Donald Jr's New Girlfriend Is A First Generation American?? Who Knew...

[Not2BSubjugated]

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist. But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree.

Democratic socialist to be precise and my point above, to which you oddly gave a thumbs up, was that Marx and others "shit all over the proper usage of that term" to varying degrees, as do you by insisting upon a strict "means of production" definition. Socialism is simply the recognition that strict capitalist, private owner, one-man-island individualism has never worked and never will. Some sharing of things is required and healthy. Our true enemy is large private corporations claiming both the rights of an individual and those of a collective to shield (in many ways) all those hiding behind, especially the controlling owners, from being held individually liable or responsible.

There was nothing odd about my thumbs up, little buddy.

That quote that you're now trying to redefine as a simple recognition that strict capitalism will never work, actually had BOLDED the portion of the sentence for which I clicked thanks and gave a hearty chuckle at your response. "They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism based on the shared ownership of resources." I didn't put that in bold. Your post had that in bold.

Even the very first guy who coined the term included collective ownership in his definition, not to mention the 19th century academics that fleshed it out as an actual political/economic system.

And yeah, Democratic Socialist to be precise, but as I've pointed out several times now in this thread, my point was only that this title is obviously going to create as much misuse of the term as any preexisting misunderstanding.

As to the rest, you're mostly just saying obvious things. Yeah, I get it, without a huge number of people performing various forms of labor, the resources required to build and maintain the modern world wouldn't be there, and individuals trying to live completely without the input of other people would rarely be able to pull it off. Humans didn't develop in tribes because solo play is easy.

The only place where I take issue is "our true enemy". Yo, we've got a lot of true enemies, and shady private corporations ain't NEARLY all of 'em.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Capitalism is where they get the money for bail outs, you really don't know what socialism is do you?

Yeah? Where is this money coming from? It's not from production. But you know this.

Where does the money come from to pay the interest? But you already know this.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.

When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.

Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.

TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.

That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.

Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.

It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.

Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'

Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.

Now are we to use actual definitions or not?

But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.

I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.

Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.

You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.

Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".

Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.

If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.

Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.

Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.

I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.

As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.

Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.

Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.

You might should go read up on these terms.

They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.

Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie? LMFAO, whatever man. If you wanna tell yourself that I was intentionally omitting details that weren't even relevant to my point, be my guest. Seems like a long way to go to win an argument that never happened, but if the notch in your belt means that much to you, you've got my blessing. Make it extra broad so that you'll never forget that time that you got on the internet and CRUSHED some point that some guy was never making.

And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.

 

[pknopp]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Capitalism is where they get the money for bail outs, you really don't know what socialism is do you?

Yeah? Where is this money coming from? It's not from production. But you know this.

Where does the money come from to pay the interest? But you already know this.

1. We aren't paying the interest.

2. You avoided my question.

when that happens I know I am on the right track.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

Kimberly Guilfoyle says she’s a 1st generation American during RNC speech

In her Republican National Convention speech, Kimberly Guilfoyle described herself as a first-generation American, citing her mother's Puerto Rican roots.

www.click2houston.com

"Kimberly Guilfoyle describes herself as a first-generation American, but also notes that her mother is a special education teacher from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. Guilfoyle, a Trump campaign adviser and the girlfriend of Donald Trump Jr., cited her family history on Monday to make the case that she knows how dangerous a socialist agenda would be for the nation."

Is the Trump campaign hoping that their voters are too stupid to know that someone coming to the mainland from Puerto Rico isn't an immigrant?? Are they hoping their voters don't know that residents of Puerto Rico have been US citizens since the early 1900's??

And what does being half Puerto Rican have to do with knowing about socialism?? Does the campaign also hope their voters think Puerto Rico is a socialist country?? On a lighter note, most Trump voters probably had no idea that Kimmers is Puerto Rican to begin with -- since she didn't say shit about it during Hurricane Maria....

Her mammary glands are First Class, and definitely First Generation

 

[pknopp]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.

When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.

Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.

TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.

That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.

Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.

It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.

Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'

Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.

Now are we to use actual definitions or not?

But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.

I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.

Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.

You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.

Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".

Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.

If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.

Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.

Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.

I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.

As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.

Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.

Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.

You might should go read up on these terms.

They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.

Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie?

No, I am saying that Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist because that is what he is. Others call themselves Capitalists but are anything but.

And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.

The only dispute of anything I've said was a complaint that what I said was not the classroom definitions.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Kimberly Guilfoyle says she’s a 1st generation American during RNC speech

In her Republican National Convention speech, Kimberly Guilfoyle described herself as a first-generation American, citing her mother's Puerto Rican roots.

www.click2houston.com

"Kimberly Guilfoyle describes herself as a first-generation American, but also notes that her mother is a special education teacher from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. Guilfoyle, a Trump campaign adviser and the girlfriend of Donald Trump Jr., cited her family history on Monday to make the case that she knows how dangerous a socialist agenda would be for the nation."

Is the Trump campaign hoping that their voters are too stupid to know that someone coming to the mainland from Puerto Rico isn't an immigrant?? Are they hoping their voters don't know that residents of Puerto Rico have been US citizens since the early 1900's??

And what does being half Puerto Rican have to do with knowing about socialism?? Does the campaign also hope their voters think Puerto Rico is a socialist country?? On a lighter note, most Trump voters probably had no idea that Kimmers is Puerto Rican to begin with -- since she didn't say shit about it during Hurricane Maria....

Her mammary glands are First Class, and definitely First Generation

Lol! Seriously, though, Guilfoyle in the leg chair MADE The Five. Well, Bob Beckel showing up drunk and getting pissy was pretty entertaining, too.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism based on the shared ownership of resources." I didn't put that in bold. Your post had that in bold.

Indeed. Bolded because "resources" is clearly so much broader a term in scope than "means of production." Is a mailbox a means of production? An army? A Firetruck? A person? Now, are they resources?

The only place where I take issue is "our true enemy". Yo, we've got a lot of true enemies, and private corporations ain't NEARLY all of 'em.

True doesn't mean all. Biggest, okay? "Our" meaning mankind's or to us humans in general. People of color's mileage may vary.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.

When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.

Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.

TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.

That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.

Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.

It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.

Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'

Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.

Now are we to use actual definitions or not?

But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.

I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.

Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.

You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.

Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".

Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.

If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.

Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.

Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.

I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.

As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.

Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.

Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.

You might should go read up on these terms.

They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.

Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie?

No, I am saying that Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist because that is what he is. Others call themselves Capitalists but are anything but.

And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.

The only dispute of anything I've said was a complaint that what I said was not the classroom definitions.

The dispute is that you're repeatedly implying that capitalism is some purist system where everyone succeeds or fails PURELY on their own merit, and a person ceases to be a capitalist if they believe in any form of government assistance.

That's incorrect. Capitalism is simply an economy of private ownership. A capitalist is simply someone who owns their own labor, which is technically any individual who lives or operates in a capitalist economy.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

Kimberly Guilfoyle says she’s a 1st generation American during RNC speech

In her Republican National Convention speech, Kimberly Guilfoyle described herself as a first-generation American, citing her mother's Puerto Rican roots.

www.click2houston.com

"Kimberly Guilfoyle describes herself as a first-generation American, but also notes that her mother is a special education teacher from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. Guilfoyle, a Trump campaign adviser and the girlfriend of Donald Trump Jr., cited her family history on Monday to make the case that she knows how dangerous a socialist agenda would be for the nation."

Is the Trump campaign hoping that their voters are too stupid to know that someone coming to the mainland from Puerto Rico isn't an immigrant?? Are they hoping their voters don't know that residents of Puerto Rico have been US citizens since the early 1900's??

And what does being half Puerto Rican have to do with knowing about socialism?? Does the campaign also hope their voters think Puerto Rico is a socialist country?? On a lighter note, most Trump voters probably had no idea that Kimmers is Puerto Rican to begin with -- since she didn't say shit about it during Hurricane Maria....

Her mammary glands are First Class, and definitely First Generation

Lol! Seriously, though, Guilfoyle in the leg chair MADE The Five. Well, Bob Beckel showing up drunk and getting pissy was pretty entertaining, too.

I want to be Katie Pavlins bitch.

 

[pknopp]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.

When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.

Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.

TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.

That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.

Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.

It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.

Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'

Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.

Now are we to use actual definitions or not?

But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.

I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.

Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.

You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.

Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".

Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.

If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.

Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.

Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.

I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.

As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.

Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.

Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.

You might should go read up on these terms.

They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.

Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie?

No, I am saying that Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist because that is what he is. Others call themselves Capitalists but are anything but.

And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.

The only dispute of anything I've said was a complaint that what I said was not the classroom definitions.

The dispute is that you're repeatedly implying that capitalism is some purist system where everyone succeeds or fails PURELY on their own merit, and a person ceases to be a capitalist if they believe in any form of government assistance.

I said that many of the things that those who call themselves "capitalists" support are not capitalist. They then disparage those who support those same things for others and call them "socialists" or now "communists".

That's incorrect. Capitalism is simply an economy of private ownership. A capitalist is simply someone who owns their own labor, which is technically any individual who lives or operates in a capitalist economy.

As practiced it's private ownership propped up with social programs. Outside of perhaps some small businesses we do not have an economy of strictly private ownership.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

"They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism based on the shared ownership of resources." I didn't put that in bold. Your post had that in bold.

Indeed. Bolded because "resources" is clearly so much broader a term in scope than "means of production." Is a mailbox a means of production? An army? A Firetruck? A person? Now, are they resources?

The only place where I take issue is "our true enemy". Yo, we've got a lot of true enemies, and private corporations ain't NEARLY all of 'em.

True doesn't mean all. Biggest, okay? "Our" meaning mankind's or to us humans in general. People of color's mileage may vary.

A mailbox can be a means of production, yes. It depends on whether or not you use your outgoing mail for economic purposes. A firetruck is a work vehicle, which DEFINITELY qualifies as the means of production in the same way as would a hammer or a wrench.

Ultimately, means of production is just another way of saying necessary resources, when you're talking socialism. Mines, oil wells, agricultural land, lumber and sources of drinking water are all generally included in socialist academics' and governments' definition of means of production. In practice, humans are absolutely on both lists. If the product of your labor doesn't belong to you, then you don't belong to you.

Biggest? Maybe. Depends on how much of that financial horsepower they can actually convert into direct suppression, compared to how much any cabal of politicians can convert their own political influence into the same. I don't see the comparison as NEARLY so clean cut as you make out.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.

When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.

Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.

TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.

That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.

Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.

It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.

Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'

Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.

Now are we to use actual definitions or not?

But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.

I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.

Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.

You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.

Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".

Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.

If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.

Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.

Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.

I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.

As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.

Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.

Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.

You might should go read up on these terms.

They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.

Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie?

No, I am saying that Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist because that is what he is. Others call themselves Capitalists but are anything but.

And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.

The only dispute of anything I've said was a complaint that what I said was not the classroom definitions.

The dispute is that you're repeatedly implying that capitalism is some purist system where everyone succeeds or fails PURELY on their own merit, and a person ceases to be a capitalist if they believe in any form of government assistance.

That's incorrect. Capitalism is simply an economy of private ownership. A capitalist is simply someone who owns their own labor, which is technically any individual who lives or operates in a capitalist economy.

Webster's is very clear about what a capitalist is....aside from the short answer, someone who owns capital....here is the longer definition....

"a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit "

But defining a capitalist as simply someone who owns their own labor does make one feel better I assume....

 

[pknopp]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.

When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.

Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.

TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.

That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.

Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.

It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.

Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'

Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.

Now are we to use actual definitions or not?

But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.

I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.

Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.

You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.

Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".

Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.

If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.

Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.

Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.

I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.

As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.

Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.

Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.

You might should go read up on these terms.

They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.

Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie?

No, I am saying that Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist because that is what he is. Others call themselves Capitalists but are anything but.

And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.

The only dispute of anything I've said was a complaint that what I said was not the classroom definitions.

The dispute is that you're repeatedly implying that capitalism is some purist system where everyone succeeds or fails PURELY on their own merit, and a person ceases to be a capitalist if they believe in any form of government assistance.

That's incorrect. Capitalism is simply an economy of private ownership. A capitalist is simply someone who owns their own labor, which is technically any individual who lives or operates in a capitalist economy.

Webster's is very clear about what a capitalist is....aside from the short answer, someone who owns capital....here is the longer definition....

"a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit "

But defining a capitalist as simply someone who owns their own labor does make one feel better I assume....

And when those investments go belly up, they and they alone are supposed to be responsible for that.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.

When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.

Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.

TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.

That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.

Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.

It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.

Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'

Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.

Now are we to use actual definitions or not?

But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.

I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.

Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.

You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.

Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".

Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.

If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.

Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.

Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.

I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.

As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.

Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.

Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.

You might should go read up on these terms.

They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.

Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie?

No, I am saying that Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist because that is what he is. Others call themselves Capitalists but are anything but.

And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.

The only dispute of anything I've said was a complaint that what I said was not the classroom definitions.

The dispute is that you're repeatedly implying that capitalism is some purist system where everyone succeeds or fails PURELY on their own merit, and a person ceases to be a capitalist if they believe in any form of government assistance.

I said that many of the things that those who call themselves "capitalists" support are not capitalist. They then disparage those who support those same things for others and call them "socialists" or now "communists".

That's incorrect. Capitalism is simply an economy of private ownership. A capitalist is simply someone who owns their own labor, which is technically any individual who lives or operates in a capitalist economy.

As practiced it's private ownership propped up with social programs. Outside of perhaps some small businesses we do not have an economy of strictly private ownership.

Yes, I know that you said that. You keep repeating it. Which is why I keep telling you that, despite the fact that these same sorts of people call folks who support the things that they, themselves support, socialist, they are still capitalists, which we all are, simply by virtue of operating in an economy of private ownership. Get it? There is NO SET OF BELIEFS that determines whether someone is a capitalist or not. It is entirely determined by whether or not they own the product of their own labor.

We don't have an economy of STRICTLY private ownership, no. Like you said, the government had temporary control of much of GM. However, government ownership of industries in this nation is EXTREMELY rare. The vast majority of all of the US economy is privately owned. Mind you, when I say this, I don't mean privately owned as opposed to being publicly traded. I simply mean that our industries exist separate from our government, and are not owned by the state.

 

[pknopp]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.

When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.

Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.

TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.

That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.

Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.

It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.

Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'

Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.

Now are we to use actual definitions or not?

But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.

I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.

Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.

You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.

Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".

Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.

If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.

Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.

Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.

I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.

As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.

Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.

Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.

You might should go read up on these terms.

They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.

Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie?

No, I am saying that Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist because that is what he is. Others call themselves Capitalists but are anything but.

And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.

The only dispute of anything I've said was a complaint that what I said was not the classroom definitions.

The dispute is that you're repeatedly implying that capitalism is some purist system where everyone succeeds or fails PURELY on their own merit, and a person ceases to be a capitalist if they believe in any form of government assistance.

I said that many of the things that those who call themselves "capitalists" support are not capitalist. They then disparage those who support those same things for others and call them "socialists" or now "communists".

That's incorrect. Capitalism is simply an economy of private ownership. A capitalist is simply someone who owns their own labor, which is technically any individual who lives or operates in a capitalist economy.

As practiced it's private ownership propped up with social programs. Outside of perhaps some small businesses we do not have an economy of strictly private ownership.

Yes, I know that you said that. You keep repeating it. Which is why I keep telling you that, despite the fact that these same sorts of people call folks who support the things that they, themselves support, socialist, they are still capitalists, which we all are, simply by virtue of operating in an economy of private ownership. Get it? There is NO SET OF BELIEFS that determines whether someone is a capitalist or not. It is entirely determined by whether or not they own the product of their own labor.

We aren't just "capitalists". Outside of perhaps some small businesses there is no one that still strictly owns their own labor. Much of their labor is subsidized by society.

We don't have an economy of STRICTLY private ownership, no. Like you said, the government had temporary control of much of GM. However, government ownership of industries in this nation is EXTREMELY rare. The vast majority of all of the US economy is privately owned. Mind you, when I say this, I don't mean privately owned as opposed to being publicly traded. I simply mean that our industries exist separate from our government, and are not owned by the state.

When the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the system keeping you afloat you no longer really fit your description.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism based on the shared ownership of resources." I didn't put that in bold. Your post had that in bold.

Indeed. Bolded because "resources" is clearly so much broader a term in scope than "means of production." Is a mailbox a means of production? An army? A Firetruck? A person? Now, are they resources?

The only place where I take issue is "our true enemy". Yo, we've got a lot of true enemies, and private corporations ain't NEARLY all of 'em.

True doesn't mean all. Biggest, okay? "Our" meaning mankind's or to us humans in general. People of color's mileage may vary.

A mailbox can be a means of production, yes. It depends on whether or not you use your outgoing mail for economic purposes. A firetruck is a work vehicle, which DEFINITELY qualifies as the means of production in the same way as would a hammer or a wrench.

Ultimately, means of production is just another way of saying necessary resources, when you're talking socialism. Mines, oil wells, agricultural land, lumber and sources of drinking water are all generally included in socialist academics' and governments' definition of means of production. In practice, humans are absolutely on both lists. If the product of your labor doesn't belong to you, then you don't belong to you.

Biggest? Maybe. Depends on how much of that financial horsepower they can actually convert into direct suppression, compared to how much any cabal of politicians can convert their own political influence into the same. I don't see the comparison as NEARLY so clean cut as you make out.

You miss the point and apparently deliberately so. "A mailbox can be a means of production, yes." Fine, so given it can be either, one can presume it to be a resource, but not a means of production. "I don't see the comparison as NEARLY so clean cut as you make out." Irony. I'm the one saying the issue is broader than "means of production." You're effectively arguing that it isn't. Deciding not to allow private ownership of USPS mailboxes is socialist, not capitalist. Collective resource interest prevailing over private property or means of production interest.

 

[Coyote]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

And another self proclaimed Socialist who has no clue what Socialism is......typical

I have YET to meet a "Socialist" who has a damned CLUE as to what Socialism is.

I think they probably have more of a clue than most of those yelling "socialism" but at the least little thing.

I think it's pathetic that she doesn't realize Puerto Rico is part of America and Puerto Ricans ARE American citizens. That's embarrassing for her and the GOP.

 

[pknopp]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

And another self proclaimed Socialist who has no clue what Socialism is......typical

I have YET to meet a "Socialist" who has a damned CLUE as to what Socialism is.

I think they probably have more of a clue than most of those yelling "socialism" but at the least little thing.

I think it's pathetic that she doesn't realize Puerto Rico is part of America and Puerto Ricans ARE American citizens. That's embarrassing for her and the GOP.

Trump only hires the best.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I don’t really care what someone who’s idea of employment is sponging off of donations from Trump’s supporters given her only qualification is that she’s dating his nearly illiterate son.

Your TDS is why people dont take the left seriously