Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[jc456]

Just for the heck of it, how do all these things get paid for?

By taxing the rich their fair share and having a healthy middle class d u h.

Taxing the rich their fair share pays for all that?

Slowly but surely. And a healthy middle class and working class helps too.

Hate to burst your bubble but if the rich pay "their fair share", which would have to be damn high to pay for all your freebies, kinda discourages most from wanting to be rich.

Every other modern country does it, Dupe. And there are plenty of rich people in Germany and Sweden and France and Canada and Australia and Japan... Just not as obscene LOL.

We aren’t every other country! We are unique accept that loser! If your desire is to be like the other countries, move to one

 

[Doc1]

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.

And covered 9 million poor people. It will work even now. If the GOP doesn't sabotage it even more... Dupe.

"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."

Source it Komrade. I know you just made it up

I never heard of anyone paying that little for it.

Some did, with the Subsidies, some paid nothing. But no where near 80%

 

[regent]

I took a college course on Marxism during the McCarthy period and the instructor, a tenured professor, was very fearful of being accused of teaching communism. The class had many visitors including a man of God that sat in the back of the room taking notes. The end result: we may have a population that lacks a knowledge of one of our greatest fears. The question: should schools have taught about socialism and communism in the McCarthy period?

 

[Billy000]

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.

Just because you can't see me through the screen, I'll let you know I'm rolling my eyes right now. You're only repeating yourself and forcing me to talk in circles because you have no argument.

I already explained that infrastructure is not a means of production, and simply being taxpayer funded does not make a policy Socialist. Infrastructure doesn't produce anything, your argument was that hiring employees into the government makes something a means of production, I explained that employees are selling services, not becoming a product.

You even countered yourself by quoting a wikipedia article that states Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, supporting my argument. I can literally just screencap parts of my posts to continue debunking your argument over and over.

At this point, I'm not even sure you're reading my posts, which would make sense, because you've already lost this debate several times over.

Lol yes you just comfirmed my point by saying “Socialism is social control of the means of production”. What exactly do you think “social” even means? Do you know the definition of social? Go ahead and define it for me. You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

Social control of the means of production=products being produced such as the electrical grid. Electrical grid=product. Police and fire entities are products. Tax revenue by citizens is the “means of production”. Are you catching on?

 

[Billy000]

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?

It does not all matter private contracts are used. These services, at their core, are funded and utilized by citizens.

 

[emilynghiem]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Dear Billy000
It's not that hard to distinguish the two applications of the term socialism to mean different things.

1. literally the terms refers to govt ownership of production and property to control it all
2. In America, because people are supposed to be the govt,
this has come to mean govt regulation to control production and business
(ie the ownership is not the issue, but choices by people vs regulation/authority of govt)

The best way I've seen it framed,
the Veteran Party of America states in its mission
that "all social legislation is unconstitutional"

so it's the social programs and legislation by govt
that the conservatives don't believe is within Constitutional limits and jurisdiction of govt

They may CALL this "socialism" to have more govt "controls"
but that's not the LITERAL term that refers to OWNERSHIP by govt.

What would solve the problem in terms is for
People to claim OWNERSHIP of their own local property and programs/policies.
So if they want to go through govt to manage it, the people can choose that.
If they want to go through churches or charities,
businesses or nonprofits, public or private schools or other organizations
whether religious or political or civil groups,
then the PEOPLE can still be in charge.
And if they want to interpret PEOPLE to be the govt,
then they do have govt as the central authority if they are liberal.
And if they want to interpret PEOPLE to be individual citizens with civil liberties
they can have that as conservatives, and both sides get what they want!

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Just because you can't see me through the screen, I'll let you know I'm rolling my eyes right now. You're only repeating yourself and forcing me to talk in circles because you have no argument.

I already explained that infrastructure is not a means of production, and simply being taxpayer funded does not make a policy Socialist. Infrastructure doesn't produce anything, your argument was that hiring employees into the government makes something a means of production, I explained that employees are selling services, not becoming a product.

You even countered yourself by quoting a wikipedia article that states Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, supporting my argument. I can literally just screencap parts of my posts to continue debunking your argument over and over.

At this point, I'm not even sure you're reading my posts, which would make sense, because you've already lost this debate several times over.

Lol yes you just comfirmed my point by saying “Socialism is social control of the means of production”. What exactly do you think “social” even means? Do you know the definition of social? Go ahead and define it for me. You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

Social control of the means of production=products being produced such as the electrical grid. Electrical grid=product. Police and fire entities are products. Tax revenue by citizens is the “means of production”. Are you catching on?

Dear Billy000 and Pumpkin Row
You are right we need to agree on terms.
Can we divide it this way:
1. Conservatives believe Govt should stick to national security
and public safety as in police and commerce/transportation that crosses state lines,
and foreign relations, economics and defense.

Anything to do with the flat FACILITIES and STRUCTURES
is EXTERNAL not internal decisions about what programs to run through these structures.

So having POLICE is external as a line of defense against breaches of security.
How police and teachers interact with their communities is internal and local.

2. Liberals believe in govt promoting general welfare.
Anything to do with INTERNAL programs, such as education
and health care, social services etc. is the SOCIAL programming part
that involves interpersonal and community relations and activities

3. as for businesses and you are including the taxation between
the citizens and govt, that is governmental or democratic PROCESS.

the DIFFERENCE between free enterprise business is that it is
free market choice. and shouldn't be required for anyone to have equal protection of the laws.

But the government process of establishing, changing, or enforcing laws
is MANDATORY for everyone, so that should be AGREED upon in advance
by free choice of people so it respects consent of the governed, no taxation
without representation, and equal protection of the laws for all people of all creeds and class.

That same standard is not required for private business or social programs
where people can choose whether to interact or not.

So that's where Conservatives want to keep those social programs FREE,
and only where ALL PEOPLE AGREE TO PUBLIC POLICY
then that is govt jurisdiction where the consent of all people is the authority of law.

They don't want public govt authority ABUSED to start
dictating decisions on ANY level that isn't by the consent of the people.

Billy000 even within govt that is mandatory, this has to be by consent to be a lawfully binding social contract.

And in relative, subjective and arbirtary/diverse social decisions policies and programs,
this freedom of choice and informed consent is even MORE important because of the diversity and individual needs involved.

Is that better?

that anything we can agree on as EXTERNAL facilities and functions
for public safety and national security fall under govt duties and jurisdiction.

And things that require individual free choice in "social" or domestic
type programs are what needs to be kept to the people to decide for themselves in private.

Then anything in between like medical services that require health regulations
for safety, need to be democratically decided by the people how much to regulate
through either the state or federal levels of govt.

and if they don't agree such as on abortion and birth control that becomes personal decisions, then they agree that is SOCIAL programming and belongs to personal choice not govt.

 

[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?

It does not all matter private contracts are used. These services, at their core, are funded and utilized by citizens.

Of course it matters. It is the fundamental difference between the capitalist mode of production and the socialist mode of production. You can't escape it.

What you have done is created a social use value in a capitalist economy, using the capitalist mode of production. That isn't socialism.

 

[Tehon]

I took a college course on Marxism during the McCarthy period and the instructor, a tenured professor, was very fearful of being accused of teaching communism. The class had many visitors including a man of God that sat in the back of the room taking notes. The end result: we may have a population that lacks a knowledge of one of our greatest fears. The question: should schools have taught about socialism and communism in the McCarthy period?

It's understandable that they didn't.

And it's obvious why they still don't.

 

[Tehon]

Wrong.

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

I'll prove it wrong right here and now:

On Monday the price of oranges is $1.00/lb. Monday night there is a severe cold wave in Florida. Half the orange crop dies. Tuesday the price of oranges is $3.00/lb. How did the amount of labor to produce each orange change between Monday and Tuesday?

You proved nothing but your ignorance of the difference between price and value. Value is intrinsic in a commodity while price fluctuates with external factors.

ROFL! So how is value caculated? What is the value of an orange?

Value is subjective. The value of any good or service depends who is evaluating it.

In other words, any claims about the value of a product independent of price are pure moonshine.

Wrong. Use value is subjective, but if something doesn't have utility then it doesn't get produced as a commodity.

If it does have utility and gets produced as a commodity then it contains a definite value equal to the value of all the socially necessary labor time contained in all the inputs used to produce the commodity.

The inputs that you would need to tally would be the labor to plant the orange, care for the orange and pick the orange. If you used fertilizer to nourish the orange you would need to add the value of the labor used to produce the fertilizer, etc, etc.

 

[Billy000]

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?

It does not all matter private contracts are used. These services, at their core, are funded and utilized by citizens.

Of course it matters. It is the fundamental difference between the capitalist mode of production and the socialist mode of production. You can't escape it.

What you have done is created a social use value in a capitalist economy, using the capitalist mode of production. That isn't socialism.

All that matters is that the funding came tax payer revenue and these services are then utilized by tax payers.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

Just because you can't see me through the screen, I'll let you know I'm rolling my eyes right now. You're only repeating yourself and forcing me to talk in circles because you have no argument.

I already explained that infrastructure is not a means of production, and simply being taxpayer funded does not make a policy Socialist. Infrastructure doesn't produce anything, your argument was that hiring employees into the government makes something a means of production, I explained that employees are selling services, not becoming a product.

You even countered yourself by quoting a wikipedia article that states Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, supporting my argument. I can literally just screencap parts of my posts to continue debunking your argument over and over.

At this point, I'm not even sure you're reading my posts, which would make sense, because you've already lost this debate several times over.

Lol yes you just comfirmed my point by saying “Socialism is social control of the means of production”. What exactly do you think “social” even means? Do you know the definition of social? Go ahead and define it for me. You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

Social control of the means of production=products being produced such as the electrical grid. Electrical grid=product. Police and fire entities are products. Tax revenue by citizens is the “means of production”. Are you catching on?

We already discussed it, I think you may have a short memory. Social Control was defined by your own quotation as Public, Collective, or Cooperative ownership. All of which are arbitrated by the government, making them pretty much the same thing.

.

You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

You can't exactly throw that back at me when you've been dodging my points the entire time. I've been answering absolutely every point you've attempted to make.

Police and fire entities are not products, they are not produced, they are hired. Products are not hired, they are produced, bought, and sold.

Tax revenue is not a means of production, it's the money that the government steals from the people.

 

[Tehon]

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?

It does not all matter private contracts are used. These services, at their core, are funded and utilized by citizens.

Of course it matters. It is the fundamental difference between the capitalist mode of production and the socialist mode of production. You can't escape it.

What you have done is created a social use value in a capitalist economy, using the capitalist mode of production. That isn't socialism.

All that matters is that the funding came tax payer revenue and these services are then utilized by tax payers.

Is this the definition of socialism that you intend to use?

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][

Do you need help understanding it?

When our tax money is used to contract with a private contractor to build infrastructure, we don't control the means of production. The private contractor does. That is capitalism.

 

[Billy000]

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.

Just because you can't see me through the screen, I'll let you know I'm rolling my eyes right now. You're only repeating yourself and forcing me to talk in circles because you have no argument.

I already explained that infrastructure is not a means of production, and simply being taxpayer funded does not make a policy Socialist. Infrastructure doesn't produce anything, your argument was that hiring employees into the government makes something a means of production, I explained that employees are selling services, not becoming a product.

You even countered yourself by quoting a wikipedia article that states Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, supporting my argument. I can literally just screencap parts of my posts to continue debunking your argument over and over.

At this point, I'm not even sure you're reading my posts, which would make sense, because you've already lost this debate several times over.

Lol yes you just comfirmed my point by saying “Socialism is social control of the means of production”. What exactly do you think “social” even means? Do you know the definition of social? Go ahead and define it for me. You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

Social control of the means of production=products being produced such as the electrical grid. Electrical grid=product. Police and fire entities are products. Tax revenue by citizens is the “means of production”. Are you catching on?

We already discussed it, I think you may have a short memory. Social Control was defined by your own quotation as Public, Collective, or Cooperative ownership. All of which are arbitrated by the government, making them pretty much the same thing.

.

You want to talk about talking in circles? Repeating the same line over and over isn’t “debunking”.

You can't exactly throw that back at me when you've been dodging my points the entire time. I've been answering absolutely every point you've attempted to make.

Police and fire entities are not products, they are not produced, they are hired. Products are not hired, they are produced, bought, and sold.

Tax revenue is not a means of production, it's the money that the government steals from the people.

Lol yes it is facilitated by the government but funded and utilized by tax payers. Since we agree it is facilitated by the government, how is The US not socialist? You have yet to explain that.

People are hired. The actual entities of those services are produced.

 

[Billy000]

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?

It does not all matter private contracts are used. These services, at their core, are funded and utilized by citizens.

Of course it matters. It is the fundamental difference between the capitalist mode of production and the socialist mode of production. You can't escape it.

What you have done is created a social use value in a capitalist economy, using the capitalist mode of production. That isn't socialism.

All that matters is that the funding came tax payer revenue and these services are then utilized by tax payers.

Is this the definition of socialism that you intend to use?

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][

Do you need help understanding it?

When our tax money is used to contract with a private contractor to build infrastructure, we don't control the means of production. The private contractor does. That is capitalism.

Lol dude come on. Without the tax revenue, it can’t be produced. Public officials approach a private contractor.

 

[Tehon]

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?

It does not all matter private contracts are used. These services, at their core, are funded and utilized by citizens.

Of course it matters. It is the fundamental difference between the capitalist mode of production and the socialist mode of production. You can't escape it.

What you have done is created a social use value in a capitalist economy, using the capitalist mode of production. That isn't socialism.

All that matters is that the funding came tax payer revenue and these services are then utilized by tax payers.

Is this the definition of socialism that you intend to use?

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][

Do you need help understanding it?

When our tax money is used to contract with a private contractor to build infrastructure, we don't control the means of production. The private contractor does. That is capitalism.

Lol dude come on. Without the tax revenue, it can’t be produced. Public officials approach a private contractor.

So, we are purchasing a service. Happens all the time in our capitalist economy.

I have never seen socialism defined as the social purchase of a commodity or service. Is that how you intend to define it now?

 

[Billy000]

It does not all matter private contracts are used. These services, at their core, are funded and utilized by citizens.

Of course it matters. It is the fundamental difference between the capitalist mode of production and the socialist mode of production. You can't escape it.

What you have done is created a social use value in a capitalist economy, using the capitalist mode of production. That isn't socialism.

All that matters is that the funding came tax payer revenue and these services are then utilized by tax payers.

Is this the definition of socialism that you intend to use?

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][

Do you need help understanding it?

When our tax money is used to contract with a private contractor to build infrastructure, we don't control the means of production. The private contractor does. That is capitalism.

Lol dude come on. Without the tax revenue, it can’t be produced. Public officials approach a private contractor.

So, we are purchasing a service. Happens all the time in our capitalist economy.

I have never seen socialism defined as the social purchase of a commodity or service. Is that how you intend to define it now?

No it is defined as entities being funded and utilized by citizens through the government.

 

[Doc1]

I don't why you guys bother Billy is enamored of Leninism and that makes him see it everywhere.

 

[Tehon]

Of course it matters. It is the fundamental difference between the capitalist mode of production and the socialist mode of production. You can't escape it.

What you have done is created a social use value in a capitalist economy, using the capitalist mode of production. That isn't socialism.

All that matters is that the funding came tax payer revenue and these services are then utilized by tax payers.

Is this the definition of socialism that you intend to use?

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][

Do you need help understanding it?

When our tax money is used to contract with a private contractor to build infrastructure, we don't control the means of production. The private contractor does. That is capitalism.

Lol dude come on. Without the tax revenue, it can’t be produced. Public officials approach a private contractor.

So, we are purchasing a service. Happens all the time in our capitalist economy.

I have never seen socialism defined as the social purchase of a commodity or service. Is that how you intend to define it now?

No it is defined as entities being funded and utilized by citizens through the government.

So then yes, you define it as the social purchase of a commodity or service. I have never heard that one before. Derp

And it only took 23 pages to get it out of you.

 

[bripat9643]

O

I'll prove it wrong right here and now:

On Monday the price of oranges is $1.00/lb. Monday night there is a severe cold wave in Florida. Half the orange crop dies. Tuesday the price of oranges is $3.00/lb. How did the amount of labor to produce each orange change between Monday and Tuesday?

You proved nothing but your ignorance of the difference between price and value. Value is intrinsic in a commodity while price fluctuates with external factors.

ROFL! So how is value caculated? What is the value of an orange?

Value is subjective. The value of any good or service depends who is evaluating it.

In other words, any claims about the value of a product independent of price are pure moonshine.

Wrong. Use value is subjective, but if something doesn't have utility then it doesn't get produced as a commodity.

That's totally irrelevant. The bottom line is that it can't be measured. That means any claims you make about the value are purely subjective, arbritary, and not subject to any kind of rational evaluation. Statements like value is determined by the amount of labor at best are pure mooneshine because, as you have admitted, you have no idea what the value of a product is.

Now you seem to be trying to slide the concept of utility into the value equation. Which is it, does the labor content determine the value or the utility?

If it does have utility and gets produced as a commodity then it contains a definite value equal to the value of all the socially necessary labor time contained in all the inputs used to produce the commodity.

Of course, you can never demonstrate any such thing because, as you have admitted, value is totally subjective. In fact, your claim about value being subjective contradicts your claim that the labor content determines the value.

IThe inputs that you would need to tally would be the labor to plant the orange, care for the orange and pick the orange. If you used fertilizer to nourish the orange you would need to add the value of the labor used to produce the fertilizer, etc, etc.

What gives the farmer the ability to sell it at triple the price the day after a freeze when none of those quantities have changed?

Economists have examined all these claims and shown them to be logical contradictions.