|
Top-level
 Let's be clear, we agree. We just choose to word it different ways. The reason I do it is because for most people "capitalism" and "socialism" means nothing. For many, it doesn't mean what they think it means. And expert don't agree what the words mean. So I don't blame "capitalism". I blame people who have so much money they can buy the political system. I don't demand "socialism", I demand a system where everyone is comfortable. Get me? 6 comments
We do not agree. Don't tell me I agree with you when we're here having a debate over our disagreement over politics. From my analysis of your beliefs, you don't call it "capitalism" because you have little to no understanding of capitalism, and the same goes for socialism as well. 1/2 Someone earlier recommended you read "Reform or Revolution" by Rosa Luxemburg, and I also recommend you read the book to understand the flaws of reformism and develop a better understanding of capitalism and socialism. No one seems to agree on what is "capitalism"! Lol. (I have my own definition, which is not really useful when it comes to communication. So I don't use it...) But if you want to get a point across, talking about a system that allow super rich people buying entire government and let normal folks in the shit, *everyone* will get that! And the problem with socialism is similar. No one knows what it means! ... Plenty of people agree on what capitalism is, and if they don't know what it is, it's very, very simple to explain: it's the private ownership of the means of production. If they don't know what means of production are, again, it's very, very easy to explain: resources and tools used to make goods and services. If they don't know what socialism is, again, very, very easy to explain: the collective ownership of the means of production. 1/2 There, I just explained both capitalism and socialism in three short sentences, which were leagues more descriptive than your description of capitalism, "a system that allow super rich people buying entire government and let normal folks in the shit," and your description of socialism which was equally as inane. 2/2 |
Gregory's Server
@Radical_EgoCom @FisherPeter
Peter Fisher here might not get how "capitalism" is destroying the planet and why "capitalism" is bad. But Peter Fisher can certainly see how very very rich people influence politics so decisions advantage them, and goes against everyone else's interests, if he bothers to read the news.
Peter Fisher might have swallowed whole the propaganda associating "socialism" to a very bad thing, but I don't think he'd disagree with a world where poverty doesn't exists.