Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[Billy000]

Are you under this impression socialist states like Norway or Denmark are fascist? Not even close. You’re cherry picking a specific type of government as being the definition of socialism. Also, while those Nordic countries are more socialist than the US, it doesn’t change the fact that socialist principles have always been apart of the US government. Again, anything funded by tax payers is a socialist program.

Actually, I stated that they go hand in hand and that the government controlling the means of production is a huge step in that direction. Considering all I pointed out were facts, I'm not even remotely cherry-picking.

I already explained why that's wrong, and simply reiterating an incorrect point will not change that it's untrue. Infrastructure does not produce anything, and Socialism is Social control of the means of production. Since infrastructure is not a means of production, calling "everything funded by tax payers" Socialism is simply broadening the definition to normalize a failed ideal. Instead of reiterating a point I debunked, you'll need to actually make a counterpoint.

Lol what the ****? How have you debunked anything? It’s interesting you demand sources from me but never produce your own. Until then you haven’t debunked anything.

Here is the extended definition of socialism from Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production[10]as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11]Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12]There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13]though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][

See? All you have to do is, you know, look up the term and learn exactly what it means. As you can see, the term is about social ownership among the people. The definition at its core has nothing to do with fascism. Infrastructure is the product. A product owned by the people because it is funded by the people.

The definition you just gave me from wikipedia supports everything I just said about Socialism, and says nothing that supports your assertion that it's everything the government steals money from citizens to fund.

>"Characterized by Social Ownership of the means of production"
>Social Ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership

All of these forms of Social Ownership are arbitrated by the government, and have little to no difference. It also specifies the means of production, infrastructure not being any form of production.

In other words, all you did was repeat back to myself what I said to debunk your claim.

Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government isn’t socialist?

Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

While not necessarily true, a government expands its power constantly, regardless of where it starts, and naturally gravitates towards fascism.

No, having a government isn't fascism by default, a Socialist government is often fascist by default, dependent on how Socialist it is, because everything that the government arbitrates basically belongs to that government. For example, if all of the means of production were to supposedly belong to "all people", the means of production would still be arbitrated by the government, making it belong to the government. The government owning the means of production is a massive step towards fascism, because it takes away the ability of the people to conduct free trade.

Are you under this impression socialist states like Norway or Denmark are fascist? Not even close. You’re cherry picking a specific type of government as being the definition of socialism. Also, while those Nordic countries are more socialist than the US, it doesn’t change the fact that socialist principles have always been apart of the US government. Again, anything funded by tax payers is a socialist program.

Actually, I stated that they go hand in hand and that the government controlling the means of production is a huge step in that direction. Considering all I pointed out were facts, I'm not even remotely cherry-picking.

I already explained why that's wrong, and simply reiterating an incorrect point will not change that it's untrue. Infrastructure does not produce anything, and Socialism is Social control of the means of production. Since infrastructure is not a means of production, calling "everything funded by tax payers" Socialism is simply broadening the definition to normalize a failed ideal. Instead of reiterating a point I debunked, you'll need to actually make a counterpoint.

Lol what the ****? How have you debunked anything? It’s interesting you demand sources from me but never produce your own. Until then you haven’t debunked anything.

Here is the extended definition of socialism from Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production[10]as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11]Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12]There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13]though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][

See? All you have to do is, you know, look up the term and learn exactly what it means. As you can see, the term is about social ownership among the people. The definition at its core has nothing to do with fascism. Infrastructure is the product. A product owned by the people because it is funded by the people.

The definition you just gave me from wikipedia supports everything I just said about Socialism, and says nothing that supports your assertion that it's everything the government steals money from citizens to fund.

>"Characterized by Social Ownership of the means of production"
>Social Ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership

All of these forms of Social Ownership are arbitrated by the government, and have little to no difference. It also specifies the means of production, infrastructure not being any form of production.

In other words, all you did was repeat back to myself what I said to debunk your claim.

Social ownership or social regulation!

As usual, there are no sources that support that claim, Socialists would only like to believe that so they can normalize that failed ideal and pretend it works, much like they like to pretend every Socialist failure isn't Socialism. While I'm fully against all regulations, regulating the means of production does not equate to Socialism.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Actually, I stated that they go hand in hand and that the government controlling the means of production is a huge step in that direction. Considering all I pointed out were facts, I'm not even remotely cherry-picking.

I already explained why that's wrong, and simply reiterating an incorrect point will not change that it's untrue. Infrastructure does not produce anything, and Socialism is Social control of the means of production. Since infrastructure is not a means of production, calling "everything funded by tax payers" Socialism is simply broadening the definition to normalize a failed ideal. Instead of reiterating a point I debunked, you'll need to actually make a counterpoint.

Lol what the ****? How have you debunked anything? It’s interesting you demand sources from me but never produce your own. Until then you haven’t debunked anything.

Here is the extended definition of socialism from Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production[10]as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11]Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12]There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13]though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][

See? All you have to do is, you know, look up the term and learn exactly what it means. As you can see, the term is about social ownership among the people. The definition at its core has nothing to do with fascism. Infrastructure is the product. A product owned by the people because it is funded by the people.

The definition you just gave me from wikipedia supports everything I just said about Socialism, and says nothing that supports your assertion that it's everything the government steals money from citizens to fund.

>"Characterized by Social Ownership of the means of production"
>Social Ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership

All of these forms of Social Ownership are arbitrated by the government, and have little to no difference. It also specifies the means of production, infrastructure not being any form of production.

In other words, all you did was repeat back to myself what I said to debunk your claim.

Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government isn’t socialist?

Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

 

[francoHFW]

Are you under this impression socialist states like Norway or Denmark are fascist? Not even close. You’re cherry picking a specific type of government as being the definition of socialism. Also, while those Nordic countries are more socialist than the US, it doesn’t change the fact that socialist principles have always been apart of the US government. Again, anything funded by tax payers is a socialist program.

Actually, I stated that they go hand in hand and that the government controlling the means of production is a huge step in that direction. Considering all I pointed out were facts, I'm not even remotely cherry-picking.

I already explained why that's wrong, and simply reiterating an incorrect point will not change that it's untrue. Infrastructure does not produce anything, and Socialism is Social control of the means of production. Since infrastructure is not a means of production, calling "everything funded by tax payers" Socialism is simply broadening the definition to normalize a failed ideal. Instead of reiterating a point I debunked, you'll need to actually make a counterpoint.

Lol what the ****? How have you debunked anything? It’s interesting you demand sources from me but never produce your own. Until then you haven’t debunked anything.

Here is the extended definition of socialism from Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production[10]as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11]Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12]There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13]though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][

See? All you have to do is, you know, look up the term and learn exactly what it means. As you can see, the term is about social ownership among the people. The definition at its core has nothing to do with fascism. Infrastructure is the product. A product owned by the people because it is funded by the people.

The definition you just gave me from wikipedia supports everything I just said about Socialism, and says nothing that supports your assertion that it's everything the government steals money from citizens to fund.

>"Characterized by Social Ownership of the means of production"
>Social Ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership

All of these forms of Social Ownership are arbitrated by the government, and have little to no difference. It also specifies the means of production, infrastructure not being any form of production.

In other words, all you did was repeat back to myself what I said to debunk your claim.

Social ownership or social regulation!

As usual, there are no sources that support that claim, Socialists would only like to believe that so they can normalize that failed ideal and pretend it works, much like they like to pretend every Socialist failure isn't Socialism. While I'm fully against all regulations, regulating the means of production does not equate to Socialism.

At this point other modern countries are more successful and much happier than we are, thanks to the GOP and its dupes like you.

 

[francoHFW]

Lol what the ****? How have you debunked anything? It’s interesting you demand sources from me but never produce your own. Until then you haven’t debunked anything.

Here is the extended definition of socialism from Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production[10]as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11]Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12]There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13]though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][

See? All you have to do is, you know, look up the term and learn exactly what it means. As you can see, the term is about social ownership among the people. The definition at its core has nothing to do with fascism. Infrastructure is the product. A product owned by the people because it is funded by the people.

The definition you just gave me from wikipedia supports everything I just said about Socialism, and says nothing that supports your assertion that it's everything the government steals money from citizens to fund.

>"Characterized by Social Ownership of the means of production"
>Social Ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership

All of these forms of Social Ownership are arbitrated by the government, and have little to no difference. It also specifies the means of production, infrastructure not being any form of production.

In other words, all you did was repeat back to myself what I said to debunk your claim.

Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government isn’t socialist?

Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

You're crazy, most socialist we've been is always going forward. When ACA passed that was our high point so far. An actual solution to our Healthcare disgrace after years of a GOP non-system.

 

[francoHFW]

Because of growing inequality under GOP rule basically the last 35 years, we're falling apart! Especially the middle class and our infrastructure.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, I stated that they go hand in hand and that the government controlling the means of production is a huge step in that direction. Considering all I pointed out were facts, I'm not even remotely cherry-picking.

I already explained why that's wrong, and simply reiterating an incorrect point will not change that it's untrue. Infrastructure does not produce anything, and Socialism is Social control of the means of production. Since infrastructure is not a means of production, calling "everything funded by tax payers" Socialism is simply broadening the definition to normalize a failed ideal. Instead of reiterating a point I debunked, you'll need to actually make a counterpoint.

Lol what the ****? How have you debunked anything? It’s interesting you demand sources from me but never produce your own. Until then you haven’t debunked anything.

Here is the extended definition of socialism from Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production[10]as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11]Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12]There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13]though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][

See? All you have to do is, you know, look up the term and learn exactly what it means. As you can see, the term is about social ownership among the people. The definition at its core has nothing to do with fascism. Infrastructure is the product. A product owned by the people because it is funded by the people.

The definition you just gave me from wikipedia supports everything I just said about Socialism, and says nothing that supports your assertion that it's everything the government steals money from citizens to fund.

>"Characterized by Social Ownership of the means of production"
>Social Ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership

All of these forms of Social Ownership are arbitrated by the government, and have little to no difference. It also specifies the means of production, infrastructure not being any form of production.

In other words, all you did was repeat back to myself what I said to debunk your claim.

Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government isn’t socialist?

Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

We've always had private property in this country, chump.

 

[impuretrash]

Well, I think extreme socialism results in a system where citizens get paid a higher wage from not working than actually having a job and contributing to society.

Only if you're talking about crap underpaid overworked no benefits GOP b******* jobs like so many are now. We have the worst socialist government going thanks to the GOP and you silly dupes!

WTF are you smoking, dude?

Our minimum wage jobs would be illegal anywhere else in the modern world stupid.

That explains why so many immigrants sneak across the border to work for below minimum wage

You are comparing us to poor countries, Super dupe.

You are just as bad as those "GOP dupes" you keep talking about. I'm trying to be reasonable here concerning the pros and cons of capitalism and socialism. I've already been accused of being anti-capitalist and now you are attacking me for not being pro-socialist.

 

[bripat9643]

The definition you just gave me from wikipedia supports everything I just said about Socialism, and says nothing that supports your assertion that it's everything the government steals money from citizens to fund.

>"Characterized by Social Ownership of the means of production"
>Social Ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership

All of these forms of Social Ownership are arbitrated by the government, and have little to no difference. It also specifies the means of production, infrastructure not being any form of production.

In other words, all you did was repeat back to myself what I said to debunk your claim.

Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government isn’t socialist?

Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

You're crazy, most socialist we've been is always going forward. When ACA passed that was our high point so far. An actual solution to our Healthcare disgrace after years of a GOP non-system.

It's sad that you believe the ACA was the high point of socialism. I'd say it was the low point.

 

[francoHFW]

Only if you're talking about crap underpaid overworked no benefits GOP b******* jobs like so many are now. We have the worst socialist government going thanks to the GOP and you silly dupes!

WTF are you smoking, dude?

Our minimum wage jobs would be illegal anywhere else in the modern world stupid.

That explains why so many immigrants sneak across the border to work for below minimum wage

You are comparing us to poor countries, Super dupe.

You are just as bad as those "GOP dupes" you keep talking about. I'm trying to be reasonable here concerning the pros and cons of capitalism and socialism. I've already been accused of being anti-capitalist and now you are attacking me for not being pro-socialist.

Socialism is democratic capitalism, just fair that's all. You can't tell the dupe anyting LOL. All I said was you're comparing us to poor countries with huge crime problems... It's ridiculous.

 

[francoHFW]

Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government isn’t socialist?

Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

You're crazy, most socialist we've been is always going forward. When ACA passed that was our high point so far. An actual solution to our Healthcare disgrace after years of a GOP non-system.

It's sad that you believe the ACA was the high point of socialism. I'd say it was the low point.

80% of people got health insurance for less than $100 a month and it was a solution to the high cost over time which is the real problem. And covered 9 million poor people. It will work even now. If the GOP doesn't sabotage it even more... Dupe.

 

[bripat9643]

Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

You're crazy, most socialist we've been is always going forward. When ACA passed that was our high point so far. An actual solution to our Healthcare disgrace after years of a GOP non-system.

It's sad that you believe the ACA was the high point of socialism. I'd say it was the low point.

80% of people got health insurance for less than $100 a month and it was a solution to the high cost over time which is the real problem. And covered 9 million poor people. It will work even now. If the GOP doesn't sabotage it even more... Dupe.

I have to pay $1650/month. **** Obama and **** the ACA.

 

[Billy000]

Lol what the ****? How have you debunked anything? It’s interesting you demand sources from me but never produce your own. Until then you haven’t debunked anything.

Here is the extended definition of socialism from Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production[10]as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11]Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12]There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13]though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][

See? All you have to do is, you know, look up the term and learn exactly what it means. As you can see, the term is about social ownership among the people. The definition at its core has nothing to do with fascism. Infrastructure is the product. A product owned by the people because it is funded by the people.

The definition you just gave me from wikipedia supports everything I just said about Socialism, and says nothing that supports your assertion that it's everything the government steals money from citizens to fund.

>"Characterized by Social Ownership of the means of production"
>Social Ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership

All of these forms of Social Ownership are arbitrated by the government, and have little to no difference. It also specifies the means of production, infrastructure not being any form of production.

In other words, all you did was repeat back to myself what I said to debunk your claim.

Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government isn’t socialist?

Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

Um no infrastructure isn’t the center of my argument - I just used it as an example of socialism. Again I’ll say this: infrastructure is the product of tax payer revenue. Tax payer money funds infrastructure projects. Thats PRODUCTION and is also SOCIALISM.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

I have to pay $1650/month. **** Obama and **** the ACA.

But that $1650 goes to your beloved free market insurance companies so they can pay $billions in well deserved bonusses to their hardworking CEOs..... that's capitalism at work...

Why aren't you happy with that?

 

[Tehon]

About two years ago I checked, and found about 170 types of socialism. I wonder if that list has grown? The one that Republicans love. and pretend is the only type, is Marx's Scientific Socialism, the one that was supposed to lead to communism. The USSR dropped that type almost as soon as a the Revolution had ended.

Good point.

But then is it any wonder republicans are unable to properly define what socialism is?

The OP, Billy000 , fashions himself a democratic socialist, yet is entirely unable to define what exactly that means to him.

Democratic socialism[edit]
Main article: Democratic socialism
Modern democratic socialism is a broad political movement that seeks to propagate the ideals of socialism within the context of a democratic system. Democratic socialism is closely related to social democracy, and in some accounts are identical, while other accounts stress differences. Many democratic socialists support social democracy as a road to reform of the current system, while others support more revolutionary change in society to establish socialist goals. Generally, social democracy is considered to be more centrist and broadly supportive of current capitalist systems (for example, the mixed economy) and the welfare state, while many democratic socialists support a more fully socialist system, either through evolutionary or revolutionary means.

Democratic socialists and social democrats both advocate the concept of the welfare state, but whereas most social democrats view the welfare state as the end itself, many democratic socialists view it as a means to an end.[citation needed] Democratic socialists are also committed to the ideas of the redistribution of wealth and power, as well as social ownership of major industries, concepts widely abandoned by social democrats.

There are no countries in the world that would qualify as a "democratic socialist" state, although some states describe themselves as such, for instance Venezuela, whose former leader Hugo Chávez claimed that democratic socialism was integral to the Bolivarian form of socialism that he was trying to promote.[94]

 

[Tehon]

The definition you just gave me from wikipedia supports everything I just said about Socialism, and says nothing that supports your assertion that it's everything the government steals money from citizens to fund.

>"Characterized by Social Ownership of the means of production"
>Social Ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership

All of these forms of Social Ownership are arbitrated by the government, and have little to no difference. It also specifies the means of production, infrastructure not being any form of production.

In other words, all you did was repeat back to myself what I said to debunk your claim.

Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government isn’t socialist?

Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

Um no infrastructure isn’t the center of my argument - I just used it as an example of socialism. Again I’ll say this: infrastructure is the product of tax payer revenue. Tax payer money funds infrastructure projects. Thats PRODUCTION and is also SOCIALISM.

Infrastructure is the product of those who labored to produce it.

Your tax money is used to hire capitalists to produce infrastructure.

The capitalist hires wage labor to produce infrastructure.

The capitalists profits off the unpaid value of the labor to produce infrastructure.

Is that then your idea of the social ownership of the means of production? That we all, through our taxes, use our collective capital to exploit labor for private accumulation?

Do you then also believe that the armaments industry is an example of socialism?

 

[bripat9643]

The definition you just gave me from wikipedia supports everything I just said about Socialism, and says nothing that supports your assertion that it's everything the government steals money from citizens to fund.

>"Characterized by Social Ownership of the means of production"
>Social Ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership

All of these forms of Social Ownership are arbitrated by the government, and have little to no difference. It also specifies the means of production, infrastructure not being any form of production.

In other words, all you did was repeat back to myself what I said to debunk your claim.

Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government isn’t socialist?

Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

Um no infrastructure isn’t the center of my argument - I just used it as an example of socialism. Again I’ll say this: infrastructure is the product of tax payer revenue. Tax payer money funds infrastructure projects. Thats PRODUCTION and is also SOCIALISM.

And government does a piss poor job of it. It costs 5 times what it should cost when government does it. Just compare the cost of a SpaceX rocket launch with the government funded SLS launcher. The former costs $90 million per shot. The later is $4 billion.

 

[bripat9643]

Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government isn’t socialist?

Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

Um no infrastructure isn’t the center of my argument - I just used it as an example of socialism. Again I’ll say this: infrastructure is the product of tax payer revenue. Tax payer money funds infrastructure projects. Thats PRODUCTION and is also SOCIALISM.

Infrastructure is the product of those who labored to produce it.

Your tax money is used to hire capitalists to produce infrastructure.

The capitalist hires wage labor to produce infrastructure.

The capitalists profits off the unpaid value of the labor to produce infrastructure.

Is that then your idea of the social ownership of the means of production? That we all, through our taxes, use our collective capital to exploit labor for private accumulation?

Do you then also believe that the armaments industry is an example of socialism?

The labor theory of value was proved wrong over 100 years ago.

 

[bripat9643]

About two years ago I checked, and found about 170 types of socialism. I wonder if that list has grown? The one that Republicans love. and pretend is the only type, is Marx's Scientific Socialism, the one that was supposed to lead to communism. The USSR dropped that type almost as soon as a the Revolution had ended.

Good point.

But then is it any wonder republicans are unable to properly define what socialism is?

The OP, Billy000 , fashions himself a democratic socialist, yet is entirely unable to define what exactly that means to him.

Democratic socialism[edit]
Main article: Democratic socialism
Modern democratic socialism is a broad political movement that seeks to propagate the ideals of socialism within the context of a democratic system. Democratic socialism is closely related to social democracy, and in some accounts are identical, while other accounts stress differences. Many democratic socialists support social democracy as a road to reform of the current system, while others support more revolutionary change in society to establish socialist goals. Generally, social democracy is considered to be more centrist and broadly supportive of current capitalist systems (for example, the mixed economy) and the welfare state, while many democratic socialists support a more fully socialist system, either through evolutionary or revolutionary means.

Democratic socialists and social democrats both advocate the concept of the welfare state, but whereas most social democrats view the welfare state as the end itself, many democratic socialists view it as a means to an end.[citation needed] Democratic socialists are also committed to the ideas of the redistribution of wealth and power, as well as social ownership of major industries, concepts widely abandoned by social democrats.

There are no countries in the world that would qualify as a "democratic socialist" state, although some states describe themselves as such, for instance Venezuela, whose former leader Hugo Chávez claimed that democratic socialism was integral to the Bolivarian form of socialism that he was trying to promote.[94]

Note the qualifier "democratic." We aren't discussing that here. We are discussin "socialism" with no qualifiers. The rest of your post is Marxist propaganda.

 

[Tehon]

Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

Um no infrastructure isn’t the center of my argument - I just used it as an example of socialism. Again I’ll say this: infrastructure is the product of tax payer revenue. Tax payer money funds infrastructure projects. Thats PRODUCTION and is also SOCIALISM.

Infrastructure is the product of those who labored to produce it.

Your tax money is used to hire capitalists to produce infrastructure.

The capitalist hires wage labor to produce infrastructure.

The capitalists profits off the unpaid value of the labor to produce infrastructure.

Is that then your idea of the social ownership of the means of production? That we all, through our taxes, use our collective capital to exploit labor for private accumulation?

Do you then also believe that the armaments industry is an example of socialism?

The labor theory of value was proved wrong over 100 years ago.

Wrong.

If it was you would have no problem in demonstrating that knowledge for us now.