Will The Democrats Finally Admit They Are a Socialist Party?

[Cecilie1200]

I am for civilization!!!! Civilization has government!


Taxes to build infrastructure, invest in science and r&d, and give our children education!!!! Anyone that is against these are like the Taliban.

Dear God, I've heard better political analysis from my 1st grader. "Civilization has government! Therefore, all government is WONDERFUL! Now where's my welfare check?!"

 

[my2¢]

Heck, if Democrats win next election they may as well rename the country U.S.S.R. - the United States Socialist Republic.

 

[kaz]

They don't have to lie ... increasingly Dem voters are also card-carrying socialists who say silly things like "Social Security and fire departments are pure socialism."
Ya just can't fix stupid.

Social security is socialism. Did you mean to say the roads and fire departments? They love saying roads are socialism

SS is gov't retirement insurance with benefits paid for by a specific tax.

SS is pure tax and redistribute socialism. Stop reading the marketing literature and pay attention to how it actually works.

1) The more you pay in the less you proportionally get back

2) People who never put anything in get lots back

3) Nothing is ever saved, the money is spent as it comes into the treasury. Later the government just taxes your children and give you their money

That's how insurance works. You don't always get to use it and some get more than others. SS is just public rather than private insurance.

Let's put it this way: it's not appropriate for the federal government to be insuring retirement, even if it worked like you think it does. Therefore, it is socialism.

It's redistribution of money

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fascism/state capitalism/crony capitalism are when industry is in private hands but controlled by government. Socialism is when government just owns them. I don't conflate them, their definitions do. If your title is on your car, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and he has the keys, who really owns the car?

Well, in capitalism, they don't have influence over government policy just like consumers and other market players don't. When they do, it's socialism. Bribing corrupt government to harm their competitors and tilt the field is socialism.

What capitalists do have from government are law enforcement to investigate crimes, civil and criminal courts, police, the military. They can only win however by beating their competitors in the marketplace

Well then, which is it?
Business owning government is not the definition of socialism. It is capitalism run amok.

The people own government, ideally. And people own businesses, too, also ideally. And government is supposed to work for the good of the people, which would include those who own businesses.

This logic thing is clearly not your strong suit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Perhaps the title of this thread should be: Will the Democrats finally admit they are the party of socialism, whatever socialism is?

I think it should be "Will Democrats ever stop trying to redefine socialism so that they can pretend they aren't socialists?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Social security is socialism. Did you mean to say the roads and fire departments? They love saying roads are socialism

SS is gov't retirement insurance with benefits paid for by a specific tax.

SS is pure tax and redistribute socialism. Stop reading the marketing literature and pay attention to how it actually works.

1) The more you pay in the less you proportionally get back

2) People who never put anything in get lots back

3) Nothing is ever saved, the money is spent as it comes into the treasury. Later the government just taxes your children and give you their money

That's how insurance works. You don't always get to use it and some get more than others. SS is just public rather than private insurance.

Let's put it this way: it's not appropriate for the federal government to be insuring retirement, even if it worked like you think it does. Therefore, it is socialism.

It's redistribution of money

Quite true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's see if I learned anything from this illuminating conversation.

That's crony capitalism, which is a form of socialism, not capitalism, Holmes

-Crony capitalism, despite what the name implies is not capitalist in nature it is socialist.

Fascism and Crony capitalism are essentially the same thing, Holmes. Industry is technically in private hands, but the market is controlled by government. Both of them are forms of socialism.

-Crony capitalism essentially equates to fascism and are both forms of socialism because government controls the market.

No you didn't say that because that would be correct and you don't know what capitalism is. Capitalism is when businesses, employees, consumers, suppliers all work out their own best deal. It is distributed decision making. Socialism is central decision making, which can only be done by government because only government can use force to compel market players to act against their own best interest. Fascism and crony capitalism are variations of socialism, the government picks market winners rather than the market

-Capitalism is when businesses, employees, consumers, suppliers all work out their own best deal. Wow, what a great system, everyone wins! Why should crony capitalism even exist in the land of unicorns and rainbows.

Fascism/state capitalism/crony capitalism are when industry is in private hands but controlled by government. Socialism is when government just owns them. I don't conflate them, their definitions do. If your title is on your car, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and he has the keys, who really owns the car?

-Wait a minute now, maybe there is a distinction between fascism/crony capitalism and socialism. Socialism is when government owns business rather than just controlling it. That would lead me to infer that we are not socialist but instead fascist.

Well, in capitalism, they don't have influence over government policy just like consumers and other market players don't. When they do, it's socialism. Bribing corrupt government to harm their competitors and tilt the field is socialism.

What capitalists do have from government are law enforcement to investigate crimes, civil and criminal courts, police, the military. They can only win however by beating their competitors in the marketplace

-Nope, now we're back to calling crony capitalism socialism again. Are we also going back to conflating it with fascism.

Those statements are completely consistent. Businesses buying corrupt government is still clearly government control. They are just selling favors to the highest bidder. If the businesses and government conflict under the arrangement, then you'll see it's government clearly in charge. Government controls business for a lot of reasons. The competitors of those buying government don't really give a shit why they are being harmed by government, they are

-Pay no attention to the revolving door or outright bribery it has no correlation to government policies, government is still in charge. I think this infers fascism or socialism or both, just for good measure.

Forgive me if I take nothing away from our exchange.

Crony capitalism is as it's name suggests, capitalists creating favorable conditions for profit generation. It has nothing in common with socialism or fascism, two distinctly different ideologies, and concepts which you have clearly shown to be ignorant of.

Can't imagine why you thought you'd learn anything from a conversation you've done your best to not hear.

Dunno about Kaz, but I personally don't forgive people for deliberate stupidity. You enjoy being an ignorant fucktard? That's your right, but don't try to get out of being held accountable for it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

-Wait a minute now, maybe there is a distinction between fascism/crony capitalism and socialism. Socialism is when government owns business rather than just controlling it. That would lead me to infer that we are not socialist but instead fascist

Exactly, Holmes. Both parties are fascist.

Crony capitalism is as it's name suggests, capitalists creating favorable conditions for profit generation. It has nothing in common with socialism or fascism, two distinctly different ideologies, and concepts which you have clearly shown to be ignorant of.

Sorry, guy, you don't get to make up your own definition for words

Redefining words seems to be your talent. I'm using historical definitions for words, you are redefining them to suit your agenda.

XXVII. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE MARKET I. The Idea of a Third System P RIVATE ownership of the means of production (market economy or capitalism) and public ownership of the means of production (socialism or communism or "planning") can be neatly distinguished. Each of these two systems of society's econonlic organization is open to a precise and unambiguous description and definition. They can never be confounded with one another; they cannot be mixid or combined; no gradual transition leads from one of thcm to the other; their obversion is contradictory. With regard to the same factors of production there can only exist private control or public control. If in the frame of a system of social cooperation only some means of production are subject to public ownership while the rest are controlled by privatc individuals, this does not make for a mixed system combining socialism and private ownership. The system remains a market society, provided the socialized sector does not become entirely separated from the non-socialized sector and Iead a strictly autarkic existence. (In this latter case there are two systems independently coexisting side by side-a capitalist and a socialist.) Publicly owned enterprises, operating within a system in which there are privatcly owned enterprises and a market, and socialized countries, exchanging goods and services with nonsocialist countries, are integrated into a system of market economy. They are subject to the law of the market and have the opportunity of resorting to economic cal~ulation.~

– Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

See, this would be another example of your difficulty with definitions. You seem to think that "someone's opinion" is the same as a "definition".

I don't recall Ludwig von Mises ever writing a dictionary, so I'm at a loss to figure out why his opinion of what something is should have any meaning to me.

 

[CowboyTed]

I am for civilization!!!! Civilization has government!


Taxes to build infrastructure, invest in science and r&d, and give our children education!!!! Anyone that is against these are like the Taliban.

Dear God, I've heard better political analysis from my 1st grader. "Civilization has government! Therefore, all government is WONDERFUL! Now where's my welfare check?!"

Just name a Civilization without a government.

 

[CowboyTed]

Fascism/state capitalism/crony capitalism are when industry is in private hands but controlled by government. Socialism is when government just owns them. I don't conflate them, their definitions do. If your title is on your car, but it's parked in your neighbor's driveway and he has the keys, who really owns the car?

Well, in capitalism, they don't have influence over government policy just like consumers and other market players don't. When they do, it's socialism. Bribing corrupt government to harm their competitors and tilt the field is socialism.

What capitalists do have from government are law enforcement to investigate crimes, civil and criminal courts, police, the military. They can only win however by beating their competitors in the marketplace

Well then, which is it?
Business owning government is not the definition of socialism. It is capitalism run amok.

The people own government, ideally. And people own businesses, too, also ideally. And government is supposed to work for the good of the people, which would include those who own businesses.

This logic thing is clearly not your strong suit.

Looks like we got an Einstein.

We are aiming for a republic for all the people.

The Government is answerable to the people not business. Therefore Government bosses are the people.

Not all the people are Business owners but show be equally represented.

So are the government listening to all groups in society equally or are they taking money from one group for more access?
Tin pot dictatorship in africa this would be call a bribe.

 

[ElmerMudd]

It's kind of hard to get offended by the label anymore when you've got thousands of enthusiastic Democrats lining up to hear Bernie Sanders' populist Scandinavian style welfare state plan for our nation. The man is, after all, the only self admitted Socialist elected to the U.S. Senate and he is edging closer and closer to toppling Hillary each day.

The Republican party also supports many socialist reforms to our government. The Democrats support more socialist reforms but if you support a socialist refor then you are a socialist all Americans are a little socialist.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Social-democracy is good and works all over the world. We use some socialism through police, military, r&d investment and ssi. Nothing is wrong with it. wake the **** up?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are really only two possible systems: private control or government control. Fascism and socialism are both forms of government control. That's why they both fail.

I wouldn't say that, your government system is still in place and doing nicely (if you're a crony capitalist that is). You think it's going to fail soon?

It's doing nicely? The government owes $200 trillion, economic growth is on the decline, and unemployment is a chronic state of affairs. How is that "doing nicely?"

Leftists like that shit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's doing nicely? The government owes $200 trillion, economic growth is on the decline, and unemployment is a chronic state of affairs. How is that "doing nicely?"

Eh no, you, as a taxpayer owe $200 trillion (if that's correct). The government itself is doing fine as a quick google easily proves.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ers-of-congress-are-mostly-millionaires/?_r=0

You make a distinction without a difference. The government owes, therefore we owe it collectively.

I think it's very telling that Jantje thinks a) that government and the people are completely separate entities, and b) that government can spend the non-existent money, pass the debt on to the people, and then go on about its merry way, "doing fine".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well if you need government to do the job ... I am not going to argue with that.
I mean why argue with Santa Clause ... Just wait by the fireplace for Ole St. Nick to come rolling down the chimney with a bag of toys for all the good little boys and girls in the world.

But ... That isn't what I posted ... And doesn't address "their goals" (in reference to Capitalism).
My point is whether or not Capitalism can accomplish "their goals" and how it would be more productive and efficient if and when Capitalists adjust "their goals" to meet greater needs.

It is really kind of funny when people ***** about Capitalists ... Because of what they can actually accomplish.



.

We're going around in a circle, what do capitalists actually accomplish?

Probably nothing that would interest you, since it doesn't involve a huge nanny government with millions of nipples for your ilk to feed at.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Most libraries and college book stores have booklets, defining, explaining, giving examples and histories of the various ideologies.

Most of it is Marxist propaganda.

Even this guy was in on the global conspiracy. Obviously finger boy is more knowledgeable than this fella.

monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

By the way, the guy wrote this back in 1949. That kind of blows away the "modern colleges" stupidity.

There used to be some conservatives in the social sciences prior to the 1960s. Now there are none.

As an economist, Einstein made a great physicist.

Leftists believe if someone is famous or has a degree in something, that makes them brilliant in EVERYTHING. It never seems to occur to them that such people are just as capable of having their heads up their sphincters as everyone else is.

 

[Tehon]

There's no such thing as "state capitalism", Brain Trust. By definition - you know, those things you don't believe words have - such a thing is impossible, an oxymoron (no, that's not an insult you hurl at someone you don't like. Look it up).

But it has a definition in the dictionary......or don't you believe in those things.
state capitalism | an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control

 

[regent]

America's governments were fourteen in number when the Constitution was ratified and all those 13 state governments probably had some form of socialism including the national government. Could a government be operated without socialism. For example, is the Congress of the United States a form of socialism? Americans have generally been fearful of the word socialism because Marx used one form of the many types to ready a nation for communism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's no such thing as "state capitalism", Brain Trust. By definition - you know, those things you don't believe words have - such a thing is impossible, an oxymoron (no, that's not an insult you hurl at someone you don't like. Look it up).

But it has a definition in the dictionary......or don't you believe in those things.
state capitalism | an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control

I believe in dictionaries, but I also believe in logic. 1) The definition - also in the dictionary - of capitalism negates state ownership/control of the means of production. If you have one, you do not have the other. 2) The word "twerk" also appears in the dictionary. Basically, that just means dimwits have begun using a term so commonly that Merriam-Webster is required to explain to other people what the hell you droolers are talking about.

Or to put it another way, "jumbo shrimp" has a definition, but it's still an oxymoron.

"State capitalism" is a euphemism dipshits like you made up to say "socialism" while denying that you're saying it. No more, no less, no respect.

Are we clear now, or should I draw you a picture? I think my 1st grader has some Crayolas that might interest you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

America's governments were fourteen in number when the Constitution was ratified and all those 13 state governments probably had some form of socialism including the national government. Could a government be operated without socialism. For example, is the Congress of the United States a form of socialism? Americans have generally been fearful of the word socialism because Marx used one form of the many types to ready a nation for communism.

Learn what socialism is. Contrary to your obvious opinion, it does not mean "any and all government activity".