When you insist that it’s what is going to happen under every other system and it happens under yours too that ends up being that you didn’t make a fucking point at all.
You just wasted our fucking lives for decades over a warning that ended up happening under your system anyways.
At any fucking point if you wanna shut the fuck up, that would be fucking great.
Well, have you considered that perhaps these issues are simply a feature of government in general, regardless of ideology?
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
By arguing that if we’re going to have all of these problems, we might as well have socialism, all you’re really saying is “I want the same thing, but in blue”.
He served a single term as a democratically elected president. Hardly an example of absolute power.
And there goes the goal posts. God almighty then.
Che Guevara
Please show me where Che Guevara achieved absolute power, you historically illiterate chud. Or where he was fucking “corrupted” by it , for that matter.
For that matter, show that any of those people achieved absolute power and then are “corrupted” by it, given none of them changed at all in terms of character or ideology.
For that matter, show that any of those people achieved absolute power and then are “corrupted” by it, given none of them changed at all in terms of character or ideology.
How many people did Stalin or Pol Pot murder? At what point would you consider the threshold of corruption to be surpassed?
Sure, no one denies that but you’re missing the point. The point is that people in power claim that we can’t have socialism, because it would lead to the aforementioned problems, completely ignoring the fact that we have those problems under capitalism anyways.
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Communism is the end result of collectivizing all production and distribution globally, and is economically compelled by socialism.
You know that doesn’t meant it wouldn’t be happing under socialism too, right?
When you insist that it’s what is going to happen under every other system and it happens under yours too that ends up being that you didn’t make a fucking point at all.
You just wasted our fucking lives for decades over a warning that ended up happening under your system anyways.
At any fucking point if you wanna shut the fuck up, that would be fucking great.
Well, have you considered that perhaps these issues are simply a feature of government in general, regardless of ideology?
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
By arguing that if we’re going to have all of these problems, we might as well have socialism, all you’re really saying is “I want the same thing, but in blue”.
This is the biggest example of nonsense being treated as fact just because it got repeated enough
Okay, well, if it’s so obviously wrong, I’m sure you have a very good counterexample for me.
Nelson Mandela, though frankly I’d love to see you examples of power metaphysically “corrupting” people like it’s the one ring in the first place
He served a single term as a democratically elected president. Hardly an example of absolute power.
As for the examples you asked for: I’m sure you’ve heard of Stalin, Mao, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Tito…
And there goes the goal posts. God almighty then.
Please show me where Che Guevara achieved absolute power, you historically illiterate chud. Or where he was fucking “corrupted” by it , for that matter.
For that matter, show that any of those people achieved absolute power and then are “corrupted” by it, given none of them changed at all in terms of character or ideology.
So you accuse me of moving goalpoasts and then you happily go on moving your own?
That help at all? https://humanprogress.org/the-truth-about-che-guevara-racist-homophobe-and-mass-murderer/
How many people did Stalin or Pol Pot murder? At what point would you consider the threshold of corruption to be surpassed?
Sure, no one denies that but you’re missing the point. The point is that people in power claim that we can’t have socialism, because it would lead to the aforementioned problems, completely ignoring the fact that we have those problems under capitalism anyways.
Sure but is it a guarantee? Or do States fail no matter the system?
Name any state in history that has ever not failed at some point. There’s your answer.
Communism you mean? Socialism isn’t a type of government. And yeah, the guy who made the list got it wrong too.
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Communism is the end result of collectivizing all production and distribution globally, and is economically compelled by socialism.