Did Millennials Not Learn About Socialism?

[Never3ndr]

You are dealing with some posters whose only interest is to demonize the socialism label without regard to basic academic knowledge about the variations, degrees, and levels of those variations, etc. Just
rhetorical 'socialism is evil' is all we can expect in respect to intellectual debate.

ROFL! I love this arrogant pretention leftwing idiots entertain that socialism's critics are ignorant about it. Precisely the opposite is the case. Those who understand socialism are opposed to it. Those who support it are ignorant gullible naifs.

You have posted nothing to show you have an expertise about the definitions of ideologies and philosophies regarding the labels you so freely toss around. The exact opposite is what you show, which is a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from right wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

You have posted nothing demonstrating your expertise either. You show a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from left wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

I have not been giving selective definitions of socialism. My argument has been that there are posters that do not recognize there are over two dozen distinct varieties of socialism. Not sure how that depends on a specific source of information or is able to be interpreted any other way. You either acknowledge that there are those differing definitions or not. Only a fool would deny the varied definitions exist or demand everyone subscribe to their definition and ignore all the other ones. Do you disagree with my comments that there are over two dozens distinct definitions to choose from?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot


So much bullshit, so little time


Socialism
¶

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


Ayn Rand

I actually haven't read Atlas Shrugged, and I hear it is a game changer.

Also, I don't want to take anything against Ayn Rand...I haven't read her work, but I hear a lot of good things about it and, whenever I get the time, I'm really interested in it.

On the other hand, nobody gets their definition of their words from Ayn Rand, and viewing socialism through one person's lens, while likely enlightening, is also limited. Now, I'm 100% sure that Ayn Rand has great arguments, VALID arguments against the evils of socialism...she literally experienced it for herself. Also, as I haven't read her work, if you want to share her arguments here, I, for one, would be really happy to see what she has to say. On the other hand, just posting a quote with no supporting argument behind it doesn't do anything but make you look ridiculous.

 

[Contumacious]

ROFL! I love this arrogant pretention leftwing idiots entertain that socialism's critics are ignorant about it. Precisely the opposite is the case. Those who understand socialism are opposed to it. Those who support it are ignorant gullible naifs.

You have posted nothing to show you have an expertise about the definitions of ideologies and philosophies regarding the labels you so freely toss around. The exact opposite is what you show, which is a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from right wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

You have posted nothing demonstrating your expertise either. You show a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from left wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

I have not been giving selective definitions of socialism. My argument has been that there are posters that do not recognize there are over two dozen distinct varieties of socialism. Not sure how that depends on a specific source of information or is able to be interpreted any other way. You either acknowledge that there are those differing definitions or not. Only a fool would deny the varied definitions exist or demand everyone subscribe to their definition and ignore all the other ones. Do you disagree with my comments that there are over two dozens distinct definitions to choose from?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot


So much bullshit, so little time


Socialism
¶

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


Ayn Rand

I actually haven't read Atlas Shrugged, and I hear it is a game changer.

Also, I don't want to take anything against Ayn Rand...I haven't read her work, but I hear a lot of good things about it and, whenever I get the time, I'm really interested in it.

On the other hand, nobody gets their definition of their words from Ayn Rand, and viewing socialism through one person's lens, while likely enlightening, is also limited. Now, I'm 100% sure that Ayn Rand has great arguments, VALID arguments against the evils of socialism...she literally experienced it for herself. Also, as I haven't read her work, if you want to share her arguments here, I, for one, would be really happy to see what she has to say. On the other hand, just posting a quote with no supporting argument behind it doesn't do anything but make you look ridiculous.

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

 

[Agit8r]

Our founding fathers actually have the first opportunity of any newly-founded governing body to consider Socialism as the general ideas were already being talked about across the pond. But these people, as you recall, were radicals of their time... they didn't want anything like Socialism, it was moving in the opposite direction and away from what they wanted to do here. They didn't want large centralized Federal power lording over the people. They wanted a society that ensured personal liberty above all else and enabled individuals the freedom to pursue their ambitions and desires through free enterprise, free market economy. They WANTED people to aspire to be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and buy expensive homes. They WANTED businesses to thrive and prosper. And guess what? It worked out brilliantly... we became the undisputed World Leaders... in pretty much everything.

Did they even have a conception of this thing called "socialism" back then?

Yes, they did. It was not yet a popular idea and there were still many aspects that were being mulled over but the ideas behind Socialist government (what would become Socialism) were being debated all across Europe.

Our founders were radicals. They were looking for a new idea... something different that hadn't been tried before. They knew they didn't want a kingdom or a feudal system. I am sure, particularly through the writings of Alex Hamilton, they considered concepts of Socialism as a radical new approach of the times. That WAS the innovative "new age" thinking of the time in Europe.

However, Madison and Jefferson along with numerous others like George Mason and Patrick Henry, were not inclined toward a system that established centralized government authority. They sought vigorously to limit that authority to the bare essentials. They wanted to take us in a bold new direction which was the exact opposite of Socialism.

Wrong

"the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. "Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of Federal powers. By these operations new channels of communications will be opened between the States, the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 6th State of the Union Address (Dec. 2, 1806)

 

[forkup]

It's not just health care. I will be able to send my kid to college for a fraction of the cost that it would be in the US.If I get fired tomorrow ill still make enough to live normal not luxurious. It gives me time to look for a new job without to much stress. If I have troubles finding a job I can do a free reschooling while i still will receive my unemployment comp. My wife when she came over got cheap language and cultural classes. Etc

Nothing is free, I hope you realize that. You enjoy being cared for by the state, we get it. We were not founded on that principle, we are/were free to win or fail as we made our way through life. It's why the USofA has been the innovating powerhouse it has been. We changed the world.

Now we are being told that we need the state to run the show so we can be as mediocre as everyone else. That doesn't sit too well with many of us, but they are busy brainwashing the youths to goose step behind the monochrome socialist drumbeat. You can see the stupidity flourish and manifest itself right here.

Of course it's not free, like I said my taxes are higher. Wat I've seen tough and tis is a republican axiom, that private sector will always be more effecient. I can say it's not. Let's look at healthcare, a healthcare company is heavily subsidised in my country with some of those taxes I talk about. It has no budget for advertising here, because it's mandotory. The payroll is way less, because we don't need pharmacy techs to call insurance companies, nobody needs to advertise. Drug prices are kept relatively low because pharmaceutical companies have an entire goverment to put pressure on them wen they try to hike up prices. In practice it means a ER visit is not for a common flu but it's for stuff that a GP can't provide ( broken bones, hearth attacks etc). Wait times in said ER Are way shorter because of it. No doctor will have a problem to provide healthcare because he might not get paid since the state guarentees to supplying of healthcare. and so on and so forth. I give you that the best medical schools are probably in the US, because you have a culture of rewarding exellence. I'm intelletually honest that way but most ppl dont need the very best healthcare wich is available they need to be able to go to a hospital that won't ask for a credit card before they willl provide the best healthcare they are ABLE to.

 

[Contumacious]

It's not just health care. I will be able to send my kid to college for a fraction of the cost that it would be in the US.If I get fired tomorrow ill still make enough to live normal not luxurious. It gives me time to look for a new job without to much stress. If I have troubles finding a job I can do a free reschooling while i still will receive my unemployment comp. My wife when she came over got cheap language and cultural classes. Etc

Nothing is free, I hope you realize that. You enjoy being cared for by the state, we get it. We were not founded on that principle, we are/were free to win or fail as we made our way through life. It's why the USofA has been the innovating powerhouse it has been. We changed the world.

Now we are being told that we need the state to run the show so we can be as mediocre as everyone else. That doesn't sit too well with many of us, but they are busy brainwashing the youths to goose step behind the monochrome socialist drumbeat. You can see the stupidity flourish and manifest itself right here.

Of course it's not free, like I said my taxes are higher. Wat I've seen tough and tis is a republican axiom, that private sector will always be more effecient. I can say it's not. Let's look at healthcare, a healthcare company is heavily subsidised in my country with some of those taxes I talk about. It has no budget for advertising here, because it's mandotory. The payroll is way less, because we don't need pharmacy techs to call insurance companies, nobody needs to advertise. Drug prices are kept relatively low because pharmaceutical companies have an entire goverment to put pressure on them wen they try to hike up prices. In practice it means a ER visit is not for a common flu but it's for stuff that a GP can't provide ( broken bones, hearth attacks etc). Wait times in said ER Are way shorter because of it. No doctor will have a problem to provide healthcare because he might not get paid since the state guarentees to supplying of healthcare. and so on and so forth. I give you that the best medical schools are probably in the US, because you have a culture of rewarding exellence. I'm intelletually honest that way but most ppl dont need the very best healthcare wich is available they need to be able to go to a hospital that won't ask for a credit card before they willl provide the best healthcare they are ABLE to.

When Libertarians refer to the private sector we mean the private sector in a FREE market economy.

In a fascistic economy like the one in the US at this time the "private" sector is heavily regulated . So they are no longer in the private sector even though the company is privately owned - de jure, the company is not in the private sector.

 

[forkup]

It's not just health care. I will be able to send my kid to college for a fraction of the cost that it would be in the US.If I get fired tomorrow ill still make enough to live normal not luxurious. It gives me time to look for a new job without to much stress. If I have troubles finding a job I can do a free reschooling while i still will receive my unemployment comp. My wife when she came over got cheap language and cultural classes. Etc

Nothing is free, I hope you realize that. You enjoy being cared for by the state, we get it. We were not founded on that principle, we are/were free to win or fail as we made our way through life. It's why the USofA has been the innovating powerhouse it has been. We changed the world.

Now we are being told that we need the state to run the show so we can be as mediocre as everyone else. That doesn't sit too well with many of us, but they are busy brainwashing the youths to goose step behind the monochrome socialist drumbeat. You can see the stupidity flourish and manifest itself right here.

Of course it's not free, like I said my taxes are higher. Wat I've seen tough and tis is a republican axiom, that private sector will always be more effecient. I can say it's not. Let's look at healthcare, a healthcare company is heavily subsidised in my country with some of those taxes I talk about. It has no budget for advertising here, because it's mandotory. The payroll is way less, because we don't need pharmacy techs to call insurance companies, nobody needs to advertise. Drug prices are kept relatively low because pharmaceutical companies have an entire goverment to put pressure on them wen they try to hike up prices. In practice it means a ER visit is not for a common flu but it's for stuff that a GP can't provide ( broken bones, hearth attacks etc). Wait times in said ER Are way shorter because of it. No doctor will have a problem to provide healthcare because he might not get paid since the state guarentees to supplying of healthcare. and so on and so forth. I give you that the best medical schools are probably in the US, because you have a culture of rewarding exellence. I'm intelletually honest that way but most ppl dont need the very best healthcare wich is available they need to be able to go to a hospital that won't ask for a credit card before they willl provide the best healthcare they are ABLE to.

When Libertarians refer to the private sector we mean the private sector in a FREE market economy.

In a fascistic economy like the one in the US at this time the "private" sector is heavily regulated . So they are no longer in the private sector even though the company is privately owned - de jure, the company is not in the private sector.

What are those heavy regulations you're talking about? The reason i say this because a saw a company hike up the price for a life saving medicine to a point were it becomes unaffordable for everybody but the ultra rich a few months ago. When you see a system that allows profit above human lives i don't see how that system is overregulated. It' s all well and good to talk about beiing a Libertarian but the cost of not regulating makes the more primal instincts of man come out. Greed, Aggression, pettiness to name a few come to mind.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's not just health care. I will be able to send my kid to college for a fraction of the cost that it would be in the US.If I get fired tomorrow ill still make enough to live normal not luxurious. It gives me time to look for a new job without to much stress. If I have troubles finding a job I can do a free reschooling while i still will receive my unemployment comp. My wife when she came over got cheap language and cultural classes. Etc

Nothing is free, I hope you realize that. You enjoy being cared for by the state, we get it. We were not founded on that principle, we are/were free to win or fail as we made our way through life. It's why the USofA has been the innovating powerhouse it has been. We changed the world.

Now we are being told that we need the state to run the show so we can be as mediocre as everyone else. That doesn't sit too well with many of us, but they are busy brainwashing the youths to goose step behind the monochrome socialist drumbeat. You can see the stupidity flourish and manifest itself right here.

Of course it's not free, like I said my taxes are higher. Wat I've seen tough and tis is a republican axiom, that private sector will always be more effecient. I can say it's not. Let's look at healthcare, a healthcare company is heavily subsidised in my country with some of those taxes I talk about. It has no budget for advertising here, because it's mandotory. The payroll is way less, because we don't need pharmacy techs to call insurance companies, nobody needs to advertise. Drug prices are kept relatively low because pharmaceutical companies have an entire goverment to put pressure on them wen they try to hike up prices. In practice it means a ER visit is not for a common flu but it's for stuff that a GP can't provide ( broken bones, hearth attacks etc). Wait times in said ER Are way shorter because of it. No doctor will have a problem to provide healthcare because he might not get paid since the state guarentees to supplying of healthcare. and so on and so forth. I give you that the best medical schools are probably in the US, because you have a culture of rewarding exellence. I'm intelletually honest that way but most ppl dont need the very best healthcare wich is available they need to be able to go to a hospital that won't ask for a credit card before they willl provide the best healthcare they are ABLE to.

You also don't have the lawsuit industry we have and no FDA that needs to approve the drugs after ten years of trials. That adds significantly to the cost of drugs. Plus with Medicaid and Medicare and caring for the uninsured, doctors and hospitals take their pound of flesh when and where they can. The red tape alone makes it necessary for US doctors to have twice the office staff of a Canadian counterpart.

We have had and probably still do have the best medical care on Earth, and it didn't happen because of socialized medicine. This is supposed to make it even better? Unlikely.

 

[Never3ndr]

You have posted nothing to show you have an expertise about the definitions of ideologies and philosophies regarding the labels you so freely toss around. The exact opposite is what you show, which is a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from right wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

You have posted nothing demonstrating your expertise either. You show a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from left wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

I have not been giving selective definitions of socialism. My argument has been that there are posters that do not recognize there are over two dozen distinct varieties of socialism. Not sure how that depends on a specific source of information or is able to be interpreted any other way. You either acknowledge that there are those differing definitions or not. Only a fool would deny the varied definitions exist or demand everyone subscribe to their definition and ignore all the other ones. Do you disagree with my comments that there are over two dozens distinct definitions to choose from?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot


So much bullshit, so little time


Socialism
¶

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


Ayn Rand

I actually haven't read Atlas Shrugged, and I hear it is a game changer.

Also, I don't want to take anything against Ayn Rand...I haven't read her work, but I hear a lot of good things about it and, whenever I get the time, I'm really interested in it.

On the other hand, nobody gets their definition of their words from Ayn Rand, and viewing socialism through one person's lens, while likely enlightening, is also limited. Now, I'm 100% sure that Ayn Rand has great arguments, VALID arguments against the evils of socialism...she literally experienced it for herself. Also, as I haven't read her work, if you want to share her arguments here, I, for one, would be really happy to see what she has to say. On the other hand, just posting a quote with no supporting argument behind it doesn't do anything but make you look ridiculous.

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

 

[forkup]

It's not just health care. I will be able to send my kid to college for a fraction of the cost that it would be in the US.If I get fired tomorrow ill still make enough to live normal not luxurious. It gives me time to look for a new job without to much stress. If I have troubles finding a job I can do a free reschooling while i still will receive my unemployment comp. My wife when she came over got cheap language and cultural classes. Etc

Nothing is free, I hope you realize that. You enjoy being cared for by the state, we get it. We were not founded on that principle, we are/were free to win or fail as we made our way through life. It's why the USofA has been the innovating powerhouse it has been. We changed the world.

Now we are being told that we need the state to run the show so we can be as mediocre as everyone else. That doesn't sit too well with many of us, but they are busy brainwashing the youths to goose step behind the monochrome socialist drumbeat. You can see the stupidity flourish and manifest itself right here.

Of course it's not free, like I said my taxes are higher. Wat I've seen tough and tis is a republican axiom, that private sector will always be more effecient. I can say it's not. Let's look at healthcare, a healthcare company is heavily subsidised in my country with some of those taxes I talk about. It has no budget for advertising here, because it's mandotory. The payroll is way less, because we don't need pharmacy techs to call insurance companies, nobody needs to advertise. Drug prices are kept relatively low because pharmaceutical companies have an entire goverment to put pressure on them wen they try to hike up prices. In practice it means a ER visit is not for a common flu but it's for stuff that a GP can't provide ( broken bones, hearth attacks etc). Wait times in said ER Are way shorter because of it. No doctor will have a problem to provide healthcare because he might not get paid since the state guarentees to supplying of healthcare. and so on and so forth. I give you that the best medical schools are probably in the US, because you have a culture of rewarding exellence. I'm intelletually honest that way but most ppl dont need the very best healthcare wich is available they need to be able to go to a hospital that won't ask for a credit card before they willl provide the best healthcare they are ABLE to.

You also don't have the lawsuit industry we have and no FDA that needs to approve the drugs after ten years of trials. That adds significantly to the cost of drugs. Plus with Medicaid and Medicare and caring for the uninsured, doctors and hospitals take their pound of flesh when and where they can. The red tape alone makes it necessary for US doctors to have twice the office staff of a Canadian counterpart.

We have had and probably still do have the best medical care on Earth, and it didn't happen because of socialized medicine. This is supposed to make it even better? Unlikely.

I already said, and this is an assumption on my end that the top in the medical field probably is in te states. Having said that most ppl don't need the top end in the medical field,general healthcare that takes care of 99 percent of the populous is more then sufficient, especially because unlike in my country quite a large percentage of your populous has no health insurance and lack anything but the most basic healthcare and with basic i mean stabilize and get out. Now, when you say better i think a system where everybody is covered is better then a system where not everybody is; Or am I'm missing something?

 

[Lakhota]

Did Millennials Not Learn About Socialism?

Yes, they did. They obviously know more about it than older Conservatives.

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

 

[forkup]

You have posted nothing demonstrating your expertise either. You show a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from left wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

I have not been giving selective definitions of socialism. My argument has been that there are posters that do not recognize there are over two dozen distinct varieties of socialism. Not sure how that depends on a specific source of information or is able to be interpreted any other way. You either acknowledge that there are those differing definitions or not. Only a fool would deny the varied definitions exist or demand everyone subscribe to their definition and ignore all the other ones. Do you disagree with my comments that there are over two dozens distinct definitions to choose from?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot


So much bullshit, so little time


Socialism
¶

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


Ayn Rand

I actually haven't read Atlas Shrugged, and I hear it is a game changer.

Also, I don't want to take anything against Ayn Rand...I haven't read her work, but I hear a lot of good things about it and, whenever I get the time, I'm really interested in it.

On the other hand, nobody gets their definition of their words from Ayn Rand, and viewing socialism through one person's lens, while likely enlightening, is also limited. Now, I'm 100% sure that Ayn Rand has great arguments, VALID arguments against the evils of socialism...she literally experienced it for herself. Also, as I haven't read her work, if you want to share her arguments here, I, for one, would be really happy to see what she has to say. On the other hand, just posting a quote with no supporting argument behind it doesn't do anything but make you look ridiculous.

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

You have posted nothing demonstrating your expertise either. You show a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from left wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

I have not been giving selective definitions of socialism. My argument has been that there are posters that do not recognize there are over two dozen distinct varieties of socialism. Not sure how that depends on a specific source of information or is able to be interpreted any other way. You either acknowledge that there are those differing definitions or not. Only a fool would deny the varied definitions exist or demand everyone subscribe to their definition and ignore all the other ones. Do you disagree with my comments that there are over two dozens distinct definitions to choose from?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot


So much bullshit, so little time


Socialism
¶

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


Ayn Rand

I actually haven't read Atlas Shrugged, and I hear it is a game changer.

Also, I don't want to take anything against Ayn Rand...I haven't read her work, but I hear a lot of good things about it and, whenever I get the time, I'm really interested in it.

On the other hand, nobody gets their definition of their words from Ayn Rand, and viewing socialism through one person's lens, while likely enlightening, is also limited. Now, I'm 100% sure that Ayn Rand has great arguments, VALID arguments against the evils of socialism...she literally experienced it for herself. Also, as I haven't read her work, if you want to share her arguments here, I, for one, would be really happy to see what she has to say. On the other hand, just posting a quote with no supporting argument behind it doesn't do anything but make you look ridiculous.

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][11][12]

Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms.[13] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of an economic mechanism based on engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind for factor markets, money and the accumulation of capital; therefore functioning according to differenteconomic laws than those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with the profit system.[22] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices and factor markets for the allocation of capital goods between socially-owned enterprises and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to their operation. Profits would either accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend or directly to the workforce of each firm.[23][24][25] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

This is the definition i found on wikipedia. Now its no Ayn Rand but can we agree it's probably a more mainstream definition. I feel that socialism and communim gets interchanged alot. It's not the same. I've had quite a few arguments on here over it, but I live in 1 of the variants and I can say I have a decent live.

 

[georgephillip]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others

Where did you go to school?
Have you ever seen this before?

Just as capitalism followed feudalism, socialism follows capitalism; don't take it personally. It is simply history regardless of how much money some parasites have "earned" from "owning" the means of production.

 

[bripat9643]

I have not been giving selective definitions of socialism. My argument has been that there are posters that do not recognize there are over two dozen distinct varieties of socialism. Not sure how that depends on a specific source of information or is able to be interpreted any other way. You either acknowledge that there are those differing definitions or not. Only a fool would deny the varied definitions exist or demand everyone subscribe to their definition and ignore all the other ones. Do you disagree with my comments that there are over two dozens distinct definitions to choose from?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot


So much bullshit, so little time


Socialism
¶

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


Ayn Rand

I actually haven't read Atlas Shrugged, and I hear it is a game changer.

Also, I don't want to take anything against Ayn Rand...I haven't read her work, but I hear a lot of good things about it and, whenever I get the time, I'm really interested in it.

On the other hand, nobody gets their definition of their words from Ayn Rand, and viewing socialism through one person's lens, while likely enlightening, is also limited. Now, I'm 100% sure that Ayn Rand has great arguments, VALID arguments against the evils of socialism...she literally experienced it for herself. Also, as I haven't read her work, if you want to share her arguments here, I, for one, would be really happy to see what she has to say. On the other hand, just posting a quote with no supporting argument behind it doesn't do anything but make you look ridiculous.

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

I have not been giving selective definitions of socialism. My argument has been that there are posters that do not recognize there are over two dozen distinct varieties of socialism. Not sure how that depends on a specific source of information or is able to be interpreted any other way. You either acknowledge that there are those differing definitions or not. Only a fool would deny the varied definitions exist or demand everyone subscribe to their definition and ignore all the other ones. Do you disagree with my comments that there are over two dozens distinct definitions to choose from?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot


So much bullshit, so little time


Socialism
¶

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


Ayn Rand

I actually haven't read Atlas Shrugged, and I hear it is a game changer.

Also, I don't want to take anything against Ayn Rand...I haven't read her work, but I hear a lot of good things about it and, whenever I get the time, I'm really interested in it.

On the other hand, nobody gets their definition of their words from Ayn Rand, and viewing socialism through one person's lens, while likely enlightening, is also limited. Now, I'm 100% sure that Ayn Rand has great arguments, VALID arguments against the evils of socialism...she literally experienced it for herself. Also, as I haven't read her work, if you want to share her arguments here, I, for one, would be really happy to see what she has to say. On the other hand, just posting a quote with no supporting argument behind it doesn't do anything but make you look ridiculous.

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][11][12]

Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms.[13] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of an economic mechanism based on engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind for factor markets, money and the accumulation of capital; therefore functioning according to differenteconomic laws than those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with the profit system.[22] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices and factor markets for the allocation of capital goods between socially-owned enterprises and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to their operation. Profits would either accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend or directly to the workforce of each firm.[23][24][25] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

This is the definition i found on wikipedia. Now its no Ayn Rand but can we agree it's probably a more mainstream definition. I feel that socialism and communim gets interchanged alot. It's not the same. I've had quite a few arguments on here over it, but I live in 1 of the variants and I can say I have a decent live.

There's no requirement for democratic control. Socialism is an economic system. The only thing that distinguishes it from capitalism is government control vs private control. Any other features claimed to be necessary are leftwing propaganda, not economics.

 

[bripat9643]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others

Where did you go to school?
Have you ever seen this before?

Just as capitalism followed feudalism, socialism follows capitalism; don't take it personally. It is simply history regardless of how much money some parasites have "earned" from "owning" the means of production.

After communism comes mass starvation and death.

 

[forkup]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot


So much bullshit, so little time


Socialism
¶

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


Ayn Rand

I actually haven't read Atlas Shrugged, and I hear it is a game changer.

Also, I don't want to take anything against Ayn Rand...I haven't read her work, but I hear a lot of good things about it and, whenever I get the time, I'm really interested in it.

On the other hand, nobody gets their definition of their words from Ayn Rand, and viewing socialism through one person's lens, while likely enlightening, is also limited. Now, I'm 100% sure that Ayn Rand has great arguments, VALID arguments against the evils of socialism...she literally experienced it for herself. Also, as I haven't read her work, if you want to share her arguments here, I, for one, would be really happy to see what she has to say. On the other hand, just posting a quote with no supporting argument behind it doesn't do anything but make you look ridiculous.

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot


So much bullshit, so little time


Socialism
¶

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


Ayn Rand

I actually haven't read Atlas Shrugged, and I hear it is a game changer.

Also, I don't want to take anything against Ayn Rand...I haven't read her work, but I hear a lot of good things about it and, whenever I get the time, I'm really interested in it.

On the other hand, nobody gets their definition of their words from Ayn Rand, and viewing socialism through one person's lens, while likely enlightening, is also limited. Now, I'm 100% sure that Ayn Rand has great arguments, VALID arguments against the evils of socialism...she literally experienced it for herself. Also, as I haven't read her work, if you want to share her arguments here, I, for one, would be really happy to see what she has to say. On the other hand, just posting a quote with no supporting argument behind it doesn't do anything but make you look ridiculous.

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][11][12]

Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms.[13] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of an economic mechanism based on engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind for factor markets, money and the accumulation of capital; therefore functioning according to differenteconomic laws than those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with the profit system.[22] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices and factor markets for the allocation of capital goods between socially-owned enterprises and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to their operation. Profits would either accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend or directly to the workforce of each firm.[23][24][25] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

This is the definition i found on wikipedia. Now its no Ayn Rand but can we agree it's probably a more mainstream definition. I feel that socialism and communim gets interchanged alot. It's not the same. I've had quite a few arguments on here over it, but I live in 1 of the variants and I can say I have a decent live.

There's no requirement for democratic control. Socialism is an economic system. The only thing that distinguishes it from capitalism is government control vs private control. Any other features claimed to be necessary are leftwing propaganda, not economics.

See there is democratic control, I live in a parlamentary democracy.It's also not stagnant every election cycle depending on who gets to be in power the argument shift from greater state control to less; For instance atm in the governement the right wing has taken control. Causing a more business friendly set of rules. Hollowing out our social programs a bit. Next cycle it will probaly shift again. Having said that our most rigt wing politician would still be on the left of Obama to put a name on it.

 

[bripat9643]

I actually haven't read Atlas Shrugged, and I hear it is a game changer.

Also, I don't want to take anything against Ayn Rand...I haven't read her work, but I hear a lot of good things about it and, whenever I get the time, I'm really interested in it.

On the other hand, nobody gets their definition of their words from Ayn Rand, and viewing socialism through one person's lens, while likely enlightening, is also limited. Now, I'm 100% sure that Ayn Rand has great arguments, VALID arguments against the evils of socialism...she literally experienced it for herself. Also, as I haven't read her work, if you want to share her arguments here, I, for one, would be really happy to see what she has to say. On the other hand, just posting a quote with no supporting argument behind it doesn't do anything but make you look ridiculous.

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

I actually haven't read Atlas Shrugged, and I hear it is a game changer.

Also, I don't want to take anything against Ayn Rand...I haven't read her work, but I hear a lot of good things about it and, whenever I get the time, I'm really interested in it.

On the other hand, nobody gets their definition of their words from Ayn Rand, and viewing socialism through one person's lens, while likely enlightening, is also limited. Now, I'm 100% sure that Ayn Rand has great arguments, VALID arguments against the evils of socialism...she literally experienced it for herself. Also, as I haven't read her work, if you want to share her arguments here, I, for one, would be really happy to see what she has to say. On the other hand, just posting a quote with no supporting argument behind it doesn't do anything but make you look ridiculous.

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][11][12]

Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms.[13] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of an economic mechanism based on engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind for factor markets, money and the accumulation of capital; therefore functioning according to differenteconomic laws than those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with the profit system.[22] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices and factor markets for the allocation of capital goods between socially-owned enterprises and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to their operation. Profits would either accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend or directly to the workforce of each firm.[23][24][25] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

This is the definition i found on wikipedia. Now its no Ayn Rand but can we agree it's probably a more mainstream definition. I feel that socialism and communim gets interchanged alot. It's not the same. I've had quite a few arguments on here over it, but I live in 1 of the variants and I can say I have a decent live.

There's no requirement for democratic control. Socialism is an economic system. The only thing that distinguishes it from capitalism is government control vs private control. Any other features claimed to be necessary are leftwing propaganda, not economics.

See there is democratic control, I live in a parlamentary democracy.It's also not stagnant every election cycle depending on who gets to be in power the argument shift from greater state control to less; For instance atm in the governement the right wing has taken control. Causing a more business friendly set of rules. Hollowing out our social programs a bit. Next cycle it will probaly shift again. Having said that our most rigt wing politician would still be on the left of Obama to put a name on it.

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

 

[regent]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others

Where did you go to school?
Have you ever seen this before?

Just as capitalism followed feudalism, socialism follows capitalism; don't take it personally. It is simply history regardless of how much money some parasites have "earned" from "owning" the means of production.

It is not history, it is Marx's take off of Hegel, In short, Marx's "dialectical materialism.
According to Marx, of the various types of socialism, only one type of socialism, "Scientific Socialism," created by Marx, would follow capitalism. It never came to pass. Capitalism underwent many changes, such as regulation, labor unions, socialism, and so forth and capitalism became the number one economic system of industrial nations.

 

[Never3ndr]

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

I'm pretty sure that nobody argues that Community China or the USSR were socialist. Nobody is arguing that they both were economic failures either. Additionally, nobody (that I've seen here) is saying that socialist structures as implemented by those failures are good or that they are what we should be looking to do. So, other than being disingenuous...why even bring them up?

What people are pointing out is that countries like Canada, Norway, or New Zealand have have exceptionally large socialist programs and that, those countries and others like them, they seem to be doing quite well. If you want to have a discussion related to anything anybody here is talking about...please refer to what people are actually talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others

Where did you go to school?
Have you ever seen this before?

Just as capitalism followed feudalism, socialism follows capitalism; don't take it personally. It is simply history regardless of how much money some parasites have "earned" from "owning" the means of production.

It is not history, it is Marx's take off of Hegel, In short, Marx's "dialectical materialism.
According to Marx, of the various types of socialism, only one type of socialism, "Scientific Socialism," created by Marx, would follow capitalism. It never came to pass. Capitalism underwent many changes, such as regulation, labor unions, socialism, and so forth and capitalism became the number one economic system of industrial nations.

There have never been any non-capitalist industrial nations.

 

[forkup]

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][11][12]

Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms.[13] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of an economic mechanism based on engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind for factor markets, money and the accumulation of capital; therefore functioning according to differenteconomic laws than those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with the profit system.[22] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices and factor markets for the allocation of capital goods between socially-owned enterprises and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to their operation. Profits would either accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend or directly to the workforce of each firm.[23][24][25] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

This is the definition i found on wikipedia. Now its no Ayn Rand but can we agree it's probably a more mainstream definition. I feel that socialism and communim gets interchanged alot. It's not the same. I've had quite a few arguments on here over it, but I live in 1 of the variants and I can say I have a decent live.

There's no requirement for democratic control. Socialism is an economic system. The only thing that distinguishes it from capitalism is government control vs private control. Any other features claimed to be necessary are leftwing propaganda, not economics.

See there is democratic control, I live in a parlamentary democracy.It's also not stagnant every election cycle depending on who gets to be in power the argument shift from greater state control to less; For instance atm in the governement the right wing has taken control. Causing a more business friendly set of rules. Hollowing out our social programs a bit. Next cycle it will probaly shift again. Having said that our most rigt wing politician would still be on the left of Obama to put a name on it.

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

It is your responsibility as an American to keep yourself well informed.


Knowledge is power.

I have learned a great deal from Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Murray Newton Rothbard.

So if you really want to make the right decision read this publication first

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

It was instrumental in changing my life when I read it in 1979.


.

I'll be honest, I haven't even heard of that work by her. As far as Rand is concerned, Atlas Shrugged is still going to be the 1st thing I tackle, but I'll definitely put this on my radar. Thanks!

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][11][12]

Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market forms.[13] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of an economic mechanism based on engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind for factor markets, money and the accumulation of capital; therefore functioning according to differenteconomic laws than those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with the profit system.[22] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices and factor markets for the allocation of capital goods between socially-owned enterprises and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to their operation. Profits would either accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend or directly to the workforce of each firm.[23][24][25] The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.

This is the definition i found on wikipedia. Now its no Ayn Rand but can we agree it's probably a more mainstream definition. I feel that socialism and communim gets interchanged alot. It's not the same. I've had quite a few arguments on here over it, but I live in 1 of the variants and I can say I have a decent live.

There's no requirement for democratic control. Socialism is an economic system. The only thing that distinguishes it from capitalism is government control vs private control. Any other features claimed to be necessary are leftwing propaganda, not economics.

See there is democratic control, I live in a parlamentary democracy.It's also not stagnant every election cycle depending on who gets to be in power the argument shift from greater state control to less; For instance atm in the governement the right wing has taken control. Causing a more business friendly set of rules. Hollowing out our social programs a bit. Next cycle it will probaly shift again. Having said that our most rigt wing politician would still be on the left of Obama to put a name on it.

What's your point? Communist China and the Soviet Union were both socialist. Any claims to the contrary are pure moonshine.

You just made my point. Both those countries are/where communist. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist for instance, I'm very sure he doesn't suggest to pray to the ghost of Lenin. He just tries to make ppl see that there is something more possible then the capatilism without restrictions system wich is in place now. But its exactly the fact that socialist and communist apperently mean the same thing to large segments of the population that prevents any rational discussion on the subject. All the republicans have to do is use the word socialist and the picture that springs to mind for most ppl is bread lines, economic stagnation, tanks driving over peacefull protesters,etc. And that's the great lie.