6 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

See, this is an open question: Did they really *need* to fire a bunch of people? How much money was Asmodee losing exactly? Will this move actually save them money? Were the shareholders at the holding company which owns Asmodee just maybe unhappy that they weren’t making money as quickly as they were last year?

I’m not saying this is unique to the gaming industry. That’s the problem. The global system *should* encounter something like Covid, and hunker down, protect its people, and hold tight, with the understanding that nobody but Zoom and Amazon are making money right now. Instead, profits decrease slightly, shareholders panic, and you get mass layoffs, because this system prioritizes money over people.

And part of the problem is that it’s all too big. Multinational corporations don’t care about people, and don’t have to look them in the eye when they fire them. When a small business owner lays off a worker, he’s laying off a neighbor. Maybe a friend. He has incentive to do everything he can to protect that guy’s job, because he lives in the same town as that guy he’s firing. Corporate layoffs? Just numbers. No remorse, no moral dilemmas. People become devalued.

Sigh. You don't like the distribution of wealth, but you are ok with one of largest redistribution of wealth to companies like Amazon. That doesn't make sense. You also need to stop attributing malice without any evidence.

Companies become bloated due to having lots of non productive roles. In normal service they dont notice and support them. In a recession in becomes blatantly obvious that the company is full of dead weight.

2 hours ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

Sigh. You don't like the distribution of wealth, but you are ok with one of largest redistribution of wealth to companies like Amazon. That doesn't make sense. You also need to stop attributing malice without any evidence.

Yeah, we should nationalize amazon...

Motivation doesn't matter... there are a bunch of unemployed people now during a massive pandemic. They have no access to a social safety net.

Addressing other people's comments on social democracy vs socialism for a moment though.

Socialism has had successes, mixed results, and failures over the last century. Capitalism had a similar record at the end of feudalism. If you think that social democracy is better than socialism, I have a few questions that I think you should answer.

a) how does social democracy stop the fact that capitalism will collapse without perpetual access to new markets and resources? A social safety net at home while we continue to plunder other countries still seems terrible

b) how does social democracy prevent the capitalists from implementing austerity, as we've seen them do in basically every social democracy over the last four decades? There is a social safety net, but the means of production are still owned by capitalists

c) How does social democracy address alienation from your labor that occurs under capitalism?

1 hour ago, ExplosiveTooka said:

Yeah, we should nationalize amazon...

Motivation doesn't matter... there are a bunch of unemployed people now during a massive pandemic. They have no access to a social safety net.

Addressing other people's comments on social democracy vs socialism for a moment though.

Socialism has had successes, mixed results, and failures over the last century. Capitalism had a similar record at the end of feudalism. If you think that social democracy is better than socialism, I have a few questions that I think you should answer.

a) how does social democracy stop the fact that capitalism will collapse without perpetual access to new markets and resources? A social safety net at home while we continue to plunder other countries still seems terrible

b) how does social democracy prevent the capitalists from implementing austerity, as we've seen them do in basically every social democracy over the last four decades? There is a social safety net, but the means of production are still owned by capitalists

c) How does social democracy address alienation from your labor that occurs under capitalism?

Capitalism has similar failings under feudalism? What's the idea there? That if we give socialism time maybe we don't end up with a dictator and people unable to feed themselves? Seriously, that's your idea?

Why should we nationalize anything? Socialists talk about the greed of capitalists. Yet, you are the ones demanding that you own another person's effort. Amazon is just a bookstore before Bezos. Because he is successful, suddenly you want to own that success.

You assume that socialism is better than capitalism. It is not.

Yes, Bezos is the only person who put in sweat to build Amazon.

4 hours ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

Sigh. You don't like the distribution of wealth, but you are ok with one of largest redistribution of wealth to companies like Amazon. That doesn't make sense. You also need to stop attributing malice without any evidence.

Nope, not okay with Amazon making the money it does and Bezos paying no taxes.

I don’t mind successful companies. I don’t mind successful people. But both need to be taxed at rates that make meaningful contributions to society, and they need to actually pay, not be allowed loopholes.

As far as attributing malice without evidence, I’m not really at all sure what you’re talking about. There’s no malice in the way for-profit corporations act, typically. They tend to just do what’s most profitable, unless forced to do otherwise. So they dump their waste in the river for decades, until someone notices and writes a law against it. They pay their workers as little as they can get away with, necessitating minimum wage laws. They see a dip in profits, and someone who’s never met any of the rank-and-file just says, “cut 40% of that division,” and dozens of people lose their jobs. Doesn’t matter how long they’ve worked there. Doesn’t matter if people just moved and bought a house to be closer to the job. Doesn’t matter if the product that division makes was their idea, as we see now.

It’s “just business.” But that doesn’t make it right.

Businesses have a moral imperative to do right by the community, and by the workers that helped them become successful. Amazon (and Bezos) have made millions of American dollars from American commerce. They ought to pay a handsome fee in American taxes.

24 minutes ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

Capitalism has similar failings under feudalism? What's the idea there? That if we give socialism time maybe we don't end up with a dictator and people unable to feed themselves? Seriously, that's your idea?

Why should we nationalize anything? Socialists talk about the greed of capitalists. Yet, you are the ones demanding that you own another person's effort. Amazon is just a bookstore before Bezos. Because he is successful, suddenly you want to own that success.

You assume that socialism is better than capitalism. It is not.

Why do you assume Socialism is tied to dictatorship?

You have heard of Sweden, right? Iceland? Norway? Great Britain? Germany?

Besides, I dunno if you’d noticed, but we have a would-be dictator currently attempting to usurp a democratic election in America. How is Capitalism protecting us from dictatorship?

The uk isnt socialist

2 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

The uk isnt socialist

It’s more along the lines of a Social Democracy. It’s got access to free health care and greater social safety nets and education. If we could just get America that far, it would be monumental.

All these things exist on a scale. The problem is that once an American thinks he has to pay for someone else’s doctor bill, he freaks out. But he’ll pay for corporate tax subsidies all day without batting an eye.

12 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

The uk isnt socialist

The Trump base considers most of Europe and Canada to be socialist countries because they offer socialized healthcare care for all their citizens. Trump and his base consider it evil to to give poor people healthcare.

32 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

It’s more along the lines of a Social Democracy.

So not socialist.

36 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

Why do you assume Socialism is tied to dictatorship?

You have heard of Sweden, right? Iceland? Norway? Great Britain? Germany?

Besides, I dunno if you’d noticed, but we have a would-be dictator currently attempting to usurp a democratic election in America. How is Capitalism protecting us from dictatorship?

Sigh. Such ignorant statements...

1) Those are not socialist countries. This issue occurred back in 2016 when Bernie Sanders used the same argument. The Prime Minister of Denmark... let's repeat so it sinks in... the Prime Minister of Denmark had to point out that his country was capitalist, but employed welfare state policies.

2) Socialism leads to dictatorships. We have the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela to name a few. These countries nationalized their economy as Tooka calls for. Socialiasts someone think by nationalizing the means of production that someone human nature doesn't factor in. This is why they want to change the definition to include countries with welfare state policies.

3) Donald Trump is not a dictator for using the legal system to contest an election. This is no more the case for Al Gore in 2000. If there is evidence, then results will change. If there is not evidence, then the results remain the same. This isn't different from how any election functions. We certify our elections by state, and these certifications can be contested. I suggest waiting a month until the dust settles before labeling a guy a dictator because you don't like him.

2 hours ago, ExplosiveTooka said:

a) how does social democracy stop the fact that capitalism will collapse without perpetual access to new markets and resources?

I dispute this idea. An entrepreneur with the right product can create a market where none existed before, and some resources are things like information or creativity. Once you sell people Playstations you can create games to sell out of nearly nothing more than creativity and labor that pull in more money than blockbuster movies. And then you can sell people a Playstation 2, which they don’t need and didn’t want before you made it. Lots of people these days are making money selling things that don’t even physically exist, and some (shudder) are making money posting videos of themselves on YouTube, which didn’t even exist 16 years ago. Look, I can concede that there’s stuff to criticize even in my above examples (****, Huxley’s Brave New World critiqued it with its “Centrifugal Bumplepuppy”), but capitalism is not going to run out of stuff to sell you.

4 minutes ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

2) Socialism leads to dictatorships. We have the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Venezuela to name a few.

Hey, these are examples of *Communist* counties. Communism and Socialism are totally not the same according to Communists or Socialists.

21 minutes ago, Tayloraj100 said:

Hey, these are examples of *Communist* counties. Communism and Socialism are totally not the same according to Communists or Socialists.

"The goal of socialism is communism.” -Lenin

Sure, it all starts with high ideals. It would be funny that this statement is proven true so many times over the years in so many countries if it weren't so sad.

12 minutes ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

"The goal of socialism is communism.” -Lenin

Sure, it all starts with high ideals. It would be funny that this statement is proven true so many times over the years in so many countries if it weren't so sad.

I think that was just Lenin trolling the socialists... 😂

35 minutes ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

"The goal of socialism is communism.” -Lenin

Sure, it all starts with high ideals. It would be funny that this statement is proven true so many times over the years in so many countries if it weren't so sad.

Well, yeah. (1. He was a communist, (2. You don't strike me as someone remotely aligned with him on how the world works so why start here, and (3. He was a communist . Of course he's going to claim his movement is the superior end result of another movement.

And maybe socialism could have borne a little more fruit if a certain capitalist superpower hadn't done their best to annihilate it at every opportunity.

And we do have precedents for capitalist countries being able to incorporate certain socialized policies to their benefit.

The US is one of the countries least likely to shift all the way to communism given barely a push. Anticommunist sentiment is thoroughly embedded our culture. The word is basically an insult.

And yet we're weird in the western world for not having socialized medicine, for instance, while somehow none of the countries with it have fallen down this terrifying slippery slope I keep hearing about.

"We're not like Canada, Mexico, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Finland, Australia, France, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Italy, Spain, the UK, Israel, New Zealand or Ireland."

"The universal healthcare in Communist Ireland would never work here."

"We're just so quirky !"

9 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Well, yeah. (1. He was a communist, (2. You don't strike me as someone remotely aligned with him on how the world works so why start here, and (3. He was a communist . Of course he's going to claim his movement is the superior end result of another movement.

And maybe socialism could have borne a little more fruit if a certain capitalist superpower hadn't done their best to annihilate it at every opportunity.

And we do have precedents for capitalist countries being able to incorporate certain socialized policies to their benefit.

The US is one of the countries least likely to shift all the way to communism given barely a push. Anticommunist sentiment is thoroughly embedded our culture. The word is basically an insult.

And yet we're weird in the western world for not having socialized medicine, for instance, while somehow none of the countries with it have fallen down this terrifying slippery slope I keep hearing about.

The issue with healthcare is that socialist want... like always... to burn down the capitalist version and start over again. It's their Marxist nature. They don't compromise.

Maybe push for changes like competition across state lines. Maybe push for a system that doesn't create incentives for employer plans so that people won't have to change plans. We can create larger pools that people choose to enter into. Those are things that can help. Forcing people into state run healthcare does not nor should it be the answer.

4 minutes ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

Forcing people into state run healthcare does not nor should it be the answer.

But why? Every other western country has it and most rank much better than the US

45 minutes ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

"The goal of socialism is communism.” -Lenin

Sure, it all starts with high ideals. It would be funny that this statement is proven true so many times over the years in so many countries if it weren't so sad.

No. The “Communist” states (and I would dispute the idea that they were doing Communism “correctly,” btw) mostly started as authoritarian oligarchies or dictatorships anyway. Democracy was rarely ever really given a chance in any of these places.

Canada has had socialized medicine for decades. As have many Western European countries. How many of those nations have slid into authoritarianism? It should be a quick count. Tell me when you’re finished.

As for Trump challenging the election, I’m really not getting into this, except to say he has been preemptively challenging the election since before it began, without evidence. Gore v. Bush was a lot closer, and when it became quite clear that he wasn’t going to win, Gore had the grace to concede. Trump probably won’t ever concede, because it’s all a stunt. Check back with that in a few weeks.

But really, let’s drop the Trump thing. I learned that talking to people who take him seriously is never profitable. Ever.

11 minutes ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

The issue with healthcare is that socialist want... like always... to burn down the capitalist version and start over again. It's their Marxist nature. They don't compromise.

Maybe push for changes like competition across state lines. Maybe push for a system that doesn't create incentives for employer plans so that people won't have to change plans. We can create larger pools that people choose to enter into. Those are things that can help. Forcing people into state run healthcare does not nor should it be the answer.

Just to be clear:

Not everyone who advocates for universal healthcare is a socialist.

Not everyone who advocates for universal healthcare wants to "burn the capitalist version down." The concept of a public option (which I'm far from sold on) is reasonably popular as a more centrist take.

I'd tell you that not all socialists have a "Marxist nature," either, but I doubt you wrote that with an objective definition in mind.

Edit: it sounds like a cool force upgrade for Legion, honestly. "Change your attack dice to red," or something.

9 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Just to be clear:

Not everyone who advocates for universal healthcare is a socialist.

Not everyone who advocates for universal healthcare wants to "burn the capitalist version down." The concept of a public option (which I'm far from sold on) is reasonably popular as a more centrist take.

I'd tell you that not all socialists have a "Marxist nature," either, but I doubt you wrote that with an objective definition in mind.

Edit: it sounds like a cool force upgrade for Legion, honestly. "Change your attack dice to red," or something.

Let's talk about objective. No one has really defined socialism here. The group tries to point to countries with welfare state policies and say that's socialism. By that definition, the US is socialist. The US has welfare state policies. Tooka is the closest one by bringing up the point of nationalized corporations. This is about means of production. Because you want to use the term "socislist" so broadly, you want to talk about my objectiveness. Maybe define it appropriately, then talk.

5 minutes ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

Let's talk about objective. No one has really defined socialism here. The group tries to point to countries with welfare state policies and say that's socialism. By that definition, the US is socialist. The US has welfare state policies. Tooka is the closest one by bringing up the point of nationalized corporations. This is about means of production. Because you want to use the term "socislist" so broadly, you want to talk about my objectiveness. Maybe define it appropriately, then talk.

It’s likely difficult to get a firm definition, because it isn’t like @>kkj and @Jabbawookie an I all have the same idea in mind. For my part, I want to see fairly applied taxes that to a limited degree, disproportionately remove wealth from corporations and the most wealthy individuals, and redistribute it to those individuals (and smaller businesses) in greatest need. Mostly in the form of health care and social safety nets for the underprivileged. This probably wouldn’t change much for the middle class, tax-wise. We could likely pay for everything I’d like to see simply by taxing the rich appropriately.

There’s a lot more I’d like to see done, too. But let’s start there.

15 minutes ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

Let's talk about objective. No one has really defined socialism here. The group tries to point to countries with welfare state policies and say that's socialism. By that definition, the US is socialist. The US has welfare state policies. Tooka is the closest one by bringing up the point of nationalized corporations. This is about means of production. Because you want to use the term "socialist" so broadly, you want to talk about my objectiveness. Maybe define it appropriately, then talk.

The definition of socialism is a state in which the workers control the means of production.

I don't consider myself a socialist. I don't consider welfare state policies sufficient to make a state "socialist" either.

My initial points were:

Socialism or communism are not the only alternative to things being exactly the way they are (people in this thread have claimed otherwise.)

Condemnation of socialism as an inherently doomed or unstable system is unfair given the historical context in which you'd find examples.

The confusion occurs when people slap inaccurate labels onto whatever they don't like. "Not capitalism" -> "socialism." "Socialism" -> "communism," etc.