Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[Tehon]

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.

And yet you can’t even explain why I’m wrong lol

You didn't define anything.

 

[Tehon]

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.

And yet you can’t even explain why I’m wrong lol

You didn't define anything.

C'mon bro, you can do it. You are a socialist, aren't you?

Define what it is, in your own words. Show those republicans how smart you are.

 

[Norman]

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.

And yet you can’t even explain why I’m wrong lol

You didn't define anything.

C'mon bro, you can do it. You are a socialist, aren't you?

Define what it is, in your own words. Show those republicans how smart you are.

It's the ideology that hasn't ever worked, only because the real version of the ideology wasn't practiced.

 

[Tehon]

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.

And yet you can’t even explain why I’m wrong lol

You didn't define anything.

C'mon bro, you can do it. You are a socialist, aren't you?

Define what it is, in your own words. Show those republicans how smart you are.

It's the ideology that hasn't ever worked, only because the real version of the ideology wasn't practiced.

Way to make the op's point, stupid.

 

[Mac1958]

That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

Indeed, the Right has over-used and diluted the word "socialism", just as the Left has over-used and diluted the word "racism".

Opposite sides of the same coin.

Ain't it funny, how similar the behaviors of the two ends can be? It must be terrible, being so similar to those you loathe.
.

 

[Norman]

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.

And yet you can’t even explain why I’m wrong lol

You didn't define anything.

C'mon bro, you can do it. You are a socialist, aren't you?

Define what it is, in your own words. Show those republicans how smart you are.

It's the ideology that hasn't ever worked, only because the real version of the ideology wasn't practiced.

Way to make the op's point, stupid.

Idiot, that was a correct characterization, not a definition.

I am not playing your stupid game. But if you are having trouble: LMGTFY

Only the leftists are stupid enough to think that when socialism fails, it wasn't real socialism. They need to educate themselves on the definition, it was very real socialism indeed.

 

[Geaux4it]

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 the forceful taking of assets and giving to others

-Geaux

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

You have not defined Socialism yourself. You only state that it is broad, part of the Founding Father’s philosophy, and criticize Republicans for not understanding it. Define it yourself before attacking those you claim do not understand it.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

There's not a modern country in the world that doesn't practice socialism in one form or other. Socialism bails out the capitalists pretty often... 1932, 2008. There will probably be another one before Trump finishes his term.

LOL Socialism only added to this nation's woes in the 1930's. FDR was a jackass

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Weird....you accuse us of not being able to define it.....yet you turn around and say it's a very broad term.....and can't define it yourself.
Socialism is the antithesis of the founding of this country simply because they tried Socialism when settlers to this land first came here and they almost starved to death in the process.
Socialism removes incentive.
When you can sit on your ass and still be warm in the Winter and have something to eat, some folks have a tendency to do just that, sit on their ass.
The only place I've seen that Socialism really works is in Germany.
But only because most of the Germans refuse to sit on their asses.

 

[JLW]

Geesus... Republicans can't define conservatism much less socialism.

 

[MisterBeale]

Why Socialism Failed | Mark J. Perry

 

[Tehon]

And yet you can’t even explain why I’m wrong lol

You didn't define anything.

C'mon bro, you can do it. You are a socialist, aren't you?

Define what it is, in your own words. Show those republicans how smart you are.

It's the ideology that hasn't ever worked, only because the real version of the ideology wasn't practiced.

Way to make the op's point, stupid.

Idiot, that was a correct characterization, not a definition.

I am not playing your stupid game. But if you are having trouble: LMGTFY

Only the leftists are stupid enough to think that when socialism fails, it wasn't real socialism. They need to educate themselves on the definition, it was very real socialism indeed.

You're accusing me of playing games, surely you jest.

Seriously, I'm not interested in your opinion about its viability, only how you define it.

Do you always defer to Google for your understanding of life?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

 

[dudmuck]

Geesus... Republicans can't define conservatism much less socialism.

The best definition of conservatism is: Limbaugh evacuating Florida after calling hurricane a hoax.

The basic problem with them defining socialism is they are confusing it with state capitalism. A system where government controls the economy, acting like one big corporation, taking profit for itself.
By contrast, actual socialism is just democratic ownership of the means of production.

 

[bripat9643]

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 when people get together, it's easier to kill people who are individual, it's easier to subjugate people who are individual, so they try and prevent people joining forces to become stronger.

The NRA is encouraged, but Unions are discouraged....

It's when people get together? So is the Klan socialist? Is the Nazi party socialist?

Neither is Socialist.

But both are examples of people getting together. Frigidweirdo says that makes them socialist. Are you saying his definition is wrong?

 

[Doc1]

It's an oppressive economic construct that forcibly confiscates the property of some to give to others who didn't earn it. It's immoral and unethical and hardly surprising that you support it.

The very basic definition of the word has nothing to do with this. Socialism’s definition isn’t about authoritarianism.

No, but it's practice is. You're not very good at this Billy Boy. In practice it is the forced participation in( _____________) insert todays pet project.

 

[bripat9643]

Geesus... Republicans can't define conservatism much less socialism.

The best definition of conservatism is: Limbaugh evacuating Florida after calling hurricane a hoax.

The basic problem with them defining socialism is they are confusing it with state capitalism. A system where government controls the economy, acting like one big corporation, taking profit for itself.
By contrast, actual socialism is just democratic ownership of the means of production.

snowflakes have a million ways of explaining away the failures of socialism. Calling the failures "state capitalism" is one of those ways. Socialism is where government controls the economy, but you claim that state capitalism is where government controls the economy. How does one distinguish between socialism and state capitalism?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Geesus... Republicans can't define conservatism much less socialism.

The best definition of conservatism is: Limbaugh evacuating Florida after calling hurricane a hoax.

The basic problem with them defining socialism is they are confusing it with state capitalism. A system where government controls the economy, acting like one big corporation, taking profit for itself.
By contrast, actual socialism is just democratic ownership of the means of production.

snowflakes have a million ways of explaining away the failures of socialism. Calling the failures "state capitalism" is one of those ways. Socialism is where government controls the economy, but you claim that state capitalism is where government controls the economy. How does one distinguish between socialism and state capitalism?