Neoliberalism.

[Windship]

I am about as close to a socialist on this forum as you're going to get. Grow up.

Don't worry, I can tell by your posts. I face-palmed after reading each one. What's ironic here is a Socialist telling someone to grow up, while pedaling a failed ideal that has brought down Nations from within. Why don't you grow up?

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.

The Soviet Union was Socialist, they lacked every component of Communism. You also apparently have no idea what Socialism is, as no part of the definition includes "private", the core component is government takeover of private industry and equity.

Its the rich and the poor. No smart country that wants sovereignty and a healthy economy woukd ever take over the corporation. Thats equally harmful. We NEED capitalism too....just keep them in check.

 

[Moonglow]

...in essence?...a republican.

Carter was into deregulation , as was Reagan, after those two the spirit of deregulation died away..

 

[Windship]

1. NAFTA
2. Refusal by obama to remove bushs secrecy laws
3. Refusal to remove restrictions on union organizing.
4. The TPP
5. Refusal to reinstate habeas corpus.
6. nnDD2013
7. Refused to prosecute bush for war crimes.
8. No single payer insurance plan.
9. The deregulation of the FCC.
10. No min wage increase
11. Guantanamo Bay still functioning
12. Deregulation of the wall street banks.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Don't worry, I can tell by your posts. I face-palmed after reading each one. What's ironic here is a Socialist telling someone to grow up, while pedaling a failed ideal that has brought down Nations from within. Why don't you grow up?

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.

The Soviet Union was Socialist, they lacked every component of Communism. You also apparently have no idea what Socialism is, as no part of the definition includes "private", the core component is government takeover of private industry and equity.

Wrong answer, Corn-flake. Socialism is a mixture of public and private. Try again.

Nowhere does it say that anything has to stay privatized. What you're talking about is a "Mixed" system, used in the Nordic model. That is NOT Socialism, it's a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, which mixes like oil and water. True Socialism, as listed in the definition, and as explained by Marx, the means of production is owned and regulated, socially owned, by the government. Communism is defined with a core component being the elimination of Social classes, the elimination of the State, and the elimination of currency. The Soviet Union did none of the above, what they practiced was not Socialism. They were trying to implement the Marxist theory, by eliminating Capitalism, going into what is defined as a transitional period, Socialism, then never made the step into Communism, because they didn't want to give up the government power obtained through Socialism. They may have wanted to be Communist, or may have intended to eventually take the step converting to Communism, but they never made it there. They were Socialist.

Definition of Communism: Marx's theoretical classless utopian society.

 

[Windship]

really? No deregulation since the 80';s...hmmm, well...


George W. Bush

Photo Illustration; Bush: Jason Reed / Reuters; Getty



From the start, Bush embraced a governing philosophy of deregulation. That trickled down to federal oversight agencies, which in turn eased off on banks and mortgage brokers. Bush did push early on for tighter controls overFannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but he failed to move Congress. After the Enron scandal, Bush backed and signed the aggressively regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But SEC head William Donaldson tried to boost regulation of mutual and hedge funds, he was blocked by Bush's advisers at the White House as well as other powerful Republicans and quit. Plus, let's face it, the meltdown happened on Bush's watch.

See Bush's biggest economic mistakes.

 

[Windship]

AND...

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act

Other short titles

• Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization Act of 1999
• Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999
• Prime Act
• Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs Act of 1999

Long title An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.
Acronyms(colloquial) GLBA
Nicknames glibba, ATM Fee Reform Act of 1999
Enacted by the 106th United States Congress
Effective November 12, 1999
Citations
Public law 106–102
Statutes at Large 113 Stat. 1338
Codification
Acts repealed Glass–Steagall Act
Titles amended

• 12 U.S.C.: Banks and Banking
• 15 U.S.C.: Commerce and Trade

U.S.C.sections created 12 U.S.C. § 24a, § 248b, § 1831v,§ 1831w, § 1831x, § 1831y,§ 1848a, § 2908
15 U.S.C. § 80b-10a
U.S.C. sections amended 12 U.S.C. § 78, § 377
15 U.S.C. § 80
Legislative history

• Introduced in the Senate as S. 900 by Phil Gramm(R-TX) on April 28, 1999
• Committee consideration by Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
• Passed the Senate on May 6, 1999 (54-44)
• Passed the House as the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999 (343-86)
• Reported by the joint conference committee onNovember 2, 1999; agreed to by the Senate onNovember 4, 1999 (90-8) and by the House onNovember 4, 1999 (362-57)
• Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of aninvestment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. With the bipartisan passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. Furthermore, it failed to give to the SEC or any other financial regulatory agency the authority to regulate large investment bank holding companies.[1] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.[2]

A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney,Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass–Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998.[3] Less than a year later, GLBA was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass–Steagall's conflict of interest prohibitions "against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank".[4]

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

So, now you're admitting the Soviet Union was not Communist? Good job. Of course it wasn't, because Communism is impossible to practice.

 

[Windship]

Photo Illustration; Clinton: Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty; Jupiter



President Clinton's tenure was characterized by economic prosperity and financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses of recent years. Among his biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves areto blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Don't worry, I can tell by your posts. I face-palmed after reading each one. What's ironic here is a Socialist telling someone to grow up, while pedaling a failed ideal that has brought down Nations from within. Why don't you grow up?

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.

The Soviet Union was Socialist, they lacked every component of Communism. You also apparently have no idea what Socialism is, as no part of the definition includes "private", the core component is government takeover of private industry and equity.

Its the rich and the poor. No smart country that wants sovereignty and a healthy economy woukd ever take over the corporation. Thats equally harmful. We NEED capitalism too....just keep them in check.

Your opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the given definition. Regardless of whether you think Capitalism is needed or not, the definition does not list exceptions. Socialism by definition, as a core component, has the government controlling Private Industry. The Nordic Model is a mixed system, and is not the definition of Socialism. Now, admit that you're wrong.

 

[Windship]

POLITICS
The Obama administration plans to revive Bush-era Wall Street deregulation that sparked last crisis
Dylan Hock | October 24, 2015

Former Wall Street regulator responds to Obama’s plan: “This is bullshit!”

FacebookTwitter

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently proposing the largest deregulation of Wall Street since the closing years of the Bush administration in 2008, prompting America’s poor and working class to cast a national side-eye at President Obama as it ponders more than ever whether the candidate who ran on a platform of hope and change in the wake of the financial crisis represents the people or the banks.

Despite even the Bush administration deciding against the effort in the end, Obama is breathing new life into the dusty plan — and just in time for the TPP, no less. If the effort ever truly sees the light of day, Wall Street banks will be handed a virtual green light for book-cooking under the guise of “accounting errors” virtually free of outside oversight. Not even shareholders would be privy to an accurate picture of a bank’s true financial standing, let alone the public.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the deregulation scheme was first proposed by John White, former director of corporate finance for the SEC. His wife, Mary Jo White, was personally selected by Obama to head the agency.

“This is bullshit,” Former SEC Chief Accountant Lynn E. Turner told the Huffington Post. “This is just absolute bullshit. It reeks.”

The proposal’s aftermath could be similar to the LIBOR scandal, when the SEC granted banks such as JPMorgan permits to keep up business as usual despite their confessions of criminal wrongdoing — the reverberations of the LIBOR scandal are still being felt by interest rate-payers who have credit cards, student loans, and car notes.

Should the rule become official, companies will no longer have to report ‘accounting errors’ to shareholders or pension-holders, creating an environment allowing rampant fraud. The result would be similar to what took place at Enron: CFOs can cook the books and claim ‘accounting errors.’ while people who buy the company’s stock are at risk of losing millions.

In a period where efforts like the Rolling Jubilee and the Robin Hood Tax are being pushed with a great deal of success via grassroots efforts in the face of the “too big to fail” banks, when politicians like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are celebrated across social media, pushing through a proposal that essentially deregulates Wall Street seems to be a middle finger to the majority of the American public. Many are likely asking, who matters more to President Obama: Wall Street or constituents?

 

[Windship]

No deregulation after reagan....ok...genius.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If your words and actions define you...prove clinton and obama are dem's.

"dems", meaning Democrats, are a diverse set of human beings untied to dogma, vis a vis, conservatives who, for the most part, all think alike; if they do differ, they risk being ostracized.

Clinton (both) and Obama are Democrats, as well as the majority of registered D's, are generally centrist, pragmatic and politically savvy. Other Democrats, being less savvy take issue with the latter term and seek change even when the political winds are blowing in the wrong direction. Compromise for extreme Democrats and its radical fringe (and it seems the current crop of RepubliKans) is thought to be a surrender of values and to be strictly avoided. Those few Bernie supporters interviewed during the D convention who refused to accept the nomination of HRC are part of that small set, and proved with their comments a set composed of those not savvy at all.

 

[Disir]

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.

The Soviet Union was Socialist, they lacked every component of Communism. You also apparently have no idea what Socialism is, as no part of the definition includes "private", the core component is government takeover of private industry and equity.

Wrong answer, Corn-flake. Socialism is a mixture of public and private. Try again.

Nowhere does it say that anything has to stay privatized. What you're talking about is a "Mixed" system, used in the Nordic model. That is NOT Socialism, it's a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, which mixes like oil and water. True Socialism, as listed in the definition, and as explained by Marx, the means of production is owned and regulated, socially owned, by the government. Communism is defined with a core component being the elimination of Social classes, the elimination of the State, and the elimination of currency. The Soviet Union did none of the above, what they practiced was not Socialism. They were trying to implement the Marxist theory, by eliminating Capitalism, going into what is defined as a transitional period, Socialism, then never made the step into Communism, because they didn't want to give up the government power obtained through Socialism. They may have wanted to be Communist, or may have intended to eventually take the step converting to Communism, but they never made it there. They were Socialist.

Definition of Communism: Marx's theoretical classless utopian society.

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.

 

[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.

So, now you're admitting the Soviet Union was not Communist? Good job. Of course it wasn't, because Communism is impossible to practice.

Now I am admitting? Fuck off. I never made that claim.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

The Soviet Union was Socialist, they lacked every component of Communism. You also apparently have no idea what Socialism is, as no part of the definition includes "private", the core component is government takeover of private industry and equity.

Wrong answer, Corn-flake. Socialism is a mixture of public and private. Try again.

Nowhere does it say that anything has to stay privatized. What you're talking about is a "Mixed" system, used in the Nordic model. That is NOT Socialism, it's a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, which mixes like oil and water. True Socialism, as listed in the definition, and as explained by Marx, the means of production is owned and regulated, socially owned, by the government. Communism is defined with a core component being the elimination of Social classes, the elimination of the State, and the elimination of currency. The Soviet Union did none of the above, what they practiced was not Socialism. They were trying to implement the Marxist theory, by eliminating Capitalism, going into what is defined as a transitional period, Socialism, then never made the step into Communism, because they didn't want to give up the government power obtained through Socialism. They may have wanted to be Communist, or may have intended to eventually take the step converting to Communism, but they never made it there. They were Socialist.

Definition of Communism: Marx's theoretical classless utopian society.

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.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

So, now you're admitting the Soviet Union was not Communist? Good job. Of course it wasn't, because Communism is impossible to practice.

Now I am admitting? Fuck off. I never made that claim.

You just said no Communist country was by definition Communist. You admitted I'm right.

 

[Disir]

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.

The Soviet Union was Socialist, they lacked every component of Communism. You also apparently have no idea what Socialism is, as no part of the definition includes "private", the core component is government takeover of private industry and equity.

Wrong answer, Corn-flake. Socialism is a mixture of public and private. Try again.

Nowhere does it say that anything has to stay privatized. What you're talking about is a "Mixed" system, used in the Nordic model. That is NOT Socialism, it's a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, which mixes like oil and water. True Socialism, as listed in the definition, and as explained by Marx, the means of production is owned and regulated, socially owned, by the government. Communism is defined with a core component being the elimination of Social classes, the elimination of the State, and the elimination of currency. The Soviet Union did none of the above, what they practiced was not Socialism. They were trying to implement the Marxist theory, by eliminating Capitalism, going into what is defined as a transitional period, Socialism, then never made the step into Communism, because they didn't want to give up the government power obtained through Socialism. They may have wanted to be Communist, or may have intended to eventually take the step converting to Communism, but they never made it there. They were Socialist.

Definition of Communism: Marx's theoretical classless utopian society.

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. The theory was there could not be any competing ideologies but the time period indicates it was because of the very bad behavior of the Church.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The Soviet Union was Socialist, they lacked every component of Communism. You also apparently have no idea what Socialism is, as no part of the definition includes "private", the core component is government takeover of private industry and equity.

Wrong answer, Corn-flake. Socialism is a mixture of public and private. Try again.

Nowhere does it say that anything has to stay privatized. What you're talking about is a "Mixed" system, used in the Nordic model. That is NOT Socialism, it's a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, which mixes like oil and water. True Socialism, as listed in the definition, and as explained by Marx, the means of production is owned and regulated, socially owned, by the government. Communism is defined with a core component being the elimination of Social classes, the elimination of the State, and the elimination of currency. The Soviet Union did none of the above, what they practiced was not Socialism. They were trying to implement the Marxist theory, by eliminating Capitalism, going into what is defined as a transitional period, Socialism, then never made the step into Communism, because they didn't want to give up the government power obtained through Socialism. They may have wanted to be Communist, or may have intended to eventually take the step converting to Communism, but they never made it there. They were Socialist.

Definition of Communism: Marx's theoretical classless utopian society.

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.

 

[Disir]

Wrong answer, Corn-flake. Socialism is a mixture of public and private. Try again.

Nowhere does it say that anything has to stay privatized. What you're talking about is a "Mixed" system, used in the Nordic model. That is NOT Socialism, it's a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, which mixes like oil and water. True Socialism, as listed in the definition, and as explained by Marx, the means of production is owned and regulated, socially owned, by the government. Communism is defined with a core component being the elimination of Social classes, the elimination of the State, and the elimination of currency. The Soviet Union did none of the above, what they practiced was not Socialism. They were trying to implement the Marxist theory, by eliminating Capitalism, going into what is defined as a transitional period, Socialism, then never made the step into Communism, because they didn't want to give up the government power obtained through Socialism. They may have wanted to be Communist, or may have intended to eventually take the step converting to Communism, but they never made it there. They were Socialist.

Definition of Communism: Marx's theoretical classless utopian society.

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

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Nowhere does it say that anything has to stay privatized. What you're talking about is a "Mixed" system, used in the Nordic model. That is NOT Socialism, it's a mix of Capitalism and Socialism, which mixes like oil and water. True Socialism, as listed in the definition, and as explained by Marx, the means of production is owned and regulated, socially owned, by the government. Communism is defined with a core component being the elimination of Social classes, the elimination of the State, and the elimination of currency. The Soviet Union did none of the above, what they practiced was not Socialism. They were trying to implement the Marxist theory, by eliminating Capitalism, going into what is defined as a transitional period, Socialism, then never made the step into Communism, because they didn't want to give up the government power obtained through Socialism. They may have wanted to be Communist, or may have intended to eventually take the step converting to Communism, but they never made it there. They were Socialist.

Definition of Communism: Marx's theoretical classless utopian society.

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.