If socialism is so great, why has almost every country that tried it abandoned it?

[DOTR]

When did Wall Street start advocating for that? Well, they have long supported terminating western morality when it comes to them.

Wall Street is the primary driver of leftism in this country. And corporations have been attacking the family and gender roles for years...the better to breed serfs and minimum wage slaves.

 

[pknopp]

It is not a coincidence that advocates for "free stuff" also want to tear down gender roles and terminate traditional western morality.

I agree! Its time everyone noticed that socialism is always paired with a war on morality and the family.

What's

It is not a coincidence that advocates for "free stuff" also want to tear down gender roles and terminate traditional western morality.

I agree! Its time everyone noticed that socialism is always paired with a war on morality and the family.

What is sad is that the idea of a single mother working as a waitress having the ability to go see a doctor when she needs to is immoral.

 

[DOTR]

What is sad is that the idea of a single mother working as a waitress having the ability to go see a doctor when she needs to is immoral.

Sure..after you create an army of "single working mothers".

 

[pknopp]

What is sad is that the idea of a single mother working as a waitress having the ability to go see a doctor when she needs to is immoral.

Sure..after you create an army of "single working mothers".

No idea what that means or how it addressed what I said. I doubt you do either.

 

[danielpalos]

It is not a coincidence that advocates for "free stuff" also want to tear down gender roles and terminate traditional western morality.

I agree! Its time everyone noticed that socialism is always paired with a war on morality and the family.

Unlike Capitalism?

Socialism requires social morals for free.

Capitalism requires capital morals for a market friendly price.

 

[bodecea]

Half the world used to be socialist, but now people in those countries have abandoned socialism and are now enjoying the fruits of the capitalist system.

Why should the United States convert to a system that's a proven failure?

Let's tell Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC that if they like socialism so much, they can move to Cuba.

Israel is socialist...Norway is socialist. The UK is socialist....New Zealand is socialist....Canada is socialist....Sweden is socialist....just a few.....

 

[bodecea]

When the government is the sole provider of health care, it literally controls every aspect of your life.

So, you don't like the government of Israel.

 

[bodecea]

How the fuck are you defining socialism? Universal healthcare = socialism ? Ok, Canada has that . Are they Venezuela?

Same with Israel....

 

[bodecea]

It isn`t socialism that people are fleeing from in Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, etc.

No.

 

[bodecea]

Why should the United States convert to a system that's a proven failure?

Are you guys still unaware of how the Left uses the term "socialism"?

Still?

Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway are still there. They haven't gone anywhere. They're doing okay, and their wealth disparities are lower. I'd bet their consumption of anti-depressants is lower. They operate under a different equilibrium between capitalism and socialism.

At what point do you guys allow this to sink in? Will this EVER sink in?
.

Boomers on both sides of the aisle generally don't know what actual socialism is. Younger generations do and they love it.

Are you saying, then, that you now understand what we're talking about here?
.

Socialism is NOT high corporate taxes and taxpayer funded trash collection.

Actual socialism is often confused with communism. It is the authoritarian left political system necessary to transition into rainbows and puppies actual communism: the classless society.

Nope.

 

[bodecea]

Half the world used to be socialist, but now people in those countries have abandoned socialism and are now enjoying the fruits of the capitalist system.

Why should the United States convert to a system that's a proven failure?

Let's tell Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC that if they like socialism so much, they can move to Cuba.

Every nation on Earth, including the US, is socialist to some degree.

Heres a fun fact: as much as you asshats like to cherry pick examples of failed socialist states like Venezuela, you should know that Venezuela has a private economy.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You sure are funny!

I noticed how well you addressed the topic.

 

[danielpalos]

A lack of Quantum Computing supremacy.

 

[Lesh]

When the government is the sole provider of health care, it literally controls every aspect of your life.

So any nation that fits that description is socialist?

Oddly there are many that do and they have not "abandoned" anything.

You're arguing against yourself

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

 

[pknopp]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

 

[Timmy]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

Why don’t you define “socialism” and give some examples . Cause you Cons don’t seem to have a grasp of the term.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

Which capitalists? And by "capitalist", do you mean people who believe in the free market, or like, an early 1900's factory owner?

 

[Mac1958]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

Canada. Australia. Germany. Norway. Not Venezuela.

Those countries maintain a different equilibrium between public and private resources than we do.

There ya go. That's the real argument. Start there. That might be an interesting conversation.
.

 

[pknopp]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

Which capitalists? And by "capitalist", do you mean people who believe in the free market, or like, an early 1900's factory owner?

You understand what I am saying. We have no proponents of free markets of any account.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Moron RW nutbags cannot differentiate between economic systems and forms of government. Those RW nutbags who aren't morons know this and use it to their political advantage.