I know, and I'm not either. its just a statement of fact.

Why do you even bother posting so much on the topic then because it all just falls back to the person's philosophy and experiences which make up their beliefs

otherwise it's just noise and probably why so many people in past 8 years have issues with you don't mean to be insulting

best medium for any discussion is reaching on a human/personal level I mean s***

Socialism is good because it brings democracy to society. If people make society they should own it. Not only the real fruits of their labor but also the choice as to what to do with them. This does not happen under capitalism which functionally drives higher wealth and control to fewer and fewer people. The bad history surrounding socialism and communism (not the same socialism is more specific than communism) is created in an attempt to protect capitalism from socialism. If that history is looked at without this political motive you would see that the "bad" came from either capitalists using their power internationally to stop socialism or a leader(s) using the idea of socialism to extablish an authoritarian government on the back of a revolution or a citizen uprising.

I fwu bro and Im pretty sure I agree with you since I'm a socialist but people are asking why you have your political affiliations and instead of expounding upon them and possibly converting, you are coming off as a d*** a little bit

i dont really care if people have issues with me lol, but its really just a fact that personal stuff really isn't anyone elses business and overall irrelevant to the discussion.

i mean its p simple

i believe in equality, therefore im a socialist.

I know you didnt ask me but im answering anyway. My belief in socialism is actually pretty simple. If all people together create the world then all people together should have possession of it and what to do with it. Socialism is a series of models that allow for this to be true for our economy.

I didn't mean anything literally personal/sensitive information

just more context, because nothing political should ever just be a purely 'logical' solution-based discussion, (human) context is important

if someone could understand someone else, it's easier to learn from them and develop their own views further

when you gave me the current affairs article and I looked into the author/founder of the paper, I benefited a lot hearing him just talk normally on things, not just try to debate/make arguments directly

ofc it's your prerogative to share or not, I'd just say it would enhance discussions

i dont even remember which article ur talking about

but its pretty simple. more equality and democracy = good

socialism enhances this. therefore, im a socialist.

What are the countries you see in modern times that fit the closest ideal socialist system for you and what do you admire most of them

Okay I see

To make this happen would a government have to oversee and control this system?

I’m asking questions bc when I hear socialism I think of a government saying all production of the country goes to the government and they’ll redistribute the resources.

Or

Is it something to the effect of government collects a percentage of the country’s GDP and takes that percentage to pay its citizens?

If I’m wrong or right lmk

If you want to use the term closest literally, then one of the nordic countries, probably denmark. maybe cuba in a certain sense

if you want to closest to mean whether any countries are close to what id consider ideal; none.

there are many different ways you could do it. the government could indeed be reduced to serve nothing but an administrative function, allocating resources in a way that promotes fairness/equality, but this would be decided upon by the citizenry.

Where do you see the main shortfalls that prevents a country like Denmark from being more ideally socialist?

for one, they still operate under the context of a capitalist global economy. there's still private property, workers don't own means of production etc.,

Your'e actually thinking a little too micro. Socialism simply has to do with the division of recources. The government can vastly change in size,nature and function to accomodate this division. You don't even necessarily need currency to be socialist but you can have one if you think it makes things more effecient.

The government (as you and I have both understood what government is) taking recources part of this is usually a reference to Chinese and Russian history. Whether or not you think the consequences of what happened in those countries to be justified this was done to achieve industrialization (lots of infrastructure) as quickly as possible in fear of foreign intervention, imperialism and colonization.

This might be beyond most to answer but the modern economy/means of production are very different nowadays

Most of the value in the modern economy is created in the research/development of products/service, low-skilled labor will continuing to decline faster and faster.

Why that is relevant, well it's going to pretty difficult for a unionized (lack of better word) workforce to own and operate the means of production that's a major system of labs, advanced robotic facilities, and other things which require really a whole other job to develop and run. It's not like manufacturing in the 20th century where it was more straight forward.

This stuff requires a large institution to feasible so I think you'd just end up with system where the government manages and creates the facilities/means of production for a good/service (but not deliver/create the good/service directly). These would be a separate group of workers because it's an ongoing and difficult job in of itself (ofc with variance between different goods and services)

Maybe when the actual product itself is created, the value from it is more directly distributed to the workers I suppose. This would be equitable, but what determines the price of the good here? Simply the cost to produce it? How do you weigh compensation for workers maintaining/working on the faculties to create these products vs the ones who actually create/deliver them to consumers? Whose more the valuable worker and deserves biggest portion of the profit from the good or service? The ones running and maintaining the facilities or ones delivering/creating the actual service/good?

You don't have to answer any of that, just off the top of my head these are questions that come to my mind when I think of socialism and economics of it.

1. Well first, i'd need to know exactly what you mean by research/development. Do you just mean people coming up with new products, like if i created some sort of product then sold it? or do you mean research/development in terms of how we think of innovation in fields like medicine. Also keep in mind that this structure of economy your talking about is a policy choice, not something set in stone.

2. There's no reason the people that work in those fields of study can't collectively own the labs.

3. i assume youre talking about literal construction jobs handled by the government here?

4. cost to produce could very well equal the cost of the good. and the workers themselves as a collective could determine the wages, if we have to have a wage labour system, which i wouldn't. but in the end none is more valuable, because they can't work without each other. like if youre talking about someone who is educated in running complex systems and works in a field where he's needed to maintain a factory or lab and within that lab there are workers manufacturing a product, then there is really no difference in value so in the end they should be entitled to equal compensation, equal say in how things are run etc.,

What exactly happens to all of the luxuries in life in a socialist society?

Who buys the fully loaded continental gt? Who gets the Patek? Who goes on beautiful vacations and stays in 5 star hotels?

Matthew 6:19-21
Treasures in Heaven

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

so much money on one person. I wonder if he is happy and all that stuff. What is even the point of having so much money? Like what would you gain from having it?

Your posts just get dumber and dumber

That's what I want indeed