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

[Uncensored2008]

Corporations involve collective ownership.

So, you're claiming that corporations are socialist?

Would you like to revise your answer?

There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

There is no "collective" anything - the government owns these, the people have zero rights to the assets.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Again, ownership has a meaning. A ruler gaining all benefit while claiming to act on behalf "the people" is a farce. Rulers always claim to act on behalf of a god, or the people.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

Feudalism does not allow individual land ownership - the crown (or state) own all assets.

 

[westwall]

Corporations involve collective ownership. There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

Sure it is. Try walking up to a general and saying "I'd like to take that F-16 up for a spin if you don't mind. Make sure it's topped with fuel!"

 

[Vigilante]

Why you that actually work and earn a living should vote Socialist/DemocRAT....

 

[bripat9643]

I don't seek for all assets to be state owned,

Yes you do - euphemisms don't alter reality. Claiming Central Park is "owned by the people" doesn't alter the reality that it is owned by the state.

however, one would have to have a basic understanding of leninism in order to contribute to any meaningful discussion,

ROFL

I've already demonstrated vastly more knowledge and understanding of Marxism than you have, But this isn't about Marx or Lenin, it is about the distinction between reality and slogans.

Communists always love to claim "this is owned by the people." Oh good, I'll go take my share - say, why did the man with the machine gun shoot me? Because the RULER is "the people" in 100% of cases.

All you advocate for is all resources to be owned by overlords who occasionally invoke the name "the people" to justify their rule.

the conditions present at the time of the russian revolution are different from the conditions today. When a homeless man tries to build a structure? Honey, new york city "central park" as being owned by the people is a pathetic example to pull up, idiotic, truly. Again, I refer to the hilarious idea that just because someone claims to represent something, it doesn't mean thats what it is. No, I'm really not, and I'm pretty sure I'd rather have mining/healthcare run by a state representing the peoples interest (If the US is actually a democracy of any kind) then run by profit seeking capitalists... The only way people can own anything is through private property rights? When communists refer to abolishing private property, we refer to farms/factories.. A toothbrush is still someones property, as is a house, then again, people who aren't willing to have a decent discussion and continually spew bullshit wouldn't understand this. Feudal lords? Yeah, you're thinking of an-caps..

There has never been a farm or factory owned by "the people." There is no "the people;" it is merely the cry of the most foul scumbags to justify their tyranny.

 

[bripat9643]

Corporations involve collective ownership.

So, you're claiming that corporations are socialist?

Would you like to revise your answer?

There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

There is no "collective" anything - the government owns these, the people have zero rights to the assets.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Again, ownership has a meaning. A ruler gaining all benefit while claiming to act on behalf "the people" is a farce. Rulers always claim to act on behalf of a god, or the people.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

Feudalism does not allow individual land ownership - the crown (or state) own all assets.

Well, the crown gave a long term lease to a feudal lord who behaved like an owner as long as he supplied the crown with a given number of troops when called upon.

 

[westwall]

Corporations involve collective ownership.

So, you're claiming that corporations are socialist?

Would you like to revise your answer?

There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

There is no "collective" anything - the government owns these, the people have zero rights to the assets.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Again, ownership has a meaning. A ruler gaining all benefit while claiming to act on behalf "the people" is a farce. Rulers always claim to act on behalf of a god, or the people.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

Feudalism does not allow individual land ownership - the crown (or state) own all assets.

Well, the crown gave a long term lease to a feudal lord who behaved like an owner as long as he supplied the crown with a given number of troops when called upon.

A knight was required to provide as many men as he had for 40 days per year. Failure to do so without good, and I mean real good, reason resulted in loss of lands and in a worst case scenario loss of knighthood.

 

[Bombur]

Corporations involve collective ownership.

So, you're claiming that corporations are socialist?

Would you like to revise your answer?

There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

There is no "collective" anything - the government owns these, the people have zero rights to the assets.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Again, ownership has a meaning. A ruler gaining all benefit while claiming to act on behalf "the people" is a farce. Rulers always claim to act on behalf of a god, or the people.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

Feudalism does not allow individual land ownership - the crown (or state) own all assets.

Corporate ownership is a form of collective ownership. This relates to your confusion concerning the incident in the park where you thought the ownership of one meant that they could act independently of the rest of the owners.

I was not claiming corporations are socialist. Socialists talk about collective ownership through a democratic government where all people are meant to be part of the government.

Of course people have rights as they relate to everything I listed. Stop making up pretend facts.

You keep trying to argue against dictators, which is a waste of time. Try again? (you are running out of these)

Lords and land owners were individuals. You don't seem to understand feudalism all that well. Maybe that is why you seem so set on sending us back there.

It was smart of you to stop talking about China.

 

[Bombur]

Corporations involve collective ownership. There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

Sure it is. Try walking up to a general and saying "I'd like to take that F-16 up for a spin if you don't mind. Make sure it's topped with fuel!"

Which is absurd. Just like it is absurd to think people can build their homes in central park.

That park and that Jet still exist for the benefit of the citizens.

 

[bripat9643]

Corporations involve collective ownership. There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

Sure it is. Try walking up to a general and saying "I'd like to take that F-16 up for a spin if you don't mind. Make sure it's topped with fuel!"

Which is absurd. Just like it is absurd to think people can build their homes in central park.

That park and that Jet still exist for the benefit of the citizens.

Yes, it is absurd, which shows the idea of "collective ownership" is absurd. We all saw how that works when Obama kept WW II veterans away from the memorial in Washington while the debate over the debt limit was going on.

 

[Bombur]

Corporations involve collective ownership. There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

Sure it is. Try walking up to a general and saying "I'd like to take that F-16 up for a spin if you don't mind. Make sure it's topped with fuel!"

Which is absurd. Just like it is absurd to think people can build their homes in central park.

That park and that Jet still exist for the benefit of the citizens.

Yes, it is absurd, which shows the idea of "collective ownership" is absurd. We all saw how that works when Obama kept WW II veterans away from the memorial in Washington while the debate over the debt limit was going on.

lol, what a stupid argument. It is like you beg to be lead around by stupid appeal to emotion arguments. Get a hold of yourself man.

 

[Idadunno]

These are the scum that Joe McCarthy talked about in the early 1950's!

The Social Memo ^
Salon.com believes that the United States is "ready for socialism" and Bernie Sanders is "speaking to America's soul." In an article published today, titled "America is ready for socialism! Massive majorities back Bernie Sanders on the issues — and disdain Donald Trump," Salon made the case that most Americans want socialist policies in place. "Sanders speaks to America's soul — and our values," the article's author, Paul Rosenberg, claims. Rosenberg also writes for Al Jazeera. It continues, "Sanders is right to think that Scandanavian socialism would be popular here in the U.S., if only people knew more about it. And...

BTW, I hope all you THINKING people spotted the TIE IN between Socialism. and Al Jazeera the propaganda arm of ISIS!

What does socialism mean? One thing I have learned is that most people who use the words socialism and communism actually do not know what they mean. They think Lenin-Marxism or Lenin-Stalinism is communism because they hijacked a word. Anyway, I digress... this should interest you.
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel

 

[westwall]

Corporations involve collective ownership. There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

Sure it is. Try walking up to a general and saying "I'd like to take that F-16 up for a spin if you don't mind. Make sure it's topped with fuel!"

Which is absurd. Just like it is absurd to think people can build their homes in central park.

That park and that Jet still exist for the benefit of the citizens.

And any time HE wishes too, da Mayor can close the Park to anyone except those he likes. The elitist environmental groups are trying to horn in on that action by denying regular people the usage of National Parks. They would still be able to use the "Public Parks" but the unwashed masses wouldn't. As was already demonstrated though, the government entities can deny the Peoples Access at a whim thus showing how little the People actually "own".

 

[Clementine]

I could have sworn that liberals have said that they dont support socialism and we are in no way heading in that direction?

First, they deny that the left is moving us in that direction and they call us stupid for bringing it up. Next, they ask what is wrong with socialism and remind us of our "socialist" police, fire and ambulance services. Then they bash capitalism and say it's time for a change.

Bottom line is that many want it. Sadly, many of those are in government. The useful idiots only hear that they will be better off and could care less that others would lose what they've worked their whole lives for. The ones pushing socialism (which usually leads to communism) will say or do anything to get people to go along.

We've been in the "must do things for the greater good" phase for a while and anyone speaking out or accusing politicians of pushing toward socialism are ridiculed.

Yes, we are heading toward socialism because the complete idiots who think it's a good idea haven't bothered to look at the results of every other country that tried it.

 

[danielpalos]

[
What do you mean by socialist. Socialism is not one thing and one thing Only.

I find it more amusing that the capitalist right alleges to believe in unfettered or less fettered Capitalism; and, we had it in 1929.

Socialism: Ownership or control of the means of production by the state.

Words have meanings.

Yes, they do; why resort to special pleading with yours. Socialism can be as unique as a Social Contract.

 

[bripat9643]

Corporations involve collective ownership. There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

My argument is not an appeal to emotion. It's a real life example showing how so-called "collective ownership" actual works. The true owner is the current dictator of the United States.




Sure it is. Try walking up to a general and saying "I'd like to take that F-16 up for a spin if you don't mind. Make sure it's topped with fuel!"

Which is absurd. Just like it is absurd to think people can build their homes in central park.

That park and that Jet still exist for the benefit of the citizens.

Yes, it is absurd, which shows the idea of "collective ownership" is absurd. We all saw how that works when Obama kept WW II veterans away from the memorial in Washington while the debate over the debt limit was going on.

lol, what a stupid argument. It is like you beg to be lead around by stupid appeal to emotion arguments. Get a hold of yourself man.

 

[Bombur]

Corporations involve collective ownership. There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

Sure it is. Try walking up to a general and saying "I'd like to take that F-16 up for a spin if you don't mind. Make sure it's topped with fuel!"

Which is absurd. Just like it is absurd to think people can build their homes in central park.

That park and that Jet still exist for the benefit of the citizens.

And any time HE wishes too, da Mayor can close the Park to anyone except those he likes. The elitist environmental groups are trying to horn in on that action by denying regular people the usage of National Parks. They would still be able to use the "Public Parks" but the unwashed masses wouldn't. As was already demonstrated though, the government entities can deny the Peoples Access at a whim thus showing how little the People actually "own".

The mayor acts as a representative of the people. If he fails to represent the people there are mechanisms for addressing those issues.

I know learning to share can be difficult for some people but I am sure if you keep at it you will learn eventually.

 

[westwall]

Corporations involve collective ownership. There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

Sure it is. Try walking up to a general and saying "I'd like to take that F-16 up for a spin if you don't mind. Make sure it's topped with fuel!"

Which is absurd. Just like it is absurd to think people can build their homes in central park.

That park and that Jet still exist for the benefit of the citizens.

And any time HE wishes too, da Mayor can close the Park to anyone except those he likes. The elitist environmental groups are trying to horn in on that action by denying regular people the usage of National Parks. They would still be able to use the "Public Parks" but the unwashed masses wouldn't. As was already demonstrated though, the government entities can deny the Peoples Access at a whim thus showing how little the People actually "own".

The mayor acts as a representative of the people. If he fails to represent the people there are mechanisms for addressing those issues.

I know learning to share can be difficult for some people but I am sure if you keep at it you will learn eventually.

Share what? My house? That I built? What the fuck did you contribute to it? Sharing is about mutual cooperation and mutual EFFORT. It is not about some lazy prick laying on the porch watching others work, then ambling down to the fruit stand and helping himself to the work that others did.

 

[Bombur]

Corporations involve collective ownership. There is collective ownership through our government of all sorts of stuff from our national park system to museums to power plants. Our education system. A lot of our health care system. Even our military can be considered to be collectively owned.

Your "basic" legal principle is illogically applied in this instance as I already talked about. Try again maybe.

Under feudalism the government and the land owner were one thing. It was based on individual ownership not democratic principles of government like how we think of government.

China has done a lot to reduce the risk of investment. Your comments are hilariously wrong.

Sure it is. Try walking up to a general and saying "I'd like to take that F-16 up for a spin if you don't mind. Make sure it's topped with fuel!"

Which is absurd. Just like it is absurd to think people can build their homes in central park.

That park and that Jet still exist for the benefit of the citizens.

And any time HE wishes too, da Mayor can close the Park to anyone except those he likes. The elitist environmental groups are trying to horn in on that action by denying regular people the usage of National Parks. They would still be able to use the "Public Parks" but the unwashed masses wouldn't. As was already demonstrated though, the government entities can deny the Peoples Access at a whim thus showing how little the People actually "own".

The mayor acts as a representative of the people. If he fails to represent the people there are mechanisms for addressing those issues.

I know learning to share can be difficult for some people but I am sure if you keep at it you will learn eventually.

Share what? My house? That I built? What the fuck did you contribute to it? Sharing is about mutual cooperation and mutual EFFORT. It is not about some lazy prick laying on the porch watching others work, then ambling down to the fruit stand and helping himself to the work that others did.

We are talking about those things we do share, like parks or the burden of national defense.

There are a lot of things we invest in and own together through the government that helps us establish a place where you can work hard and earn private ownership of things like a house or a car. The car will then ride on collectively owned roads. The house will be on land that is collectively protected from things like crime, fire, and invasion.

That is how civilization works.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[westwall]

Sure it is. Try walking up to a general and saying "I'd like to take that F-16 up for a spin if you don't mind. Make sure it's topped with fuel!"

Which is absurd. Just like it is absurd to think people can build their homes in central park.

That park and that Jet still exist for the benefit of the citizens.

And any time HE wishes too, da Mayor can close the Park to anyone except those he likes. The elitist environmental groups are trying to horn in on that action by denying regular people the usage of National Parks. They would still be able to use the "Public Parks" but the unwashed masses wouldn't. As was already demonstrated though, the government entities can deny the Peoples Access at a whim thus showing how little the People actually "own".

The mayor acts as a representative of the people. If he fails to represent the people there are mechanisms for addressing those issues.

I know learning to share can be difficult for some people but I am sure if you keep at it you will learn eventually.

Share what? My house? That I built? What the fuck did you contribute to it? Sharing is about mutual cooperation and mutual EFFORT. It is not about some lazy prick laying on the porch watching others work, then ambling down to the fruit stand and helping himself to the work that others did.

We are talking about those things we do share, like parks or the burden of national defense.

There are a lot of things we invest in and own together through the government that helps us establish a place where you can work hard and earn private ownership of things like a house or a car. The car will then ride on collectively owned roads. The house will be on land that is collectively protected from things like crime, fire, and invasion.

That is how civilization works.

If a politician can close a Park, or deny access to a National Park then it is clear that WE THE PEOPLE don't "own" it. We are able to enjoy those things at the whim and convenience of the politicians and bureaucrats who run them at our behest. Thus, we don't "own" anything. We are allowed to play in "their" parks when they allow us too.