Isnt socialism the biggest for o monopoly?

Isnt socialism the biggest for o monopoly?
Everything owned by the state and the state being controled by one single party.

Attached: images.jpg (444x691, 31.92K)

In theory, it's the biggest against monopoly, because every single business is equally owned by everyone.
There's no reason to talk of socialism in practice, as it's a political theory, and the practical use of socialist ideas is up to whoever enforces it.
Therefore when you talk of socialism in practice, it's more precise to talk of socialism in a national context, like russian socialism, or personal context, like Leninism.

>every single buidines is owned by very9ne
LMAO

No you retard because the people get to vote for who is in charge or run for election themselves. The people deciding who runs things is the opposite of how monopolies work.

You know that George Orwell was a socialist, right?
I love how retards read 1984 and have no clue what Orwell meant. They really think it's some childish american thing about muh freedumz

Only if there's no democracy and you country is basically a feudal monarchy, otherwise it's the polar opposite of a monopoly

1984 is a mediocre book overhyped by Jordan Peterstein fanboys. Not worth reading.

Yes you get to vote for socialist party member 1 or no 2

god you're retarded. Get Zika and die

Attached: A0E37970-699B-484F-87E1-E164A07F0652.jpg (600x764, 147.17K)

If the state wasn't there to guarantee your rights, even to the small degree that we have today, nothing would be there to stop billion dollar multinational corporations to enslave you
Strange how the anti state libertarian propaganda always comes from anglo americans, the most ruthless exploitative capitalists in the world, because they want no government strong enough to oppose them

>one party state
>democracy
Lmao
Its like those cuban """elections""" where there was only one candidate
The book states multiple times that capitalism no longer exist, private property was abolished, no free trade and the one party state owns everything tho
To me its pretty much about socialism

Imagione putting al the american companies on the hands of the democratic party.
instead of being owned by a vast number of different bourgueoisise conglomerates, it would all be owned by a single institution, making the supreme monopoly-

what makes youthink that a socialist party controllinjg all means of production and communication wouldnt exploit you aswell?

exactly so, though they'll break their own backs before admitting that the "people's" "democratic" republic is anything but
the centralized state is the gate to hell

>business owned by the goverment
>even the most tyrannical state is more accountable to the people than a private business
as opposed to private ownership
>anyone can own and operate a business
>in practice only a small slice of people own business while most just work for them
>even the freest state cant help you if private businesses decide to price out everyone from owning a house
state capitalism is where its at, freedumb lovers btfo

>>even the most tyrannical state is more accountable to the people than a private business
says who?

When LVLA wins can you please livestream your suicide?

please do this Brazilanon

Lula was always bankrolled by bankers and builkding contractors, right now he sided with his arch nemesis and neolliberal Geraldo Alckmin.
Even if lula wins there is no way that Brazil will become socialist.

says me faggot

The best thing Lula can do is tilting the economy leftwards to a minor degree.
No mass nationalization will happen, since its illegal by our constitution, and our presidnt does not have much power bc of our congress and supreme court.

The only reason every favelado can have a samsung a20, with awesome technology and 4g (5g depending on area) internet connection is because of free capitalism and globalization.

theoretically socialism is just workers/collectives having more control over their labor, industry and the economy. But every time a government tries to implement it, all we see is state centralization of resources/industry lead by an intellectual/bureaucratic class, obsession with central planning, etc.
I can't really take socialists seriously when they keep switching between these two ideas as if they are necessarily connected. But I am not opposed to listening to socialist arguments related to the first thing., i.e. alternative economic systems and economic behaviours with different forms of power structures. If certain collectivist forms of industry are in fact more egalitarian and mutually beneficial to all shareholders (owners, workers, customers) then I think society should promote this on some scale.

Exactly, instead of taking the factories away from the bourgueoisie and giving it to corrupt state bearreaucrats, give it to the people who work there physycally, they will vote for and aministrative class, but than again who guarantees that the administrative class wont exploit the working class?