Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[BlackSand]

[

You do realize that you can be anti capitalist and socially conservative at the same time, right? Hitler's socialism is not the socialism of friggin' Denmark. Obviously.

I'm not sure what you mean by "conservative"

In the parlance of today, Capitalism and conservatism are one and the same, that is to say the enemy of the Marxist democrats.

The Nazis were exactly what they said they were, Totalitarian Socialists. The desire of the Marxists to claim "they did it tooooo" does not render reality moot.

There is liberty and there is tyranny, the modern conservative is a champion of liberty while the Marxist democrats and their allies in the International Communist community of Soros promote tyranny. Basically, Socialism holds that all things belong to the state, particularly the people.

Denmark is a small, racially and culturally homogeneous state. In small groups where everyone is bought in, socialism has a greater chance of success, even so, Denmark is not what the left claims.


Scandinavian Countries Aren’t Socialist
One of the reasons it is incorrect to refer to countries like Sweden as “socialist” is that these countries were once far more progressive than they are now. The Economist says Sweden was once a “tax-and-spend” economy in which author Astrid Lindgren (of “Pippi Longstocking” fame) was required to pay more than 100 percent of her income in taxes. This heavily progressive tax rate stunted economic growth, and Sweden fellfrom the fourth-wealthiest country in the world to the fourteenth-wealthiest country in just 23 years.

The electoral success of moderate and conservative parties throughout Scandinavia is at once a rejection of progressive policies and an endorsement of free markets.
The government recognized the cause of the trouble and instituted several capitalist reforms to resuscitate Sweden’s economy. According to The Economist, following the success of Sweden’s relatively right-leaning Moderate party, “Swedish GDP is growing strongly, and unemployment is falling. The budget is heading into surplus next year.” The article notes that many Swedes support moderate and right-wing reforms: “The centre-right has made welfare payments less generous, cut taxes for the lower-paid and trimmed the numbers on sickness benefit. Voters seem to approve.” The electoral success of moderate and conservative parties throughout Scandinavia is at once a rejection of progressive policies and an endorsement of free markets in what some consider to be the most progressive region in the world.}

Scandinavia Isn’t A Socialist Paradise

Socialism is when the state desires to put some people ahead of equal governance.
It's get's complicated when people don't understand how a road is conservative and things like social welfare are not.

Anyone can benefit from a road regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion or whatever qualifier you can use.
You could say children are not allowed to drive ... But that doesn't mean that their mother cannot drive them to soccer practice on a road.

On the other hand ... Social Welfare is about individual aggrandizement ... It is applicable to set qualifiers and not all qualifiers.
Our government was not established to provide anyone individual gain ... Or simply pay for their existence because they are breathing.

Our Constitution does allow for states to govern such matters ... Should the People choose not to.
Any violation of those principles is socialist in nature ... No matter if the people that want to violate it claim to be left or right.

Corporate welfare, social welfare, tax benefits, affirmative action ... None of that is conservatism.

Socially conservative is even more complicated ... Because people attempt to define it as something that really isn't conservative.
Government regulation of illicit drugs, marriage, abortion, religion or any of that crap ... Is not conservative.

There is actually little distinction between Libertarians and true conservatives on the social scale.
That's because conservatism is not about a social/moral stance ... It's about keeping government out of our personal business.
Morality comes into play in conservatism ... As a matter of personal responsibility.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Of course he doesn't realize anything that he hasn't been indoctrinated with.

Hitler wasn't even anti capitalist. He disliked the worst excesses of capitalism. He wanted capitalism to serve the volk, not pillage it like he had witnessed the banks do following the WWI.

Utter nonsense.

As we have explored repeatedly, Hitler was more true to Socialism than Stalin. Where Stalin privatized huge swaths of the USSR that Lenin had enslaved, Hitler spent his time nationalizing major industry.

While you are a Marxist and seek to enslave your fellow man, I have generally found you to be intellectually honest, which makes you unique among the left here so I will generally engage you in debate.

The first thing to remember about Hitler is that he didn't much care for economics. He was a military man who sought to build an empire through conquest. This is why he latched on to Mussolini and fascism. Fascism is a type of socialism that serves an expansionist dictatorship well. The key factor is that the state is supreme and controls all assets, particularly the people.

Mussolini ran the Bolshevik party for Lenin in Italy. Now I get that Mussolini was like Lenin, a megalomaniac who would not take a #2 role. Still, Benito wrote of the flaws of Marxism and the way that his Fascist Socialism would fix those flaws.

"Why own industry when you can own the owners?" - Benito Mussolini

Hitler didn't grasp such nuance, as his nationalization of the automotive and oil industries show, he didn't really hold Fascist ideals, Fascism was merely convenient for Hitler.

Mussolini like Marx, was an intellectual. Hitler like his buddy Stalin, was simply a thug.

 

[dblack]

The most prominent feature of socialism, what distinguishes it from a free-market economy, is that the bulk of economic power is held by the state, rather than private interests. And major economic decisions are made politically, rather than voluntarily.

 

[kaz]

Nazi Party, byname of National Socialist German Workers' Party, GermanNationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), political party of the mass movement known as National Socialism.Jan 11, 2018

Autarky - Wikipedia

Another pointless point by broken English boy. How does self sufficiency pertain to the definition of Nazi?

read and learn my ignorant one..

So you're asking me to read your link and explain to you what your point was?

It's part of the German ideology of economics.....I didn't ask you to do a damn thing, you took it upon yourself to interject your dumbass in someone else's convo, jerk......

Someone else's conversation? It's a message board, moron

 

[jc456]

Yep, Fair wages, cheap education and Healthcare, good vacations paid parental leave would be just terrible horrible, Super Dupe.

Just for the heck of it, how do all these things get paid for?

By taxing the rich their fair share and having a healthy middle class d u h.

Taxing the rich their fair share pays for all that?

Slowly but surely. And a healthy middle class and working class helps too.

Hate to burst your bubble but if the rich pay "their fair share", which would have to be damn high to pay for all your freebies, kinda discourages most from wanting to be rich.

Not only that, they run out of money crash the economy and people die! It is the leftist goal

 

[BlackSand]

Not only that, they run out of money crash the economy and people die! It is the leftist goal

Translated as the desire to create dependency on the government ... That is most certainly correct.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Absolute b*******. The Soviet Union communist China had been absolutely corrupt capitalist messes. No country has gone to Communism without a violent Revolution. You're a brainwashed idiot.

As always, you are about as ignorant as it is possible to be.

1914 Russia was a feudal economy under a Monarch. And China? Well, you should check out a 2nd grade history book Fascist Franco, so you appear less the retard that we all know you to be.

Venezuela is the first actually Capitalist nation to adopt Marxism,

Tehon and the intellectual Marxists (as opposed to the drooling dumbfucks like you) have long argued that China and Russia failed because they never went through the Capitalist phase that Marx defined as a vital step.

Well, Venezuela did and is as big of a disaster as Stalin's Soviet death camp.

 

[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.

Uh no. You are deliberately lying because you looked up the definition. You know it actually says ownership by the citizens.

You are the dumbest motherfucker in 10 counties.

No shit fer brains, that is not the definition. The subjects of a Marxist state are simply assets, owned by the state like any other asset, to be done with as the state desires.

Socialism is universal slavery.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
God what an idiot... I know several people who are too proud to keep going to the ER. they died.

Sure you do fucktard,

Just because you lie 99% of the time is no reason for us not to believe you

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

You didn't answer shit. The question was what is the difference between Hitler and Stalin. Be specific. The inane sweeping shit means shit

Theres quite a few differences but to keep it simple, mainly in who they hated/blamed. Stalin hated the wealthy and hitler hated the Jews.

Izatrite?


“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” – Gregor Strasser - OberFuhrer of the Gerrman National Socialist Workers Party, #2 to Adolf Hitler.


{. The theme was that the country’s values were being undermined by ‘rootless cosmopolitans.’ There was a particularly vicious assault on [Jewish] theater critics, eventually described as ‘an anti-party group.’ When their Russianized names or pseudonyms were given, the original Jewish name was printed in brackets, and papers asked how anyone so named could understand Russian culture. Meanwhile unpublicized arrests [of Jews], especially of writers in Yiddish, continued, and there was a general growth of public anti-Jewish pressure. Among those arrested at the end of 1948 was Polina Molotov.} - Stalin's Anti-Semitism

Hmmm, not exactly as you described this....

You do realize that you can be anti capitalist and socially conservative at the same time, right? Hitler's socialism is not the socialism of friggin' Denmark. Obviously.

/——/ Denmark can afford socialism because the USA provides their national defense.

A good line, but Denmark doesn't have socialism. Even the welfare state of the 1970's has been massively scaled back.

Even the socialized medicine that the Stalinist democrats crow about isn't universal, the Muslim peasants imported for menial labor are denied access to state healthcare.

Bernie Sanders and the Maoists here always seem to forget that part.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The most prominent feature of socialism, what distinguishes it from a free-market economy, is that the bulk of economic power is held by the state, rather than private interests. And major economic decisions are made politically, rather than voluntarily.

Uh oh, now Billy is going to call you a "lair"(sic)..

 

[dblack]

The most prominent feature of socialism, what distinguishes it from a free-market economy, is that the bulk of economic power is held by the state, rather than private interests. And major economic decisions are made politically, rather than voluntarily.

Uh oh, now Billy is going to call you a "lair"(sic)..

Why? That's a text-book definition. Nothing controversial.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The most prominent feature of socialism, what distinguishes it from a free-market economy, is that the bulk of economic power is held by the state, rather than private interests. And major economic decisions are made politically, rather than voluntarily.

Uh oh, now Billy is going to call you a "lair"(sic)..

Why? That's a text-book definition. Nothing controversial.

I know, I posted it yesterday and he called me a liar.

 

[francoHFW]

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

You're crazy, most socialist we've been is always going forward. When ACA passed that was our high point so far. An actual solution to our Healthcare disgrace after years of a GOP non-system.

It's sad that you believe the ACA was the high point of socialism. I'd say it was the low point.

80% of people got health insurance for less than $100 a month and it was a solution to the high cost over time which is the real problem. And covered 9 million poor people. It will work even now. If the GOP doesn't sabotage it even more... Dupe.

I have to pay $1650/month. Fuck Obama and fuck the ACA.

That's how much it actually costs. Now you can go back to the scam GOP plan and go bankrupt and lose everything if you get sick, with no solution to bring down costs.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

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.

>"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.

Social ownership or social regulation!

As usual, there are no sources that support that claim, Socialists would only like to believe that so they can normalize that failed ideal and pretend it works, much like they like to pretend every Socialist failure isn't Socialism. While I'm fully against all regulations, regulating the means of production does not equate to Socialism.

At this point other modern countries are more successful and much happier than we are, thanks to the GOP and its dupes like you.

I think you mean "Thanks to the statists who keep expanding the government", since economic success is dependent on how free a state's trade is, and at this point both the Republicans and Democrats keep expanding the government, eroding our rights and making the economy worse, since our giant government strangles out competition with regulations.

In terms of happiness and success, Nations with fewer Socialist policies, and by extension, fewer regulations, tend to be the most well off. It has been proven numerous times through the course of history that the smaller a government is, the freer a society is, the more the private sector is allowed the thrive, the richer a society is. Of course, even ignoring that, there are MANY socialist failures, and every single one has proven that Socialism has not, and can not work. The fact that you're still arguing for it despite the numerous times I've already creamed you in arguments only goes to show that you've closed yourself off to logic and reason, and have a very short memory.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

>"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.

Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government 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.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

You're crazy, most socialist we've been is always going forward. When ACA passed that was our high point so far. An actual solution to our Healthcare disgrace after years of a GOP non-system.

The ACA itself is a healthcare disgrace, all it did was further close off competition and destroy healthcare as we know it. Not only that, but it's not a full government ownership of the means of production, but more government control over A means of production. A handful of Socialist policies, while fully negative in terms of impact, are not enough to make a society Socialist.

Government is what prevented the system as it was from functioning properly, as it regulated away competition, preventing it from functioning optimally. All the government did was further destroy the system they had already damaged.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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.

>"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.

Okay but if it is arbitrated by the government, how can you possibly suggest the US government 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.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

Um no infrastructure isn’t the center of my argument - I just used it as an example of socialism. Again I’ll say this: infrastructure is the product of tax payer revenue. Tax payer money funds infrastructure projects. Thats PRODUCTION and is also SOCIALISM.

Just because you can't see me through the screen, I'll let you know I'm rolling my eyes right now. You're only repeating yourself and forcing me to talk in circles because you have no argument.

I already explained that infrastructure is not a means of production, and simply being taxpayer funded does not make a policy Socialist. Infrastructure doesn't produce anything, your argument was that hiring employees into the government makes something a means of production, I explained that employees are selling services, not becoming a product.

You even countered yourself by quoting a wikipedia article that states Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, supporting my argument. I can literally just screencap parts of my posts to continue debunking your argument over and over.

At this point, I'm not even sure you're reading my posts, which would make sense, because you've already lost this debate several times over.

 

[Doc1]

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.

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

You're crazy, most socialist we've been is always going forward. When ACA passed that was our high point so far. An actual solution to our Healthcare disgrace after years of a GOP non-system.

It's sad that you believe the ACA was the high point of socialism. I'd say it was the low point.

And covered 9 million poor people. It will work even now. If the GOP doesn't sabotage it even more... Dupe.

"80% of people got health insurance for less than $100 a month and it was a solution to the high cost over time which is the real problem."

Source it Komrade. I know you just made it up

 

[bripat9643]

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

You're crazy, most socialist we've been is always going forward. When ACA passed that was our high point so far. An actual solution to our Healthcare disgrace after years of a GOP non-system.

It's sad that you believe the ACA was the high point of socialism. I'd say it was the low point.

80% of people got health insurance for less than $100 a month and it was a solution to the high cost over time which is the real problem. And covered 9 million poor people. It will work even now. If the GOP doesn't sabotage it even more... Dupe.

I have to pay $1650/month. Fuck Obama and fuck the ACA.

That's how much it actually costs. Now you can go back to the scam GOP plan and go bankrupt and lose everything if you get sick, with no solution to bring down costs.

Yeah, I know that's how much that Obamacare piece of shit actually costs. That's over twice what I paid before the ACA. How did I benefit?

 

[bripat9643]

Actually what you’ve failed to do is explain why the US government - in any point in history - isn’t socialist.

I already explained that. Your only argument is that infrastructure is Socialist, I explained it isn't, and your quote from Wikipedia supports that. In fact, because your statement has been proven incorrect, you can't point to a time when the means of production were Socially Controlled.

The closest the US ever came to Socialism was under FDR, when he created and extended the Great Depression, but the NRA and NIRA were both struck down, because they were unconstitutional.

You're crazy, most socialist we've been is always going forward. When ACA passed that was our high point so far. An actual solution to our Healthcare disgrace after years of a GOP non-system.

It's sad that you believe the ACA was the high point of socialism. I'd say it was the low point.

And covered 9 million poor people. It will work even now. If the GOP doesn't sabotage it even more... Dupe.

"80% of people got health insurance for less than $100 a month and it was a solution to the high cost over time which is the real problem."

Source it Komrade. I know you just made it up

I never heard of anyone paying that little for it.