The mentality of socialism versus capitalism

O.M.G

There you go, demonising property for the underclass again. Why not just join Blackstone!

 

These rabid isolationists consider themselves too special for the dull necessities of peasanthood. Sharing, compromise, obligation, labour, responsibility, etc. They believe themselves so special that they can reject all that style-cramping stuff, yet still deserve rescue at someone else's expense .... likely that someone a dull peasant who didn't think themselves so special. It's a common kind of *******ry.

 

No. Those governments use tax money to supply and run them. If they need servicing then yes they may choose to buy in services but they also use the huge staff they hire directly to work for the state.
I am aware that socialism means you go without if you don't produce. I told you that when FB thought socialism means handouts.
I merely asked why if you praise capitalism so highly and declare socialism to be evil and devisive, you declare yourself a socialist.

 

You've spent countless posts demonising private property for the common man.

There's only ONE reason people do that .. and it's not in the interests of the common man. Obviously.

 

Well you just called someone part of the bourgeoisie for owning property did you not?

 

A socialist is never an isolationist. That is a contradiction in terms.

 

They only want those they perceive as the wealthy to give their property away.

When it comes to their own possessions the story changes

 

Indeed. That is the term marx used.

 

And do you think that's the only way you've called private property owners bad or greedy in this thread?
You have a plethora of post implying just that, if not outright stating it and so many words

 

You have it all so woefully wrong. You have an entirely First World West perspective, based on nothing more than freaking books written by rich Western poseurs. It's all fantasy and nonsense, and conveniently ignores the fact that you cannot have any of it (even if it was actually real) without totalitarianism.

Try spending 30+ years living it - via paid up membership of the red squad, living in working communes, living in collectives and villages in the Third World, and ongoing familiars collectivism. You're so outgunned that it's like shooting dead fish in barrels.

 

I have spent time trying to explain what socialism is.
Any mention of capitalism was to include what marx said.

In addition you seem to have rejected capitalism for collectivism but at the same time praising it.
Which is why your position is so contradictory.

 

Yes you said so before and yet when confronted with you own contradictions you have nothing left but personal referencing.
It is past midnight here and I haven't had a logical reply to that confusion so I am going to let you think about it.
Think why you live so long in socialist collectives and yet call them evil and devisive.

 

Dude, you're not a socialist. If you were, you would never even consider living one-person-per-household, nor would you consider paying rents (and thus filling the coffers of some corporation, instead of boosting the security of your people). You're absolutely an isolationist, if you think the peasantry should turn away from each other, and towards the overlords. That's the ultimate act against community and collectivism.

 

Your confusion is a result of your sudden immersion in truth, my friend.

 

No it is not even slightly contradictory. Collectivism is a mode of living, and it's best and most fully realised in a CAPITALIST DEMOCRACY. The capitalism allows us to own the property necessary for collection, and the democracy allows us the freedom to choose it. Every society since the dawn of social mammals, has thrived in this precise balance.

Your problem is that you work in fantasy only .. like all insulated First Worlders with too much ease and too much time on their hands.

 

But I never said I was a socialist!
I merely explained the term.
As I explained, the moment you own property YOU become the overlord as you admitted earlier when you said tenants are subjected to owners when they pay rent.
You really have no consistent narrative.

 

But you listed socialism as one of the collectives and declared yourself one.
Now you say you need capitalism, that which you reject, to provide it.
Yet you also said socialism is evil and devisive.
More confusion.

 

You are STILL demonising private property for the common man! WHY are you doing this? What is your freaking goal?

Common folk owning their piece of property, is exactly what the common folk need to defend themselves from complete loss of their power and wealth to the elites.

 

Of course. It's your failure to understand what collectivism is, which is the problem. Let go of your Toff books, and grasp lived collectivism as it actually is. 80% of humanity practices it, so you should have no trouble finding examples to study.

 

This is a swerve and an ad hom indicating the inability to reconcile your position.
I am quite familiar with the concept of collectivism. Your problem is that you can't explain it relative to capitalism.
In fact you aren't replying to the issues I have raised so perhaps you can sort it out tomorrow.
Or should I think of your identity as a socialist, synonymous with evil and devisiveness?

 

I don't.
MARX does!
I am discussing Marxism and socialism. YOU are discussing me.
Can't you tell the difference???

 

So you become one of them.
By owning your own piece of property.
QED

 

Lol....just lol

 

And they're always the first to ditch their communities (because they're too fancy and worldly for 'village life').

 

Yet more confirmation that you are nowhere near being a socialist.