Billy000
Democratic Socialist
- Nov 10, 2011
- 32,076
- 12,825
- Thread starter
- #361
Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.Probably because the means of production are not Socially controlled? Factually? My statement was that Socially Controlled means of production is still arbitrated by the government was to explain to you that the various forms of Social Control are still government control, not that regulated means of production are the same as Social Control, because it isn't. Although I'm fully against both.Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government isn’t socialist?The definition you just gave me from wikipedia supports everything I just said about Socialism, and says nothing that supports your assertion that it's everything the government steals money from citizens to fund.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.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.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.
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.
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.
>"Characterized by Social Ownership of the means of production"
>Social Ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership
All of these forms of Social Ownership are arbitrated by the government, and have little to no difference. It also specifies the means of production, infrastructure not being any form of production.
In other words, all you did was repeat back to myself what I said to debunk your claim.