This argument has been waged for decades. We're not going to resolve it here, now, just by invoking it yet again. Please just observe the HN guidelines, particularly these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
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
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)
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.
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 :/
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> the government decides what is allowed and what is not.
Hm, you mean the government makes the laws? Shocking, revolting even
In the context of chat, it likely refers to a desire to make sure there isn't any "illegal talk" or "bad think" going on.
[flagged]
[flagged]
This argument has been waged for decades. We're not going to resolve it here, now, just by invoking it yet again. Please just observe the HN guidelines, particularly these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Let's please not fall, for the trillionth time, into the trap of "Nazis were socialists, it's in their name!".
4 replies →
[dead]
[flagged]
3 replies →
Today it aligns with Danish definition of socialism.
[flagged]
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
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.
6 replies →
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.
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.
4 replies →
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)
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.
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 :/
2 replies →