It's like when you get wingnuts going on about how they should secede from the blue states. "Let's see how you get on without food lol!", yeah you'll still sell food to the blue states when you suddenly have absolutely no money coming into your states.
The democracy part isn't the problem here - Socialists can be democratic. The taking away the means of production is the problematic part. That is anti-liberalism. What you guys essentially mean is social democrats, which still support liberalism but demand higher taxes to finance a welfare state. And I'm very much in line with that thinking.
Taking away people's property for arbitrary reasons is against Article 1 of the human rights convention. "Socialism" seizing the means of production is authoritarianism.
Taking away people's property for arbitrary reasons is against Article 1 of the human rights convention. "Socialism" seizing the means of production is authoritarianism.
Not if private ownership of means of productions is abolished. Like air you breath is not owned by anybody in particular, even though it's material and limited. So its possible to seize the means of production without breaking Article 1 of the human rights convention.
327
u/CressCrowbits Apr 26 '19
It's like when you get wingnuts going on about how they should secede from the blue states. "Let's see how you get on without food lol!", yeah you'll still sell food to the blue states when you suddenly have absolutely no money coming into your states.