Dims love socialism, but only because they don't know what it is

[night_son]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

A fascinating tidbit for forum consumption:

Lenin, and later Stalin and subsequent USSR communist party leaders, based the social and governmental structure of the Soviet Union's flavor of State Socialism become communism directly on the fictional society in Thomas Moore's novel Utopia first published in 1516. That's right friends, tens of millions of people were slaughtered, imprisoned and otherwise oppressed into the dust of history because a few mad men tried to recreate with the only lives these masses of victims would ever have, a paradisiacal fairy tale civilization. See, Marx and Engels and others provided homicidally angry young men such as Lenin with the idea and the philosophy, however, their derived real world implementation had to be looked for elsewhere. And what better place to find means of implementing heaven on Earth than in the pages of a novel?

In Moore's Utopia all women were communalized for use by all the men. Entire masses of Utopian citizens were relocated and rotated (sound familiar Mr. Pot?) from the fields to the cities on a regular cycle. Agricultural work or working in the fields was mandatory. Private property did not exist--was forbidden-- and even the Utopian's house was not his own, as he traded it up with the neighbor's every ten years. Movement outside of neighborhoods and between cities was restricted and doing so required a writ of passage issued from a high "Prince". And last but not least, guess who performed the bulk of the labor--you know the menial work--of society . . . wait for it . . . slaves. But they were not chattel slaves, no sir. In Moore's Utopia, and later in every socio-communist nation since, the slaves were state owned workers. Please do allow that to sink in.

It goes back further than that, to Plato's "Republic" where he set up the ideal society with masterminds to run everything. Luckily, Plato had enough sense to know that it would never work.

In fact, the ideas of Marx are arguably older than dirt, yet today they are referred to as "Progressive".

Indeed. We could go back all the way to 392 BCE, to Aristophanes play: The Congresswomen to find the ideological roots of Socialism in the literary comedy of antiquity.

 

[Votto]

I've already given the definition to socialism.

If you have more to add feel free.

New York elect a socialis

So that person is advocating government own industry?

Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.

I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

I do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.

So is such fear regarding socialized medicine warranted or is it all due to taking in propaganda in your opinion?

First this question because it's shorter. I can't speak for all socialized medicine just for my country so keep that in mind. My health care system is 50 percent cheaper as a percentage of GDP. In actual money the difference would be even more extreme.Current health expenditure (% of GDP) | Data
We accomplish this by taking the for profit motive out of the system. In my experience which goes in both the US and Belgium we provide more and better service both in quickness and result. This of course is anecdotal, since like I said I can't speak for every country.

Well there is no doubt that socialized medicine can keep costs down. After all, North Korea I'm sure spends precious little caring for their citizens even though everyone has access to "health care" there.

But should that be our focus? For the Progressive, it is the only focus it seems.



As seen in the video above, before the passing of Obamacare, they wish to reduce costs by limiting treatment.

And the US has seen this in socialized care for US war Veterans. In the US, veterans in Arizona were put on secret "do not treat" lists because they were too sick and expensive to treat.

Overall, from what I can gather, socialized health care seems better so long as what you need is not emergent and does not need expensive treatments. For example, many come to the US from socialized health care around the world to obtain special treatments that are needed quickly and are expensive, mostly regarding cancer. Cancer outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality is far higher in socialized health care than in the US because in the US you tend to get treated quicker and with more expensive treatments.

 

[forkup]

Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.

I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.

For the same reason that you are trying to make the point that Bernie, or that person in New York, or by extension the entire Democratic Party wants to be Socialists, by which you want to imply Communist. By keeping the terms confused you hope to be able to stir up that same McCarthy fear regent was referring to. I'm not sure you're even aware that that's what you're doing.

It is true that Communism was demonized for a great number of years because of Stalin and the Cold war.

It is also arguable that socialists were also demonized because the Nazi Party claimed to be socialists.

So do you think that fear of either ideology is warranted considering their historical records?

That's a hard question to answer on a message board but I'll attempt it. It's going to take a bit so don't think I'm dodging.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

-In my view Communism used the concepts of Marxism and used them not as they were intended, meaning as a way for the entire population to share the resources of the country. Instead they used them as a justification for the Politburo and the Communist Party to hold sway over the Russian population. Also in my view straight up Communism is unworkable. It's a concept that disregards some basic truths. People aren't all equal in ability or work ethic, by in essence disregarding those differences and forcing people to both contribute and share the fruits of their labor completely disregarding the relative value of the contribution, they created a system that was both corrupt and required a way to self delude itself as such it inevitable collapsed in on itself. As an answer to your question, no we shouldn't fear Communism because of the ideology. We should fear it because of it's instability. Leaders of powerful but unstable countries are dangerous, cause the temptation is always there to try to mask that instability by attacking a foe they can blame.
- This brings me to the Nazi's. The Nazi's WERE socialist but that fact didn't cause them to be assholes. They were assholes because of the FIRST word of their party name, National. As in nationalists. They weren't more socialist then the other countries of Europe. What they were was a big powerful country, with an immoral government and a huge chip on their shoulder. Because of the fact that they were nationalists they felt that they had a RIGHT to do whatever they wanted. Call it Germany First. Because of that they didn't feel hindered by such things as international agreements or diplomacy. If this feels familiar, it's because it is meant to feel that way by the way.
- Socialism has given the world universal suffrage, a banning of child labor, and all social programs that prevent the weakest among us from getting in a situation they won't be able to get out of. The 2 examples you gave are not a result of Socialism, but rather countries that had a form of socialism and had national interests that were detrimental to the world

 

[forkup]

So that person is advocating government own industry?
I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

I do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.

So is such fear regarding socialized medicine warranted or is it all due to taking in propaganda in your opinion?

First this question because it's shorter. I can't speak for all socialized medicine just for my country so keep that in mind. My health care system is 50 percent cheaper as a percentage of GDP. In actual money the difference would be even more extreme.Current health expenditure (% of GDP) | Data
We accomplish this by taking the for profit motive out of the system. In my experience which goes in both the US and Belgium we provide more and better service both in quickness and result. This of course is anecdotal, since like I said I can't speak for every country.

Well there is no doubt that socialized medicine can keep costs down. After all, North Korea I'm sure spends precious little caring for their citizens even though everyone has access to "health care" there.

But should that be our focus? For the Progressive, it is the only focus it seems.



As seen in the video above, before the passing of Obamacare, they wish to reduce costs by limiting treatment.

And the US has seen this in socialized care for US war Veterans. In the US, veterans in Arizona were put on secret "do not treat" lists because they were too sick and expensive to treat.

Overall, from what I can gather, socialized health care seems better so long as what you need is not emergent and does not need expensive treatments. For example, many come to the US from socialized health care around the world to obtain special treatments that are needed quickly and are expensive, mostly regarding cancer. Cancer outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality is far higher in socialized health care than in the US because in the US you tend to get treated quicker and with more expensive treatments.

Well there is no doubt that socialized medicine can keep costs down. After all, North Korea I'm sure spends precious little caring for their citizens

You don't think that's a false equivalent? I'm talking about MY country and we do care about our people. We live longer and are in general healthier. NOT anecdotal but rather a statement of fact. Bringing up N-Korea is simply a dishonest argument.

 

[Mac1958]

Here we go again.

The current use of the term is meant to describe Euro-social Democracies. I think that's a bad idea, because it allows the Right to dishonestly (or naively) conflate social democracy with actual socialism, but it is what it is.
.

While your are correct in rolling eyes at and highlighting the distinction between contemporarily branded American Democratic Socialism and the historically, severely misunderstood political-philosophical ideology of Marxist-Leninist Socialism implemented repeatedly last century as State Socialism to murderous effect, there are those currently calling for, on the American radical Left, much steeper American descent into socialist hell than the tame by comparison economic infrastructural interventionism in the form of universal healthcare and education. Thus the importance of what you deem the Alarmist movement currently unfolding on the American Right. Despite yours and others here and in the media downplaying of the conflation of Democratic Socialism as boys crying wolf, historically, there is a damn good precedent for doing so.

There are zealots on both ends of this argument, from communists to pure libertarians.

Both pollute their parties, and both parties are afraid to distance themselves, even though they know those people are kooks.

The best we can do is marginalize them. They won't be part of any constructive conversation.
.

 

[forkup]

Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.

I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.

For the same reason that you are trying to make the point that Bernie, or that person in New York, or by extension the entire Democratic Party wants to be Socialists, by which you want to imply Communist. By keeping the terms confused you hope to be able to stir up that same McCarthy fear regent was referring to. I'm not sure you're even aware that that's what you're doing.

It is true that Communism was demonized for a great number of years because of Stalin and the Cold war.

It is also arguable that socialists were also demonized because the Nazi Party claimed to be socialists.

So do you think that fear of either ideology is warranted considering their historical records?

That's a hard question to answer on a message board but I'll attempt it. It's going to take a bit so don't think I'm dodging.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Seems you aren't very interested in showing yours.

 

[regent]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

Perhaps you can define Socialism and it's definitions?

Wiki is our friend.

Perhaps Dims don't have access to it.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production

Damn, and I was hoping it was something bad.

 

[Timmy]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

Perhaps you can define Socialism and it's definitions?

Wiki is our friend.

Perhaps Dims don't have access to it.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production

Pin this to the board for every con who starts a “socialism bla bla bla “ thread .

 

[Votto]

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

I do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.

So is such fear regarding socialized medicine warranted or is it all due to taking in propaganda in your opinion?

First this question because it's shorter. I can't speak for all socialized medicine just for my country so keep that in mind. My health care system is 50 percent cheaper as a percentage of GDP. In actual money the difference would be even more extreme.Current health expenditure (% of GDP) | Data
We accomplish this by taking the for profit motive out of the system. In my experience which goes in both the US and Belgium we provide more and better service both in quickness and result. This of course is anecdotal, since like I said I can't speak for every country.

Well there is no doubt that socialized medicine can keep costs down. After all, North Korea I'm sure spends precious little caring for their citizens even though everyone has access to "health care" there.

But should that be our focus? For the Progressive, it is the only focus it seems.



As seen in the video above, before the passing of Obamacare, they wish to reduce costs by limiting treatment.

And the US has seen this in socialized care for US war Veterans. In the US, veterans in Arizona were put on secret "do not treat" lists because they were too sick and expensive to treat.

Overall, from what I can gather, socialized health care seems better so long as what you need is not emergent and does not need expensive treatments. For example, many come to the US from socialized health care around the world to obtain special treatments that are needed quickly and are expensive, mostly regarding cancer. Cancer outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality is far higher in socialized health care than in the US because in the US you tend to get treated quicker and with more expensive treatments.

Well there is no doubt that socialized medicine can keep costs down. After all, North Korea I'm sure spends precious little caring for their citizens

You don't think that's a false equivalent? I'm talking about MY country and we do care about our people. We live longer and are in general healthier. NOT anecdotal but rather a statement of fact. Bringing up N-Korea is simply a dishonest argument.

Why is brining North Korea into the conversation dishonest? What is dishonest is to call your country a socialist country when NK is really a socialist country. Granted, you may have socialized medicine but so does NK. This is important because when health care is socialized, it is up to the government to provide it. All governments vary from election to election. Not knowing what to expect then becomes an issue, and watching government spending sky rocket, like in the US, is very disconcerting. I mean, how can the government continue to function and provide decent health care with escalating debt like that?

I know, I know, you don't live in the US, but what will happen to YOUR country if the US does? No longer will your country just be concerned with health care. You will then have other issues to worry about such as defending yourself from Putin, etc. For it is the US military has been a type of socialized entitlement to ensure the freedom of Western Europe from the USSR and Putin.

 

[Votto]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

Perhaps you can define Socialism and it's definitions?

Wiki is our friend.

Perhaps Dims don't have access to it.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production

Damn, and I was hoping it was something bad.

All you have to do is look at countries who implement it like Venezuela and NK.

 

[regent]

s

Here we go again.

The current use of the term is meant to describe Euro-social Democracies. I think that's a bad idea, because it allows the Right to dishonestly (or naively) conflate social democracy with actual socialism, but it is what it is.
.

While your are correct in rolling eyes at and highlighting the distinction between contemporarily branded American Democratic Socialism and the historically, severely misunderstood political-philosophical ideology of Marxist-Leninist Socialism implemented repeatedly last century as State Socialism to murderous effect, there are those currently calling for, on the American radical Left, much steeper American descent into socialist hell than the tame by comparison economic infrastructural interventionism in the form of universal healthcare and education. Thus the importance of what you deem the Alarmist movement currently unfolding on the American Right. Despite yours and others here and in the media downplaying of the conflation of Democratic Socialism as boys crying wolf, historically, there is a damn good precedent for doing so.

There are zealots on both ends of this argument, from communists to pure libertarians.

Both pollute their parties, and both parties are afraid to distance themselves, even though they know those people are kooks.

The best we can do is marginalize them. They won't be part of any constructive conversation.
.

Perhaps a better way

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

Perhaps you can define Socialism and it's definitions?

Wiki is our friend.

Perhaps Dims don't have access to it.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production

Damn, and I was hoping it was something bad.

All you have to do is look at countries who implement it like Venezuela and NK.

So who brought socialism to Germany and why?

 

[Rustic]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

Perhaps you can define Socialism and it's definitions?

Lol
Socialism always has to be forced on people that want nothing to do with it, cannot benefit from it, cannot afford it and will never use it so shut the fuck up

 

[Rustic]

Does anyone have an inkling of how many types of socialism have existed or exist today?

Keep your fucking socialism to yourselves, leave the rest of us out of it

 

[Rustic]

s

Here we go again.

The current use of the term is meant to describe Euro-social Democracies. I think that's a bad idea, because it allows the Right to dishonestly (or naively) conflate social democracy with actual socialism, but it is what it is.
.

While your are correct in rolling eyes at and highlighting the distinction between contemporarily branded American Democratic Socialism and the historically, severely misunderstood political-philosophical ideology of Marxist-Leninist Socialism implemented repeatedly last century as State Socialism to murderous effect, there are those currently calling for, on the American radical Left, much steeper American descent into socialist hell than the tame by comparison economic infrastructural interventionism in the form of universal healthcare and education. Thus the importance of what you deem the Alarmist movement currently unfolding on the American Right. Despite yours and others here and in the media downplaying of the conflation of Democratic Socialism as boys crying wolf, historically, there is a damn good precedent for doing so.

There are zealots on both ends of this argument, from communists to pure libertarians.

Both pollute their parties, and both parties are afraid to distance themselves, even though they know those people are kooks.

The best we can do is marginalize them. They won't be part of any constructive conversation.
.

Perhaps a better way

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

Perhaps you can define Socialism and it's definitions?

Wiki is our friend.

Perhaps Dims don't have access to it.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production

Damn, and I was hoping it was something bad.

All you have to do is look at countries who implement it like Venezuela and NK.

So who brought socialism to Germany and why?

Karl Marx

 

[Rustic]

Does anyone have an inkling of how many types of socialism have existed or exist today?

The media and education system is pretty tight lipped about such things.

Wonder why.

Not even our politicians seem to know or care.

Of the many many types of socialism, how many are designed to lead into communism?
Is German Socialism the same as Christian Socialism?

Lol
Any form of socialism is fucked up, it forces people that want nothing to do with into it. It is evil to the core so shut the fuck up

 

[Rustic]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.

Like I said keep your fucking socialism to yourselves leave the rest of us out of it

 

[Rustic]

Does anyone have an inkling of how many types of socialism have existed or exist today?

The media and education system is pretty tight lipped about such things.

Wonder why.

Not even our politicians seem to know or care.

If politicians and citizens knew of socialism. it could no longer be used to scare citizens. But there are political science classes that cover those subjects, unfortunately those that fear certain subjects do not take classes that inform.

Lol
Socialism only suits control freaks so shut the fuck up

 

[Rustic]

Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.

Lol
I’d rather die than live under socialism, it’s pure evil and it fucks up everything it touches that’s why it’s a 100% failure over the countless times it’s been tried so shut the fuck up

 

[Rustic]

Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.

That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.

Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.

After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.

Are you fearful that you will be sold Marxism?

Lol
Like I said socialism only suits control freak so shut the fuck up

 

[Rustic]

Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.

That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.

Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.

After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.

Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.

LOL socialism only suits control freaks so shut the fuck up