Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[forkup]

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.

I'm doing an equally hard and demanding job. I'm an industrial cleaner. I'm European and as such pay taxes that make an American blanch. I don't particularly mind, considering I earn decent money. I don't have to worry about surviving if I become incapable of working. My kid can go to a decent school, etc, etc. If I wouldn't work as I do, I wouldn't be able to take a vacation, I wouldn't be able to own my own house. I wouldn't be driving a Mercedes. In short I would have a way less comfortable life . I suspect that is the same as you. The difference being that my social safety net insures that me, my wife and my kid will always be insured to have a measure of security that I wouldn't possess if I pay less taxes.

 

[Borillar]

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's whatever they disagree with at any given time.

 

[Billy000]

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.

Lol I assumed you’d react with that emotional response. This has nothing to do with dehumanization. These positions are funded by the tax payers - that makes them products. Obviously this has nothing to do with their value to society.

 

[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.

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 as 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.

You’re spot on. Let me also add that the uneducated rightwing is purely emotional. They subscribe to what sounds good to their ears rather than accepting objectivity.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

Lol I assumed you’d react with that emotional response. This has nothing to do with dehumanization. These positions are funded by the tax payers - that makes them products. Obviously this has nothing to do with their value to society.

It's not an emotional response, it's a response based on facts and logic. Employees are not products, they are merchants, as they sell their services, skills, and experience, to employers, who are looking for those particular skill sets.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Socialism is when people get together, it's easier to kill people who are individual, it's easier to subjugate people who are individual, so they try and prevent people joining forces to become stronger.

The NRA is encouraged, but Unions are discouraged....

 

[deanrd]

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.

Yet, they know what trickle down is and think it works for them.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Yet, they know what trickle down is and think it works for them.

Sadly, they do.

 

[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.

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

Now you’re catching on!

 

[McFury]

What's the point of working 3 jobs when you can collect welfare checks, ssi- checks, food stamps, free housing and free healthcare...
And all the benefits for lazy retards...
While most hard working folks are filling for bankruptcy and putting their homes on remortgage ?
America was not built by lazy socialists.

 

[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.

Yet, they know what trickle down is and think it works for them.

"Trickle-down" isn't an actual thing, it's simply economics. The left only calls it "Trickle-Down" because they can only discredit it by calling it something else, and can't debunk it. The fact that you don't know that simply shows how economically illiterate you are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Republicans are consistent at being inaccurate.

 

[Political Junky]

It's an oppressive economic construct that forcibly confiscates the property of some to give to others who didn't earn it. It's immoral and unethical and hardly surprising that you support it.

You bought the Alt-Right BS, totally.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

Oh, yes.

 

[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.

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.

Beautifully put.

 

[Political Junky]

It's an oppressive economic construct that forcibly confiscates the property of some to give to others who didn't earn it. It's immoral and unethical and hardly surprising that you support it.

Why are the happiest people living in countries you call Socialist?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Republicans don't fall for the leftwing fantasy definition of socialism where it's always "democratic," and where everyone lives happily ever after. Socialism is government control of the economy. Without that, you don't have socialism.

There are two ways to conduct economic affairs: voluntary exchange or government commands. There are no other ways. The former we call the market economy and the latter we call socialism.

It's that simple. Leftwing moonshine can be ignored.

 

[bripat9643]

It's an oppressive economic construct that forcibly confiscates the property of some to give to others who didn't earn it. It's immoral and unethical and hardly surprising that you support it.

Why are the happiest people living in countries you call Socialist?

The countries you call the happiest are where everyone is white. Are you a fucking racist?

 

[bripat9643]

It's an oppressive economic construct that forcibly confiscates the property of some to give to others who didn't earn it. It's immoral and unethical and hardly surprising that you support it.

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

Of course it is. What could be more authoritarian than government controlling the economy?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

True, and they are both extremely wasteful and incompetently managed.