Calling It a New Name Won't Make Socialism Work

[Rustic]

I disagree.

All socialism needs is rebranding.

I think that renaming it "Happy Unicorn Fantasy Socioeconomic System" will make people more readily accept socialism and make it work this time.

Yep, But I have a simpler name… “Someone else pay for my shit” ...

Do you consider taxation as socialism?

I consider all forms of socialism to be “someone else pays for my shit”

 

[Slade3200]

I disagree.

All socialism needs is rebranding.

I think that renaming it "Happy Unicorn Fantasy Socioeconomic System" will make people more readily accept socialism and make it work this time.

Yep, But I have a simpler name… “Someone else pay for my shit” ...

Do you consider taxation as socialism?

I consider all forms of socialism to be “someone else pays for my shit”

So is that a yes to taxation? You think that is socialism?

 

[Rustic]

I disagree.

All socialism needs is rebranding.

I think that renaming it "Happy Unicorn Fantasy Socioeconomic System" will make people more readily accept socialism and make it work this time.

Yep, But I have a simpler name… “Someone else pay for my shit” ...

Yes and that simpler name would be wrong. If everybody pays more taxes then it wouldn't be someone else now would it?

Socialism by definition is someone else will pick up the tab

 

[Confounding]

I wish Republicans could get their shit straight.

Just for the record, are the Nordic countries socialist in your opinion, or no?

It depends which definition you are using. Some say social democracy belongs under socialism, some not. I don't think there is a right answer to the question as it entirely depends on the context you are discussing in.

So instead of your stupid word game, just observe the distinction that was made. Free markets create about 100% of the wealth in those countries. They are a social democracy, not a hard socialists Venezuela. Above all their population has an IQ of 100, while Venezuela... 80.

It's not a word game. Understanding what people actually mean when they say something is important. I'm glad you recognize that the Nordic countries are not socialist. Neither is Bernie Sanders. He has never in his life advocated for something the Nordic countries are not doing. He doesn't want to destroy capitalism.

 

[Slade3200]

I disagree.

All socialism needs is rebranding.

I think that renaming it "Happy Unicorn Fantasy Socioeconomic System" will make people more readily accept socialism and make it work this time.

Yep, But I have a simpler name… “Someone else pay for my shit” ...

Yes and that simpler name would be wrong. If everybody pays more taxes then it wouldn't be someone else now would it?

Socialism by definition is someone else will pick up the tab

That’s not the definition of socialism

 

[Rustic]

I disagree.

All socialism needs is rebranding.

I think that renaming it "Happy Unicorn Fantasy Socioeconomic System" will make people more readily accept socialism and make it work this time.

Yep, But I have a simpler name… “Someone else pay for my shit” ...

Do you consider taxation as socialism?

I consider all forms of socialism to be “someone else pays for my shit”

So is that a yes to taxation? You think that is socialism?

The collective controls the individual… That is the definition of socialism

 

[Mac1958]

So we're still pretending the Democrats are pushing 100%, full-blown socialism, in which private property is eliminated and government owns all means of production and distribution.

Okay, sure, why not.
.

True. But...

Are they proposing more regulation of various industries and markets rather than less? Yes.
Are they proposing higher corporate taxes? Yes.

Regulations influence or dictate how businesses run and taxes obviously take operating expenses away from them. They are very transparent about wanting more influence on how commerce is done in the U.S., not less. Pair that with their transparent desire for giant government funded programs at extremely high costs and it's very hard to take them at their word.

"More" of this or that? Yes, absolutely.

What is continually lost (or ignored) in this discussion (and others), though, is the fact this stuff lies along a continuum. Any country is going to have a degree of socialism in it, the question is how much. It's not "socialist or not socialist".
.

 

[Rustic]

I disagree.

All socialism needs is rebranding.

I think that renaming it "Happy Unicorn Fantasy Socioeconomic System" will make people more readily accept socialism and make it work this time.

Yep, But I have a simpler name… “Someone else pay for my shit” ...

Yes and that simpler name would be wrong. If everybody pays more taxes then it wouldn't be someone else now would it?

Socialism by definition is someone else will pick up the tab

That’s not the definition of socialism

Yes, socialism is a utopia…

 

[forkup]

I disagree.

All socialism needs is rebranding.

I think that renaming it "Happy Unicorn Fantasy Socioeconomic System" will make people more readily accept socialism and make it work this time.

Yep, But I have a simpler name… “Someone else pay for my shit” ...

Yes and that simpler name would be wrong. If everybody pays more taxes then it wouldn't be someone else now would it?

Socialism by definition is someone else will pick up the tab

No, socialism is by definition is everybody contributes to the system. Those who can afford more pay more, but everyone contributes. I'm European, my wife is American care to compare standard of living between middle class people?

 

[Confounding]

I wish Republicans could get their shit straight.

Just for the record, are the Nordic countries socialist in your opinion, or no?

No. They never have been. They're capitalist economies with high taxes to fund large entitlement programs, and they're scaling back on those because *gasp* they're proving to be unsustainable.

Scaling back?
You wouldnt happen to have a link for that, would ya?

Nope. I've heard some talking heads mention it. It may have been "talking about" or something like that.

They may fluctuate a bit, but they have a different focus than we do. Their welfare systems aren't going away. They will continue to put great effort into helping individuals that live there.

 

[Rustic]

I disagree.

All socialism needs is rebranding.

I think that renaming it "Happy Unicorn Fantasy Socioeconomic System" will make people more readily accept socialism and make it work this time.

Yep, But I have a simpler name… “Someone else pay for my shit” ...

Yes and that simpler name would be wrong. If everybody pays more taxes then it wouldn't be someone else now would it?

Socialism by definition is someone else will pick up the tab

No, socialism is by definition is everybody contributes to the system. Those who can afford more pay more, but everyone contributes. I'm European, my wife is American care to compare standard of living between middle class people?

See you are not understanding the problem, socialism the way you define it is absolutely unacceptable to the freedom loving individual. That is bullshit that better off people have to take care of the worst off people… They should do it voluntarily but never be forced into that world a fucking piss and shit.

 

[Weatherman2020]

But it’s never been implemented properly before – this time around. I’m sure top people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will succeed where Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Maduro, etc. have failed.


SORRY, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS — YOU’RE STILL PUSHING POISON.

I happen to know a little something about the transfer of private industry to government control. My grandmother’s father had his bakery seized in the Soviet city of Gomel. He was sent to a gulag, where he then died.

Oh, that’s crazy, Democratic Socialists would respond. No one is planning to seize bakeries. And no one will be sent to prison for owning a business.

No? What if those who own companies in industries that “necessitate some form of state ownership” don’t want to give them up willingly? What happens when the state runs out of money from the industries seized and needs more?

It’s baffling how we can still be considering centralized control of industries when that has never worked anywhere. And how socialism lovers so easily dismiss the underlying foundation in countries that have veered toward some form of that system: capitalism. Countries such as Norway, for example, are helped by a large abundance of natural resources and an essentially capitalist system supporting the welfare state.

On the other hand, nations where socialism continues to wreak havoc and spur poverty, disease and crime, like Venezuela, don’t have much support from capitalism. Fact is, “socialism” only works when it’s paid for by capitalism.

* * * * * * * *

In the fall of 1959, Nikita Khrushchev gave a series of speeches here. In one, he said, “We are catching up with you in economic progress, and the time is not far distant when we will move into the lead.” In Russia, that prompted folks to joke: “When we finally catch up to America, can I get off?”

Do you understand the difference between democratic socialism and socialism or do you think they are the same thing?

Venezuela shows what adding "Democratic" accomplishes.

 

[forkup]

I disagree.

All socialism needs is rebranding.

I think that renaming it "Happy Unicorn Fantasy Socioeconomic System" will make people more readily accept socialism and make it work this time.

Yep, But I have a simpler name… “Someone else pay for my shit” ...

Do you consider taxation as socialism?

I consider all forms of socialism to be “someone else pays for my shit”

So is that a yes to taxation? You think that is socialism?

The collective controls the individual… That is the definition of socialism

You can't just redefine a word because you don't want to argue the point. I live in an European country. What freedom you imagine you have that I don't?

 

[Slade3200]

I disagree.

All socialism needs is rebranding.

I think that renaming it "Happy Unicorn Fantasy Socioeconomic System" will make people more readily accept socialism and make it work this time.

Yep, But I have a simpler name… “Someone else pay for my shit” ...

Do you consider taxation as socialism?

I consider all forms of socialism to be “someone else pays for my shit”

So is that a yes to taxation? You think that is socialism?

The collective controls the individual… That is the definition of socialism

Wrong again. Socialism is when the community owns or regulates the means of production, distribution, and exchange

 

[Rustic]

Yep, But I have a simpler name… “Someone else pay for my shit” ...

Do you consider taxation as socialism?

I consider all forms of socialism to be “someone else pays for my shit”

So is that a yes to taxation? You think that is socialism?

The collective controls the individual… That is the definition of socialism

You can't just redefine a word because you don't want to argue the point. I live in an European country. What freedom you imagine you have that I don't?

You’re forced into a collective with socialism whether you want to or not… Fuck the collective

 

[Rustic]

Yep, But I have a simpler name… “Someone else pay for my shit” ...

Do you consider taxation as socialism?

I consider all forms of socialism to be “someone else pays for my shit”

So is that a yes to taxation? You think that is socialism?

The collective controls the individual… That is the definition of socialism

Wrong again. Socialism is when the community owns or regulates the means of production, distribution, and exchange

I’ll simplify it for you then... the collective tells you what to do and you better do it…

 

[Some Guy]

So we're still pretending the Democrats are pushing 100%, full-blown socialism, in which private property is eliminated and government owns all means of production and distribution.

Okay, sure, why not.
.

True. But...

Are they proposing more regulation of various industries and markets rather than less? Yes.
Are they proposing higher corporate taxes? Yes.

Regulations influence or dictate how businesses run and taxes obviously take operating expenses away from them. They are very transparent about wanting more influence on how commerce is done in the U.S., not less. Pair that with their transparent desire for giant government funded programs at extremely high costs and it's very hard to take them at their word.

Why not be honest and call it what it is, or don't call it what it's not? Higher taxes and social programs is not socialism.

"Socialism" is just a concept of socializing resources. It can be applied to anything where there's more than one person involved. If you go out to lunch with 9 colleagues and just say "split the check evenly 10 ways" regardless of what was ordered by each person, then that's socialism of the cost of the lunch. To that end, i would agree that people on the right use the term like a boogeyman when it's convenient for them to. They're referring to economic socialism but calling it just "socialism."

At that point, i'd just refer you to the above. I don't trust people who call themselves "democratic socialists" when they say they don't want to socialize America's economy. They rarely have seen regulations they don't like and tend to think that every problem can be solved by taxing people more and creating a government program for it. As said above, that's further government control of the economy. The more powerful and intrusive government gets, the more powerful and intrusive the government will want to get.

 

[Confounding]

But it’s never been implemented properly before – this time around. I’m sure top people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will succeed where Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Maduro, etc. have failed.


SORRY, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS — YOU’RE STILL PUSHING POISON.

I happen to know a little something about the transfer of private industry to government control. My grandmother’s father had his bakery seized in the Soviet city of Gomel. He was sent to a gulag, where he then died.

Oh, that’s crazy, Democratic Socialists would respond. No one is planning to seize bakeries. And no one will be sent to prison for owning a business.

No? What if those who own companies in industries that “necessitate some form of state ownership” don’t want to give them up willingly? What happens when the state runs out of money from the industries seized and needs more?

It’s baffling how we can still be considering centralized control of industries when that has never worked anywhere. And how socialism lovers so easily dismiss the underlying foundation in countries that have veered toward some form of that system: capitalism. Countries such as Norway, for example, are helped by a large abundance of natural resources and an essentially capitalist system supporting the welfare state.

On the other hand, nations where socialism continues to wreak havoc and spur poverty, disease and crime, like Venezuela, don’t have much support from capitalism. Fact is, “socialism” only works when it’s paid for by capitalism.

* * * * * * * *

In the fall of 1959, Nikita Khrushchev gave a series of speeches here. In one, he said, “We are catching up with you in economic progress, and the time is not far distant when we will move into the lead.” In Russia, that prompted folks to joke: “When we finally catch up to America, can I get off?”

Do you understand the difference between democratic socialism and socialism or do you think they are the same thing?

Venezuela shows what adding "Democratic" accomplishes.

The Nordic countries are nothing like Venezuela. Bernie and his followers do not want us to be like Venezuela. Bernie has never advocated for anything the Nordic countries are not already doing.

 

[Rustic]

So we're still pretending the Democrats are pushing 100%, full-blown socialism, in which private property is eliminated and government owns all means of production and distribution.

Okay, sure, why not.
.

True. But...

Are they proposing more regulation of various industries and markets rather than less? Yes.
Are they proposing higher corporate taxes? Yes.

Regulations influence or dictate how businesses run and taxes obviously take operating expenses away from them. They are very transparent about wanting more influence on how commerce is done in the U.S., not less. Pair that with their transparent desire for giant government funded programs at extremely high costs and it's very hard to take them at their word.

Why not be honest and call it what it is, or don't call it what it's not? Higher taxes and social programs is not socialism.

"Socialism" is just a concept of socializing resources. It can be applied to anything where there's more than one person involved. If you go out to lunch with 9 colleagues and just say "split the check evenly 10 ways" regardless of what was ordered by each person, then that's socialism of the cost of the lunch. To that end, i would agree that people on the right use the term like a boogeyman when it's convenient for them to. They're referring to economic socialism but calling it just "socialism."

At that point, i'd just refer you to the above. I don't trust people who call themselves "democratic socialists" when they say they don't want to socialize America's economy. They rarely have seen regulations they don't like and tend to think that every problem can be solved by taxing people more and creating a government program for it. As said above, that's further government control of the economy. The more powerful and intrusive government gets, the more powerful and intrusive the government will want to get.

...And there is no such thing as any sort of freedom and individuality in a socialist society

 

[Slade3200]

But it’s never been implemented properly before – this time around. I’m sure top people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will succeed where Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Maduro, etc. have failed.


SORRY, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS — YOU’RE STILL PUSHING POISON.

I happen to know a little something about the transfer of private industry to government control. My grandmother’s father had his bakery seized in the Soviet city of Gomel. He was sent to a gulag, where he then died.

Oh, that’s crazy, Democratic Socialists would respond. No one is planning to seize bakeries. And no one will be sent to prison for owning a business.

No? What if those who own companies in industries that “necessitate some form of state ownership” don’t want to give them up willingly? What happens when the state runs out of money from the industries seized and needs more?

It’s baffling how we can still be considering centralized control of industries when that has never worked anywhere. And how socialism lovers so easily dismiss the underlying foundation in countries that have veered toward some form of that system: capitalism. Countries such as Norway, for example, are helped by a large abundance of natural resources and an essentially capitalist system supporting the welfare state.

On the other hand, nations where socialism continues to wreak havoc and spur poverty, disease and crime, like Venezuela, don’t have much support from capitalism. Fact is, “socialism” only works when it’s paid for by capitalism.

* * * * * * * *

In the fall of 1959, Nikita Khrushchev gave a series of speeches here. In one, he said, “We are catching up with you in economic progress, and the time is not far distant when we will move into the lead.” In Russia, that prompted folks to joke: “When we finally catch up to America, can I get off?”

Do you understand the difference between democratic socialism and socialism or do you think they are the same thing?

Venezuela shows what adding "Democratic" accomplishes.

Venezuela is a clusterfuck. I don’t know anybody who wants the USA to become
Venezuela. It’s a lazy argument and a false comparison