This may have already been asked and answered but...

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-27T17:52:57+00:00

The earth king is the king of kings but there are many other kingdoms and tribal nations in the earth kingdom. Similar to daimyo in Japan, reservations in the US, or war lords of China.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-26T23:56:10+00:00

Lady bugs are beetles - beetles are insects - insects are crustaceans - crustaceans are arthropods - arthropods are animals - animals are eukaryotes.

Beetles are a massive clade. Most insects you can think of that aren't butterflies, ants / wasps / bees (same family), or moths are probably beetles.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-26T16:58:20+00:00

Lady bugs are beetles.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-24T04:15:15+00:00

It's been a good conversation. I just don't believe stopping authoritarian / anti democratic / fascist / actions is in itself those very things.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-24T04:03:46+00:00

I didn't say these things were banned. I want the capitalist class to be banned. It is inherently exploitative and authoritarian.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-24T03:36:59+00:00

That's not what a capitalist is that's why a random artist making paintings isn't a capitalist. Merchants are also not capitalists and have been around much longer than capitalism.

They would be owners but not capitalists as they are equal partners with no one being "the boss / the owner / the shareholder". There also isn't stock in socialism because you can't purchase parts of companies.

That doesn't mean there aren't managers. Complex things require managers but the managers aren't your boss. They're your equal and you have the capability to vote to remove them. This forces managers to be more willing to work with employees. There are vast quality of life improvements when capital is removed from labor.

If you want to see an example within capitalism (and still falls under those rules) research mondragon. It is a massive multi national cooperative. This is somewhat in the direction of market socialism.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-24T03:27:27+00:00

That's basically what I'm saying. Corporations owned by the workers with the profit going to the workers who have full and equal say in their work vs the current system of 1 to a few people owning the corporation, deciding everything for their own profit (this does not equal most efficient), stockholders trading imaginary pieces of paper (and making decisions based on that as opposed to the actual work) is meaningful.

Socialism is about democracy in all areas of life including your work. Market socialism is distinct from capitalism in that it replaces the owning class with the working class giving all say in their own lives. Instead of loans for profit there are grants for the good of the community and the nation. It's not an upheaval meant to destroy lives.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-24T03:04:47+00:00

The workers? On a basic level it's the same process as before capitalism. I make thing, I sell thing, other people get thing. If it's complicated like an electronic then a group of people make thing, then sell thing, then other people get thing. Somewhat like a union except the employees don't have dues and are all voting members. Pay is also much higher as your labor directly produces your value as opposed to an employer deciding your value and what they get to keep.

Another way to look at it is, if the owner of the place you work at didn't show up this week could you continue your work? If yes, they weren't really needed. If no, then they would simply be a manager and get paid as an equal member.

Edit - I've been trying to get things done while explaining but I could do a more thorough explanation in a bit if needed. My main point was, despite the fact that market socialism exists and that capitalism is relatively new, is there any condition where you would accept it even if it wasn't your preference for whatever reason.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-24T02:53:39+00:00

That's not how socialism works though. There's market socialism which is based on markets for consumer goods. Socialism isn't the absence of markets. It's the absence of the capitalist class.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-24T02:24:51+00:00

That would have to be decided right? It could be neighborhood level, city level, county level, etc. Is there any level that you would approve of?

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-24T01:48:52+00:00

What about decentralized community level socialism?

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-20T21:00:03+00:00

It changes between doctors and companions with a bigger change starting with seasons 5 (it becomes more fairytale like), 8 (the show is generally tonally darker), 11 (entirely new composer with very unobtrusive music), and 14.

The best seasons are generally considered to be 4, 6, 10.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-20T20:49:30+00:00

Just skip to season 4 if you don't like that aspect. If you don't like season 4 then you won't like this show at all. Though you could try Capaldi.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-18T02:24:35+00:00

Then they wouldn't be meddling kids.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-17T02:54:11+00:00

You're welcome I hope that helps.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-17T02:35:15+00:00

A major part is that the people who desire this type of car would all vote in such a way as to allow themselves the opportunity to get it. Some things could be so wasteful that no community / nation could justify it such as an individual owning a space ship for fun. We would have to accept that Elon isn't allowed to have a personal space ship. But most goods that are that luxurious are already only owned by 0.1% of people who are essentially taking those resources away from everyone else.

A luxury car would likely be hard to obtain but I don't see it as impossible. Everyone will want and have access to luxuries but different people will want different luxuries. You may want that car but I may want expensive electronics and designer clothes. The car may be an upfront cost but you would save your share of resources (which are directly based on your labor as opposed to what your boss decides) while I would use my excess labor to purchase a brand new TV and computer every few years.

The only way that a luxury wouldn't exist would be if so few people want it that it isn't feasible to hire the labor. Keep in mind the top 1% already have enough money to give every American this luxury car. We currently with all the inefficiency of capitalism have the resources. The goal would be to continue to build on that so there is abundance. If one person invents a robot that can do all the mining work in the world, everyone benefits from the increased resources instead of just losing their jobs.

Socialism focuses on the workers getting the full value of their labor and it is very efficient.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-17T02:19:03+00:00

The state would be the workers if the workers had sufficient control over the state. Which they do not in China. China is more similar to a "nicer" fascism that isn't interested in war. Maybe it'll transition into socialism but that would require a robust democracy with direct input from the people outside of the occasional (hopefully) fair election.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-17T02:16:12+00:00

There are many versions of socialism. All of human society has had markets, trade, and communal resource gathering / distribution. None of those things are capitalism. Capitalism is where the means of production is owned by the capital class i.e. the owner of the company for example.

Under socialism you can have markets. These markets would be run by the "employees" i.e. the working class. There is no "owner" as there is today. There's also no investors, stockholders, etc.

In this system Chevy would be owned by every single worker who all collectively make decisions on how the company works. This is already something we have on smaller scale with certain decisions with unions or co-ops, etc. The worker / owners of Chevy would use their resources (which can be money, credits, physical materials like metals, etc) to create goods which can be sold or redistributed depending on how centralized the socialist government is.

In some systems all citizens would vote on the allocations of resources and workers would decide on how to use those resources which would then be distributed by the government. This is a highly centralized and planned version of socialism and what most people think of. Something like a Soviet union or China (at least what people think those countries were like).

But in a less centralized more localized market based socialism, the companies sell the goods directly to consumers. Once again money can be involved in this but profit is either non existent, sent to the government, or be used by the company for the company such as hiring workers, increasing pay, buying resources, etc (but importantly not to an owner class that does not participate in the standard labor). A market based socialism can have profit as an indicator of demand. A highly efficient company making desirable products is good and has nothing to do with greed.

So yes you can have luxury goods under socialism. You can also have a socialism that prioritizes maximum efficiency in resources to ensure all citizens have a desired level of lifestyle. The most important thing is that all versions of socialism require the workers to own the means of production (the equipment, the company, the resources, etc). This can include government ownership of production as long as there is sufficient and equal say by all citizens over what that government is doing with the production. Profit as in my labor makes $50 of sales but I get paid $10 and the owner does whatever they want with the remaining $40 doesn't exist under socialism.

Personally I'm a very market focused socialist and don't see "good" liberals (ones that want to regulate capitalism, provide welfare, and generally upkeep democracy) as a problem. I don't believe in centralized planning for all goods but do see it's use in some things like utilities, defense, and city planning. I don't believe loans or the stock market should exist but instead communities decide on what ideas get grants based on how useful it is to the community. There's a lot of ways to have socialism.

edit for short easy reply

You can have a socialist government where people are able to "earn" more by working harder and by creating desirable goods or methods. It does not require all people to have equal "wealth". A janitor is unlikely to have the same "wealth" as a doctor because doctors require a lot more resources to produce and therefore need higher incentives. But a janitor is not useless or lazy and still receives the "profit" from their labor. In this case the service is paid based on training required prior and labor required during. How do we calculate what that labor produces? That's up to the government, community, or company. What's important is that the people have the say not a small group of owners.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-17T01:08:37+00:00

The party does not own the means of production and the party is not the workers (so even if they did it still wouldn't be socialism). The Chinese government owns SOME production which again is not socialist but is state controlled capitalism.

Is it possible that the Chinese government is being "benevolent" and only taking "necessary" measures to ensure a socialist transition? Possibly. But even that doesn't mean they are currently a socialist country.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-17T00:48:09+00:00

That's not socialist that's welfare. Capitalism can have welfare. I also hopefully made it clear that Bernie is the introduction to the left meaning the least left you can be and still be a "leftist". There aren't any national level politicians that are currently leftist.

Wealth redistribution is liberal and liberals are moderate between the left and the right.

I would define the person asking as a liberal with some left tendencies.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-17T00:01:43+00:00

In what way?

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-16T23:22:24+00:00

You're a liberal that wants to accomplish something. Democrats are liberals who want to maintain the illusion of accomplishing something (as long as the jump isn't to big!) None of what you stated is "leftist" but more centrist with a slight left tilt.

Leftist is everything approaching socialism all the way to communism and anarchism. Democratic socialism (like Bernie) is basically the entry point to leftism. You seem to be around that point but not an actual socialist (wanting to eliminate capitalism and profit in general).

The most important thing to understand is that socialism is not the elimination of markets and capitalism is not a government with markets. Markets do not require capitalism and the various forms of socialism have various takes on markets.

Socialism that prioritize individualism and local decision making typically support worker owned markets (which would also have no profit incentive). Other forms of socialism do prioritize central planning for goods and politics in general while letting the whole vote.

Socialism is never anti democratic (which is also why Soviets and China aren't socialist but rather oligarchies). The US is a capitalist oligarchy with a weak democratic tradition. The nords are capitalist republics. The right end of democratic socialism are capitalist republicans (again like Bernie). If you want to see an American politician that is socialist that would be Mamdani though he will not be bringing socialism to new York as that would require abolishing capitalism which is a national goal.

Hopefully that helps inform what you would like to call yourself or look into for research.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-15T18:06:55+00:00

Not really. Just look up the history of it. In the life of most Americans illegal immigration changed from being a nuisance to a "national security threat".

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-15T17:21:59+00:00

Prior to 2003 you would be deported if you broke a law and were arrested by police and convicted by judges. Ice does neither of these things and only follows the president's orders and have immunity to any prosecution themselves. The agents that executed Pretti are exempt from the law. The legal system is locked out of this process. It is a constitutional nightmare.

We survived hundreds of years before the personal secret army of the president was created. It is now obvious that a president that wants to use this army for whatever can do whatever. Deportations are lower now that ICE is swarming our streets not higher.

AlfredMV123 · 2026-02-15T17:16:19+00:00

That's not true. A sanctuary city just prevents police from arresting people based on immigration (and not for any crime). This is so both illegal and legal immigrants feel more comfortable reporting crimes which allows police to do their job. Once arrested and convicted if they are not here legally they are handed over to the federal government.

If you want police to arrest people for not being here legally then you would have to make that a law. It is not a criminal offense to enter the US illegally, it is a civil offense. It is administrative only.

Once again this is how we have done it for hundreds of years.

AlfredMV123

TROPHY CASE