If socialism is so great, why has almost every country that tried it abandoned it?

[bripat9643]

I never said any such thing. What the democrats want doesn't define socialism. It's a word with its own meaning that predates the political career of anyone in said party.

You didn't answer my question.

bripat9643, I'll ask you both again:

Do you think the Democrats are using Venezuela as their model, instead of Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway?
.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. When I pointed out that I never said any such thing, I thought it was pretty obvious that I was ridiculing you for applying that idea to me. No, I don't think they're using Venezuela as their model. Even if they thought that Chavez's exact moves were all good ideas, our economy isn't fueled by oil money to anywhere NEAR the same degree as theirs. Chavez's maneuvers wouldn't translate in the first place.

Here's the thing, though. Germany, Canada, Australia, Norway. . . they didn't nationalize their economies. They simply have large welfare systems. Most normal democrats prefer that model; a private market with an expansive social safety net. But as long as they keep saying they want "socialism", I'm going to keep countering that statement with the ACTUAL definition of socialism which, in my experience, most lefties (along with most right wingers) don't seem to understand that they're misusing.

Yes, the word has been scrambled and mangled pretty well.

But the Right has overused it in its efforts to scare itself and others, and now it can mean pretty much ANYTHING. Just as the Left has done with the term "racism". And it both cases, those words don't scare anyone any more. They're diluted.

So if the Right wants to slow down this clear momentum towards a Euro-social democracy, it had better start using a more honest and intelligent approach to this.
.

I'll give you that, the blind fear tactics don't seem to have done the trick with socialism OR racism. Personally, I'm a hardcore proponent of using words, particularly political and legal terms, properly, and upholding their distinction from other similar terms. Language is arguably our most important tool and should be maintained accordingly. But, nobody's perfect, so do feel free to ridicule away if you see me mangling a key term. I promise not to whinge excessively

I have a lot of frustration with our political discourse in general. I don't know how we're going to fix anything when we can't even agree on what terms mean. We can't communicate if we can't even agree on definitions, and we can't fix anything if we can't communicate.
.

Socialists don't communicate. They spew propaganda.

 

[pknopp]

As I note......0005% have no impact on anything.

0005% of what?

Of what was being discussed.

And what do you imagine that is?

It's right in the discussion.

Obviously you're going to be a jackass about this because you don't want to be clear. That's the sure sign of a weasel.

I do not waste time with those unwilling to read and follow a discussion.

 

[bripat9643]

0005% of what?

Of what was being discussed.

And what do you imagine that is?

It's right in the discussion.

Obviously you're going to be a jackass about this because you don't want to be clear. That's the sure sign of a weasel.

I do not waste time with those unwilling to read and follow a discussion.

More proof that you're a weasel.

 

[Mac1958]

Oh? What industry did Canada nationalize? I had no idea they were implementing centralized economic control.

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand, and it causes the term to become diluted. When the left does it, it's for brevity, and I'm guessing it does no harm to the overall understanding of the word? Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

The reason its diluted, is because its diluted by definition.
Social ownership can mean any of these:
1) public ownership
2) employee ownership
3) cooperative ownership
4) citizen ownership

The "democratic socialists", simply advocate democracy along side those 4 variants.

The reason this becomes an issue is that a greater portion of younger people spend most of their income on rent, cant afford basic healthcare, and drowning in student debt.

If capitalism cant address these issues, then something needs to change. Capitalism has given us great innovations, and we need to preserve that. But its also given us great abuses and inequality, which suppresses further innovation which capitalism has provided in the past.

This is why I always say that controls and regulations are not a bane to the proper application of capitalism, they are a critical component of it.

That's pure bullshit. If regulations are so beneficial, then why has our economy boomed since Trump eliminated so many of them?

Without the proper controls in place, capitalism spins out of balance and wealth disparities will only increase. As we're watching happen, in real time.

Terms like "out of balance" are meaningless pablum used by those who don't know anything about economics. Wealth disparities are a fact of life, even in socialist countries. In fact, they are probably worse. Just consider that while her countrymen starve that Hugo Chavez's daughter is worth $4 billion.

When that happens, an alternative like socialism becomes more attractive and gains momentum in support. As we're watching happen, in real time.

The problem is that we're stuck in this binary, all-or-nothing mindset, and we no longer know how to communicate/collaborate ourselves out of it.
.

Brainwashing is the only thing that makes socialism attractive.

"Booming"? What? You mean the temporary sugar rush paid for by Trump's exploded deficit?

You probably don't know this, but even with unemployment this low, we're down to a 1.9% GDP, we have the aforementioned exploded deficit, we're in a manufacturing recession and bond yields have crashed by over 40%. Regulations have nothing to do with THAT, either.

Ayn Rand is dead. And she was wrong. You guys are going to hand socialism to the Left because you're mangling capitalism. You've been conned.
.

 

[pknopp]

They didn't. They aren't.

The Right refuses to recognize the difference between actual socialism and social democracy, so you get confused.

The Left just calls it "socialism" now simply for the sake of brevity now, I assume. But more than that, the Left also knows that the Right has completely diluted the term to mean almost anything, the word only scares right wingers at this point, and no doubt the Left is very thankful for that.
.

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand, and it causes the term to become diluted. When the left does it, it's for brevity, and I'm guessing it does no harm to the overall understanding of the word? Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

The reason its diluted, is because its diluted by definition.
Social ownership can mean any of these:
1) public ownership
2) employee ownership
3) cooperative ownership
4) citizen ownership

The "democratic socialists", simply advocate democracy along side those 4 variants.

The reason this becomes an issue is that a greater portion of younger people spend most of their income on rent, cant afford basic healthcare, and drowning in student debt.

If capitalism cant address these issues, then something needs to change. Capitalism has given us great innovations, and we need to preserve that. But its also given us great abuses and inequality, which suppresses further innovation which capitalism has provided in the past.

This is why I always say that controls and regulations are not a bane to the proper application of capitalism, they are a critical component of it.

That's pure bullshit. If regulations are so beneficial, then why has our economy boomed since Trump eliminated so many of them?

Without the proper controls in place, capitalism spins out of balance and wealth disparities will only increase. As we're watching happen, in real time.

Terms like "out of balance" are meaningless pablum used by those who don't know anything about economics. Wealth disparities are a fact of life, even in socialist countries. In fact, they are probably worse. Just consider that while her countrymen starve that Hugo Chavez's daughter is worth $4 billion.

When that happens, an alternative like socialism becomes more attractive and gains momentum in support. As we're watching happen, in real time.

The problem is that we're stuck in this binary, all-or-nothing mindset, and we no longer know how to communicate/collaborate ourselves out of it.
.

Brainwashing is the only thing that makes socialism attractive.

"Booming"? What? You mean the temporary sugar rush paid for by Trump's exploded deficit?

You probably don't know this, but even with unemployment this low, we're down to a 1.9% GDP, we have the aforementioned exploded deficit, we're in a manufacturing recession and bond yields have crashed by over 40%. Regulations have nothing to do with THAT, either.

Ayn Rand is dead. And she was wrong. You guys are going to hand socialism to the Left because you're wrecking capitalism. You've been conned.
.

GDP is likely far into the negative if you cancel out what the FED is pumping into the markets.

 

[Mac1958]

Ah, so when the right misuses the term, it's confusion and refusal to understand, and it causes the term to become diluted. When the left does it, it's for brevity, and I'm guessing it does no harm to the overall understanding of the word? Lol. You "my team good, your team bad" types never cease to crack me up. The tribalism is so thick with some of you folks that I can damn near put a coat of paint on it.

Personally, I don't get confused by how low info types, left or right, use the term. I'm pretty confident in the definition I'm using.

The reason its diluted, is because its diluted by definition.
Social ownership can mean any of these:
1) public ownership
2) employee ownership
3) cooperative ownership
4) citizen ownership

The "democratic socialists", simply advocate democracy along side those 4 variants.

The reason this becomes an issue is that a greater portion of younger people spend most of their income on rent, cant afford basic healthcare, and drowning in student debt.

If capitalism cant address these issues, then something needs to change. Capitalism has given us great innovations, and we need to preserve that. But its also given us great abuses and inequality, which suppresses further innovation which capitalism has provided in the past.

This is why I always say that controls and regulations are not a bane to the proper application of capitalism, they are a critical component of it.

That's pure bullshit. If regulations are so beneficial, then why has our economy boomed since Trump eliminated so many of them?

Without the proper controls in place, capitalism spins out of balance and wealth disparities will only increase. As we're watching happen, in real time.

Terms like "out of balance" are meaningless pablum used by those who don't know anything about economics. Wealth disparities are a fact of life, even in socialist countries. In fact, they are probably worse. Just consider that while her countrymen starve that Hugo Chavez's daughter is worth $4 billion.

When that happens, an alternative like socialism becomes more attractive and gains momentum in support. As we're watching happen, in real time.

The problem is that we're stuck in this binary, all-or-nothing mindset, and we no longer know how to communicate/collaborate ourselves out of it.
.

Brainwashing is the only thing that makes socialism attractive.

"Booming"? What? You mean the temporary sugar rush paid for by Trump's exploded deficit?

You probably don't know this, but even with unemployment this low, we're down to a 1.9% GDP, we have the aforementioned exploded deficit, we're in a manufacturing recession and bond yields have crashed by over 40%. Regulations have nothing to do with THAT, either.

Ayn Rand is dead. And she was wrong. You guys are going to hand socialism to the Left because you're wrecking capitalism. You've been conned.
.

GDP is likely far into the negative if you cancel out what the FED is pumping into the markets.

There were a couple of elements of this that brought back some very bad memories of 2008.

Frozen overnight lending? Holy crap. Fortunately the overall system is in better shape than then.
.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Half the world used to be socialist, but now people in those countries have abandoned socialism and are now enjoying the fruits of the capitalist system.

Why should the United States convert to a system that's a proven failure?

Let's tell Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC that if they like socialism so much, they can move to Cuba.

Israel is socialist...Norway is socialist. The UK is socialist....New Zealand is socialist....Canada is socialist....Sweden is socialist....just a few.....

Israel isn't Socialist you imbecile. They tried it and as always it failed and their economy imploded. In 1983 Israel was imploding and Reagan offered a 1.5 billion grant IF Israel adopted free market capitalism, which they did. Today Israel is recognized as a free market economy.

They teach this in economics classes

 

[HappyJoy]

Half the world used to be socialist, but now people in those countries have abandoned socialism and are now enjoying the fruits of the capitalist system.

Why should the United States convert to a system that's a proven failure?

Let's tell Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC that if they like socialism so much, they can move to Cuba.

You should make a list of all the countries that have mixed market economies and tell us which ones abandoned it.

 

[HappyJoy]

Half the world used to be socialist, but now people in those countries have abandoned socialism and are now enjoying the fruits of the capitalist system.

Why should the United States convert to a system that's a proven failure?

Let's tell Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC that if they like socialism so much, they can move to Cuba.

Israel is socialist...Norway is socialist. The UK is socialist....New Zealand is socialist....Canada is socialist....Sweden is socialist....just a few.....

Israel isn't Socialist you imbecile. They tried it and as always it failed and their economy imploded. In 1983 Israel was imploding and Reagan offered a 1.5 billion grant IF Israel adopted free market capitalism, which they did. Today Israel is recognized as a free market economy.

They teach this in economics classes

Tell us about their healthcare system again.

 

[BluesLegend]

I keep offering Dem's to divide the country in half, let them rule their side go live their socialist 'PC' wet dream but apparently they don't have the balls.

 

[HappyJoy]

I keep offering Dem's to divide the country in half, let them rule their side go live their socialist 'PC' wet dream but apparently they don't have the balls.

Why don't you go ahead and pick up and move where people like you have the same idiotic ideas.

 

[BluesLegend]

I keep offering Dem's to divide the country in half, let them rule their side go live their socialist 'PC' wet dream but apparently they don't have the balls.

Why don't you go ahead and pick up and move where people like you have the same idiotic ideas.

^^^ see I offer them everything they ever wanted, free reign to rule as they see fit and they are too chicken shit. Or is it that only a small fraction would choose to live in the Dem/Liberal ruled territory hmmm. I think we all know the answer.

 

[pknopp]

I keep offering Dem's to divide the country in half, let them rule their side go live their socialist 'PC' wet dream but apparently they don't have the balls.

Silly fantasies are not solutions to anything.

 

[HappyJoy]

I keep offering Dem's to divide the country in half, let them rule their side go live their socialist 'PC' wet dream but apparently they don't have the balls.

Why don't you go ahead and pick up and move where people like you have the same idiotic ideas.

^^^ see I offer them everything they ever wanted, free reign to rule as they see fit and they are too chicken shit. Or is it that only a small fraction would choose to live in the Dem/Liberal ruled territory hmmm. I think we all know the answer.

Oh, poor baby, people aren't going to uproot their lives to satisfy some dumb split in the country that most people don't want to have and for your contribution you won't even consider moving yourself. Fucking idiot, expects everyone else to do your own heavy lifting.

 

[BluesLegend]

I keep offering Dem's to divide the country in half, let them rule their side go live their socialist 'PC' wet dream but apparently they don't have the balls.

Silly fantasies are not solutions to anything.

Come on, then the left can stop bitching and complaining. The only issue they will have is trying to convince people to live on their side of the border.

 

[BluesLegend]

I keep offering Dem's to divide the country in half, let them rule their side go live their socialist 'PC' wet dream but apparently they don't have the balls.

Why don't you go ahead and pick up and move where people like you have the same idiotic ideas.

^^^ see I offer them everything they ever wanted, free reign to rule as they see fit and they are too chicken shit. Or is it that only a small fraction would choose to live in the Dem/Liberal ruled territory hmmm. I think we all know the answer.

Oh, poor baby, people aren't going to uproot their lives to satisfy some dumb split in the country that most people don't want to have and for your contribution you won't even consider moving yourself. Fucking idiot, expects everyone else to do your own heavy lifting.

Then you should have no problem living in your own territory. After all you just claimed "most people" want to live in Demezuela under your high tax socialist regime so go for it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Half the world used to be socialist, but now people in those countries have abandoned socialism and are now enjoying the fruits of the capitalist system.

Why should the United States convert to a system that's a proven failure?

Let's tell Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC that if they like socialism so much, they can move to Cuba.

Israel is socialist...Norway is socialist. The UK is socialist....New Zealand is socialist....Canada is socialist....Sweden is socialist....just a few.....

Israel isn't Socialist you imbecile. They tried it and as always it failed and their economy imploded. In 1983 Israel was imploding and Reagan offered a 1.5 billion grant IF Israel adopted free market capitalism, which they did. Today Israel is recognized as a free market economy.

They teach this in economics classes

Tell us about their healthcare system again.

I'm talking about their economy, Israel tried Socialism and like every attempt it failed miserably.

Keep up, dumbass...or shut up

 

[HappyJoy]

I keep offering Dem's to divide the country in half, let them rule their side go live their socialist 'PC' wet dream but apparently they don't have the balls.

Why don't you go ahead and pick up and move where people like you have the same idiotic ideas.

^^^ see I offer them everything they ever wanted, free reign to rule as they see fit and they are too chicken shit. Or is it that only a small fraction would choose to live in the Dem/Liberal ruled territory hmmm. I think we all know the answer.

Oh, poor baby, people aren't going to uproot their lives to satisfy some dumb split in the country that most people don't want to have and for your contribution you won't even consider moving yourself. Fucking idiot, expects everyone else to do your own heavy lifting.

Then you should have no problem living in your own territory. After all you just claimed "most people" want to live in Demezuela under your high tax socialist regime so go for it.

Not what I said. I said most people don't want to break up the country. I happen to live in what is becoming more and more a purple state and most everyone is just fine with that. If you want to break up the country then maybe you should move some place where people are in agreement with that. I suggest outside the U.S.

 

[HappyJoy]

Half the world used to be socialist, but now people in those countries have abandoned socialism and are now enjoying the fruits of the capitalist system.

Why should the United States convert to a system that's a proven failure?

Let's tell Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC that if they like socialism so much, they can move to Cuba.

Israel is socialist...Norway is socialist. The UK is socialist....New Zealand is socialist....Canada is socialist....Sweden is socialist....just a few.....

Israel isn't Socialist you imbecile. They tried it and as always it failed and their economy imploded. In 1983 Israel was imploding and Reagan offered a 1.5 billion grant IF Israel adopted free market capitalism, which they did. Today Israel is recognized as a free market economy.

They teach this in economics classes

Tell us about their healthcare system again.

I'm talking about their economy, Israel tried Socialism and like every attempt it failed miserably.

Keep up, dumbass...or shut up

Healthcare isn't apart of their economy, dipshit?

 

[BluesLegend]

I keep offering Dem's to divide the country in half, let them rule their side go live their socialist 'PC' wet dream but apparently they don't have the balls.

Why don't you go ahead and pick up and move where people like you have the same idiotic ideas.

^^^ see I offer them everything they ever wanted, free reign to rule as they see fit and they are too chicken shit. Or is it that only a small fraction would choose to live in the Dem/Liberal ruled territory hmmm. I think we all know the answer.

Oh, poor baby, people aren't going to uproot their lives to satisfy some dumb split in the country that most people don't want to have and for your contribution you won't even consider moving yourself. Fucking idiot, expects everyone else to do your own heavy lifting.

Then you should have no problem living in your own territory. After all you just claimed "most people" want to live in Demezuela under your high tax socialist regime so go for it.

Not what I said. I said most people don't want to break up the country. I happen to live in what is becoming more and more a purple state and most everyone is just fine with that. If you want to break up the country then maybe you should move some place where people are in agreement with that. I suggest outside the U.S.

I want your side to admit they could not survive without the right and that most people if given a choice would not choose to live under your rules.