Did Millennials Not Learn About Socialism?

[Iceweasel]

Just think: Even as recently as the last Presidential election a serious Presidential candidate wouldn't dare refer to him/herself as a "socialist" and now we have one who is a major contender (though still not likely to succeed) for a major party nomination.

Of course, who would think a guy talking about his schlong during a primary debate would be a contender for his party's nomination, too?

I'm worried about my bank account and our future and you're worried about Donald's schlong. Different priorities.

"Worried"? I'm more a mixture of amused and saddened that that's how low one side of the aisle has sunk at this point.

As far as being worried about the other things you mentioned, those of us on the left are too, but you just go right on being your usual wingnut self and act like only the way you view it matters.

In the meantime our future generations are gonna look more favorably on the idea of an economy where we share more and that's not a bad thing.

Little girls are saddened by things they don't understand. I disagree with dependent, needy helpless people like you. It doesn't sadden me, you're a waste of flesh. You could curl up in a doorway and decompose and it wouldn't sadden me in the least. You say what the future will be as if you were god and tell me only my way matters to me? Well, duh. Why should I favor your view? How can you be this stupid?

 

[Iceweasel]

It's not just health care. I will be able to send my kid to college for a fraction of the cost that it would be in the US.If I get fired tomorrow ill still make enough to live normal not luxurious. It gives me time to look for a new job without to much stress. If I have troubles finding a job I can do a free reschooling while i still will receive my unemployment comp. My wife when she came over got cheap language and cultural classes. Etc

Nothing is free, I hope you realize that. You enjoy being cared for by the state, we get it. We were not founded on that principle, we are/were free to win or fail as we made our way through life. It's why the USofA has been the innovating powerhouse it has been. We changed the world.

Now we are being told that we need the state to run the show so we can be as mediocre as everyone else. That doesn't sit too well with many of us, but they are busy brainwashing the youths to goose step behind the monochrome socialist drumbeat. You can see the stupidity flourish and manifest itself right here.

 

[Boss]

Our founding fathers actually have the first opportunity of any newly-founded governing body to consider Socialism as the general ideas were already being talked about across the pond. But these people, as you recall, were radicals of their time... they didn't want anything like Socialism, it was moving in the opposite direction and away from what they wanted to do here. They didn't want large centralized Federal power lording over the people. They wanted a society that ensured personal liberty above all else and enabled individuals the freedom to pursue their ambitions and desires through free enterprise, free market economy. They WANTED people to aspire to be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and buy expensive homes. They WANTED businesses to thrive and prosper. And guess what? It worked out brilliantly... we became the undisputed World Leaders... in pretty much everything.

Did they even have a conception of this thing called "socialism" back then?

Yes, they did. It was not yet a popular idea and there were still many aspects that were being mulled over but the ideas behind Socialist government (what would become Socialism) were being debated all across Europe.

Our founders were radicals. They were looking for a new idea... something different that hadn't been tried before. They knew they didn't want a kingdom or a feudal system. I am sure, particularly through the writings of Alex Hamilton, they considered concepts of Socialism as a radical new approach of the times. That WAS the innovative "new age" thinking of the time in Europe.

However, Madison and Jefferson along with numerous others like George Mason and Patrick Henry, were not inclined toward a system that established centralized government authority. They sought vigorously to limit that authority to the bare essentials. They wanted to take us in a bold new direction which was the exact opposite of Socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

Also, when the president wants to spend money on infrastructure, the derp-derp party screams "Socialism" and calls him a dirty commie.

Every first world and even most second world nations on this planet spend and invest in their nation. It is common sense...The federal government invested a shit ton into our freeways, highways, dams and a rail roads.

How is doing something that improves the live of the tax payers wrong?

Stealing from innocent people to provide a few of them with some infrastructure is wrong.

BTW, All the railroads the government subsidized went bankrupt. The others are all privately built.

 

[bripat9643]

Eisenhower was smart when he conceived the interstate highway system by saying it was to be used to move military materiel around the country.

Attach the word "military" to any proposal and the conservatards will climb over each other to make sure it becomes law.

Eisenhower saddled us with a huge boondoggle. We already had a perfectly efficient railroad system, and it was privately built. It didn't cost the taxpayers a dime. The interstate highway system put it out of business, and it cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. How did we benefit?

 

[bripat9643]

A recent Pugh Research survey showed that 47% of Millennials had positive views on Socialism. It made me wonder, when did we stop teaching World History and specifically, about the horrors of Socialism in school? Must have been since I graduated in the late 70s, because when I went to school, we devoted a great deal of time in studying and being tested rigorously on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others. The People's Revolution... The Bolsheviks... The Killing Fields... Any of that ringing any bells to Millennials? As it stands, the Death Toll for Socialism worldwide stands at around 150 million, conservatively speaking. And that's for deaths that we know about... there are probably that many more that we will never know about. It is a dangerous and devastating political ideology that you need to be aware of and pay attention to what happens, how it works, what the inhuman and horrific results have been.

Oh, I know... YOU favor a different KIND of Socialism! It's not your Grandaddy's Socialism! But guess what? It's ALWAYS a different kind! Every incarnation of Socialism comes repackaged in a "new and improved" version that will certainly work THIS time! Mao recreated Stalinist Socialism, Pol Pot recreated Maoism. There is always a "better" version of Socialism... that's because there has to be... it keeps failing.

You see, the thing is... I don't really think Millennials have thought this through. The things that you hold near and dear... the grande mocha frappuccino at Starbucks... the latest version of the iPhone or music device... all those things go bye-bye in a Socialist system, you don't have time for that anyway, you have to remain productive. Things like going to the movies or concerts... that becomes a once a year kinda thing, maybe... if you work really hard and save for it. In fact, the coming and going pretty much has to stop altogether because you can't afford it anymore.

Art, music, movies... all things creative that you have known and loved... all goes away because there is no room for creativity and thinking anymore, you must remain committed to becoming a more productive worker. You don't believe me? Well, in Russia, if you look at the art and buildings from their Imperial era, (pre-socialist)... they were colorful and very artistically creative... look at art and buildings following the revolution which brought Socialism and it turns to brown dull colors, uninspired architecture. Creativity is killed for the Greater Good, you see? You'll have the same modest little shoe box home like everyone else and you can't really "own" property anymore... you can't afford to buy it. However, it will always seem as though the Socialist ruling class is able to afford these things, but they are making all this wonderful Socialist Utopia possible, so it's to be expected, right?

The really bad thing is whenever you discover this Socialism isn't really all that it's cracked up to be.... think of Windows Vista... The thing is, you can't revert to previous version... there is nothing there anymore. You have to destroy the free market capitalist system in order to actually implement this wonderful new version of socialism... so there's that. You're just stuck with it until enough people are willing to shed blood and start a revolution. That probably isn't going to be the Millennial generation but I assume at least a few of you will have children and presumably they'll produce grandchildren. At some point, that will be the only way to get back to what we once had... a vibrant free market, free enterprise, capitalist system.

A system, incidentally, which has proven successful everywhere it has been tried. It has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. We've been around 247 years, give or take... China has us beat by a few thousand years. We're relative babies in terms of nations.... yet we're the #1 World Superpower. That is the result of our system which is precious and unique... and most importantly, IS NOT SOCIALISM!

Okay, to the Granola Liberals.... You know how you've been instructed to argue that if you carry a Social Security card you're literally a "card-carrying socialist!"? You're being intentionally misled... and again, I have to wonder when we stopped teaching American History.... Constitutionally-enumerated powers of Congress? Promote the General Welfare? Any of that ringing any bells, Millennials? These things like Social Security and Roads/Bridges, etc... they all fall under Constitutionally-enumerated powers of the government that are built into our NON-Socialist system. They are NOT Socialism. There might be some similarities as they are often done as a "collective" and it seems this lines up with Socialism but it's not Socialism at all. There are a set of things you can find in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution which grant government the powers to handle certain aspects of government on behalf of everyone. It's not because government can do it more efficiently or even "better" in all cases, but the framers realized there were certain things the free market capitalist system couldn't do effectively because the incentives were all wrong. A free market capitalist military? What, we're gonna hire mercenaries? So there are these certain set of things the framers realized the government needed the power to handle and those are the Enumerated Powers. It's NOT Socialism.

Our founding fathers actually have the first opportunity of any newly-founded governing body to consider Socialism as the general ideas were already being talked about across the pond. But these people, as you recall, were radicals of their time... they didn't want anything like Socialism, it was moving in the opposite direction and away from what they wanted to do here. They didn't want large centralized Federal power lording over the people. They wanted a society that ensured personal liberty above all else and enabled individuals the freedom to pursue their ambitions and desires through free enterprise, free market economy. They WANTED people to aspire to be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and buy expensive homes. They WANTED businesses to thrive and prosper. And guess what? It worked out brilliantly... we became the undisputed World Leaders... in pretty much everything.

As we've watched in horror as one incarnation of Socialism after another has failed in shocking fashion. Genocide. War. Starvation. Complete collapse of civilization and death. As the policies fail the ruling class attempts to hold on to their power and that's when things really start becoming very ugly. Corruption is widespread and rampant, totalitarian tyranny is inevitable. It's all documented in the history books that we're apparently not using anymore in schools.

And hey, maybe it's not all the Millennial's fault... maybe it's the parents as well... The other day, a friend of mine who has a son that is a Millennial, was reviewing his options for after high school... His parent was steering him toward going to technical school instead of pursuing an academic degree. Buckle down, learn a good trade and be a good little Socialist worker. Don't dream big... don't worry your little head about being wealthy or successful... we know you're not that smart... besides, you're wanting to do that "music career" thing and live in a tiny house, right?

Ah you graduated in the late 70's during the time of the Cold War. It explains why you don't even know the basic definition of Socialism, lump all socialistic structures into one category, and speak out of ignorance.

Now, I am, undoubtedly a fan of a more capitalistic-leaning structure as I am a firm believer in meritocracy. However, only an idiot would have to deny that socialistic structures are proven to be effective (remember not all forms of socialism are equal). As a simple counter example to your argument let me just point out one statistic, the HDI, which measures levels of human development. Now, if you look at the top 10 countries of the HDI then you will find that 9/10 of them have socialistic structures (10 / 10 if you consider that the US has socialistic programs in place even though primarily practicing a capitalistic economy). Now, if socialism were so detrimental...then why, exactly, has it been shown to improve human development? Source:

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report.pdf

All dogs have fleas. Does that mean the fleas are good for the dog?

 

[EriktheRed]

Our founding fathers actually have the first opportunity of any newly-founded governing body to consider Socialism as the general ideas were already being talked about across the pond. But these people, as you recall, were radicals of their time... they didn't want anything like Socialism, it was moving in the opposite direction and away from what they wanted to do here. They didn't want large centralized Federal power lording over the people. They wanted a society that ensured personal liberty above all else and enabled individuals the freedom to pursue their ambitions and desires through free enterprise, free market economy. They WANTED people to aspire to be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and buy expensive homes. They WANTED businesses to thrive and prosper. And guess what? It worked out brilliantly... we became the undisputed World Leaders... in pretty much everything.

Did they even have a conception of this thing called "socialism" back then?

Yes, they did. It was not yet a popular idea and there were still many aspects that were being mulled over but the ideas behind Socialist government (what would become Socialism) were being debated all across Europe.

Our founders were radicals. They were looking for a new idea... something different that hadn't been tried before. They knew they didn't want a kingdom or a feudal system. I am sure, particularly through the writings of Alex Hamilton, they considered concepts of Socialism as a radical new approach of the times. That WAS the innovative "new age" thinking of the time in Europe.

However, Madison and Jefferson along with numerous others like George Mason and Patrick Henry, were not inclined toward a system that established centralized government authority. They sought vigorously to limit that authority to the bare essentials. They wanted to take us in a bold new direction which was the exact opposite of Socialism.

And with this you help reinforce what someone else said earlier, which is that ultimately this thing you and others call "socialism" is really just whatever you don't like.

 

[Iceweasel]

Our founding fathers actually have the first opportunity of any newly-founded governing body to consider Socialism as the general ideas were already being talked about across the pond. But these people, as you recall, were radicals of their time... they didn't want anything like Socialism, it was moving in the opposite direction and away from what they wanted to do here. They didn't want large centralized Federal power lording over the people. They wanted a society that ensured personal liberty above all else and enabled individuals the freedom to pursue their ambitions and desires through free enterprise, free market economy. They WANTED people to aspire to be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and buy expensive homes. They WANTED businesses to thrive and prosper. And guess what? It worked out brilliantly... we became the undisputed World Leaders... in pretty much everything.

Did they even have a conception of this thing called "socialism" back then?

Yes, they did. It was not yet a popular idea and there were still many aspects that were being mulled over but the ideas behind Socialist government (what would become Socialism) were being debated all across Europe.

Our founders were radicals. They were looking for a new idea... something different that hadn't been tried before. They knew they didn't want a kingdom or a feudal system. I am sure, particularly through the writings of Alex Hamilton, they considered concepts of Socialism as a radical new approach of the times. That WAS the innovative "new age" thinking of the time in Europe.

However, Madison and Jefferson along with numerous others like George Mason and Patrick Henry, were not inclined toward a system that established centralized government authority. They sought vigorously to limit that authority to the bare essentials. They wanted to take us in a bold new direction which was the exact opposite of Socialism.

And with this you help reinforce what someone else said earlier, which is that ultimately this thing you and others call "socialism" is really just whatever you don't like.

How on Earth did you arrive at that? Holy fuck, you are dense.

 

[bripat9643]

Our founding fathers actually have the first opportunity of any newly-founded governing body to consider Socialism as the general ideas were already being talked about across the pond. But these people, as you recall, were radicals of their time... they didn't want anything like Socialism, it was moving in the opposite direction and away from what they wanted to do here. They didn't want large centralized Federal power lording over the people. They wanted a society that ensured personal liberty above all else and enabled individuals the freedom to pursue their ambitions and desires through free enterprise, free market economy. They WANTED people to aspire to be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and buy expensive homes. They WANTED businesses to thrive and prosper. And guess what? It worked out brilliantly... we became the undisputed World Leaders... in pretty much everything.

Did they even have a conception of this thing called "socialism" back then?

Yes, they did. It was not yet a popular idea and there were still many aspects that were being mulled over but the ideas behind Socialist government (what would become Socialism) were being debated all across Europe.

Our founders were radicals. They were looking for a new idea... something different that hadn't been tried before. They knew they didn't want a kingdom or a feudal system. I am sure, particularly through the writings of Alex Hamilton, they considered concepts of Socialism as a radical new approach of the times. That WAS the innovative "new age" thinking of the time in Europe.

However, Madison and Jefferson along with numerous others like George Mason and Patrick Henry, were not inclined toward a system that established centralized government authority. They sought vigorously to limit that authority to the bare essentials. They wanted to take us in a bold new direction which was the exact opposite of Socialism.

And with this you help reinforce what someone else said earlier, which is that ultimately this thing you and others call "socialism" is really just whatever you don't like.

He did no such thing. People don't like socialism because they know what it is. Those who support socialism are ignorant doofuses who don't have a clue what it actually is.

 

[Never3ndr]

All dogs have fleas. Does that mean the fleas are good for the dog?

That would be a great counterargument if:

A) All dogs had fleas (if all the dogs you have owned have had fleas...you may be doing it wrong).

B) The healthiest dogs had fleas while the least healthiest did not (then again, that would mean that all dogs didn't have fleas, which directly falsifies your first assumption).

C) You actually thought you could draw a logical connection between a country and a dog and a system of governing a country with a bug.

 

[bripat9643]

All dogs have fleas. Does that mean the fleas are good for the dog?

That would be a great counterargument if:

A) All dogs had fleas (if all the dogs you have owned have had fleas...you may be doing it wrong).

B) The healthiest dogs had fleas while the least healthiest did not (then again, that would mean that all dogs didn't have fleas, which directly falsifies your first assumption).

C) You actually thought you could draw a logical connection between a country and a dog and a system of governing a country with a bug.

You criticisms are idiotic. My analogy makes it clear that just because something is found in every case doesn't make that thing beneficial. Socialism is a parasite on society, just like fleas are parasites, so the analogy is stunningly accurate. You find socialism in every society because there is always a segment of society that wants to live at the expense of other members of society, and that's the only reason.

 

[Never3ndr]

All dogs have fleas. Does that mean the fleas are good for the dog?

That would be a great counterargument if:

A) All dogs had fleas (if all the dogs you have owned have had fleas...you may be doing it wrong).

B) The healthiest dogs had fleas while the least healthiest did not (then again, that would mean that all dogs didn't have fleas, which directly falsifies your first assumption).

C) You actually thought you could draw a logical connection between a country and a dog and a system of governing a country with a bug.

You criticisms are idiotic. My analogy makes it clear that just because something is found in every case doesn't make that thing beneficial. Socialism is a parasite on society, just like fleas are parasites, so the analogy is stunningly accurate. You find socialism in every society because there is always a segment of society that wants to live at the expense of other members of society, and that's the only reason.

Just because something is found in every case doesn't make it beneficial...TRUE. (Fortunately, socialism is NOT found in every case so we can look at clear indicators on how some of the world's greatest nations have socialistic structures or are even primarily socialistic in nature, compared with many of the 3rd world nations that don't even attempt to have these basic types of programs)

Okay so by your logic socialism is apparent in all countries...FALSE. (You say you find it in every society b/c of how some people want to live...that is "idiotic" and you know it. If you honestly think that you can base your argument around assumptions on what people want, rather than how things actually operate...you may want to go back to grade school because even a 5th grader knows better)

Socialism is a always shown to be "a parasite" or detrimental...FALSE. (You should probably look at the link I originally provided as evidence against that case. Now, you can argue whether or not the evidence is valid...but that isn't your argument here)

 

[bripat9643]

All dogs have fleas. Does that mean the fleas are good for the dog?

That would be a great counterargument if:

A) All dogs had fleas (if all the dogs you have owned have had fleas...you may be doing it wrong).

B) The healthiest dogs had fleas while the least healthiest did not (then again, that would mean that all dogs didn't have fleas, which directly falsifies your first assumption).

C) You actually thought you could draw a logical connection between a country and a dog and a system of governing a country with a bug.

You criticisms are idiotic. My analogy makes it clear that just because something is found in every case doesn't make that thing beneficial. Socialism is a parasite on society, just like fleas are parasites, so the analogy is stunningly accurate. You find socialism in every society because there is always a segment of society that wants to live at the expense of other members of society, and that's the only reason.

Just because something is found in every case doesn't make it beneficial...TRUE. (Fortunately, socialism is NOT found in every case so we can look at clear indicators on how some of the world's greatest nations have socialistic structures or are even primarily socialistic in nature, compared with many of the 3rd world nations that don't even attempt to have these basic types of programs)

Okay so by your logic socialism is apparent in all countries...FALSE. (You say you find it in every society b/c of how some people want to live...that is "idiotic" and you know it. If you honestly think that you can base your argument around assumptions on what people want, rather than how things actually operate...you may want to go back to grade school because even a 5th grader knows better)

Socialism is a always shown to be "a parasite" or detrimental...FALSE. (You should probably look at the link I originally provided as evidence against that case. Now, you can argue whether or not the evidence is valid...but that isn't your argument here)

Since socialists count things like schools, public roads, the police, the fire department and the military as examples of socialism, then according to their own definition, all countries have the socialist tick sucking on them.

And, yes, socialism is always parasitic. Always.

As for your link, I have no interest in reading propaganda. All it shows is how gullible you are.

 

[Never3ndr]

Since socialists count things like schools, public roads, the police, the fire department and the military as examples of socialism, then according to their own definition, all countries have the socialist tick sucking on them.

And, yes, socialism is always parasitic. Always.

As for your link, I have no interest in reading propaganda. All it shows is how gullible you are.

Well, you can certainly tell that YOU have never been to a third world nation. Travel the world some, then get back to me on how all countries have things like the police (lol?) or a fire department (wut?). Have you even been outside of whatever 1st world nation you came from?

Edit: I should say that I agree that all 1st world nations DO have socialist structures in place...that, if you can read, was actually part of the argument for those structures. However, unfortunately, not all nations are 1st world nations.

 

[bripat9643]

Since socialists count things like schools, public roads, the police, the fire department and the military as examples of socialism, then according to their own definition, all countries have the socialist tick sucking on them.

And, yes, socialism is always parasitic. Always.

As for your link, I have no interest in reading propaganda. All it shows is how gullible you are.

Well, you can certainly tell that YOU have never been to a third world nation. Travel the world some, then get back to me on how all countries have things like the police (lol?) or a fire department (wut?). Have you even been outside of whatever 1st world nation you came from?

I've been to Egypt, Honduras, Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico. So tell me about your experiences in third world countries. Are you actually claiming they don't have schools, public roads, police and fire departments? They may be extremely corrupt, but that's the nature of government, just as carrying diseases is the nature of fleas and ticks.

 

[Camp]

Since socialists count things like schools, public roads, the police, the fire department and the military as examples of socialism, then according to their own definition, all countries have the socialist tick sucking on them.

And, yes, socialism is always parasitic. Always.

As for your link, I have no interest in reading propaganda. All it shows is how gullible you are.

Well, you can certainly tell that YOU have never been to a third world nation. Travel the world some, then get back to me on how all countries have things like the police (lol?) or a fire department (wut?). Have you even been outside of whatever 1st world nation you came from?

Edit: I should say that I agree that all 1st world nations DO have socialist structures in place...that, if you can read, was actually part of the argument for those structures. However, unfortunately, not all nations are 1st world nations.

You are dealing with some posters whose only interest is to demonize the socialism label without regard to basic academic knowledge about the variations, degrees, and levels of those variations, etc. Just
rhetorical 'socialism is evil' is all we can expect in respect to intellectual debate.

 

[bripat9643]

Since socialists count things like schools, public roads, the police, the fire department and the military as examples of socialism, then according to their own definition, all countries have the socialist tick sucking on them.

And, yes, socialism is always parasitic. Always.

As for your link, I have no interest in reading propaganda. All it shows is how gullible you are.

Well, you can certainly tell that YOU have never been to a third world nation. Travel the world some, then get back to me on how all countries have things like the police (lol?) or a fire department (wut?). Have you even been outside of whatever 1st world nation you came from?

Edit: I should say that I agree that all 1st world nations DO have socialist structures in place...that, if you can read, was actually part of the argument for those structures. However, unfortunately, not all nations are 1st world nations.

You are dealing with some posters whose only interest is to demonize the socialism label without regard to basic academic knowledge about the variations, degrees, and levels of those variations, etc. Just
rhetorical 'socialism is evil' is all we can expect in respect to intellectual debate.

ROFL! I love this arrogant pretention leftwing idiots entertain that socialism's critics are ignorant about it. Precisely the opposite is the case. Those who understand socialism are opposed to it. Those who support it are ignorant gullible naifs.

 

[OldLady]

Everything to do with economics, including theories of socialism, capitalism, and communism, has at least twenty five definitions and as many opinions on whether it is good or bad. I've seen so many threads like this that jump in feet first and define communism, calling it socialism. It's dumb. You never get anywhere. No one believes you. Why do you keep it up?

 

[EriktheRed]

Our founding fathers actually have the first opportunity of any newly-founded governing body to consider Socialism as the general ideas were already being talked about across the pond. But these people, as you recall, were radicals of their time... they didn't want anything like Socialism, it was moving in the opposite direction and away from what they wanted to do here. They didn't want large centralized Federal power lording over the people. They wanted a society that ensured personal liberty above all else and enabled individuals the freedom to pursue their ambitions and desires through free enterprise, free market economy. They WANTED people to aspire to be wealthy beyond their wildest dreams and buy expensive homes. They WANTED businesses to thrive and prosper. And guess what? It worked out brilliantly... we became the undisputed World Leaders... in pretty much everything.

Did they even have a conception of this thing called "socialism" back then?

Yes, they did. It was not yet a popular idea and there were still many aspects that were being mulled over but the ideas behind Socialist government (what would become Socialism) were being debated all across Europe.

Our founders were radicals. They were looking for a new idea... something different that hadn't been tried before. They knew they didn't want a kingdom or a feudal system. I am sure, particularly through the writings of Alex Hamilton, they considered concepts of Socialism as a radical new approach of the times. That WAS the innovative "new age" thinking of the time in Europe.

However, Madison and Jefferson along with numerous others like George Mason and Patrick Henry, were not inclined toward a system that established centralized government authority. They sought vigorously to limit that authority to the bare essentials. They wanted to take us in a bold new direction which was the exact opposite of Socialism.

And with this you help reinforce what someone else said earlier, which is that ultimately this thing you and others call "socialism" is really just whatever you don't like.

He did no such thing. People don't like socialism because they know what it is. Those who support socialism are ignorant doofuses who don't have a clue what it actually is.

Says the guy who rejects a dictionary definition if he doesn't agree with it.

 

[bripat9643]

Everything to do with economics, including theories of socialism, capitalism, and communism, has at least twenty five definitions and as many opinions on whether it is good or bad. I've seen so many threads like this that jump in feet first and define communism, calling it socialism. It's dumb. You never get anywhere. No one believes you. Why do you keep it up?

One has to keep shouting the truth lest lies take over the world.