nlfwhulsdhouv

He runs a fucking surveillance company.

No one is suggesting we throw him in jail for being involved in a fucking KKK drive-by shooting, just that maybe he not run _a fucking surveillance company_.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> Except you can't really have such a thing as a large group of people have an equal say in control of anything, c.f. democracy. It is the mechanics that are the issue.

Sure, you might disagree that socialism is possible without big government, but that has nothing to do with the definition. My only point is that it doesn't inherently have anything to do with control. The problem with saying that socialism means big government is it associates it with decades of red-scare propaganda and makes all discussion impossible.

> If you are talking about workers being "shareholders" then that's still capitalism.

Not really, if the workers have ownership over the company and the capital, then they "own the means of production".

> The fundamental problem we are dealing with is allocation of resources, and the masses not being sufficiently informed to make decisions. Until you solve that problem every system you put in place corrupts, some worse than others and some with few mechanisms for correction and recovery.

Sure, resource allocation is hard, but "lets just let the rich/monarchs/the lizard people decide" is a cop-out.

For what it's worth, you should probably engage with some 'real' socialist literature beyond just sound bites from Twitter. Many of these questions are considered. Richard Wolff might be an interesting starting point.

[flagged]

How hard is this honestly...

Socialism -- Worker ownership of the means of production.

Socialism is not "when the government is big" or "when the government does things".

A big federal government is not socialism. Norway is not socialism. Heath care is not socialism. Unions are not socialism. China is not socialism (charitably it's a state-captialist government with the goal of achieving socialism, realistically it's an authoritarian state-capitalist government).

Maybe you use a big or authoritarian federal government to try to achieve socialism, but a big federal government is not necessary or sufficient for socialism.

No it's not, and the US is far from the only country that has a diversity of culture. The Canadian maritime provinces are extremely different from Nunuvut or downtown Vancouver. Paris is significantly difference than Nice. Shanghai is significantly different than Xinjiang province.

This is yet another annoying expression of American exceptionalism. Of course, it only ever comes up when someone says, "Maybe we should stop people dying because they can't afford healthcare."

The US is probably one of the most culturally uniform countries of any significant size I can think of honestly.

I use Python a few times a month for some simple scripting usually. Every time I have to look up how to use `range()` correctly, usually because I forgot if it's inclusive or exclusive. Academics that are used to Matlab or Julia will also have to look up if it starts at 0 or 1.

Furthermore, it's obvious what `time()` does in this context, but if I was writing this code I would _absolutely_ have to look up the correct time function to use for timing a function.

Anytime the CCP does something bad it's some systemic issue with insane conspiratorial motivation that every citizen is complacent in. Anytime the US does something bad it's 'realpolitik', or 'just a bad government, not everyone believes that'.

If you enumerate all the domestic human rights abuses of the US it doesn't look much better. Internationally, it's much worse. Hell, the US barely has 'democracy'. The chance of your vote _actually_ counting is small, and the two parties are barely better than a strict illusion of choice.

It's nothing more than another red scare. And before people jump down my throat... I don't think the CCP is _good_ either, I would dissolve both governments if it was up to me.

The capitalists' justification for collecting the surplus value from the renters is said to be the reward for risking their capital. If there is no risk, what purpose does the landlord serve? (beyond simple property management, which requires no ownership of capital)

I've moved 5x5 sheets of plywood and 10' 2x4s in my '04 G35 without too much trouble. The back seats don't even fold down, I just stuff everything through the ski hole or tie it on the roof :).

I would probably rather have a hatch if I didn't love this car though, fair point.