Did Millennials Not Learn About Socialism?

[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.

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

Dictionary definitions are often wrong. They are based on common usage, not technical realities.

 

[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?

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.

I'm pretty sure that those are all 2nd world nations. I've been to Mexico and Colombia myself, but not the other nations you listed.

As far as my 3rd world experience, I was deployed to Afghanistan several times and also had the opportunity to spend 2 weeks in Africa (which is a continent, I know, but pretty much all those nations are 3rd world countries). I can tell you that Afghanistan had ZERO paved roads other than what was built by the NATO forces. Police? Yes, but so corrupt as to actually attack NATO troops from time to time. Fire departments? Not from what I could tell. Schools? A large portion of the population seemed to be nomadic or farmers...so limited or nonexistent from what I could tell.

Africa, on the other hand, was pretty hit or miss. Personally, I actually had a decent time there and was surprised by it being built up more than the "lions roaming the wild" thing that I (and most people) probably imagined. I was there as a tourist (so I never went into any real "bad" spots) and didn't spend as much time so, for the most part, we really stuck to main cities and the "guided path." However, even a tourist can tell that there just wasn't any infrastructure in the more rural areas. Being there, on the other hand, did increase my interest in the place and I looked up (and still do from time to time) more information and stuff about the continent...and wow, it is bad would be saying the best about some of the places there. Especially taking my knowledge of how things operated in Afghanistan into consideration, I can tell that some areas of Africa are as bad or worse.

So, I'll repeat. You really need to spend time in a third world nation before you blanket statement a falsity (all nations have socialistic structures) to them.

If you don't want to do that, then take the reverse of what you said. Since you admit that things like schools, roads, and the police are socialistic structures, imagine how your world would operate WITHOUT these basic structures. Then, tell me exactly why they are parasitic.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

In other words, you couldn't follow the conversation so you blame it on others.

 

[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.

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.

You have posted nothing to show you have an expertise about the definitions of ideologies and philosophies regarding the labels you so freely toss around. The exact opposite is what you show, which is a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from right wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

 

[Boss]

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.

Well no... I think we're all grown enough to understand what Socialism is. Except for the Millennials who think it somehow means "to be sociable" or something. Socialism is when the government handles most things in order to make things equal and fair for all.... (except it never works.) The founding fathers established a system where people were left alone and could figure out things on their own... which is really what "liberty" is all about.

Let me be perfectly clear to you... I don't like you telling me what I am going to do. I don't like you telling me what kind of light bulbs I can purchase or what kind of car I have to drive. I don't like you telling me how my toilet has to flush or how much income is "enough" or what constitutes "more than I need." And I'll tell you something else... I'm NEVER going to like it and I will fight against it until my dying breath.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

You have posted nothing to show you have an expertise about the definitions of ideologies and philosophies regarding the labels you so freely toss around. The exact opposite is what you show, which is a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from right wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

The irony here is that the definition of socialism has been posted and you dimwits keep trying to massage it into something more palatable.

 

[Camp]

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.

In other words, you couldn't follow the conversation so you blame it on others.

I specified "some" posters. When "in other words" is used it usually means the person using them is distorting the original intent a quote.

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

Well no... I think we're all grown enough to understand what Socialism is. Except for the Millennials who think it somehow means "to be sociable" or something. Socialism is when the government handles most things in order to make things equal and fair for all.... (except it never works.) The founding fathers established a system where people were left alone and could figure out things on their own... which is really what "liberty" is all about.

Let me be perfectly clear to you... I don't like you telling me what I am going to do. I don't like you telling me what kind of light bulbs I can purchase or what kind of car I have to drive. I don't like you telling me how my toilet has to flush or how much income is "enough" or what constitutes "more than I need." And I'll tell you something else... I'm NEVER going to like it and I will fight against it until my dying breath.

Fair enough. Problem is, you're still part of a society and this hyper-individualism you and others keep touting as "American" just isn't gonna cut it.

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

Dictionary definitions are often wrong. They are based on common usage, not technical realities.

Yup, that's convenient.

 

[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.

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.

You have posted nothing to show you have an expertise about the definitions of ideologies and philosophies regarding the labels you so freely toss around. The exact opposite is what you show, which is a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from right wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

The irony here is that the definition of socialism has been posted and you dimwits keep trying to massage it into something more palatable.

You mean like the one above your post from Boss?

 

[Never3ndr]

The real interesting point is that Iceweasel tried to argue to the death over roads not being a socialistic structure. Yet, when somebody who he tends to agree with (socialism = bad) uses the understanding that roads, police, schools, etc. ARE socialistic structures...he literally says nothing to counter.

 

[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.

I'm pretty sure that those are all 2nd world nations. I've been to Mexico and Colombia myself, but not the other nations you listed.

As far as my 3rd world experience, I was deployed to Afghanistan several times and also had the opportunity to spend 2 weeks in Africa (which is a continent, I know, but pretty much all those nations are 3rd world countries). I can tell you that Afghanistan had ZERO paved roads other than what was built by the NATO forces. Police? Yes, but so corrupt as to actually attack NATO troops from time to time. Fire departments? Not from what I could tell. Schools? A large portion of the population seemed to be nomadic or farmers...so limited or nonexistent from what I could tell.

Africa, on the other hand, was pretty hit or miss. Personally, I actually had a decent time there and was surprised by it being built up more than the "lions roaming the wild" thing that I (and most people) probably imagined. I was there as a tourist (so I never went into any real "bad" spots) and didn't spend as much time so, for the most part, we really stuck to main cities and the "guided path." However, even a tourist can tell that there just wasn't any infrastructure in the more rural areas. Being there, on the other hand, did increase my interest in the place and I looked up (and still do from time to time) more information and stuff about the continent...and wow, it is bad would be saying the best about some of the places there. Especially taking my knowledge of how things operated in Afghanistan into consideration, I can tell that some areas of Africa are as bad or worse.

So, I'll repeat. You really need to spend time in a third world nation before you blanket statement a falsity (all nations have socialistic structures) to them.

If you don't want to do that, then take the reverse of what you said. Since you admit that things like schools, roads, and the police are socialistic structures, imagine how your world would operate WITHOUT these basic structures. Then, tell me exactly why they are parasitic.

You just admitted that every nation you've been to has some elements of socialism. Your complaint is that it doesn't produce the results you would like to see.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Dictionary definitions are often wrong. They are based on common usage, not technical realities.

Yup, that's convenient.

Truth is always "convenient" for those who accept it.

 

[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.

You have posted nothing to show you have an expertise about the definitions of ideologies and philosophies regarding the labels you so freely toss around. The exact opposite is what you show, which is a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from right wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

You have posted nothing demonstrating your expertise either. You show a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from left wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

 

[bripat9643]

The real interesting point is that Iceweasel tried to argue to the death over roads not being a socialistic structure. Yet, when somebody who he tends to agree with (socialism = bad) uses the understanding that roads, police, schools, etc. ARE socialistic structures...he literally says nothing to counter.

I've seen a lot of conservatives argue that roads and schools are not socialist. That's because they have fundamental conflicts in their ideology and they don't want to admit it. I, on the other hand, have no such conflicts because I'm an anarchist. I oppose government in all it's manifestations.

 

[Never3ndr]

You just admitted that every nation you've been to has some elements of socialism. Your complaint is that it doesn't produce the results you would like to see.

Good point. However, I would actually say that Afghanistan didn't have any (the only paved roads were built by NATO...which has nothing to do with the government or population...the police were so corrupt as to not really be "police" in the understanding that westerns have for them, and, as I said, the school system was limited or nonexistant). Taking that into consideration I can say, for certain, that if you want to say that Afghanistan had socialistic structures (even though you've never been there), then I won't even take the time to argue that broad point (esp since I haven't been in the last 3-4 years). I will say, unreservedly, that even if you account for the country, as a whole, having some elements of socialism, you COULD NOT say that most areas had any elements of socialism. Literally a lot of these guys live in tents or mud huts out in the middle of nowhere. They literally live their lives according to who has a base of power closest to them, the NATO forces, government, or extremist factions. If I really had to put a finger on their system, I'd say that, outside of their handful of major cities, it is anarchistic...there is no law, no real social structures in place.

Now, even if you do admit (which I don't agree with), but let us say you do admit that all nations have elements of socialism in them...you would have to agree that there are different degrees of socialistic influence in different nations. So, let us take my examples of 3rd world nations and say, do they have more...or less socialistic structures than 1st world nations? How about 2nd world nations? Do they have more or less socialistic structures than 1st world nations? I haven't been to Mexico in over a decade (not sure when you went), but would you honestly say that their socialistic structures are equal to a 1st world nation's socialistic structures? Would you say that their road system, policing, fire department, education, etc. is as detailed, structured, and supportive as a 1st world nation...or less so?

Again, if you don't want to take the positive of your argument take the negative. If socialism is bad in all its forms (parasitic was what you used, correct?) explain, in no unclear terms why you feel that countries without public roads, policing, or education are actually better off than those that do have those structures into place. Since, and nobody will argue here, if you remove a "parasite" then the "host" should show marked improvement.

 

[Never3ndr]

The real interesting point is that Iceweasel tried to argue to the death over roads not being a socialistic structure. Yet, when somebody who he tends to agree with (socialism = bad) uses the understanding that roads, police, schools, etc. ARE socialistic structures...he literally says nothing to counter.

I've seen a lot of conservatives argue that roads and schools are not socialist. That's because they have fundamental conflicts in their ideology and they don't want to admit it. I, on the other hand, have no such conflicts because I'm an anarchist. I oppose government in all it's manifestations.

You should move to Afghanistan, I'm not even joking. I just compared most regions of that country as being closest in structure to an anarchistic society. Now, I for one, didn't like that system of governance, but if you do...then I suggest you actually try to experience it rather than arguing from the standpoint of living in a country that has nothing to do with your idea set.

 

[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.

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.

You have posted nothing to show you have an expertise about the definitions of ideologies and philosophies regarding the labels you so freely toss around. The exact opposite is what you show, which is a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from right wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

You have posted nothing demonstrating your expertise either. You show a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from left wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

I have not been giving selective definitions of socialism. My argument has been that there are posters that do not recognize there are over two dozen distinct varieties of socialism. Not sure how that depends on a specific source of information or is able to be interpreted any other way. You either acknowledge that there are those differing definitions or not. Only a fool would deny the varied definitions exist or demand everyone subscribe to their definition and ignore all the other ones. Do you disagree with my comments that there are over two dozens distinct definitions to choose from?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You have posted nothing to show you have an expertise about the definitions of ideologies and philosophies regarding the labels you so freely toss around. The exact opposite is what you show, which is a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from right wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

You have posted nothing demonstrating your expertise either. You show a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from left wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

I have not been giving selective definitions of socialism. My argument has been that there are posters that do not recognize there are over two dozen distinct varieties of socialism. Not sure how that depends on a specific source of information or is able to be interpreted any other way. You either acknowledge that there are those differing definitions or not. Only a fool would deny the varied definitions exist or demand everyone subscribe to their definition and ignore all the other ones. Do you disagree with my comments that there are over two dozens distinct definitions to choose from?

The differences in the various flavors of socialism don't amount to a hill of beans. The only thing that matters is that under socialism government makes all the decisions that a private business would normally make under capitalism. That is what dooms them all to failure.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

You have posted nothing to show you have an expertise about the definitions of ideologies and philosophies regarding the labels you so freely toss around. The exact opposite is what you show, which is a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from right wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

You have posted nothing demonstrating your expertise either. You show a mindset overly and perhaps only influenced by agenda commentary and political rhetoric from left wing sources whose main purpose it to misinform.

I have not been giving selective definitions of socialism. My argument has been that there are posters that do not recognize there are over two dozen distinct varieties of socialism. Not sure how that depends on a specific source of information or is able to be interpreted any other way. You either acknowledge that there are those differing definitions or not. Only a fool would deny the varied definitions exist or demand everyone subscribe to their definition and ignore all the other ones. Do you disagree with my comments that there are over two dozens distinct definitions to choose from?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot


So much bullshit, so little time


Socialism
¶

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


Ayn Rand