Democratic Socialists Openly Calling For Communism After Ocasio-Cortez Win

[BULLDOG]

Being invented by Marx is not part of the definition of socialism. You should look it up. The US system has long been a combination of socialism and capitalism, and always will be. Quit whining..

You don't understand socialism, which does not surprise me. Socialist (Commie) professors and teachers have routinely tried to soften the general understanding of what socialism is.

The means of production was ALWAYS in the hand of the private sector. Some services have shifted to government control and expanded the role of government.

Just because our nation/states have done it, does not mean it is right.

We once allowed one person to own another.

Marx said that socialism would allow civilization to move toward communism. He was wrong, obviously (and generally). Communism leads to socialism because anarchy cannot last for more than a week. Once the means of production is held by "the people" or held in common, somebody has to manage and organize it....government. BOOM....SOCIALISM!!!

Either way, you're all fucking commies and you need to go to commie land and leave us alone.

Nazi

 

[BULLDOG]

I kinda like having police, fire department, and military.

Police, fire and military are not socialist dimwit. How degenerate are you if you think police fire and military are inventions of Marx?
And to add insult to injury, public safety and defense are institutions that socialists have a particular hatred for in this country.
Cognitive dissonance yet again.

Being invented by Marx is not part of the definition of socialism. You should look it up. The US system has long been a combination of socialism and capitalism, and always will be. Quit whining..

The US has some socialist programs or programs derived from socialism but they cannot nor ever should usurp capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't even figure into those programs silly.

Programs require money. Who pays for it? Underlying the success of a socialist program is a Capitalist economy. When the economy moves decidedly more Socialist over Capitalist, you run out of money or your money and resources are limited.

So you're against the police and fire department?

 

[DOTR]

Police and fire department aren’t socialist. I explained that to you. Leftists hate the police.

 

[BULLDOG]

Police and fire department aren’t socialist. I explained that to you. Leftists hate the police.

You didn't explain anything. You said some words, but you can't explain away reality.

 

[francoHFW]

Well of course. Communism is rooted in failure. Go research the text book example relative to road crews in Russia before the break up of USSR. They would lay say, 2 miles of road a day with a fixed salary. Once the great Ronald Regan convinced them to "bring down this wall" a mutant form of capitalism evolved in Russia.

The road crews were then paid based on 'performance'

Guess what? Workers started laying miles of road a day like never before. The harder they worked, the more they were paid

Communism is an epic fAiL

-Geaux
---------------------------

The Democratic Socialists of America recently got a major boost when one of their endorsed candidates, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, beat out incumbent Democrat Rep. Joe Crowley in a primary last Tuesday for New York’s 14th Congressional District.

This far-left political organization previously made headlines when leadership from their Iowa State campus chapter encouraged people to shoot president Trump and when leadership from their University of Georgia Chapter called for the execution of house GOP members. Now multiple DSA leaders are publicly endorsing communism, an ideology responsible or the oppression, incarceration, and murder of tens of millions of people.

Here is the original tweet from Olivia Katbi Smith, who is the co-Chair of the Portland DSA chapter:

As a DSA chapter co-chair I just wanna set the record straight for a minute: communism is good

6:38 PM - Jun 30, 2018

Democratic Socialists Openly Calling For Communism After Ocasio-Cortez Win

That guy is an idiot LOL.... Communism is never democratic LOL

 

[francoHFW]

Well of course. Communism is rooted in failure. Go research the text book example relative to road crews in Russia before the break up of USSR. They would lay say, 2 miles of road a day with a fixed salary. Once the great Ronald Regan convinced them to "bring down this wall" a mutant form of capitalism evolved in Russia.

The road crews were then paid based on 'performance'

Guess what? Workers started laying miles of road a day like never before. The harder they worked, the more they were paid

Communism is an epic fAiL

-Geaux
---------------------------

The Democratic Socialists of America recently got a major boost when one of their endorsed candidates, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, beat out incumbent Democrat Rep. Joe Crowley in a primary last Tuesday for New York’s 14th Congressional District.

This far-left political organization previously made headlines when leadership from their Iowa State campus chapter encouraged people to shoot president Trump and when leadership from their University of Georgia Chapter called for the execution of house GOP members. Now multiple DSA leaders are publicly endorsing communism, an ideology responsible or the oppression, incarceration, and murder of tens of millions of people.

Here is the original tweet from Olivia Katbi Smith, who is the co-Chair of the Portland DSA chapter:

As a DSA chapter co-chair I just wanna set the record straight for a minute: communism is good

6:38 PM - Jun 30, 2018

Democratic Socialists Openly Calling For Communism After Ocasio-Cortez Win

That guy is an idiot LOL.... Communism is never democratic LOL

Socialism as understood today is always democratic. As understood by those outside the GOP bubble of garbage propaganda. See New Zealand Australia EU Scandinavia Canada...

 

[Crepitus]

Ohhhh....nooooo.....they never said they would even suggest communism.
Thanks to their useful idiots they think they can be more bold now.

Kinda like tRump and his racists huh?

Trump doesn't have any racists, twerp.

LMf'nAO!

The denial is strong with this one!

 

[basquebromance]

i only like libertarians in both parties.

Democrats should be about civil liberties.

Republicans should be about small government.

no one's listening to those folks anymore!

 

[LeftofLeft]

Police, fire and military are not socialist dimwit. How degenerate are you if you think police fire and military are inventions of Marx?
And to add insult to injury, public safety and defense are institutions that socialists have a particular hatred for in this country.
Cognitive dissonance yet again.

Being invented by Marx is not part of the definition of socialism. You should look it up. The US system has long been a combination of socialism and capitalism, and always will be. Quit whining..

The US has some socialist programs or programs derived from socialism but they cannot nor ever should usurp capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't even figure into those programs silly.

Programs require money. Who pays for it? Underlying the success of a socialist program is a Capitalist economy. When the economy moves decidedly more Socialist over Capitalist, you run out of money or your money and resources are limited.

So you're against the police and fire department?

No, I'm against redistribution of wealth, punishing economic success, arbitrary, specious fixes in the name of income inequality......I hardly see where any of those indicate I am against police, fire, first responders. In fact, I would say those social programs generate a return towards society. Keep hiding behind the police and fire departments.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why would SOCIALISTS be calling for COMMUNISM?

Because communism is the end goal of socialism.

Fucking hell......

A Socialist is someone who doesn't want to go Communist, because otherwise they'd be a FUCKING COMMUNIST.

What do you propose as the difference between the two?

Socialism - Wikipedia

"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms."

Communism - Wikipedia

"In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state."'

Socialism is, more or less, the aim of having socialized production, socialized society. It varies.

You have state ownership, in which the government owns the production and the people benefit from this, rather than individuals. China has some elements of socialism. There are many companies that are state owned or part state owned. Revenues go into the state coffers, rather than into individuals pockets.

Collectives could be groups of people, all who benefit and they can range from dozens to thousands or millions of people within those collectives, depends.

Cooperatives are like companies, but the people who work in those companies benefit alike, rather than having a boss at the top, all employees are the boss.

Communism is a classless and stateless society. There is no government to control the means of production as there could be with Socialism. The people control things.

This is why the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and whoever else, are NOT Communist countries. At best the USSR was Socialist.

Now, there are Communists who might push for Socialism as a means towards Communism. But no Socialist would push for Communism as they wouldn't be a Socialist. Because they'd be advocating the end of the state, no state, no Socialism, so you advocate the end of the state, you can't really be a Socialist, but a Communist.

Okay, so they each seek to socialize the means of production.

Is it inconceivable to you that a participant of a political party espousing their particular ideas of socialism would be sympathetic to communism?

I support the transition to a communist society and understand it to be the fruition of a socialist society. Under the present relations of social production it is impossible to achieve communism, the abolishment of the State, without first achieving a socialist system of production.

A Socialist wants socialized things.

A Communist wants a society with no government.

You might see these as the same, but a Socialist isn't a Communist because they don't want to go further, to the point of destroying the system of government.

So, if you want Communism, you're a Communist and not a Socialist.

So you seem to be a Communist who is seeking to get Socialism in place because that's a stepping stone.

Getting Communism as a stepping stone towards Socialism is like using Neptune as a stepping stone to Mars. Doesn't make sense.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Well of course. Communism is rooted in failure. Go research the text book example relative to road crews in Russia before the break up of USSR. They would lay say, 2 miles of road a day with a fixed salary. Once the great Ronald Regan convinced them to "bring down this wall" a mutant form of capitalism evolved in Russia.

The road crews were then paid based on 'performance'

Guess what? Workers started laying miles of road a day like never before. The harder they worked, the more they were paid

Communism is an epic fAiL

-Geaux
---------------------------

The Democratic Socialists of America recently got a major boost when one of their endorsed candidates, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, beat out incumbent Democrat Rep. Joe Crowley in a primary last Tuesday for New York’s 14th Congressional District.

This far-left political organization previously made headlines when leadership from their Iowa State campus chapter encouraged people to shoot president Trump and when leadership from their University of Georgia Chapter called for the execution of house GOP members. Now multiple DSA leaders are publicly endorsing communism, an ideology responsible or the oppression, incarceration, and murder of tens of millions of people.

Here is the original tweet from Olivia Katbi Smith, who is the co-Chair of the Portland DSA chapter:

As a DSA chapter co-chair I just wanna set the record straight for a minute: communism is good

6:38 PM - Jun 30, 2018

Democratic Socialists Openly Calling For Communism After Ocasio-Cortez Win

Communism and Socialism are not the same thing -- stop being stupid and try to understand words instead of just throwing em around - you like like a Trump supporter, oh nevermind

 

[BULLDOG]

Being invented by Marx is not part of the definition of socialism. You should look it up. The US system has long been a combination of socialism and capitalism, and always will be. Quit whining..

The US has some socialist programs or programs derived from socialism but they cannot nor ever should usurp capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't even figure into those programs silly.

Programs require money. Who pays for it? Underlying the success of a socialist program is a Capitalist economy. When the economy moves decidedly more Socialist over Capitalist, you run out of money or your money and resources are limited.

So you're against the police and fire department?

No, I'm against redistribution of wealth, punishing economic success, arbitrary, specious fixes in the name of income inequality......I hardly see where any of those indicate I am against police, fire, first responders. In fact, I would say those social programs generate a return towards society. Keep hiding behind the police and fire departments.

Yes. Socialist programs do quite often do generate a return, but it's not a financial return. It's a shame that you hate socialism so much.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The US has some socialist programs or programs derived from socialism but they cannot nor ever should usurp capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't even figure into those programs silly.

Programs require money. Who pays for it? Underlying the success of a socialist program is a Capitalist economy. When the economy moves decidedly more Socialist over Capitalist, you run out of money or your money and resources are limited.

So you're against the police and fire department?

No, I'm against redistribution of wealth, punishing economic success, arbitrary, specious fixes in the name of income inequality......I hardly see where any of those indicate I am against police, fire, first responders. In fact, I would say those social programs generate a return towards society. Keep hiding behind the police and fire departments.

Yes. Socialist programs do quite often do generate a return, but it's not a financial return. It's a shame that you hate socialism so much.

My argument is that in an economy, Socialism cannot exceed nor usurp Captialism. Capitalism must be greater than Socialism in order for Socialism to be successful. When Socialism expands or exceeds at the expense of Capitalism, it fails.

 

[Tehon]

Because communism is the end goal of socialism.

Fucking hell......

A Socialist is someone who doesn't want to go Communist, because otherwise they'd be a FUCKING COMMUNIST.

What do you propose as the difference between the two?

Socialism - Wikipedia

"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms."

Communism - Wikipedia

"In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state."'

Socialism is, more or less, the aim of having socialized production, socialized society. It varies.

You have state ownership, in which the government owns the production and the people benefit from this, rather than individuals. China has some elements of socialism. There are many companies that are state owned or part state owned. Revenues go into the state coffers, rather than into individuals pockets.

Collectives could be groups of people, all who benefit and they can range from dozens to thousands or millions of people within those collectives, depends.

Cooperatives are like companies, but the people who work in those companies benefit alike, rather than having a boss at the top, all employees are the boss.

Communism is a classless and stateless society. There is no government to control the means of production as there could be with Socialism. The people control things.

This is why the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and whoever else, are NOT Communist countries. At best the USSR was Socialist.

Now, there are Communists who might push for Socialism as a means towards Communism. But no Socialist would push for Communism as they wouldn't be a Socialist. Because they'd be advocating the end of the state, no state, no Socialism, so you advocate the end of the state, you can't really be a Socialist, but a Communist.

Okay, so they each seek to socialize the means of production.

Is it inconceivable to you that a participant of a political party espousing their particular ideas of socialism would be sympathetic to communism?

I support the transition to a communist society and understand it to be the fruition of a socialist society. Under the present relations of social production it is impossible to achieve communism, the abolishment of the State, without first achieving a socialist system of production.

A Socialist wants socialized things.

A Communist wants a society with no government.

You might see these as the same, but a Socialist isn't a Communist because they don't want to go further, to the point of destroying the system of government.

So, if you want Communism, you're a Communist and not a Socialist.

So you seem to be a Communist who is seeking to get Socialism in place because that's a stepping stone.

Getting Communism as a stepping stone towards Socialism is like using Neptune as a stepping stone to Mars. Doesn't make sense.

A socialist wants specifically to socialize the means of production. That means to abolish private property.

The State, which arises out of the need to protect private property, would wither away as a result of the new social relationship of production.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fucking hell......

A Socialist is someone who doesn't want to go Communist, because otherwise they'd be a FUCKING COMMUNIST.

What do you propose as the difference between the two?

Socialism - Wikipedia

"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms."

Communism - Wikipedia

"In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state."'

Socialism is, more or less, the aim of having socialized production, socialized society. It varies.

You have state ownership, in which the government owns the production and the people benefit from this, rather than individuals. China has some elements of socialism. There are many companies that are state owned or part state owned. Revenues go into the state coffers, rather than into individuals pockets.

Collectives could be groups of people, all who benefit and they can range from dozens to thousands or millions of people within those collectives, depends.

Cooperatives are like companies, but the people who work in those companies benefit alike, rather than having a boss at the top, all employees are the boss.

Communism is a classless and stateless society. There is no government to control the means of production as there could be with Socialism. The people control things.

This is why the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and whoever else, are NOT Communist countries. At best the USSR was Socialist.

Now, there are Communists who might push for Socialism as a means towards Communism. But no Socialist would push for Communism as they wouldn't be a Socialist. Because they'd be advocating the end of the state, no state, no Socialism, so you advocate the end of the state, you can't really be a Socialist, but a Communist.

Okay, so they each seek to socialize the means of production.

Is it inconceivable to you that a participant of a political party espousing their particular ideas of socialism would be sympathetic to communism?

I support the transition to a communist society and understand it to be the fruition of a socialist society. Under the present relations of social production it is impossible to achieve communism, the abolishment of the State, without first achieving a socialist system of production.

A Socialist wants socialized things.

A Communist wants a society with no government.

You might see these as the same, but a Socialist isn't a Communist because they don't want to go further, to the point of destroying the system of government.

So, if you want Communism, you're a Communist and not a Socialist.

So you seem to be a Communist who is seeking to get Socialism in place because that's a stepping stone.

Getting Communism as a stepping stone towards Socialism is like using Neptune as a stepping stone to Mars. Doesn't make sense.

A socialist wants specifically to socialize the means of production. That means to abolish private property.

The State, which arises out of the need to protect private property, would wither away as a result of the new social relationship of production.

No, it doesn't mean abolish private property. It might do, but doesn't have to mean that.

China, which claims, badly, to be Communist, has state run companies. Yes it's reduced that quite a bit, but even private owned companies are in the pocket of the CCP.

But there's private property.

 

[Tehon]

What do you propose as the difference between the two?

Socialism - Wikipedia

"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms."

Communism - Wikipedia

"In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state."'

Socialism is, more or less, the aim of having socialized production, socialized society. It varies.

You have state ownership, in which the government owns the production and the people benefit from this, rather than individuals. China has some elements of socialism. There are many companies that are state owned or part state owned. Revenues go into the state coffers, rather than into individuals pockets.

Collectives could be groups of people, all who benefit and they can range from dozens to thousands or millions of people within those collectives, depends.

Cooperatives are like companies, but the people who work in those companies benefit alike, rather than having a boss at the top, all employees are the boss.

Communism is a classless and stateless society. There is no government to control the means of production as there could be with Socialism. The people control things.

This is why the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and whoever else, are NOT Communist countries. At best the USSR was Socialist.

Now, there are Communists who might push for Socialism as a means towards Communism. But no Socialist would push for Communism as they wouldn't be a Socialist. Because they'd be advocating the end of the state, no state, no Socialism, so you advocate the end of the state, you can't really be a Socialist, but a Communist.

Okay, so they each seek to socialize the means of production.

Is it inconceivable to you that a participant of a political party espousing their particular ideas of socialism would be sympathetic to communism?

I support the transition to a communist society and understand it to be the fruition of a socialist society. Under the present relations of social production it is impossible to achieve communism, the abolishment of the State, without first achieving a socialist system of production.

A Socialist wants socialized things.

A Communist wants a society with no government.

You might see these as the same, but a Socialist isn't a Communist because they don't want to go further, to the point of destroying the system of government.

So, if you want Communism, you're a Communist and not a Socialist.

So you seem to be a Communist who is seeking to get Socialism in place because that's a stepping stone.

Getting Communism as a stepping stone towards Socialism is like using Neptune as a stepping stone to Mars. Doesn't make sense.

A socialist wants specifically to socialize the means of production. That means to abolish private property.

The State, which arises out of the need to protect private property, would wither away as a result of the new social relationship of production.

No, it doesn't mean abolish private property. It might do, but doesn't have to mean that.

China, which claims, badly, to be Communist, has state run companies. Yes it's reduced that quite a bit, but even private owned companies are in the pocket of the CCP.

But there's private property.

America claims to be the light unto the world, doesn't make it so.

By your own definition you acknowledge that socialism abolishes the private and introduces it to the collective.

There's Socialism, which is the desire to see collective ownership of production and goods.

And yes it has to mean that, it is the defining quality between a capitalist mode of production and a socialist one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Socialism - Wikipedia

"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms."

Communism - Wikipedia

"In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state."'

Socialism is, more or less, the aim of having socialized production, socialized society. It varies.

You have state ownership, in which the government owns the production and the people benefit from this, rather than individuals. China has some elements of socialism. There are many companies that are state owned or part state owned. Revenues go into the state coffers, rather than into individuals pockets.

Collectives could be groups of people, all who benefit and they can range from dozens to thousands or millions of people within those collectives, depends.

Cooperatives are like companies, but the people who work in those companies benefit alike, rather than having a boss at the top, all employees are the boss.

Communism is a classless and stateless society. There is no government to control the means of production as there could be with Socialism. The people control things.

This is why the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and whoever else, are NOT Communist countries. At best the USSR was Socialist.

Now, there are Communists who might push for Socialism as a means towards Communism. But no Socialist would push for Communism as they wouldn't be a Socialist. Because they'd be advocating the end of the state, no state, no Socialism, so you advocate the end of the state, you can't really be a Socialist, but a Communist.

Okay, so they each seek to socialize the means of production.

Is it inconceivable to you that a participant of a political party espousing their particular ideas of socialism would be sympathetic to communism?

I support the transition to a communist society and understand it to be the fruition of a socialist society. Under the present relations of social production it is impossible to achieve communism, the abolishment of the State, without first achieving a socialist system of production.

A Socialist wants socialized things.

A Communist wants a society with no government.

You might see these as the same, but a Socialist isn't a Communist because they don't want to go further, to the point of destroying the system of government.

So, if you want Communism, you're a Communist and not a Socialist.

So you seem to be a Communist who is seeking to get Socialism in place because that's a stepping stone.

Getting Communism as a stepping stone towards Socialism is like using Neptune as a stepping stone to Mars. Doesn't make sense.

A socialist wants specifically to socialize the means of production. That means to abolish private property.

The State, which arises out of the need to protect private property, would wither away as a result of the new social relationship of production.

No, it doesn't mean abolish private property. It might do, but doesn't have to mean that.

China, which claims, badly, to be Communist, has state run companies. Yes it's reduced that quite a bit, but even private owned companies are in the pocket of the CCP.

But there's private property.

America claims to be the light unto the world, doesn't make it so.

By your own definition you acknowledge that socialism abolishes the private and introduces it to the collective.

There's Socialism, which is the desire to see collective ownership of production and goods.

And yes it has to mean that, it is the defining quality between a capitalist mode of production and a socialist one.

Yes, Socialism abolishes private and makes it social.

The NHS, for example, got rid of private healthcare and replaced it with nationalized. At the same time there is private healthcare in the UK, and there's still private ownership of things.

 

[BULLDOG]

Capitalism doesn't even figure into those programs silly.

Programs require money. Who pays for it? Underlying the success of a socialist program is a Capitalist economy. When the economy moves decidedly more Socialist over Capitalist, you run out of money or your money and resources are limited.

So you're against the police and fire department?

No, I'm against redistribution of wealth, punishing economic success, arbitrary, specious fixes in the name of income inequality......I hardly see where any of those indicate I am against police, fire, first responders. In fact, I would say those social programs generate a return towards society. Keep hiding behind the police and fire departments.

Yes. Socialist programs do quite often do generate a return, but it's not a financial return. It's a shame that you hate socialism so much.

My argument is that in an economy, Socialism cannot exceed nor usurp Captialism. Capitalism must be greater than Socialism in order for Socialism to be successful. When Socialism expands or exceeds at the expense of Capitalism, it fails.

We need a combination of the two. Only an idiot would demand only one while opposing every aspect of the other. like right wingers constantly do. Use your brain instead of following your party line. Your party line on this subject is childish and stupid.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Programs require money. Who pays for it? Underlying the success of a socialist program is a Capitalist economy. When the economy moves decidedly more Socialist over Capitalist, you run out of money or your money and resources are limited.

So you're against the police and fire department?

No, I'm against redistribution of wealth, punishing economic success, arbitrary, specious fixes in the name of income inequality......I hardly see where any of those indicate I am against police, fire, first responders. In fact, I would say those social programs generate a return towards society. Keep hiding behind the police and fire departments.

Yes. Socialist programs do quite often do generate a return, but it's not a financial return. It's a shame that you hate socialism so much.

My argument is that in an economy, Socialism cannot exceed nor usurp Captialism. Capitalism must be greater than Socialism in order for Socialism to be successful. When Socialism expands or exceeds at the expense of Capitalism, it fails.

We need a combination of the two. Only an idiot would demand only one while opposing every aspect of the other. like right wingers constantly do. Use your brain instead of following your party line. Your party line on this subject is childish and stupid.

Go read my posts. Where did I go absolute Capitalism vs zero socialism? I have acknowledged a combination of the two but have remained steadfast that an economy must be more Capitalist vs. Socialist because Capitalism pays for Socialidm. Use your brain. Who pays for Socialist programs in an economy? What system is going to maximize revenue potential to pay for Socialist programs? Is it better to have more wealthy people paying taxes or mass stagnant income people paying taxes then being asked to pay more taxes for more proggrams (.... beyond the Military, Police, Fire and Rescue)?

 

[BULLDOG]

So you're against the police and fire department?

No, I'm against redistribution of wealth, punishing economic success, arbitrary, specious fixes in the name of income inequality......I hardly see where any of those indicate I am against police, fire, first responders. In fact, I would say those social programs generate a return towards society. Keep hiding behind the police and fire departments.

Yes. Socialist programs do quite often do generate a return, but it's not a financial return. It's a shame that you hate socialism so much.

My argument is that in an economy, Socialism cannot exceed nor usurp Captialism. Capitalism must be greater than Socialism in order for Socialism to be successful. When Socialism expands or exceeds at the expense of Capitalism, it fails.

We need a combination of the two. Only an idiot would demand only one while opposing every aspect of the other. like right wingers constantly do. Use your brain instead of following your party line. Your party line on this subject is childish and stupid.

Go read my posts. Where did I go absolute Capitalism vs zero socialism? I have acknowledged a combination of the two but have remained steadfast that an economy must be more Capitalist vs. Socialist because Capitalism pays for Socialidm. Use your brain. Who pays for Socialist programs in an economy? What system is going to maximize revenue potential to pay for Socialist programs? Is it better to have more wealthy people paying taxes or mass stagnant income people paying taxes then being asked to pay more taxes for more proggrams (.... beyond the Military, Police, Fire and Rescue)?

I suggest you explain that to your fellow RWNJs. Socialism is a recognized curse word for the right, and there is no room for reasonable discussion.