Tuukka R

They have the same intent, but there’s no proof that there is a plan to really actively murder all Palestinians. Also, people in Gaza now have about as much food to eat as inmates of Nazi concentration camps had in the first half of 1940’s, but the rest of the horrible torture is not being done.

So, basically, people are okay with what the Nazis did between 1932 and 1941. But from 1941 onwards, Nazis went over some line that is not acceptable.

In my opinion, Nazis were horribly evil already in 1932 and what they did back then was already absolutely condemnable, but it seems that most people in our society don’t share my view on this. You are allowed to commit a genocide using starvation and bullets, like the Nazis did until 1941, but when you start using actual gas chambers, it becomes a no-no.

That’s well put, thanks!

I would say much of that also applies to China, and precisely because a country that doesn’t truly exist for its people cannot be socialist, I’d say there has never been a socialist country on this planet yet.

And then, if we choose to say that socialist countries do exist, then socialism stops meaning that the country really cares about asocial issues, and starts meaning a system where all means of production are held by the elite.

Lenin killed socialism and communism by trying to do them the bestial Russian way. (Of course that had to do with Marx’s thinking, but I still Lenin is to blame the most)
Still: if you have a dictatorship, you will inevitably veer far away from being for the people.

At the moment the countries that have come closest to the core point of socialism have been the Nordic countries, in that they’ve put the freedom and welfare of the individual in the middle, but they’ve done that that without socialism, using a strongly regulated capitalism as base instead.
…Plus, spent the last two decades trying to dismantle all that was good here, chasing the neoliberalist dream.

did you assume I wad American?

No, I didn’t.

Which is of course because there are so much fewer socialist countries than capitalist countries.

As much as a I despise the penal system of USA, USA has not killed 60 million of its own inhabitants.

You are comparing grapes to grapefruits.

I’ve been wondering how the media could be regulated to not become a populist hellhole.

If the government starts telling what the media can write and what it cannot, we are quickly in a very bad place.
But at the same time, yellow press is a cancer. It seems that people all around prefer interesting newspapers over factual ones. Newspapers that add a bit of extra flavour to their articles sell a lot better than purely factual ones, because they are “less boring”. And then that destroys democracy. I wonder how that should be avoided!

How is NK not socialist by definition?

EDIT: And, thank you for actually answering! This question of mine is a genuine one.

On an international forum. If you’re talking on an international forum, you’re talking to an international audience. Behave that way.

Context is a thing.

Which one of those two is not a socialist country?

It was made on an international forum.

Regardless of how America-centric imperialist the comment was, it was written to everyone because it’s on an international forum without specifying it was for residents of some specific country only.

What happens in the head of the person talking 8s not relevant. What is relevant is what they end up actually saying.

Something in the ballpark of 19 out of 20 people on our planet are other than US residents. It is not okay to write a comment with an assumption that the remaining 95 % don’t exist. There are US-only forums, and you can outright say that you’re addressing US residents only. Everything else is targeting everyone.

In what way. Please elaborate.

(heh.)

It’s not “luxury” if everyone’s enjoying it.

Correct.
In the case of China it’s not enjoyed by everyone, though. A typical Chinese toilet is a huge hole in the ground with some kind of slabs of concrete over them, with a 15 cm wide slit between the slabs. You go stand on the two slabs and poop into the cavity underneath. There is typically a roof overneath. Homes often don’t have anything on the floors. Just bare concrete.

The people living in opulence are not enjoying something everyone there has. They are enjoying something only the richest 0,5 % among their people has. China is a country where wealth is concentrated extremely strongly to the few.

Sure, if you ignore that the Maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry.

That happened long before yesterday, though. If you look at decades such as 1970’s or 1980’s or even later, you’ll notice that whatever Mao was striving for, got eventually all undone.

Could you elaborate on what you refer to and mean with this, please?

No nordic country is socialist, though. Having a labour union does not turn a capitalist country into a socialist one. Having a social democrat party does not make a country socialism. It’s not “Socialist democratic party”, it’s “Social democratic party”. Their goal is not socialism and they are not doing socialist politics. They are doing nothing to end private ownership of property.

I went by hitchhiking through China from Khorgos to the Laotian border and was hosted by several local families in their homes on the way. I have seen more of Chinese everyday life than you have.

Your view of China has been trapped in Chinese propaganda.

And also: I would not say that the Chinese that are living a lavish life with a lot of luxury are living a socialist life. They might be an example of how “capitalism makes people happy”, but I don’t think that’s really correct either.

They are more socialist than anything else on this planet. And they are among the few countries that do call themself socialist.

There are no socialist countries on Earth, and have never been, as there’s always been at least some amount of private ownership. But North Korea is easily the country with the least private ownership, so that’s the one least far detached from socialism. It’s a bit ridiculous calling that one socialist, either. But if not even NK is socialist, then what does “socialist countries” even mean in that context?!

The claim was that socialism is “from the countries doing better than you.”
So, what are those countries that are doing better than Finland?

Nah. Nobody reasoned with him. He just got angry at Putin. He’s an animal of instincts and feelings, not one of logic. He does random things. A random decision can sometimes be good, sometimes bad.

You cannot really say anything about the quality of a decision just from it being in the group of “decisions that can also be chosen randomly”.

Uh… People in China and North Korea are somehow doing better than me here in Finland? Why? Please do elaborate. Assuming you can.

Uh, wine tasters?

And, de facto also people whose job is to strike deals for a company. And ambassadors, I’d say.

you want to call it exists as less than 10 missiles. And of those, already two have been used.

maybe you give me source?

This is the first thing that I found with a quick internet search. It’ll give you enough pointers to find the rest of the information, I’m sure! So, here goes: https://www.eurasiantimes.com/russias-game-changer-oreshnik-missile/

Maybe you tell the international agreements?

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty

And then: There were blog posts analyzing the debris of the Rubezh missile launched back in November and December 2024. The debris shows that it is not a new development. It cannot be directly proven that the Oreshnik and Rubezh are the same missile, because Rubezh, being against treaties signed by USSR, was a very secret project, of which only very little information leaked. But, the debris shows that the “Oreshnik” missiles were made around when we know Rubezh had been made. And they are missiles for the same purpose. It’s unlikely that the Russia would have developed two separate missile types for the same purpose at the same time.