Also European here. And just to bring some more up to date examples.

My colleague bought a nice big flat some 5 odd years ago. If he wanted to buy the exact same thing today, he literally wouldn’t be able to afford it, not even with much worse terms. For the same money he’d need to move to some small dinky house in the countryside.

My aunt bought a flat 7 years ago for almost 1.5 million CZK, and then 2 years later one for 2 mil. Today, they’re both worth at least 10 each.

Income has not grown like that in the past decade. These are arguably successful people that literally wouldn’t be able to recreate their success today, only a few years later. Shit’s going down hill and it’s going down hill fast.

So for me and my GF, buying a house is a pipe dream. We just about manage renting our current flat, which is already cheap, we both earn comfortably above average and she even works overtime often enough. Buying a house or having a child are literally crippling decisions.

That’s not how science works. For anything to have value it needs peer review. In the case of history that means additional accounts by other people (ideally with different backgrounds) and ideally physical evidence like documents and other archeological finds. This is especially important in history, as every single piece of evidence is faulty due to distortion through bias. A single primary source all alone is literally worth shit. The last book provides multiple lengthy accounts from different primary sources and so at least meets the minimum requirement for not being immediately throw out.

Blackshirts also literally mentions some of the authoritarian issues I mentioned that you denied. The fact that in some cases it failed to properly adress the needs of the people due to abuse of power and how the structure it self accidently encouraged selfish self defeating behavior. I just added comments about party members basically being a separate class (because of the unrivaled abuse of power you refuse to dispute, while providing a book also mentioning it), while the book debunks western propaganda.

You can say I misunderstand communist theory, that’s a valid criticism. But saying you refuse to engage because my understanding of history is false is dogmatic bullshit. Saying I’m unwilling to change my mind is rich when you literally just say I’m wrong, give me a book largely discussing a different topic (western propaganda and fascism) and then refuse to provide examples for your own claims. While my claims are dubious third hand accounts at best, you somehow managed to stoop below me.

The first two books are theory with random anecdotes with the same citation count as my shit. If that constitutes history, than so does the Bible.

Tho I apologize for lumping then all together as the last book is actually somewhat more interesting (like actually having fucking citations). It rightfully outlines western propaganda, highlights what good happened in the USSR and what bad in the west. Tho if you actually read the thing, you’d notice IT’S JUST AS CIRTICAL OF THE SOVIET UNION! Read it your self! It mostly defends the USSR from western propaganda, but it doesn’t do the same mistake you did and just deny the structural issues. Sadly it doesn’t say much, as it is very much focused on critiquing the west (like the first 50%), so I kinda just dismissed it at first.

Also you completely skipped my request to provide a single example for your previous claim, sad.

Yes… I was saying the theory doesn’t match the situation on the ground. And the links you gave are all theory, which I at no point argued about.

The “separate class” I mentioned was also less of a theory reference, and more of a reality on the ground. Party members are treated differently. My grandpa was a party member back in the western block and had privileges regular folk didn’t. Like traveling around the globe and importing foreign “imperialist” goods seemingly at will. My mom stood out with his gifts, like wearing jeans.

Also you say they have accountability with stuff like recall elections, but I’d like to invite you to provide an example of this actually happening. Like genuinely, I can’t find any. All I find is officials being ousted by other officials, never by regular everyday people. As an example of completely dodging consequences, I’d mention that soviet countries and China both tried becoming leading grain exporters while their populations fucking starved, and people complaining were just labeled liars and thieves!

Which reminds me of a saying we used to have: “Kdo nekrade, okrádá rodinu” or “Who doesn’t steal, is stealing from their family”. A very different context from the one above, but it paints a pretty vivid picture, so I think it’s still worth sharing.

I just feel like creating a class of people with absolute control that mustn’t be questioned under threat of absolute annihilation is a spit in the face of the most core socialist let alone communist values.

They both have one body dictating what the people’s needs are that mustn’t under any circumstance be challenged. Making the whole “according to needs” part null and void. Both have histories of completely neglecting their citizens in favor of pursuing imperial ambitions.

Also not calling anybody capitalist. Saying it’s not really communism isn’t the same as saying it’s capitalism. So considering your comment I feel the need to also express that my second paragraph is in no way saying other countries haven’t done the same under other systems like capitalism. Just covering my ass, feeling the ugly head of pointless what aboutism approaching.

Wtf are those even good for? My pencil case from back in the day alone would take up like a third of the while thing. Does an A4 even fit on it?

Brutal oversimplification is an understatement to what just happened here xD

Only if there are no checks and balances. The typical “communist” regimes like Russia and China can hardly be called communist by any definition. Just like nobody would call nazi’s socialist, despite it being in their name (national socialism).

Fucking “I take all and ya’ll better belive I’ll redistribute favorably or fucking die” is hardly even left. I especially hate when people say “in theory it makes sense, but in reality…”, no it fucking doesn’t even in theory!

“Socialist hell”, the joke is about what Americans say every time someone says that maybe, just maybe the government could invest the tiniest bit into the well being of its people. Often enough they lose their shit, calling you a communist for suggesting an idea that’s not even barely left.

Do you actually not get it, or just using the opportunity to dunk on Norway? Cus like, fair I guess.

A homeless person forcefully providing the “service” of cleaning my window has negative value to me. So does Google ruining websearch and undermining web security and in tern national security too. Google hasn’t provided my life any value, while making the world a worse place. I was inclined to say YouTube provided me value in the past, until I remembered Google didn’t make it and that it used to be much better before they bought it.

And yes, money is quite literally subjective. That’s not a hotly debated subject, rather a cornerstone of all modern economic models. And complaining about wages makes sense, because we’re forced to live under this fragile system that directly dictates our well being, while heavily favoring making the world worse. Capitalism requires constant cashflow and it’ll use any tool (like inflation) to coerce people into complying. It literally can’t exists without shit like planned obsolescence or induced addiction as people being satisfied and contempt with their material possessions would hinder the flow of money.

The contradiction didn’t exist, until you assumed another idea they never demonstrated. They wouldn’t agree that a company’s market share should directly translate into compensation for individuals, because it has “intrinsic value”. It’s only a contradiction if you belive that they belive in the same dogma of “obvious truths” you propose. They could very well say that everyone’s work or life has intrinsic value. Again, who is right or wrong doesn’t matter in this case, just that they belive something else, than what you assume they do.

Personally, I’d argue “intrinsic value” is subjective bullshit as we people are the harbingers of meaning and in turn value, and that a system that awards value as you describe is monopolistic and so detrimental to society at large and thus has negative value.

You can say I’m wrong, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s yet another example of a view that isn’t contradictory to your “obvious truths” as it simply builds on different values. A thing that’s different in every culture FYI.

Your point is irrelevant to what they said, as it is arguing a completely different point. The question of what work can one person possibly bring and how much they deserve for it vs the question of is your value to society dictated by your employer’s market share. Two quite distinct can’o’worms. The idea of one being multiple times more valuable due to their market is in direct conflict with the idea of “a person can only make so much”. Regardless of which argument is right or wrong, it’s a strawman, just because they literally can’t hold that view xD

And plese, do explain to me how me stating something, regardless of the truth of that statement, that has nothing to do with you, is strawmaning you? I’m genuinely curious how you arrived there lol. You can’t just keep using “no you” over and over. OR CAN YOU??? XD Or hold up, ya saying I’m strawmaning them instead? Please do elaborate xD

Also I’m not disproving you, I’m being pedantic about semantics, you trying to double down just digs a deeper hole around you. If you don’t understand, I’m ending it here, a predictable discussion is quite boring.

Google AKA Wikipedia says “refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion”

They said that it takes a lot more than the sweat of literally only 2 people to make Google. And “No one has ever…made a billon dollars by…their effort alone.”.

So to answer your question for them, no, they do not belive that. They belive all those people deserve a piece of the pie, as all of them are needed to keep everything afloat. Without your so called supporting staff, the 2 so called visionaries wouldn’t be able to bring forth shit and they sure a shell didn’t just put in more effort than everyone else to deserve the wealth an entire city would blush at.

Also your weird fixation on logos is irrelevant here, or rather a completely separate discussion you started fighting the strawman.

As for the janitor example, I’d need to do some wild assumptions like you to answer for them, so I’m not gonna bother.

As for my personal opinion in all this? I’m honestly having too much fun watching from the outside to ruin it xD Fuck you’re a silly goober.

Universal Basic Income, is the term you’re looking for. Interest is a loan you make to someone, someone unfortunate enough to need a load as opposed to have enough to lend themselves. UBI works in any system with surplus, AKA any society that isn’t literally starving.

There’s a big difference between giving away 99.975% of your wealth, leaving your self with what 1 person can OPTIMISTICALLY make in a lifetime for retirement, and allowing people to scarp half of whatever is left after your life of destruction.

Not only does that mean Gate’s grand children have a grandpa with unimaginable wealth and power, but half of that is still in the family and all of them and their children’s children are all set for an absolute decadent life even if they all decide to never move another muscle ever again. All while the world continues to burn rapidly, waiting for the dragon to bleed.

This is the bare minimum, and they only do it to gain sympathy and trick us into believing they aren’t evil.

Lol, you strawmaned him so hard you just straight up pretend he said the opposite. Good job lad.

I’m still surprised that taxing the rich is such a difficult bill to pass. Assuming we live in a democracy, the 1% shouldn’t be able to have such sway over the population.

I started programing at such a young age that I don’t even remember how it went. Makes it difficult to teach as I find it hard to relate to newbies. I’m quite used to just learning my self and sometimes hitting roads that lead to nowhere. In the past that I actually remember, I’ve only been learning new paradigms, deepening my understanding of low level stuff and mastering my art. Hardly stuff I can give along to a newbie.

The 2008 crisis was an example of mass fraud, and I’d be happy to be proven wrong. You can’t point to historical data saying your investment strategy is safe, even tho you completely changed the model. Saying “mortgages are safe” doesn’t mean shit, if to compensate for demand you start handing out mortgages like candy.

I think calling it gambling is quite charitable. And ofc all the scam artists banks got bailed out.

The stock market in general is joke. There are so many stocks where it’s an open secret they are fake. Like the Ruble, Tesla and most crypto currencies. The stock market is a world of make believe, where any random decision can change everything. It still fascinates me that the second trump won with his tarifs on EVERYTHING, the stock market grew. What’s next? “Company CEO starts randomly shooting all his employees, stocks reach all time high!”

I find it amazing, how every time I see a git GUI I’m completely lost and that it’s always completely different, considering it’s the same app underneath and that app doesn’t have THAT many different functions.