Fourth of all kiddo, the "private" economy, or really the Capitalist economy, is what is being superseded from existence and replaced with a Socialist economy in Socialism. Anyways, wealth is useless even for Capitalist dictum, since wealth has to many far-flinging connotations like being "gross wealth" or "luxury wealth" or even "having a lot wealth." All three principally disagree with each other on many levels of the proper realm they belong to and the level of empirical evidence. Even then, "wealth" isn't inherently tied to the "private" economy since Capital has to be invested outwards to the State because that Unproductive labor based on Revenue still makes a decent chunk of change for the Capitalists when contracted to get products assembled for the State.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Fifth of all kiddo, mass murder is as inherent in Socialism as it was under Feudalism, Slave Societies and Capitalist nations. Just because one contingent element seems to be repeating in each of that type of society means not that it inherently has it, that's just a simple problem of induction right there. Anywho, you need to pull heavily cited stats that don't contradict with existing stats to prove your point on mass murders. Because if a study has many holes in it, it is not worth my time and equally not yours either.
Sixth and finally of all, if a country deals with Capital continually, produces for profit and Capital and the ruling class is the bourgeoisie (the Capitalists), then I am sorry kiddo but that ain't Socialism and you know that to be true. Otherwise I might as well call Britain during post-Thatcher Socialist because they scaled back some of Thatcher's privatization projects and still kept NHS which by your dictum is ridiculously Socialist even though Capitalists still own the Means of Production, utilize Capital to enforce their position in society and the fact that even stupid Social Democrats like Corbyn are being lauded as demons by the Tories and LibDems.
Kiddo, your post is bad and you should feel bad. And I don't expect you to agree with any of this, but I will attack you for such. Anyways, call me a Liberal, it's out of my control if you have dense definitions for words and you think that because someone doesn't do Conservative actions to all the way where we have radicals that don't want markets to dictate their lives that they're liberal. Just do everyone a solid and read Marx, otherwise if you're going to reverberate Wikipedia arguments don't talk about Socialism and tell us what a Socialist is and isn't just like how people in general who aren't doctors don't tell doctors what they should and shouldn't do.
All states are socialist. Forcible transfer of wealth is state socialism. I haven't seen a modern state that does not use the forcible transfer of wealth in its funding schemes, so I have not seen a modern state that is not socialist. All of these modern socialist states are only different by degrees: the degree to which they are willing to steal from people, and the degree to which they restrict people's freedoms.
If you want to demonstrate non-state, 100% voluntary, large-scale socialism, I would love to see it tried.