It’s good for the working classes to wield state authority against capitalists and fascists. To not do so would be to allow capitalism to reform, and the alternative is capitalist authority used against the working classes.
No, it isn’t. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state, it’s socialist. What do you think socialism and capitalism are? Vibes?
I’m convinced (based off interactions I’ve had on NextDoor) a lot of people think capitalism=uses money. But also that socialism/communism=failed/corrupted capitalism. China looking better than the USA nowadays means they have to be capitalist since they obviously aren’t failing.
That’s certainly how some people see it! Liberals look at China’s success and some try to twist that into a victory for capitalism, even if that doesn’t actually describe China’s success accurately.
I want you to really try to make a singular definition of Authoritarianism and Libertarianism that applies to all examples you would classify as authoritarian or libertarian. Is it theoretically possible for them to exist at the same time in the same place? Would that be a common definition? If not, why is your definition different and more importantly do you have enough evidence to justify having a different definition from the majority of people who use those terms?
Removed by mod
It’s good for the working classes to wield state authority against capitalists and fascists. To not do so would be to allow capitalism to reform, and the alternative is capitalist authority used against the working classes.
But China is capitalist.
Wrong.
Is China State Capitalist?
No, it isn’t. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state, it’s socialist. What do you think socialism and capitalism are? Vibes?
I’m convinced (based off interactions I’ve had on NextDoor) a lot of people think capitalism=uses money. But also that socialism/communism=failed/corrupted capitalism. China looking better than the USA nowadays means they have to be capitalist since they obviously aren’t failing.
That’s certainly how some people see it! Liberals look at China’s success and some try to twist that into a victory for capitalism, even if that doesn’t actually describe China’s success accurately.
I want you to really try to make a singular definition of Authoritarianism and Libertarianism that applies to all examples you would classify as authoritarian or libertarian. Is it theoretically possible for them to exist at the same time in the same place? Would that be a common definition? If not, why is your definition different and more importantly do you have enough evidence to justify having a different definition from the majority of people who use those terms?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Willful ignorance is not ignorance.
Removed by mod
And all states are authoritarian, so it loses its explanatory value and is a useless term when used to isolate and describe individual states.