Cherry-picking examples of socialist governments failing does not prove the concept is flawed

[Edgetho]

we have a better understanding of socialism, now. it starts with a social contract, like a Constitution.

Who will enforce that contract? scumbags like you? right

What if I don't want to be a socialist? Then what?

Re-education camps? Banishment? Shunning?

Typical. The mantra of socialist scum. When it fails, like it has EVERY time it's ever been tried, they say, "Don't worry, we'll get it right this time!"

And we get another million or more dead people.

Here's a food line in Venezuela. Which was one of the wealthiest Countries in South America until socialist got its diseased teeth into it.

dimocraps are the scum of the Earth

 

[danielpalos]

we have a better understanding of socialism, now. it starts with a social contract, like a Constitution.

Who will enforce that contract? scumbags like you? right

What if I don't want to be a socialist? Then what?

Re-education camps? Banishment? Shunning?

Typical. The mantra of socialist scum. When it fails, like it has EVERY time it's ever been tried, they say, "Don't worry, we'll get it right this time!"

And we get another million or more dead people.

Here's a food line in Venezuela. Which was one of the wealthiest Countries in South America until socialist got its diseased teeth into it.

dimocraps are the scum of the Earth

What a difference a social Constitution makes.

we know, Capital never cares.

 

[OODA_Loop]

People are mammals.

Nowhere in nature do mammals provide for other mammals.

Elemental.

LOL





Clearly, the republican party ought to be represented by the ostrich and not the elephant.

That is not providing for

 

[Pete7469]

How about the fact there are no socialist governments working?

Fucking moron.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

People are mammals.

Nowhere in nature do mammals provide for other mammals.

Elemental.

LOL





Clearly, the republican party ought to be represented by the ostrich and not the elephant.

That is not providing for

Wow, anyone with an average, or even lower level of intelligence, would disagree with you. Your response is not an example of willful ignorance, it's either a lie or you are truly dumb.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How about the fact there are no socialist governments working?

Fucking moron.

.

Your signature is not in standard English, allow me to correct your most appropriate nom de plume: Fucking Moron.

 

[danielpalos]

How about the fact there are no socialist governments working?

Fucking moron.

.

Any functioning Government is a form of socialism.

There are no True AnCaps. And, China has already built, entire cities for AnCappers to simply purchase, "off the shelf". Yet, no market for True Capitalism, exists Anywhere on the Planet.

Socialism proves its social worth, every single day.

 

[Indeependent]

What’s your argument?
Republicans are evil!

Democrats need the poor.
Extremes will always exists and will always need to be tempered.

The right wing complains about socialism. They Are the Problem, not socialism. Socialism merely requires social morals for free not capital morals for a market friendly price.

I presume you don’t own a house.

I presume You don't care about Morals.

You are making the sweeping claim that successful people are evil.
I presume you are not successful.

I am claiming capitalism requires capital morals for a market friendly price, not social morals for free.

What do you mean by "successful", on this plane of existence in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the incorrigibles. Not much to "brag about".

“Requires”
Ethics vs Morals.
Ethics are defined per profession, not universal.
I do not find Liberals to be any more ethical than Conservatives.
If you do, you are blind.

 

[Indeependent]

You have become a pin ball machine in tilt mode.
The Left Wing is bat shit crazy and I’ve never been yelled at by a Right Winger; they just walk away.

You have no argument, only ad hominems. Thanks for playing.

What’s your argument?
Republicans are evil!

Democrats need the poor.
Extremes will always exists and will always need to be tempered.

The right wing complains about socialism. They Are the Problem, not socialism. Socialism merely requires social morals for free not capital morals for a market friendly price.

You can not legislate morals never can, never will... That's why socialism only works on paper not in the real world .



.

The right simply doesn't care, about even Ten simple non-legislated Commandments, from a God. How, immoral is that.

Most Leftists are atheists.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I am amazed that people living in America openly support the failed idiology of socialism.

For socialism to work, human nature must be suppressed. That is impossible.

We have clear examples all the way back to Plymoth and William Bradford.

Humans are :

• Lazy
• Envious
• Vain
• Greedy
• Jealous
• Spiteful
• Fearful
• Hateful
• Etc

The naive socialist believes government can suppress that nature.

The capitalist harnesses that nature and puts it to use.

Socialism will always fail because it sucks and is stupid.

The OP needs to get the fuck out and go live where socialism works (wherever that is).

You can't show any economy that is capitalist. Capitalism is Third World. All First World economies are Socialist and have Mixed Market economies, to Prove it.

The right wing simply has no clue of economics.

You mean nations where Drug Lords take charge?
There is no such thing as an unregulated nation, even if some of that regulation is deleterious to much of the population.

under True Capitalism, capital matters not morals or morality.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

I agree.
Now list for us nations that are 100% Capitalist.
Every nation has it’s problems.

The right wing complains about socialism. They Are the Problem, not socialism. Socialism merely requires social morals for free not capital morals for a market friendly price.

/----/ " Socialism merely requires social morals for free not capital morals for a market friendly price."

 

[Cellblock2429]

Capitalism’s greatest inherent flaw is that as decades pass, widening income disparity will inevitably get worse. The rich become richer, and the poor become more poor. The middle class shrinks. The only way to prevent this is with government intervention, i.e. socialism. Capitalism of course isn’t a failure - the US would not be the juggernaut it is now if it weren’t for a private market. However, that does not mean the quality of life for most won’t get worse over time.

Socialism is a very broad term. To simplify the definition, it is a concept that involves the people funding (tax revenue) and owning (utilizing) government services. This is why every nation on earth - including the US - has a socialist backbone. Any service the government provides that’s funded by tax revenue and is utilized by the people is socialism.

The definition of socialism has nothing to do with corrupt leadership in a given government. Venezuela is failing because of the country’s leadership. Socialism’s core definition has nothing to do with a dictatorship government.

Nordic countries are social democratic countries. This means more services apply the the well being of the population. These people have the best quality of life according to international polling. That is something that is diminishing in America. However, that doesn’t mean the concept is the antithesis of capitalism. Socialism can be the framework of a capitalist system. Socialism is just needed to make sure a capitalistic system provides benefit to the well being of the population as a whole.

/——/ If socialized countries had to pay for their own defense 100% then they would have to roll back the socialist giveaways. You can’t have both.

tax cuts for the Rich and cuts to social services for the poor?

/----/ If the food stamp roles are decreasing what's wrong with reducing the budget? Do you maintain your grocery budget even though you cut back on the size of your meals or the kids move out of the house?
Food stamp rolls plummet in states that restore work requirements ...
www.foxnews.com/.../food-stamp-rolls-plummet-in-states-that-restore-work-requirement...
Jul 4, 2017 - After the food stamp rolls swelled for years under the Obama administration, fresh figures show a dramatic reduction in states that recently have moved to restore work requirements. States were allowed to waive those rules for able-bodied adults thanks to the 2009 economic ...

 

[Cellblock2429]

I am amazed that people living in America openly support the failed idiology of socialism.

For socialism to work, human nature must be suppressed. That is impossible.

We have clear examples all the way back to Plymoth and William Bradford.

Humans are :

• Lazy
• Envious
• Vain
• Greedy
• Jealous
• Spiteful
• Fearful
• Hateful
• Etc

The naive socialist believes government can suppress that nature.

The capitalist harnesses that nature and puts it to use.

Socialism will always fail because it sucks and is stupid.

The OP needs to get the fuck out and go live where socialism works (wherever that is).

You can't show any economy that is capitalist. Capitalism is Third World. All First World economies are Socialist and have Mixed Market economies, to Prove it.

The right wing simply has no clue of economics.

You mean nations where Drug Lords take charge?
There is no such thing as an unregulated nation, even if some of that regulation is deleterious to much of the population.

under True Capitalism, capital matters not morals or morality.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

/----/ It's the complete opposite, Commie.
Definition of Capitalism
Because people often use the term "Capitalism" loosely, "Laissez Faire Capitalism" is sometimes used to describe a true Capitalist system. But this phrase is redundant.

It is important to define "Capitalism" correctly because a proper definition is a prerequisite to a proper defense. Capitalism is the only moral political system because it is the only system dedicated to the protection of rights, which is a requirement for human survival and flourishing. This is the only proper role of a government. Capitalism should be defended vigorously on a moral basis, not an economic or utilitarian basis.

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing complains about socialism. They Are the Problem, not socialism. Socialism merely requires social morals for free not capital morals for a market friendly price.

I presume you don’t own a house.

I presume You don't care about Morals.

You are making the sweeping claim that successful people are evil.
I presume you are not successful.

I am claiming capitalism requires capital morals for a market friendly price, not social morals for free.

What do you mean by "successful", on this plane of existence in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the incorrigibles. Not much to "brag about".

“Requires”
Ethics vs Morals.
Ethics are defined per profession, not universal.
I do not find Liberals to be any more ethical than Conservatives.
If you do, you are blind.

Yet, right wing, laity Bakers, allege morals.

 

[danielpalos]

You have no argument, only ad hominems. Thanks for playing.

What’s your argument?
Republicans are evil!

Democrats need the poor.
Extremes will always exists and will always need to be tempered.

The right wing complains about socialism. They Are the Problem, not socialism. Socialism merely requires social morals for free not capital morals for a market friendly price.

You can not legislate morals never can, never will... That's why socialism only works on paper not in the real world .



.

The right simply doesn't care, about even Ten simple non-legislated Commandments, from a God. How, immoral is that.

Most Leftists are atheists.

Manna from the public sector whenever we cannot muster enough morals for any God?

 

[Indeependent]

What’s your argument?
Republicans are evil!

Democrats need the poor.
Extremes will always exists and will always need to be tempered.

The right wing complains about socialism. They Are the Problem, not socialism. Socialism merely requires social morals for free not capital morals for a market friendly price.

You can not legislate morals never can, never will... That's why socialism only works on paper not in the real world .



.

The right simply doesn't care, about even Ten simple non-legislated Commandments, from a God. How, immoral is that.

Most Leftists are atheists.

Manna from the public sector whenever we cannot muster enough morals for any God?

Example:
Protest the Drug Lords forcing people to run to thr US.
Don’t protest the US.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I presume you don’t own a house.

I presume You don't care about Morals.

You are making the sweeping claim that successful people are evil.
I presume you are not successful.

I am claiming capitalism requires capital morals for a market friendly price, not social morals for free.

What do you mean by "successful", on this plane of existence in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the incorrigibles. Not much to "brag about".

“Requires”
Ethics vs Morals.
Ethics are defined per profession, not universal.
I do not find Liberals to be any more ethical than Conservatives.
If you do, you are blind.

Yet, right wing, laity Bakers, allege morals.

/-------/ "Yet, right wing, laity Bakers, allege morals."
Ebonics?

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism’s greatest inherent flaw is that as decades pass, widening income disparity will inevitably get worse. The rich become richer, and the poor become more poor. The middle class shrinks. The only way to prevent this is with government intervention, i.e. socialism. Capitalism of course isn’t a failure - the US would not be the juggernaut it is now if it weren’t for a private market. However, that does not mean the quality of life for most won’t get worse over time.

Socialism is a very broad term. To simplify the definition, it is a concept that involves the people funding (tax revenue) and owning (utilizing) government services. This is why every nation on earth - including the US - has a socialist backbone. Any service the government provides that’s funded by tax revenue and is utilized by the people is socialism.

The definition of socialism has nothing to do with corrupt leadership in a given government. Venezuela is failing because of the country’s leadership. Socialism’s core definition has nothing to do with a dictatorship government.

Nordic countries are social democratic countries. This means more services apply the the well being of the population. These people have the best quality of life according to international polling. That is something that is diminishing in America. However, that doesn’t mean the concept is the antithesis of capitalism. Socialism can be the framework of a capitalist system. Socialism is just needed to make sure a capitalistic system provides benefit to the well being of the population as a whole.

/——/ If socialized countries had to pay for their own defense 100% then they would have to roll back the socialist giveaways. You can’t have both.

tax cuts for the Rich and cuts to social services for the poor?

/----/ If the food stamp roles are decreasing what's wrong with reducing the budget? Do you maintain your grocery budget even though you cut back on the size of your meals or the kids move out of the house?
Food stamp rolls plummet in states that restore work requirements ...
www.foxnews.com/.../food-stamp-rolls-plummet-in-states-that-restore-work-requirement...
Jul 4, 2017 - After the food stamp rolls swelled for years under the Obama administration, fresh figures show a dramatic reduction in states that recently have moved to restore work requirements. States were allowed to waive those rules for able-bodied adults thanks to the 2009 economic ...

that is not what the right wing advocates. they only advocate tax cuts for the rich even though we are running massive deficits, and cuts to social services for the poor. any leftover general welfare funds should be used to fix potholes.

 

[Cellblock2429]

What’s your argument?
Republicans are evil!

Democrats need the poor.
Extremes will always exists and will always need to be tempered.

The right wing complains about socialism. They Are the Problem, not socialism. Socialism merely requires social morals for free not capital morals for a market friendly price.

You can not legislate morals never can, never will... That's why socialism only works on paper not in the real world .



.

The right simply doesn't care, about even Ten simple non-legislated Commandments, from a God. How, immoral is that.

Most Leftists are atheists.

Manna from the public sector whenever we cannot muster enough morals for any God?

/-----/ "Manna from the public sector whenever we cannot muster enough morals for any God?"
Gibberish.

 

[danielpalos]

I am amazed that people living in America openly support the failed idiology of socialism.

For socialism to work, human nature must be suppressed. That is impossible.

We have clear examples all the way back to Plymoth and William Bradford.

Humans are :

• Lazy
• Envious
• Vain
• Greedy
• Jealous
• Spiteful
• Fearful
• Hateful
• Etc

The naive socialist believes government can suppress that nature.

The capitalist harnesses that nature and puts it to use.

Socialism will always fail because it sucks and is stupid.

The OP needs to get the fuck out and go live where socialism works (wherever that is).

You can't show any economy that is capitalist. Capitalism is Third World. All First World economies are Socialist and have Mixed Market economies, to Prove it.

The right wing simply has no clue of economics.

You mean nations where Drug Lords take charge?
There is no such thing as an unregulated nation, even if some of that regulation is deleterious to much of the population.

under True Capitalism, capital matters not morals or morality.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

/----/ It's the complete opposite, Commie.
Definition of Capitalism
Because people often use the term "Capitalism" loosely, "Laissez Faire Capitalism" is sometimes used to describe a true Capitalist system. But this phrase is redundant.

It is important to define "Capitalism" correctly because a proper definition is a prerequisite to a proper defense. Capitalism is the only moral political system because it is the only system dedicated to the protection of rights, which is a requirement for human survival and flourishing. This is the only proper role of a government. Capitalism should be defended vigorously on a moral basis, not an economic or utilitarian basis.

Capitalism doesn't care about rights, only capital. We know better, in modern times.

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing complains about socialism. They Are the Problem, not socialism. Socialism merely requires social morals for free not capital morals for a market friendly price.

You can not legislate morals never can, never will... That's why socialism only works on paper not in the real world .



.

The right simply doesn't care, about even Ten simple non-legislated Commandments, from a God. How, immoral is that.

Most Leftists are atheists.

Manna from the public sector whenever we cannot muster enough morals for any God?

Example:
Protest the Drug Lords forcing people to run to thr US.
Don’t protest the US.

it is our drug war. why are we Losing money on that public policy and not Making money.

Good capitalists, generate revenue at every opportunity.