Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[dblack]

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

You're damn straight, twice a day I suppose. That's why everyone in the real world calls that communism and it is a total failure and always totalitarian, while since the early 20th century socialism has been defined more and more as always Democratic Fair capitalism with a good safety net.. people discovered the Karl Marx was fos and always wrong except for the plight of the proletariat at the time. Then people discovered that the USSR was a scam with no democracy. Wake up and smell the coffee for crying out loud, the Socialist parties in every modern country that has one is always my definition.Only You brainwashed functional morons of the GOP, and there are Democrats and conservatives in other countries that continue this scam definition of communism as socialism. Ask Bernie Sanders or AOC what socialism is dipstick. It is democratic socialism always democratic... Except for you Chumps who still believe every phony Scandal about Hillary Obama the FBI, still believe that the rich pay too much in taxes LOL. Change the channel and read something from actual journalists and law enforcement, brainwashed functional morons...

And yet the dictionary defines it as socialism

you know what you want

So who is correct you or the people who publish the OED?

I know who I'll put my money on

I've said it before, but this is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the definition of socialism, to in turn neutralize opposition to socialism. Don't let them get away with it.

There is no consensus as to what capitalism means. Why would socialism be any different?

Are you going for irony here?

 

[Andylusion]

under capitalism, man oppresses man. under socialism, its the other way around my friends. its a whole different ballgame!

Please explain how 'man oppresses man' under capitalism? Be default, understand that employment cannot be oppression, since I am choosing to be employed.

 

[the other mike]

There is no consensus as to what capitalism means. Why would socialism be any different?

Are you going for irony here?

It is pretty naive to still believe we live in a democracy, even if you're sheltered financially and don't acknowledge the disappearance of the 'American Dream' - the maids surely keep those yacht windows clean enough to see out of.

 

[Andylusion]

under capitalism, man oppresses man. under socialism, its the other way around my friends. its a whole different ballgame!

We are the only Rich developed country that is not socialist in the modern sense, so the Rich are screwing over everyone else... Congratulations to the GOP great job!

We are the only Rich developed country that is not socialist in the modern sense

Must be why we have the largest economy, eh comrade?

I'm always baffled by how people can look at a country founded, and built on Capitalism, that has existing for only a short 200 years compared to those which has existed for thousands of years, which has the largest economy on the face of the earth, the highest standard of living, and then laugh when you point this out, as if it the two things can't be connected.

But I guess you have to deny reality, when facing it would force you to reconsider your ideology.

 

[the other mike]

Tiger Woods has a pretty nice one.

 

[the other mike]

I'm always baffled by how people can look at a country founded, and built on Capitalism, that has existing for only a short 200 years compared to those which has existed for thousands of years, which has the largest economy on the face of the earth, the highest standard of living, and then laugh when you point this out, as if it the two things can't be connected.

But I guess you have to deny reality, when facing it would force you to reconsider your ideology.

Nobody says they want move to Russia, Huckleberry.

 

[Andylusion]

There is no consensus as to what capitalism means. Why would socialism be any different?

Are you going for irony here?

It is pretty naive to still believe we live in a democracy, even if you're sheltered financially and don't acknowledge the disappearance of the 'American Dream' - the maids surely keep those yacht windows clean enough to see out of.

Just think of all the middle class, and upper middle class people who have employment making those ships.

And quite frankly, you are an idiot when it comes to job creation.

Do you have any idea how much yacht crews make?

An experienced deck hand can make $42,000 a year. That's for the smallest of yachts. By the way, that salary, doesn't include free room and board. You typically have a fairly nice place to live, and the food is provided.

The more yachts on the water, the more middle class jobs are created, both in building those ships, and working on them. Idiot.

 

[the other mike]

Just think of all the middle class, and upper middle class people who have employment making those ships.

And quite frankly, you are an idiot when it comes to job creation.

Do you have any idea how much yacht crews make?

An experienced deck hand can make $42,000 a year. That's for the smallest of yachts. By the way, that salary, doesn't include free room and board. You typically have a fairly nice place to live, and the food is provided.

The more yachts on the water, the more middle class jobs are created, both in building those ships, and working on them. Idiot.

Good business people don't talk like that.
You're a total fraud with your 250% portfolio.

 

[Toro]

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes wealth.

Without capitalism, socialism wouldn't exist as a concept.

Ergo, capitalism > socialism.

 

[Toro]

The early 1900s shows us that unregulated capitalism will destroy itself .

Irrelevant in the 2010s.

 

[the other mike]

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes wealth.

Without capitalism, socialism wouldn't exist as a concept.

Ergo, capitalism > socialism.

Without a strong, vibrant, healthy society, capitalism is a failure.

 

[danielpalos]

Where danielpalos gets discombobulated is at the point where the left itself is defined. Since Deleuze presupposed such lack of education as D's by redefining The Left, D has always already been screwed by information anarchy, though D does not know it. D spends too much time in an illusory libidinal world fixated on the flesh, somewhat similar to most closet xians (atheism secretors) f'ed up on the Lord.

The reader has the capability at this point to take the ambiguous trident seriously, whether used in elections or current media, especially when investigating Trollop Pelosi's modus operandi. Firstly, it must be shown why socialism is impossible, followed by a Sanders-Pelosi assemblage, which few have noticed. This requires a (likely painful?) reading assignment. The following excerpt we consider one of Hardt and Negri's finest published passages:

'The working-class struggle puts the functioning of the law of value in definitive crisis, not only in the sens that its practices determine and reinforce the functioning of the law of the tendential fall of the rate of profit, but in the even more profound sense of destabilizing the very terms on which the law holds, in other words, taking away the meaning of the relation between necessary labor and surplus labor (which, as Marx says, is in the final instance the foundation of everything). At this very moment, socialism becomes impossible. Socialism and all the socialist utopias try to put forth the actual realization of the law of value, which amounts to saying the complete real subsumption of social labor into capital. This is possible, however, only in terms of the dialectic of the classes, only as a moment of class struggle. At this point, all the variants of the socialist utopia, both the objective ones (socialism as the socialization of the means of production and the rationalization of command) and the subjectivist ones (the new mode of production, cooperation, participation, comanagement, and so forth), are put in crisis, because the law of value is never realized except by at the same time shattering itself apart, imposing at an extremely high level the new antagonism among capitalist labor, command (however legitimated), and the set of productive social forces of the proletariat.

The collapse of the reformist model, tied to the ideology of the planned realization of the law of value, still appears, and even more heavily at this point. It is sufficient to look again at the problematic of public spending, how it is posed from a reformist perspective, and what new antagonisms the reformist will create. Public spending is seen by the reformists as spending that is either directly or indirectly productive. Correctly, they tend to rationalize its management, mold it in terms of the schemas of priorities, and use it to guide development and influence its direction. As we have seen, however, beyond these formal criteria, there is a contradiction between the form of social accumulation and the source (measure and proportion) of its legitimation -- a class contradiction that demonstrates both the tendential unification of the productive social subject and the irrationality of the criterion of the proposed business enterprise legitimation (by its own standards [italics]). As the contradiction becomes subjective in class terms it also becomes explosive. The pressure on public spending becomes a wage pressure, as the political pressure of the working class on the relative wage and -- principally and specifically in the present period -- the struggle against capitalist labor becomes a worker allusion to the new emerging productive force, which demands payment as such.

In this web of contradictions the attempt to rationalize public spending -- a rationalization that must necessarily follow business parameters and explain the business figure of the State -- becomes immediately repressive. This happens not so much because it employs the instruments of the repressive power of the State (and all its multiplying separate bodies) to this end, but because it uses them within the intensity of an unresolved structural contradiction. If socialism is impossible, reformism is even more so. Every reformist practice, in fact, is immediately repressive.'
(Hardt and Negri, Labor of Dionysus: A Critique of the State Form pp. 205-6)

I don't resort to special pleading merely to be able to claim I am (on the) Right (wing).

The right wing merely has the political jargon definition of socialism.

 

[francoHFW]

under capitalism, man oppresses man. under socialism, its the other way around my friends. its a whole different ballgame!

We are the only Rich developed country that is not socialist in the modern sense, so the Rich are screwing over everyone else... Congratulations to the GOP great job!

We are the only Rich developed country that is not socialist in the modern sense

Must be why we have the largest economy, eh comrade?

I'm always baffled by how people can look at a country founded, and built on Capitalism, that has existing for only a short 200 years compared to those which has existed for thousands of years, which has the largest economy on the face of the earth, the highest standard of living, and then laugh when you point this out, as if it the two things can't be connected.

But I guess you have to deny reality, when facing it would force you to reconsider your ideology.

And it's amazing how the brainwashed GOP chumps continue to think we're talking about communism, not socialism or Democratic socialism as its modern definition. That is always Democratic Fair capitalism with a good safety net and benefits. Like every other modern country in the modern world but us. Thanks GOP and silly dupes.

 

[Toro]

Without a strong, vibrant, healthy society, capitalism is a failure.

Capitalism creates the most wealth for most of the people, most of the time.

It doesn't create all the wealth for all of the people, all of the time.

So capitalists have to make the case better than the socialists.

 

[francoHFW]

Without a strong, vibrant, healthy society, capitalism is a failure.

Capitalism creates the most wealth for most of the people, most of the time.

It doesn't create all the wealth for all of the people, all of the time.

So capitalists have to make the case better than the socialists.

has the GOP voter of course you believe socialism is not capitalism, when it is obviously is in the modern definition. Bernie Sanders and AOC or any socialists in any modern country are all for Democratic capitalism but fair and with a good safety net and benefits. Unlike scumbag GOP America at this point.

 

[francoHFW]

Without a strong, vibrant, healthy society, capitalism is a failure.

Capitalism creates the most wealth for most of the people, most of the time.

It doesn't create all the wealth for all of the people, all of the time.

So capitalists have to make the case better than the socialists.

Fake news. No one is talking about doing away with capitalism. Except communists who don't exist anymore.

 

[gtopa1]

Without a strong, vibrant, healthy society, capitalism is a failure.

Capitalism creates the most wealth for most of the people, most of the time.

It doesn't create all the wealth for all of the people, all of the time.

So capitalists have to make the case better than the socialists.

The Chinese tried Socialism and it failed; "Great Leap Forward" was a disaster. Then along came Deng!!!

he socialist market economy (SME) is the economic system and model of economic development employed in the People's Republic of China. The system is based on the predominance of public ownership and state-owned enterprises within a market economy.[1] The term "socialist market economy" was first used during the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 1992 to describe the goal of China's economic reforms. Originating in the Chinese economic reforms initiated in 1978 that integrated China into the global market economy, the socialist market economy represents a preliminary or "primary stage" of developing socialism.[2] Despite this, many Western commentators have described the system as a form of state capitalism.[3][4][5]

Socialist market economy - Wikipedia

If that is what AOC is advocating then frankly it is a step backwards for America.

Greg

 

[danielpalos]

Without a strong, vibrant, healthy society, capitalism is a failure.

Capitalism creates the most wealth for most of the people, most of the time.

It doesn't create all the wealth for all of the people, all of the time.

So capitalists have to make the case better than the socialists.

here is the latest information on wealth inequality:

 

[danielpalos]

Without a strong, vibrant, healthy society, capitalism is a failure.

Capitalism creates the most wealth for most of the people, most of the time.

It doesn't create all the wealth for all of the people, all of the time.

So capitalists have to make the case better than the socialists.

The Chinese tried Socialism and it failed; "Great Leap Forward" was a disaster. Then along came Deng!!!

he socialist market economy (SME) is the economic system and model of economic development employed in the People's Republic of China. The system is based on the predominance of public ownership and state-owned enterprises within a market economy.[1] The term "socialist market economy" was first used during the 14th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in 1992 to describe the goal of China's economic reforms. Originating in the Chinese economic reforms initiated in 1978 that integrated China into the global market economy, the socialist market economy represents a preliminary or "primary stage" of developing socialism.[2] Despite this, many Western commentators have described the system as a form of state capitalism.[3][4][5]

Socialist market economy - Wikipedia

If that is what AOC is advocating then frankly it is a step backwards for America.

Greg

it is about optimizing our market economy.

 

[Toro]

has the GOP voter of course you believe socialism is not capitalism, when it is obviously is in the modern definition. Bernie Sanders and AOC or any socialists in any modern country are all for Democratic capitalism but fair and with a good safety net and benefits. Unlike scumbag GOP America at this point.

Did you pass your ESL class?