UsernameHere @ UsernameHere @lemmings.world

Posts

0

Comments

148

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes, I am talking about why you think Communism is the solution to inequality but it just hasn’t achieved it yet after centuries of existing.

Then you moved the goalpost to claim that communism has never been achieved.

So let’s talk about that now.

Why do you think Communism has never been achieved but at the same time think it is capable of solving inequality?

Just because something hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it is guaranteed to happen in the future.

I didn’t think that I needed to explain that to you. I was wrong. Sorry.

I am not saying things can’t happen if they haven’t happened yet.

I am saying if Socialism and Communism have existed for centuries and that whole time they have had disparity. What reason is there to believe that disparity cannot exist in socialist or communist economies?

If it just needs to be “based in logical progression of real systems” to achieve the goal, then why has it not succeeded yet after centuries of existence?

If I can take your exact same argument and use it against Capitalism in pre-revolution France

My argument that disparity is caused by people pursuing power and not economic systems?

Please explain how your example of France proves my argument wrong.

Goals are nice. But we are talking about how to achieve an economic system that actually achieves this. Not just sets goals to.

You are claiming Communism and Socialism can do it but when I ask for an example you say they just haven’t done it yet.

If they have existed for centuries but haven’t achieved their goals yet what makes you think they can?

There are still hierarchies in socialist economies. Thats why there is still disparity in socialist economies.

Do you have an example of one of these socialist societies where everyone has equal power?

You can account for bad actors and power-seekers woth egalitarian distribution of power and a prevention against gaining in power.

How? Without stating how this is accomplished, you’re response is only really saying,

‘you can account for bad actors and power-seekers by living in a perfect world where bad people don’t exist’

If there were an economic system that achieved that it would be a utopia. I don’t know of any utopias on earth.

Not every economic system, economic systems that place significant barriers against ballooning of individual wealth off exploitation see less disparity, and thus less of an impact of money on politics.

You say not every economic system, but then you say less disparity, less impact.

Less disparity means there is still disparity. Less impact means there is still impact.

Because like I said, as long as there are human beings who want more power, there will be a struggle in any economic systems to prevent disparity.

That is because it isn’t the economic system that deregulates or undermines protections.

It is those who seek more power who deregulate and undermine protections.

And those people exist in all types of economic systems.

Even capitalist America had a point in history where disparity was low and the middle class and lower class thrived.

That is no longer the case because of those who removed regulations and changed the laws to suite themselves. And again, those people exist in every type of economy.

Not from “the west” from “the rich”. There are rich people in every type of economy that use their money to gain more power. One of the many ways that is done is with propaganda to convince those with less that the rich in power are not the problem.

Just look at the oligarchs in Russia.

*Undo citizens united

What about the people that aren’t able to watch the drawings and have to check if they won using the website?

If Powerball used their website to communicate the winning numbers and they made the mistake of putting the wrong numbers up then that is their mistake to own.

Concern troll is concerned

Out of all the drugs that I’ve been on while having sex, I was surprised to find that mushrooms/acid was the best.

Right I get that, but the alternative is no help from the US. Which is less beneficial to Europe/NATO than some help until/if Republicans block additional help.

It’s called diplomacy and it is a requirement of getting anything done in a split Congress.

How is it a liability? Russia is a threat to Euro-NATO nations. It is in your/their best interests to have the US help against Russia even if US Republicans try to prevent it.

So the Houthis are working with China and only attacking US trade ships?

2/3rds of Americans don’t know what AI is or the limitations of LLMs.

I aren’t saying that. I’m saying I can’t verify what it is saying is true. So it’s not proof of anything.

That admission of high ranking officials you’re referring to was just highlighted text from some mystery document in the video. How do I know it is credible?

I did. They are used to prove how misinformation is spread by people who link articles as proof. They make the point that these articles can’t be trusted without proof.