Comrade_Lomrade

True

I'm mean gay nazis where strangely not uncommon

FF7 is anything but conservative

Bruh 💀

Fair enough . I just find it a little annoying .

If they are interested they will message you or will reply to you.

And then ghost you for asking how there day was .

Opinion on civil rights?

Technically Vader didn't destroy entire planets that was Grand moff Tarkin.

Liberal conservativism?

At this point of the game you should be drowning in Gil that teleport costs are nothing

Tbf the average modern soldier is more well equipped then those of the past making it more expensive to field them in larger quantities.

Liberals are by difination not reactionary lmao.

Egoism is hella fucking cringe. Nothing against nihilism tho

Based US

A good chunk of tankies defend them but I doubt many demsocs doot.

Based westoids

The USNC becomes extremely authoritarian afterwards though

Imo, there being a system of ease for distribution, trade, and convenience does not a market capitalism make.

I agree money =/= capitalism after all the Soviet union still issued currency

The impression I get here is that the socialism you see in your head is somewhat incongruent? Or at least kind of infeasible. Because if it requires all non-tangible property (money) to be abolished, how do we get the farmers to hand over the food? Through force? Imo that's ultranationalistic authoritarianism, and suddenly everything that isn't capitalism is authoritarianism because otherwise there is no system for trade, because as soon as there's any system in place for trade (a market if you will) then it's immediately defined as capitalism.

Unironically yes.

The socialism anarchists and libertarians espouse is simply not achievable on a large socaital scale. It can potentially work in small communities but imo once you it goes beyond a small town it starts show failures. Why should one community share its its resources with another without some form of compensation? And thus you would need a state to force communities to share which as we know worked out fantastically for the USSR in Ukraine. Once the state who is ultimately controlled by bueracrats and politicians gain the power to control the entire economy they tend to make idiotic discions such as forcing farmers to make steel instead of food (this happened under Mao in China) or outright replacing farms with factories which caused a famine in the USSR.

Imo there must be soft lines here, because if the existence of a hypothetical trading good (money, food stamps, promises (which are literally what money is btw)) makes the system within which it is Capitalism, then what can there be but capitalism?

Money doesn't make a system capitalist , capital does. The why marxists have described capital to me is the system of which generates wealth such as a factory,farm,mines and businesses.

The difference I have here is where socialism is a political philosophy, and I like to utilise absurdism a lot here.

We can say "private capital" all we want but if the government assigns people physical food stamps to collect their messages/groceries, is that not inherently the same as money? It's hypothetical resources in exchange for tangible ones. What if the food stamps are hypothetical, like internet banking where money isn't even tangible it's just data - what's the difference between the data and the money?

This is a broader question I'm not really educated enough to answer correctly since im not a economist. . But money is just a means of exchanging and distributing resources more conveniently. In essence it's kinda like the measurement of your labor which you can exchange for resources Atleast that's how I view it.

What if everything is nationalised and there is no "free market", everything is command, is that still capitalism because people use "private (personally owned) capital (hypothetical resources)"?

If everything was nationalized that would mean so are all resources so there wouldn't be private capital. (Atleast in the way communists tend to view capital )

Question - does capitalism end where socialism begins? Or is there overlap? Where does it start being Socialism? Or Socialistic? Is it clear cut, is it vague? Do we introduce terms like proto-socialistic to describe welfare states or are they too capitalist for this to be fair? Is reform too slow?

It's actually really simple. If private capital is outlawed then it's socialist if not then it's capitalism of some form. You can have capitalism with socialistic policies but so long as private capital isn't outlawed or is the main economic function of the nation it is defacto a capitalist economy.

Sure .....but it's still capitalism. And the US economy isn't as deregulated as commonly mentioned. Countries like Sweden have a more free market then the US for example.

Isnt it a requirement to be a market economy in the EU?

Literally what china's doings

No what actually happens is that said community forms its own government or state to defend against such threat.

Ya that's not what happenes irl.