Dims love socialism, but only because they don't know what it is

[Votto]

Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.

That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.

Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.

After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.

 

[regent]

Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.

That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.

Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.

After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.

Are you fearful that you will be sold Marxism?

 

[forkup]

Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.

That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.

Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.

After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.

Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.

 

[Votto]

Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.

That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.

Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.

After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.

Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.

I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.

Opiate for the masses anyone?

 

[Camp]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.

I've already given the definition to socialism.

If you have more to add feel free.

New York elect a socialis

So that person is advocating government own industry?

Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.

I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

 

[Votto]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.

I've already given the definition to socialism.

If you have more to add feel free.

New York elect a socialis

So that person is advocating government own industry?

Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.

I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

Both the Nazi and Communist regimes of old are something to be scared of, don't you think? After all, we all know what Hitler did and Stalin murdered far more.

Plus they were both war and genocide machines.

Scary stuff.

So studying these two forms of government is crucial if we are ever to prevent them again.

So what do they have in common? What should we watch for?

 

[forkup]

Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.

That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.

Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.

After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.

Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.

I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.

For the same reason that you are trying to make the point that Bernie, or that person in New York, or by extension the entire Democratic Party wants to be Socialists, by which you want to imply Communist. By keeping the terms confused you hope to be able to stir up that same McCarthy fear regent was referring to. I'm not sure you're even aware that that's what you're doing.

 

[forkup]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.

I've already given the definition to socialism.

If you have more to add feel free.

New York elect a socialis

So that person is advocating government own industry?

Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.

I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

To Votto it seems these terms are simply interchangeable.

 

[Votto]

Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.

That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.

Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.

After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.

Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.

I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.

For the same reason that you are trying to make the point that Bernie, or that person in New York, or by extension the entire Democratic Party wants to be Socialists, by which you want to imply Communist. By keeping the terms confused you hope to be able to stir up that same McCarthy fear regent was referring to. I'm not sure you're even aware that that's what you're doing.

It is true that Communism was demonized for a great number of years because of Stalin and the Cold war.

It is also arguable that socialists were also demonized because the Nazi Party claimed to be socialists.

So do you think that fear of either ideology is warranted considering their historical records?

 

[Votto]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.

I've already given the definition to socialism.

If you have more to add feel free.

New York elect a socialis

So that person is advocating government own industry?

Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.

I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

To Votto it seems these terms are simply interchangeable.

In your opinion, what are the true definitions of socialism and communism?

 

[forkup]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.

I've already given the definition to socialism.

If you have more to add feel free.

New York elect a socialis

So that person is advocating government own industry?

Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.

I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

I do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.

 

[Votto]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.

I've already given the definition to socialism.

If you have more to add feel free.

New York elect a socialis

So that person is advocating government own industry?

Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.

I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

I do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.

So is such fear regarding socialized medicine warranted or is it all due to taking in propaganda in your opinion?

 

[forkup]

Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.

That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.

Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.

After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.

Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.

I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.

For the same reason that you are trying to make the point that Bernie, or that person in New York, or by extension the entire Democratic Party wants to be Socialists, by which you want to imply Communist. By keeping the terms confused you hope to be able to stir up that same McCarthy fear regent was referring to. I'm not sure you're even aware that that's what you're doing.

It is true that Communism was demonized for a great number of years because of Stalin and the Cold war.

It is also arguable that socialists were also demonized because the Nazi Party claimed to be socialists.

So do you think that fear of either ideology is warranted considering their historical records?

That's a hard question to answer on a message board but I'll attempt it. It's going to take a bit so don't think I'm dodging.

 

[Votto]

That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.

Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.

After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.

Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.

I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.

For the same reason that you are trying to make the point that Bernie, or that person in New York, or by extension the entire Democratic Party wants to be Socialists, by which you want to imply Communist. By keeping the terms confused you hope to be able to stir up that same McCarthy fear regent was referring to. I'm not sure you're even aware that that's what you're doing.

It is true that Communism was demonized for a great number of years because of Stalin and the Cold war.

It is also arguable that socialists were also demonized because the Nazi Party claimed to be socialists.

So do you think that fear of either ideology is warranted considering their historical records?

That's a hard question to answer on a message board but I'll attempt it. It's going to take a bit so don't think I'm dodging.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

 

[night_son]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

A fascinating tidbit for forum consumption:

Lenin, and later Stalin and subsequent USSR communist party leaders, based the social and governmental structure of the Soviet Union's flavor of State Socialism become communism directly on the fictional society in Thomas Moore's novel Utopia first published in 1516. That's right friends, tens of millions of people were slaughtered, imprisoned and otherwise oppressed into the dust of history because a few mad men tried to recreate with the only lives these masses of victims would ever have, a paradisiacal fairy tale civilization. See, Marx and Engels and others provided homicidally angry young men such as Lenin with the idea and the philosophy, however, their derived real world implementation had to be looked for elsewhere. And what better place to find means of implementing heaven on Earth than in the pages of a novel?

In Moore's Utopia all women were communalized for use by all the men. Entire masses of Utopian citizens were relocated and rotated (sound familiar Mr. Pot?) from the fields to the cities on a regular cycle. Agricultural work or working in the fields was mandatory. Private property did not exist--was forbidden-- and even the Utopian's house was not his own, as he traded it up with the neighbor's every ten years. Movement outside of neighborhoods and between cities was restricted and doing so required a writ of passage issued from a high "Prince". And last but not least, guess who performed the bulk of the labor--you know the menial work--of society . . . wait for it . . . slaves. But they were not chattel slaves, no sir. In Moore's Utopia, and later in every socio-communist nation since, the slaves were state owned workers. Please do allow that to sink in.

 

[Mac1958]

Here we go again.

The current use of the term is meant to describe Euro-social Democracies. I think that's a bad idea, because it allows the Right to dishonestly (or naively) conflate social democracy with actual socialism, but it is what it is.
.

 

[forkup]

I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.

I've already given the definition to socialism.

If you have more to add feel free.

New York elect a socialis

So that person is advocating government own industry?

Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.

I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.

Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.

I do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.

So is such fear regarding socialized medicine warranted or is it all due to taking in propaganda in your opinion?

First this question because it's shorter. I can't speak for all socialized medicine just for my country so keep that in mind. My health care system is 50 percent cheaper as a percentage of GDP. In actual money the difference would be even more extreme.Current health expenditure (% of GDP) | Data
We accomplish this by taking the for profit motive out of the system. In my experience which goes in both the US and Belgium we provide more and better service both in quickness and result. This of course is anecdotal, since like I said I can't speak for every country.

 

[Votto]

Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism

How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?

Can anyone answer me that riddle?

A fascinating tidbit for forum consumption:

Lenin, and later Stalin and subsequent USSR communist party leaders, based the social and governmental structure of the Soviet Union's flavor of State Socialism become communism directly on the fictional society in Thomas Moore's novel Utopia first published in 1516. That's right friends, tens of millions of people were slaughtered, imprisoned and otherwise oppressed into the dust of history because a few mad men tried to recreate with the only lives these masses of victims would ever have, a paradisiacal fairy tale civilization. See, Marx and Engels and others provided homicidally angry young men such as Lenin with the idea and the philosophy, however, their derived real world implementation had to be looked for elsewhere. And what better place to find means of implementing heaven on Earth than in the pages of a novel?

In Moore's Utopia all women were communalized for use by all the men. Entire masses of Utopian citizens were relocated and rotated (sound familiar Mr. Pot?) from the fields to the cities on a regular cycle. Agricultural work or working in the fields was mandatory. Private property did not exist--was forbidden-- and even the Utopian's house was not his own, as he traded it up with the neighbor's every ten years. Movement outside of neighborhoods and between cities was restricted and doing so required a writ of passage issued from a high "Prince". And last but not least, guess who performed the bulk of the labor--you know the menial work--of society . . . wait for it . . . slaves. But they were not chattel slaves, no sir. In Moore's Utopia, and later in every socio-communist nation since, the slaves were state owned workers. Please do allow that to sink in.

It goes back further than that, to Plato's "Republic" where he set up the ideal society with masterminds to run everything. Luckily, Plato had enough sense to know that it would never work.

In fact, the ideas of Marx are arguably older than dirt, yet today they are referred to as "Progressive".

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals don't believe in socialism. They don't believe in climate change, helping the poor, woman's rights. They don't believe in anything they say they believe in, those issues are simple a means to an end, obtaining power and control. This is why their actions so frequently directly contradict what they say.

 

[night_son]

Here we go again.

The current use of the term is meant to describe Euro-social Democracies. I think that's a bad idea, because it allows the Right to dishonestly (or naively) conflate social democracy with actual socialism, but it is what it is.
.

While your are correct in rolling eyes at and highlighting the distinction between contemporarily branded American Democratic Socialism and the historically, severely misunderstood political-philosophical ideology of Marxist-Leninist Socialism implemented repeatedly last century as State Socialism to murderous effect, there are those currently calling for, on the American radical Left, much steeper American descent into socialist hell than the tame by comparison economic infrastructural interventionism in the form of universal healthcare and education. Thus the importance of what you deem the Alarmist movement currently unfolding on the American Right. Despite yours and others here and in the media downplaying of the conflation of Democratic Socialism as boys crying wolf, historically, there is a damn good precedent for doing so.