Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[Dale Smith]

Your simplistic view of socialism versus capitalism never fails to amuse me because you don't have the slightest clue about the real history of this country. It was never the intention of the founding fathers to tax the labor of the people that were bartering their time and skills in exchange for something of value...nor did the founding fathers ever want foreign bankers in control of the monetary system that has made debt slaves out of everyone.

But I want to see if you have the balls to answer this question. I work in a very demanding field...one where it takes a toll on my body....especially my hands. It pays well as an electro-mechanical tech. It's a knuclebusting, "hard on the joints" type job that few want to do because of the difficulty of it......so let's just say that instead of turning over half of my wages (of which I am paid in scrip paper that we call Federal Reserve notes) Why should I continue to work and toll if "da gubermint" will simply take care of me? What is the point? I can have half of the compensation my sweat equity affords me so it can be given to someone that will not make the effort to learn a skill or trade...or I can simply choose to get the same benefits by sucking and leeching off of the labor of others? Which is the better option for me, Billy?????

There once was a time in this country....even after the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 of USA.INC that people were too proud to accept charity and take from others...fast forward to today? We have fabian socialists that want to steal from those with pride and give it to those that don't and they have no problem with it.

 

[jasonnfree]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

There's not a modern country in the world that doesn't practice socialism in one form or other. Socialism bails out the capitalists pretty often... 1932, 2008. There will probably be another one before Trump finishes his term.

Socialism did not bail us out in 1932. In fact, it made the problem ten times worse.

Sure, that's why FDR got reelected 3 more times. Notice Trump said we need more people from countries like Finland? Basically a socialist country, and I don't think too many Fins want to come to a country like ours that has unaffordable health care and higher education.

 

[Billy000]

Your simplistic view of socialism versus capitalism never fails to amuse me because you don't have the slightest clue about the real history of this country. It was never the intention of the founding fathers to tax the labor of the people that were bartering their time and skills in exchange for something of value...nor did the founding fathers ever want foreign bankers in control of the monetary system that has made debt slaves out of everyone.

But I want to see if you have the balls to answer this question. I work in a very demanding field...one where it takes a toll on my body....especially my hands. It pays well as an electro-mechanical tech. It's a knuclebusting, "hard on the joints" type job that few want to do because of the difficulty of it......so let's just say that instead of turning over half of my wages (of which I am paid in scrip paper that we call Federal Reserve notes) Why should I continue to work and toll if "da gubermint" will simply take care of me? What is the point? I can have half of the compensation my sweat equity affords me so it can be given to someone that will not make the effort to learn a skill or trade...or I can simply choose to get the same benefits by sucking and leeching off of the labor of others? Which is the better option for me, Billy?????

There once was a time in this country....even after the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 of USA.INC that people were too proud to accept charity and take from others...fast forward to today? We have fabian socialists that want to steal from those with pride and give it to those that don't and they have no problem with it.

Let me answer your question this way: in terms of personal responsibility, why don’t you just get another job?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

Not even remotely, simply because Socialism is based on theft, that doesn't mean it's Socialism. Programs that the government creates aren't inherently Socialism, as it's government ownership of the means of production, which is private industry, which infrastructure is not.

Socialists only fool themselves into thinking infrastructure is Socialist so they can claim it's working, which is of course a joke.

Lol the word itself should give you the clue its about people. It’s people’s ownership of programs that they utilize. This is simply facilitated by the government though it’s funded by citizens.

No, it's not people's ownership, it's about government arbitrating those programs, that's why the big government people are the ones pitching it. The only people who truly believe it's about the people are the ones who haven't examined the ideal's history, and how it always ends with the Socialists claiming that the failed product was Fascism, Communism, or State Capitalism.

No matter how Socialism is packaged or branded, it's always about the government stealing the means of production from the people and doing with them as they see fit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Most of those who vote for Republicans don't know the difference between an economic ideology and a political ideology.

 

[jasonnfree]

Your simplistic view of socialism versus capitalism never fails to amuse me because you don't have the slightest clue about the real history of this country. It was never the intention of the founding fathers to tax the labor of the people that were bartering their time and skills in exchange for something of value...nor did the founding fathers ever want foreign bankers in control of the monetary system that has made debt slaves out of everyone.

But I want to see if you have the balls to answer this question. I work in a very demanding field...one where it takes a toll on my body....especially my hands. It pays well as an electro-mechanical tech. It's a knuclebusting, "hard on the joints" type job that few want to do because of the difficulty of it......so let's just say that instead of turning over half of my wages (of which I am paid in scrip paper that we call Federal Reserve notes) Why should I continue to work and toll if "da gubermint" will simply take care of me? What is the point? I can have half of the compensation my sweat equity affords me so it can be given to someone that will not make the effort to learn a skill or trade...or I can simply choose to get the same benefits by sucking and leeching off of the labor of others? Which is the better option for me, Billy?????

There once was a time in this country....even after the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 of USA.INC that people were too proud to accept charity and take from others...fast forward to today? We have fabian socialists that want to steal from those with pride and give it to those that don't and they have no problem with it.

The founders of this country would probably roll over in their graves if they knew that we attacked and made war on other countries so that the USA's war industry corporations could get even filthier rich than they already are. Or, that most all of our politicians' votes are based on bribes from the real owners of this country, such as the koch brothers.

 

[westwall]

The very basic definition of the word has nothing to do with this. Socialism’s definition isn’t about authoritarianism.

It can't exist without it.

You are definitely wrong. Sorry.

The power of the State determines who can do what, so yes, he is definitely correct.

 

[Billy000]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

Not even remotely, simply because Socialism is based on theft, that doesn't mean it's Socialism. Programs that the government creates aren't inherently Socialism, as it's government ownership of the means of production, which is private industry, which infrastructure is not.

Socialists only fool themselves into thinking infrastructure is Socialist so they can claim it's working, which is of course a joke.

Lol the word itself should give you the clue its about people. It’s people’s ownership of programs that they utilize. This is simply facilitated by the government though it’s funded by citizens.

No, it's not people's ownership, it's about government arbitrating those programs, that's why the big government people are the ones pitching it. The only people who truly believe it's about the people are the ones who haven't examined the ideal's history, and how it always ends with the Socialists claiming that the failed product was Fascism, Communism, or State Capitalism.

No matter how Socialism is packaged or branded, it's always about the government stealing the means of production from the people and doing with them as they see fit.

The problem with what you’re saying is that the rule of law is vital to the success of any government. No government - including the US - can be sustained without the rule of law. The government facilitates programs that are funded by and utilized by its citizens. That’s what socialism is. The only way this system works, is by the rule of law.

 

[Billy000]

The very basic definition of the word has nothing to do with this. Socialism’s definition isn’t about authoritarianism.

It can't exist without it.

You are definitely wrong. Sorry.

The power of the State determines who can do what, so yes, he is definitely correct.

In a sense you’re correct, but like our government, it has a democratic function. We elect officals that represent our interests (in theory). This is not the antithesis of socialism.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

Not even remotely, simply because Socialism is based on theft, that doesn't mean it's Socialism. Programs that the government creates aren't inherently Socialism, as it's government ownership of the means of production, which is private industry, which infrastructure is not.

Socialists only fool themselves into thinking infrastructure is Socialist so they can claim it's working, which is of course a joke.

Lol the word itself should give you the clue its about people. It’s people’s ownership of programs that they utilize. This is simply facilitated by the government though it’s funded by citizens.

No, it's not people's ownership, it's about government arbitrating those programs, that's why the big government people are the ones pitching it. The only people who truly believe it's about the people are the ones who haven't examined the ideal's history, and how it always ends with the Socialists claiming that the failed product was Fascism, Communism, or State Capitalism.

No matter how Socialism is packaged or branded, it's always about the government stealing the means of production from the people and doing with them as they see fit.

The problem with what you’re saying is that the rule of law is vital to the success of any government. No government - including the US - can be sustained without the rule of law. The government facilitates programs that are funded by and utilized by its citizens. That’s what socialism is. The only way this system works, is by the rule of law.

You're not wrong that rule of law is important to the success of a government, yet sometimes I wonder if the government is vital to the success of any civilization. I sometimes feel we can survive without them constantly eroding our rights and using force and coercion to control every aspect of our lives.

No, Socialism is specifically repossession of the means of production, the infrastructure not being a means of production. For all of the forms of infrastructure, the government doesn't product anything, it repossesses it either by force or through purchase, unlike under Socialism, where the government OWNS production. Pretending not to understand that is merely a method to normalize Socialism and pretend it's an ideal that works.

 

[Billy000]

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

Not even remotely, simply because Socialism is based on theft, that doesn't mean it's Socialism. Programs that the government creates aren't inherently Socialism, as it's government ownership of the means of production, which is private industry, which infrastructure is not.

Socialists only fool themselves into thinking infrastructure is Socialist so they can claim it's working, which is of course a joke.

Lol the word itself should give you the clue its about people. It’s people’s ownership of programs that they utilize. This is simply facilitated by the government though it’s funded by citizens.

No, it's not people's ownership, it's about government arbitrating those programs, that's why the big government people are the ones pitching it. The only people who truly believe it's about the people are the ones who haven't examined the ideal's history, and how it always ends with the Socialists claiming that the failed product was Fascism, Communism, or State Capitalism.

No matter how Socialism is packaged or branded, it's always about the government stealing the means of production from the people and doing with them as they see fit.

The problem with what you’re saying is that the rule of law is vital to the success of any government. No government - including the US - can be sustained without the rule of law. The government facilitates programs that are funded by and utilized by its citizens. That’s what socialism is. The only way this system works, is by the rule of law.

You're not wrong that rule of law is important to the success of a government, yet sometimes I wonder if the government is vital to the success of any civilization. I sometimes feel we can survive without them constantly eroding our rights and using force and coercion to control every aspect of our lives.

No, Socialism is specifically repossession of the means of production, the infrastructure not being a means of production. For all of the forms of infrastructure, the government doesn't product anything, it repossesses it either by force or through purchase, unlike under Socialism, where the government OWNS production. Pretending not to understand that is merely a method to normalize Socialism and pretend it's an ideal that works.

Let me ask you this: when it comes to fireman or policeman, how are these positions not socialist?

 

[Dale Smith]

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

Not even remotely, simply because Socialism is based on theft, that doesn't mean it's Socialism. Programs that the government creates aren't inherently Socialism, as it's government ownership of the means of production, which is private industry, which infrastructure is not.

Socialists only fool themselves into thinking infrastructure is Socialist so they can claim it's working, which is of course a joke.

Lol the word itself should give you the clue its about people. It’s people’s ownership of programs that they utilize. This is simply facilitated by the government though it’s funded by citizens.

No, it's not people's ownership, it's about government arbitrating those programs, that's why the big government people are the ones pitching it. The only people who truly believe it's about the people are the ones who haven't examined the ideal's history, and how it always ends with the Socialists claiming that the failed product was Fascism, Communism, or State Capitalism.

No matter how Socialism is packaged or branded, it's always about the government stealing the means of production from the people and doing with them as they see fit.

The problem with what you’re saying is that the rule of law is vital to the success of any government. No government - including the US - can be sustained without the rule of law. The government facilitates programs that are funded by and utilized by its citizens. That’s what socialism is. The only way this system works, is by the rule of law.

USA.INC does not have laws.....they implement acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and public policy. Your beloved "gubermint" is a corporate entity and you are merely a resource.

 

[Dale Smith]

Your simplistic view of socialism versus capitalism never fails to amuse me because you don't have the slightest clue about the real history of this country. It was never the intention of the founding fathers to tax the labor of the people that were bartering their time and skills in exchange for something of value...nor did the founding fathers ever want foreign bankers in control of the monetary system that has made debt slaves out of everyone.

But I want to see if you have the balls to answer this question. I work in a very demanding field...one where it takes a toll on my body....especially my hands. It pays well as an electro-mechanical tech. It's a knuclebusting, "hard on the joints" type job that few want to do because of the difficulty of it......so let's just say that instead of turning over half of my wages (of which I am paid in scrip paper that we call Federal Reserve notes) Why should I continue to work and toll if "da gubermint" will simply take care of me? What is the point? I can have half of the compensation my sweat equity affords me so it can be given to someone that will not make the effort to learn a skill or trade...or I can simply choose to get the same benefits by sucking and leeching off of the labor of others? Which is the better option for me, Billy?????

There once was a time in this country....even after the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 of USA.INC that people were too proud to accept charity and take from others...fast forward to today? We have fabian socialists that want to steal from those with pride and give it to those that don't and they have no problem with it.

Let me answer your question this way: in terms of personal responsibility, why don’t you just get another job?

Why get another job if under socialism "da gubermint" will simply take from others to support me? What would be my incentive (under socialism) to go to the hassle of doing a job that doesn't pay diddly squat when I can get more by doing nothing???

Nice deflection, btw....and you proved my point and the best part was that you did the heavy lifting for me.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

You mean that wonderful economic system that gave us North Korea, Soviet Russia, Venezuela and Cuba? That economic system?


Sure.....sign me up!!!

 

[shockedcanadian]

See, you can have varying levels of socialism, listen to this former KGB from 1984 who defected to the U.S for individual freedom, I haven't listened to this in years, but it's a very educational interview from a guy who had advantages in the system and I always seems to head back to it. We have a similar system in Canada in far more covert and unannounced benefits to certain classes.

Much of what he talks about is what Canada possesses. It starts with degrees of social assistance but always ends in Marxism.

 

[TheDude]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Did you say it's a broad term and Republicans can't define it, and socialism is apart our framework?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Not even remotely, simply because Socialism is based on theft, that doesn't mean it's Socialism. Programs that the government creates aren't inherently Socialism, as it's government ownership of the means of production, which is private industry, which infrastructure is not.

Socialists only fool themselves into thinking infrastructure is Socialist so they can claim it's working, which is of course a joke.

Lol the word itself should give you the clue its about people. It’s people’s ownership of programs that they utilize. This is simply facilitated by the government though it’s funded by citizens.

No, it's not people's ownership, it's about government arbitrating those programs, that's why the big government people are the ones pitching it. The only people who truly believe it's about the people are the ones who haven't examined the ideal's history, and how it always ends with the Socialists claiming that the failed product was Fascism, Communism, or State Capitalism.

No matter how Socialism is packaged or branded, it's always about the government stealing the means of production from the people and doing with them as they see fit.

The problem with what you’re saying is that the rule of law is vital to the success of any government. No government - including the US - can be sustained without the rule of law. The government facilitates programs that are funded by and utilized by its citizens. That’s what socialism is. The only way this system works, is by the rule of law.

You're not wrong that rule of law is important to the success of a government, yet sometimes I wonder if the government is vital to the success of any civilization. I sometimes feel we can survive without them constantly eroding our rights and using force and coercion to control every aspect of our lives.

No, Socialism is specifically repossession of the means of production, the infrastructure not being a means of production. For all of the forms of infrastructure, the government doesn't product anything, it repossesses it either by force or through purchase, unlike under Socialism, where the government OWNS production. Pretending not to understand that is merely a method to normalize Socialism and pretend it's an ideal that works.

Let me ask you this: when it comes to fireman or policeman, how are these positions not socialist?

Gee, I dunno, probably for the reasons I literally just explained. Police and Firemen produce nothing, they are infrastructure.

 

[Billy000]

Lol the word itself should give you the clue its about people. It’s people’s ownership of programs that they utilize. This is simply facilitated by the government though it’s funded by citizens.

No, it's not people's ownership, it's about government arbitrating those programs, that's why the big government people are the ones pitching it. The only people who truly believe it's about the people are the ones who haven't examined the ideal's history, and how it always ends with the Socialists claiming that the failed product was Fascism, Communism, or State Capitalism.

No matter how Socialism is packaged or branded, it's always about the government stealing the means of production from the people and doing with them as they see fit.

The problem with what you’re saying is that the rule of law is vital to the success of any government. No government - including the US - can be sustained without the rule of law. The government facilitates programs that are funded by and utilized by its citizens. That’s what socialism is. The only way this system works, is by the rule of law.

You're not wrong that rule of law is important to the success of a government, yet sometimes I wonder if the government is vital to the success of any civilization. I sometimes feel we can survive without them constantly eroding our rights and using force and coercion to control every aspect of our lives.

No, Socialism is specifically repossession of the means of production, the infrastructure not being a means of production. For all of the forms of infrastructure, the government doesn't product anything, it repossesses it either by force or through purchase, unlike under Socialism, where the government OWNS production. Pretending not to understand that is merely a method to normalize Socialism and pretend it's an ideal that works.

Let me ask you this: when it comes to fireman or policeman, how are these positions not socialist?

Gee, I dunno, probably for the reasons I literally just explained. Police and Firemen produce nothing, they are infrastructure.

Lol they themselves are products.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, it's not people's ownership, it's about government arbitrating those programs, that's why the big government people are the ones pitching it. The only people who truly believe it's about the people are the ones who haven't examined the ideal's history, and how it always ends with the Socialists claiming that the failed product was Fascism, Communism, or State Capitalism.

No matter how Socialism is packaged or branded, it's always about the government stealing the means of production from the people and doing with them as they see fit.

The problem with what you’re saying is that the rule of law is vital to the success of any government. No government - including the US - can be sustained without the rule of law. The government facilitates programs that are funded by and utilized by its citizens. That’s what socialism is. The only way this system works, is by the rule of law.

You're not wrong that rule of law is important to the success of a government, yet sometimes I wonder if the government is vital to the success of any civilization. I sometimes feel we can survive without them constantly eroding our rights and using force and coercion to control every aspect of our lives.

No, Socialism is specifically repossession of the means of production, the infrastructure not being a means of production. For all of the forms of infrastructure, the government doesn't product anything, it repossesses it either by force or through purchase, unlike under Socialism, where the government OWNS production. Pretending not to understand that is merely a method to normalize Socialism and pretend it's an ideal that works.

Let me ask you this: when it comes to fireman or policeman, how are these positions not socialist?

Gee, I dunno, probably for the reasons I literally just explained. Police and Firemen produce nothing, they are infrastructure.

Lol they themselves are products.

It's just like a Socialist to think of people as products to be produced. People are factually not produced by the government. Policemen and Firemen are not produced by the government, they are hired. They are not products, they are employees.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

It is one of the buzz words con media uses as a substitute for 'evil monster'. The same as gay, woman, libruls, feminists, college professors...

The whole intent is to reduce any people or groups that oppose the radical right wing agenda to less than human, evil and 'other'. For the uneducated they reduce all of human discussion and conflict to us vs them. All of it. They didn't use to do this, up until about 20 years ago Republicans were normal Americans who had no trouble compromising with Democrats. But with the advent of conservative talk-radio and Fake Fox News they paint 'the other' as evil 24/7 until their audience actually believes there are no valid viewpoints other than the party line.

Democracy is built on compromise, without it democracy soon grows week and dies. The US democracy was intentionally created by the founders as a government of forced compromise because they knew after seeing centuries of history in Europe that some groups in all populations are militant and will easily resort to weapons to force their will on others.

When you hear cries of 'both sides do it' it is a false equivalency. Democrats have been forced to meet force with force as conservatives have gotten more and more unyielding and really want to encode all of their biases into law. They want zero compromise.

I think it time to split the country up and let the cons go have the south and build a wall around it so high no one ever needs to see or hear from them again. They'll be the American version of North Korea.