Is socialism a violent socioeconomic system? Yes, indeed it is.

[jillian]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read contends, are not ideologies that exist somewhere out there among foreigners and shady agents of conspiracy. In America, the ideas of communism and socialism are alive and well among the supporters of public schooling, social security, the post office, and other tools of the state. In the end, whoever contends that the use of force is the proper method to attain “social performance” is spreading the ideas of socialism and communism.


_ _______________

Do we then have a right to violently stand our ground against socialists, berners, fascists?

Indeed we do.

rightwinger and his ilk will claim that the berners have a right to impose a tax and the Taxpayers and producers have no option other than to meekly pay it.

I say BULLSHIT.


What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
Thomas Jefferson

Are you trying to provoke people to an armed rebellion against a democratically elected government, if it was trying to adopt any social policies?

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

Surely that would depend on what was on the ballot paper ? Thats a given isnt it ?

1- the purpose of voting is to elect a candidate
2- the purpose of voting is not so the majority acquire FDR Bill of Rights
3- the purpose of voting is not to overthrow capitalism, freedom and adopt socialism

If you want to make the US a slave state you need a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

IF YOU WANT TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO STAND THEIR GROUND AND FILL YOU UP WITH LEAD

.

the purpose of voting is to vote for or against whomever or whatever is on the ballot. if what is on the ballot is alleged to be unconstitutional, it goes through the Court.

there is nothing in the constitution which establishes an economic philosophy.

 

[Contumacious]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read

*snip idiocy*SIZE]

the answer is no.

and your lack of understanding an/or knowledge about what socialism is versus what fascism is and how it has intersected in certain places is laughable.

Your attempt to deny that when government regulates the economy is fascism and when it owns the means of production is socialism is laughable indeed

well then the founding fathers must have been fascists, idiota, since they gave congress the right to legislate all things in interstate commerce.

psycho.

Yes, indeed.

But there are degrees of fascism.

The minimalist degree which was imposed by the US Constitution - they affect the economy in a minimal way - but the government powers were specifically enumerated - the Country was substantially free.

All of that changed in 1913 with the adoption of the heavy graduated "income tax" and the Federal Reserve Act which allowed fedgov to control banking and credit

The second major changed occurred in 1935 when FDR intimidated SCOTUS and the Court succumbed to the fascists in a major way. The limitations of of the government power were limitless.; Justtice James Clark McReynolds dissented - but his dissent was CENSORED and SUPPRESSED

Now that our economy is vastly regulated the socialists are coming out of the woodwork.


.

 

[francoHFW]

We've been fighting communism (socialism, Marxism, all the same shit) in both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Mine and your ancestors died fighting against this repression. And now you so-called "progressives" are embracing this garbage. Shame on you fools.

Socialism has been defined as democratic ALWAYS, and nothing more than fair capitalism with a good safety net, since the USSR was revealed in the thirties and forties. At least the US will figure that out now- except for brainwashed chumps like you- half the GOP= 20% of the country.

 

[Skylar]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read

*snip idiocy*SIZE]

the answer is no.

and your lack of understanding an/or knowledge about what socialism is versus what fascism is and how it has intersected in certain places is laughable.

Your attempt to deny that when government regulates the economy is fascism and when it owns the means of production is socialism is laughable indeed

well then the founding fathers must have been fascists, idiota, since they gave congress the right to legislate all things in interstate commerce.

psycho.

Yes, indeed.

But there are degrees of fascism.

So the founding fathers were fascists according to you.

The minimalist degree which was imposed by the US Constitution - they affect the economy in a minimal way - but the government powers were specifically enumerated - the Country was substantially free.

And what is the 'minimalist degree' that is imposed by Congress? What limits to interstate commerce are offered in the constitution?

All of that changed in 1913 with the adoption of the heavy graduated "income tax" and the Federal Reserve Act which allowed fedgov to control banking and credit

Income tax is part of the constitution, Cont. And the US using central banking goes back to the Bank of the United States, created in the first session of congress.

The second major changed occurred in 1935 when FDR intimidated SCOTUS and the Court succumbed to the fascists in a major way. The limitations of of the government power were limitless.; Justtice James Clark McReynolds dissented - but his dissent was CENSORED and SUPPRESSED

Intimidated....according to who? That's a pretty serious allegation. Can you back it with evidence?

 

[jillian]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read

*snip idiocy*SIZE]

the answer is no.

and your lack of understanding an/or knowledge about what socialism is versus what fascism is and how it has intersected in certain places is laughable.

Your attempt to deny that when government regulates the economy is fascism and when it owns the means of production is socialism is laughable indeed

well then the founding fathers must have been fascists, idiota, since they gave congress the right to legislate all things in interstate commerce.

psycho.

Yes, indeed.

But there are degrees of fascism.

The minimalist degree which was imposed by the US Constitution - they affect the economy in a minimal way - but the government powers were specifically enumerated - the Country was substantially free.

All of that changed in 1913 with the adoption of the heavy graduated "income tax" and the Federal Reserve Act which allowed fedgov to control banking and credit

The second major changed occurred in 1935 when FDR intimidated SCOTUS and the Court succumbed to the fascists in a major way. The limitations of of the government power were limitless.; Justtice James Clark McReynolds dissented - but his dissent was CENSORED and SUPPRESSED

Now that our economy is vastly regulated the socialists are coming out of the woodwork.


.

not really..... you still don't understand anything about our constitution. you don't understand anything about how our courts work and you don't understand that socialism does not equal communism does not equal fascism.

socialism is socialism
communism is communism
fascism is fascism.

sometimes they get mixed up together in bad circumstances like what the soviet union used to be. but that wasn't pure communism. pure communism requires the government to disappear altogether.

you're braying at the moon.

btw, if you knew anything about history, you'd know that FDR did not intimidate the Court. the Court stood its ground and told him to take a hike.

apparently, you don't know history OR the constitution

 

[Contumacious]

We've been fighting communism (socialism, Marxism, all the same shit) in both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Mine and your ancestors died fighting against this repression. And now you so-called "progressives" are embracing this garbage. Shame on you fools.

Socialism has been defined as democratic ALWAYS, and nothing more than fair capitalism with a good safety net, since the USSR was revealed in the thirties and forties. At least the US will figure that out now- except for brainwashed chumps like you- half the GOP= 20% of the country.

REPEATING



In Venezuela they "democratically" adopted socialism now they wonder:

Venezuela food shortages: 'No one can explain why a rich country has no food'

 

[francoHFW]

We've been fighting communism (socialism, Marxism, all the same shit) in both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Mine and your ancestors died fighting against this repression. And now you so-called "progressives" are embracing this garbage. Shame on you fools.

Socialism has been defined as democratic ALWAYS, and nothing more than fair capitalism with a good safety net, since the USSR was revealed in the thirties and forties. At least the US will figure that out now- except for brainwashed chumps like you- half the GOP= 20% of the country.

REPEATING



In Venezuela they "democratically" adopted socialism now they wonder:

Venezuela food shortages: 'No one can explain why a rich country has no food'

They know it's due to sabotage by THEIR oligarchs, dupe. Now the socialists are losing power, democratically, even in that shittehole. After ALL the bs from the new bs GOP about how they were dictators etc etc. In a few years they halved poverty and ended illiteracy, Horrors! Thanks for the corrupt Booosh World Depression, fool.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Outside the Cold War dinosaur, US RW idiocy bubble, that's COMMUNISM, not socialism, dumbass. Everywhere else, socialism is ALWAYS democratic, fair capitalism. Hopefully, Bernie will finally end the stupidity/ignorance for good.

That you are an ignorant, uneducated troll is not the issue. We already know that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You have well proven as much.

This in no way change the basic economic fact that production can be based on coercion or the promise of reward. Again, I realize that you have zero effective education in history, still feudalism has at times been termed "gentle coercion." This is because serfs were rarely abused openly. They were not beaten by slave drivers as chattel often were. Even so, the system was coercive and labor was performed under the implied thread.

You cannot learn or think, so this information is for lurkers or others reading this thread. Command economies are ALWAYS coercive. You can couch it in whatever terms you like, but the motive power of socialism is ultimately the whip. When all the fluff is boiled away, men have only two ways of dealing with one another, the trade of value between equals, or the threat of the whip by a master to his slave. You advocate for the whip.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think just having a government and working together as a people is something that is evil to the op. He probably should find another country like Somalia or the rain forest of Brazil to move too.

 

[Contumacious]

I think just having a government and working together as a people is something that is evil to the op. He probably should find another country like Somalia or the rain forest of Brazil to move too.

I think just having a free Constitutional Republic is evil to you. You should find another country like Somalia or create some sort of commune in the rain forest of Brazil to move too.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

HOW CAN OBAMA HELLCARE BE CONSTITUTIONAL?

Was that from our conversation regarding ARMED INSURECTION or the OP? It sure as Hell wasn't, but it sure does get you out of having to respond on topic, you fucking dodging coward!

HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT HAVE POWERS WHICH HAVE NOT BE BE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED?

Was that from our conversation regarding ARMED INSURECTION or the OP? It sure as Hell wasn't, but it sure does get you out of having to respond on topic, you fucking dodging coward!

HOW CAN SCOTUS LOWER THE STANDARD FROM AUTHORITY SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED TO THE GOVERNMENT MERELY HAVING TO SHOW THAT AN ACT IS "REASONABLE"?

Was that from our conversation regarding ARMED INSURECTION or the OP? It sure as Hell wasn't, but it sure does get you out of having to respond on topic, you fucking dodging coward!

WHY DO THE "JUDICIARY" REFUSES TO CONSIDER CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS SHOWING THAT THE 16TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER ADOPTED

Was that from our conversation regarding ARMED INSURECTION or the OP? It sure as Hell wasn't, but it sure does get you out of having to respond on topic, you fucking dodging coward!
________________

It might be helpful for you to focus and stay focused. Either you CAN explain the Constitutional authority which allows an armed rebellion against lawful constituted Federal authority by citing the Article, Section and Clause(s) of the Constitution or you can't because it doesn't fucking exist. Either do that, concede the point OR STFU rather than that painfully ignorant claptrap you're spouting.

You really are forgetting to switch your thumbs between you mouth and anal orifice again, HUH!

 

[francoHFW]

Outside the Cold War dinosaur, US RW idiocy bubble, that's COMMUNISM, not socialism, dumbass. Everywhere else, socialism is ALWAYS democratic, fair capitalism. Hopefully, Bernie will finally end the stupidity/ignorance for good.

That you are an ignorant, uneducated troll is not the issue. We already know that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You have well proven as much.

This in no way change the basic economic fact that production can be based on coercion or the promise of reward. Again, I realize that you have zero effective education in history, still feudalism has at times been termed "gentle coercion." This is because serfs were rarely abused openly. They were not beaten by slave drivers as chattel often were. Even so, the system was coercive and labor was performed under the implied thread.

You cannot learn or think, so this information is for lurkers or others reading this thread. Command economies are ALWAYS coercive. You can couch it in whatever terms you like, but the motive power of socialism is ultimately the whip. When all the fluff is boiled away, men have only two ways of dealing with one another, the trade of value between equals, or the threat of the whip by a master to his slave. You advocate for the whip.

I have a Masters in World History, you have a masters in RW propaganda/gobbledygook. Socialism is not a command economy. Command translates into totalitarianism- RW fascism and LW communism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Any regulation of the economy is fascism? Really?

If that's your argument, you're raising ignorance to an art form.

I assume you think that Fascism was created by Barry Goldwater or the hated Ronald Reagan, right?

In reality there was a man named Benito Mussolini who lived in Italy. He was raised by a father who was a Communist party member and raised Benito on Marxist rhetoric. Benito rose in the ranks of the Communist party and was made the editor of the official Communist party newspaper. He was dispatched to Switzerland by Vladimir Lenin to lead a general strike. The strike failed and Benito was thrown in prison. He expected to be sprung by Lenin, but Lenin let him rot in a Swiss jail for 6 months. Finally Lenin sent an operative to negotiate and Mussolini was released and deported.

Two factors here, Mussolini was bitter over the abandonment by his boss, and Mussolini was a megalomaniac in his own right. Socialism doesn't work, it is not economically sound. Mussolini set out to "fix" socialism. The primary flaw is that socialism provides no incentive to get men to produce. The lack of a profit motive ensures that socialism will always fail. Mussolini loved totalitarianism as much as Obama did, he simply recognized the failure of socialist economics. So he created a totalitarian state that would rival Bernie Sanders wet dreams. He also had a command economy where the state determined what would be produced and in what quantity. HOWEVER, he added in the profit motive by allowing private property and private profits. Mussolini had a socialist system where the state controlled the means of production, without directly owning them.

Fascism then is a form of socialism where the state controls the means of production without direct ownership. Generally corporation staffed with stooges loyal to the regime (Think GE and Jeffery Immelt) are the owners of heavy industry.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have a Masters in World History, you have a masters in RW propaganda/gobbledygook. Socialism is not a command economy. Command translates into totalitarianism- RW fascism and LW communism.

Two possibilities;

You've had a stroke that eradicated any knowledge you once had;

Or you got your masters from a Cracker Jacks box.

{
Full Definition of socialism

1. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods}

You ignorant and uneducated baboon.

 

[Contumacious]

Instead of Violence

Communism and socialism, Read

*snip idiocy*SIZE]

the answer is no.

and your lack of understanding an/or knowledge about what socialism is versus what fascism is and how it has intersected in certain places is laughable.

Your attempt to deny that when government regulates the economy is fascism and when it owns the means of production is socialism is laughable indeed

well then the founding fathers must have been fascists, idiota, since they gave congress the right to legislate all things in interstate commerce.

psycho.

Yes, indeed.

But there are degrees of fascism.

So the founding fathers were fascists according to you.

The minimalist degree which was imposed by the US Constitution - they affect the economy in a minimal way - but the government powers were specifically enumerated - the Country was substantially free.

And what is the 'minimalist degree' that is imposed by Congress? What limits to interstate commerce are offered in the constitution?

All of that changed in 1913 with the adoption of the heavy graduated "income tax" and the Federal Reserve Act which allowed fedgov to control banking and credit

Income tax is part of the constitution, Cont. And the US using central banking goes back to the Bank of the United States, created in the first session of congress.

The second major changed occurred in 1935 when FDR intimidated SCOTUS and the Court succumbed to the fascists in a major way. The limitations of of the government power were limitless.; Justtice James Clark McReynolds dissented - but his dissent was CENSORED and SUPPRESSED

Intimidated....according to who? That's a pretty serious allegation. Can you back it with evidence?

And what is the 'minimalist degree' that is imposed by Congress? What limits to interstate commerce are offered in the constitution?

The US Constitution(1787) ended in 1935

The Constitution as many of us have understood it, the Constitution that has meant so much, is gone. . . . Horrible dishonesty! . . . Shame and humiliation are upon us."

The Honorable James Clark McReynolds-SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
DISSENTING GOLD CLAUSE CASES

The ONLY justice whose dissent has been CENSORED

DREAM ON STUPID MOTHERFUCKER

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are wingnuts violent sociopaths who do a lot of projection?

Leftwingnuts of the demagogue - sociopath party?

Absolutely.

 

[alpine]

We've been fighting communism (socialism, Marxism, all the same shit) in both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Mine and your ancestors died fighting against this repression. And now you so-called "progressives" are embracing this garbage. Shame on you fools.

Socialism has been defined as democratic ALWAYS, and nothing more than fair capitalism with a good safety net, since the USSR was revealed in the thirties and forties. At least the US will figure that out now- except for brainwashed chumps like you- half the GOP= 20% of the country.

REPEATING



In Venezuela they "democratically" adopted socialism now they wonder:

Venezuela food shortages: 'No one can explain why a rich country has no food'

When you are looking at Venezuela, you also have to look at the reasons why they have adopted such an extreme way of handling their economy, democratically.

You gotta look at the fact that while rich was fattening in the countries riches, ordinary people got poorer and poorer.

Venezuela should be a lesson for the rich class, rather than the poor. Poor class in Venezuela is not in any worse condition than what they were in, before they have elected a socialist guy to power.

But this is not true for the rich people. Their conditions have worsened.

So, the bottom line is; if rich want to prosper in this country, they have to take care of the poor, and especially the mid class, in the process. Its that simple....

 

[Contumacious]

We've been fighting communism (socialism, Marxism, all the same shit) in both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Mine and your ancestors died fighting against this repression. And now you so-called "progressives" are embracing this garbage. Shame on you fools.

Socialism has been defined as democratic ALWAYS, and nothing more than fair capitalism with a good safety net, since the USSR was revealed in the thirties and forties. At least the US will figure that out now- except for brainwashed chumps like you- half the GOP= 20% of the country.

REPEATING



In Venezuela they "democratically" adopted socialism now they wonder:

Venezuela food shortages: 'No one can explain why a rich country has no food'

When you are looking at Venezuela, you also have to look at the reasons why they have adopted such an extreme way of handling their economy, democratically.

You gotta look at the fact that while rich was fattening in the countries riches, ordinary people got poorer and poorer.

Venezuela should be a lesson for the rich class, rather than the poor. Poor class in Venezuela is not in any worse condition than what they were in, before they have elected a socialist guy to power.

But this is not true for the rich people. Their conditions have worsened.

So, the bottom line is; if rich want to prosper in this country, they have to take care of the poor, and especially the mid class, in the process. Its that simple....

THE ****ONLY****LESSON TO BE LEARNED IS THAT IN VENEZUELA, THE US, AND ANY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE FACE OF MOTHER EARTH

GOVERNMENT SHOULD KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF FROM ECONOMIC MATTERS


GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS SHOULD KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF FROM THEIR ECONOMIES

.

 

[SmokeALib]

We've been fighting communism (socialism, Marxism, all the same shit) in both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Mine and your ancestors died fighting against this repression. And now you so-called "progressives" are embracing this garbage. Shame on you fools.

Socialism has been defined as democratic ALWAYS, and nothing more than fair capitalism with a good safety net, since the USSR was revealed in the thirties and forties. At least the US will figure that out now- except for brainwashed chumps like you- half the GOP= 20% of the country.

Safety net my ass. Oppression is a better description.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Conservatives are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and right wing politics lead people to be racist

Feel free to save this link and use it where needed.