A mode of production where private ownership of the means of production is the principle aspect of the economy, ie over at least the large firms and key industries. Socialism is where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and communism is a post-socialist mode of production where all production and distribution has been collectivized and is run to suit the needs of society. Economic planning is key to socialism and communism.

This was a poll of Lemmy.ca, not all of Lemmy, and I don’t think politics were polled. Politics would vary quite a lot depending on instance, same with nationality.

Kinda!

The liberal idea is that supply and demand meet at price, and they try to obfuscate value by wrapping it up into supply. However, Marxist economics provides a more grounded and coherent answer, that value is the real center and that fluctuations in supply and demand merely bring price above or below value. Value is best represented as the socially necessary labor time to produce a commodity, and is what forms the basis of price.

I agree with the sentiment, but I’d tone down the ableism.

Lemmy.world is trying to replicate Reddit, though, in culture. It took off during the API thing, rather than a subreddit banning like r/TheDeprogram or r/Chapotraphouse, r/GenZedong, etc.

Amazing.

I have never used SA against you. I’ve said that telling users to suck your dick draws on the history of SA going back thousands of years in order to be hurtful as an insult (alongside misogny and homophobia), not that either of us has committed SA.

No? Never said that.

No need.

I have never once tried to use SA against anyone.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to mock SA. There’s no ego involved, I haven’t been a victim of SA, and it’s incredibly rude to those who have been victims to treat it like an insult to be flung at people you don’t like.

This might come as a surprise, but I’m not glued to Lemmy.

I don’t have personal experience with SA, nor am I homophobic. I’m pansexual myself. It isn’t at all a false equivalence to say that there’s a real difference in insult between telling someone to give you a haircut and telling someone to suck your dick. They are both services, but the latter draws stigma from historical sexism and homophobia. Using dicksucking as an insult affirms that history of bigotry, when in reality we should be fighting the negative stigma surrounding sexuality from women and gay men.

Okay?

As I explained to you elsewhere:

The only reason dicksucking is usable as a pejorative is to draw on historic sexism and homophobia, and telling someone to suck your dick draws on that social trauma. Telling someone to give you a haircut, for example, is still a service but doesn’t have that social trauma to make it a pejorative, and thus it doesn’t hit like one.

It’s basically drawing on SA to be used as an insult. If you don’t think telling someone to suck your dick is drawing on historic bigotry towards groups that traditionally do that, then I’d like to know why you think it works as an insult.

I never strayed from my “message.” I’m not sure what you think “my message” is.

I’m open, I “reveal myself” to everyone. Rather, I don’t hide anything. The impact of my choice of words is that people generally understand that capitalism is right wing, and socialism is left wing, ie private ownership as principle as right wing and public ownership as principle as left wing.

Genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to do or why.

I didn’t confirm your assertion. I acknowledged that people are often mistaken, and this varies by location, and responded with the correct definition as has been most consistent historically and currently. Liberals believing socialism to merely be social programs isn’t a “western” thing, it’s a lack of education on what socialism actually is.

And no, I never said “dumb shit,” so there’s nothing to admit to there.

So it sounds like you’re trying to say what people think socialism is changes from place to place. That’s generally true for most political concepts, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an actual consistent and correct definition. Even in the west, the idea that socialism is just social programs isn’t an absolute, people are quite capable of understanding that it’s when public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working class is control.

As for me, I am a Marxist-Leninist, sure. I don’t see what you mean by saying I’m “not a socialist, at best I’m a Marxist.” Marxism is historically the most significant branch of socialism, alongside anarchism, I don’t see how Marxism could be considered not socialist. I also don’t “defend dictators.”

How does socialism “change” by “nationality?”

What do you mean by saying “socialism changes with nationality?”