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

[Not2BSubjugated]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

Why don’t you define “socialism” and give some examples . Cause you Cons don’t seem to have a grasp of the term.

Oh sorry, did I not spell out exactly the two definitions to which I was referring? My bad, bud, I just figured people who were balls deep in a discussion about it might actually know what I was talking about without having to go into that much specification. The one I feel is the valid definition is the one in most dictionaries, which Google brings up when you search.

A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Some examples? The Soviet Union, maybe. Nobody, to date, has really implemented a true socialist system, to my knowledge. There've been a lot of partial nationalizations of economies throughout the 20th century, the vast majority to disastrous results.

Most of the places that lefties like to call socialist today are just private market economies with large welfare systems and social safety nets. Why, you might ask, can't we just call that socialist, since it IS government/community controlled industry to some degree. There's a very simple reason for that. When the government provides military protection, that involves using community resources to build weaponry and ammunition, which one might argue is the nationalization of industry. When the government provides police protection, same thing. When the government builds roads, that could be argued to be the nationalization of the construction industry. If "nationalizing" such specific functions represents socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism, as even the absolute most basic concept of government provides, at the very least, policing and military protection. Defining socialism down to that point would make it indistinguishable from ANY form of government, and synonymous with all of them, which makes it a useless word.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Moron RW nutbags cannot differentiate between economic systems and forms of government. Those RW nutbags who aren't morons know this and use it to their political advantage.

Socialism is both an economic system and a form of government, since it's literally community control of the economy. You're pointing this out during the one conversation where there IS no distinction between the two, genius.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

Which capitalists? And by "capitalist", do you mean people who believe in the free market, or like, an early 1900's factory owner?

You understand what I am saying. We have no proponents of free markets of any account.

I honestly don't know what you're saying. There's a lot of low-info Marxist types out there who define "capitalist" as "wealthy business owner". I'm honestly trying to figure out who TF you're talking about.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

Canada. Australia. Germany. Norway. Not Venezuela.

Those countries maintain a different equilibrium between public and private resources than we do.

There ya go. That's the real argument. Start there. That might be an interesting conversation.
.

Thanks for the help, bud, but I wasn't looking for an entry point into the discussion. I'm pretty well versed in this particular semantic argument, and you and I are clearly on opposite sides of it. Again, thank you, though.

 

[Mac1958]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

Canada. Australia. Germany. Norway. Not Venezuela.

Those countries maintain a different equilibrium between public and private resources than we do.

There ya go. That's the real argument. Start there. That might be an interesting conversation.
.

Thanks for the help, bud, but I wasn't looking for an entry point into the discussion. I'm pretty well versed in this particular semantic argument, and you and I are clearly on opposite sides of it. Again, thank you, though.

If you're pretty well versed on this, why do you keep bringing up Venezuela?
.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

Canada. Australia. Germany. Norway. Not Venezuela.

Those countries maintain a different equilibrium between public and private resources than we do.

There ya go. That's the real argument. Start there. That might be an interesting conversation.
.

Thanks for the help, bud, but I wasn't looking for an entry point into the discussion. I'm pretty well versed in this particular semantic argument, and you and I are clearly on opposite sides of it. Again, thank you, though.

If you're pretty well versed on this, why do you keep bringing up Venezuela?
.

If you read the whole post, you might not have to ask.

Also, if you classify Canada and Australia as socialist, HOW THE FUCK is Venezuela not!?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Moron RW nutbags cannot differentiate between economic systems and forms of government. Those RW nutbags who aren't morons know this and use it to their political advantage.

Socialism is both an economic system and a form of government, since it's literally community control of the economy. You're pointing this out during the one conversation where there IS no distinction between the two, genius.

No it isn't. And that is you admitting to being one of the morons. Congratulations.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Moron RW nutbags cannot differentiate between economic systems and forms of government. Those RW nutbags who aren't morons know this and use it to their political advantage.

Socialism is both an economic system and a form of government, since it's literally community control of the economy. You're pointing this out during the one conversation where there IS no distinction between the two, genius.

No it isn't. And that is you admitting to being one of the morons. Congratulations.

HAHAHA!

Here, from Merriam-Websters:

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

Apparently, Merriam and Webster are among the morons, as well. If only the people who wrote the dictionary knew words as gud as you do.

 

[pknopp]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

Which capitalists? And by "capitalist", do you mean people who believe in the free market, or like, an early 1900's factory owner?

You understand what I am saying. We have no proponents of free markets of any account.

I honestly don't know what you're saying. There's a lot of low-info Marxist types out there who define "capitalist" as "wealthy business owner". I'm honestly trying to figure out who TF you're talking about.

Our entire system, those who run it and those who support it.

 

[Desperado]

I grew up in Miami in the 60's. Heard many horror stories from the Cubans that fled the island after Castro. They have no love lost for communist lite like Sanders, Warren and AOC, Would love to see those three campaign in Little Havana, it would be fun to watch.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Watching this thread. . . Jesus, I wish socialists would make up their minds.

You point to Venezuela, they're like, "That's a private economy. Only certain industries were nationalized. That's not real socialism."

So then you're like, "Oh, so only if all of the economy is nationalized, then it's socialism? Got ya. So Sweden and Denmark aren't socialism."

Then suddenly, they're like, "No, they're partial socialism. Mixed economy."

So, when it's a flourishing nation, suddenly socialism just means a healthy welfare safety net. When it's a nation nosediving into economic oblivion and there aren't even any pets left to eat, suddenly it's not real socialism because most of the economy was never nationalized.

Here's the thing. I tend to agree with the first position. Venezuela isn't true socialism. It IS, however, a warning against nationalizing load bearing structures in a nation's economy and giving those reigns to the sorts of nepotic panderers that democratic politics tends to turn out. But that's a different argument. As far as this "mixed economy" nonsense, it's like this: If taking in taxes from citizenry and using that revenue to provide a service to said citizenry is socialism, then ALL GOVERNMENT is socialism. Thus, of these two disparate definitions, only the nationalization of the economy explanation gives socialism a definition that makes it distinct from any other form of government. The alternative is a useless definition.

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

Which capitalists? And by "capitalist", do you mean people who believe in the free market, or like, an early 1900's factory owner?

You understand what I am saying. We have no proponents of free markets of any account.

I honestly don't know what you're saying. There's a lot of low-info Marxist types out there who define "capitalist" as "wealthy business owner". I'm honestly trying to figure out who TF you're talking about.

Our entire system, those who run it and those who support it.

I generally support our economic system. I detest the fed. There's a lot of other free market types of detest the fed. Ever heard of ancaps? The anarcho capitalists, some would say the most extreme capitalist purists out there, don't believe in ANY restrictions on the economy, which means that the most anti-government of the capitalists have always argued against the existence of the fed.

 

[pknopp]

The largest example of the nationalization of the economy this country has is the Federal Reserve.

When do you suppose the "Capitalists" will argue to end that?

Which capitalists? And by "capitalist", do you mean people who believe in the free market, or like, an early 1900's factory owner?

You understand what I am saying. We have no proponents of free markets of any account.

I honestly don't know what you're saying. There's a lot of low-info Marxist types out there who define "capitalist" as "wealthy business owner". I'm honestly trying to figure out who TF you're talking about.

Our entire system, those who run it and those who support it.

I generally support our economic system. I detest the fed. There's a lot of other free market types of detest the fed. Ever heard of ancaps? The anarcho capitalists, some would say the most extreme capitalist purists out there, don't believe in ANY restrictions on the economy, which means that the most anti-government of the capitalists have always argued against the existence of the fed.

.0005% of the population is not going to make a difference.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Which capitalists? And by "capitalist", do you mean people who believe in the free market, or like, an early 1900's factory owner?

You understand what I am saying. We have no proponents of free markets of any account.

I honestly don't know what you're saying. There's a lot of low-info Marxist types out there who define "capitalist" as "wealthy business owner". I'm honestly trying to figure out who TF you're talking about.

Our entire system, those who run it and those who support it.

I generally support our economic system. I detest the fed. There's a lot of other free market types of detest the fed. Ever heard of ancaps? The anarcho capitalists, some would say the most extreme capitalist purists out there, don't believe in ANY restrictions on the economy, which means that the most anti-government of the capitalists have always argued against the existence of the fed.

.0005% of the population is not going to make a difference.

You're probably correct, there. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Lesh]

Most of the places that lefties like to call socialist today are just private market economies with large welfare systems and social safety nets.

The really odd thing is that you admit this and ignore the fact that what liberals and progressives want for THIS country is decidedly LESS socialist than those countries

 

[pknopp]

You understand what I am saying. We have no proponents of free markets of any account.

I honestly don't know what you're saying. There's a lot of low-info Marxist types out there who define "capitalist" as "wealthy business owner". I'm honestly trying to figure out who TF you're talking about.

Our entire system, those who run it and those who support it.

I generally support our economic system. I detest the fed. There's a lot of other free market types of detest the fed. Ever heard of ancaps? The anarcho capitalists, some would say the most extreme capitalist purists out there, don't believe in ANY restrictions on the economy, which means that the most anti-government of the capitalists have always argued against the existence of the fed.

.0005% of the population is not going to make a difference.

You're probably correct, there. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what your point is.

As long as the Capitalist fight for socialism for the top I will fight for it for the bottom.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Most of the places that lefties like to call socialist today are just private market economies with large welfare systems and social safety nets.

The really odd thing is that you admit this and ignore the fact that what liberals and progressives want for THIS country is decidedly LESS socialist than those countries

I don't ignore that fact. I simply acknowledge that said fact doesn't make their ideas good ones. There's a lot of daylight between Mao and correct.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I honestly don't know what you're saying. There's a lot of low-info Marxist types out there who define "capitalist" as "wealthy business owner". I'm honestly trying to figure out who TF you're talking about.

Our entire system, those who run it and those who support it.

I generally support our economic system. I detest the fed. There's a lot of other free market types of detest the fed. Ever heard of ancaps? The anarcho capitalists, some would say the most extreme capitalist purists out there, don't believe in ANY restrictions on the economy, which means that the most anti-government of the capitalists have always argued against the existence of the fed.

.0005% of the population is not going to make a difference.

You're probably correct, there. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what your point is.

As long as the Capitalist fight for socialism for the top I will fight for it for the bottom.

Seems like a silly fight. Why not fight to get the people in power to stop trying to plan the f'in economy? Sounds more like tribalism than principle.

 

[pknopp]

Our entire system, those who run it and those who support it.

I generally support our economic system. I detest the fed. There's a lot of other free market types of detest the fed. Ever heard of ancaps? The anarcho capitalists, some would say the most extreme capitalist purists out there, don't believe in ANY restrictions on the economy, which means that the most anti-government of the capitalists have always argued against the existence of the fed.

.0005% of the population is not going to make a difference.

You're probably correct, there. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what your point is.

As long as the Capitalist fight for socialism for the top I will fight for it for the bottom.

Seems like a silly fight. Why not fight to get the people in power to stop trying to plan the f'in economy? Sounds more like tribalism than principle.

Because it isn't going to happen. We will have to wait until others countries finally grow tired of us.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I generally support our economic system. I detest the fed. There's a lot of other free market types of detest the fed. Ever heard of ancaps? The anarcho capitalists, some would say the most extreme capitalist purists out there, don't believe in ANY restrictions on the economy, which means that the most anti-government of the capitalists have always argued against the existence of the fed.

.0005% of the population is not going to make a difference.

You're probably correct, there. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what your point is.

As long as the Capitalist fight for socialism for the top I will fight for it for the bottom.

Seems like a silly fight. Why not fight to get the people in power to stop trying to plan the f'in economy? Sounds more like tribalism than principle.

Because it isn't going to happen. We will have to wait until others countries finally grow tired of us.

So, since an economic system of which you approve isn't likely, you're going to fight for ecomomic apocalypse B over economic apocalypse A? Why even bother?

And I don't see how other countries are doing it much better than we are, honestly.

 

[pknopp]

.0005% of the population is not going to make a difference.

You're probably correct, there. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what your point is.

As long as the Capitalist fight for socialism for the top I will fight for it for the bottom.

Seems like a silly fight. Why not fight to get the people in power to stop trying to plan the f'in economy? Sounds more like tribalism than principle.

Because it isn't going to happen. We will have to wait until others countries finally grow tired of us.

So, since an economic system of which you approve isn't likely, you're going to fight for ecomomic apocalypse B over economic apocalypse A? Why even bother?

And I don't see how other countries are doing it much better than we are, honestly.

I should just go along with screwing over the poor and middle class?