Market Socialist Party [NSG Senate]

[The Nihilistic view]

It does, it says BING BING BING!!! everyone has an equal income.

First off, each according to his ability, each according to his need says nothing about income. It says to get what you need, which might be a lot more than your neighbour. If communism is ultimate socialism, it isn't very equal in income is it?

Secondly, this just demonstrates what you don't know. Socialism is about a fair economic system, whether with markets or not. It's not about income equality. You can claim all you want.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

-Wikipedia

(Nothing about income there either...)

Oh dear somebody is either confused or likes to move the goalposts and conveniently misconstrue the original point by ignoring it and instead focusing on one separate part in isolation from the other two interconnected points.

[Unitaristic Regions]

First off, each according to his ability, each according to his need says nothing about income. It says to get what you need, which might be a lot more than your neighbour. If communism is ultimate socialism, it isn't very equal in income is it?

Secondly, this just demonstrates what you don't know. Socialism is about a fair economic system, whether with markets or not. It's not about income equality. You can claim all you want.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

-Wikipedia

(Nothing about income there either...)

Oh dear somebody is either confused or likes to move the goalposts and conveniently misconstrue the original point by ignoring it and instead focusing on one separate part in isolation from the other two interconnected points.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

You're not addressing the argument. I'd like you to do so. And your ridiculous argument that I would be confused makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

How am I conveniently misconstruing? Your point was that socialism is about equal income. I think I proved it's not. So...

[The Nihilistic view]

Oh dear somebody is either confused or likes to move the goalposts and conveniently misconstrue the original point by ignoring it and instead focusing on one separate part in isolation from the other two interconnected points.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

OOh Oh look!!! I can do it too. I'm so mature!


I was trying to give you the chance to go over my original post for it's thrust rather than follow what you want it to say. Seem's it was wasted.

[The Nihilistic view]

My post was about Communism V Market socialisum.

So yes well misconstrued.

[The Federal Republic of Simonia]

Well, I sorta get a uneasy feeling when thinking about regulating A socialist economy, which is already mostly government controlled, there is also the fact that we don't want to fall to deep into the leftwing spectrum

We're socialists, right? The real ones?

I've always prided myself for being the most center-left member

[Unitaristic Regions]

My post was about Communism V Market socialisum.

So yes well misconstrued.

Oh really?

No, Communism is true socialisum. Your not communists so your not real socialists in the sense that you accept the free market has a limited but regulated role to play.

You claimed communism is true socialism, and that we weren't real socialist, to which I replied:

Nope. Socialism is an economic system. Communism utilises socialism. Socialism says nothing about income equality, par example, or [b]markets.[/b]

Socialism overlaps both communism and market socialism, and this post should've made it clear. I misconstrued absolutely nothing. You were the one that went on about socialism stating full equality in income, which I denied.

You're again attacking me personally by making me seem like someone who twists arguments.

I stated both that socialism wasn't about income, and markets. You went on just about income.

They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning

Socialism can utilise both planning and markets. I'm not misconstruing, I'm not building a strawman. If you don't believe me, just go to Wikipedia and read up on its page on it, then come back please.

[Unitaristic Regions]

We're socialists, right? The real ones?

I've always prided myself for being the most center-left member

Uhm, do you think I was misconstruing Nihilistic View's argument in the above debate?

[Glasgia]

My post was about Communism V Market socialisum.

So yes well misconstrued.

No, as Unitaristic said, your original post claimed that Market Socialism isn't true Socialism, only Communism is. You tried to prove this thorugh some point about income equality. Unitaristic disproved that. Please act respectfully or leave the thread.

[The Nihilistic view]

My post was about Communism V Market socialisum.

So yes well misconstrued.

No, as Unitaristic said, your original post claimed that Market Socialism isn't true Socialism, only Communism is. You tried to prove this thorugh some point about income equality. Unitaristic disproved that. Please act respectfully or leave the thread.

No I was referring to communism, which has income equality.

[Unitaristic Regions]

No, as Unitaristic said, your original post claimed that Market Socialism isn't true Socialism, only Communism is. You tried to prove this thorugh some point about income equality. Unitaristic disproved that. Please act respectfully or leave the thread.

No I was referring to communism, which has income equality.

Which I disproved with my each according to his ability, each according to his needs argument, I think.

[Glasgia]

We're socialists, right? The real ones?

No, Communism is true socialisum. Your not communists so your not real socialists in the sense that you accept the free market has a limited but regulated role to play.

This is you saying Market Socialism is not true Socialism.

Nope. Socialism is an economic system. Communism utilises socialism. Socialism says nothing about income equality, par example, or markets.

It does, it says BING BING BING!!! everyone has an equal income.

This is you saying that Socialism says everyone has to have equal income.

Both have already been disproven by Unitaristic.

[The Federal Republic of Simonia]

I've always prided myself for being the most center-left member

Uhm, do you think I was misconstruing Nihilistic View's argument in the above debate?

Nope, I'm just stating that I have slightly more pro-capitalist views while still remaining a socialist

[Unitaristic Regions]

Uhm, do you think I was misconstruing Nihilistic View's argument in the above debate?

Nope, I'm just stating that I have slightly more pro-capitalist views while still remaining a socialist

Can I please interpret that as pro-income differentials? Capitalist economy, is well, antagonistic to socialist economy and I really don't want to get into another debate .

[The Nihilistic view]

No I was referring to communism, which has income equality.

Which I disproved with my each according to his ability, each according to his needs argument, I think.

Nope, should communism have money?

[Unitaristic Regions]

No, Communism is true socialisum. Your not communists so your not real socialists in the sense that you accept the free market has a limited but regulated role to play.

This is you saying Market Socialism is not true Socialism.

It does, it says BING BING BING!!! everyone has an equal income.

This is you saying that Socialism says everyone has to have equal income.

Both have already been disproven by Unitaristic.

Thanks for the support. Appreciate it.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Which I disproved with my each according to his ability, each according to his needs argument, I think.

Nope, should communism have money?

That does not matter in the least. No, it does not have money. But if you'd want, you could have 5 breads instead of 3, and we can all agree that that is worth more than 3, right?

I'd suggest you read up on communist utopia, because not to be insulting, but this is pretty basic knowledge about communism. This debate seems rather senseless.

[The Federal Republic of Simonia]

This is you saying Market Socialism is not true Socialism.



This is you saying that Socialism says everyone has to have equal income.

Both have already been disproven by Unitaristic.

Thanks for the support. Appreciate it.

HUURAY WE ARE VICTORIOUS ONCE AGAIN

[Unitaristic Regions]

Thanks for the support. Appreciate it.

HUURAY WE ARE VICTORIOUS ONCE AGAIN

Apparently we should not cheer too loud yet, though we can hope...

[The Federal Republic of Simonia]

HUURAY WE ARE VICTORIOUS ONCE AGAIN

Apparently we should not cheer too loud yet, though we can hope...

It's our thread, we will cheer as loud as we bloody well want!

[Unitaristic Regions]

Apparently we should not cheer too loud yet, though we can hope...

It's our thread, we will cheer as loud as we bloody well want!

HURRAH! HURRAH! HURRAH!

[The Nihilistic view]

Nope, should communism have money?

That does not matter in the least. No, it does not have money. But if you'd want, you could have 5 breads instead of 3, and we can all agree that that is worth more than 3, right?

I'd suggest you read up on communist utopia, because not to be insulting, but this is pretty basic knowledge about communism. This debate seems rather senseless.

No money plus each according to his need means everyone has an income of 0, it's a system based on charity and people working for each other. Therefore Communism has income equality.

[Unitaristic Regions]

That does not matter in the least. No, it does not have money. But if you'd want, you could have 5 breads instead of 3, and we can all agree that that is worth more than 3, right?

I'd suggest you read up on communist utopia, because not to be insulting, but this is pretty basic knowledge about communism. This debate seems rather senseless.

No money plus each according to his need means everyone has an income of 0, it's a system based on charity and people working for each other. Therefore Communism has income equality.

If that's how you think, then communism has no income at all. It doesn't factor income. And some people would still have more property than others.

No, income doesn't exist as a factor. It's like saying ants have equal income, they don't. They don't use income.

However, it does seem we were both wrong, as I used income as a factor. So, I guess you proved that to me.

Still doesn't make it true communism because it doesn't use income tho. Just makes it a different brand of ideology than others.

[Glasgia]

That does not matter in the least. No, it does not have money. But if you'd want, you could have 5 breads instead of 3, and we can all agree that that is worth more than 3, right?

I'd suggest you read up on communist utopia, because not to be insulting, but this is pretty basic knowledge about communism. This debate seems rather senseless.

No money plus each according to his need means everyone has an income of 0, it's a system based on charity and people working for each other. Therefore Communism has income equality.

The original argument was that Socialism had income equality, not Communism. Please do not shift goalposts, even if you have been proved wrong nonetheless.

[The Nihilistic view]

No money plus each according to his need means everyone has an income of 0, it's a system based on charity and people working for each other. Therefore Communism has income equality.

The original argument was that Socialism had income equality, not Communism. Please do not shift goalposts, even if you have been proved wrong nonetheless.

As I started the topic which was Communism V Market socialisum. Communism has it thus it is the trueist form of socialism as it does not need money to operate and thus is purely about social communes (Could be small could be nation size) working together for each other, no market need is the key distributing factor between members of the group. Thus in theory it is the most egalitarian social economic philosophy.

I never said socialisum I was referring to communism. So you are shifting the goalposts.

[Kamchastkia]

Ebuhl socialists!!! Y'alls goin ta hell!

(Totally not a tag)