Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[bripat9643]

It's the accumulated labor hours required to produce a commodity. Surely you can agree that it takes time and labor to improve upon nature. That is something all commodities have in common irrespective of cost.

I can agree to that. As long as you don't try to equivocate and compare that measure to the market value. Apples and oranges.

But he believes the market value is a means of "expoiting" the workers because they aren't being paid for the "intrinsic value" of their labor, so don't agree with him. He uses words that you think you understand, but they mean something entirely different to him. According to Marxism, the market price is not the "intrinsic value" of an item.

Lol, I don't believe workers are being exploited by the market, stupid.

Then you aren't a marxist.

How would you know?

Marxists all believe that capitalism exploits the worker because they aren't paid for the "intrinsic value" of their work.

 

[Tehon]

You admitted that the term simply means the labor cost of an item, which didn't determine the price.

The price of a commodity is determined in the market. Is it not? The cost of producing a commodity would likewise be determined in the market since labor is also a commodity.

You failed utterly to demonstrate that the term "intrinsic value" means anything.

It's the accumulated labor hours required to produce a commodity. Surely you can agree that it takes time and labor to improve upon nature. That is something all commodities have in common irrespective of cost.

Edit: I figure I can't leave anything to chance with you. Like you knowing the meaning of the word .
Intrinsic;
belonging naturally; essential.

You also failed to demonstrate there is any connection between labor cost and "intrinsic value.

There isn't one.

#1) Intrinsic value: "It's the accumulated labor hours required to produce a commodity."

#2) You also failed to demonstrate there is any connection between labor cost and "intrinsic value": "There isn't one."

You contradicted yourself. Does the "intrinsic value" equal the labor cost or not?

No.

Where is the contradiction?

You're absolutely hopeless.

#1) you say intrinsic value is equal to the labor cost of a product.

#2) you say intrinsic value is NOT equal to the labor cost of a product.

Where did I say labor cost is equal to the intrinsic value?

 

[Tehon]

I can agree to that. As long as you don't try to equivocate and compare that measure to the market value. Apples and oranges.

But he believes the market value is a means of "expoiting" the workers because they aren't being paid for the "intrinsic value" of their labor, so don't agree with him. He uses words that you think you understand, but they mean something entirely different to him. According to Marxism, the market price is not the "intrinsic value" of an item.

Lol, I don't believe workers are being exploited by the market, stupid.

Then you aren't a marxist.

How would you know?

Marxists all believe that capitalism exploits the worker because they aren't paid for the "intrinsic value" of their work.

What has that to do with the market?

 

[bripat9643]

You admitted that the term simply means the labor cost of an item, which didn't determine the price.

The price of a commodity is determined in the market. Is it not? The cost of producing a commodity would likewise be determined in the market since labor is also a commodity.

You failed utterly to demonstrate that the term "intrinsic value" means anything.

It's the accumulated labor hours required to produce a commodity. Surely you can agree that it takes time and labor to improve upon nature. That is something all commodities have in common irrespective of cost.

Edit: I figure I can't leave anything to chance with you. Like you knowing the meaning of the word .
Intrinsic;
belonging naturally; essential.

You also failed to demonstrate there is any connection between labor cost and "intrinsic value.

There isn't one.

#1) Intrinsic value: "It's the accumulated labor hours required to produce a commodity."

#2) You also failed to demonstrate there is any connection between labor cost and "intrinsic value": "There isn't one."

You contradicted yourself. Does the "intrinsic value" equal the labor cost or not?

No.

Where is the contradiction?

You're absolutely hopeless.

#1) you say intrinsic value is equal to the labor cost of a product.

#2) you say intrinsic value is NOT equal to the labor cost of a product.

Where did I say labor cost is equal to the intrinsic value?

I already quoted it for you multiple times.

 

[bripat9643]

But he believes the market value is a means of "expoiting" the workers because they aren't being paid for the "intrinsic value" of their labor, so don't agree with him. He uses words that you think you understand, but they mean something entirely different to him. According to Marxism, the market price is not the "intrinsic value" of an item.

Lol, I don't believe workers are being exploited by the market, stupid.

Then you aren't a marxist.

How would you know?

Marxists all believe that capitalism exploits the worker because they aren't paid for the "intrinsic value" of their work.

What has that to do with the market?

Capitalism is the market. Do you imagine there is a market under socialism?

 

[Tehon]

Lol, I don't believe workers are being exploited by the market, stupid.

Then you aren't a marxist.

How would you know?

Marxists all believe that capitalism exploits the worker because they aren't paid for the "intrinsic value" of their work.

What has that to do with the market?

Capitalism is the market. Do you imagine there is a market under socialism?

There can be.

 

[Tehon]

The price of a commodity is determined in the market. Is it not? The cost of producing a commodity would likewise be determined in the market since labor is also a commodity.
It's the accumulated labor hours required to produce a commodity. Surely you can agree that it takes time and labor to improve upon nature. That is something all commodities have in common irrespective of cost.

Edit: I figure I can't leave anything to chance with you. Like you knowing the meaning of the word .
Intrinsic;
belonging naturally; essential.

There isn't one.

#1) Intrinsic value: "It's the accumulated labor hours required to produce a commodity."

#2) You also failed to demonstrate there is any connection between labor cost and "intrinsic value": "There isn't one."

You contradicted yourself. Does the "intrinsic value" equal the labor cost or not?

No.

Where is the contradiction?

You're absolutely hopeless.

#1) you say intrinsic value is equal to the labor cost of a product.

#2) you say intrinsic value is NOT equal to the labor cost of a product.

Where did I say labor cost is equal to the intrinsic value?

I already quoted it for you multiple times.

No you didn't.

 

[bripat9643]

Then you aren't a marxist.

How would you know?

Marxists all believe that capitalism exploits the worker because they aren't paid for the "intrinsic value" of their work.

What has that to do with the market?

Capitalism is the market. Do you imagine there is a market under socialism?

There can be.

No there can't.

Let's say you have a government owned coal mine and a government owned power plant. What's the price of coal under that scenario?

 

[bripat9643]

#1) Intrinsic value: "It's the accumulated labor hours required to produce a commodity."

#2) You also failed to demonstrate there is any connection between labor cost and "intrinsic value": "There isn't one."

You contradicted yourself. Does the "intrinsic value" equal the labor cost or not?

No.

Where is the contradiction?

You're absolutely hopeless.

#1) you say intrinsic value is equal to the labor cost of a product.

#2) you say intrinsic value is NOT equal to the labor cost of a product.

Where did I say labor cost is equal to the intrinsic value?

I already quoted it for you multiple times.

No you didn't.

Yes I did.

 

[Tehon]

No.

Where is the contradiction?

You're absolutely hopeless.

#1) you say intrinsic value is equal to the labor cost of a product.

#2) you say intrinsic value is NOT equal to the labor cost of a product.

Where did I say labor cost is equal to the intrinsic value?

I already quoted it for you multiple times.

No you didn't.

Yes I did.

Well, you're going to have to do it again or it never happened.

 

[Billy000]

You're obfuscating.
Which do I believe is the same as Marxism, social democracy or democratic socialism?

Neither one you dumb shit.

Then why did you say I thought "it" is the same as Marxism?

Say what you mean.

Actually, I don't really care.

There is a distinct difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist.

You are a social democrat. You believe in redistribution of wealth by means of the state. You believe this because you believe in the capitalist system but wish to offset the worst of its abuses.

As opposed to a democratic socialist. One who believes in Marxist principles relating to the social means of production but believes it will be brought about through democracy rather than social revolution.

Lol I’m guessing you looked up these terms just now. As you can see Marxism is irrelevant to the conversation.

Weak dude, you admitted to me that you were a social democrat nearly nine months ago.

That you believe Marx to be irrelevant in a conversation about the definition of socialism is pretty unbelievable.

Don’t blame me you don’t understand the fundamental differences between social democracy and Marxism.

 

[Political Junky]

Cons pretend to believe that Hitler was a Socialist.

 

[Doc1]

Cons pretend to believe that Hitler was a Socialist.

Intelligent people understand the context of the 30's. Germany was decimated by the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler used that decimation AND Socialism to get the support of the German people to support him. Closed minded, ill-educated people cling to the lie that the Nazi's were not using Socialism to get what they wanted. Whether they WERE Socialist, or whether they were USING Socialism is immaterial.

 

[Tehon]

How would you know?

Marxists all believe that capitalism exploits the worker because they aren't paid for the "intrinsic value" of their work.

What has that to do with the market?

Capitalism is the market. Do you imagine there is a market under socialism?

There can be.

No there can't.

Let's say you have a government owned coal mine and a government owned power plant. What's the price of coal under that scenario?

How would you know?

Marxists all believe that capitalism exploits the worker because they aren't paid for the "intrinsic value" of their work.

What has that to do with the market?

Capitalism is the market. Do you imagine there is a market under socialism?

There can be.

No there can't.

Let's say you have a government owned coal mine and a government owned power plant. What's the price of coal under that scenario?

Let's say that is an example of state capitalism.

To get back on track

Marxists all believe that capitalism exploits the worker because they aren't paid for the "intrinsic value" of their work.

What has that to do with the market?

Capitalism is the market. Do you imagine there is a market under socialism?

The intrinsic value isn't determined by the market. We have already been over this.

 

[Doc1]

Neither one you dumb shit.

Then why did you say I thought "it" is the same as Marxism?

Say what you mean.

Actually, I don't really care.

There is a distinct difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist.

You are a social democrat. You believe in redistribution of wealth by means of the state. You believe this because you believe in the capitalist system but wish to offset the worst of its abuses.

As opposed to a democratic socialist. One who believes in Marxist principles relating to the social means of production but believes it will be brought about through democracy rather than social revolution.

Lol I’m guessing you looked up these terms just now. As you can see Marxism is irrelevant to the conversation.

Weak dude, you admitted to me that you were a social democrat nearly nine months ago.

That you believe Marx to be irrelevant in a conversation about the definition of socialism is pretty unbelievable.

Don’t blame me you don’t understand the fundamental differences between social democracy and Marxism.

Dude, as misguided as you are about what you THINK you believe he knows what he is talking about.

 

[Tehon]

Neither one you dumb shit.

Then why did you say I thought "it" is the same as Marxism?

Say what you mean.

Actually, I don't really care.

There is a distinct difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist.

You are a social democrat. You believe in redistribution of wealth by means of the state. You believe this because you believe in the capitalist system but wish to offset the worst of its abuses.

As opposed to a democratic socialist. One who believes in Marxist principles relating to the social means of production but believes it will be brought about through democracy rather than social revolution.

Lol I’m guessing you looked up these terms just now. As you can see Marxism is irrelevant to the conversation.

Weak dude, you admitted to me that you were a social democrat nearly nine months ago.

That you believe Marx to be irrelevant in a conversation about the definition of socialism is pretty unbelievable.

Don’t blame me you don’t understand the fundamental differences between social democracy and Marxism.

I didn't think it possible, but you are a bigger joke than bripat.

 

[dudmuck]

You don't claim to be a social democrat. You claim to be a democratic socialist. Do you understand the difference?

There is no difference depending on the source but yes there are minor differences. I really wouldn’t expect you to understand that because you think it’s the same as Marxism.

You're obfuscating.
Which do I believe is the same as Marxism, social democracy or democratic socialism?

Neither one you dumb shit.

Then why did you say I thought "it" is the same as Marxism?

Say what you mean.

Actually, I don't really care.

There is a distinct difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist.

You are a social democrat. You believe in redistribution of wealth by means of the state. You believe this because you believe in the capitalist system but wish to offset the worst of its abuses.

As opposed to a democratic socialist. One who believes in Marxist principles relating to the social means of production but believes it will be brought about through democracy rather than social revolution.

Democratic socialists oppose marxist-leninist socialism, or stalinism, because the soviet style implementations were non-democratic.

 

[Tehon]

There is no difference depending on the source but yes there are minor differences. I really wouldn’t expect you to understand that because you think it’s the same as Marxism.

You're obfuscating.
Which do I believe is the same as Marxism, social democracy or democratic socialism?

Neither one you dumb shit.

Then why did you say I thought "it" is the same as Marxism?

Say what you mean.

Actually, I don't really care.

There is a distinct difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist.

You are a social democrat. You believe in redistribution of wealth by means of the state. You believe this because you believe in the capitalist system but wish to offset the worst of its abuses.

As opposed to a democratic socialist. One who believes in Marxist principles relating to the social means of production but believes it will be brought about through democracy rather than social revolution.

Democratic socialists oppose marxist-leninist socialism, or stalinism, because the soviet style implementations were non-democratic.

Now you will have to demonstrate where Marx advocated for the soviet approach to a socialist state. I won't hold my breath, I know you can't.

 

[dudmuck]

You're obfuscating.
Which do I believe is the same as Marxism, social democracy or democratic socialism?

Neither one you dumb shit.

Then why did you say I thought "it" is the same as Marxism?

Say what you mean.

Actually, I don't really care.

There is a distinct difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist.

You are a social democrat. You believe in redistribution of wealth by means of the state. You believe this because you believe in the capitalist system but wish to offset the worst of its abuses.

As opposed to a democratic socialist. One who believes in Marxist principles relating to the social means of production but believes it will be brought about through democracy rather than social revolution.

Democratic socialists oppose marxist-leninist socialism, or stalinism, because the soviet style implementations were non-democratic.

Now you will have to demonstrate where Marx advocated for the soviet approach to a socialist state. I won't hold my breath, I know you can't.

Since Karl Marx died 46 years prior to the soviet implementation of his ideas, you're just putting the cart before the horse.
However, you can see in a letter written in 1881 to Vera Zasulich, where Marx contemplated the possibility of Russia bypassing the capitalist stage of development and building communism on the basis of the common ownership of land characteristic of the village of mir.

Marxism did promote democracy, which is nothing like the soviet approach.

 

[bripat9643]

Neither one you dumb shit.

Then why did you say I thought "it" is the same as Marxism?

Say what you mean.

Actually, I don't really care.

There is a distinct difference between a social democrat and a democratic socialist.

You are a social democrat. You believe in redistribution of wealth by means of the state. You believe this because you believe in the capitalist system but wish to offset the worst of its abuses.

As opposed to a democratic socialist. One who believes in Marxist principles relating to the social means of production but believes it will be brought about through democracy rather than social revolution.

Democratic socialists oppose marxist-leninist socialism, or stalinism, because the soviet style implementations were non-democratic.

Now you will have to demonstrate where Marx advocated for the soviet approach to a socialist state. I won't hold my breath, I know you can't.

Since Karl Marx died 46 years prior to the soviet implementation of his ideas, you're just putting the cart before the horse.
However, you can see in a letter written in 1881 to Vera Zasulich, where Marx contemplated the possibility of Russia bypassing the capitalist stage of development and building communism on the basis of the common ownership of land characteristic of the village of mir.

Marxism did promote democracy, which is nothing like the soviet approach.

Democracy and Marxism are incompatible.