NY Times: "Happy Birthday Karl Marx!! You were RIGHT!!!"

[Some Guy]

This all lies on a continuum. It's not like we can be "not socialist" one day, and "socialist" the next. We already have elements of "socialism" in America, such as Medicare and Social Security. Does that make us "socialist"?

I think the Left's current definition of "socialism" is the Euro-social democracies of France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland. They're clearly to the Left of us, but their economies are not based on government owning all methods of production and distribution.

But the Right is clearly using Venezuela and Cuba as their examples.

When we decay into binary thinking, it's difficult to communicate. The term "socialism" has been watered down as much as the term "racism" has. Neither word really has any meaning at this point.
.

Good points. Yet the truth of the matter is that the Nordic states don't employ socialism. So, when people point to them and say "see, socialism works!" then what is one to think? I blame the education system for not teaching kids what socialism actually is. Advocating for public funded programs is a much different animal than stumping for government control of the economy, but i do think the modern left blends them all together depending on what's convenient at the time.

 

[Mac1958]

The problem with this whole conversation is initially with its terminology. It's pretty clear that the two ends are operating under different definitions of "socialism", and for some reason neither seems terribly interested in working from the same definition. Maybe there's some perceived political advantage in avoiding it, but I'm not sure what it is.
.

I'd be interested to hear what you think those definitions are. I think both are using the same definition largely, just one side is realistic about what it is and what it leads to while the other chooses to ignore it's track record and pretend it's some altruistic doctrine because it makes them feel good.

This all lies on a continuum. It's not like we can be "not socialist" one day, and "socialist" the next. We already have elements of "socialism" in America, such as Medicare and Social Security. Does that make us "socialist"?

I think the Left's current definition of "socialism" is the Euro-social democracies of France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland. They're clearly to the Left of us, but their economies are not based on government owning all methods of production and distribution. Which, at least, used to be the definition.

But the Right is clearly using Venezuela and Cuba as their examples.

When we decay into binary thinking, it's difficult to communicate. The term "socialism" has been watered down as much as the term "racism" has. Neither word really has any meaning at this point.
.

France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland are prime examples, in their current form, of what the founders were running from......not to.

Would you say that they're socialist countries?
.

 

[Mac1958]

This all lies on a continuum. It's not like we can be "not socialist" one day, and "socialist" the next. We already have elements of "socialism" in America, such as Medicare and Social Security. Does that make us "socialist"?

I think the Left's current definition of "socialism" is the Euro-social democracies of France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland. They're clearly to the Left of us, but their economies are not based on government owning all methods of production and distribution.

But the Right is clearly using Venezuela and Cuba as their examples.

When we decay into binary thinking, it's difficult to communicate. The term "socialism" has been watered down as much as the term "racism" has. Neither word really has any meaning at this point.
.

Good points. Yet the truth of the matter is that the Nordic states don't employ socialism. So, when people point to them and say "see, socialism works!" then what is one to think? I blame the education system for not teaching kids what socialism actually is. Advocating for public funded programs is a much different animal than stumping for government control of the economy, but i do think the modern left blends them all together depending on what's convenient at the time.

Yeah, we're all operating under different definitions, which makes it pretty tough to fix or improve anything.

Certainly there are elements on the Left that would push as far Left as they can, but they're not going to admit it. On the other end, there are a lot of Libertarians who want to pull us in the opposite direction. They're both polluting the conversation.
.

 

[Some Guy]

Yeah, we're all operating under different definitions, which makes it pretty tough to fix or improve anything.

Certainly there are elements on the Left that would push as far Left as they can, but they're not going to admit it. On the other end, there are a lot of Libertarians who want to pull us in the opposite direction. They're both polluting the conversation.
.

I'm all about pulling us in a libertarian direction. There's no more destructive force than government.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The problem with this whole conversation is initially with its terminology. It's pretty clear that the two ends are operating under different definitions of "socialism", and for some reason neither seems terribly interested in working from the same definition. Maybe there's some perceived political advantage in avoiding it, but I'm not sure what it is.
.

I'd be interested to hear what you think those definitions are. I think both are using the same definition largely, just one side is realistic about what it is and what it leads to while the other chooses to ignore it's track record and pretend it's some altruistic doctrine because it makes them feel good.

This all lies on a continuum. It's not like we can be "not socialist" one day, and "socialist" the next. We already have elements of "socialism" in America, such as Medicare and Social Security. Does that make us "socialist"?

I think the Left's current definition of "socialism" is the Euro-social democracies of France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland. They're clearly to the Left of us, but their economies are not based on government owning all methods of production and distribution. Which, at least, used to be the definition.

But the Right is clearly using Venezuela and Cuba as their examples.

When we decay into binary thinking, it's difficult to communicate. The term "socialism" has been watered down as much as the term "racism" has. Neither word really has any meaning at this point.
.

France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland are prime examples, in their current form, of what the founders were running from......not to.

Would you say that they're socialist countries?
.

Yes. They have given away most of their rights. Their govt's make the decisions for them. We're treading behind in their wake.

 

[Mac1958]

The problem with this whole conversation is initially with its terminology. It's pretty clear that the two ends are operating under different definitions of "socialism", and for some reason neither seems terribly interested in working from the same definition. Maybe there's some perceived political advantage in avoiding it, but I'm not sure what it is.
.

I'd be interested to hear what you think those definitions are. I think both are using the same definition largely, just one side is realistic about what it is and what it leads to while the other chooses to ignore it's track record and pretend it's some altruistic doctrine because it makes them feel good.

This all lies on a continuum. It's not like we can be "not socialist" one day, and "socialist" the next. We already have elements of "socialism" in America, such as Medicare and Social Security. Does that make us "socialist"?

I think the Left's current definition of "socialism" is the Euro-social democracies of France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland. They're clearly to the Left of us, but their economies are not based on government owning all methods of production and distribution. Which, at least, used to be the definition.

But the Right is clearly using Venezuela and Cuba as their examples.

When we decay into binary thinking, it's difficult to communicate. The term "socialism" has been watered down as much as the term "racism" has. Neither word really has any meaning at this point.
.

France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland are prime examples, in their current form, of what the founders were running from......not to.

Would you say that they're socialist countries?
.

Yes. They have given away most of their rights. Their govt's make the decisions for them. We're treading behind in their wake.

Do you see any difference between the social democracies of Europe and places like Venezuela and Cuba, where the government owns all means of production and distribution?
.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I'd be interested to hear what you think those definitions are. I think both are using the same definition largely, just one side is realistic about what it is and what it leads to while the other chooses to ignore it's track record and pretend it's some altruistic doctrine because it makes them feel good.

This all lies on a continuum. It's not like we can be "not socialist" one day, and "socialist" the next. We already have elements of "socialism" in America, such as Medicare and Social Security. Does that make us "socialist"?

I think the Left's current definition of "socialism" is the Euro-social democracies of France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland. They're clearly to the Left of us, but their economies are not based on government owning all methods of production and distribution. Which, at least, used to be the definition.

But the Right is clearly using Venezuela and Cuba as their examples.

When we decay into binary thinking, it's difficult to communicate. The term "socialism" has been watered down as much as the term "racism" has. Neither word really has any meaning at this point.
.

France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland are prime examples, in their current form, of what the founders were running from......not to.

Would you say that they're socialist countries?
.

Yes. They have given away most of their rights. Their govt's make the decisions for them. We're treading behind in their wake.

Do you see any difference between the social democracies of Europe and places like Venezuela and Cuba, where the government owns all means of production and distribution?
.

Cuba has been communist for decades. Venezuela, more recently, has moved over to complete state control. Dictators love socialist states because they're so easy to manipulate.

 

[Mac1958]

This all lies on a continuum. It's not like we can be "not socialist" one day, and "socialist" the next. We already have elements of "socialism" in America, such as Medicare and Social Security. Does that make us "socialist"?

I think the Left's current definition of "socialism" is the Euro-social democracies of France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland. They're clearly to the Left of us, but their economies are not based on government owning all methods of production and distribution. Which, at least, used to be the definition.

But the Right is clearly using Venezuela and Cuba as their examples.

When we decay into binary thinking, it's difficult to communicate. The term "socialism" has been watered down as much as the term "racism" has. Neither word really has any meaning at this point.
.

France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland are prime examples, in their current form, of what the founders were running from......not to.

Would you say that they're socialist countries?
.

Yes. They have given away most of their rights. Their govt's make the decisions for them. We're treading behind in their wake.

Do you see any difference between the social democracies of Europe and places like Venezuela and Cuba, where the government owns all means of production and distribution?
.

Cuba has been communist for decades. Venezuela, more recently, has moved over to complete state control. Dictators love socialist states because they're so easy to manipulate.

So that's a yes, you do see a difference?
.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland are prime examples, in their current form, of what the founders were running from......not to.

Would you say that they're socialist countries?
.

Yes. They have given away most of their rights. Their govt's make the decisions for them. We're treading behind in their wake.

Do you see any difference between the social democracies of Europe and places like Venezuela and Cuba, where the government owns all means of production and distribution?
.

Cuba has been communist for decades. Venezuela, more recently, has moved over to complete state control. Dictators love socialist states because they're so easy to manipulate.

So that's a yes, you do see a difference?
.

Of course. However, it's not wise to move into the direction of socialism since the state continually takes more and more.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

On the question of whether or not there are still commies running around....


The defense rests.

 

[IsaacNewton]

 

[imawhosure]

2016 was the year Democrats openly embraced their Inner Mao

Opinion | Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!

Yeeeaaah!! At least they are admitting what they are. I sure hope the right are preparing for what is happening.

If you think this is not going to continue until it gets bloody, you do not really know history.

Right now the marxists (as I have been saying in virtually every one of my posts) control our minds. They own the country's soul.

This, at some point is going to get bloody.

They can't control our minds if we change the channel.

You underestimate the far reaching power and influence the devil has. It is not as simple as changing the channel. When hype dictates laws and unjust laws are passed and enforced, that is when it is more than turning off a TV.

Otherwise, yeah. It is that simple. I have most of the commie puppets on ignore. Mainly cause they are commie puppets and I would have more luck reasoning with a scorpion.

This is beyond scary. Read the marxist revolutions and how it works. Especially the Mao model of getting rid of the FOUR OLDS.

Old ways
Old customs
Old ideas
Old habits.

Now look at what is happening. Men and womens bathrooms? Really? The Boy Scouts?

The left are transforming our CULTURE. Tearing down of statues? You think that will be limited to old Confederates? Think again. We know they are trying to remove Jefferson. Eventually Washington, and then the ultimately the Constitution.

This is where it is heading. The education system, the mass media, and entertainment industry. All owned by the left and they are having MASS EFFECT.

The comment sections on these kinds of pieces are always interesting. From this one:

Hrvoje C
Yugoslavia (ex)May 1
Times Pick

As someone who lived in a socialist state, I tell this to the hundreds of apologetics of the Marx doctrine. I hope, one day, you get to live in his "utopia." You are completely and utterly deluded, you have no palpable understanding of what socialism truly is nor how it affects the system of power. By the time I was 10, my nation was deprived of everything, we had no power, no nothing, and it was like that because the state controlled everything under the proposition of a central authority and government run economy - which was meant to provide work and living standards to everyone. Hundreds and thousands of people died in what was probably the best attempt of Marxist economy, Yugoslavia, for no other reason than the desire to speak out. I hope you get to live that one day, maybe sanity will come back in your lives after you did.
.

This person should be nominated for a Nobel Prize. I live in Canada, and it's simple, the state decides the winners and losers, they create a hierachy which is "enforced" by the security apparatus and ensures you are kept in your place.

Most worrisome, America has a free trade agreement with Canada, rewarding our near caste system, while we export to you terror and our socialist system, along with being a conduit to the Chinese and other International spy threats.

Amazing.

To all the conservative Republicans, in fact Republicans in general---------->

Why is this happening? Because WE screwed the pooch, and in many cases, still do. How many of your friends that are even partially conservative, as soon as they hear one of a few words to describe them........racist, masochist, anti-immigrant, etc.........they head for the hills, and they SHUT UP?

Look at the colleges of this country. Study just showed that only 10. something percent of profs are conservative. Do you have young adult children? Where do YOU send them to school? Basically, WE are cutting our own throats. Whenever YOU stand up to these Socialists, why do you think they have to shut you up?!?!?! They do not want to DEBATE you, they MUST shut down debate by calling you, and anyone that thinks like you, names that will drive people away from the discussion, that YOU will win!

The Left is a bunch of snowflakes, pansies, need safe spaces. Do you understand that a little standing up to them, will send them scurrying off to hide, if not on the internet where they can hide behind a phony moniker? It takes 1 of them, with 10 others on the side giving them talking points, to debate 1 of us. Why? Because they are LIARS, lol!

Most of them are DUMB as a box of rocks, whine like little kids, and are under 30 yrs old and still wet behind the ears. Start getting a little nasty with facts on them, and they will either ignore you, or head for the hills.

Remember, these fools should NEVER be allowed again to run this country! Why? Because when in college, they couldn't even run their commune, they screwed up everything, and are afraid of their own shadow. Ohhhhhhh, Cuba is going to get us, Iran is going to get us, North Korea is going to get us, boooooo-hooooooo.

Now you know why many of the far left men want access to the womens room, THEY WEAR PANTIES-)

 

[IsaacNewton]

Opinion | Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!

Yeeeaaah!! At least they are admitting what they are. I sure hope the right are preparing for what is happening.

If you think this is not going to continue until it gets bloody, you do not really know history.

Right now the marxists (as I have been saying in virtually every one of my posts) control our minds. They own the country's soul.

This, at some point is going to get bloody.

Conservatives celebrating Karl Marx' birthday. Like Reagan would.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Commies never go away. The entire left is full of commies who call themselves something else. Thank Odin they have grown a pair of balls and decided to admit their nonsense.

 

[Clementine]

They can't control our minds if we change the channel.

Problem is that schools are touting socialism/Marxism and even communism as benevolent forms of government. Young ones today are claiming that the new Democratic or liberal socialism is different than ones tried in the past. They actually believe this shit and they are voting. The radical leftists just need to dumb down more people until the majority is useful idiots willing to hand them total control. History books are so biased against conservatives and it's about to get worse. The newest books are actually bashing Trump. Liberals are in charge of school text books. Virtually every subject is heavily laced with leftist propaganda. Teachers were the ones encouraging students to walk out of school to protest guns.
The students are taught that anyone owning guns are evil and should be feared. They are taught that wealthy capitalists are evil and need to be taken down. They are taught that whites are inherently racist and need to atone for being born white. They are taught that there are at least 26 different sexes and using common phrases like "Boys and girls" or Ladies and Gentlemen" are wrong because some don't identify as either one. They are taught that everything they need is a right and everything should be given to them. The left is churning out entitled, ignorant little puppets who will vote for big government because they believe it's the only way to survive. It's because they've been conditioned to blame others for all of their problems and failures.