The theory when applied ends up not following the book... I wonder why?
Because you can't read, as proven.
The difference is something called contextual nuance, and you have no grasp of it.
Your position is like North Korea claiming democracy doesn't work because they say they are one and it's not working.
You can continue acting stupid, but in your case I'm not sure it's an act.
North Korea's definitely working. If it didn't work it would have collapsed. It's still hell, but a working one
Is the Democratic Republic Of North Korea a Democracy? Because you're trying to say yes.
Like I said, it's called contextual nuance and you have no grasp of it.
You can continue acting stupid, but in your case I'm not sure it's an act.
No, it's not a democracy because it doesn't even bother following actual democratic principles. It's just like Napoleon's idea of democracy: I am the people, therefore if I have absolute power I'm being democratic.
Basically Cuba on steroids
Exactly, and that's why everything you've ever known as communism and socialism is in exactly the same boat. They didn't follow the actual communistic or socialist principals. They were all little north Korea pretending to be those things.
Except they did
Like I said, you can continue acting stupid, but in your case it's probably not an act.
They "socialised" the means of production
You've never read a book in your life, you have no clue what that phrase means. You have just proven yourself genuine and not an actor. You are a moron.
How do you give the means of production to a concept (the collective) if not by giving it to the institution that supposedly represents it (the state)?
By actually distributing the value generated to the workers. It doesn't require the state to do anything except legislate paying workers their worth. Adequately taxing those with means to pay for social services for those without. You know, actually benefitting the lowest rung of the social hierarchy beyond letting them beg for scraps and die.
I'll give you a hint, no one is being paid what they're worth while a profit margin exists because every dollar of profit is a dollar exploited from the supplier, the worker, and the customer, for the benefit of the mini kings of capitalism.
That's not giving the means of production, that's just giving the benefits of production
Which if you knew how to read a book you'd realise is the point. Like I said, you're not pretending to be a moron. You're just parroting shit you heard elsewhere with no understanding of it's actual meaning or context, and you've definitely never read any of the books these ideas come from. You are the equivalent of a child telling a physicist that they don't know how particle physics works because of what your friend told you in kindergarten.
Go read a book and stop being a willfully ignorant dumbass. Not that I have any hope you'd understand the concepts in them but you'd have to learn something from osmisis at least.
Because you can't read, as proven.
The difference is something called contextual nuance, and you have no grasp of it.
Your position is like North Korea claiming democracy doesn't work because they say they are one and it's not working.
You can continue acting stupid, but in your case I'm not sure it's an act.
North Korea's definitely working. If it didn't work it would have collapsed. It's still hell, but a working one
Is the Democratic Republic Of North Korea a Democracy? Because you're trying to say yes.
Like I said, it's called contextual nuance and you have no grasp of it.
You can continue acting stupid, but in your case I'm not sure it's an act.
No, it's not a democracy because it doesn't even bother following actual democratic principles. It's just like Napoleon's idea of democracy: I am the people, therefore if I have absolute power I'm being democratic.
Basically Cuba on steroids
Exactly, and that's why everything you've ever known as communism and socialism is in exactly the same boat. They didn't follow the actual communistic or socialist principals. They were all little north Korea pretending to be those things.
Except they did
Like I said, you can continue acting stupid, but in your case it's probably not an act.
They "socialised" the means of production
You've never read a book in your life, you have no clue what that phrase means. You have just proven yourself genuine and not an actor. You are a moron.
How do you give the means of production to a concept (the collective) if not by giving it to the institution that supposedly represents it (the state)?
By actually distributing the value generated to the workers. It doesn't require the state to do anything except legislate paying workers their worth. Adequately taxing those with means to pay for social services for those without. You know, actually benefitting the lowest rung of the social hierarchy beyond letting them beg for scraps and die.
I'll give you a hint, no one is being paid what they're worth while a profit margin exists because every dollar of profit is a dollar exploited from the supplier, the worker, and the customer, for the benefit of the mini kings of capitalism.
That's not giving the means of production, that's just giving the benefits of production
Which if you knew how to read a book you'd realise is the point. Like I said, you're not pretending to be a moron. You're just parroting shit you heard elsewhere with no understanding of it's actual meaning or context, and you've definitely never read any of the books these ideas come from. You are the equivalent of a child telling a physicist that they don't know how particle physics works because of what your friend told you in kindergarten.
Go read a book and stop being a willfully ignorant dumbass. Not that I have any hope you'd understand the concepts in them but you'd have to learn something from osmisis at least.