Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[jc456]

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.

it takes a village? You didn't earn that?

 

[2aguy]

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.

It is easy, the government controls the means of production....this can be directly like the international communists did or like the socialists in Germany, by simply controlling who runs a business and how they run it....different styles of control, but all socialism.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

There's not a modern country in the world that doesn't practice socialism in one form or other. Socialism bails out the capitalists pretty often... 1932, 2008. There will probably be another one before Trump finishes his term.

No....socialism spends all the money that a capitalist society creates, turning the once prosperous and free, capitalist society into, at best, a social welfare state, and at worst, a land of death camps and mass graves...

 

[bripat9643]

snowflakes have a million ways of explaining away the failures of socialism. Calling the failures "state capitalism" is one of those ways. Socialism is where government controls the economy, but you claim that state capitalism is where government controls the economy. How does one distinguish between socialism and state capitalism?

How does one distinguish between socialism and state capitalism?

The answer is just who decides what to do with the surplus. If its just a few leaders at the top, then its (state) capitalism, or if its democratic, then its socialism.

Simply defined, socialism is a system of production.

It is not defined by how commodities are distributed.

it's a system of both production and distribution. You can't produce anything if you haven't had anything distributed to you.

Yes, that would be the means of production.
In a capitalist system it is privately controlled.
In a socialist system it is communal.

We can expand on this idea and logically explain what state capitalism is.

The state is an organ of society that sets itself above society. It is responsive to the dominant class in society. When that organ that has set itself above society, the state, controls the means of production, it is not held communally. The community doesn't decide how to carry out production, it is the state that dictates how production will be carried out and how commodities will be distributed. In essence the means of production are privately owned by a dominant class, the state.

The means of production can never be held by the community without the state. How does the community enforce its decisions without the state? It's absurd to claim that socialism doesn't exist if the state is in control. Other than private control, state control is the only option. If some member of the community says "**** you," when asked to turn over some item of property, what can the community do about it without the state?

You're peddling moonshine. Marxists have always peddled moonshine. Their schemes are unworkable and absurd.

 

[kaz]

How does one distinguish between socialism and state capitalism?

The answer is just who decides what to do with the surplus. If its just a few leaders at the top, then its (state) capitalism, or if its democratic, then its socialism.

Simply defined, socialism is a system of production.

It is not defined by how commodities are distributed.

it's a system of both production and distribution. You can't produce anything if you haven't had anything distributed to you.

Yes, that would be the means of production.
In a capitalist system it is privately controlled.
In a socialist system it is communal.

We can expand on this idea and logically explain what state capitalism is.

The state is an organ of society that sets itself above society. It is responsive to the dominant class in society. When that organ that has set itself above society, the state, controls the means of production, it is not held communally. The community doesn't decide how to carry out production, it is the state that dictates how production will be carried out and how commodities will be distributed. In essence the means of production are privately owned by a dominant class, the state.

The means of production can never be held by the community without the state. How does the community enforce its decisions without the state? It's absurd to claim that socialism doesn't exist if the state is in control. Other than private control, state control is the only option. If some member of the community says "**** you," when asked to turn over some item of property, what can the community do about it without the state?

You're peddling moonshine. Marxists have always peddled moonshine. Their schemes are unworkable and absurd.

Do you even understand what he said? He seems to be using terms like the community, the state and a dominant class in a funky way both conflating and arbitrarily separating them

 

[Tehon]

How does one distinguish between socialism and state capitalism?

The answer is just who decides what to do with the surplus. If its just a few leaders at the top, then its (state) capitalism, or if its democratic, then its socialism.

Simply defined, socialism is a system of production.

It is not defined by how commodities are distributed.

it's a system of both production and distribution. You can't produce anything if you haven't had anything distributed to you.

Yes, that would be the means of production.
In a capitalist system it is privately controlled.
In a socialist system it is communal.

We can expand on this idea and logically explain what state capitalism is.

The state is an organ of society that sets itself above society. It is responsive to the dominant class in society. When that organ that has set itself above society, the state, controls the means of production, it is not held communally. The community doesn't decide how to carry out production, it is the state that dictates how production will be carried out and how commodities will be distributed. In essence the means of production are privately owned by a dominant class, the state.

The means of production can never be held by the community without the state. How does the community enforce its decisions without the state? It's absurd to claim that socialism doesn't exist if the state is in control. Other than private control, state control is the only option. If some member of the community says "**** you," when asked to turn over some item of property, what can the community do about it without the state?

You're peddling moonshine. Marxists have always peddled moonshine. Their schemes are unworkable and absurd.

A socialist system is cooperative.

That means people agree to do something or they don't do it.

There is no need for coercion.

The state exists in the first place because of private property and a production system driven by competition.

 

[whitehall]

Socialism as a political term can mean anything. Was Sanders a real socialist? It seems strange that the left wants to parse accurate definitions of political terms these days when they call all their enemies "fascists".

 

[kaz]

Simply defined, socialism is a system of production.

It is not defined by how commodities are distributed.

it's a system of both production and distribution. You can't produce anything if you haven't had anything distributed to you.

Yes, that would be the means of production.
In a capitalist system it is privately controlled.
In a socialist system it is communal.

We can expand on this idea and logically explain what state capitalism is.

The state is an organ of society that sets itself above society. It is responsive to the dominant class in society. When that organ that has set itself above society, the state, controls the means of production, it is not held communally. The community doesn't decide how to carry out production, it is the state that dictates how production will be carried out and how commodities will be distributed. In essence the means of production are privately owned by a dominant class, the state.

The means of production can never be held by the community without the state. How does the community enforce its decisions without the state? It's absurd to claim that socialism doesn't exist if the state is in control. Other than private control, state control is the only option. If some member of the community says "**** you," when asked to turn over some item of property, what can the community do about it without the state?

You're peddling moonshine. Marxists have always peddled moonshine. Their schemes are unworkable and absurd.

A socialist system is cooperative

Yeah, Stalin, Mao, Hitler. Anyone didn't want to do something, they sure weren't going to make them.

And even in Sweden, you're arguing that people who don't want to pay socialist taxes or who want to compete with State controlled monopolies are free to do that?

What a load of crap

 

[Tehon]

it's a system of both production and distribution. You can't produce anything if you haven't had anything distributed to you.

Yes, that would be the means of production.
In a capitalist system it is privately controlled.
In a socialist system it is communal.

We can expand on this idea and logically explain what state capitalism is.

The state is an organ of society that sets itself above society. It is responsive to the dominant class in society. When that organ that has set itself above society, the state, controls the means of production, it is not held communally. The community doesn't decide how to carry out production, it is the state that dictates how production will be carried out and how commodities will be distributed. In essence the means of production are privately owned by a dominant class, the state.

The means of production can never be held by the community without the state. How does the community enforce its decisions without the state? It's absurd to claim that socialism doesn't exist if the state is in control. Other than private control, state control is the only option. If some member of the community says "**** you," when asked to turn over some item of property, what can the community do about it without the state?

You're peddling moonshine. Marxists have always peddled moonshine. Their schemes are unworkable and absurd.

A socialist system is cooperative

Yeah, Stalin, Mao, Hitler. Anyone didn't want to do something, they sure weren't going to make them.

And even in Sweden, you're arguing that people who don't want to pay socialist taxes or who want to compete with State controlled monopolies are free to do that?

What a load of crap

Sweden does not employ a socialist system of production so it has no relevance to what I'm saying.

 

[dudmuck]

How does one distinguish between socialism and state capitalism?

The answer is just who decides what to do with the surplus. If its just a few leaders at the top, then its (state) capitalism, or if its democratic, then its socialism.

Simply defined, socialism is a system of production.

It is not defined by how commodities are distributed.

it's a system of both production and distribution. You can't produce anything if you haven't had anything distributed to you.

Yes, that would be the means of production.
In a capitalist system it is privately controlled.
In a socialist system it is communal.

We can expand on this idea and logically explain what state capitalism is.

The state is an organ of society that sets itself above society. It is responsive to the dominant class in society. When that organ that has set itself above society, the state, controls the means of production, it is not held communally. The community doesn't decide how to carry out production, it is the state that dictates how production will be carried out and how commodities will be distributed. In essence the means of production are privately owned by a dominant class, the state.

The means of production can never be held by the community without the state. How does the community enforce its decisions without the state? It's absurd to claim that socialism doesn't exist if the state is in control. Other than private control, state control is the only option. If some member of the community says "**** you," when asked to turn over some item of property, what can the community do about it without the state?

You're peddling moonshine. Marxists have always peddled moonshine. Their schemes are unworkable and absurd.

The Mondragon Corporation might serve as example.
Doesnt seem like the government needs to be involved.

 

[kaz]

Yes, that would be the means of production.
In a capitalist system it is privately controlled.
In a socialist system it is communal.

We can expand on this idea and logically explain what state capitalism is.

The state is an organ of society that sets itself above society. It is responsive to the dominant class in society. When that organ that has set itself above society, the state, controls the means of production, it is not held communally. The community doesn't decide how to carry out production, it is the state that dictates how production will be carried out and how commodities will be distributed. In essence the means of production are privately owned by a dominant class, the state.

The means of production can never be held by the community without the state. How does the community enforce its decisions without the state? It's absurd to claim that socialism doesn't exist if the state is in control. Other than private control, state control is the only option. If some member of the community says "**** you," when asked to turn over some item of property, what can the community do about it without the state?

You're peddling moonshine. Marxists have always peddled moonshine. Their schemes are unworkable and absurd.

A socialist system is cooperative

Yeah, Stalin, Mao, Hitler. Anyone didn't want to do something, they sure weren't going to make them.

And even in Sweden, you're arguing that people who don't want to pay socialist taxes or who want to compete with State controlled monopolies are free to do that?

What a load of crap

Sweden does not employ a socialist system of production so it has no relevance to what I'm saying.

Sweden isn't socialist?

 

[Political Junky]

Paying taxes to support the common good, has absolutely nothing to do with socialism's destructive nature.....It's like Margaret Thatcher once said: "Socialism works fine until they run out of other people's money". And let's be clear, the Marxist doctrine of the state finally "withering away" when full communism is achieved is the biggest crock of shit ever uttered....The tyrants who impose that slavery on mankind don't wither away....they never have and never will.

Why didn't Thatcher do away with the UK's health care?

 

[kaz]

Paying taxes to support the common good, has absolutely nothing to do with socialism's destructive nature.....It's like Margaret Thatcher once said: "Socialism works fine until they run out of other people's money". And let's be clear, the Marxist doctrine of the state finally "withering away" when full communism is achieved is the biggest crock of shit ever uttered....The tyrants who impose that slavery on mankind don't wither away....they never have and never will.

Why didn't Thatcher do away with the UK's health care?

Um ... he had no chance to do that? Seriously, you think Thatcher had the power to do that? Really?

 

[Tehon]

Simply defined, socialism is a system of production.

It is not defined by how commodities are distributed.

it's a system of both production and distribution. You can't produce anything if you haven't had anything distributed to you.

Yes, that would be the means of production.
In a capitalist system it is privately controlled.
In a socialist system it is communal.

We can expand on this idea and logically explain what state capitalism is.

The state is an organ of society that sets itself above society. It is responsive to the dominant class in society. When that organ that has set itself above society, the state, controls the means of production, it is not held communally. The community doesn't decide how to carry out production, it is the state that dictates how production will be carried out and how commodities will be distributed. In essence the means of production are privately owned by a dominant class, the state.

The means of production can never be held by the community without the state. How does the community enforce its decisions without the state? It's absurd to claim that socialism doesn't exist if the state is in control. Other than private control, state control is the only option. If some member of the community says "**** you," when asked to turn over some item of property, what can the community do about it without the state?

You're peddling moonshine. Marxists have always peddled moonshine. Their schemes are unworkable and absurd.

The Mondragon Corporation might serve as example.
Doesnt seem like the government needs to be involved.

An excellent example that demonstrates people's ability to cooperate in producing material value and distributing the value more equitably.

 

[Vandalshandle]

That conservatives can not define "socialism" comes as no surprise to me, Billy. They also can not define "sanctuary city", but the are against it, whatever it is.

 

[kaz]

it's a system of both production and distribution. You can't produce anything if you haven't had anything distributed to you.

Yes, that would be the means of production.
In a capitalist system it is privately controlled.
In a socialist system it is communal.

We can expand on this idea and logically explain what state capitalism is.

The state is an organ of society that sets itself above society. It is responsive to the dominant class in society. When that organ that has set itself above society, the state, controls the means of production, it is not held communally. The community doesn't decide how to carry out production, it is the state that dictates how production will be carried out and how commodities will be distributed. In essence the means of production are privately owned by a dominant class, the state.

The means of production can never be held by the community without the state. How does the community enforce its decisions without the state? It's absurd to claim that socialism doesn't exist if the state is in control. Other than private control, state control is the only option. If some member of the community says "**** you," when asked to turn over some item of property, what can the community do about it without the state?

You're peddling moonshine. Marxists have always peddled moonshine. Their schemes are unworkable and absurd.

The Mondragon Corporation might serve as example.
Doesnt seem like the government needs to be involved.

An excellent example that demonstrates people's ability to cooperate in producing material value and distributing the value more equitably.

Citizens who create value earn it. Leaches have value distributed to them with money confiscated with force by government

 

[kaz]

That conservatives can not define "socialism" comes as no surprise to me, Billy. They also can not define "sanctuary city", but the are against it, whatever it is.

Strawman. I've seen good definitions. Socialism is central economic planning. Only government can centrally plan an economy because only government can use force to compel citizens to act against their own interest. Capitalism is distributed economic planning. Liberty

 

[Tehon]

We can expand on this idea and logically explain what state capitalism is.

The state is an organ of society that sets itself above society. It is responsive to the dominant class in society. When that organ that has set itself above society, the state, controls the means of production, it is not held communally. The community doesn't decide how to carry out production, it is the state that dictates how production will be carried out and how commodities will be distributed. In essence the means of production are privately owned by a dominant class, the state.

The means of production can never be held by the community without the state. How does the community enforce its decisions without the state? It's absurd to claim that socialism doesn't exist if the state is in control. Other than private control, state control is the only option. If some member of the community says "**** you," when asked to turn over some item of property, what can the community do about it without the state?

You're peddling moonshine. Marxists have always peddled moonshine. Their schemes are unworkable and absurd.

A socialist system is cooperative

Yeah, Stalin, Mao, Hitler. Anyone didn't want to do something, they sure weren't going to make them.

And even in Sweden, you're arguing that people who don't want to pay socialist taxes or who want to compete with State controlled monopolies are free to do that?

What a load of crap

Sweden does not employ a socialist system of production so it has no relevance to what I'm saying.

Sweden isn't socialist?

Approximately 90% of all resources and companies are privately owned, with a minority of 5% owned by the state and another 5% operating as either consumer or producer cooperatives.[18]
Economy of Sweden - Wikipedia

What more do you need to know?

 

[kaz]

The means of production can never be held by the community without the state. How does the community enforce its decisions without the state? It's absurd to claim that socialism doesn't exist if the state is in control. Other than private control, state control is the only option. If some member of the community says "**** you," when asked to turn over some item of property, what can the community do about it without the state?

You're peddling moonshine. Marxists have always peddled moonshine. Their schemes are unworkable and absurd.

A socialist system is cooperative

Yeah, Stalin, Mao, Hitler. Anyone didn't want to do something, they sure weren't going to make them.

And even in Sweden, you're arguing that people who don't want to pay socialist taxes or who want to compete with State controlled monopolies are free to do that?

What a load of crap

Sweden does not employ a socialist system of production so it has no relevance to what I'm saying.

Sweden isn't socialist?

Approximately 90% of all resources and companies are privately owned, with a minority of 5% owned by the state and another 5% operating as either consumer or producer cooperatives.[18]
Economy of Sweden - Wikipedia

What more do you need to know?

Socialism isn't about who's name is on the title. If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the key and drives it wherever they want while you need to get their permission where you want to go and get the key and return it when you're back, but you have the title. Who's car is it really? It isn't yours.

What you are describing is fascism where companies are technically in private hands but all decisions must be approved by government. It's called socialism light. Although it's not very light. The Nazis were the socialist workers party for a reason. They knew what they were.

In Sweden, you don't do shit government doesn't sign off on. They are just lucky that they have massive fuel reserves to fuel most of their socialist expenditures and not go bankrupt

 

[McFury]

keep working hard.
Go west young man Go west..
Seek fame, adventure and fortune..
Go west..!!!
As one story teller told the story.
America was not built by people sitting around collecting welfare checks.