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?
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.
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.
China is a country where they have to put nets on the roofs of factories to prevent people from throwing themselves over the side because they work 14 hours a day for a slave wage making garbage that is sold in our 99 cent stores.
Sounds like capitalism to me.
But China is authoritarian.
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?
No.
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.
Yes like every state. Capitalism is entirely based on the violent control of people and things.
China is capitalist in all ways that matter.
Have you considered doing research and applying analysis before just saying things?
Where do they make Iphones again?
So the answer to their question is “no”.
That’s a cute opinion. Did Epstein give it to you?
China is a country where they have to put nets on the roofs of factories to prevent people from throwing themselves over the side because they work 14 hours a day for a slave wage making garbage that is sold in our 99 cent stores. Sounds like capitalism to me.
And all states are authoritarian, so it loses its explanatory value and is a useless term when used to isolate and describe individual states.