Zone1 Is communiusm a US obsession ?

[Soupnazi630]

Which neatly brings us back to the OP. Its an American obsession. Nowhere else in the world even usses the word commie.

It is not an obssession. It is an intelligent response to one of the worlds great evils.

Exactly like being opposed to nazis. Learn from history and never let such things happen again

 

[Soupnazi630]

I cant agree. I am a share owning, home owning socialist. Neever been attracted to living in a communist state.
I just want a fairer society,

Socialism is not about fairness

 

[surada]

Because they are capitalist nations

Tempered with socialism.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Tempered with socialism.

Wrong

Government services and programs are not socialism

 

[surada]

Wrong

Government services and programs are not socialism

Democratic Socialist Countries 2024

 

[Soupnazi630]

Democratic Socialist Countries 2024

Someone elses uninformed opinion and therefore meaningless

 

[surada]

Someone elses uninformed opinion and therefore meaningless

The Nordic model works

 

[Soupnazi630]

The Nordic model works

Sure, it works for them, but it is in no way socialist

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Socialism is not about fairness

It is about a safety net to ensure people are hekped when they need it. Its the cornerstone of any decent society.
Prrimarily its because capitalism is unstable and needs frequant bail outs.
There are obvious benefits to capitalism but a purely capitalist society is headed for a breakdown before long.

 

[dblack]

It is about a safety net to ensure people are hekped when they need it.

Nope. Read a definition. It's about state control of the means of production. A "safety net" is entirely optional and doesn't require socialism.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Nope. Read a definition. It's about state control of the means of production. A "safety net" is entirely optional and doesn't require socialism.

It really isnt.The state doesnt own the means of production in any socialist state.
Coke cola is sold in every country.
The state may own some strategic entities where it is obviously beneficial to do so. But that covers limited things.
The US owns its Post Office as an example.

 

[Mac-7]

How much money does Norway spend on NATO every year?

I dont know without looking it up and neither do you

But its too small to defeat russia or communist china

 

[dblack]

It really isnt.

It really is. Words mean things. If you want extol the virtues of your governmental system, great. But please avoid Orwellian wordsmithing.

The state doesnt own the means of production in any socialist state.

The core tenant of socialism is communal ownership of the means of production. Full stop. If you're denying that, you're just playing games with definitions.

Coke cola is sold in every country.

??? What's that got to do with anything?

The state may own some strategic entities where it is obviously beneficial to do so. But that covers limited things.

What limits the things it "covers"?

 

[dblack]

You're arguing with a parasite that treats the “safety net” as a hammock, to just lay his lazy, worthless ass down, and never lift a finger, while others work to support him.

Why do you say that? I don't know anything about Tommy personally, so I couldn't say.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why do you say that? I don't know anything about Tommy personally, so I couldn't say.

You've been on this forum longer than he or I have been.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

It really is. Words mean things. If you want extol the virtues of your governmental system, great. But please avoid Orwellian wordsmithing.

The core tenant of socialism is communal ownership of the means of production. Full stop. If you're denying that, you're just playing games with definitions.

??? What's that got to do with anything?

What limits the things it "covers"?

I am just pointing out the world as we live in.No socialist government owns all the means of production.

And it isnt anything that socialists really give much credence to.. And the proof of this is that you cant point to any socialist country where this happens. Because it doesnt.

The coke thing illustrates the point. We drink coke cola not a state produced soft drink.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It is about a safety net to ensure people are hekped when they need it. Its the cornerstone of any decent society.
Prrimarily its because capitalism is unstable and needs frequant bail outs.
There are obvious benefits to capitalism but a purely capitalist society is headed for a breakdown before long.

No it is not..

It is about central planning and state ownership of private business which aways fails.

Safety ets are no such conerstone. Capitalis never needs bailouts and before you start bailing out a company is never necessary and it is never bailing out the system of capitalism

Your claim is false and not basedf on evidence

 

[dblack]

I am just pointing out the world as we live in.No socialist government owns all the means of production.

So what? What does that have to do with the argument?

And it isnt anything that socialists really give much credence to.. And the proof of this is that you cant point to any socialist country where this happens. Because it doesnt.

I don't know where you're going with this. Socialists are hypocrites? What's your point?

The coke thing illustrates the point. We drink coke cola not a state produced soft drink.

??? So what? Socialism advocates for communal ownership of the means of production. That's the core definition that you find in pretty much any dictionary. That's the part I oppose. Are you saying all those definitions are wrong?

Again, I'm just not clear what you're trying to say. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. That's the entire point. Are just saying that's not true?

It's sounds like all you're really trying to say is: "Socialism isn't so bad, because they never manage to socialize everything. Dude, we still get Coca-Cola!"

 

[surada]

So what? What does that have to do with the argument?

I don't know where you're going with this. Socialists are hypocrites? What's your point?

??? So what? Socialism advocates for communal ownership of the means of production. That's the core definition that you find in pretty much any dictionary. That's the part I oppose. Are you saying all those definitions are wrong?

Again, I'm just not clear what you're trying to say. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. That's the entire point. Are just saying that's not true?

It's sounds like all you're really trying to say is: "Socialism isn't so bad, because they never manage to socialize everything. Dude, we still get Coca-Cola!"

Democratic socialists are mostly capitalists.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Democratic socialists are mostly capitalists.

they are socialists and not at all democratic