Socialism Gets Tested

[Skylar]

You're the one bringing up Obamacare. What do you believe it is that's relevant to our discussion?

Make your case.

Yes I am, since it is an example of democrats placing the means of production under the control of the state,

You're equating regulation with ownership. They aren't the same thing. That's like saying if there is a speed limit, the government owns your car.

Which is obvious nonsense.

Make your case regarding Obamacare. And please keep in mind that words have actual meanings that may be inconvenient to your argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So good to see you sign up for an education!

In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Show us the Encyclopedia Britannica article saying as much.

And of course, Socialism doesn't advocate the abolishment of all private property, making a distinction between personal property (like clothing, personal affects, houses, etc) and means of production (factories, farms, etc).

While most democrats don't call for the public ownership of all means of production or the abolishment of all private property.

These are enormous differences. Yet you laughably insist that they are all the same. And with such a blunder demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what a communist is, you don't know what a socialist is, and you can't recognize the enormous disparity between both systems and that advocated by democrats.

Try again.

"Socialism doesn't advocate the abolishment of all private property,"
Of course it does....but uses taxation and regulation until it is either strong enough to use confiscation or revolution.





I'm betting you had the same response to education when you attended the Robert Fiance School of Cosmetology.



BTW....here is Cole's article.....the one you suggested didn't exist.
Take notes: "Google Books"id=7mgNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA571&lpg=PA571&dq=Encyclopedia+Britannica,+Prof.+G.+D.+H.+Cole+%22socialism%22&source=bl&ots=2BSRNwEk3a&sig=cCQdMd_2v1RFQpf_2sP0dK62BlA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAmoVChMIqam9mfyPxwIVSDI-Ch0UNw0l#v=onepage&q=Encyclopedia%20Britannica%2C%20Prof.%20G.%20D.%20H.%20Cole%20%22socialism%22&f=false

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're the one bringing up Obamacare. What do you believe it is that's relevant to our discussion?

Make your case.

Yes I am, since it is an example of democrats placing the means of production under the control of the state,

And another example of where the state redistributes wealth through the welfare state.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're the one bringing up Obamacare. What do you believe it is that's relevant to our discussion?

Make your case.

Yes I am, since it is an example of democrats placing the means of production under the control of the state,

You're equating regulation with ownership. They aren't the same thing. That's like saying if there is a speed limit, the government owns your car.

Socialism is state ownership and/or control of the means of producing and distributing wealth.
Obamacare is a step towards greater state control of the health care system, especially where it requires people to engage in said system; those who refuse to do so are taxed, with the proceeds redistributed to those who cannot afford to do so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

He must be a Democrat....and Democrats are socialists.....and, therefore, communists.

Wow. That's like an altar built to the False Equivalency Fallacy.

Remember, Chic......you don't actually know what socialists or communists are. They're pejoratives to you. like watching a 4 year old try to curse. You might as well be calling someone a 'dumb-dumb head' for as much relevance as your claims to reality.

For example, most democrats don't advocate collective ownership of all means of production, a central tenet of communism. How do you reconcile this fundamental incompatibility between your claims and the meaning of the terms you're using?

You make up your own meanings. If only reality worked that way.

"Remember, Chic......you don't actually know what socialists or communists are."

So good to see you sign up for an education!

In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels stated that communist ends can be attained "only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."


All that remains, now, is for you to

a. Admit that you didn't realize you are a socialist/communist if you voted for Barack Obama....

or...

b. You are a socialist/communist.



Waiting.

The encyclopedia Britannica? Quoting what Cole wrote nearly 80 years ago?

That's right, you ignorant dunce.

And this:

1. Marx published the Communist Manifesto - Feb 21, 1848


2. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory.
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006



Get an education, you dope

 

[2aguy]

Once again, the Right is fighting an imaginary enemy.

There is a difference between socialism and a social democracy.

.

Socialism is when the government controls the means of production...a social democracy has enough money in private hands to hold off the actual negative effects of socialism for a little while longer...and then they run out of other people's money and become true socialist states.....

 

[Skylar]

So good to see you sign up for an education!

In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Show us the Encyclopedia Britannica article saying as much.

And of course, Socialism doesn't advocate the abolishment of all private property, making a distinction between personal property (like clothing, personal affects, houses, etc) and means of production (factories, farms, etc).

While most democrats don't call for the public ownership of all means of production or the abolishment of all private property.

These are enormous differences. Yet you laughably insist that they are all the same. And with such a blunder demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what a communist is, you don't know what a socialist is, and you can't recognize the enormous disparity between both systems and that advocated by democrats.

Try again.

"Socialism doesn't advocate the abolishment of all private property,"
Of course it does....but uses taxation and regulation until it is either strong enough to use confiscation or revolution.

Save that it doesn't. There are still private homes, private personal affects, private cars, private clothes, private gardens, etc under socialism. Private property isn't abolished. The means of production are merely owned collectively.

Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're merely cutting and pasting arguments you don't understand. As you always do.

And still, the fact that private property exists under socialism utterly confounds you. Still, the fact that most democrats don't call for the abolishment of private property or the collective ownership of all means of production confounds you.

As you can't reconcile your silly fallacies with these even simpler facts.

BTW....here is Cole's article.....the one you suggested didn't exist.

Take notes: "Google Books"id=7mgNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA571&lpg=PA571&dq=Encyclopedia+Britannica,+Prof.+G.+D.+H.+Cole+%22socialism%22&source=bl&ots=2BSRNwEk3a&sig=cCQdMd_2v1RFQpf_2sP0dK62BlA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAmoVChMIqam9mfyPxwIVSDI-Ch0UNw0l#v=onepage&q=Encyclopedia%20Britannica%2C%20Prof.%20G.%20D.%20H.%20Cole%20%22socialism%22&f=false

Your link doesn't connect to anything. Try again.

 

[Skylar]

You're the one bringing up Obamacare. What do you believe it is that's relevant to our discussion?

Make your case.

Yes I am, since it is an example of democrats placing the means of production under the control of the state,

You're equating regulation with ownership. They aren't the same thing. That's like saying if there is a speed limit, the government owns your car.

Socialism is state ownership and/or control of the means of producing and distributing wealth.
Obamacare is a step towards greater state control of the health care system, especially where it requires people to engage in said system; those who refuse to do so are taxed, with the proceeds redistributed to those who cannot afford to do so.

Obamacare is an exclusively private system. Every provider of healthcare under the system is and remains, private. Simply obliterating the claim that Obamacare is socialism.

Obamacare is a subsidized private marketplace. And in fact largely matches the late 80s programs suggested by the Heritage Foundation, or the Republicans in the early to mid 90s.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're the one bringing up Obamacare. What do you believe it is that's relevant to our discussion?

Make your case.

Yes I am, since it is an example of democrats placing the means of production under the control of the state,

You're equating regulation with ownership. They aren't the same thing. That's like saying if there is a speed limit, the government owns your car.

Socialism is state ownership and/or control of the means of producing and distributing wealth.
Obamacare is a step towards greater state control of the health care system, especially where it requires people to engage in said system; those who refuse to do so are taxed, with the proceeds redistributed to those who cannot afford to do so.

Obamacare is an exclusively private system. Every provider of healthcare is and remains, private. Simply obliterating the claim that Obamacare is socialism.

Socialism is state ownership and/or control of the means of producing and distributing wealth.
Does Obamacare move us closer to or further away from state control over health care?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So good to see you sign up for an education!

In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Show us the Encyclopedia Britannica article saying as much.

And of course, Socialism doesn't advocate the abolishment of all private property, making a distinction between personal property (like clothing, personal affects, houses, etc) and means of production (factories, farms, etc).

While most democrats don't call for the public ownership of all means of production or the abolishment of all private property.

These are enormous differences. Yet you laughably insist that they are all the same. And with such a blunder demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what a communist is, you don't know what a socialist is, and you can't recognize the enormous disparity between both systems and that advocated by democrats.

Try again.

"Socialism doesn't advocate the abolishment of all private property,"
Of course it does....but uses taxation and regulation until it is either strong enough to use confiscation or revolution.

Save that it doesn't. There are still private homes, private personal affects, private cars, private clothes, private gardens, etc under socialism. Private property isn't abolished. The means of production are merely owned collectively.

Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're merely cutting and pasting arguments you don't understand. As you always do.

And still, the fact that private property exists under socialism utterly confounds you. Still, the fact that most democrats don't call for the abolishment of private property or the collective ownership of all means of production confounds you.

As you can't reconcile your silly fallacies with these even simpler facts.

BTW....here is Cole's article.....the one you suggested didn't exist.

Take notes: "Google Books"id=7mgNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA571&lpg=PA571&dq=Encyclopedia+Britannica,+Prof.+G.+D.+H.+Cole+%22socialism%22&source=bl&ots=2BSRNwEk3a&sig=cCQdMd_2v1RFQpf_2sP0dK62BlA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAmoVChMIqam9mfyPxwIVSDI-Ch0UNw0l#v=onepage&q=Encyclopedia%20Britannica%2C%20Prof.%20G.%20D.%20H.%20Cole%20%22socialism%22&f=false

Your link doesn't connect to anything. Try again.

No, you try again....it worked on my computer.

The Encyclop dia Britannica A Dictionary of Arts Sciences Literature and ... - Google Books

 

[Skylar]

Once again, the Right is fighting an imaginary enemy.

There is a difference between socialism and a social democracy.

.

Socialism is when the government controls the means of production...a social democracy has enough money in private hands to hold off the actual negative effects of socialism for a little while longer...and then they run out of other people's money and become true socialist states.....

Socialism is the government *ownership* of all means of production. Regulation isn't ownership.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're equating regulation with ownership.

Socialism is the control or ownership the means of production.

"Why do I need to own the factories, when I own the owners?" - Benito Mussolini

You of the Khmer Rouge seek to place the central planners in charge of the economy, while allowing well connected looters (owner of the democratic party George Soros) to make a profit from mandated activity.

They aren't the same thing. That's like saying if there is a speed limit, the government owns your car.

The government can take your car at will. Should a cop find or plant a marijuana seed in it, they can take it and sell it, keeping the procedes.

Try again.

Which is obvious nonsense.

Make your case regarding Obamacare. And please keep in mind that words have actual meanings that may be inconvenient to your argument.

Obama's fascist care places 1/6th of the economy under the control of the central authority, including the mandate that consumers MUST buy the services offered.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Socialism is the government *ownership* of all means of production. Regulation isn't ownership.

Control, ownership, or the combination of both.

Try again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're the one bringing up Obamacare. What do you believe it is that's relevant to our discussion?

Make your case.

Yes I am, since it is an example of democrats placing the means of production under the control of the state,

You're equating regulation with ownership. They aren't the same thing. That's like saying if there is a speed limit, the government owns your car.

Socialism is state ownership and/or control of the means of producing and distributing wealth.
Obamacare is a step towards greater state control of the health care system, especially where it requires people to engage in said system; those who refuse to do so are taxed, with the proceeds redistributed to those who cannot afford to do so.

Obamacare is an exclusively private system. Every provider of healthcare under the system is and remains, private. Simply obliterating the claim that Obamacare is socialism.

Obamacare is a subsidized private marketplace. And in fact largely matches the late 80s programs suggested by the Heritage Foundation, or the Republicans in the early to mid 90s.

"Obamacare is an exclusively private system. Every provider of healthcare under the system is and remains, private."

OMG....if you were given an enema you could be buried in a thimble.

Everything is mandated in ObamaCare right down to the size letters a company can use in their adds.

“Why Obamacare Is Wrong For America,” by Turner, Capretta, Miller and Moffit.

1. Obamacare is based on a statist, totalitarian view of how an economy should be run. One should consider how successful other such command-and-control systems have worked out.
   1. The PPACA imposes the will of unelected bureaucrats, adding some 159 agencies, boards, commissions.
   2. The secretary of HHS has unmitigated and heretofore unforeseen power, such as being totally in charge of state-based exchanges. PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321.

2.It is designed to fulfill the needs of a central authority over the wishes of the individual, or the supposedly co-equal state authorities. . PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321

1. Obamacare requires unwarranted intrusions into the privacy of citizens by requiring said citizens to queue up for federal insurance, and then be vetted as to their and their families financial matters.
2. It has been revealed that, rather than reducing the cost of health insurance “by about $2,500 for the typical family,” it will actually increase the costs of the insurance.
   1. Sen. Dick Durbin, March 10, 2010: “Anyone who would stand before you and say ‘well, if you pass health care reform next year’s health care premiums are going down,’ I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up.” Durbin Admits Premiums Will Go Up If Health Care Bill Is Passed RealClearPolitics
   2. It adds some $500 billion in taxes over ten years.
3. Rather than increasing quality of America’s health care, it duns Medicare by some $575 billion, reducing rather than increasing its viability and services it can offer.

6. ObamaCare reduces the number of tax-paying Americans while increasing unemployment and adding to the personal and government costs of providing medical insurance. It’s not just the 800,000 fewer workers seeking jobs under ObamaCare, as the CBO Director admitted last week to Congress, because the law will reduce “the propensity to work” in order to get medical insurance. With subsidized guaranteed issue of medical insurance, there will be less incentive to find a job with benefits. At the same time, medical insurance premiums will increase for all as ObamaCare’s guarantee issue creates an incentive to wait until ill to obtain insurance. Review Outlook 800 000 Fewer Workers - WSJ



Did I just rip you a new one, or what.

 

[Skylar]

So good to see you sign up for an education!

In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Show us the Encyclopedia Britannica article saying as much.

And of course, Socialism doesn't advocate the abolishment of all private property, making a distinction between personal property (like clothing, personal affects, houses, etc) and means of production (factories, farms, etc).

While most democrats don't call for the public ownership of all means of production or the abolishment of all private property.

These are enormous differences. Yet you laughably insist that they are all the same. And with such a blunder demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what a communist is, you don't know what a socialist is, and you can't recognize the enormous disparity between both systems and that advocated by democrats.

Try again.

"Socialism doesn't advocate the abolishment of all private property,"
Of course it does....but uses taxation and regulation until it is either strong enough to use confiscation or revolution.

Save that it doesn't. There are still private homes, private personal affects, private cars, private clothes, private gardens, etc under socialism. Private property isn't abolished. The means of production are merely owned collectively.

Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're merely cutting and pasting arguments you don't understand. As you always do.

And still, the fact that private property exists under socialism utterly confounds you. Still, the fact that most democrats don't call for the abolishment of private property or the collective ownership of all means of production confounds you.

As you can't reconcile your silly fallacies with these even simpler facts.

BTW....here is Cole's article.....the one you suggested didn't exist.

Take notes: "Google Books"id=7mgNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA571&lpg=PA571&dq=Encyclopedia+Britannica,+Prof.+G.+D.+H.+Cole+%22socialism%22&source=bl&ots=2BSRNwEk3a&sig=cCQdMd_2v1RFQpf_2sP0dK62BlA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAmoVChMIqam9mfyPxwIVSDI-Ch0UNw0l#v=onepage&q=Encyclopedia%20Britannica%2C%20Prof.%20G.%20D.%20H.%20Cole%20%22socialism%22&f=false

Your link doesn't connect to anything. Try again.

No, you try again....it worked on my computer.

The Encyclop dia Britannica A Dictionary of Arts Sciences Literature and ... - Google Books

And where is this statement on the link you just offered us?

The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Given that all you're good for is cutting and pasting....I'd assumed you were better at it than you're revealing yourself to be. As your link doesn't include your quote.

As I said, you're just repeating what you were told to think. And you don't even know why.

 

[Skylar]

You're the one bringing up Obamacare. What do you believe it is that's relevant to our discussion?

Make your case.

Yes I am, since it is an example of democrats placing the means of production under the control of the state,

You're equating regulation with ownership. They aren't the same thing. That's like saying if there is a speed limit, the government owns your car.

Socialism is state ownership and/or control of the means of producing and distributing wealth.
Obamacare is a step towards greater state control of the health care system, especially where it requires people to engage in said system; those who refuse to do so are taxed, with the proceeds redistributed to those who cannot afford to do so.

Obamacare is an exclusively private system. Every provider of healthcare under the system is and remains, private. Simply obliterating the claim that Obamacare is socialism.

Obamacare is a subsidized private marketplace. And in fact largely matches the late 80s programs suggested by the Heritage Foundation, or the Republicans in the early to mid 90s.

"Obamacare is an exclusively private system. Every provider of healthcare under the system is and remains, private."

OMG....if you were given an enema you could be buried in a thimble.

Everything is mandated in ObamaCare right down to the size letters a company can use in their adds.

“Why Obamacare Is Wrong For America,” by Turner, Capretta, Miller and Moffit.

1. Obamacare is based on a statist, totalitarian view of how an economy should be run. One should consider how successful other such command-and-control systems have worked out.
   1. The PPACA imposes the will of unelected bureaucrats, adding some 159 agencies, boards, commissions.
   2. The secretary of HHS has unmitigated and heretofore unforeseen power, such as being totally in charge of state-based exchanges. PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321.

2.It is designed to fulfill the needs of a central authority over the wishes of the individual, or the supposedly co-equal state authorities. . PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321

1. Obamacare requires unwarranted intrusions into the privacy of citizens by requiring said citizens to queue up for federal insurance, and then be vetted as to their and their families financial matters.
2. It has been revealed that, rather than reducing the cost of health insurance “by about $2,500 for the typical family,” it will actually increase the costs of the insurance.
   1. Sen. Dick Durbin, March 10, 2010: “Anyone who would stand before you and say ‘well, if you pass health care reform next year’s health care premiums are going down,’ I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up.” Durbin Admits Premiums Will Go Up If Health Care Bill Is Passed RealClearPolitics
   2. It adds some $500 billion in taxes over ten years.
3. Rather than increasing quality of America’s health care, it duns Medicare by some $575 billion, reducing rather than increasing its viability and services it can offer.

6. ObamaCare reduces the number of tax-paying Americans while increasing unemployment and adding to the personal and government costs of providing medical insurance. It’s not just the 800,000 fewer workers seeking jobs under ObamaCare, as the CBO Director admitted last week to Congress, because the law will reduce “the propensity to work” in order to get medical insurance. With subsidized guaranteed issue of medical insurance, there will be less incentive to find a job with benefits. At the same time, medical insurance premiums will increase for all as ObamaCare’s guarantee issue creates an incentive to wait until ill to obtain insurance. Review Outlook 800 000 Fewer Workers - WSJ



Did I just rip you a new one, or what.

Nothing you've spammed addresses anything I've said. As it doesn't contradict or even address the fact that all providers of healthcare under Obamacare are private.

Irrelevant spam is your tell, Chic. The less you understand the topic, the larger and more irrelevant the blocks are that you cut and paste.

Remember.....you don't understand what you're talking about. And it really hampers your ability to debate these issues.

 

[Skylar]

Socialism is the government *ownership* of all means of production. Regulation isn't ownership.

Control, ownership, or the combination of both.

Try again.

Regulation is not ownership. Its as silly as claiming that the government owns your car because there are speed limits.

And if they were the same, you wouldn't have had to change the definition to suit your argument. Regulation is obviously different than ownership. Which is why you felt it necessary to creatively edit the definition.

 

[paddymurphy]

The commie idiots in China, who are just a couple of generations ahead of the lefty leaders here, proclaim their commie masters' wisdom and thank their abusive leaders when people from the outside world risk their lives come into the country to provide routine medical care that the rest of the world has access to. Brainwashing does work. Anybody who doubts it can take a look at the idiotic lefty posts in this thread. Or anything that Lakota, coyote or care4all post.

China has not been a communist country for years.

"China has transformed itself from a centrally plannedclosed economy in the 1970’s to a manufacturing and exporting hub over the years. The Chinese economy is propelled by an equal contribution from manufacturing and services (45 percent each, approximately) with a 10 percent contribution by the agricultural sector. The Chinese economy overtook the US economy in terms of GDP based on PPP. However, the difference between the economies in terms of nominal GDP remains large. China is currently a $10.35 trillion economy and has been growing at around seven percent in the recent years. (Related reading, see: Why China Is "The World's Factory.")"

Read more: The World s Top 10 Economies
Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter

First you say China is socialist. Now you deny it. Make yp your tiny mind.
The truth is that countries succeed to the extent they adopt free market models. They fail to the extent they adopt socialist models. China was a failed state through the 1970s because of the socialist model. They became successful when they adopted the free market model.

Tell that to Political Chic. To her, they are communist. What about Western Europe? Compared to the rest of the world, they are thriving.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So good to see you sign up for an education!

In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Show us the Encyclopedia Britannica article saying as much.

And of course, Socialism doesn't advocate the abolishment of all private property, making a distinction between personal property (like clothing, personal affects, houses, etc) and means of production (factories, farms, etc).

While most democrats don't call for the public ownership of all means of production or the abolishment of all private property.

These are enormous differences. Yet you laughably insist that they are all the same. And with such a blunder demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what a communist is, you don't know what a socialist is, and you can't recognize the enormous disparity between both systems and that advocated by democrats.

Try again.

"Socialism doesn't advocate the abolishment of all private property,"
Of course it does....but uses taxation and regulation until it is either strong enough to use confiscation or revolution.

Save that it doesn't. There are still private homes, private personal affects, private cars, private clothes, private gardens, etc under socialism. Private property isn't abolished. The means of production are merely owned collectively.

Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're merely cutting and pasting arguments you don't understand. As you always do.

And still, the fact that private property exists under socialism utterly confounds you. Still, the fact that most democrats don't call for the abolishment of private property or the collective ownership of all means of production confounds you.

As you can't reconcile your silly fallacies with these even simpler facts.

BTW....here is Cole's article.....the one you suggested didn't exist.

Take notes: "Google Books"id=7mgNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA571&lpg=PA571&dq=Encyclopedia+Britannica,+Prof.+G.+D.+H.+Cole+%22socialism%22&source=bl&ots=2BSRNwEk3a&sig=cCQdMd_2v1RFQpf_2sP0dK62BlA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAmoVChMIqam9mfyPxwIVSDI-Ch0UNw0l#v=onepage&q=Encyclopedia%20Britannica%2C%20Prof.%20G.%20D.%20H.%20Cole%20%22socialism%22&f=false

Your link doesn't connect to anything. Try again.

No, you try again....it worked on my computer.

The Encyclop dia Britannica A Dictionary of Arts Sciences Literature and ... - Google Books

And where is this statement on the link you just offered us?

The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Given that all you're good for is cutting and pasting....I'd assumed you were better at it than you're revealing yourself to be. As your link doesn't include your quote.

As I said, you're just repeating what you were told to think. And you don't even know why.

Is this your apology for suggesting the link didn't exist?

Is this your apology for saying the link didn't work?



Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf


"....to socialist movements. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: "The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and the minority groups in other countries, is one of tactics.-and·-strategy rather than of;..-()bjective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes I am, since it is an example of democrats placing the means of production under the control of the state,

You're equating regulation with ownership. They aren't the same thing. That's like saying if there is a speed limit, the government owns your car.

Socialism is state ownership and/or control of the means of producing and distributing wealth.
Obamacare is a step towards greater state control of the health care system, especially where it requires people to engage in said system; those who refuse to do so are taxed, with the proceeds redistributed to those who cannot afford to do so.

Obamacare is an exclusively private system. Every provider of healthcare under the system is and remains, private. Simply obliterating the claim that Obamacare is socialism.

Obamacare is a subsidized private marketplace. And in fact largely matches the late 80s programs suggested by the Heritage Foundation, or the Republicans in the early to mid 90s.

"Obamacare is an exclusively private system. Every provider of healthcare under the system is and remains, private."

OMG....if you were given an enema you could be buried in a thimble.

Everything is mandated in ObamaCare right down to the size letters a company can use in their adds.

“Why Obamacare Is Wrong For America,” by Turner, Capretta, Miller and Moffit.

1. Obamacare is based on a statist, totalitarian view of how an economy should be run. One should consider how successful other such command-and-control systems have worked out.
   1. The PPACA imposes the will of unelected bureaucrats, adding some 159 agencies, boards, commissions.
   2. The secretary of HHS has unmitigated and heretofore unforeseen power, such as being totally in charge of state-based exchanges. PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321.

2.It is designed to fulfill the needs of a central authority over the wishes of the individual, or the supposedly co-equal state authorities. . PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321

1. Obamacare requires unwarranted intrusions into the privacy of citizens by requiring said citizens to queue up for federal insurance, and then be vetted as to their and their families financial matters.
2. It has been revealed that, rather than reducing the cost of health insurance “by about $2,500 for the typical family,” it will actually increase the costs of the insurance.
   1. Sen. Dick Durbin, March 10, 2010: “Anyone who would stand before you and say ‘well, if you pass health care reform next year’s health care premiums are going down,’ I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up.” Durbin Admits Premiums Will Go Up If Health Care Bill Is Passed RealClearPolitics
   2. It adds some $500 billion in taxes over ten years.
3. Rather than increasing quality of America’s health care, it duns Medicare by some $575 billion, reducing rather than increasing its viability and services it can offer.

6. ObamaCare reduces the number of tax-paying Americans while increasing unemployment and adding to the personal and government costs of providing medical insurance. It’s not just the 800,000 fewer workers seeking jobs under ObamaCare, as the CBO Director admitted last week to Congress, because the law will reduce “the propensity to work” in order to get medical insurance. With subsidized guaranteed issue of medical insurance, there will be less incentive to find a job with benefits. At the same time, medical insurance premiums will increase for all as ObamaCare’s guarantee issue creates an incentive to wait until ill to obtain insurance. Review Outlook 800 000 Fewer Workers - WSJ



Did I just rip you a new one, or what.

Nothing you've spammed addresses anything I've said. As it doesn't contradict or even address the fact that all providers of healthcare under Obamacare are private.

Irrelevant spam is your tell, Chic. The less you understand the topic, the larger and more irrelevant the blocks are that you cut and paste.

Remember.....you don't understand what you're talking about. And it really hampers your ability to debate these issues.

Liar.