I have been saying "oh believe me" because nothing you have stated is new to me, other than your lack of understanding of the difference between Socialism, Capitalism, and markets in general.

Here's a source on rising disparity: https://www.norden.org/en/news/increasing-income-inequality-nordics

And another: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(23)00028-5/fulltext

And yet another: https://academic.oup.com/book/39667/chapter-abstract/339652441?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

Happy?

Yes, Capitalist companies tend to love regulations, because they protect monopoly power. An example is Disney with IP protections, they seek to maintain absolute control over their aging IP and have lobbied the government to keep their power entrenched. Another example is tax filing companies like H&R block making the tax process incredibly inefficient and difficult for the average American, just so they can sell more of their services.

Please, elaborate on your Eatwell & Wright source. Why do they call Social Democracy Socialist if it is built on Capitalist frameworks, with individual business owners rather than the economy being owned and controlled by the workers?

You cannot have individual owners of the Means of Production in a Socialist economy. Simple as.

It's also really funny that you say I'm having a stroke as you reenact the REDRUM scene from the shining, lmao. Get help.

[+] Dasus@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It proves that disparity is rising in Capitalist Social Democracies, like I said. Simple.

Companies like regulations that help them make profits, yes. No need to sling insults.

I'm not paying to read a source that you refuse to actually reference in any meaningful capacity outside of an appeal to authority, when I already know what Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Luxembourg, and so forth are talking about when they speak of and define Socialism, not the revisionist Capitalism that is Social Democracy.

Why is it "red-scare" logic when it's written by Marx and all Marxists to come after him? That's just Marxist logic!

2 people can trade things and it need not be Capitalism, you can have 2 worker co-operatives trade commodities and it's Market Socialism. Simple.

No need to throw slurs at me, but it's fitting for a right-winger to turn to those when they fail to use logic.

Edit: Credit where credit is due, you did in fact change from using a slur to using a more tame insult once I called you out, so at least you've got that going for you.

[–] HappyRedditRefugee@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Man,

You are amazing. I wouln't have had the patience to have that conversation.

Thank you for explaining people... well.. Reality.

Just a bit of an off topic point:

I belive the use of "socialism" that the other comenter has is am apropiation or integration of socialisim into the kyriarchy. Defusing and making solcialism anti-revolutionary, taking away what it makes it dangerous and leaving a shell of it self.

Socialism is not anymore the controll of the means of production by the workers (simplify definition) but capitalism where they controlling group give you a bit of assurance and you have to thank them for it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

Thanks! I just take combating bourgeois nonsense seriously when I see it.

You're correct, by adopting good, common sense social safety nets as "socialism," Socialism becomes defanged. "We already have Socialism, why do you want any more?" Can become a cry against the Proletariat.