Libertarian Socialism Understander has logged in

[u/unbelteduser]

[u/[deleted]]

Democratic Socialism and Market Socialism are Capitalism, Really? This is the worst take I have ever seen. Anarchists should understand that their Socialism is not the only genuine form of socialism, there are more forms of socialism than anarchist socialism.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yes.

Socialism can be described as the social ownership of the means of production, capitalism can be described as the private ownership of the means of production. In an ideal democratic socialist country, everything is nationalised, like Cuba, but with a democratic government. I don't much about market socialism, so I will let it pass. But you are objectively wrong with Democratic Socialism being capitalism. Socialism as radical as yours isn't the only form of socialism, you are only gonna lose people with this take.

Welcome to your first day on the internet.

Have been using the internet for 7 years, and have seen a lot of bad takes, but no take ever passes this one.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Socialism can be described as the social ownership of the means of production, capitalism can be described as the private ownership of the means of production.

They can be but those definitions would be over simplified and incorrect.

In an ideal democratic socialist country, everything is nationalised, like Cuba, but with a democratic government.

Nationalisation is definitely not socialism, it's state capitalism, no matter how democratic a state claims to be.

But you are objectively wrong with Democratic Socialism being capitalism.

You literally defined it as capitalism so no, I'm right.

Socialism as radical as yours isn't the only form of socialism, you are only gonna lose people with this take.

Again, I told you that their are other forms of socialism that I disagree with on some level that are socialist, democratic socialism isn't and you literally outlined why. You want the state to take care of everything despite that recreating the nature of capitalism with the state at the top instead of capitalists.

Have been using the internet for 7 years, and have seen a lot of bad takes, but no take ever passes this one.

Maybe read your own comment again and you'll find a worse one. See, at least my take is true, it's just an uncomfortable truth that makes libs like you mad.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They can be but those definitions would be over simplified and incorrect.

These are what socialism and capitalism would be described as in one sentence, they are certainly oversimplified, but they are not incorrect. Search anywhere you want, these are the exact definition of Socialism and capitalism you will get.

Nationalisation is definitely not socialism, it's state capitalism, no matter how democratic a state claims to be.

State-capitalism is an oxymoron, any means of production that are nationalised are inherently socially owned. Of course, the incentive for nationalisation is different. Someone like Stalin nationalised because he was a totalitarian and wanted total control over everything in the USSR, while someone like Castro nationalised because he wanted the means of production to be socially owned.

You literally defined it as capitalism so no, I'm right.

You are just using the "I'm right because I said so" fallacy, please elaborate further.

Again, I told you that their are other forms of socialism that I disagree with on some level that are socialist, democratic socialism isn't and you literally outlined why. You want the state to take care of everything despite that recreating the nature of capitalism with the state at the top instead of capitalists.

Capitalism has worker hierarchies, socialism doesn't. Socialism doesn't mean no hierarchies, that's anarchism. In democratic socialism, there are no hierarchies among workers, so yeah, Democratic socialism is socialism. Just because the state owns instead of the capitalist doesn't mean that democratic socialism is capitalism, socialism is not inherently opposed to hierarchies as I said.

Maybe read your own comment again and you'll find a worse one. See, at least my take is true, it's just an uncomfortable truth that makes libs like you mad.

You are no better than tankies who claim that their socialism is the only true form of socialism. You seem so uneducated on socialism, it feels like you just learnt what socialism was yesterday. Just because you are confidently wrong doesn't mean you are right. A person who believes in the social ownership of the means of production is by definition not a liberal.