Salon.com: "America is Ready for Socialism!" (Didn't we fight against Socialism in WW II?)

[danielpalos]

This is why it may be so difficult for some on the left to confide in the Capital sincerity of the Right.

Here is what the Right really really thinks of the Capitalized, One-Percent.

The only people that have any money are criminals and governments.

I suggest you ask "Truth" Trump if that's what he thinks!

Should socialists really care what capitalists think, if they have no Capital plan to make more money with a Commerce Clause and al official Mint to work with.

Thank GOD (if you believe) that most American's AREN'T Socialists, and want to keep bettering themselves instead of living off the government teat, and stagnating.

How well is that working in the employment sector for you.

Well, if we didn't have a SOCIALIST fucking up the economy in the White House, we would be doing much better...... You want to tell me why people are making less now than when the Obomanation came into office?

The Capitalism of 1929 actually happened; the socialism of 1984 is merely hearsay and soothsay from the clueless and Causeless Right.

 

[Vigilante]

I suggest you ask "Truth" Trump if that's what he thinks!

Should socialists really care what capitalists think, if they have no Capital plan to make more money with a Commerce Clause and al official Mint to work with.

Thank GOD (if you believe) that most American's AREN'T Socialists, and want to keep bettering themselves instead of living off the government teat, and stagnating.

How well is that working in the employment sector for you.

Well, if we didn't have a SOCIALIST fucking up the economy in the White House, we would be doing much better...... You want to tell me why people are making less now than when the Obomanation came into office?

The Capitalism of 1929 actually happened; the socialism of 1984 is merely hearsay and soothsay from the clueless and Causeless Right.

You LIE, just like the rest of the DemocRATS do, you take after your Black messiah, say anything and don't care if what you say IS FACT or NOT! ....He just did it again today with stating Iran will NOT get the bomb, but simply reading the 150 page DEAL, you find out that EVEN IF THEY DON'T CHEAT, they can have a Nuke in 10 years! Why do you scum LIE like this, is your FREE SHIT from this dictator, worth more to you than this REPUBLIC?

 

[danielpalos]

Should socialists really care what capitalists think, if they have no Capital plan to make more money with a Commerce Clause and al official Mint to work with.

Thank GOD (if you believe) that most American's AREN'T Socialists, and want to keep bettering themselves instead of living off the government teat, and stagnating.

How well is that working in the employment sector for you.

Well, if we didn't have a SOCIALIST fucking up the economy in the White House, we would be doing much better...... You want to tell me why people are making less now than when the Obomanation came into office?

The Capitalism of 1929 actually happened; the socialism of 1984 is merely hearsay and soothsay from the clueless and Causeless Right.

You LIE, just like the rest of the DemocRATS do, you take after your Black messiah, say anything and don't care if what you say IS FACT or NOT! ....He just did it again today with stating Iran will NOT get the bomb, but simply reading the 150 page DEAL, you find out that EVEN IF THEY DON'T CHEAT, they can have a Nuke in 10 years! Why do you scum LIE like this, is your FREE SHIT from this dictator, worth more to you than this REPUBLIC?

This is no lie:
The Capitalism of 1929 actually happened; the socialism of 1984 is merely hearsay and soothsay from the clueless and Causeless Right.
Only the clueless and Causeless have to lie.

 

[Camp]

Thank GOD (if you believe) that most American's AREN'T Socialists, and want to keep bettering themselves instead of living off the government teat, and stagnating.

How well is that working in the employment sector for you.

Well, if we didn't have a SOCIALIST fucking up the economy in the White House, we would be doing much better...... You want to tell me why people are making less now than when the Obomanation came into office?

The Capitalism of 1929 actually happened; the socialism of 1984 is merely hearsay and soothsay from the clueless and Causeless Right.

You LIE, just like the rest of the DemocRATS do, you take after your Black messiah, say anything and don't care if what you say IS FACT or NOT! ....He just did it again today with stating Iran will NOT get the bomb, but simply reading the 150 page DEAL, you find out that EVEN IF THEY DON'T CHEAT, they can have a Nuke in 10 years! Why do you scum LIE like this, is your FREE SHIT from this dictator, worth more to you than this REPUBLIC?

This is no lie:
The Capitalism of 1929 actually happened; the socialism of 1984 is merely hearsay and soothsay from the clueless and Causeless Right.
Only the clueless and Causeless have to lie.

Scholars from across the globe have debated the various interpretations and definitions of both socialism and fascism. The OP seems to have his own interpretation and definition and figures he is smarter and more knowledgeable than all those scholars. It would be helpful if he could refer his interpretation and definition to a school of thought propagated by some of these scholars, but as you have pointed out, he prefers the one propagated by the clueless right that you mention.

Mussolini Doctrine of Fascism
"Ne indiviui fuori della stato, ne gruppi. Percio il fascismo e comtro il socialismo,"
"Outside the state there can be neither individuals nor groups. Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism"

 

[Bombur]

The only reason people argue about the definition of socialism is because they want to make one argument look bad by associating it with some evil of the past. This is not an argument usually made by a person with any intellectual integrity so it is safe to just ignore them or mock them IMO.

The real lesson of the past is not to fear socialism but to understand why people turn to dictators. Right now in the US things are still pretty good but if we continue down this road of growing income inequality things will get worse and people are already rioting in the streets.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the clueless and Causeless Right doesn't know (through the acquisition and possession of Perfect Knowledge) or reason, that Socialism starts with a Social Contract such as a Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How is Mexico more Socialist than the US? Do they have more building and safety codes than the US.

Simply bribing someone with Capital is Capitalism, not socialism.

Socialism usually involves Social Justice, not the Capital Justice a Capitalist may afford.

It amazes me just how ignorant you Communists are.

You have utterly no idea of what the concepts discussed here mean, Building and safety codes have utterly nothing to do with Socialism. Ancient Rome, a Feudal economy, was the first to establish such codes. In the modern era, the United States led the way in the 19th century. But such codes are not a feature of Capitalism, they are a feature of an advanced first world society.

Mexico has guaranteed housing provided by the state for all citizens. The state owns the petroleum industry (PeMex), the electric industry, the natural gas industry, Mexico in the 1960's could legitimately be classified a Socialist nation. Since then, they has slowly moved away from Socialism and toward a more free market. The result is the 10,000% (not an exaggeration) in GDP for Mexico and an emerging middle class.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The only reason people argue about the definition of socialism is because they want to make one argument look bad by associating it with some evil of the past. This is not an argument usually made by a person with any intellectual integrity so it is safe to just ignore them or mock them IMO.

The real lesson of the past is not to fear socialism but to understand why people turn to dictators. Right now in the US things are still pretty good but if we continue down this road of growing income inequality things will get worse and people are already rioting in the streets.

Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

There are two reasons to support socialism

• I want free shit at the expense of others
• I want power to rule others

Which of these is your motive? Do you believe that a dictatorship will make you an under-boss to rule over others? Or do you think you'll be able to take what others make with no effort on your part?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Capitalism of 1929 actually happened; the socialism of 1984 is merely hearsay and soothsay from the clueless and Causeless Right.

You're a fucking retard. You have very little education and spew slogans with no clue at all what the slogans mean. Yes, you think a Socialist dictatorship will give you what you refuse to earn for yourself. We understand you, you are a leech,

 

[Uncensored2008]

Scholars from across the globe have debated the various interpretations and definitions of both socialism and fascism. The OP seems to have his own interpretation and definition and figures he is smarter and more knowledgeable than all those scholars. It would be helpful if he could refer his interpretation and definition to a school of thought propagated by some of these scholars, but as you have pointed out, he prefers the one propagated by the clueless right that you mention.

Mussolini Doctrine of Fascism
"Ne indiviui fuori della stato, ne gruppi. Percio il fascismo e comtro il socialismo,"
"Outside the state there can be neither individuals nor groups. Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism"

If there can be no individuals, there can be no Capitalism.

 

[Bombur]

The only reason people argue about the definition of socialism is because they want to make one argument look bad by associating it with some evil of the past. This is not an argument usually made by a person with any intellectual integrity so it is safe to just ignore them or mock them IMO.

The real lesson of the past is not to fear socialism but to understand why people turn to dictators. Right now in the US things are still pretty good but if we continue down this road of growing income inequality things will get worse and people are already rioting in the streets.

Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

There are two reasons to support socialism

• I want free shit at the expense of others
• I want power to rule others

Which of these is your motive? Do you believe that a dictatorship will make you an under-boss to rule over others? Or do you think you'll be able to take what others make with no effort on your part?

There are many ways people can exert power over others. One of the major selling points of Democracy has always been the idea that government power will be shared by all people. The problem is that government decisions and therefor government power is sold to the highest bidder.

It seems hard to believe that so many people are so easily deceived to think that losing power is actually good for them and then blame those with the least amount of power for all of the problems.

Right now the Chinese government exerts an incredible amount of power in our labor markets. Right now corporations exert an incredible amount of power in markets and in government. To do nothing is to let others rule over you. The end goal of socialism is a better form of democracy and a better economy for all. It turns out that inequality of income and of power is actually really bad for everyone in the long run.

 

[danielpalos]

How is Mexico more Socialist than the US? Do they have more building and safety codes than the US.

Simply bribing someone with Capital is Capitalism, not socialism.

Socialism usually involves Social Justice, not the Capital Justice a Capitalist may afford.

It amazes me just how ignorant you Communists are.

You have utterly no idea of what the concepts discussed here mean, Building and safety codes have utterly nothing to do with Socialism. Ancient Rome, a Feudal economy, was the first to establish such codes. In the modern era, the United States led the way in the 19th century. But such codes are not a feature of Capitalism, they are a feature of an advanced first world society.

Mexico has guaranteed housing provided by the state for all citizens. The state owns the petroleum industry (PeMex), the electric industry, the natural gas industry, Mexico in the 1960's could legitimately be classified a Socialist nation. Since then, they has slowly moved away from Socialism and toward a more free market. The result is the 10,000% (not an exaggeration) in GDP for Mexico and an emerging middle class.

Why am I not surprised; are you on the Right.

Yes, regulation is a form of socialism, not voluntary trade through freedom of association and contract; clueless and Causeless, Person on the Right.

We have State owned, social, Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror; the Mexicans must be better Capitalists with Their public sector means of Production.

 

[danielpalos]

The only reason people argue about the definition of socialism is because they want to make one argument look bad by associating it with some evil of the past. This is not an argument usually made by a person with any intellectual integrity so it is safe to just ignore them or mock them IMO.

The real lesson of the past is not to fear socialism but to understand why people turn to dictators. Right now in the US things are still pretty good but if we continue down this road of growing income inequality things will get worse and people are already rioting in the streets.

Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

There are two reasons to support socialism

• I want free shit at the expense of others
• I want power to rule others

Which of these is your motive? Do you believe that a dictatorship will make you an under-boss to rule over others? Or do you think you'll be able to take what others make with no effort on your part?

Socialism starts with a Social Contract such as a Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Scholars from across the globe have debated the various interpretations and definitions of both socialism and fascism. The OP seems to have his own interpretation and definition and figures he is smarter and more knowledgeable than all those scholars. It would be helpful if he could refer his interpretation and definition to a school of thought propagated by some of these scholars, but as you have pointed out, he prefers the one propagated by the clueless right that you mention.

Mussolini Doctrine of Fascism
"Ne indiviui fuori della stato, ne gruppi. Percio il fascismo e comtro il socialismo,"
"Outside the state there can be neither individuals nor groups. Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism"

If there can be no individuals, there can be no Capitalism.

That is like saying a well regulated Militia of the People is not comprised of Individuals.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are many ways people can exert power over others.

True, but the state is most effective.

One of the major selling points of Democracy has always been the idea that government power will be shared by all people. The problem is that government decisions and therefor government power is sold to the highest bidder.

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Democracy crushes the rights of minorities on the vote of majority - it is mob rule. A republican form of government, such as we have, codifies protections of minority rights.

It seems hard to believe that so many people are so easily deceived to think that losing power is actually good for them and then blame those with the least amount of power for all of the problems.

Right now the Chinese government exerts an incredible amount of power in our labor markets. Right now corporations exert an incredible amount of power in markets and in government. To do nothing is to let others rule over you. The end goal of socialism is a better form of democracy and a better economy for all. It turns out that inequality of income and of power is actually really bad for everyone in the long run.

To give government even more power - to sell to the highest bidder - is suicidal. Socialism requires authoritarianism. Sane people do not work for the detriment of themselves and their families without force. This is one of the reasons for the war the left wages on the family - it is an impediment to the goal of enslaving all to the state, i.e. Socialism.

Reduce the size and scope of government, and the ability to sell us out will be removed from them. Socialism cannot exist in a free society. Where people are free, they will trade among themselves. Drive on any Saturday morning in America and you will see yard sales all around. When people are not under threat, they trade. Even in prison, people trade.

Trade is the peaceful manner in with people deal with one another. Socialism is the opposite of trade and MUST, by nature, employ violence or the threat of violence to coerce people to comply. Socialism is against the nature of people. People by nature want to coexist peacefully with others, which means the trades of goods. Socialism is the quest for power over others, taking from the most productive and using the ill-gotten gain to buy the loyalty of the dregs of society, which act as muscle for the Socialist thugs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why am I not surprised; are you on the Right.

Yes, regulation is a form of socialism,

No retard, it is not.

Regulation is merely regulation.

not voluntary trade through freedom of association and contract; clueless and Causeless, Person on the Right.

We have State owned, social, Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror; the Mexicans must be better Capitalists with Their public sector means of Production.

You have no fucking clue what you spout on about.

 

[danielpalos]

Why am I not surprised; are you on the Right.

Yes, regulation is a form of socialism,

No retard, it is not.

Regulation is merely regulation.

not voluntary trade through freedom of association and contract; clueless and Causeless, Person on the Right.

We have State owned, social, Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror; the Mexicans must be better Capitalists with Their public sector means of Production.

You have no fucking clue what you spout on about.

Yes, it is; simply Because I say so.

 

[Bombur]

There are many ways people can exert power over others.

True, but the state is most effective.

One of the major selling points of Democracy has always been the idea that government power will be shared by all people. The problem is that government decisions and therefor government power is sold to the highest bidder.

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

Democracy crushes the rights of minorities on the vote of majority - it is mob rule. A republican form of government, such as we have, codifies protections of minority rights.

It seems hard to believe that so many people are so easily deceived to think that losing power is actually good for them and then blame those with the least amount of power for all of the problems.

Right now the Chinese government exerts an incredible amount of power in our labor markets. Right now corporations exert an incredible amount of power in markets and in government. To do nothing is to let others rule over you. The end goal of socialism is a better form of democracy and a better economy for all. It turns out that inequality of income and of power is actually really bad for everyone in the long run.

To give government even more power - to sell to the highest bidder - is suicidal. Socialism requires authoritarianism. Sane people do not work for the detriment of themselves and their families without force. This is one of the reasons for the war the left wages on the family - it is an impediment to the goal of enslaving all to the state, i.e. Socialism.

Reduce the size and scope of government, and the ability to sell us out will be removed from them. Socialism cannot exist in a free society. Where people are free, they will trade among themselves. Drive on any Saturday morning in America and you will see yard sales all around. When people are not under threat, they trade. Even in prison, people trade.

Trade is the peaceful manner in with people deal with one another. Socialism is the opposite of trade and MUST, by nature, employ violence or the threat of violence to coerce people to comply. Socialism is against the nature of people. People by nature want to coexist peacefully with others, which means the trades of goods. Socialism is the quest for power over others, taking from the most productive and using the ill-gotten gain to buy the loyalty of the dregs of society, which act as muscle for the Socialist thugs.

Fear of mob rule isn't a good excuse to give power to corporations and to ignore the will and needs of the people.

It is also a mistake to assume less government power means people will have power or freedom. We gave the government the power to educate everyone and it has helped empower millions of our citizens to become significantly more than what they would be without it. In our modern society the government has a large role in ensuring that people have power, not only to help those individuals but to help our economy as a whole. Whether you want to admit it or not we are all in this together.

A free society depends most on the balance of power. A failure to recognize the importance of the balance of power is what leads nations towards desperation and tyranny. That is the true lesson of Germany and of Russia.

Business is war.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fear of mob rule isn't a good excuse to give power to corporations and to ignore the will and needs of the people.

The only power corporations have is the power government gives to them. Corporations only exist by the edict of government. A corporation is an artificial entity which exists nowhere but in law. Law is created by government.

If your wish is to constrain corporations, then reduce government - which is the only power corporations have.

It is also a mistake to assume less government power means people will have power or freedom. We gave the government the power to educate everyone and it has helped empower millions of our citizens to become significantly more than what they would be without it.

Mostly bullshit. Government indoctrination creates pliant subjects, but rarely produces anyone capable of critical thought or analysis. Look at the institutions of "higher learning" where thought is openly forbidden in favor of politically correct dogma. A society of indoctrinated sycophants spouting falsehood from a Howard Zinn corruptions of history is hardly and "educated" society.

In our modern society the government has a large role in ensuring that people have power, not only to help those individuals but to help our economy as a whole. Whether you want to admit it or not we are all in this together.

Our government ensures that people have no power.

A free society depends most on the balance of power. A failure to recognize the importance of the balance of power is what leads nations towards desperation and tyranny. That is the true lesson of Germany and of Russia.

Business is war.

A free society cannot exist under socialism. Freedom is expressed through the ability of one person to trade goods, effort, time, and knowledge to another persons in exchange for something of value. Take this away - as socialism does, and there can be no freedom.

Socialism is nothing more that the recasting of Feudalism, expounded by the Feudal Lords intent upon regaining power. The stupid are open the the message of trading liberty for the promise that others will care for them. Many would rather die that take responsibility for themselves. Socialism is the promise that the masters will care for the proles, who are relieved of the burden of thought or responsibility. Bureaucrats are simply Barons who manage a fiefdom on behalf of rulers of the state - the kings and queens who rule with absolute power. The structure of Socialism is the same as the feudal structure. When people cannot own property, they are themselves the property of their masters.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, it is; simply Because I say so.

You are simply and uneducated retard, ergo what you say is irrelevant.