Neoliberalism.

[Disir]

socialism
Pronunciation: /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

noun
advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Example sentences
1.1Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
1.2(In Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

socialism: definition of socialism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)


Don't ever hand me anything from the Catholic Dictionary and expect that to fly.

What I was showing you was the meaning of Communism, and they were quoting Marx. You clearly didn't read the link.

You were showing me shit from a religious organization that to this day has it's panties in a twist because they could not exercise any influence or power in any allegedly communist state.

I don't particularly care about what the site is or who runs it, if they have accurate information, they have accurate information. They were giving the definition as defined by Karl Marx. Wikipedia describes it the same way. The very title gives the same meaning.
communism - Dictionary Definition
What is communism? definition and meaning
The meaning is exactly why Karl Marx referred to it as purely theoretical. It literally cannot be practiced.

They just happened to have information you agreed with. At no point in time I have ever proposed that Communism could be practiced. In fact, I have posted elsewhere that it will not work. You're making shit up.

Here is the Communist Manifesto. You will not self destruct by reading it for yourself.
The Communist Manifesto by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx

I don't so much mind reading the Communist manifesto, I've looked at bits and pieces, and it's on my stack of books to read for my study on Marxism. I wasn't, however, at any point, claiming that you said it could be practiced. I was using the fact that it couldn't be practiced to show you the obvious fact that Soviet Russia didn't practice it. What they practiced was Socialism, made obvious by the fact that they were using every core component, and lacked every core component of Communism. Something made even more obvious from my previous posts, the links therein, and the very Communist manifesto you linked, which specifies that Communism has no State, Social Classes, or Currency.

No. It was not socialism. Try again. Get back to me after you have read it and a few history books.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

What I was showing you was the meaning of Communism, and they were quoting Marx. You clearly didn't read the link.

You were showing me shit from a religious organization that to this day has it's panties in a twist because they could not exercise any influence or power in any allegedly communist state.

I don't particularly care about what the site is or who runs it, if they have accurate information, they have accurate information. They were giving the definition as defined by Karl Marx. Wikipedia describes it the same way. The very title gives the same meaning.
communism - Dictionary Definition
What is communism? definition and meaning
The meaning is exactly why Karl Marx referred to it as purely theoretical. It literally cannot be practiced.

They just happened to have information you agreed with. At no point in time I have ever proposed that Communism could be practiced. In fact, I have posted elsewhere that it will not work. You're making shit up.

Here is the Communist Manifesto. You will not self destruct by reading it for yourself.
The Communist Manifesto by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx

I don't so much mind reading the Communist manifesto, I've looked at bits and pieces, and it's on my stack of books to read for my study on Marxism. I wasn't, however, at any point, claiming that you said it could be practiced. I was using the fact that it couldn't be practiced to show you the obvious fact that Soviet Russia didn't practice it. What they practiced was Socialism, made obvious by the fact that they were using every core component, and lacked every core component of Communism. Something made even more obvious from my previous posts, the links therein, and the very Communist manifesto you linked, which specifies that Communism has no State, Social Classes, or Currency.

No. It was not socialism. Try again.

Social control of private industry, redistribution to promote equity, no private property. Sounds pretty Socialist to me. What prevents them from being Socialist?

 

[Disir]

You were showing me shit from a religious organization that to this day has it's panties in a twist because they could not exercise any influence or power in any allegedly communist state.

I don't particularly care about what the site is or who runs it, if they have accurate information, they have accurate information. They were giving the definition as defined by Karl Marx. Wikipedia describes it the same way. The very title gives the same meaning.
communism - Dictionary Definition
What is communism? definition and meaning
The meaning is exactly why Karl Marx referred to it as purely theoretical. It literally cannot be practiced.

They just happened to have information you agreed with. At no point in time I have ever proposed that Communism could be practiced. In fact, I have posted elsewhere that it will not work. You're making shit up.

Here is the Communist Manifesto. You will not self destruct by reading it for yourself.
The Communist Manifesto by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx

I don't so much mind reading the Communist manifesto, I've looked at bits and pieces, and it's on my stack of books to read for my study on Marxism. I wasn't, however, at any point, claiming that you said it could be practiced. I was using the fact that it couldn't be practiced to show you the obvious fact that Soviet Russia didn't practice it. What they practiced was Socialism, made obvious by the fact that they were using every core component, and lacked every core component of Communism. Something made even more obvious from my previous posts, the links therein, and the very Communist manifesto you linked, which specifies that Communism has no State, Social Classes, or Currency.

No. It was not socialism. Try again.

Social control of private industry, redistribution to promote equity, no private property. Sounds pretty Socialist to me. What prevents them from being Socialist?

Get back to me after you have read it and a few history books.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I don't particularly care about what the site is or who runs it, if they have accurate information, they have accurate information. They were giving the definition as defined by Karl Marx. Wikipedia describes it the same way. The very title gives the same meaning.
communism - Dictionary Definition
What is communism? definition and meaning
The meaning is exactly why Karl Marx referred to it as purely theoretical. It literally cannot be practiced.

They just happened to have information you agreed with. At no point in time I have ever proposed that Communism could be practiced. In fact, I have posted elsewhere that it will not work. You're making shit up.

Here is the Communist Manifesto. You will not self destruct by reading it for yourself.
The Communist Manifesto by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx

I don't so much mind reading the Communist manifesto, I've looked at bits and pieces, and it's on my stack of books to read for my study on Marxism. I wasn't, however, at any point, claiming that you said it could be practiced. I was using the fact that it couldn't be practiced to show you the obvious fact that Soviet Russia didn't practice it. What they practiced was Socialism, made obvious by the fact that they were using every core component, and lacked every core component of Communism. Something made even more obvious from my previous posts, the links therein, and the very Communist manifesto you linked, which specifies that Communism has no State, Social Classes, or Currency.

No. It was not socialism. Try again.

Social control of private industry, redistribution to promote equity, no private property. Sounds pretty Socialist to me. What prevents them from being Socialist?

Get back to me after you have read it and a few history books.

In other words, you have nothing. You should save yourself some dignity. You first claim the Soviet Union was Communist, then admit Communism cannot be practiced. Now you can't explain the basis of your opinion that Soviet Russia wasn't Socialist. It sounds to me like you're just another S-Poster who can't back up their claims.

On the other hand, you're a Socialist, so my expectations were low to start with.

 

[Disir]

They just happened to have information you agreed with. At no point in time I have ever proposed that Communism could be practiced. In fact, I have posted elsewhere that it will not work. You're making shit up.

Here is the Communist Manifesto. You will not self destruct by reading it for yourself.
The Communist Manifesto by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx

I don't so much mind reading the Communist manifesto, I've looked at bits and pieces, and it's on my stack of books to read for my study on Marxism. I wasn't, however, at any point, claiming that you said it could be practiced. I was using the fact that it couldn't be practiced to show you the obvious fact that Soviet Russia didn't practice it. What they practiced was Socialism, made obvious by the fact that they were using every core component, and lacked every core component of Communism. Something made even more obvious from my previous posts, the links therein, and the very Communist manifesto you linked, which specifies that Communism has no State, Social Classes, or Currency.

No. It was not socialism. Try again.

Social control of private industry, redistribution to promote equity, no private property. Sounds pretty Socialist to me. What prevents them from being Socialist?

Get back to me after you have read it and a few history books.

In other words, you have nothing. You should save yourself some dignity. You first claim the Soviet Union was Communist, then admit Communism cannot be practiced. Now you can't explain the basis of your opinion that Soviet Russia wasn't Socialist. It sounds to me like you're just another S-Poster who can't back up their claims.

On the other hand, you're a Socialist, so my expectations were low to start with.

No. this is why I specifically pointed out Soviet policies.

I told you by definition no communist country existed. You said they were socialist.
You ran to a Catholic Dictionary to support your point that the Soviet Union was in fact socialist. I told you that isn't valid nor is it close. The Catholic Church was not allowed into any countries that were self proclaimed Communism. They have a beef that was initiated because of various intrigues and interference in governments. Further, they were subsidized by the state and used as method of control.

You didn't care because you said the information was correct and it quoted from the Communist Manifesto which you admitted you have never read.

I am carrying on an argument with an individual (that be you) that has one brain cell rocking.

It's a mixture of public and private and has nothing to do with a fucking dictatorship. Dumbass.


You're another piece of shit that refuses to pick up books and read.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No. this is why I specifically pointed out Soviet policies.

I told you by definition no communist country existed. You said they were socialist.
You ran to a Catholic Dictionary to support your point that the Soviet Union was in fact socialist. I told you that isn't valid nor is it close. The Catholic Church was not allowed into any countries that were self proclaimed Communism. They have a beef that was initiated because of various intrigues and interference in governments. Further, they were subsidized by the state and used as method of control.

Their policies are what's Socialist. I also didn't "run" to a Catholic site. I followed it up in the next post with two dictionary definitions supporting my claim. You also clearly didn't read the web site I linked first, because it goes along with the actual definition supported by the Dictionary definition I followed it up with. Not that any of that matters anyway, since you agreed it's impossible to practice Communism, preventing Soviet Russia from being Communist.

You didn't care because you said the information was correct and it quoted from the Communist Manifesto which you admitted you have never read.

I am carrying on an argument with an individual (that be you) that has one brain cell rocking.

It's a mixture of public and private and has nothing to do with a fucking dictatorship. Dumbass.


You're another piece of shit that refuses to pick up books and read.

I've read pages of the Communist Manifesto, specifically the part where he clearly defines Communism as having no classes, government, or currency. All three of those components Soviet Russia lacked, preventing them from being Communist.

I linked you three definitions for Socialism, none of which specified any exceptions to the rule of Social ownership being Socialism's core component. The Nordic Model does not set the definition for Socialism, you're arguing against the dictionary definition. You have failed.

In fact, I bet you can't find a single bit of proof that shows Socialism specifically includes Private ownership of industry, any industry, in order to be classified such. Karl Marx didn't define it that way, the Dictionary doesn't define it that way. You're pretty obviously making up your own definition to support your advocation of a failed ideal.

Again, you're a Socialist, so I had low expectations for you to start with. You've done absolutely nothing to support your case during the duration of this 'debate'.

 

[Tehon]

Neoliberalism is the root cause of many of the social and economic problems we face here in America. It is laissez faire economics as promulgated by the likes of Milton Friedman. It has been the dominant economic policy in America since at least Reagan with dems being co conspirators if not the main protagonists. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for more of the same.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No. It hasn't brought down nations. You're already starting off with a jacked up concept. You can't tell shit. Indicating it is necessary for you to grow up.

So, then, I suppose you're going to tell be that
Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece.
Weren't socialist? Because by definition their government was, and that economic system caused those Nations to fail. Of course, it's only natural for a Socialist not to know that, because if they weren't completely ignorant, they wouldn't be a Socialist.

Are you trying to sell me that countries that modeled their policies off of the Soviet Union--qualify? No, little hillbilly. They are not. Socialism is a mixture of public and private. It is not communism. Try again.

!!BINGO!!
It is a balance that ran for 40 years until greed and corruption set in.

By definition, the Soviet Union was not Communist.

None of the "communist" countries were by definition communist.

Nor were they true republics, nor democratic. True freedom did not exist, a wall or iron curtain was needed to keep the masses in and more was required of their labor than their abilities allowed, and less of the needs of the masses were provided. A Brave New World, which was the course set for our future and that of our children and their children by five conservative members of the USSC; something we may experience - if we are not already - if the Plutocrats gain full control of our government.

Combining the ideology of Libertarianism with fascism along with the passage of CU v. FEC, and McCutcheon v. FEC should shock all freedom loving Americans; the voters must reject emotions and critically considered how their vote in November will impact our posterity. A vote for Trump, Ryan and McConnell is a vote for a Brave New World no thinking person will ever chose.

 

[Disir]

No. this is why I specifically pointed out Soviet policies.

I told you by definition no communist country existed. You said they were socialist.
You ran to a Catholic Dictionary to support your point that the Soviet Union was in fact socialist. I told you that isn't valid nor is it close. The Catholic Church was not allowed into any countries that were self proclaimed Communism. They have a beef that was initiated because of various intrigues and interference in governments. Further, they were subsidized by the state and used as method of control.

Their policies are what's Socialist. I also didn't "run" to a Catholic site. I followed it up in the next post with two dictionary definitions supporting my claim. You also clearly didn't read the web site I linked first, because it goes along with the actual definition supported by the Dictionary definition I followed it up with. Not that any of that matters anyway, since you agreed it's impossible to practice Communism, preventing Soviet Russia from being Communist.

You didn't care because you said the information was correct and it quoted from the Communist Manifesto which you admitted you have never read.

I am carrying on an argument with an individual (that be you) that has one brain cell rocking.

It's a mixture of public and private and has nothing to do with a fucking dictatorship. Dumbass.


You're another piece of shit that refuses to pick up books and read.

I've read pages of the Communist Manifesto, specifically the part where he clearly defines Communism as having no classes, government, or currency. All three of those components Soviet Russia lacked, preventing them from being Communist.

I linked you three definitions for Socialism, none of which specified any exceptions to the rule of Social ownership being Socialism's core component. The Nordic Model does not set the definition for Socialism, you're arguing against the dictionary definition. You have failed.

In fact, I bet you can't find a single bit of proof that shows Socialism specifically includes Private ownership of industry, any industry, in order to be classified such. Karl Marx didn't define it that way, the Dictionary doesn't define it that way. You're pretty obviously making up your own definition to support your advocation of a failed ideal.

Again, you're a Socialist, so I had low expectations for you to start with. You've done absolutely nothing to support your case during the duration of this 'debate'.

You haven't read it. Ok, little hillbilly

Karl Marx and was not a socialist. He sought to capitalize on the socialist movements of his time because there were multiple movements and in some cases had earned more respect. In seeking to obtain what he wanted which was state owned production after violent revolution he decides well, ok........socialism as long as it leads to communism. Hence, it becomes a stage or step---but only by his definition.

The reality is that socialists were making progress in areas of labor. It isn't a political system. It has nothing to do with authoritarian government . It's an economic system. Communism didn't take in western Europe because the governments were also changing and nobody was interested in a command economy or eliminating private businesses, religion or other types of "freedom". It was about public control of what was deemed necessary and natural resources.

Like control of the water and sewer. In the US privatization of water and sewer has been a large mistake. That loss means that we the people are no longer privy to information and that produces a lack of transparency. Service areas are cherry picked. Price hikes. No input. In fact, you don't have a successful privatization venture in the US.

Fucktwits like you still point to the Soviet, Lenin, Mao policies as proof in the pudding.

You brought me Wikipedia with 28 pages of talk, a Catholic dictionary and another entry. I have five on where the entry came from. I hate to break it to you but you look really silly banking definitions that are based on Marx and start with a book that you have never even bothered to fucking read. You need to read that and pick up some history books.

We are done. I'm not here to educate your dumb ass. I am on the thread to discuss neoliberalism.

 

[Disir]

So, then, I suppose you're going to tell be that
Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece.
Weren't socialist? Because by definition their government was, and that economic system caused those Nations to fail. Of course, it's only natural for a Socialist not to know that, because if they weren't completely ignorant, they wouldn't be a Socialist.

Are you trying to sell me that countries that modeled their policies off of the Soviet Union--qualify? No, little hillbilly. They are not. Socialism is a mixture of public and private. It is not communism. Try again.

!!BINGO!!
It is a balance that ran for 40 years until greed and corruption set in.

By definition, the Soviet Union was not Communist.

None of the "communist" countries were by definition communist.

Nor were they true republics, nor democratic. True freedom did not exist, a wall or iron curtain was needed to keep the masses in and more was required of their labor than their abilities allowed, and less of the needs of the masses were provided. A Brave New World, which was the course set for our future and that of our children and their children by five conservative members of the USSC; something we may experience - if we are not already - if the Plutocrats gain full control of our government.

Combining the ideology of Libertarianism with fascism along with the passage of CU v. FEC, and McCutcheon v. FEC should shock all freedom loving Americans; the voters must reject emotions and critically considered how their vote in November will impact our posterity. A vote for Trump, Ryan and McConnell is a vote for a Brave New World no thinking person will ever chose.

Stop acting like a robotic advertisement.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No. this is why I specifically pointed out Soviet policies.

I told you by definition no communist country existed. You said they were socialist.
You ran to a Catholic Dictionary to support your point that the Soviet Union was in fact socialist. I told you that isn't valid nor is it close. The Catholic Church was not allowed into any countries that were self proclaimed Communism. They have a beef that was initiated because of various intrigues and interference in governments. Further, they were subsidized by the state and used as method of control.

Their policies are what's Socialist. I also didn't "run" to a Catholic site. I followed it up in the next post with two dictionary definitions supporting my claim. You also clearly didn't read the web site I linked first, because it goes along with the actual definition supported by the Dictionary definition I followed it up with. Not that any of that matters anyway, since you agreed it's impossible to practice Communism, preventing Soviet Russia from being Communist.

You didn't care because you said the information was correct and it quoted from the Communist Manifesto which you admitted you have never read.

I am carrying on an argument with an individual (that be you) that has one brain cell rocking.

It's a mixture of public and private and has nothing to do with a fucking dictatorship. Dumbass.


You're another piece of shit that refuses to pick up books and read.

I've read pages of the Communist Manifesto, specifically the part where he clearly defines Communism as having no classes, government, or currency. All three of those components Soviet Russia lacked, preventing them from being Communist.

I linked you three definitions for Socialism, none of which specified any exceptions to the rule of Social ownership being Socialism's core component. The Nordic Model does not set the definition for Socialism, you're arguing against the dictionary definition. You have failed.

In fact, I bet you can't find a single bit of proof that shows Socialism specifically includes Private ownership of industry, any industry, in order to be classified such. Karl Marx didn't define it that way, the Dictionary doesn't define it that way. You're pretty obviously making up your own definition to support your advocation of a failed ideal.

Again, you're a Socialist, so I had low expectations for you to start with. You've done absolutely nothing to support your case during the duration of this 'debate'.

You haven't read it. Ok, little hillbilly

Karl Marx and was not a socialist. He sought to capitalize on the socialist movements of his time because there were multiple movements and in some cases had earned more respect. In seeking to obtain what he wanted which was state owned production after violent revolution he decides well, ok........socialism as long as it leads to communism. Hence, it becomes a stage or step---but only by his definition.

The reality is that socialists were making progress in areas of labor. It isn't a political system. It has nothing to do with authoritarian government . It's an economic system. Communism didn't take in western Europe because the governments were also changing and nobody was interested in a command economy or eliminating private businesses, religion or other types of "freedom". It was about public control of what was deemed necessary and natural resources.

Like control of the water and sewer. In the US privatization of water and sewer has been a large mistake. That loss means that we the people are no longer privy to information and that produces a lack of transparency. Service areas are cherry picked. Price hikes. No input. In fact, you don't have a successful privatization venture in the US.

Fucktwits like you still point to the Soviet, Lenin, Mao policies as proof in the pudding.

You brought me Wikipedia with 28 pages of talk, a Catholic dictionary and another entry. I have five on where the entry came from. I hate to break it to you but you look really silly banking definitions that are based on Marx and start with a book that you have never even bothered to fucking read. You need to read that and pick up some history books.

We are done. I'm not here to educate your dumb ass. I am on the thread to discuss neoliberalism.

So, you're fine with typing all of this useless garble, but you still haven't read my posts, or my links. Nice. The page I linked was on Communism, and what it means, it wasn't on Socialism. I only linked it because Karl Marx defined what Communism is, and they repeated what he said when I last read his description of the system.

You have to say something informative to be educating someone. All you've shown me is that you don't know what Communism or Socialism is. I've defined both multiple times, and you have yet to say anything to the contrary, just insulting me and rambling about unrelated topics.

However, sure, I'll take your detour. Socialism by definition isn't totalitarian, no, but it brings totalitarianism by expanding government power far beyond what it should be. It gives no incentive to work, because people are given goods and money for having none, and the people who work leave. That's why Soviet Russia prevented people from leaving, and required people to work. Soviet Russia is often cited because it's where Socialism leads. Well, if Socialism doesn't destroy the Nation in question first.

On the other hand, I cited a whole list of failed Socialist Nations, not just Soviet Russia.

 

[Disir]

No. this is why I specifically pointed out Soviet policies.

I told you by definition no communist country existed. You said they were socialist.
You ran to a Catholic Dictionary to support your point that the Soviet Union was in fact socialist. I told you that isn't valid nor is it close. The Catholic Church was not allowed into any countries that were self proclaimed Communism. They have a beef that was initiated because of various intrigues and interference in governments. Further, they were subsidized by the state and used as method of control.

Their policies are what's Socialist. I also didn't "run" to a Catholic site. I followed it up in the next post with two dictionary definitions supporting my claim. You also clearly didn't read the web site I linked first, because it goes along with the actual definition supported by the Dictionary definition I followed it up with. Not that any of that matters anyway, since you agreed it's impossible to practice Communism, preventing Soviet Russia from being Communist.

You didn't care because you said the information was correct and it quoted from the Communist Manifesto which you admitted you have never read.

I am carrying on an argument with an individual (that be you) that has one brain cell rocking.

It's a mixture of public and private and has nothing to do with a fucking dictatorship. Dumbass.


You're another piece of shit that refuses to pick up books and read.

I've read pages of the Communist Manifesto, specifically the part where he clearly defines Communism as having no classes, government, or currency. All three of those components Soviet Russia lacked, preventing them from being Communist.

I linked you three definitions for Socialism, none of which specified any exceptions to the rule of Social ownership being Socialism's core component. The Nordic Model does not set the definition for Socialism, you're arguing against the dictionary definition. You have failed.

In fact, I bet you can't find a single bit of proof that shows Socialism specifically includes Private ownership of industry, any industry, in order to be classified such. Karl Marx didn't define it that way, the Dictionary doesn't define it that way. You're pretty obviously making up your own definition to support your advocation of a failed ideal.

Again, you're a Socialist, so I had low expectations for you to start with. You've done absolutely nothing to support your case during the duration of this 'debate'.

You haven't read it. Ok, little hillbilly

Karl Marx and was not a socialist. He sought to capitalize on the socialist movements of his time because there were multiple movements and in some cases had earned more respect. In seeking to obtain what he wanted which was state owned production after violent revolution he decides well, ok........socialism as long as it leads to communism. Hence, it becomes a stage or step---but only by his definition.

The reality is that socialists were making progress in areas of labor. It isn't a political system. It has nothing to do with authoritarian government . It's an economic system. Communism didn't take in western Europe because the governments were also changing and nobody was interested in a command economy or eliminating private businesses, religion or other types of "freedom". It was about public control of what was deemed necessary and natural resources.

Like control of the water and sewer. In the US privatization of water and sewer has been a large mistake. That loss means that we the people are no longer privy to information and that produces a lack of transparency. Service areas are cherry picked. Price hikes. No input. In fact, you don't have a successful privatization venture in the US.

Fucktwits like you still point to the Soviet, Lenin, Mao policies as proof in the pudding.

You brought me Wikipedia with 28 pages of talk, a Catholic dictionary and another entry. I have five on where the entry came from. I hate to break it to you but you look really silly banking definitions that are based on Marx and start with a book that you have never even bothered to fucking read. You need to read that and pick up some history books.

We are done. I'm not here to educate your dumb ass. I am on the thread to discuss neoliberalism.

So, you're fine with typing all of this useless garble, but you still haven't read my posts, or my links. Nice. The page I linked was on Communism, and what it means, it wasn't on Socialism. I only linked it because Karl Marx defined what Communism is, and they repeated what he said when I last read his description of the system.

You have to say something informative to be educating someone. All you've shown me is that you don't know what Communism or Socialism is. I've defined both multiple times, and you have yet to say anything to the contrary, just insulting me and rambling about unrelated topics.

However, sure, I'll take your detour. Socialism by definition isn't totalitarian, no, but it brings totalitarianism by expanding government power far beyond what it should be. It gives no incentive to work, because people are given goods and money for having none, and the people who work leave. That's why Soviet Russia prevented people from leaving, and required people to work. Soviet Russia is often cited because it's where Socialism leads. Well, if Socialism doesn't destroy the Nation in question first.

On the other hand, I cited a whole list of failed Socialist Nations, not just Soviet Russia.

You did nothing. You defined nothing. It wasn't socialism. Soviet Russia was not socialism. North Korea is not socialism. I've pointed out the differences between socialism and communism. Say goodbye.

 

[Tehon]

 

[Disir]

Neoliberalism Raises Its Ugly Head in South America: Washington Targets Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina

When Venezuela became an issue.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No. this is why I specifically pointed out Soviet policies.

I told you by definition no communist country existed. You said they were socialist.
You ran to a Catholic Dictionary to support your point that the Soviet Union was in fact socialist. I told you that isn't valid nor is it close. The Catholic Church was not allowed into any countries that were self proclaimed Communism. They have a beef that was initiated because of various intrigues and interference in governments. Further, they were subsidized by the state and used as method of control.

Their policies are what's Socialist. I also didn't "run" to a Catholic site. I followed it up in the next post with two dictionary definitions supporting my claim. You also clearly didn't read the web site I linked first, because it goes along with the actual definition supported by the Dictionary definition I followed it up with. Not that any of that matters anyway, since you agreed it's impossible to practice Communism, preventing Soviet Russia from being Communist.

You didn't care because you said the information was correct and it quoted from the Communist Manifesto which you admitted you have never read.

I am carrying on an argument with an individual (that be you) that has one brain cell rocking.

It's a mixture of public and private and has nothing to do with a fucking dictatorship. Dumbass.


You're another piece of shit that refuses to pick up books and read.

I've read pages of the Communist Manifesto, specifically the part where he clearly defines Communism as having no classes, government, or currency. All three of those components Soviet Russia lacked, preventing them from being Communist.

I linked you three definitions for Socialism, none of which specified any exceptions to the rule of Social ownership being Socialism's core component. The Nordic Model does not set the definition for Socialism, you're arguing against the dictionary definition. You have failed.

In fact, I bet you can't find a single bit of proof that shows Socialism specifically includes Private ownership of industry, any industry, in order to be classified such. Karl Marx didn't define it that way, the Dictionary doesn't define it that way. You're pretty obviously making up your own definition to support your advocation of a failed ideal.

Again, you're a Socialist, so I had low expectations for you to start with. You've done absolutely nothing to support your case during the duration of this 'debate'.

You haven't read it. Ok, little hillbilly

Karl Marx and was not a socialist. He sought to capitalize on the socialist movements of his time because there were multiple movements and in some cases had earned more respect. In seeking to obtain what he wanted which was state owned production after violent revolution he decides well, ok........socialism as long as it leads to communism. Hence, it becomes a stage or step---but only by his definition.

The reality is that socialists were making progress in areas of labor. It isn't a political system. It has nothing to do with authoritarian government . It's an economic system. Communism didn't take in western Europe because the governments were also changing and nobody was interested in a command economy or eliminating private businesses, religion or other types of "freedom". It was about public control of what was deemed necessary and natural resources.

Like control of the water and sewer. In the US privatization of water and sewer has been a large mistake. That loss means that we the people are no longer privy to information and that produces a lack of transparency. Service areas are cherry picked. Price hikes. No input. In fact, you don't have a successful privatization venture in the US.

Fucktwits like you still point to the Soviet, Lenin, Mao policies as proof in the pudding.

You brought me Wikipedia with 28 pages of talk, a Catholic dictionary and another entry. I have five on where the entry came from. I hate to break it to you but you look really silly banking definitions that are based on Marx and start with a book that you have never even bothered to fucking read. You need to read that and pick up some history books.

We are done. I'm not here to educate your dumb ass. I am on the thread to discuss neoliberalism.

So, you're fine with typing all of this useless garble, but you still haven't read my posts, or my links. Nice. The page I linked was on Communism, and what it means, it wasn't on Socialism. I only linked it because Karl Marx defined what Communism is, and they repeated what he said when I last read his description of the system.

You have to say something informative to be educating someone. All you've shown me is that you don't know what Communism or Socialism is. I've defined both multiple times, and you have yet to say anything to the contrary, just insulting me and rambling about unrelated topics.

However, sure, I'll take your detour. Socialism by definition isn't totalitarian, no, but it brings totalitarianism by expanding government power far beyond what it should be. It gives no incentive to work, because people are given goods and money for having none, and the people who work leave. That's why Soviet Russia prevented people from leaving, and required people to work. Soviet Russia is often cited because it's where Socialism leads. Well, if Socialism doesn't destroy the Nation in question first.

On the other hand, I cited a whole list of failed Socialist Nations, not just Soviet Russia.

You did nothing. You defined nothing. It wasn't socialism. Soviet Russia was not socialism. North Korea is not socialism. I've pointed out the differences between socialism and communism. Say goodbye.

I did, I defined it multiple times. It sounds like you're intentionally ignoring my posts because I proved you wrong, and can't prove Soviet Russia wasn't Socialist. North Korea was Socialist, too. Communism can't be practiced and never has been, and their policies directly match the textbook definition and core components of Socialism. You're in denial.

 

[Windship]

[/QUOTE]
So, you're fine with typing all of this useless garble, but you still haven't read my posts, or my links. Nice. The page I linked was on Communism, and what it means, it wasn't on Socialism. I only linked it because Karl Marx defined what Communism is, and they repeated what he said when I last read his description of the system.

You have to say something informative to be educating someone. All you've shown me is that you don't know what Communism or Socialism is. I've defined both multiple times, and you have yet to say anything to the contrary, just insulting me and rambling about unrelated topics.

However, sure, I'll take your detour. Socialism by definition isn't totalitarian, no, but it brings totalitarianism by expanding government power far beyond what it should be. It gives no incentive to work, because people are given goods and money for having none, and the people who work leave. That's why Soviet Russia prevented people from leaving, and required people to work. Soviet Russia is often cited because it's where Socialism leads. Well, if Socialism doesn't destroy the Nation in question first.

On the other hand, I cited a whole list of failed Socialist Nations, not just Soviet Russia.[/QUOTE]

Any type of government that lets they're beliefs go to the extreme ends in a failed state. Everything on this planet has a balance and requires a constant balance to exist and a healthy, economic society is no different. You can argue all the points you want. Unfettered capitalism and corruption and everything it causes, will be our failure.