Yeah, I totally get why she said it, just don’t think it’s a good idea to invite red scare tactics into the 21st century.

Btw your civil reply to my comment truly made my day, hope in humanity slightly raised

I’m happy you do, others might not be so wise

I guess politics is a touchy topic for some.

I don’t know why you are insinuating I’m:

1. Agreeing with the original commenter (OC)
2. Communist

I was just attempting to clear up what OC was getting at, no need to get all worked up over it.

To answer your questions.

1. The USSR never achieved what I understand to be communism
2. I understand it’s uncommon to actually comprehend what political terms mean, heck I struggle quite a bit, but that’s why all who read the definitions must, as politely as possible, spread to others what they learnt. In this case what Harris should have said is a dictator period, at most a capitalist one.

Feel free to point out anything I might have gotten wrong, cheers

I guess what @degen@midwest.social is trying to point at is that worker’s don’t truly control the government and so when the current government seizes the means of production it’s closer to a change of hands between different groups of capitalists than anything envisioned by communists.

I’d also like to say that although the government has “seized” 10% of Intel shares for example it has no control over Intel’s decisions. Those shares only provide dividends.

Regarding your last sentence, I assume you are thinking exclusively of able bodied people, correct? Otherwise it seems like you’re defending letting handicapped people “out” (aka die without resources)

And how would you achieve a meritocracy when the family you are born into and luck have such a high impact on your economic outcomes?

Btw would you agree with the old saying “from each according to it’s abilities, to which according to its needs”? Or would you prefer “from each according to it’s abilities, to which according to its labour”?