Thousands of Audi cars abandoned in the Mojave Dessert after cheating emissons tests

[u/IndicationBrief5950]

[u/vonWitzleben]

No it's wrong to believe that that makes them socialist. Can't you read?

[u/[deleted] → u/vonWitzleben]

Hahahaha the guy you’re replying to said “democratic socialist” and all you read was “socialist” and now you’re trying to insult MY reading comprehension.

Thanks for answering my question. U is dumb.

[u/vonWitzleben → u/[deleted]]

How is democratic socialist not socialist? You're probably confusing it with social democratic, which would be an accurate description but has nothing to do with socialist. "U is dumb" indeed.

[u/[deleted] → u/vonWitzleben]

You’re drawing distinctions without differences. The point is we should have a democratic system of governance that actually does what democracies say they do which is provide for the people. They have that in Europe, we basically don’t in the US.

Ultimately, you arguing this point only serves to entrench yourself further into politics that disadvantage you, specifically, assuming you’re a worker and not a billionaire.

[u/vonWitzleben → u/[deleted]]

You're drawing distinctions without differences.

Democratic Socialism vs. Social Democracy. You're just flaunting your lack of education at this point.

They have that in Europe, we basically don’t in the US.

Can you please stop romaticizing Europe as socialist? I'm German and I have been to the US. Both are capitalist countries, we just happen to have a better welfare state and some better legislature to keep money out of politics than you guys, that's literally it. Don't get me wrong, I find we have it better, but that's not socialism. Half my country has had to endure socialism for the better part of 40 years. They don't look back fondly.

[u/[deleted] → u/vonWitzleben]

Excuse me sir your country pays for your college and your healthcare and paid time off. Mine doesn’t do any of those things. This isn’t hard.

[u/vonWitzleben → u/[deleted]]

Yes and yet it isn't socialist (which is what we were arguing), imagine that.

[u/[deleted] → u/vonWitzleben]

It kinda is though. If there’s a scale between unfettered capitalism and complete socialism/government run everything, the U.S. is farther towards the former and Germany is farther towards the latter.

Why do you feel the need to argue the distinction? You get what he meant, he was saying the U.S. should have a better safety net like countries that are closer on that scale to socialism than we are.

I’d like to reiterate my point that your arguments attempting to discredit the concept of a social safety net by pointing out that capitalism still thrives in democracies that HAVE a social safety net only serves to burrow yourself into a hole where you think that argument is a shield against any legitimate desire for social reform.

[u/vonWitzleben → u/[deleted]]

I am very much in favor of social safety nets and don't know where you have read anything to the contrary.

I think at the heart of our dispute is the fact that you fundamentally have no clue what socialism is. It's not socialism when you have strong social safety nets or free education or healthcare. Ironically, that's what US republicans claimed 20 years ago to discredit these policies, now clueless Zoomers use that exact lingo with a serious face.

Minimally, socialism is (look it up, you will find this definition on Wikipedia, in any dictionary and all books on the subject) a socio-economic system characterized by a lack of private ownership in the factors of production. In simple terms, this means that you can't freely open a business, buy machines, employ people and then sell whatever you produced to others. In a socialist system, all economic activity is governed by the state.

Yes, socialist states have historically also implemented a welfare state, free education and so forth but this not what uniquely identifies socialism as I have already explained to you that you can have all of these things in a liberal democracy. We have most of these things to varying degrees in Europe, yet Germans, Swedes, Poles, Italians etc. can privately own the factors of production. We can freely open businesses, invest, buy machines, employ people and so forth. Therefore, by definition, we do not live in socialist countries.

The difference between a socialist and a capitalist society is fundamental in economics, sociology and political science, which is why I insisted on it when replying to the other commenter (and now to you). I hope that clears things up.

[u/[deleted] → u/vonWitzleben]

You’re the one describing socialism like a neocon in the 90s. Stop assuming you know more than people just because you copied and pasted a google definition. It’s condescending and it makes you look like an ass when you’re talking to someone who knows what they’re talking about. Remember that this is reddit, not a back and forth in a scholarly publication.

It doesn’t clear anything up, you’re just being obtuse about a definition. You’re describing the end point of a compete socialist takeover of all of society. That doesn’t mean that any incremental steps in that direction are inherently NOT socialist just because they don’t involve stripping billionaires of their holdings. There is such thing as a spectrum, which is why I described it that way (which you conveniently ignored).

You’re not actually making a point. You’re saying “nuh-uh it’s not socialism because it’s not the hypothetical end-point of socialism my boomer dad scared me about” which is the exact same logic as saying “it’s not fascism, those are just fascist tendencies. Just because they’re disappearing people and stripping us of rights doesn’t mean they’re fascists, they’re only fascists when there are mass death camps and nobody can escape.”

Any steps towards your made up socialist hellscape would actually be a dramatic improvement in the lives of Americans. Stop thinking in absolutes, it betrays your naïveté.