This is inherrently correct. This of course applies to both the middle or the edges of the political and economic spectrum. I think what they and I are arguing is that the "median" tends to be more acceptable for a majority, which is sort of the point.

I for one think that the state should own and exercise control over necessities or "key" industries as you describe them. But I also think it has no business sticking it's ugly nose in the property I own. Sure - tax the shit out of me if I'm super rich, but that is it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

I'm a materialist, not an idealist. If a stance is correct, then it should be pushed for, regardless of its acceptability. In tine, through testing theory to practice, acceptability will rise. Commandism and tailism are wrong, but pushing for the correct line is correct.

As for the state owning the large firms and key industries, and allowing the bourgeoisie only small and medium firms (and siezing them if they grow to be large), is socialism, which is the path to communism. The state does not need your toothbrush, but if you own a large company? Too bad.