Buys Ad To Warn About Socialism

[PoliticalChic]

Your history of economic theory does not name a single economist (unless you count Marx, which I would not), mention any economic theory, and apparently ends at 1880. It would also be more readable if you made it more definite who you were quoting (an unintended consequence of cut-and-paste?)

I actually had to read 2,000 or so pages of Joseph Schumpeter's magnus opus (History of Economic Analysis) in graduate school. Mercifully he died with it not completed and his wife spent three years editing it for publication. Given his politics as well as his economics, he would be right up your alley. nd he really was an Austrian Economist; he served as finance minister of Austria in 1919!

" It would also be more readable if you made it more definite who you were quoting..."

Clean off your specs....

....this was at the very top:

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/impri...=2007&month=05

I saw that. Is Father Sirico quoting Marx, Babeauf and Oscar Wilde? Why do you use quotation marks for some of the numbered points and not others? Please be consistent; I hate being thrust into the role of style-guide police.

"Why do you use quotation marks for some of the numbered points and not others? Please be consistent;"


The quotation marks are used correctly.

I recommend that you purchase the following:

"A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, Seventh Edition: Chicago Style for Students and Researchers" (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing) [Paperback]
Kate L. Turabian (Author), Wayne C. Booth (Editor), Gregory G. Colomb (Editor), Joseph M. Williams (Editor), University of Chicago Press Staff (Editor)

$10.23 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
at Amazon. com

 

[daveman]

Listen more carefully.....the wise woman told you to 'take a hike.'

And here again, is proof of the conservative studies. Politicalchic attacks others as being less than her, and calls herself wise. She is Delusional. But normal for con tools.

She is actually in love with me. Positive reps me, sends me private messages. It is actually a bit embarrassing. Do not tell Daveman, he is her new puppy and would be devastated.

You're really not very good at that.

 

[daveman]

Second immature poster I'll put on ignore list. Nothing to say, probably couldn't write an intelligent response if he/she wanted, so the typical - they don't give a *** about the country etc.
Why is it that the nasty, hateful posters are usually from the right wing? Not that all right wingers are vulgar or hateful.

Boy, this new crop of moonbats are convinced of their own superiority for no apparent reason, aren't they?

They just don't make trolls like they used to.

Uh, studies say stupid people think they are very, very smart. Sound like yourself, dipshit. Here:

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Watching Fox makes you stupid Study: Watching Fox News Actually Makes You Stupid | Jillian Rayfield | Politics News | Rolling Stone

While there are a number of books confirming the subject, and a whole lot of prejudiced comments and blogs discussing the issue, these are ALL actual studies using actual scientific methodology. And there are many, many more saying the same thing. No bullshit. So, this could be of real help in explaining your affliction. Your problem is really not your fault. You are just innately stupid. And it would tell any rational, somewhat smart person that if they are a con tool, like you, that they should not call others stupid. Tends to draw attention to your own lack of intelligence.

Yeah. Still waiting for your resume, Skippy.

Since it hasn't been forthcoming, I can only assume that "being a liberal" is indeed your only accomplishment.

Man, it must suck to be you.

 

[daveman]

It will just be a matter of time before our IRA accounts and 401k plans are taken over by government.

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the children!!"

Political Chic, it is nice to see that you got a puppy. Did he come from the ASPCA, or did he follow you home?

He is so ugly that he is cute.

Look, kid, it's really not my fault you get pissed when someone points out your love of authoritarianism.

Don't like it? Start supporting freedom. Simple, huh?

 

[daveman]

Is that Sigmund Freud, or Benny Freud?

Wish my wife would tell me to go take a nap.

Listen more carefully.....the wise woman told you to 'take a hike.'

And here again, is proof of the conservative studies. Politicalchic attacks others as being less than her, and calls herself wise. She is Delusional. But normal for con tools.

I guess it's just different...somehow...it just is!! when you do it, huh?

Because that's exactly what you're doing, dumbass.

 

[daveman]

I suppose I should be sorry, but I am not. Only complete idiots quote studies like the ones you posted because only complete idiots think that they prove anything. Pick any single study to defend and lets go through the math and the science behind it, I will prove it is bogus.

I am sure that you will. you are a con. You hate science. Pick your own. Have a ball. But your opinion, which is all that I see from you, proves nothing.
So, a group, say a university group, comes up with a question. They have a large group of people whom they ask questions of. Carefully devised questions to not shade the study in any direction. And they then look at the answers. But you, quantam, being the self believed genius, can take it apart in no time at all. Why is that quantam?? Why, it is because you believe yourself to be really smart. Which to them, proves the point. But to a con, well, you can go to a tea party meeting on some street corner (should you be able to find one somewhere these days) and hold a sign saying that obama is a socialist, or we are heading toward socialism under this administration. Amazing.

Funny how cons come up with attack after attack with zero proof of their assertions. Nothing. Just proof that they have listened to the right wing education over years and years and satisfied their need to "understand" what is going on. But put a bunch of studies together for them, and they screech like crazy. Science??? Nonsense, they say.

But if you put before them a statement by a study or two looking at the phenomenon that exists, the endless attacks and hate and statements without rational backing, why, it is BAD science. But you as a con HATE science.

So here you are in a blog thread about some clown who buys an add saying that we are heading towards socialism, and you LOVE it. Why is that, Quantam. Why do you line up behind hate of anything that the con machine tells you to. Where is the validity. Do you even know the definition of socialism??? If so, care to explain what has been going on in the current administration that is taking us toward socialism??? The rest of the industrialized world just look at people like you and shake their head.

So, lets look at your response. You said:
So, you know without having looked at the studies, that they prove nothing. Just a bunch of over educated peope wasting our time. Question is, me con tool, how do you know anything about the study since your next sentence indicates you have not looked at it. You do not, of course. But this is how you go through life, telling people what you believe based on nothing but opinion. Which is exactly what these studies look at.

Pick any single study to defend and lets go through the math and the science behind it, I will prove it is bogus

And, me con tool, you believe yourself so smart that you can brush the methodology of the study away and prove it to be bogus without having seen it yet. Again, you are proving their findings, that you are a con, you are stupid, and you know the answers without looking at the question. Amazing, quantam. Must be nice to live in a world filled with whatever you want to believe. Makes things so easy.
And, of course, it is exactly what I would expect of a good con. Since you believe what you want to believe, you are able to brush anything that is inconvenient out of your way. Which keeps you happy. Hell, maybe you can even gin up some additional anger. That would be a bonus, eh, quantam?

I notice that you didn't actually try to defend any of the studies.

He believes their pre-ordained conclusions.

That's leftist "science".

 

[daveman]

My, what a condescending little shit you are. You must suffer from severe insecurity.

'Any damn fool can be complicated. It takes a genius to be simple, but great. ' Woody Guthrie

Are you talking to Rshermr?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you even know the definition of socialism???

Invented by Marx as temporary state occuring after capitalism concentrates wealth to point where workers take over commanding heights on route to full take over of communism. Little did Marx know that his liberal presense on earth killed about 150 million innocent people very very slowly mostly through en mass starvation that resulted from liberal, stimulus, Solyindra, A123, bridge to no where, lost decade, housing crisis, mal-investment.

Jefferson gave us freedom because he saw it all coming. Liberals have seen it but still lack the IQ to know what they have seen.

Can any human beings really be that liberal and stupid?? I'm so sorry but what other explanation is possible? Please tell me as I hate to be in conflict with so many of my fellow human beings. Thank you.

 

[regent]

Do you even know the definition of socialism???

Invented by Marx as temporary state occuring after capitalism concentrates wealth to point where workers take over commanding heights on route to full take over of communism. Little did Marx know that his liberal presense on earth killed about 150 million innocent people very very slowly mostly through en mass starvation that resulted from liberal, stimulus, Solyindra, A123, bridge to no where, lost decade, housing crisis, mal-investment.

Jefferson gave us freedom because he saw it all coming. Liberals have seen it but still lack the IQ to know what they have seen.

Can any human beings really be that liberal and stupid?? I'm so sorry but what other explanation is possible? Please tell me as I hate to be in conflict with so many of my fellow human beings. Thank you.

Depending on the defintition of socialism there are a number of types of socialism, Marx put forth one type "Scientific Socialism" which was a step toward communism. Other types of socialism are found throughout the world and most industrial nations are a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

 

[NoNukes]

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the children!!"

Political Chic, it is nice to see that you got a puppy. Did he come from the ASPCA, or did he follow you home?

He is so ugly that he is cute.

Look, kid, it's really not my fault you get pissed when someone points out your love of authoritarianism.

Don't like it? Start supporting freedom. Simple, huh?

Political Chic. Your puppy is barking and annoying the neighbors. Perhaps a rolled up newspaper across the snout would straighten him out.

 

[NoNukes]

My, what a condescending little shit you are. You must suffer from severe insecurity.

'Any damn fool can be complicated. It takes a genius to be simple, but great. ' Woody Guthrie

Are you talking to Rshermr?

No, to Edmund Belafonte

 

[editec]

What amuses me about these ATLAS-wannbes is their confusion about socialism.

As though without those socialistic elements that keep every society and every market going, they'd have been able to make any money in the first place.

 

[Mishima]

The most hardcore Communists in the former Red China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea referred to themselves as “Socialists.”

Socialists invariably maintain, in essence, that all the bad stuff done in the name of socialism is communism, and all the good stuff is socialism. Free healthcare? That’s socialism. Political repression? That’s communism. Public pensions? Socialism. The Gulag? Communism…Whether one describes a particular arrangement as socialist or communist, one is talking about different expressions of a single phenomenon…The great communist leaders regularly describe themselves, their work, and their philosophy as socialist.

When Paul Sweezy, a prominent Marxist economist and founder of the Monthly Review (“a leading voice of independent Marxian socialism&#8221 and Socialist coeditor Leo Huberman were asked to explain the difference between Socialism and Communism, they gave the following response:

"Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism…is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or 'higher stage' of socialism…Socialism is…the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism."

 

[Bfgrn]

The most hardcore Communists in the former Red China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea referred to themselves as “Socialists.”

Socialists invariably maintain, in essence, that all the bad stuff done in the name of socialism is communism, and all the good stuff is socialism. Free healthcare? That’s socialism. Political repression? That’s communism. Public pensions? Socialism. The Gulag? Communism…Whether one describes a particular arrangement as socialist or communist, one is talking about different expressions of a single phenomenon…The great communist leaders regularly describe themselves, their work, and their philosophy as socialist.

When Paul Sweezy, a prominent Marxist economist and founder of the Monthly Review (“a leading voice of independent Marxian socialism”) and Socialist coeditor Leo Huberman were asked to explain the difference between Socialism and Communism, they gave the following response:

"Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism…is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or 'higher stage' of socialism…Socialism is…the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism."

Here is a better explanation:

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[PoliticalChic]

The most hardcore Communists in the former Red China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea referred to themselves as “Socialists.”

Socialists invariably maintain, in essence, that all the bad stuff done in the name of socialism is communism, and all the good stuff is socialism. Free healthcare? That’s socialism. Political repression? That’s communism. Public pensions? Socialism. The Gulag? Communism…Whether one describes a particular arrangement as socialist or communist, one is talking about different expressions of a single phenomenon…The great communist leaders regularly describe themselves, their work, and their philosophy as socialist.

When Paul Sweezy, a prominent Marxist economist and founder of the Monthly Review (“a leading voice of independent Marxian socialism”) and Socialist coeditor Leo Huberman were asked to explain the difference between Socialism and Communism, they gave the following response:

"Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism…is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or 'higher stage' of socialism…Socialism is…the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism."

Here is a better explanation:

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Exactly the kind of bogus post one would expect of a Leftist/socialist/communist/progressive/Democrat....i.e., you.

 

[Bfgrn]

The most hardcore Communists in the former Red China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea referred to themselves as “Socialists.”

Socialists invariably maintain, in essence, that all the bad stuff done in the name of socialism is communism, and all the good stuff is socialism. Free healthcare? That’s socialism. Political repression? That’s communism. Public pensions? Socialism. The Gulag? Communism…Whether one describes a particular arrangement as socialist or communist, one is talking about different expressions of a single phenomenon…The great communist leaders regularly describe themselves, their work, and their philosophy as socialist.

When Paul Sweezy, a prominent Marxist economist and founder of the Monthly Review (“a leading voice of independent Marxian socialism”) and Socialist coeditor Leo Huberman were asked to explain the difference between Socialism and Communism, they gave the following response:

"Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism…is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or 'higher stage' of socialism…Socialism is…the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism."

Here is a better explanation:

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Exactly the kind of bogus post one would expect of a Leftist/socialist/communist/progressive/Democrat....i.e., you.

The truth hurts doesn't it PC?

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

Conservatives like to suggest that communism, socialism and liberalism are the same thing. According to Wikipedia:

Communism is a sociopolitical structure that aims for a classless and stateless society with the communal ownership of property.

Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom" is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state.

Most social scientists consider communism to be a political system while socialism is an economic system. Capitalism is to fascism is what socialism is to communism. In the real world, most country's have mixed economic systems that have both elements of capitalism and socialism.

Of interest, liberal ideas actually developed before conservative ideas.

Is liberalism like socialism and communism? The great Chinese leader, Mao Zedong, didn't think so.

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.

Combat Liberalism - Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is a better explanation:

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Exactly the kind of bogus post one would expect of a Leftist/socialist/communist/progressive/Democrat....i.e., you.

The truth hurts doesn't it PC?

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism

Conservatives like to suggest that communism, socialism and liberalism are the same thing. According to Wikipedia:

Communism is a sociopolitical structure that aims for a classless and stateless society with the communal ownership of property.

Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom" is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state.

Most social scientists consider communism to be a political system while socialism is an economic system. Capitalism is to fascism is what socialism is to communism. In the real world, most country's have mixed economic systems that have both elements of capitalism and socialism.

Of interest, liberal ideas actually developed before conservative ideas.

Is liberalism like socialism and communism? The great Chinese leader, Mao Zedong, didn't think so.

"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension.

It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads.

Combat Liberalism - Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung

So....you thought 'bogus' means 'truth'?


New Oxford American Dictionary [Hardcover]
Oxford University Press
$35.13, at Amazon.

 

[regent]

When one thinks of what the ignorance of these economic and political systems have cost the United States one would think at the very least a mini course in every high school on comparative economic systems and political systems would be required. We wouldn't have accept the premise that every young person would learn the systems, but maybe enough so that America would not be so fearful and so easily manipulated by these labels.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When one thinks of what the ignorance of these economic and political systems have cost the United States one would think at the very least a mini course in every high school on comparative economic systems and political systems would be required. We wouldn't have accept the premise that every young person would learn the systems, but maybe enough so that America would not be so fearful and so easily manipulated by these labels.

As vapid as this post is, one is left with the conclusion that it is no more than typing practice.

True, reggie?

 

[MikeK]

The most hardcore Communists in the former Red China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea referred to themselves as “Socialists.”

Socialists invariably maintain, in essence, that all the bad stuff done in the name of socialism is communism, and all the good stuff is socialism. Free healthcare? That’s socialism. Political repression? That’s communism. Public pensions? Socialism. The Gulag? Communism…Whether one describes a particular arrangement as socialist or communist, one is talking about different expressions of a single phenomenon…The great communist leaders regularly describe themselves, their work, and their philosophy as socialist.

When Paul Sweezy, a prominent Marxist economist and founder of the Monthly Review (“a leading voice of independent Marxian socialism”) and Socialist coeditor Leo Huberman were asked to explain the difference between Socialism and Communism, they gave the following response:

"Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism…is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or 'higher stage' of socialism…Socialism is…the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism."

Communism is socialism carried to an authoritarian extreme. Fascism is capitalism carried to an authoritarian extreme. The ideal situation, which existed in the U.S. between the 40s and 80s, is a capitalist economy which is controlled by certain socialist regulations.

Remove those regulations and we presently are witnessing the consequences. And unless we restore the regulations that held the banks and finance industry in check the U.S. will devolve into a textbook fascist state by 2025.