, it is about eliminating it and the ruling class. Profit sharing is a bandaid on the grand canyon; workers are still exploited by the capital class. Socialism is a completely and total shift so large and threatening to the ruling class that it can only happen through revolution, it's way bigger than sharing profits
how redirecting capital from the capital class to the working class is anything other than socialism.
Theres this concept, where the Capitalists are expropriated from and reproletarianized back into the working class whom in turn seize full control of the means of production and abolish the capitalist governments in order to build governments of/by/for the working class. Thats called building Socialism, and to do anything other than working towards the goal of liquidating the enemies of the working class is to do anything other than fighting for socialism.
Taking money from the rich and simply redistributing it a la your "profit sharing" does not solve the fundamental contradiction between the capitalist class and the working class as it does nothing to change the economic structure the two exist in opposition to each other. If nothing else. all you're advocating for is prolonging the existence of Capitalism and fighting against the interests of your own class by advocating for maintaining the cruel system of Capitalism but trying to disguise the worst visages it wears with smiley face emojis
No lol that's just welfare - something that can be done regardless of what economic system is in place. Now if you want a discussion on a contrastive analysis of the class dynamics of welfare under a Socialist and Capitalist system, that'd be an interesting topic to research into.
I think it's a whole field of research I'm not very familiar with. Personally, I'd start looking into the history of welfare in England a la the late feudal and emerging capitalist period of social welfare known as the "poor laws", seeing how they would develop into the more familiar contemporary welfare system of the UK, then delving into U.S history of welfare during the same period, and then examining the Tsarist Russian period and the Soviet period's welfare systems. But if you want to abbreviate that a bit then simply doing a contrasting analysis of social welfare of the U.S and the U.S.S.R in whatever period you desired to learn about.
Now in terms of what I know and can extrapolate off the top of my head, social welfare as broadly defined to include education, health, and social security under a socialist or capitalist system tend to wildly differ from one another in some aspects and in others - depending on states - appear similar.
On education, nearly all countries have some form of compulsory education that tend to be state funded to a certain ages with variations being dictated by their own national standards. An example of this could be how the U.S and R.O.K has free public school from the ages 5 to 19 with university being individually funded whereas Japan and the PRC has free public education from the ages 6 to 15 with high school onwards being individually funded. (Reasons why so will have to be researched in-depth). There's also other minor variations such as the subsidization of aspects of compulsory education. With the exception of Sweden, Finland, Estonia and India the entire world has do not have universal free school lunch in compulsory education as funded by their State. This means it is left to the prerogative to every level below the State from province, to the city, to the school, etc. on the question of free/paid school lunch in compulsory education. Similar stuff can be looked into for school supplies, mandatory uniforms, education materials, etc.
On health, it's also a mixed bag. The question of analysis can simply range from the availability of universal healthcare to the level of depth of funding for aspects of it depending on the standards desired by differing States. One can look at the ratio of doctors and other medical positions to the number of citizens, how healthcare is distributed, and so forth. This is more so outside my knowledge and probably needs someone more familiar with the field to examine and explain details on.
On social security, which may be broader than the first two, range from examining unemployment, senior citizen, housing, food, or a plethora more subjects as it's as broad in scope as the society it's directed towards. One can examine how differently houselessness is addressed in differing states as houselessness and combatting it tend to fall under multiple forms of social security. A simple barometer would be analyzing whether or not the state recognizes economic rights of its citizens and seeks to pursue those rights for its citizens. On this regard I can throw in this link called "China’s Employment Policies and Strategies" By Yan DI, Research fellow of the Chinese Academy of Labour and Social Security, Ministry of Labour and Social Security, P.R.China.
I'd primarily argue the main distinction of welfare under a socialist or capitalist system is in how each system performs its duties on social security and whether or not the economic rights of the worker are the primary concern of the State or not. From that point onwards it becomes the tedious task of administration of building the socio-economic structures to address the needs of social security.
A tankie is a hardline ML in your opinion yes? Did you know most "tankies" read theory to better understand the world and are definitely more knowledgeable than "socialists" (by which you mean libs who aren't actually socialist like yourself)
What to you is a tankie. Are they in the room with us right now? Anyway I'm disengaging because you're clearly a debatebro (and lib) who can't argue in good faith. but I'll leave you a link to hexbears policy posting bulletins
no, because you're literally just being fucking stupid
No, it's literally socialism 101 so I wouldn't expect a tankie to understand.
I've read all three volumes of capital around a month ago because I had an autistic urge to do it
tell me with full seriousness that you've even glanced at it
My dog has been exposed to more theory via audiobooks than that lib
Literally some basic engels socialism utopian and scientific would throw this boy for a loop
deleted by creator
cries
This is the worst attempt at Sealioning that I have ever seen.
Please tell me with full seriousness how redirecting capital from the capital class to the working class is anything other than socialism.
DUDE YOU ARE LITERALLY JUST MAKING UP SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AGAIN
you definitely have not read a single page of marxist theory
Social democracy sounds great, sign me up.
Dude you still don't stop worker exploitation, don't solve the contradiction of working and capitalist classes, don't end imperialism or colonialism (social democracy outsources exploitation to the third world), and just set up a future capitalist takeover and descent into neoliberal hell.
You really haven't read any theory. At all. Did you take one silly phrase and think you had something?! Your politics are immature and uninformed. Please read theory.
Ok let me know how your method works out because right now it's neither.
The method has worked, is working, and will work
you won't see it though, I hope to kill people like you
Because they don't own the means of production. Socialism isn't just redirecting capital, it is about eliminating it and the ruling class. Profit sharing is a bandaid on the grand canyon; workers are still exploited by the capital class. Socialism is a completely and total shift so large and threatening to the ruling class that it can only happen through revolution, it's way bigger than sharing profits
But you have to agree it’s a lot closer to socialism than the status quo.
No, it is the status quo. What you're describing is capitalism. It is not closer to socialism.
Please link me to the careers page of these plentiful jobs that engage in substantive profit sharing for all working class employees.
Profits go to the capital class currently, that's the whole problem, right?
You've never heard the term "stock option"?
You sure went from "it's socialism 101, you stupid tankie!" to "well it's a marginal improvement on the status quo..." really quickly.
It's actually quite a massive departure from the status quo, really.
K. Doesn't change my point.
Theres this concept, where the Capitalists are expropriated from and reproletarianized back into the working class whom in turn seize full control of the means of production and abolish the capitalist governments in order to build governments of/by/for the working class. Thats called building Socialism, and to do anything other than working towards the goal of liquidating the enemies of the working class is to do anything other than fighting for socialism.
Taking money from the rich and simply redistributing it a la your "profit sharing" does not solve the fundamental contradiction between the capitalist class and the working class as it does nothing to change the economic structure the two exist in opposition to each other. If nothing else. all you're advocating for is prolonging the existence of Capitalism and fighting against the interests of your own class by advocating for maintaining the cruel system of Capitalism but trying to disguise the worst visages it wears with smiley face emojis
Ok. But you have to agree it's a lot closer to socialism than the status quo.
No lol that's just welfare - something that can be done regardless of what economic system is in place. Now if you want a discussion on a contrastive analysis of the class dynamics of welfare under a Socialist and Capitalist system, that'd be an interesting topic to research into.
That does sound super interesting, any thoughts immediately spring to mind?
I think it's a whole field of research I'm not very familiar with. Personally, I'd start looking into the history of welfare in England a la the late feudal and emerging capitalist period of social welfare known as the "poor laws", seeing how they would develop into the more familiar contemporary welfare system of the UK, then delving into U.S history of welfare during the same period, and then examining the Tsarist Russian period and the Soviet period's welfare systems. But if you want to abbreviate that a bit then simply doing a contrasting analysis of social welfare of the U.S and the U.S.S.R in whatever period you desired to learn about.
Now in terms of what I know and can extrapolate off the top of my head, social welfare as broadly defined to include education, health, and social security under a socialist or capitalist system tend to wildly differ from one another in some aspects and in others - depending on states - appear similar.
On education, nearly all countries have some form of compulsory education that tend to be state funded to a certain ages with variations being dictated by their own national standards. An example of this could be how the U.S and R.O.K has free public school from the ages 5 to 19 with university being individually funded whereas Japan and the PRC has free public education from the ages 6 to 15 with high school onwards being individually funded. (Reasons why so will have to be researched in-depth). There's also other minor variations such as the subsidization of aspects of compulsory education. With the exception of Sweden, Finland, Estonia and India the entire world has do not have universal free school lunch in compulsory education as funded by their State. This means it is left to the prerogative to every level below the State from province, to the city, to the school, etc. on the question of free/paid school lunch in compulsory education. Similar stuff can be looked into for school supplies, mandatory uniforms, education materials, etc.
On health, it's also a mixed bag. The question of analysis can simply range from the availability of universal healthcare to the level of depth of funding for aspects of it depending on the standards desired by differing States. One can look at the ratio of doctors and other medical positions to the number of citizens, how healthcare is distributed, and so forth. This is more so outside my knowledge and probably needs someone more familiar with the field to examine and explain details on.
On social security, which may be broader than the first two, range from examining unemployment, senior citizen, housing, food, or a plethora more subjects as it's as broad in scope as the society it's directed towards. One can examine how differently houselessness is addressed in differing states as houselessness and combatting it tend to fall under multiple forms of social security. A simple barometer would be analyzing whether or not the state recognizes economic rights of its citizens and seeks to pursue those rights for its citizens. On this regard I can throw in this link called "China’s Employment Policies and Strategies" By Yan DI, Research fellow of the Chinese Academy of Labour and Social Security, Ministry of Labour and Social Security, P.R.China.
I'd primarily argue the main distinction of welfare under a socialist or capitalist system is in how each system performs its duties on social security and whether or not the economic rights of the worker are the primary concern of the State or not. From that point onwards it becomes the tedious task of administration of building the socio-economic structures to address the needs of social security.
I guess in your universe there's no true socialism, eh?
Nope, the Soviet Union was Socialist. All other AES projects are also moving towards becoming socialist as well in their own distinctive manner.
It doesn't change you're a fucking liberal that thinks socialism is when you redistribute wealth without changing the existing economic system.
deleted by creator
That's not whataboutism, that was the original argument.
You guys are the worst trolls in the fediverse.
deleted by creator
you are now my queen
deleted by creator
I love your name btw
deleted by creator
Ok I'll keep that in mind.
A tankie is a hardline ML in your opinion yes? Did you know most "tankies" read theory to better understand the world and are definitely more knowledgeable than "socialists" (by which you mean libs who aren't actually socialist like yourself)
No, but one of the top posts in the "tankiverse" recently was saying that places like North Korea are the bastions of freedom.
More nuanced takes on communism, etc are done instances other than Hexbear and Lemmygrad.
Why does your opinion on the DPRK align with propaganda from a country that killed 20 percent of all Koreans to prevent a unified democratic Korea?
Why do you act like any one right of Karl Marx must be a dunce who blindly supports the global status quo?
You're acting like it when you repeat American attitudes about the dprk.
Sometimes it be that way.
Source that isnt aligned with US interests?
Have you considered not being or doing that?
Link me to a nuanced take please
What to you is a tankie. Are they in the room with us right now? Anyway I'm disengaging because you're clearly a debatebro (and lib) who can't argue in good faith. but I'll leave you a link to hexbears policy posting bulletins
A tankie is a supporter of an authoritarian country that either is, or presents itself as, a left wing.
Pretty unambiguous definition.
You need to define authoritarian in a way that doesn't include basically every country for that to be a reasonable definition.
Jails dissidents without a modicum of due process.
Yeah it's a problem in a lot of countries, welcome to the "status quo".
Thank you for acknowledging that it is basically useless because it is just a thing states do.
Also fascists and other reactionary dissidents should be repressed when they try to organize.
So all countries then.
So your definition of tankie is "a supporter of country that either is, or presents itself, as left wing."