Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[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.

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

You mean, like when government artificially raises prices on products , by putting tariffs on them, thereby altering the free enterprise system of supply and demand?

 

[McFury]

What's the point of working 3 jobs when you can collect welfare checks, ssi- checks, food stamps, free housing and free healthcare...
And all the benefits for lazy retards...
While most hard working folks are filling for bankruptcy and putting their homes on remortgage ?
America was not built by lazy socialists.

In Europe you don't have to have to work 3 jobs to make ends meet. I work 1 and I'm capable of making the mortgage support my wife and kid go on vacation,send my kid to college and own a decent car. As I said I'm European and pay high taxes. If I get unemployed the government pays me enough so I can survive. I wouldn't be able to make the mortgage but I would have a roof over my head,food in my mouth, healthcare and my kid would still go to college. The fact that even while unemployed I'd still be able to afford this forces the employers to give high enough wages to compete. This makes it that I don't have to work 3 jobs.

It was once that way in the US. Since Reagan, no.

You're full of shit

Thank you Kindly
Hope you die in North Korea.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. Socialism is founded on compulsion. That's what you mean by "cooperation." You "cooperate" with the mugger, or he puts a bullet in your belly. A society based on voluntarism is a market economy. If I don't "volunteer" to allow your committee to confiscate my property, then what happens to your so-called socialism?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Not really. It's a welfare state. But all th eprogsuse it as an example of socialism working. The only part that works is the capitalist part.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It doesn't appear to be expanding.

 

[Tehon]

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

So I said Sweden isn't a socialist state and you appear to be in agreement in that you think it is a fascist state. Which you then conflate with socialism.

You can't be reasoned with. You just make shit up as you go along.

Fundamentally, socialism is a system of producing commodities that distinguishes itself from the capitalist system by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Shifting control of the means of production to the state gets us no closer to socialism because the means are still privately held ie fascism.

And there is a reason fascism took hold in Europe around the time of WWI. It was a capitalist reaction to the socialist groundswell that was taking root. The same happened here, though it didn't require such extreme measures to contain.

 

[Norman]

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?

Not really. It's a welfare state. But all th eprogsuse it as an example of socialism working. The only part that works is the capitalist part.

Indeed, the case is literally so.

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

So I said Sweden isn't a socialist state and you appear to be in agreement in that you think it is a fascist state. Which you then conflate with socialism.

You can't be reasoned with. You just make shit up as you go along.

Fundamentally, socialism is a system of producing commodities that distinguishes itself from the capitalist system by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Shifting control of the means of production to the state gets us no closer to socialism because the means are still privately held ie fascism.

And there is a reason fascism took hold in Europe around the time of WWI. It was a capitalist reaction to the socialist groundswell that was taking root. The same happened here, though it didn't require such extreme measures.

There may be some disputes as to what Sweden exactly is.

But what it will become is unquestionable, a sharia law state.

You would enjoy it, I think it's time to start packing.

 

[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

You mean, like when government artificially raises prices on products , by putting tariffs on them, thereby altering the free enterprise system of supply and demand?

Yes, absolutely. But it's funny how I'm free trade all the time and you only when you're attacking Republicans

 

[kaz]

What's the point of working 3 jobs when you can collect welfare checks, ssi- checks, food stamps, free housing and free healthcare...
And all the benefits for lazy retards...
While most hard working folks are filling for bankruptcy and putting their homes on remortgage ?
America was not built by lazy socialists.

In Europe you don't have to have to work 3 jobs to make ends meet. I work 1 and I'm capable of making the mortgage support my wife and kid go on vacation,send my kid to college and own a decent car. As I said I'm European and pay high taxes. If I get unemployed the government pays me enough so I can survive. I wouldn't be able to make the mortgage but I would have a roof over my head,food in my mouth, healthcare and my kid would still go to college. The fact that even while unemployed I'd still be able to afford this forces the employers to give high enough wages to compete. This makes it that I don't have to work 3 jobs.

It was once that way in the US. Since Reagan, no.

You're full of shit

Thank you Kindly
Hope you die in North Korea.

So you're a leftist or you're confused?

 

[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?

Not really. It's a welfare state. But all th eprogsuse it as an example of socialism working. The only part that works is the capitalist part.

There's a difference between capitalism and limited capitalist freedom under government control. In Sweden like China, you only have the capitalism that government chooses to allow you to have. That isn't really capitalism.

It's like Democrats calling contrived Obamacare choices under government direction "capitalism" just because companies are involved

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Wow

Just ******* Wow

Public School stupid right there

 

[kaz]

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

So I said Sweden isn't a socialist state and you appear to be in agreement in that you think it is a fascist state. Which you then conflate with socialism.

You can't be reasoned with. You just make shit up as you go along

Bull shit. The only difference between fascism and socialism is that in fascism, there are technical figurehead owners of the company. They both take direction from the State. That you think those are difference is pure you're not grasping it

Fundamentally, socialism is a system of producing commodities that distinguishes itself from the capitalist system by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Shifting control of the means of production to the state gets us no closer to socialism because the means are still privately held ie fascism.

And there is a reason fascism took hold in Europe around the time of WWI. It was a capitalist reaction to the socialist groundswell that was taking root. The same happened here, though it didn't require such extreme measures to contain.

That there is a technical name as owner of companies that are run by the state is just nonsense. What you have is a distinction without a difference.

In both socialism and fascism, the State is controlling the means of production in the economy

 

[Billy000]

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.

Here let his guy tell you about Socialism.

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia

The Road to Serfdom (German: Der Weg zur Knechtschaft) is a book written between 1940 and 1943 by Austrian British economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek, in which the author "[warns] of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning."[1] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Hayek challenged the general view among British academics that fascism (including National Socialism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, National Socialism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.

In other words you retard, when you take away some ones incentive to work, because those that don't want to work, soon are despised by those that do work, no one is working, thus the government then comes in and FORCES everyone to work at the end of a gun.

The Pilgrim’s Failed Socialist Experiment

The first two years the result was shortages and starvation. About half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.” The socialist experiment Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….” In other words, socialism made strong men lazy.

But when you give people the right to excel and not be punished for it...

And so they “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end…”

The effects were almost immediate. A delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor… could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” In other words, the free market is a much greater stimulus than governmental force.

Stupid ***** have been brain washed time and again, that Socialism is so great, yet every time it is tried it fails..God I really hate dumbasses like the OP here. I have been around since D W Eisenhower was alive, and seen many instances of Socialism, and then some "KID" tries to preach to me....

some images of how well Socialism works.

View attachment 181422 View attachment 181423 View attachment 181424 View attachment 181425 View attachment 181426 View attachment 181427 View attachment 181428

Okay here’s why you’re an idiot. You are equating socialism with fascism when the basic definition of socialism is “people’s ownership”. Anything funded by tax payers is an example of socialism.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

Here let his guy tell you about Socialism.

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia

The Road to Serfdom (German: Der Weg zur Knechtschaft) is a book written between 1940 and 1943 by Austrian British economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek, in which the author "[warns] of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning."[1] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Hayek challenged the general view among British academics that fascism (including National Socialism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, National Socialism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.

In other words you retard, when you take away some ones incentive to work, because those that don't want to work, soon are despised by those that do work, no one is working, thus the government then comes in and FORCES everyone to work at the end of a gun.

The Pilgrim’s Failed Socialist Experiment

The first two years the result was shortages and starvation. About half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.” The socialist experiment Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….” In other words, socialism made strong men lazy.

But when you give people the right to excel and not be punished for it...

And so they “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end…”

The effects were almost immediate. A delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor… could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” In other words, the free market is a much greater stimulus than governmental force.

Stupid ***** have been brain washed time and again, that Socialism is so great, yet every time it is tried it fails..God I really hate dumbasses like the OP here. I have been around since D W Eisenhower was alive, and seen many instances of Socialism, and then some "KID" tries to preach to me....

some images of how well Socialism works.

View attachment 181422 View attachment 181423 View attachment 181424 View attachment 181425 View attachment 181426 View attachment 181427 View attachment 181428

Okay here’s why you’re an idiot. You are equating socialism with fascism when the basic definition of socialism is “people’s ownership”. Anything funded by tax payers is an example of socialism.

They can call it people's ownership all they like, but with the government arbitrating it, the government is still in charge. If, supposedly, everyone owns something, but that something is still arbitrated by the government, the government still owns that something, and is in charge of that something.

The difference between fascism and socialism is simply semantics, and they both go hand in hand.

Besides, Socialism isn't strictly "People's ownership", it's collective ownership. However, the government always arbitrates that, making all forms of collective ownership simply government ownership.

 

[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.

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

You mean, like when government artificially raises prices on products , by putting tariffs on them, thereby altering the free enterprise system of supply and demand?

Yes, absolutely. But it's funny how I'm free trade all the time and you only when you're attacking Republicans

I don't know where you get your information. I was for NAFTA when I was still a republican (Pre=Palin, which line when the Republicans lost their minds).

 

[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

You mean, like when government artificially raises prices on products , by putting tariffs on them, thereby altering the free enterprise system of supply and demand?

Yes, absolutely. But it's funny how I'm free trade all the time and you only when you're attacking Republicans

I don't know where you get your information. I was for NAFTA when I was still a republican (Pre=Palin, which line when the Republicans lost their minds).

OMG, that's funny. Every leftist used to be a Republican.

So under far left John McCain, you decided to go to the Democrat party. That's supposed to make sense. You've got the lamest why you became a Democrat story of them all

 

[Billy000]

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.

Here let his guy tell you about Socialism.

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia

The Road to Serfdom (German: Der Weg zur Knechtschaft) is a book written between 1940 and 1943 by Austrian British economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek, in which the author "[warns] of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning."[1] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Hayek challenged the general view among British academics that fascism (including National Socialism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, National Socialism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.

In other words you retard, when you take away some ones incentive to work, because those that don't want to work, soon are despised by those that do work, no one is working, thus the government then comes in and FORCES everyone to work at the end of a gun.

The Pilgrim’s Failed Socialist Experiment

The first two years the result was shortages and starvation. About half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.” The socialist experiment Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….” In other words, socialism made strong men lazy.

But when you give people the right to excel and not be punished for it...

And so they “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end…”

The effects were almost immediate. A delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor… could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” In other words, the free market is a much greater stimulus than governmental force.

Stupid ***** have been brain washed time and again, that Socialism is so great, yet every time it is tried it fails..God I really hate dumbasses like the OP here. I have been around since D W Eisenhower was alive, and seen many instances of Socialism, and then some "KID" tries to preach to me....

some images of how well Socialism works.

View attachment 181422 View attachment 181423 View attachment 181424 View attachment 181425 View attachment 181426 View attachment 181427 View attachment 181428

Okay here’s why you’re an idiot. You are equating socialism with fascism when the basic definition of socialism is “people’s ownership”. Anything funded by tax payers is an example of socialism.

They can call it people's ownership all they like, but with the government arbitrating it, the government is still in charge. If, supposedly, everyone owns something, but that something is still arbitrated by the government, the government still owns that something, and is in charge of that something.

The difference between fascism and socialism is simply semantics, and they both go hand in hand.

Besides, Socialism isn't strictly "People's ownership", it's collective ownership. However, the government always arbitrates that, making all forms of collective ownership simply government ownership.

Yes, obviously the government enforces it. That doesn’t make it fascism for **** sake. You’re basically saying that because the US has a government, it makes it fascist.

 

[Political Junky]

The Right has succeeded in stealing from the middle class and convincing them that it's making them free of Socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

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

So I said Sweden isn't a socialist state and you appear to be in agreement in that you think it is a fascist state. Which you then conflate with socialism.

You can't be reasoned with. You just make shit up as you go along.

Fundamentally, socialism is a system of producing commodities that distinguishes itself from the capitalist system by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Shifting control of the means of production to the state gets us no closer to socialism because the means are still privately held ie fascism.

And there is a reason fascism took hold in Europe around the time of WWI. It was a capitalist reaction to the socialist groundswell that was taking root. The same happened here, though it didn't require such extreme measures to contain.

Wrong. If the state controls the means of production, then they are not privatel held. Then you have socialism. Fascism is a form of socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

The Right has succeeded in stealing from the middle class and convincing them that it's making them free of Socialism.

How does the right steal from the middle class?