Whataboutism is when a leftist proves a liberal wrong
purahna
joined 2 years ago
The difference is that liberal democracy is underpinned on the idea that being able to elect a bourgeoise representative is all you need to be fully involved, whereas a socialist system must recognize that collective ownership of a state by the people requires the people have power over everything that happens in that state, law, economics, religion, war, everything. Socialist states exist with this as an ideal and only walk back from this goal with good cause, as opposed to starting with nothing, adding the opportunity to choose bourgeoise representation out of a small pool every once in a while, and calling it good.
e: added text in italics for clarity
You're getting a lot of flak (rightly), but I figured I'd actually give you a right definition so this can be a growing opportunity: If you own a resource and you use that resource to produce profit, that resource is private property. If you're not making profit, it's only personal property. Farm for your family? Personal property. Farm where you give the output to your community? Personal property. Farm where you sell the yields? Private property.
I'm happy that you've found peace and confidence in your superiority by reducing the world you live in to something simple. Unfortunately that sort of takes away any value I might find in having a discussion with you, so have a nice life, comrade.
The goalposts are exactly where they started. You're defending America wanting world domination ("systemic primacy"), I'm saying that's a pretty evil thing to want, especially for a nation who's policy has been might makes right for at least 7 decades now.
P.S., you should probably read up a bit on the RAND corporation and CFR if you think they are "some of America's thousand foreign policy think tanks", and you may also want to reevaluate calling executive committee membership and senior fellowship as being "a member".
China claims Vietnam? Laos? Singapore? Myanmar? Mongolia? Pakistan??
You're kind of right if by China, you mean the Republic of China, they have some pretty wild territorial claims 
You just saw my instance and flipped out, I didn't even make any moral judgments about any political systems, I just said it's kind of evil to want to "protect our systemic primacy". "systemic primacy" is literally just policy wonk speak for "world domination". Why are you so quick to attack me for that? Why are you getting defensive for the trillion-dollar military country?
are there any other ideologies vying for power besides those two right now?
Chinese propaganda by... Al Jazeera? And besides, do you think that the US isn't trying to flex any power in Asia? I'd also read beyond the intro of his Wikipedia page if you think he's been out of government service for two decades, he's a board member on at least a couple of think tanks now.
what are you on about, why is this your response when the country with the worlds largest military says they need to be the primary power over an entire continent that isn't them
In March 2015, retired US diplomat and Harvard professor Robert Blackwill wrote a policy paper that has become an unofficial playbook for today’s American actions in Asia.
It starts with a remarkable but unsurprising premise: “The United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining pre-eminent power over various rivals, first on the North American continent, then in the Western hemisphere, and finally globally.”
The Blackwell paper argues that the US must “protect its systemic primacy” and spells out how to do it in Asia.
we are so the bad guys
Yes, exploitable land can be owned by an individual in a socialist economy. If you're growing food for your family, then that's just one family the state doesn't have to feed. If you're growing food for your community, then that's several mouths the state doesn't have to feed. If you're hoarding or selling food (or in one very famous historical case, burning it out of spite), then you are monopolizing a resource that could be feeding people, and the state will intervene, whether by buying your land back from you, taking it from you, liquidating you as a class, or some other solution to be determined by the state in question - there is no one size fits all blueprint to socialism.