Debt is a capitalist thing because your employer is using profit motive for that resource extraction instead of helping up with the working class of the state. In socialism, you'd need not worry about the debt for your expenses would be covered by the workers and the state. Any bureaucrat that tries to sack away, will be sacked.
People's democracy is socialism though. Democracy is inherently socialist.
No, I'm telling you that compassion does not require socialism (at least not the sort you're banging on about) as a prerequisite.
No, "people's' democracy" is a non-Marxist concept invented by Stalinists, according to which there would be the rule of the "people" rather than the rule of the working class.
What is there to be confused about their biology which is the material reality?
Unpick the logic of how you got from 'Socialism does not hold a monopoly on compassion.' to ' You're telling me that socialism cannot be "compassionate" to the workers?'
Don't blame Lord Sugar. His computers were perfectly wonderful.
But not their subjective reality. Or does your brand of socialism plan on eradicating subjective experience in favour of sloganeering and labelling?
If you read the April Theses, you will find Lenin junked the Democratic Dictatorhip of the Proletariat and Peasantry.
The aim of socialism is to be collective and mostly objective. Whatever the subjective thought a worker has, be it done in a private circle of close friends.
Did you forget that before Lenin there was an autocracy? A Russian imperial monarchy that killed millions (over 2 million Circassians in the 19th century, over 100,000 under Ivan the Terrible, etc.) over the course of its multi-centennial history. Peasants were not even free. The peasantry was enslaved even after the "attempted emancipation". The state Duma is a liberal bourgeois institution and it deserved to fall apart in the October Revolution because Kerensky was not a promising choice of the Russian Revolution.
OK, that's enough for me. Not interested in your weird cult, thanks and goodbye.
I was being sarcastic. The man was knighted, and then made a Lord, for running a company that produced tat.
I could be paying more attention to The Archers, which right now is ending.
Because if I proposed this to a trans person, they will bring up the gender idealist argument explaining how wearing opposite-gender clothing is "full social transition", therefore, no requirement for affirming care. Trans people are people with gender dysphoria. We have the material means to provide them such as HRT and gender reassignment surgery which should be easy as long as we get some funding to be taken care of.
So you would like to push people into surgery, because that suits your cis view of what being trans is?
Except, this is about both men and women deciding on what to do with trans people.
Not because it would appease us. But because it would truly make them happy. We do this to appease them. The idealists think otherwise and their toxic liberalism is waging a smear campaign claiming that it constitutes an "evil ideology of transmedicalism".
