Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[Tehon]

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.

And the social ownership of the means of production has fuck all to do with taxing and spending.

 

[Tehon]

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. View attachment 181593

Ok derp. Whatever you say.

Since being engaged by the Nazi authorities in building the Volksauto, Porsche was praised as the Great German Engineer.[5] Hitler considered Czechs subhuman[10] and Porsche was in 1934 urged to apply for German citizenship.[5] A few days later, Porsche indeed filed a declaration giving up the Czechoslovak citizenship at a Czechoslovak consulate in Stuttgart.[17] In 1937, Porsche joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party[18] (becoming member no. 5,643,287[19]) as well as the SS.[20] By 1938, Porsche was using the SS as security members and drivers at his factory, and later set up a special unit called SS Sturmwerk Volkswagen.[19] In 1942, Porsche reached the rank of SS-Oberführer.[21] During the war, Porsche was further decorated with the SS-Ehrenring and awarded the War Merit Cross.[22] As the war progressed his proposed solutions to new developments became more complex and Ferdinand Porsche gained a reputation in certain circles as a "mad scientist" especially with Albert Speer (mainly due to his new found affinity for "pointy" designs).[23]

 

[BlackSand]

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.

That's because if Republicans did define socialism ... They would look more like Democrats with their Socialist Lite policies.

.

 

[Dale Smith]

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.

It is one of the buzz words con media uses as a substitute for 'evil monster'. The same as gay, woman, libruls, feminists, college professors...

The whole intent is to reduce any people or groups that oppose the radical right wing agenda to less than human, evil and 'other'. For the uneducated they reduce all of human discussion and conflict to us vs them. All of it. They didn't use to do this, up until about 20 years ago Republicans were normal Americans who had no trouble compromising with Democrats. But with the advent of conservative talk-radio and Fake Fox News they paint 'the other' as evil 24/7 until their audience actually believes there are no valid viewpoints other than the party line.

Democracy is built on compromise, without it democracy soon grows week and dies. The US democracy was intentionally created by the founders as a government of forced compromise because they knew after seeing centuries of history in Europe that some groups in all populations are militant and will easily resort to weapons to force their will on others.

When you hear cries of 'both sides do it' it is a false equivalency. Democrats have been forced to meet force with force as conservatives have gotten more and more unyielding and really want to encode all of their biases into law. They want zero compromise.

I think it time to split the country up and let the cons go have the south and build a wall around it so high no one ever needs to see or hear from them again. They'll be the American version of North Korea.

Thank you for providing me with some side splitting laughter. You played the "victim card" while accusing the "other side" of what the left has been doing since 1980 when the DNC adopted the socialist agenda of the old 1930's communist party and it has been reflected in every presidential candidate ever since. Eighty plus demo congress people have ties to communist front groups. The DNC has aligned themselves with the radical leftists and it's all by design. The DNC has moved so much to the left that anyone just right of center is painted as an anarchist.... and they don't even hide it anymore.

The term democracy isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights, the U.S constitution or Declaration of Independence because this country was formed as a Republic and was to be under Common Law with unalienable rights. That means that my right to exist here or how I wish to exist doesn't hinge on what the majority say. 50.01 percent can't dictate to the other 49.99 percent on how the Constitution should be "updated" or that the Bill of Rights should be edited to fit the desires of the majority. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what is for dinner.

Your comment that dems are willing to "compromise" is an utter joke and that was another side splitting moment. The Barrypuppetcare ACT is a perfect example. The fabian socialist left will stoop to any tactic or any underhanded deed in order to push their socialist agenda. They have no line in the sand that they are not willing to cross because the ends justifies the means.

I do like the idea of letting leftards have their part of the country and the conservatives having the other half. It will be the commie leftists that will resemble North Korea.....no doubt about that. Look at how fucked up Califlakia is and that is what the commie leftists want for the rest of America.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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. View attachment 181593

Ok derp. Whatever you say.

Since being engaged by the Nazi authorities in building the Volksauto, Porsche was praised as the Great German Engineer.[5] Hitler considered Czechs subhuman[10] and Porsche was in 1934 urged to apply for German citizenship.[5] A few days later, Porsche indeed filed a declaration giving up the Czechoslovak citizenship at a Czechoslovak consulate in Stuttgart.[17] In 1937, Porsche joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party[18] (becoming member no. 5,643,287[19]) as well as the SS.[20] By 1938, Porsche was using the SS as security members and drivers at his factory, and later set up a special unit called SS Sturmwerk Volkswagen.[19] In 1942, Porsche reached the rank of SS-Oberführer.[21] During the war, Porsche was further decorated with the SS-Ehrenring and awarded the War Merit Cross.[22] As the war progressed his proposed solutions to new developments became more complex and Ferdinand Porsche gained a reputation in certain circles as a "mad scientist" especially with Albert Speer (mainly due to his new found affinity for "pointy" designs).[23]

/—-/ Part of my family was from Germany before and during the war, you went along with Hitler if you wanted to live. Porsche had little choice. He over designed the Tiger and it became prone to breakdowns. Many were abandoned in the field because the average tank crew couldn’t work on them nor had the parts.

 

[jc456]

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 is a con game that used to dupe people into working for others for free.

The Fascist Right has succeeded in duping people to take less money home while they, the rich, live better.

Don’t you have anything new? That has mold on it

 

[deanrd]

Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

A lot of things they don't know.
Besides devient Trump, what's a conservative?
They have no idea what a liberal is.
They think murderer Putin is a "good leader" because they think he's strong, whatever that means.
They think tax cuts for billionaires will help them. They just haven't figured out how.

Their leadership is beating them down. And they still haven't figured out how that helps them. For the clueless....it isn't.

 

[BlackSand]

Don’t you have anything new? That has mold on it

There is never a need to ask a Progressive if they have something new to offer.
It will be more screwed up than what you were talking about in the first place ...

.

 

[jc456]

Don’t you have anything new? That has mold on it

There is never a need to ask a Progressive if they have something new to offer.
It will be more screwed up than what you were talking about in the first place ...

.

I’m ensuring everyone knows how ancient that quote is

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

It's pretty easy to define actually. And we've done so often.

Socialism is that thing that makes you poorer while telling you they will make you richer by stealing the richer persons stuff because they owe you that. And it results in the rich guy and the poor guy standing in line side by side trying to get a minimal meal from the government or a roll of toilet paper to wipe their asses. Socialism never can make a poor person rich. It can and does make everyone even the poor they said they would help even worse off. Of course the only rich person in a socialist system is the guy in charge and all of his buddies. Socialism never effects the rulers enforcing it. Everyone else pays the price.

 

[Dale Smith]

Your simplistic view of socialism versus capitalism never fails to amuse me because you don't have the slightest clue about the real history of this country. It was never the intention of the founding fathers to tax the labor of the people that were bartering their time and skills in exchange for something of value...nor did the founding fathers ever want foreign bankers in control of the monetary system that has made debt slaves out of everyone.

But I want to see if you have the balls to answer this question. I work in a very demanding field...one where it takes a toll on my body....especially my hands. It pays well as an electro-mechanical tech. It's a knuclebusting, "hard on the joints" type job that few want to do because of the difficulty of it......so let's just say that instead of turning over half of my wages (of which I am paid in scrip paper that we call Federal Reserve notes) Why should I continue to work and toll if "da gubermint" will simply take care of me? What is the point? I can have half of the compensation my sweat equity affords me so it can be given to someone that will not make the effort to learn a skill or trade...or I can simply choose to get the same benefits by sucking and leeching off of the labor of others? Which is the better option for me, Billy?????

There once was a time in this country....even after the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 of USA.INC that people were too proud to accept charity and take from others...fast forward to today? We have fabian socialists that want to steal from those with pride and give it to those that don't and they have no problem with it.

I'm doing an equally hard and demanding job. I'm an industrial cleaner. I'm European and as such pay taxes that make an American blanch. I don't particularly mind, considering I earn decent money. I don't have to worry about surviving if I become incapable of working. My kid can go to a decent school, etc, etc. If I wouldn't work as I do, I wouldn't be able to take a vacation, I wouldn't be able to own my own house. I wouldn't be driving a Mercedes. In short I would have a way less comfortable life . I suspect that is the same as you. The difference being that my social safety net insures that me, my wife and my kid will always be insured to have a measure of security that I wouldn't possess if I pay less taxes.

Tax Liberation day is around May 2nd or 3rd....the average American works 4 months for free to this corporate entity that we call "government" and if you are like the Canadians, they work five months for free. Most of that goes to pay interest to a central bank that creates money from nothing. Without the parasitic central bankers, you could indeed fund a nanny state without having almost half of your wages confiscated.

Eventually, the system will collapse because those that create the fiat currency attach interest to every bill created and since every bill is borrowed into existence, where is the means come to pay the interest on "money" that was created from the stroke of a pen? Answer: It does not exist thus the currency has to expand exponentially which causes inflation which in itself is another tax. It's a perpetual debt machine and socialism not only creates more debt and more dependent people, it's not sustainable. The party is going to end and with the robotic age upon us, do you REALLY believe that those that control the monetary system and have controlling shares of every major corporation (that they paid for with your sweat equity via your labor) are going to subsidize a bunch of unemployable people? I wouldn't bet on it.......but I "thank" you for your response.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

DERP

The control of the means of production by the state or central authority.

You are a dumb one, Comrade.

 

[francoHFW]

Outside of the imaginary GOP dupe world, the whole world knows that socialism is always democratic, well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. "We are all socialists now"-the Finland prime minister when ObamaCare was passed...

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Outside of the imaginary GOP dupe world, the whole world knows that socialism is always democratic, well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. "We are all socialists now"-the Finland prime minister when ObamaCare was passed...

Guess we aren't since obiecare has been gutted.

 

[francoHFW]

Communism is a dictatorship where all business and industry is owned by the government. DUH!!!!! The GOP has the stupidest voters in the modern world. Okay brainwashed functional stupid...

 

[Uncensored2008]

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, they could start out by asking their post office, police dept., fire dept., soldiers, etc...

Socialism is taxpayer funds being used collectively to benefit society as a whole, despite income, contribution, or ability.

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

No Shitting Bull, that is not what socialism is.

The Soros International Communists are putrid liars.

DailyKOS like the DailyStormer is a vile hate site filled with scum.

 

[francoHFW]

Outside of the imaginary GOP dupe world, the whole world knows that socialism is always democratic, well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. "We are all socialists now"-the Finland prime minister when ObamaCare was passed...

Guess we aren't since obiecare has been gutted.

Yep great job GOP. Back to 45,000 people dying a year with no health insurance and no solution to the ridiculous costs that are the real problem, and the result of GOP policy and our Healthcare non-system.

 

[BlackSand]

Communism is a dictatorship where all business and industry is owned by the government. DUH!!!!! The GOP has the stupidest voters in the modern world. Okay brainwashed functional stupid...

Communism doesn't exist in a pure form ... It is an Oligarchy at best in the real world.

.

 

[deanrd]

Don’t you have anything new? That has mold on it

There is never a need to ask a Progressive if they have something new to offer.
It will be more screwed up than what you were talking about in the first place ...

.

You're right. We support the same old things.
Education
Healthcare
School lunches
Equal pay for equal work
Voter's rights
Stuff like that.

 

[BluesLegend]

Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

Its not rocket science, liberals and progressives are lowlife scum. Democrats are lowlife scum collaborators.