TimmyDeanSausage

That makes a lot more sense than "social democracies “stomp Asia”. There is absolutely a global effort to maintain the status quo that keeps many non-western nations suppressed. I don’t think social democracy, as a system, is the culprit. It’s all a big game for the ultra-wealthy everywhere, and most politicians quickly learn they need to play the game to stay in the game. It won’t stop until we create and implement systems that are impossible to corrupt.

Lol, ok.

I’m reeeaaaally not interested in a reddit-style gotcha debate. But, since you seem adamant on persuading me to agree with your opinions; how does social democracy stomp on Asia? How is my assessment of China’s political system wrong?

Nah, I just don’t click on random links. I’m not familiar with tankie.tube.

Not sure exactly what you’re referring to. Who told me what?

Did you start a discussion so you can inaccurately categorize people’s opinions and try to brow beat them when they don’t agree with your false equivalence statements? I’m just telling you what I think would be a good solution. An easy, smooth transfer towards a blend of systems that seem to work well in some Scandinavian countries.

I don’t think you understand social democracy well enough. The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway all have social democracy. South Asia/East does not. Assuming you’re mostly referring to China, since you referenced dengism earlier, China is an authoritarian regime with a strict class system and unevenly regulated capitalism favoring the authoritarian class at the top. That is the opposite of social democracy.

Nope. It’s social-democratic capitalism, or capitalism with massive guard rails. The emphasis is on guiding society to a more equitable default. We would need to prosecute all of the current billionaire class and their bought politicians and have a massive redistribution of wealth, in the form of reparations. People can choose how they want to live their lives from there. A soft reset.

I don’t think it’s wrong for people who want to lead organizations to have more wealth than others, there just needs to be limits to it. It should be illegal to exploit others in any way. You know; life, liberty, and justice for all.

It’s more about allowing vestiges of the current system to exist to ease the transfer to a more equitable system. When systems are ended abruptly, it tends to have unforseen consequences. We need to treat society as the living construct that it is. It’s very ill right now, so we put it on life support by infusing some socialism, let it stabilize, then add more socialism until we have a system that is truly egalitarian.

I don’t think there’s an inherent problem with people having a (reasonably) large amount of wealth. We just need to make it so having that wealth doesn’t harm anyone else, or deter anyone else from gaining wealth. In other words, let money obsessed people have some money, just make it an amount that every human could achieve, if they wanted to, and make it kind of pointless by making sure every living being has the best quality of life possible, whether they pursue wealth or not. Like the Scandinavian model, we need a system that steers society towards altruism, community, and egalitarianism.

We need tax brackets that go up to 100%. If you own more than $100m in assets, everything above that should be taxed 100%. We need to remove the possibility for billionaires to exist. We also need to dissolve massive corporations by enforcing/expanding antitrust laws. Stop the concentration of wealth, in any form. There should be zero incentive to concentrate wealth in the first place, which could be achieved (at least, at first) with a significant amount of socialism infused into our current capitalist systems.