You can DM people, by the way. You don't need to go into posts, if you like you can click on people's profiles and message them directly. Unless you want to talk on this thread specifically, of course.

Either way, I explained why there are Marxists on Lemmy, and why Belgium isn't Socialist but China is. If you want to talk more about that, we can, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say based off this comment alone.

[–] Wanpieserino@lemm.ee 0 points 3 weeks ago

With the last ban, I messaged 3 people and none of them responded even though we were having quite some conversations in the thread. So I assume it doesn't reach. Lemme try again.

[–] Wanpieserino@lemm.ee 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sent you a message after clicking on your username on the post I got banned on, just to see if it reaches you.

I know Belgium isn't socialist, we're rather social democratic.

There's also market socialism which doesn't require public ownership, just that the workers own the company. Something like Huawei.

But the end result. We have a median net wealth of 250k euros per adult. I'm quite happy about that.

We have some nationalised stuff. Our commuting train company, post company, Bank and insurance, bus transport, télécommunications company. Infrabel.

The government plays a major role in our lives but they are still liberal.

They just tax and transfer. 45% of the GDP is tax revenue. Belgians are doing just fine.

Owning key industries is useful, like the french with their nuclear reactors. But you as employee it's better to have private options as well when it comes to employment.

Like in Cuba they have 1 employer. The government. Sure, the doctors get paid the most in the country, but still they flee to other Latin American countries so that they can fund their family in a luxurious housing unit in Havana.

This is because there's more competition to buy the doctors their services in those other Spanish speaking countries in the Americas.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike socialist economic stuff, if it's used properly.

I despise the censorship.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Saying Belgium is "more Socialist" is clearly wrong, though. It's a Capitalist country, China is Socialist.

Cooperatives are not "socialism," they exist in a broader economy. China has a Socialist Market Economy, it has cooperatives and whatnot but that doesn't define their system, it's the public sector.

All countries have public and private sectors. Belgium's public sector is subservient to its private sector, though, the private sector is made up of large firms and is the driving aspect of the economy. It is the opposite in China, hence my point.

There is nothing inherently better about having a private option. Cuba has a private sector as well, though it is subservient to the public. That isn't why they have lower wages, though, it's because of brutal embargoes.

Everyone censors, in different ways, that which goes against their interests.

[–] Wanpieserino@lemm.ee 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

With the market cap of their SOE's, they have a broader impact on their economy. Sure, china is the most socialist relevant country in the world as of now.

Censorship can be ranked like anything else can.

https://rsf.org/en/index like they are trying to do.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

It isn't about market cap. The rubber factory has more power than the rubber ball factory, as an example, market cap is one window.

As for RSF, it's a government-funded western propaganda outlet designed to manufacture consent against countries that don't toe the Western line.

RSF's budget for 2022 totalled €8m. 52% of the organisation's income comes from the state sector; 22% from foundations; 12% from commercial activities; 11% from sponsorships and public donations.[57] Foundations supporting RSF's work through services include the American Express, the Société Générale, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and Ford Foundation. [58]

In 2005 RSF was reported by The Guardian to have been criticised by left-wing writer Diana Barahona for accepting funding from the National Endowment for Democracy in the US and the Center for a Free Cuba. She accused RSF of being part of “a neocon crusade” against Fidel Castro's Government of Cuba. In response, Secretary-general Robert Ménard stated that funding from NED totalled 0.92 per cent of RSF's budget and was used to support African journalists and their families.[59] RSF ceased its relationship with the Center for a Free Cuba in 2008.[60]

The NED in particular is pretty damning.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments