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

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm simply pointing out that there are private players in the same parcel service game, which means that this isn't an example of an industry that the US has nationalized.

Not the same game. Profit vs mandated community service (not for profit) to all. I must presume you're dragging "industry" and "nationalized" in here simply to distract and dazzle everyone with non sequitur BS.

There's no dazzle. As I keep saying, I'm working from the definition that socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. If the government had even applied this principle to parcel shipping alone, there would be no private players in the parcel shipping game.

And yes, it is the same game, regardless of the fact that the government option doesn't profit. The game, of course, being the shipment of parcels. You can claim that the private entities don't compete with USPS, but you'd be ignoring that they LITERALLY compete for market share of the same people looking to purchase the same service. Reframing the situation doesn't alter this truth.

 

[Faun]

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....

Nah. Whatever dictionary Google uses for its top result on a definition search specifies "wealthy", but Merriam Webster does not.

Definition of CAPITALIST

a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat; a person who favors capitalism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The thing is, capitalism, unlike socialism, isn't a title that someone gave to a specific political/economic vision. It's one that started as a derogatory generalization, and is still just a blanket term for private economies. "Capitalist" emerged from that, which means there's bound to be a plethora of politically charged definitions that specify that a capitalist has to be rich, and then lists "plutocrat" as the top synonym.

When I describe what a capitalist is, I'm simply trying to remove the negative hyperbole from the equation and paint a realistic vision of an individual who manipulates economic leverage for personal gain in an economic system of voluntary contracts, which is literally everybody with a job. You're right, though, even Merriam-Webster's much looser definition of capitalist doesn't include what I've said, so I stand corrected. Everybody living or operating in a capitalist system might be the thing that capitalist WOULD mean if the folks coining the term weren't trying to paint an intentionally unflattering picture, but that is not technically the definition.

Perhaps, in failing to abide by these politically charged definitions, I'm committing the same sort of term skewering that I'm here attempting to mitigate, but I don't believe that to be the case. Socialism is actually the technical term for a specific relationship between society and economy, where capitalism is, again, a blanket term for private economies coined by people opposed to private economies.

Basically, acknowledging the nuances that make Chinese culture unique helps to preserve a culture that, political controversies and problems with specific regimes aside, has made massive mathematical, scientific and cultural contributions that have improved life for all of humanity throughout the ages. Acknowledging that "chink" refers specifically to Chinese people and not Southeast Asians in general, is not likely to preserve anything of value.

So basically it is whatever you can make it up to be at any given moment? cool...

This is what MLK said about capitalism......before you guys started claiming he was a conservative republican....

View attachment 379657

I predict when republicans get desperate enough due to their policies continuing to fail and being unpopular -- they will pivot to using the same critiques MLK was using 60 years ago....

Lol, despite explaining where I was coming from, I actually admitted in that post that I stand corrected on the definition of a capitalist. But nah, if it's more satisfying to ignore that bit and tell yourself that you just owned someone who wouldn't admit to being wrong, have at it, friend. Some people really need a win, I won't shit on your parade.

By today's standards, MLK WAS a conservative, though that's an arguable point. As far as King being a Republican, I'm sorry sir, but that's just a fact.

MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard.

Yeah. I love MLK for what he did for racial relations going forward from the Civil Rights era, but he said a lot of shit that I don't agree with, too. Luckily, unlike a modern progressive, I don't need a historical figure to be the perfect image of my personal moral ideals in order to be grateful for the accomplishments that they made, or to respect the ways in which they were great.

Anyway, regardless of his views on socialism and the occasional statement contradicting the principles of the nonviolent protest that he ultimately exemplified, you haven't effectively disputed anything I said. He was still arguably conservative by today's standards given morals largely governed by the traditional Christian values of the era. Let's be real, on non racial social issues, even the leftists of that era openly held views on homosexuality and transsexualism (remember when it wasn't bigotry to call it that?) that would make anyone in 2020 unemployable. And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion.

"And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion."

Yeah, it's a hallucination.

• I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” ~ MLK Jr.

• “I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.” ~ MLK Jr.

• “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” ~ MLK Jr.

 

[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.

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....

Nah. Whatever dictionary Google uses for its top result on a definition search specifies "wealthy", but Merriam Webster does not.

Definition of CAPITALIST

a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat; a person who favors capitalism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The thing is, capitalism, unlike socialism, isn't a title that someone gave to a specific political/economic vision. It's one that started as a derogatory generalization, and is still just a blanket term for private economies. "Capitalist" emerged from that, which means there's bound to be a plethora of politically charged definitions that specify that a capitalist has to be rich, and then lists "plutocrat" as the top synonym.

When I describe what a capitalist is, I'm simply trying to remove the negative hyperbole from the equation and paint a realistic vision of an individual who manipulates economic leverage for personal gain in an economic system of voluntary contracts, which is literally everybody with a job. You're right, though, even Merriam-Webster's much looser definition of capitalist doesn't include what I've said, so I stand corrected. Everybody living or operating in a capitalist system might be the thing that capitalist WOULD mean if the folks coining the term weren't trying to paint an intentionally unflattering picture, but that is not technically the definition.

Perhaps, in failing to abide by these politically charged definitions, I'm committing the same sort of term skewering that I'm here attempting to mitigate, but I don't believe that to be the case. Socialism is actually the technical term for a specific relationship between society and economy, where capitalism is, again, a blanket term for private economies coined by people opposed to private economies.

Basically, acknowledging the nuances that make Chinese culture unique helps to preserve a culture that, political controversies and problems with specific regimes aside, has made massive mathematical, scientific and cultural contributions that have improved life for all of humanity throughout the ages. Acknowledging that "chink" refers specifically to Chinese people and not Southeast Asians in general, is not likely to preserve anything of value.

So basically it is whatever you can make it up to be at any given moment? cool...

This is what MLK said about capitalism......before you guys started claiming he was a conservative republican....

View attachment 379657

I predict when republicans get desperate enough due to their policies continuing to fail and being unpopular -- they will pivot to using the same critiques MLK was using 60 years ago....

Lol, despite explaining where I was coming from, I actually admitted in that post that I stand corrected on the definition of a capitalist. But nah, if it's more satisfying to ignore that bit and tell yourself that you just owned someone who wouldn't admit to being wrong, have at it, friend. Some people really need a win, I won't shit on your parade.

By today's standards, MLK WAS a conservative, though that's an arguable point. As far as King being a Republican, I'm sorry sir, but that's just a fact.

MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard.

Yeah. I love MLK for what he did for racial relations going forward from the Civil Rights era, but he said a lot of shit that I don't agree with, too. Luckily, unlike a modern progressive, I don't need a historical figure to be the perfect image of my personal moral ideals in order to be grateful for the accomplishments that they made, or to respect the ways in which they were great.

Anyway, regardless of his views on socialism and the occasional statement contradicting the principles of the nonviolent protest that he ultimately exemplified, you haven't effectively disputed anything I said. He was still arguably conservative by today's standards given morals largely governed by the traditional Christian values of the era. Let's be real, on non racial social issues, even the leftists of that era openly held views on homosexuality and transsexualism (remember when it wasn't bigotry to call it that?) that would make anyone in 2020 unemployable. And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion.

"And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion."

Yeah, it's a hallucination.

• I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” ~ MLK Jr.

Fair enough that the testimony of his niece or the sheer likelihood of a civil rights activist coming out of the 50's would be allied with the one of the two major parties that was sympathetic to their viewpoint that far back aren't absolute proof, but neither are the quotes that you've provided a negation of the claim.

I'm a registered republican who tends to vote for them over the democrats except in very unusual circumstances, and I identify completely with that first quote. There also are and have been individual members of the party who have risen even as high as presidential candidacy, who I not only would not vote for, but I also wouldn't vote for anyone who I was convinced was too closely aligned with those individuals (Romney and McCain being obvious examples). The third quote definitely shows a rift in ideals with the war hawk republicanism of the last few eras of American politics, but given how long it took the Democrat party to come around on civil rights, I don't see that this particular difference made him more likely to go Dem than the popular Dem views on racial politics made him to go Repub.

You're right, though. When I said that's not an opinion, it was an overstatement.

 

[Faun]

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....

Nah. Whatever dictionary Google uses for its top result on a definition search specifies "wealthy", but Merriam Webster does not.

Definition of CAPITALIST

a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat; a person who favors capitalism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The thing is, capitalism, unlike socialism, isn't a title that someone gave to a specific political/economic vision. It's one that started as a derogatory generalization, and is still just a blanket term for private economies. "Capitalist" emerged from that, which means there's bound to be a plethora of politically charged definitions that specify that a capitalist has to be rich, and then lists "plutocrat" as the top synonym.

When I describe what a capitalist is, I'm simply trying to remove the negative hyperbole from the equation and paint a realistic vision of an individual who manipulates economic leverage for personal gain in an economic system of voluntary contracts, which is literally everybody with a job. You're right, though, even Merriam-Webster's much looser definition of capitalist doesn't include what I've said, so I stand corrected. Everybody living or operating in a capitalist system might be the thing that capitalist WOULD mean if the folks coining the term weren't trying to paint an intentionally unflattering picture, but that is not technically the definition.

Perhaps, in failing to abide by these politically charged definitions, I'm committing the same sort of term skewering that I'm here attempting to mitigate, but I don't believe that to be the case. Socialism is actually the technical term for a specific relationship between society and economy, where capitalism is, again, a blanket term for private economies coined by people opposed to private economies.

Basically, acknowledging the nuances that make Chinese culture unique helps to preserve a culture that, political controversies and problems with specific regimes aside, has made massive mathematical, scientific and cultural contributions that have improved life for all of humanity throughout the ages. Acknowledging that "chink" refers specifically to Chinese people and not Southeast Asians in general, is not likely to preserve anything of value.

So basically it is whatever you can make it up to be at any given moment? cool...

This is what MLK said about capitalism......before you guys started claiming he was a conservative republican....

View attachment 379657

I predict when republicans get desperate enough due to their policies continuing to fail and being unpopular -- they will pivot to using the same critiques MLK was using 60 years ago....

Lol, despite explaining where I was coming from, I actually admitted in that post that I stand corrected on the definition of a capitalist. But nah, if it's more satisfying to ignore that bit and tell yourself that you just owned someone who wouldn't admit to being wrong, have at it, friend. Some people really need a win, I won't shit on your parade.

By today's standards, MLK WAS a conservative, though that's an arguable point. As far as King being a Republican, I'm sorry sir, but that's just a fact.

MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard.

Yeah. I love MLK for what he did for racial relations going forward from the Civil Rights era, but he said a lot of shit that I don't agree with, too. Luckily, unlike a modern progressive, I don't need a historical figure to be the perfect image of my personal moral ideals in order to be grateful for the accomplishments that they made, or to respect the ways in which they were great.

Anyway, regardless of his views on socialism and the occasional statement contradicting the principles of the nonviolent protest that he ultimately exemplified, you haven't effectively disputed anything I said. He was still arguably conservative by today's standards given morals largely governed by the traditional Christian values of the era. Let's be real, on non racial social issues, even the leftists of that era openly held views on homosexuality and transsexualism (remember when it wasn't bigotry to call it that?) that would make anyone in 2020 unemployable. And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion.

"And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion."

Yeah, it's a hallucination.

• I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” ~ MLK Jr.

Fair enough that the testimony of his surviving family members isn't absolute proof, but neither are any of these quotes a negation.

I'm a registered republican who tends to vote for them over the democrats except in very unusual circumstances, and I identify completely with that first quote. There also are and have been individual members of the party who have risen even as high as presidential candidacy, who I not only would not vote for, but I also wouldn't vote for anyone who I was convinced was too closely aligned with those individuals (Romney and McCain being obvious examples).

You're right, though. When I said that's not an opinion, it was an overstatement.

Nope, it remains a delusion. Want proof? You have no evidence to support that claim.

 

[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.

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....

Nah. Whatever dictionary Google uses for its top result on a definition search specifies "wealthy", but Merriam Webster does not.

Definition of CAPITALIST

a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat; a person who favors capitalism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The thing is, capitalism, unlike socialism, isn't a title that someone gave to a specific political/economic vision. It's one that started as a derogatory generalization, and is still just a blanket term for private economies. "Capitalist" emerged from that, which means there's bound to be a plethora of politically charged definitions that specify that a capitalist has to be rich, and then lists "plutocrat" as the top synonym.

When I describe what a capitalist is, I'm simply trying to remove the negative hyperbole from the equation and paint a realistic vision of an individual who manipulates economic leverage for personal gain in an economic system of voluntary contracts, which is literally everybody with a job. You're right, though, even Merriam-Webster's much looser definition of capitalist doesn't include what I've said, so I stand corrected. Everybody living or operating in a capitalist system might be the thing that capitalist WOULD mean if the folks coining the term weren't trying to paint an intentionally unflattering picture, but that is not technically the definition.

Perhaps, in failing to abide by these politically charged definitions, I'm committing the same sort of term skewering that I'm here attempting to mitigate, but I don't believe that to be the case. Socialism is actually the technical term for a specific relationship between society and economy, where capitalism is, again, a blanket term for private economies coined by people opposed to private economies.

Basically, acknowledging the nuances that make Chinese culture unique helps to preserve a culture that, political controversies and problems with specific regimes aside, has made massive mathematical, scientific and cultural contributions that have improved life for all of humanity throughout the ages. Acknowledging that "chink" refers specifically to Chinese people and not Southeast Asians in general, is not likely to preserve anything of value.

So basically it is whatever you can make it up to be at any given moment? cool...

This is what MLK said about capitalism......before you guys started claiming he was a conservative republican....

View attachment 379657

I predict when republicans get desperate enough due to their policies continuing to fail and being unpopular -- they will pivot to using the same critiques MLK was using 60 years ago....

Lol, despite explaining where I was coming from, I actually admitted in that post that I stand corrected on the definition of a capitalist. But nah, if it's more satisfying to ignore that bit and tell yourself that you just owned someone who wouldn't admit to being wrong, have at it, friend. Some people really need a win, I won't shit on your parade.

By today's standards, MLK WAS a conservative, though that's an arguable point. As far as King being a Republican, I'm sorry sir, but that's just a fact.

MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard.

Yeah. I love MLK for what he did for racial relations going forward from the Civil Rights era, but he said a lot of shit that I don't agree with, too. Luckily, unlike a modern progressive, I don't need a historical figure to be the perfect image of my personal moral ideals in order to be grateful for the accomplishments that they made, or to respect the ways in which they were great.

Anyway, regardless of his views on socialism and the occasional statement contradicting the principles of the nonviolent protest that he ultimately exemplified, you haven't effectively disputed anything I said. He was still arguably conservative by today's standards given morals largely governed by the traditional Christian values of the era. Let's be real, on non racial social issues, even the leftists of that era openly held views on homosexuality and transsexualism (remember when it wasn't bigotry to call it that?) that would make anyone in 2020 unemployable. And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion.

"And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion."

Yeah, it's a hallucination.

• I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” ~ MLK Jr.

Fair enough that the testimony of his surviving family members isn't absolute proof, but neither are any of these quotes a negation.

I'm a registered republican who tends to vote for them over the democrats except in very unusual circumstances, and I identify completely with that first quote. There also are and have been individual members of the party who have risen even as high as presidential candidacy, who I not only would not vote for, but I also wouldn't vote for anyone who I was convinced was too closely aligned with those individuals (Romney and McCain being obvious examples).

You're right, though. When I said that's not an opinion, it was an overstatement.

Nope, it remains a delusion. Want proof? You have no evidence to support that claim.

I've actually specifically named my pieces of evidence. What I lack is proof. Same as you. If lacking proof is lacking evidence, and lacking evidence renders me delusional, then maybe you should be given the padded cell next door.

 

[Faun]

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....

Nah. Whatever dictionary Google uses for its top result on a definition search specifies "wealthy", but Merriam Webster does not.

Definition of CAPITALIST

a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat; a person who favors capitalism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The thing is, capitalism, unlike socialism, isn't a title that someone gave to a specific political/economic vision. It's one that started as a derogatory generalization, and is still just a blanket term for private economies. "Capitalist" emerged from that, which means there's bound to be a plethora of politically charged definitions that specify that a capitalist has to be rich, and then lists "plutocrat" as the top synonym.

When I describe what a capitalist is, I'm simply trying to remove the negative hyperbole from the equation and paint a realistic vision of an individual who manipulates economic leverage for personal gain in an economic system of voluntary contracts, which is literally everybody with a job. You're right, though, even Merriam-Webster's much looser definition of capitalist doesn't include what I've said, so I stand corrected. Everybody living or operating in a capitalist system might be the thing that capitalist WOULD mean if the folks coining the term weren't trying to paint an intentionally unflattering picture, but that is not technically the definition.

Perhaps, in failing to abide by these politically charged definitions, I'm committing the same sort of term skewering that I'm here attempting to mitigate, but I don't believe that to be the case. Socialism is actually the technical term for a specific relationship between society and economy, where capitalism is, again, a blanket term for private economies coined by people opposed to private economies.

Basically, acknowledging the nuances that make Chinese culture unique helps to preserve a culture that, political controversies and problems with specific regimes aside, has made massive mathematical, scientific and cultural contributions that have improved life for all of humanity throughout the ages. Acknowledging that "chink" refers specifically to Chinese people and not Southeast Asians in general, is not likely to preserve anything of value.

So basically it is whatever you can make it up to be at any given moment? cool...

This is what MLK said about capitalism......before you guys started claiming he was a conservative republican....

View attachment 379657

I predict when republicans get desperate enough due to their policies continuing to fail and being unpopular -- they will pivot to using the same critiques MLK was using 60 years ago....

Lol, despite explaining where I was coming from, I actually admitted in that post that I stand corrected on the definition of a capitalist. But nah, if it's more satisfying to ignore that bit and tell yourself that you just owned someone who wouldn't admit to being wrong, have at it, friend. Some people really need a win, I won't shit on your parade.

By today's standards, MLK WAS a conservative, though that's an arguable point. As far as King being a Republican, I'm sorry sir, but that's just a fact.

MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard.

Yeah. I love MLK for what he did for racial relations going forward from the Civil Rights era, but he said a lot of shit that I don't agree with, too. Luckily, unlike a modern progressive, I don't need a historical figure to be the perfect image of my personal moral ideals in order to be grateful for the accomplishments that they made, or to respect the ways in which they were great.

Anyway, regardless of his views on socialism and the occasional statement contradicting the principles of the nonviolent protest that he ultimately exemplified, you haven't effectively disputed anything I said. He was still arguably conservative by today's standards given morals largely governed by the traditional Christian values of the era. Let's be real, on non racial social issues, even the leftists of that era openly held views on homosexuality and transsexualism (remember when it wasn't bigotry to call it that?) that would make anyone in 2020 unemployable. And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion.

"And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion."

Yeah, it's a hallucination.

• I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” ~ MLK Jr.

Fair enough that the testimony of his surviving family members isn't absolute proof, but neither are any of these quotes a negation.

I'm a registered republican who tends to vote for them over the democrats except in very unusual circumstances, and I identify completely with that first quote. There also are and have been individual members of the party who have risen even as high as presidential candidacy, who I not only would not vote for, but I also wouldn't vote for anyone who I was convinced was too closely aligned with those individuals (Romney and McCain being obvious examples).

You're right, though. When I said that's not an opinion, it was an overstatement.

Nope, it remains a delusion. Want proof? You have no evidence to support that claim.

I've actually specifically named my pieces of evidence. What I lack is proof. Same as you. If lacking proof is lacking evidence, and lacking evidence renders me delusional, then maybe you should be given the padded cell next door.

There is no evidence, so who knows what you "named?" He said himself he was not tied to either party. Then there was his own niece who confessed she was wrong when she wrongly asserted he was a Republican.

 

[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.

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....

Nah. Whatever dictionary Google uses for its top result on a definition search specifies "wealthy", but Merriam Webster does not.

Definition of CAPITALIST

a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat; a person who favors capitalism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The thing is, capitalism, unlike socialism, isn't a title that someone gave to a specific political/economic vision. It's one that started as a derogatory generalization, and is still just a blanket term for private economies. "Capitalist" emerged from that, which means there's bound to be a plethora of politically charged definitions that specify that a capitalist has to be rich, and then lists "plutocrat" as the top synonym.

When I describe what a capitalist is, I'm simply trying to remove the negative hyperbole from the equation and paint a realistic vision of an individual who manipulates economic leverage for personal gain in an economic system of voluntary contracts, which is literally everybody with a job. You're right, though, even Merriam-Webster's much looser definition of capitalist doesn't include what I've said, so I stand corrected. Everybody living or operating in a capitalist system might be the thing that capitalist WOULD mean if the folks coining the term weren't trying to paint an intentionally unflattering picture, but that is not technically the definition.

Perhaps, in failing to abide by these politically charged definitions, I'm committing the same sort of term skewering that I'm here attempting to mitigate, but I don't believe that to be the case. Socialism is actually the technical term for a specific relationship between society and economy, where capitalism is, again, a blanket term for private economies coined by people opposed to private economies.

Basically, acknowledging the nuances that make Chinese culture unique helps to preserve a culture that, political controversies and problems with specific regimes aside, has made massive mathematical, scientific and cultural contributions that have improved life for all of humanity throughout the ages. Acknowledging that "chink" refers specifically to Chinese people and not Southeast Asians in general, is not likely to preserve anything of value.

So basically it is whatever you can make it up to be at any given moment? cool...

This is what MLK said about capitalism......before you guys started claiming he was a conservative republican....

View attachment 379657

I predict when republicans get desperate enough due to their policies continuing to fail and being unpopular -- they will pivot to using the same critiques MLK was using 60 years ago....

Lol, despite explaining where I was coming from, I actually admitted in that post that I stand corrected on the definition of a capitalist. But nah, if it's more satisfying to ignore that bit and tell yourself that you just owned someone who wouldn't admit to being wrong, have at it, friend. Some people really need a win, I won't shit on your parade.

By today's standards, MLK WAS a conservative, though that's an arguable point. As far as King being a Republican, I'm sorry sir, but that's just a fact.

MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard.

Yeah. I love MLK for what he did for racial relations going forward from the Civil Rights era, but he said a lot of shit that I don't agree with, too. Luckily, unlike a modern progressive, I don't need a historical figure to be the perfect image of my personal moral ideals in order to be grateful for the accomplishments that they made, or to respect the ways in which they were great.

Anyway, regardless of his views on socialism and the occasional statement contradicting the principles of the nonviolent protest that he ultimately exemplified, you haven't effectively disputed anything I said. He was still arguably conservative by today's standards given morals largely governed by the traditional Christian values of the era. Let's be real, on non racial social issues, even the leftists of that era openly held views on homosexuality and transsexualism (remember when it wasn't bigotry to call it that?) that would make anyone in 2020 unemployable. And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion.

"And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion."

Yeah, it's a hallucination.

• I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” ~ MLK Jr.

Fair enough that the testimony of his surviving family members isn't absolute proof, but neither are any of these quotes a negation.

I'm a registered republican who tends to vote for them over the democrats except in very unusual circumstances, and I identify completely with that first quote. There also are and have been individual members of the party who have risen even as high as presidential candidacy, who I not only would not vote for, but I also wouldn't vote for anyone who I was convinced was too closely aligned with those individuals (Romney and McCain being obvious examples).

You're right, though. When I said that's not an opinion, it was an overstatement.

Nope, it remains a delusion. Want proof? You have no evidence to support that claim.

I've actually specifically named my pieces of evidence. What I lack is proof. Same as you. If lacking proof is lacking evidence, and lacking evidence renders me delusional, then maybe you should be given the padded cell next door.

There is no evidence, so who knows what you "named?" He said himself he was not tied to either party. Then there was his own niece who confessed she was wrong when she wrongly asserted he was a Republican.

You could just reread.

I named the claim of his niece, Alveda King, and the known politics of the Republicans vs Democrats in the earlier days of the civil rights era. Not proof, but certainly evidence.

And he said he's not inexorably tied to either party. Neither am I, but I am a registered Republican who tends to vote that way. You've offered evidence here, but certainly not proof.

 

[Faun]

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....

Nah. Whatever dictionary Google uses for its top result on a definition search specifies "wealthy", but Merriam Webster does not.

Definition of CAPITALIST

a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat; a person who favors capitalism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The thing is, capitalism, unlike socialism, isn't a title that someone gave to a specific political/economic vision. It's one that started as a derogatory generalization, and is still just a blanket term for private economies. "Capitalist" emerged from that, which means there's bound to be a plethora of politically charged definitions that specify that a capitalist has to be rich, and then lists "plutocrat" as the top synonym.

When I describe what a capitalist is, I'm simply trying to remove the negative hyperbole from the equation and paint a realistic vision of an individual who manipulates economic leverage for personal gain in an economic system of voluntary contracts, which is literally everybody with a job. You're right, though, even Merriam-Webster's much looser definition of capitalist doesn't include what I've said, so I stand corrected. Everybody living or operating in a capitalist system might be the thing that capitalist WOULD mean if the folks coining the term weren't trying to paint an intentionally unflattering picture, but that is not technically the definition.

Perhaps, in failing to abide by these politically charged definitions, I'm committing the same sort of term skewering that I'm here attempting to mitigate, but I don't believe that to be the case. Socialism is actually the technical term for a specific relationship between society and economy, where capitalism is, again, a blanket term for private economies coined by people opposed to private economies.

Basically, acknowledging the nuances that make Chinese culture unique helps to preserve a culture that, political controversies and problems with specific regimes aside, has made massive mathematical, scientific and cultural contributions that have improved life for all of humanity throughout the ages. Acknowledging that "chink" refers specifically to Chinese people and not Southeast Asians in general, is not likely to preserve anything of value.

So basically it is whatever you can make it up to be at any given moment? cool...

This is what MLK said about capitalism......before you guys started claiming he was a conservative republican....

View attachment 379657

I predict when republicans get desperate enough due to their policies continuing to fail and being unpopular -- they will pivot to using the same critiques MLK was using 60 years ago....

Lol, despite explaining where I was coming from, I actually admitted in that post that I stand corrected on the definition of a capitalist. But nah, if it's more satisfying to ignore that bit and tell yourself that you just owned someone who wouldn't admit to being wrong, have at it, friend. Some people really need a win, I won't shit on your parade.

By today's standards, MLK WAS a conservative, though that's an arguable point. As far as King being a Republican, I'm sorry sir, but that's just a fact.

MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard.

Yeah. I love MLK for what he did for racial relations going forward from the Civil Rights era, but he said a lot of shit that I don't agree with, too. Luckily, unlike a modern progressive, I don't need a historical figure to be the perfect image of my personal moral ideals in order to be grateful for the accomplishments that they made, or to respect the ways in which they were great.

Anyway, regardless of his views on socialism and the occasional statement contradicting the principles of the nonviolent protest that he ultimately exemplified, you haven't effectively disputed anything I said. He was still arguably conservative by today's standards given morals largely governed by the traditional Christian values of the era. Let's be real, on non racial social issues, even the leftists of that era openly held views on homosexuality and transsexualism (remember when it wasn't bigotry to call it that?) that would make anyone in 2020 unemployable. And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion.

"And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion."

Yeah, it's a hallucination.

• I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” ~ MLK Jr.

Fair enough that the testimony of his surviving family members isn't absolute proof, but neither are any of these quotes a negation.

I'm a registered republican who tends to vote for them over the democrats except in very unusual circumstances, and I identify completely with that first quote. There also are and have been individual members of the party who have risen even as high as presidential candidacy, who I not only would not vote for, but I also wouldn't vote for anyone who I was convinced was too closely aligned with those individuals (Romney and McCain being obvious examples).

You're right, though. When I said that's not an opinion, it was an overstatement.

Nope, it remains a delusion. Want proof? You have no evidence to support that claim.

I've actually specifically named my pieces of evidence. What I lack is proof. Same as you. If lacking proof is lacking evidence, and lacking evidence renders me delusional, then maybe you should be given the padded cell next door.

There is no evidence, so who knows what you "named?" He said himself he was not tied to either party. Then there was his own niece who confessed she was wrong when she wrongly asserted he was a Republican.

You could just reread.

I named the claim of his niece, Alveda King, and the known politics of the Republicans vs Democrats in the earlier days of the civil rights era. Not proof, but certainly evidence.

And he said he's not inexorably tied to either party. Neither am I, but I am a registered Republican who tends to vote that way. You've offered evidence here, but certainly not proof.

Sadly for you, your politics are not the same as MLK Jr.'s

"It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican." ~ MLK III​

 

[Faun]

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....

Nah. Whatever dictionary Google uses for its top result on a definition search specifies "wealthy", but Merriam Webster does not.

Definition of CAPITALIST

a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat; a person who favors capitalism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The thing is, capitalism, unlike socialism, isn't a title that someone gave to a specific political/economic vision. It's one that started as a derogatory generalization, and is still just a blanket term for private economies. "Capitalist" emerged from that, which means there's bound to be a plethora of politically charged definitions that specify that a capitalist has to be rich, and then lists "plutocrat" as the top synonym.

When I describe what a capitalist is, I'm simply trying to remove the negative hyperbole from the equation and paint a realistic vision of an individual who manipulates economic leverage for personal gain in an economic system of voluntary contracts, which is literally everybody with a job. You're right, though, even Merriam-Webster's much looser definition of capitalist doesn't include what I've said, so I stand corrected. Everybody living or operating in a capitalist system might be the thing that capitalist WOULD mean if the folks coining the term weren't trying to paint an intentionally unflattering picture, but that is not technically the definition.

Perhaps, in failing to abide by these politically charged definitions, I'm committing the same sort of term skewering that I'm here attempting to mitigate, but I don't believe that to be the case. Socialism is actually the technical term for a specific relationship between society and economy, where capitalism is, again, a blanket term for private economies coined by people opposed to private economies.

Basically, acknowledging the nuances that make Chinese culture unique helps to preserve a culture that, political controversies and problems with specific regimes aside, has made massive mathematical, scientific and cultural contributions that have improved life for all of humanity throughout the ages. Acknowledging that "chink" refers specifically to Chinese people and not Southeast Asians in general, is not likely to preserve anything of value.

So basically it is whatever you can make it up to be at any given moment? cool...

This is what MLK said about capitalism......before you guys started claiming he was a conservative republican....

View attachment 379657

I predict when republicans get desperate enough due to their policies continuing to fail and being unpopular -- they will pivot to using the same critiques MLK was using 60 years ago....

Lol, despite explaining where I was coming from, I actually admitted in that post that I stand corrected on the definition of a capitalist. But nah, if it's more satisfying to ignore that bit and tell yourself that you just owned someone who wouldn't admit to being wrong, have at it, friend. Some people really need a win, I won't shit on your parade.

By today's standards, MLK WAS a conservative, though that's an arguable point. As far as King being a Republican, I'm sorry sir, but that's just a fact.

MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard.

Yeah. I love MLK for what he did for racial relations going forward from the Civil Rights era, but he said a lot of shit that I don't agree with, too. Luckily, unlike a modern progressive, I don't need a historical figure to be the perfect image of my personal moral ideals in order to be grateful for the accomplishments that they made, or to respect the ways in which they were great.

Anyway, regardless of his views on socialism and the occasional statement contradicting the principles of the nonviolent protest that he ultimately exemplified, you haven't effectively disputed anything I said. He was still arguably conservative by today's standards given morals largely governed by the traditional Christian values of the era. Let's be real, on non racial social issues, even the leftists of that era openly held views on homosexuality and transsexualism (remember when it wasn't bigotry to call it that?) that would make anyone in 2020 unemployable. And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion.

"And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion."

Yeah, it's a hallucination.

• I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” ~ MLK Jr.

Fair enough that the testimony of his surviving family members isn't absolute proof, but neither are any of these quotes a negation.

I'm a registered republican who tends to vote for them over the democrats except in very unusual circumstances, and I identify completely with that first quote. There also are and have been individual members of the party who have risen even as high as presidential candidacy, who I not only would not vote for, but I also wouldn't vote for anyone who I was convinced was too closely aligned with those individuals (Romney and McCain being obvious examples).

You're right, though. When I said that's not an opinion, it was an overstatement.

Nope, it remains a delusion. Want proof? You have no evidence to support that claim.

I've actually specifically named my pieces of evidence. What I lack is proof. Same as you. If lacking proof is lacking evidence, and lacking evidence renders me delusional, then maybe you should be given the padded cell next door.

There is no evidence, so who knows what you "named?" He said himself he was not tied to either party. Then there was his own niece who confessed she was wrong when she wrongly asserted he was a Republican.

You could just reread.

I named the claim of his niece, Alveda King, and the known politics of the Republicans vs Democrats in the earlier days of the civil rights era. Not proof, but certainly evidence.

And he said he's not inexorably tied to either party. Neither am I, but I am a registered Republican who tends to vote that way. You've offered evidence here, but certainly not proof.

And who knows why you name his niece as evidence he was a Republican as she utterly exposes your hallucination...

"I have few regrets in my life. At the top of the list is the demise of two children in my womb, and one miscarriage. Next to that, I regret having said to a group of peers that my Uncle M. L. was a Republican. I said that without having all the facts.

My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr. was a registered Republican. Uncle M. L. was an independent, who in his own words tended to vote Democrat. I assumed that since granddaddy was a Republican, Uncle M. L. was too. After all, before the election of President John F. Kennedy, the majority of African-American voters were Republicans." ~ Alveda Celeste King​

 

[protectionist]

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....

Immigration is one of those words whose meaning stretches across a few different boundaries. Sure, citizenship is one of those but so is culture. Having grown up in New York City in the 50's and 60's and having met MANY Puerto Ricans, I can tell you that culture is another aspect of immigration, citizenship or not.

And Puerto Ricans from Puerto Rico are as far from being American as anyone can be. Different language, different customs, different music, different clothes, different food. They are more different from Americans than my mother's family when they immigrated here from Denmark, or my neighbors families who immigrated from France and Italy.

 

[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.

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....

Nah. Whatever dictionary Google uses for its top result on a definition search specifies "wealthy", but Merriam Webster does not.

Definition of CAPITALIST

a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat; a person who favors capitalism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The thing is, capitalism, unlike socialism, isn't a title that someone gave to a specific political/economic vision. It's one that started as a derogatory generalization, and is still just a blanket term for private economies. "Capitalist" emerged from that, which means there's bound to be a plethora of politically charged definitions that specify that a capitalist has to be rich, and then lists "plutocrat" as the top synonym.

When I describe what a capitalist is, I'm simply trying to remove the negative hyperbole from the equation and paint a realistic vision of an individual who manipulates economic leverage for personal gain in an economic system of voluntary contracts, which is literally everybody with a job. You're right, though, even Merriam-Webster's much looser definition of capitalist doesn't include what I've said, so I stand corrected. Everybody living or operating in a capitalist system might be the thing that capitalist WOULD mean if the folks coining the term weren't trying to paint an intentionally unflattering picture, but that is not technically the definition.

Perhaps, in failing to abide by these politically charged definitions, I'm committing the same sort of term skewering that I'm here attempting to mitigate, but I don't believe that to be the case. Socialism is actually the technical term for a specific relationship between society and economy, where capitalism is, again, a blanket term for private economies coined by people opposed to private economies.

Basically, acknowledging the nuances that make Chinese culture unique helps to preserve a culture that, political controversies and problems with specific regimes aside, has made massive mathematical, scientific and cultural contributions that have improved life for all of humanity throughout the ages. Acknowledging that "chink" refers specifically to Chinese people and not Southeast Asians in general, is not likely to preserve anything of value.

So basically it is whatever you can make it up to be at any given moment? cool...

This is what MLK said about capitalism......before you guys started claiming he was a conservative republican....

View attachment 379657

I predict when republicans get desperate enough due to their policies continuing to fail and being unpopular -- they will pivot to using the same critiques MLK was using 60 years ago....

Lol, despite explaining where I was coming from, I actually admitted in that post that I stand corrected on the definition of a capitalist. But nah, if it's more satisfying to ignore that bit and tell yourself that you just owned someone who wouldn't admit to being wrong, have at it, friend. Some people really need a win, I won't shit on your parade.

By today's standards, MLK WAS a conservative, though that's an arguable point. As far as King being a Republican, I'm sorry sir, but that's just a fact.

MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard.

Yeah. I love MLK for what he did for racial relations going forward from the Civil Rights era, but he said a lot of shit that I don't agree with, too. Luckily, unlike a modern progressive, I don't need a historical figure to be the perfect image of my personal moral ideals in order to be grateful for the accomplishments that they made, or to respect the ways in which they were great.

Anyway, regardless of his views on socialism and the occasional statement contradicting the principles of the nonviolent protest that he ultimately exemplified, you haven't effectively disputed anything I said. He was still arguably conservative by today's standards given morals largely governed by the traditional Christian values of the era. Let's be real, on non racial social issues, even the leftists of that era openly held views on homosexuality and transsexualism (remember when it wasn't bigotry to call it that?) that would make anyone in 2020 unemployable. And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion.

"And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion."

Yeah, it's a hallucination.

• I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.” ~ MLK Jr.
• “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” ~ MLK Jr.

Fair enough that the testimony of his surviving family members isn't absolute proof, but neither are any of these quotes a negation.

I'm a registered republican who tends to vote for them over the democrats except in very unusual circumstances, and I identify completely with that first quote. There also are and have been individual members of the party who have risen even as high as presidential candidacy, who I not only would not vote for, but I also wouldn't vote for anyone who I was convinced was too closely aligned with those individuals (Romney and McCain being obvious examples).

You're right, though. When I said that's not an opinion, it was an overstatement.

Nope, it remains a delusion. Want proof? You have no evidence to support that claim.

I've actually specifically named my pieces of evidence. What I lack is proof. Same as you. If lacking proof is lacking evidence, and lacking evidence renders me delusional, then maybe you should be given the padded cell next door.

There is no evidence, so who knows what you "named?" He said himself he was not tied to either party. Then there was his own niece who confessed she was wrong when she wrongly asserted he was a Republican.

You could just reread.

I named the claim of his niece, Alveda King, and the known politics of the Republicans vs Democrats in the earlier days of the civil rights era. Not proof, but certainly evidence.

And he said he's not inexorably tied to either party. Neither am I, but I am a registered Republican who tends to vote that way. You've offered evidence here, but certainly not proof.

And who knows why you name his niece as evidence he was a Republican as she utterly exposes your hallucination...

"I have few regrets in my life. At the top of the list is the demise of two children in my womb, and one miscarriage. Next to that, I regret having said to a group of peers that my Uncle M. L. was a Republican. I said that without having all the facts.​

​

My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr. was a registered Republican. Uncle M. L. was an independent, who in his own words tended to vote Democrat. I assumed that since granddaddy was a Republican, Uncle M. L. was too. After all, before the election of President John F. Kennedy, the majority of African-American voters were Republicans." ~ Alveda Celeste King​

No shit. Honestly hadn't ever seen that quote. I stand corrected.

 

[Mac-7]

Amazon packages are highly discounted.

Thats how the competitive marketplace works

its a symbiotic relationship that benefits both

 

[Mac-7]

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....

Immigration is one of those words whose meaning stretches across a few different boundaries. Sure, citizenship is one of those but so is culture. Having grown up in New York City in the 50's and 60's and having met MANY Puerto Ricans, I can tell you that culture is another aspect of immigration, citizenship or not.

And Puerto Ricans from Puerto Rico are as far from being American as anyone can be. Different language, different customs, different music, different clothes, different food. They are more different from Americans than my mother's family when they immigrated here from Denmark, or my neighbors families who immigrated from France and Italy.

And Puerto Ricans from Puerto Rico are as far from being American as anyone can be. Different language, different customs, different music, different clothes, different food. They are more different from Americans than my mother's family when they immigrated here from Denmark, or my neighbors families who immigrated from France and Italy.

Liberals see that and say, Americans must be more like Puerto Rico to make them feel at home

conservatives say the Puerto Ricans should adapt and become more like the traditional American culture

 

[Grumblenuts]

MLK was well before his time.

USPS isn't capitalistic, just like cucumbers aren't computer related.

No. Cucumbers are a commodity. So are computers. You're right. You're not getting this.

If you don't use a mailbox for profitable reasons, it's just a slot for outgoing correspondence

You are not listening. "Use" has nothing to do with ownership.

Lol. Way to ignore the point of the comparison.

With the mailboxes, I wasn't talking about ownership. I was talking about whether or not they're a means of production. If you could manage to refrain from whittling down the quote to which you're responding and then treating the fragment as a complete statement, you'd be likely to find that my meaning was actually pretty obvious.

USPS mailboxes are neither personally owned nor a means of production. The fact that UPS, FedEx, and Amazon aren't allowed to use them makes that even more obvious. "Means of production" was substituted for "resources" because it relates better to economic models like capitalism, rooted in individualism, self-interest, private property, exchangeable items of monetary value. Whereas resources could be anything including stuff like air and sunlight which no one owns (yet). Things serving the public interest. Democratic socialism emphasizes taking care of the people's needs instead of worrying about accumulating wealth or property.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

MLK was well befo

USPS isn't capitalistic, just like cucumbers aren't computer related.

No. Cucumbers are a commodity. So are computers. You're right. You're not getting this.

If you don't use a mailbox for profitable reasons, it's just a slot for outgoing correspondence

You are not listening. "Use" has nothing to do with ownership.

Lol. Way to ignore the point of the comparison.

With the mailboxes, I wasn't talking about ownership. I was talking about whether or not they're a means of production. If you could manage to refrain from whittling down the quote to which you're responding and then treating the fragment as a complete statement, you'd be likely to find that my meaning was actually pretty obvious.

USPS mailboxes are neither personally owned nor a means of production. The fact that UPS, FedEx, and Amazon aren't allowed to use them makes that even more obvious. "Means of production" was substituted for "resources" because it relates better to economic models like capitalism, rooted in individualism, self-interest, private property, exchangeable items of monetary value. Whereas resources could be anything including stuff like air and sunlight which no one owns (yet). Things serving the public interest.

Fair point on air and sunlight, but I still see no meaningful distinction between resources and means of production. Even if you factor in air and sunlight, any resource where scarcity is a factor is still on the list. If sunlight and air WERE scarce, and there were some feasible way of controlling their supply, bet your ASS they'd also be considered means of production by any socialist in a position of authority.

With USPS mailboxes, the fact that the government isn't using a potential means of production for profit doesn't cause that thing to cease to be a means of production. The fact that the use of those things is exclusively offered to the government service controlling them, also doesn't negate this classification. A tool is a tool regardless of whether you use it for "business" purposes.

Besides, if a means of production ceased to be a means of production as soon as the government stopped using it to turn a profit, then there's literally no such thing as socialism as, by definition, no system could possibly exist wherein the government/society/collective controls the means of production, as they would cease to be that the instant they were repurposed to become a government service. You've gone from defining socialism as everything, to defining socialism as nothing. Well played, I suppose.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I still see no meaningful distinction between resources and means of production.

Yep, you're determined alright. One can lead a horse to water..

 

[gtopa1]

Oh my! What a gaff! Everyone knows Puerto Ricans are American citizens...

I lived in Aguadilla, PR where her mom is from, for 3 years, its a beautiful place with beautiful beaches.... Ramey AFB was there....

It's hard to believe Kimberly G was California Governor Gavin Newsom's first wife!!!

"Her father, Anthony "Tony" Guilfoyle, was born in Ennis, County Clare, Ireland, and immigrated to the United States in 1957 at the age of 20.[8] In 1958, while still an Irish citizen, he was drafted and served for four years in the U.S. Army.[9] After being discharged from the army, Tony Guilfoyle took up work in the construction trades. He later became a real estate investor and, until his death in 2008, a close advisor to Mayor Newsom."

Hmmm...my Dad was about the same age when he came over here; I consider myself First Gen even though my Mum's people came here in the 1840s.

Greg

 

[protectionist]

Liberals see that and say, Americans must be more like Puerto Rico to make them feel at home

conservatives say the Puerto Ricans should adapt and become more like the traditional American culture

Years ago, during my college days, I went to a party in New York, and about 20 people showed up. About 10 Puerto Ricans, and 10 Americans. The Puerto Ricans quickly inserted their "music" into the record player in the living room, and began dancing.

15 minutes later, the host was wondering where all the Americans went. She opened the bedroom door and found all 10 Americans all crammed into the bedroom. Anything to get away from that awful "music".

Host thought we would all mix together. Couldn't have been more wrong. Multiculturalism does not work.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I still see no meaningful distinction between resources and means of production.

Yep, you're determined alright. One can lead a horse to water..

Not so determined that offering me an actual counterpoint won't budge my viewpoint on the matter. You've yet to do that with this point, though.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If "resources" is so equivalent to "means of production" why then substitute this newer three word term for the simple one word version?