Would it be helpful to have an official USMB definition of certain terms?

[K9Buck]

...any kind of educated standards...

That's funny, coming from you.

 

[Crepitus]

For instance...

Capitalism: Means of production (MOP) owned and controlled by citizens.
Communism: MOP owned and controlled by government.
Socialism: MOP owned and controlled by the employees/workers.
Fascism: MOP owned by citizens, but partially or fully directed by government.
Democratic Socialism: ???

Thoughts?

It would help if conservatives would just use a dictionary or open a book occasionally. Definitions for those terms already exist.

Some definitions are rather subjective and inaccurate.

You disagreeing with them does not make them inaccurate.

 

[dblack]

For instance...

Capitalism: Means of production (MOP) owned and controlled by citizens.
Communism: MOP owned and controlled by government.
Socialism: MOP owned and controlled by the employees/workers.
Fascism: MOP owned by citizens, but partially or fully directed by government.
Democratic Socialism: ???

Thoughts?

It's always good to be clear about terminology, but the dictionary definitions of these words are all pretty clear. It's all the equivocation and spin that gets in the way.

 

[dblack]

For instance...

Capitalism: Means of production (MOP) owned and controlled by citizens.
Communism: MOP owned and controlled by government.
Socialism: MOP owned and controlled by the employees/workers.
Fascism: MOP owned by citizens, but partially or fully directed by government.
Democratic Socialism: ???

Thoughts?

It would help if conservatives would just use a dictionary or open a book occasionally. Definitions for those terms already exist.

It would help if liberals did that too. All their gyrations around socialism are getting rather comical.

 

[Crepitus]

For instance...

Capitalism: Means of production (MOP) owned and controlled by citizens.
Communism: MOP owned and controlled by government.
Socialism: MOP owned and controlled by the employees/workers.
Fascism: MOP owned by citizens, but partially or fully directed by government.
Democratic Socialism: ???

Thoughts?

It would help if conservatives would just use a dictionary or open a book occasionally. Definitions for those terms already exist.

It would help if liberals did that too. All their gyrations around socialism are getting rather comical.

Lol, that's pretty funny.

Why don't you define socialism for us.

 

[dblack]

For instance...

Capitalism: Means of production (MOP) owned and controlled by citizens.
Communism: MOP owned and controlled by government.
Socialism: MOP owned and controlled by the employees/workers.
Fascism: MOP owned by citizens, but partially or fully directed by government.
Democratic Socialism: ???

Thoughts?

It would help if conservatives would just use a dictionary or open a book occasionally. Definitions for those terms already exist.

It would help if liberals did that too. All their gyrations around socialism are getting rather comical.

Lol, that's pretty funny.

Why don't you define socialism for us.

You can't read a dictionary?

 

[K9Buck]

You disagreeing with them does not make them inaccurate.

Google socialism, fascism and capitalism and I bet you'll find multitudes of definitions. Yes, there is a subjective nature to it.

I read one Oxford definition of fascism in which the author mentioned racist ideals as being a part of its ideology. The only problem is that, the original fascist "manifesto" as written by the original fascists (Mussolini and Gentile), didn't mention a word about race. So, yea, sometimes mainstream definitions are "inaccurate". And let's also remember that some folks that want to define a concept do so with a political ax to grind.

 

[Crepitus]

For instance...

Capitalism: Means of production (MOP) owned and controlled by citizens.
Communism: MOP owned and controlled by government.
Socialism: MOP owned and controlled by the employees/workers.
Fascism: MOP owned by citizens, but partially or fully directed by government.
Democratic Socialism: ???

Thoughts?

It would help if conservatives would just use a dictionary or open a book occasionally. Definitions for those terms already exist.

It would help if liberals did that too. All their gyrations around socialism are getting rather comical.

Lol, that's pretty funny.

Why don't you define socialism for us.

You can't read a dictionary?

LMAO!!!

You don't know what it means so you're dodging!

Too fuckin' funny kid!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What is AOC?

Always on Crack by the looks of it.

 

[Crepitus]

You disagreeing with them does not make them inaccurate.

Google socialism, fascism and capitalism and I bet you'll find multitudes of definitions. Yes, there is a subjective nature to it.

I read one Oxford definition of fascism in which the author mentioned racist ideals as being a part of its ideology. The only problem is that, the original fascist "manifesto" as written by the original fascists (Mussolini and Gentile), didn't mention a word about race. So, yea, sometimes mainstream definitions are "inaccurate". And let's also remember that some folks that want to define a concept do so with a political ax to grind.

So Hitler offing all the Jews had nothing to do with racism then? That whole Master race thing was all just so they could share uniforms more easily?

 

[Blues Man]

For instance...

Capitalism: Means of production (MOP) owned and controlled by citizens.
Communism: MOP owned and controlled by government.
Socialism: MOP owned and controlled by the employees/workers.
Fascism: MOP owned by citizens, but partially or fully directed by government.
Democratic Socialism: ???

Thoughts?

We already have official definitions of words

BTW there is a word for a collection of official definitions as well

Do you know what that word is?

 

[dblack]

For instance...

Capitalism: Means of production (MOP) owned and controlled by citizens.
Communism: MOP owned and controlled by government.
Socialism: MOP owned and controlled by the employees/workers.
Fascism: MOP owned by citizens, but partially or fully directed by government.
Democratic Socialism: ???

Thoughts?

It would help if conservatives would just use a dictionary or open a book occasionally. Definitions for those terms already exist.

It would help if liberals did that too. All their gyrations around socialism are getting rather comical.

Lol, that's pretty funny.

Why don't you define socialism for us.

You can't read a dictionary?

LMAO!!!

You don't know what it means so you're dodging!

Too fuckin' funny kid!

Seriously? We posted nearly identical posts in this thread, making the same point. We don't need bunch of equivocation. There are clear definitions for these words. All you have to do is read them.

Would it prove anything, would it satisfy you, if I copied and pasted a definition of socialism in the thread for you to read??

 

[dblack]

Democrat Talking Point Memo #456:

1. When faced with criticism of socialism, ask for a definition of socialism. If your mark attempts do define it in their own words, equivocate to high-heaven and nitpick each and every word. If they use a dictionary definition, go on to step 2.
2. Ask them for examples of socialism. When supplied, reject each and every one of their offerings with the criterium that only total government ownership of all property is socialism.
3. When they grow weary of your games, declare victory. You have proven they have no idea what socialism is. You win!

 

[K9Buck]

You disagreeing with them does not make them inaccurate.

Google socialism, fascism and capitalism and I bet you'll find multitudes of definitions. Yes, there is a subjective nature to it.

I read one Oxford definition of fascism in which the author mentioned racist ideals as being a part of its ideology. The only problem is that, the original fascist "manifesto" as written by the original fascists (Mussolini and Gentile), didn't mention a word about race. So, yea, sometimes mainstream definitions are "inaccurate". And let's also remember that some folks that want to define a concept do so with a political ax to grind.

So Hitler offing all the Jews had nothing to do with racism then? That whole Master race thing was all just so they could share uniforms more easily?

You're out of your depth.

 

[Crepitus]

You disagreeing with them does not make them inaccurate.

Google socialism, fascism and capitalism and I bet you'll find multitudes of definitions. Yes, there is a subjective nature to it.

I read one Oxford definition of fascism in which the author mentioned racist ideals as being a part of its ideology. The only problem is that, the original fascist "manifesto" as written by the original fascists (Mussolini and Gentile), didn't mention a word about race. So, yea, sometimes mainstream definitions are "inaccurate". And let's also remember that some folks that want to define a concept do so with a political ax to grind.

So Hitler offing all the Jews had nothing to do with racism then? That whole Master race thing was all just so they could share uniforms more easily?

You're out of your depth.

Nope, you're out of excuses.

 

[K9Buck]

You disagreeing with them does not make them inaccurate.

Google socialism, fascism and capitalism and I bet you'll find multitudes of definitions. Yes, there is a subjective nature to it.

I read one Oxford definition of fascism in which the author mentioned racist ideals as being a part of its ideology. The only problem is that, the original fascist "manifesto" as written by the original fascists (Mussolini and Gentile), didn't mention a word about race. So, yea, sometimes mainstream definitions are "inaccurate". And let's also remember that some folks that want to define a concept do so with a political ax to grind.

So Hitler offing all the Jews had nothing to do with racism then? That whole Master race thing was all just so they could share uniforms more easily?

You're out of your depth.

Nope, you're out of excuses.

You contribute nothing to the discussion, just snarky rhetoric.