Frank wrote on Feb 18
th, 2026 at 1:47pm:
Melanias purse wrote on Feb 18
th, 2026 at 11:24am:
I see. Then the US should legislate such a model, no?
In truth, China's autocracy is known by a term loathed and despised by "noble capitalists" such as yourself: socialism.
Despicable stuff.
We could debate the parameters of such a term and whether it might be more accurately described as state capitalism, but what would be the point of that?
The Superior Man, he upon the "narrow road to success", will not truck with such lefty scams. Nor will he allow DOGE to become the operating model of America Inc without being legislated by the Congress, Senate and signed into effect by your DL.
Don't like it? Suck it up.
No taxation without representation is the constitutional axiom under which America Inc functions.
DRAIN THE SWAMP !!!
What IS, indeed, the point you are grimacing about but NOT making apart from the usual point you ever make, you ever want to make, is 'Trumphitler is bad' and ... er... that's it.
Socialism - misnomer. 'Real socialism' hasn't been done anywhere and so the debate about 'parameters' is a perennial escape shute.
State capitalism - still lefty scam, so the 'parameters' as always, are endlessly debatable. The old 'define' what the meaning of 'is' is.
Yet, whatever you call the system, whether socialism or state capitalism or whatever parameters you want to debate, the COMMUNIST Party - for that is what they call themselves - is in charge of every aspect of economic, political, cultural and social life.
So if socialism's parameters are debatable what isn't debatable is that every time a Communist Party gets to be in charge of a country, they *uck it up, good and proper and quickish. THey all do it slightly differetnly but what is common to all is that a communist party is doing it.
You see? Then we agree. What would be the point of that?
Aquascoot's only real allegiance with the CCP is their authoritarianism, a point on which he makes himself perfectly clear.
Your attempt to debate the meaning of "is" is a mere attempt to obfuscate, but one not without it's ontological curiosity.
After all, when Marx was asked what the meaning of "is" is, he replied with a word:
struggle.Yes, beyond all the dialectical, Hegelian rhetoric, Marx could see exactly what you're up to, dear boy.
You just want to pass wind, no?
Competance is the admirable feature.
If you need a bit of authoritarian leadership to accomplish that , no problem.
What IS a problem in a democracy is the ratio of lifters to learners.
Of contributors to takers .
In 1950 Australia or the USA it was 80 % contributors to 20 % takers.
Now those numbers have flipped.
With 80 % now on welfare in the public service or doing some created BS job created by government, HR or working for the NDIS or childcare or on the climate scam, we see the tyranny of the taker bossing around the conributor.
In China you contribute or starve.
In China if you want to be a Muslim or a trans activist, XI labels you mentally ill and you go to a work camp and contribute whilst you are re educated.
A fair system, a meritocracy, a system of responsibility to you fellow citizens conducive to group harmony
Forum
Pages: 
