Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[kaz]

The Right has succeeded in stealing from the middle class and convincing them that it's making them free of Socialism.

How does the right steal from the middle class?

It's just crap he made up. It doesn't mean anything

 

[kaz]

Sweden isn't socialist?

Approximately 90% of all resources and companies are privately owned, with a minority of 5% owned by the state and another 5% operating as either consumer or producer cooperatives.[18]
Economy of Sweden - Wikipedia

What more do you need to know?

Socialism isn't about who's name is on the title. If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the key and drives it wherever they want while you need to get their permission where you want to go and get the key and return it when you're back, but you have the title. Who's car is it really? It isn't yours.

What you are describing is fascism where companies are technically in private hands but all decisions must be approved by government. It's called socialism light. Although it's not very light. The Nazis were the socialist workers party for a reason. They knew what they were.

In Sweden, you don't do shit government doesn't sign off on. They are just lucky that they have massive fuel reserves to fuel most of their socialist expenditures and not go bankrupt

So I said Sweden isn't a socialist state and you appear to be in agreement in that you think it is a fascist state. Which you then conflate with socialism.

You can't be reasoned with. You just make shit up as you go along.

Fundamentally, socialism is a system of producing commodities that distinguishes itself from the capitalist system by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Shifting control of the means of production to the state gets us no closer to socialism because the means are still privately held ie fascism.

And there is a reason fascism took hold in Europe around the time of WWI. It was a capitalist reaction to the socialist groundswell that was taking root. The same happened here, though it didn't require such extreme measures to contain.

Pretty much all of the "isms" have a fascist element in them. The difference that the more restrictive the "ism" becomes on the population at large the higher degree of fascism must be used. Eventually the end is always the same, Communism. The problem is every one of those systems has failed. I always find it funny that those advocating Socialism and or Communism deny the same disparity in income/living conditions that exist in Capitalism.

Fascism is right wing authoritarianism and Communism is left wing authoritarianism.

That makes no sense. There is nothing right wing about socialism and fascism is a form of socialism. They're both left, Holmes

 

[Rustic]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

The term socialism has taken on a very broad meaning. The reason for that isn't only that republicans can't properly define it, but also dolts like yourself.

The reason for it is that every time socialism is tried, it turns into hell on earth, so the socialists have to makeup a new definition for their Utopia.

They simply don't understand. Neither do you.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

/——/ Trouble is Prog, National Defense is the chief responsibility of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution. Welfare ain’t

 

[Tehon]

Sweden does not employ a socialist system of production so it has no relevance to what I'm saying.

Sweden isn't socialist?

Approximately 90% of all resources and companies are privately owned, with a minority of 5% owned by the state and another 5% operating as either consumer or producer cooperatives.[18]
Economy of Sweden - Wikipedia

What more do you need to know?

Socialism isn't about who's name is on the title. If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the key and drives it wherever they want while you need to get their permission where you want to go and get the key and return it when you're back, but you have the title. Who's car is it really? It isn't yours.

What you are describing is fascism where companies are technically in private hands but all decisions must be approved by government. It's called socialism light. Although it's not very light. The Nazis were the socialist workers party for a reason. They knew what they were.

In Sweden, you don't do shit government doesn't sign off on. They are just lucky that they have massive fuel reserves to fuel most of their socialist expenditures and not go bankrupt

So I said Sweden isn't a socialist state and you appear to be in agreement in that you think it is a fascist state. Which you then conflate with socialism.

You can't be reasoned with. You just make shit up as you go along.

Fundamentally, socialism is a system of producing commodities that distinguishes itself from the capitalist system by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Shifting control of the means of production to the state gets us no closer to socialism because the means are still privately held ie fascism.

And there is a reason fascism took hold in Europe around the time of WWI. It was a capitalist reaction to the socialist groundswell that was taking root. The same happened here, though it didn't require such extreme measures to contain.

Wrong. If the state controls the means of production, then they are not privatel held. Then you have socialism. Fascism is a form of socialism.

Hugo Boss was a bankrupt German clothing manufacturer prior to the Nazi reign. He joined the party and began supplying uniforms to the Nazis.

He owned the means of production including wage labor.

Was he a capitalist or a socialist?

 

[impuretrash]

Approximately 90% of all resources and companies are privately owned, with a minority of 5% owned by the state and another 5% operating as either consumer or producer cooperatives.[18]
Economy of Sweden - Wikipedia

What more do you need to know?

Socialism isn't about who's name is on the title. If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the key and drives it wherever they want while you need to get their permission where you want to go and get the key and return it when you're back, but you have the title. Who's car is it really? It isn't yours.

What you are describing is fascism where companies are technically in private hands but all decisions must be approved by government. It's called socialism light. Although it's not very light. The Nazis were the socialist workers party for a reason. They knew what they were.

In Sweden, you don't do shit government doesn't sign off on. They are just lucky that they have massive fuel reserves to fuel most of their socialist expenditures and not go bankrupt

So I said Sweden isn't a socialist state and you appear to be in agreement in that you think it is a fascist state. Which you then conflate with socialism.

You can't be reasoned with. You just make shit up as you go along.

Fundamentally, socialism is a system of producing commodities that distinguishes itself from the capitalist system by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Shifting control of the means of production to the state gets us no closer to socialism because the means are still privately held ie fascism.

And there is a reason fascism took hold in Europe around the time of WWI. It was a capitalist reaction to the socialist groundswell that was taking root. The same happened here, though it didn't require such extreme measures to contain.

Pretty much all of the "isms" have a fascist element in them. The difference that the more restrictive the "ism" becomes on the population at large the higher degree of fascism must be used. Eventually the end is always the same, Communism. The problem is every one of those systems has failed. I always find it funny that those advocating Socialism and or Communism deny the same disparity in income/living conditions that exist in Capitalism.

Fascism is right wing authoritarianism and Communism is left wing authoritarianism.

That makes no sense. There is nothing right wing about socialism and fascism is a form of socialism. They're both left, Holmes

 

[kaz]

Socialism isn't about who's name is on the title. If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the key and drives it wherever they want while you need to get their permission where you want to go and get the key and return it when you're back, but you have the title. Who's car is it really? It isn't yours.

What you are describing is fascism where companies are technically in private hands but all decisions must be approved by government. It's called socialism light. Although it's not very light. The Nazis were the socialist workers party for a reason. They knew what they were.

In Sweden, you don't do shit government doesn't sign off on. They are just lucky that they have massive fuel reserves to fuel most of their socialist expenditures and not go bankrupt

So I said Sweden isn't a socialist state and you appear to be in agreement in that you think it is a fascist state. Which you then conflate with socialism.

You can't be reasoned with. You just make shit up as you go along.

Fundamentally, socialism is a system of producing commodities that distinguishes itself from the capitalist system by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Shifting control of the means of production to the state gets us no closer to socialism because the means are still privately held ie fascism.

And there is a reason fascism took hold in Europe around the time of WWI. It was a capitalist reaction to the socialist groundswell that was taking root. The same happened here, though it didn't require such extreme measures to contain.

Pretty much all of the "isms" have a fascist element in them. The difference that the more restrictive the "ism" becomes on the population at large the higher degree of fascism must be used. Eventually the end is always the same, Communism. The problem is every one of those systems has failed. I always find it funny that those advocating Socialism and or Communism deny the same disparity in income/living conditions that exist in Capitalism.

Fascism is right wing authoritarianism and Communism is left wing authoritarianism.

That makes no sense. There is nothing right wing about socialism and fascism is a form of socialism. They're both left, Holmes

View attachment 181588

What difference was there between Hitler and Stalin?

 

[Doc1]

So I said Sweden isn't a socialist state and you appear to be in agreement in that you think it is a fascist state. Which you then conflate with socialism.

You can't be reasoned with. You just make shit up as you go along.

Fundamentally, socialism is a system of producing commodities that distinguishes itself from the capitalist system by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Shifting control of the means of production to the state gets us no closer to socialism because the means are still privately held ie fascism.

And there is a reason fascism took hold in Europe around the time of WWI. It was a capitalist reaction to the socialist groundswell that was taking root. The same happened here, though it didn't require such extreme measures to contain.

Pretty much all of the "isms" have a fascist element in them. The difference that the more restrictive the "ism" becomes on the population at large the higher degree of fascism must be used. Eventually the end is always the same, Communism. The problem is every one of those systems has failed. I always find it funny that those advocating Socialism and or Communism deny the same disparity in income/living conditions that exist in Capitalism.

Fascism is right wing authoritarianism and Communism is left wing authoritarianism.

That makes no sense. There is nothing right wing about socialism and fascism is a form of socialism. They're both left, Holmes

View attachment 181588

What difference was there between Hitler and Stalin?

Stalin killed more people.

 

[hazlnut]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Libraries

Public schools, parks, sidewalks, roads... Lake, rivers...

Yeah, the far-right forgets the 1000 things a day the government provides for them.

They mouth-foam about socialism until their house catches on fire...

 

[impuretrash]

So I said Sweden isn't a socialist state and you appear to be in agreement in that you think it is a fascist state. Which you then conflate with socialism.

You can't be reasoned with. You just make shit up as you go along.

Fundamentally, socialism is a system of producing commodities that distinguishes itself from the capitalist system by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Shifting control of the means of production to the state gets us no closer to socialism because the means are still privately held ie fascism.

And there is a reason fascism took hold in Europe around the time of WWI. It was a capitalist reaction to the socialist groundswell that was taking root. The same happened here, though it didn't require such extreme measures to contain.

Pretty much all of the "isms" have a fascist element in them. The difference that the more restrictive the "ism" becomes on the population at large the higher degree of fascism must be used. Eventually the end is always the same, Communism. The problem is every one of those systems has failed. I always find it funny that those advocating Socialism and or Communism deny the same disparity in income/living conditions that exist in Capitalism.

Fascism is right wing authoritarianism and Communism is left wing authoritarianism.

That makes no sense. There is nothing right wing about socialism and fascism is a form of socialism. They're both left, Holmes

View attachment 181588

What difference was there between Hitler and Stalin?

I'd say Hitler straddled the line between authoritarian left and right while Stalin was full on authoritarian left. Mussolini was far right authoritarian.

 

[Doc1]

Pretty much all of the "isms" have a fascist element in them. The difference that the more restrictive the "ism" becomes on the population at large the higher degree of fascism must be used. Eventually the end is always the same, Communism. The problem is every one of those systems has failed. I always find it funny that those advocating Socialism and or Communism deny the same disparity in income/living conditions that exist in Capitalism.

Fascism is right wing authoritarianism and Communism is left wing authoritarianism.

That makes no sense. There is nothing right wing about socialism and fascism is a form of socialism. They're both left, Holmes

View attachment 181588

What difference was there between Hitler and Stalin?

I'd say Hitler straddled the line between authoritarian left and right while Stalin was full on authoritarian left. Mussolini was far right authoritarian.

An honest man, I salute you.

 

[impuretrash]

Actually, Mussolini wasn't as far right as Stalin was far left. You'd probably have to dig back into medieval times to find a true far right authoritarian system of government. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Here let his guy tell you about Socialism.

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia

The Road to Serfdom (German: Der Weg zur Knechtschaft) is a book written between 1940 and 1943 by Austrian British economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek, in which the author "[warns] of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning."[1] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Hayek challenged the general view among British academics that fascism (including National Socialism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, National Socialism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.

In other words you retard, when you take away some ones incentive to work, because those that don't want to work, soon are despised by those that do work, no one is working, thus the government then comes in and FORCES everyone to work at the end of a gun.

The Pilgrim’s Failed Socialist Experiment

The first two years the result was shortages and starvation. About half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.” The socialist experiment Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….” In other words, socialism made strong men lazy.

But when you give people the right to excel and not be punished for it...

And so they “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end…”

The effects were almost immediate. A delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor… could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” In other words, the free market is a much greater stimulus than governmental force.

Stupid fucks have been brain washed time and again, that Socialism is so great, yet every time it is tried it fails..God I really hate dumbasses like the OP here. I have been around since D W Eisenhower was alive, and seen many instances of Socialism, and then some "KID" tries to preach to me....

some images of how well Socialism works.

View attachment 181422 View attachment 181423 View attachment 181424 View attachment 181425 View attachment 181426 View attachment 181427 View attachment 181428

Okay here’s why you’re an idiot. You are equating socialism with fascism when the basic definition of socialism is “people’s ownership”. Anything funded by tax payers is an example of socialism.

They can call it people's ownership all they like, but with the government arbitrating it, the government is still in charge. If, supposedly, everyone owns something, but that something is still arbitrated by the government, the government still owns that something, and is in charge of that something.

The difference between fascism and socialism is simply semantics, and they both go hand in hand.

Besides, Socialism isn't strictly "People's ownership", it's collective ownership. However, the government always arbitrates that, making all forms of collective ownership simply government ownership.

Yes, obviously the government enforces it. That doesn’t make it fascism for fuck sake. You’re basically saying that because the US has a government, it makes it fascist.

While not necessarily true, a government expands its power constantly, regardless of where it starts, and naturally gravitates towards fascism.

No, having a government isn't fascism by default, a Socialist government is often fascist by default, dependent on how Socialist it is, because everything that the government arbitrates basically belongs to that government. For example, if all of the means of production were to supposedly belong to "all people", the means of production would still be arbitrated by the government, making it belong to the government. The government owning the means of production is a massive step towards fascism, because it takes away the ability of the people to conduct free trade.

 

[Thinker101]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Well, since liberals seem to feel socialism means a bunch of free shit....my OWN WORDS would be HELL NO, not on my dime.

 

[Billy000]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Here let his guy tell you about Socialism.

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia

The Road to Serfdom (German: Der Weg zur Knechtschaft) is a book written between 1940 and 1943 by Austrian British economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek, in which the author "[warns] of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning."[1] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Hayek challenged the general view among British academics that fascism (including National Socialism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, National Socialism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.

In other words you retard, when you take away some ones incentive to work, because those that don't want to work, soon are despised by those that do work, no one is working, thus the government then comes in and FORCES everyone to work at the end of a gun.

The Pilgrim’s Failed Socialist Experiment

The first two years the result was shortages and starvation. About half the colonists died. No one did more than the minimal because the incentive to excel was destroyed. The industrious were neutralized. Bradford wrote of the scarcity of food “no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any.” The socialist experiment Bradford added, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to the benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense….” In other words, socialism made strong men lazy.

But when you give people the right to excel and not be punished for it...

And so they “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end…”

The effects were almost immediate. A delighted Governor Bradford wrote: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor… could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” In other words, the free market is a much greater stimulus than governmental force.

Stupid fucks have been brain washed time and again, that Socialism is so great, yet every time it is tried it fails..God I really hate dumbasses like the OP here. I have been around since D W Eisenhower was alive, and seen many instances of Socialism, and then some "KID" tries to preach to me....

some images of how well Socialism works.

View attachment 181422 View attachment 181423 View attachment 181424 View attachment 181425 View attachment 181426 View attachment 181427 View attachment 181428

Okay here’s why you’re an idiot. You are equating socialism with fascism when the basic definition of socialism is “people’s ownership”. Anything funded by tax payers is an example of socialism.

They can call it people's ownership all they like, but with the government arbitrating it, the government is still in charge. If, supposedly, everyone owns something, but that something is still arbitrated by the government, the government still owns that something, and is in charge of that something.

The difference between fascism and socialism is simply semantics, and they both go hand in hand.

Besides, Socialism isn't strictly "People's ownership", it's collective ownership. However, the government always arbitrates that, making all forms of collective ownership simply government ownership.

Yes, obviously the government enforces it. That doesn’t make it fascism for fuck sake. You’re basically saying that because the US has a government, it makes it fascist.

While not necessarily true, a government expands its power constantly, regardless of where it starts, and naturally gravitates towards fascism.

No, having a government isn't fascism by default, a Socialist government is often fascist by default, dependent on how Socialist it is, because everything that the government arbitrates basically belongs to that government. For example, if all of the means of production were to supposedly belong to "all people", the means of production would still be arbitrated by the government, making it belong to the government. The government owning the means of production is a massive step towards fascism, because it takes away the ability of the people to conduct free trade.

Are you under this impression socialist states like Norway or Denmark are fascist? Not even close. You’re cherry picking a specific type of government as being the definition of socialism. Also, while those Nordic countries are more socialist than the US, it doesn’t change the fact that socialist principles have always been apart of the US government. Again, anything funded by tax payers is a socialist program.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Sweden isn't socialist?

Approximately 90% of all resources and companies are privately owned, with a minority of 5% owned by the state and another 5% operating as either consumer or producer cooperatives.[18]
Economy of Sweden - Wikipedia

What more do you need to know?

Socialism isn't about who's name is on the title. If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the key and drives it wherever they want while you need to get their permission where you want to go and get the key and return it when you're back, but you have the title. Who's car is it really? It isn't yours.

What you are describing is fascism where companies are technically in private hands but all decisions must be approved by government. It's called socialism light. Although it's not very light. The Nazis were the socialist workers party for a reason. They knew what they were.

In Sweden, you don't do shit government doesn't sign off on. They are just lucky that they have massive fuel reserves to fuel most of their socialist expenditures and not go bankrupt

So I said Sweden isn't a socialist state and you appear to be in agreement in that you think it is a fascist state. Which you then conflate with socialism.

You can't be reasoned with. You just make shit up as you go along.

Fundamentally, socialism is a system of producing commodities that distinguishes itself from the capitalist system by abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Shifting control of the means of production to the state gets us no closer to socialism because the means are still privately held ie fascism.

And there is a reason fascism took hold in Europe around the time of WWI. It was a capitalist reaction to the socialist groundswell that was taking root. The same happened here, though it didn't require such extreme measures to contain.

Wrong. If the state controls the means of production, then they are not privatel held. Then you have socialism. Fascism is a form of socialism.

Hugo Boss was a bankrupt German clothing manufacturer prior to the Nazi reign. He joined the party and began supplying uniforms to the Nazis.

He owned the means of production including wage labor.

Was he a capitalist or a socialist?

/——/ Neither one. He was a pragmatic person who didn’t want to end up in a concentration camp. Same thing about Ferdinand Porsche who was anti Nazi but Hitler put a gun to his head and said build me a bad ass tank. The results? A Porsche Tiger Tank.

 

[TheDude]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Socialism defined: OP lacks critical thought, but critical thought must be shared equally, so he gets a piece of the action and therefore declares he's critical thought guy, as he's entitled to it.

 

[Contumacious]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

SOCIALISM=SLAVERY

CONSTITUTION=FREEDOM

Another victim of the EDUCATIONAL OCTOPUS


Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey.

A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.

–Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Here let his guy tell you about Socialism.

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia In other words you retard, when you take away some ones incentive to work, because those that don't want to work, soon are despised by those that do work, no one is working, thus the government then comes in and FORCES everyone to work at the end of a gun.

The Pilgrim’s Failed Socialist Experiment But when you give people the right to excel and not be punished for it...
Stupid fucks have been brain washed time and again, that Socialism is so great, yet every time it is tried it fails..God I really hate dumbasses like the OP here. I have been around since D W Eisenhower was alive, and seen many instances of Socialism, and then some "KID" tries to preach to me....

some images of how well Socialism works.

View attachment 181422 View attachment 181423 View attachment 181424 View attachment 181425 View attachment 181426 View attachment 181427 View attachment 181428

Okay here’s why you’re an idiot. You are equating socialism with fascism when the basic definition of socialism is “people’s ownership”. Anything funded by tax payers is an example of socialism.

They can call it people's ownership all they like, but with the government arbitrating it, the government is still in charge. If, supposedly, everyone owns something, but that something is still arbitrated by the government, the government still owns that something, and is in charge of that something.

The difference between fascism and socialism is simply semantics, and they both go hand in hand.

Besides, Socialism isn't strictly "People's ownership", it's collective ownership. However, the government always arbitrates that, making all forms of collective ownership simply government ownership.

Yes, obviously the government enforces it. That doesn’t make it fascism for fuck sake. You’re basically saying that because the US has a government, it makes it fascist.

While not necessarily true, a government expands its power constantly, regardless of where it starts, and naturally gravitates towards fascism.

No, having a government isn't fascism by default, a Socialist government is often fascist by default, dependent on how Socialist it is, because everything that the government arbitrates basically belongs to that government. For example, if all of the means of production were to supposedly belong to "all people", the means of production would still be arbitrated by the government, making it belong to the government. The government owning the means of production is a massive step towards fascism, because it takes away the ability of the people to conduct free trade.

Are you under this impression socialist states like Norway or Denmark are fascist? Not even close. You’re cherry picking a specific type of government as being the definition of socialism. Also, while those Nordic countries are more socialist than the US, it doesn’t change the fact that socialist principles have always been apart of the US government. Again, anything funded by tax payers is a socialist program.

Actually, I stated that they go hand in hand and that the government controlling the means of production is a huge step in that direction. Considering all I pointed out were facts, I'm not even remotely cherry-picking.

I already explained why that's wrong, and simply reiterating an incorrect point will not change that it's untrue. Infrastructure does not produce anything, and Socialism is Social control of the means of production. Since infrastructure is not a means of production, calling "everything funded by tax payers" Socialism is simply broadening the definition to normalize a failed ideal. Instead of reiterating a point I debunked, you'll need to actually make a counterpoint.

 

[Billy000]

Okay here’s why you’re an idiot. You are equating socialism with fascism when the basic definition of socialism is “people’s ownership”. Anything funded by tax payers is an example of socialism.

They can call it people's ownership all they like, but with the government arbitrating it, the government is still in charge. If, supposedly, everyone owns something, but that something is still arbitrated by the government, the government still owns that something, and is in charge of that something.

The difference between fascism and socialism is simply semantics, and they both go hand in hand.

Besides, Socialism isn't strictly "People's ownership", it's collective ownership. However, the government always arbitrates that, making all forms of collective ownership simply government ownership.

Yes, obviously the government enforces it. That doesn’t make it fascism for fuck sake. You’re basically saying that because the US has a government, it makes it fascist.

While not necessarily true, a government expands its power constantly, regardless of where it starts, and naturally gravitates towards fascism.

No, having a government isn't fascism by default, a Socialist government is often fascist by default, dependent on how Socialist it is, because everything that the government arbitrates basically belongs to that government. For example, if all of the means of production were to supposedly belong to "all people", the means of production would still be arbitrated by the government, making it belong to the government. The government owning the means of production is a massive step towards fascism, because it takes away the ability of the people to conduct free trade.

Are you under this impression socialist states like Norway or Denmark are fascist? Not even close. You’re cherry picking a specific type of government as being the definition of socialism. Also, while those Nordic countries are more socialist than the US, it doesn’t change the fact that socialist principles have always been apart of the US government. Again, anything funded by tax payers is a socialist program.

Actually, I stated that they go hand in hand and that the government controlling the means of production is a huge step in that direction. Considering all I pointed out were facts, I'm not even remotely cherry-picking.

I already explained why that's wrong, and simply reiterating an incorrect point will not change that it's untrue. Infrastructure does not produce anything, and Socialism is Social control of the means of production. Since infrastructure is not a means of production, calling "everything funded by tax payers" Socialism is simply broadening the definition to normalize a failed ideal. Instead of reiterating a point I debunked, you'll need to actually make a counterpoint.

Lol what the fuck? How have you debunked anything? It’s interesting you demand sources from me but never produce your own. Until then you haven’t debunked anything.

Here is the extended definition of socialism from Wikipedia:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production[10]as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11]Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12]There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13]though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][

See? All you have to do is, you know, look up the term and learn exactly what it means. As you can see, the term is about social ownership among the people. The definition at its core has nothing to do with fascism. Infrastructure is the product. A product owned by the people because it is funded by the people.