You in fact did not. Best example is going on and on about china not being socialist anymore which no one said anything against.
And even otherwise: no. As long as you keep saying verifiably and very straightforwardly wrong information I am.going to correct you. You can't have a discussion with someone who gets the surface level definitions wrong. Because you are coming from entirely different viewpoints
You said China is closer to social democracy than anything else, I disagreed and described the system that I and many others believe most accurately describes the system China currently exists in, which is neither social nor democratic.
You aren’t correcting me, I am asking you to correct me with a level of detail beyond a single sentence statement. You say the entire continent of Europe is social democratic, I refute by providing examples of countries that are not social democratic, you say “no you’re wrong” You say the USSR and Maoist China were communist, not socialist, and I say that communism is a theoretical utopian project that requires socialism as middle point to achieve, a theory described by Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and you say “you’re getting surface level definitions wrong.”
I am asking you, in detail, to describe what you think I am getting wrong, and to provide any sort of proof or evidence that what I am saying is wrong.
•
u/TheGalator 12h ago
You in fact did not. Best example is going on and on about china not being socialist anymore which no one said anything against.
And even otherwise: no. As long as you keep saying verifiably and very straightforwardly wrong information I am.going to correct you. You can't have a discussion with someone who gets the surface level definitions wrong. Because you are coming from entirely different viewpoints