Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[danielpalos]

So dictionary definitions are stupid? Really?

Is that ALL definitions? Or just the ones that don't say what you want them to say?

This is the definition of 'socialism' from one of the most, respected dictionaries in the world - the Oxford Dictionary:

'socialism

NOUN
mass noun

• 1A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.'

socialism | Definition of socialism in English by Oxford Dictionaries

So are they 'stupid' as well?
Yes or No, please?


Oh and who is it that I voted for that makes me 'stupid'?

Owned or regulated, communism or socialism? Any Republican ever.

I have never voted for a Rep (or a Dem) in my life.

And you dodged the obvious:

So dictionary definitions are stupid? Really?

Is that ALL definitions? Or just the ones that don't say what you want them to say?

This is the definition of 'socialism' from one of the most, respected dictionaries in the world - the Oxford Dictionary:

'socialism

NOUN
mass noun

• 1A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.'

socialism | Definition of socialism in English by Oxford Dictionaries

So are they 'stupid' as well?
Yes or No, please?

This is an obvious strategy by Democrats to undermine criticism of socialism by undermining the meaning of the word itself.

Democratic socialism then, brainwashed Cold War dinosaur functional moron.

That's an oxymoron

When the government owns all means of production and distribution there can be no democracy

Why should we take the right wing seriously?

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.

Aristotle

 

[Ambivalent1]

Here’s the reply you’ll get : “that’s not socialism “. As much as Cons talk about the democrats socialism, none of them can you an example of it .

You mean of course that NONE of them give you your version of it therefore they are all wrong.

 

[dblack]

Here’s the reply you’ll get : “that’s not socialism “. As much as Cons talk about the democrats socialism, none of them can you an example of it .

There is no spoon! Smoke and mirrors, baby.

 

[the other mike]

Here’s the reply you’ll get : “that’s not socialism “. As much as Cons talk about the democrats socialism, none of them can you an example of it .

You mean of course that NONE of them give you your version of it therefore they are all wrong.

Here's their example of a socialist. Barack (Wall Street ) Obama...who gave a $500,000 speech at Goldman Sachs after he left the White House ( to reassure them of how well 'socialism' is doing )

 

[beautress]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”

Spare us the commie propaganda. The depression occurred because of government meddling in the economy.,

Spare us your right wing appeals to ignorance. Capitalism is about Boom and Bust.

Boom and bust? Don't you like electric lights? Don't you like produce in the stores from around the world? Don't you like beautiful homes or apartments furnished to the nines for your family to enjoy?

I saw some interesting buildings with narrow windows in a town on the Baltic sea once. They housed many people in living quarters. The width of the rooms was 9 meters, and they were 10 meters long. The city quit building new homes two centuries ago. So the thought of cooking food 3 meters from the toilet excites you? Best of all the country those homes were in will never have to worry about capitalism being their problem.

Without this nation's capitalism, if you don't like your neighbors, you do not have to plot their murder. You can move to a bigger, better neighborhood where people are friendlier and dance through life without bad neighbors whose snores go through the walls and you instantly know when they're having a bowel movement because you can smell it.

When you throw out capitalism, it's a little like throwing the baby out with its bathwater. Of course, I guess scatological smells turn some people on.

 

[danielpalos]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”

Spare us the commie propaganda. The depression occurred because of government meddling in the economy.,

Spare us your right wing appeals to ignorance. Capitalism is about Boom and Bust.

Boom and bust? Don't you like electric lights? Don't you like produce in the stores from around the world? Don't you like beautiful homes or apartments furnished to the nines for your family to enjoy?

I saw some interesting buildings with narrow windows in a town on the Baltic sea once. They housed many people in living quarters. The width of the rooms was 9 meters, and they were 10 meters long. The city quit building new homes two centuries ago. So the thought of cooking food 3 meters from the toilet excites you? Best of all the country those homes were in will never have to worry about capitalism being their problem.

Without this nation's capitalism, if you don't like your neighbors, you do not have to plot their murder. You can move to a bigger, better neighborhood where people are friendlier and dance through life without bad neighbors whose snores go through the walls and you instantly know when they're having a bowel movement because you can smell it.

When you throw out capitalism, it's a little like throwing the baby out with its bathwater. Of course, I guess scatological smells turn some people on.

in right wing fantasy, You are Always right.

Capitalism "died in 1929" and socialism has been bailing out capitalism ever since. It is like Palmolive, you are "soaking in it".

 

[the other mike]

Boom and bust? Don't you like electric lights? Don't you like produce in the stores from around the world? Don't you like beautiful homes or apartments furnished to the nines for your family to enjoy?

I saw some interesting buildings with narrow windows in a town on the Baltic sea once. They housed many people in living quarters. The width of the rooms was 9 meters, and they were 10 meters long. The city quit building new homes two centuries ago. So the thought of cooking food 3 meters from the toilet excites you? Best of all the country those homes were in will never have to worry about capitalism being their problem.

Without this nation's capitalism, if you don't like your neighbors, you do not have to plot their murder. You can move to a bigger, better neighborhood where people are friendlier and dance through life without bad neighbors whose snores go through the walls and you instantly know when they're having a bowel movement because you can smell it.

When you throw out capitalism, it's a little like throwing the baby out with its bathwater. Of course, I guess scatological smells turn some people on.

After WW2 we had somewhat of a democratic republic in which capitalism and socialism were working for us until the ones with the most 'capital' decided to turn it into a corporatocracy ( oligarchy, monarchy, plutocracy....call it whatever) which is what we fought the Revolutionary War against.

Now we've come almost full circle back to the drawing board trying to decide which historic lessons can be best learned from before we approach the next fork in the road.

I believe we need to demilitarize and shift to manufacturing stuff that isn't military. In the 50's and 60's, instead of building our democracy, we thought is was more important to spread ourselves thin and try to stop communism 6000 miles away instead. And look at us $22 trillion in debt 60 years later.

 

[Timmy]

Here’s the reply you’ll get : “that’s not socialism “. As much as Cons talk about the democrats socialism, none of them can you an example of it .

You mean of course that NONE of them give you your version of it therefore they are all wrong.

Socialism has a specific definition. Show me where I’m ignoring an example that fits the definition.

 

[dblack]

Here’s the reply you’ll get : “that’s not socialism “. As much as Cons talk about the democrats socialism, none of them can you an example of it .

You mean of course that NONE of them give you your version of it therefore they are all wrong.

Socialism has a specific definition. Show me where I’m ignoring an example that fits the definition.

Well, I brought up ACA. You ignored the shit out of that.

 

[MisterBeale]

I don't even know what you're talkin about. The Constitution holds, what the hell is wrong with you. Even in a socialist United States, and to be barely socialist, all we need is Healthcare.

Really? Just healthcare? What about food? Housing? Clothing? Internet access? Cell phones?

To qualify as socialist, that is the opinion of socialists around the world it appears. But we are one hell of a ripoff by the rich GOP greedy idiots.... Our benefits suck. That is basically what's socialism is benefits that we deserve as workers. Living wage Health Care daycare paid parental leav good vacations good infrastructure etc.

Quote for me the section in the Constitution that guarantees you the right to any of that please. . . .

when the right wing shows us the war on crime, drugs, and terror clause.

agreed

 

[Blues Man]

Owned or regulated, communism or socialism? Any Republican ever.

I have never voted for a Rep (or a Dem) in my life.

And you dodged the obvious:

So dictionary definitions are stupid? Really?

Is that ALL definitions? Or just the ones that don't say what you want them to say?

This is the definition of 'socialism' from one of the most, respected dictionaries in the world - the Oxford Dictionary:

'socialism

NOUN
mass noun

• 1A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.'

socialism | Definition of socialism in English by Oxford Dictionaries

So are they 'stupid' as well?
Yes or No, please?

This is an obvious strategy by Democrats to undermine criticism of socialism by undermining the meaning of the word itself.

Democratic socialism then, brainwashed Cold War dinosaur functional moron.

That's an oxymoron

When the government owns all means of production and distribution there can be no democracy

Why should we take the right wing seriously?

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.

Aristotle

Why should I take you seriously?

 

[Blues Man]

I don't even know what you're talkin about. The Constitution holds, what the hell is wrong with you. Even in a socialist United States, and to be barely socialist, all we need is Healthcare.

Really? Just healthcare? What about food? Housing? Clothing? Internet access? Cell phones?

To qualify as socialist, that is the opinion of socialists around the world it appears. But we are one hell of a ripoff by the rich GOP greedy idiots.... Our benefits suck. That is basically what's socialism is benefits that we deserve as workers. Living wage Health Care daycare paid parental leav good vacations good infrastructure etc.

Quote for me the section in the Constitution that guarantees you the right to any of that please. . . .

when the right wing shows us the war on crime, drugs, and terror clause.

agreed

So you don't think the government has the right to pass laws and that those laws must pass Constitutional muster before being enacted?

IF that's what you think then you must want to dissolve the house and the senate because their main duty as outlined in the Constitution is to pass legislation

 

[bripat9643]

Boom and bust? Don't you like electric lights? Don't you like produce in the stores from around the world? Don't you like beautiful homes or apartments furnished to the nines for your family to enjoy?

I saw some interesting buildings with narrow windows in a town on the Baltic sea once. They housed many people in living quarters. The width of the rooms was 9 meters, and they were 10 meters long. The city quit building new homes two centuries ago. So the thought of cooking food 3 meters from the toilet excites you? Best of all the country those homes were in will never have to worry about capitalism being their problem.

Without this nation's capitalism, if you don't like your neighbors, you do not have to plot their murder. You can move to a bigger, better neighborhood where people are friendlier and dance through life without bad neighbors whose snores go through the walls and you instantly know when they're having a bowel movement because you can smell it.

When you throw out capitalism, it's a little like throwing the baby out with its bathwater. Of course, I guess scatological smells turn some people on.

After WW2 we had somewhat of a democratic republic in which capitalism and socialism were working for us until the ones with the most 'capital' decided to turn it into a corporatocracy ( oligarchy, monarchy, plutocracy....call it whatever) which is what we fought the Revolutionary War against.

Now we've come almost full circle back to the drawing board trying to decide which historic lessons can be best learned from before we approach the next fork in the road.

I believe we need to demilitarize and shift to manufacturing stuff that isn't military. In the 50's and 60's, instead of building our democracy, we thought is was more important to spread ourselves thin and try to stop communism 6000 miles away instead. And look at us $22 trillion in debt 60 years later.

Too many idiocies to waste my time on.

You're spewing communist propaganda.

 

[the other mike]

Too many idiocies to waste my time on.

You're spewing communist propaganda.

Really ? You mean hippy antiwar talking points?

 

[bripat9643]

Too many idiocies to waste my time on.

You're spewing communist propaganda.

Really ? You mean antiwar ?
View attachment 246213

Apparently you believe that statement has some logical connection with your previous post.

 

[the other mike]

Too many idiocies to waste my time on.

You're spewing communist propaganda.

Really ? You mean antiwar ?
View attachment 246213

Apparently you believe that statement has some logical connection with your previous post.

Apparently you have a serious reading comprehension issue or you are clueless of your political definitions if you think I'm spreading fucking "communist propaganda". Try doing some actual research and come back with some original thoughts of your own, and then we'll talk.

 

[MisterBeale]

Really? Just healthcare? What about food? Housing? Clothing? Internet access? Cell phones?

To qualify as socialist, that is the opinion of socialists around the world it appears. But we are one hell of a ripoff by the rich GOP greedy idiots.... Our benefits suck. That is basically what's socialism is benefits that we deserve as workers. Living wage Health Care daycare paid parental leav good vacations good infrastructure etc.

Quote for me the section in the Constitution that guarantees you the right to any of that please. . . .

when the right wing shows us the war on crime, drugs, and terror clause.

agreed

So you don't think the government has the right to pass laws and that those laws must pass Constitutional muster before being enacted?

IF that's what you think then you must want to dissolve the house and the senate because their main duty as outlined in the Constitution is to pass legislation

Sure, sounds good.


It isn't working anymore anyhow.

 

[bripat9643]

Too many idiocies to waste my time on.

You're spewing communist propaganda.

Really ? You mean antiwar ?
View attachment 246213

Apparently you believe that statement has some logical connection with your previous post.

Apparently you have a serious reading comprehension issue or you are clueless of your political definitions if you think I'm spreading fucking "communist propaganda". Try doing some actual research and come back with some original thoughts of your own, and then we'll talk.

That's exactly what it is, snowflake.

 

[badger2]

Violent reactive scumbags like franco don't have the stones to discuss the ambiguous trident, a symbology which reveals the pre-planned theatrics of American elections, though (even post-genocide) a Native American can perceive the trident correctly the first time.

 

[Andylusion]

I had already provided a link, but i suppose is par for the course for the reading impaired.
The average tax refund is down 8 percent this year, meaning that people are paying more tax overall. There is no tax cut for normal people.
It doesn't mean that necessarily

If less taxes were taken out of a person's pay then they overpaid a smaller amount therefore the refund will be smaller

A tax refund is the poorest of all ways to determine the total tax paid as all a refund reflects is the over payment of taxes due.

And it doesn't account for what should be the high-dollar taxes ( at this point ) like capital gains and estate
and all the loopholes around those. If Koch Industries profits $10 billion a year it doesn't matter-- Charles and David can set their income levels low in order to pay less, and have a team of full-time lawyers to pull it off..

It isn't a "loophole". Anyone that does any worth while investing, can take advantage of the lower tax rates on capital gains.

Doesn't matter if you earn $20,000 a year, or $20 Billion a year. Everyone can enjoy the benefits of lower taxes on capital gains.

Moreover, this is what is known as "wise". People that are not greed driven envy filled scum, understand that investment is a benefit to absolutely everyone. Investment is why everything exists. Investment is the defacto driving force behind every economy that exists.

Investment being such an important, if not vital part of every economy, should be supported and promoted, and lowering the taxes on returns from investment is an important part of motivating investment.

Therefore, this is a good thing.

Instead of whining and crying about lower taxes on investment... how about you do some investing yourself.

So you're suggesting anyone can get rich in this rigged system where the already wealthy are driving up their own stock prices in share buy-backs ?

Yes absolutely.

By the way... you can buy a share in any of those companies.

So if you buy stock in a company, where the "wealthy are driving up their own stock prices in share buy-backs", then would that not make you wealthy too, since you own stock in those companies?

Do you want me to list off all the companies I own stock in?

This is what is baffling to me. You personally, can buy stock in all those companies. So instead of crying about how they have share buy-backs that drive up stock prices.... buy stock.... then they are driving up the value of your own stock.

Not a hard concept. Stop crying, start investing.