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

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Exactly. The nobility were agents of the crown, deriving their powers from the sovereign. Socialism is the same, the secretaries and bureau chiefs have absolute control over their fiefs, but exist at the pleasure of the supreme ruler or rulers. All was owned by Stalin, who gave ministers authority over huge territories, which they broke into states, that the ministers appointed overlords to manage, on down the line to the local village chief who would give a room to a prole to live in. The people owned nothing, not even their lives. All was property of the state, which meant Stalin.

Socialism makes for a king or kings to "care" for his subjects, who are his property.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Corporate ownership is a form of collective ownership.

False. The presence of multiple owners who own in common is not collectivist. Shareholders are stake holders. The first telling element is that not all own equally, each is apportioned ownership based on the capital employed, usually through the purchase of stock. Further, stock is no equal, common and preferred stock have different rights.

Yours is an absurd leap, frankly ignorant.

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.

Stock ownership is common, not collective.

You are confused by terms and concepts.

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.

Socialism cannot exist in a free society. Force is required to take from some for the benefit of others that they do not wish to serve. Socialism is simply are re-invigoration of Feudalism, a repackaging to entice the stupid.

 

[Bombur]

Corporate ownership is a form of collective ownership.

False. The presence of multiple owners who own in common is not collectivist. Shareholders are stake holders. The first telling element is that not all own equally, each is apportioned ownership based on the capital employed, usually through the purchase of stock. Further, stock is no equal, common and preferred stock have different rights.

Yours is an absurd leap, frankly ignorant.

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.

Stock ownership is common, not collective.

You are confused by terms and concepts.

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.

Socialism cannot exist in a free society. Force is required to take from some for the benefit of others that they do not wish to serve. Socialism is simply are re-invigoration of Feudalism, a repackaging to entice the stupid.

I apologize for knowing what words mean but your confusion is not my fault. The "basic" legal principle you tried to build your argument around doesn't fit with regards to corporations and from what I can tell you are not denying some form of shared ownership. So your point is dead either way. So congrats on being wrong and making pointless arguments.

It is like you just called all forms of civilization socialism, which is true in a way. Then complained about how this is an assault on freedom, which is just whiny and stupid. Then you equated it back to feudalism, again. Despite the fact you really don't know what feudalism is or how it relates to modern economics. Your train of thought is like a clown car of silly ideas. I never really know what silly thing will pop out next but the clowns just keep coming.

 

[Bombur]

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.

Your comments are blatantly absurd. Any common ownership will have to have rules that establish what can and can't be done with regards to the property. In no example of shared ownership will you have one owner being able to do whatever the heck they want without consideration of the other.

Your post is based off of emotionally driven nonsense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I apologize for knowing what words mean but your confusion is not my fault. The "basic" legal principle you tried to build your argument around doesn't fit with regards to corporations and from what I can tell you are not denying some form of shared ownership. So your point is dead either way. So congrats on being wrong and making pointless arguments.

It is like you just called all forms of civilization socialism, which is true in a way. Then complained about how this is an assault on freedom, which is just whiny and stupid. Then you equated it back to feudalism, again. Despite the fact you really don't know what feudalism is or how it relates to modern economics. Your train of thought is like a clown car of silly ideas. I never really know what silly thing will pop out next but the clowns just keep coming.

So, you have no intent on being intellectually honest and feel trapped by your inability to posit a rational argument then?

I realize your flaccid argument depends on recasting feudalism as some sort of capitalist society of robber-barons; the problem for you is that your claim is simply ignorant. You are entering Daniel Palios territory.

Feudalism

 

[Bombur]

I apologize for knowing what words mean but your confusion is not my fault. The "basic" legal principle you tried to build your argument around doesn't fit with regards to corporations and from what I can tell you are not denying some form of shared ownership. So your point is dead either way. So congrats on being wrong and making pointless arguments.

It is like you just called all forms of civilization socialism, which is true in a way. Then complained about how this is an assault on freedom, which is just whiny and stupid. Then you equated it back to feudalism, again. Despite the fact you really don't know what feudalism is or how it relates to modern economics. Your train of thought is like a clown car of silly ideas. I never really know what silly thing will pop out next but the clowns just keep coming.

So, you have no intent on being intellectually honest and feel trapped by your inability to posit a rational argument then?

I realize your flaccid argument depends on recasting feudalism as some sort of capitalist society of robber-barons; the problem for you is that your claim is simply ignorant. You are entering Daniel Palios territory.

Feudalism

My logical argument is fairly straight forward. When more than one person shares ownership that means they have to agree on what rights that ownership implies. Saying that one of the owners can't just up and build a house on some of the land they own together applies to plenty of examples of co-ownership. This means your understanding of ownership is ignorant nonsense like I said it was many many posts ago.

The problem you have with understanding feudalism is that you are trying to compare your modern understanding of government to that of a king or lord. This comparison is woefully incompatible but you push it anyway. I am not trying to compare modern economics to feudalism because it is a stupid comparison but if we must it is much easier to understand that feudal lords had power that came from owning the means of production and that ownership was attached to individuals.

The people were dependent on the lord for both work and protection. Today we depend on the government for protection and private businesses for work. The various lords had to worry about conflict with other lords so there was a way of addressing weaknesses. The Lords themselves were far more similar to large businesses owned by a single family than a democratic government. The church did fill in and provide some of the services a modern government would provide.

All comparisons are imperfect but your basic understanding of what words mean is lacking. Every time you try and express an idea it is wrapped up in some very silly ideas.

I have wasted plenty of time addressing your gross ignorance but you are fairly amusing so I didn't mind.

 

[danielpalos]

1. there is no unemployment but no one works.

It is simple; only the right claims that to their stock holders. There could be no longer any natural rate of unemployment or simple poverty and those Persons could be on unemployment compensation and going to school, learning a vocation, or simply pursuing Happiness; and, still spending capital under our form of Capitalism where Only money actually needs to work.

 

[danielpalos]

I apologize for knowing what words mean but your confusion is not my fault. The "basic" legal principle you tried to build your argument around doesn't fit with regards to corporations and from what I can tell you are not denying some form of shared ownership. So your point is dead either way. So congrats on being wrong and making pointless arguments.

It is like you just called all forms of civilization socialism, which is true in a way. Then complained about how this is an assault on freedom, which is just whiny and stupid. Then you equated it back to feudalism, again. Despite the fact you really don't know what feudalism is or how it relates to modern economics. Your train of thought is like a clown car of silly ideas. I never really know what silly thing will pop out next but the clowns just keep coming.

So, you have no intent on being intellectually honest and feel trapped by your inability to posit a rational argument then?

I realize your flaccid argument depends on recasting feudalism as some sort of capitalist society of robber-barons; the problem for you is that your claim is simply ignorant. You are entering Daniel Palios territory.

Feudalism

Nothing but fallacy from the lazy right; why complain about the least wealthy who know better than to work harder than fools and horses.

 

[Vigilante]

1. there is no unemployment but no one works.

It is simple; only the right claims that to their stock holders. There could be no longer any natural rate of unemployment or simple poverty and those Persons could be on unemployment compensation and going to school, learning a vocation, or simply pursuing Happiness; and, still spending capital under our form of Capitalism where Only money actually needs to work.

Mere speculation from a true believer!

 

[danielpalos]

1. there is no unemployment but no one works.

It is simple; only the right claims that to their stock holders. There could be no longer any natural rate of unemployment or simple poverty and those Persons could be on unemployment compensation and going to school, learning a vocation, or simply pursuing Happiness; and, still spending capital under our form of Capitalism where Only money actually needs to work.

Mere speculation from a true believer!

Not at all; unemployment compensation has already been proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy which meets the criteria for an Investment in the general welfare. Isn't it self-evident that no one in the private sector could be worse off by eliminating a poverty of capital under Any form of Capitalism not just ours.

Only the Capital Right fails to understand that Capital concept and the implications for our economy and our tax burden.

 

[Vigilante]

1. there is no unemployment but no one works.

It is simple; only the right claims that to their stock holders. There could be no longer any natural rate of unemployment or simple poverty and those Persons could be on unemployment compensation and going to school, learning a vocation, or simply pursuing Happiness; and, still spending capital under our form of Capitalism where Only money actually needs to work.

Mere speculation from a true believer!

Not at all; unemployment compensation has already been proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy which meets the criteria for an Investment in the general welfare. Isn't it self-evident that no one in the private sector could be worse off by eliminating a poverty of capital under Any form of Capitalism not just ours.

Only the Capital Right fails to understand that Capital concept and the implications for our economy and our tax burden.

Come on Nancy, get REAL!

Nancy Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create ...
RealClearPolitics - Opinion News Analysis Videos and Polls/.../nancy_pelosi_extending_unemployment...
Video embedded · Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create 600,000 Jobs "The unemployment insurance extension is not only good ... economy," House Minority Leader Nancy ...

 

[thereisnospoon]

We fought socialism in world war 2? Really? We fought with the USSR against the fascist pigs. In the words of a fascist: "Fascism is a mix of corporate and state power"

You are such a fucking genius, why are you here?

Socialists caused World War II. History refresher ...
rexcurry.net/socialistwar.html
Socialists caused World War II. ... During World War II, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics formed an alliance with the ... in the United States, ...

Ah, such factual dishonesty and stupidity is astounding. The nazi's only took the word "socialism" to appeal to the lower classes, they did nothing even remotely close to trying to achieve socialism. Then again, your posts are a journey in stupidity.

Of course SOCIALISM, the TAKING AWAY OF ONES WEALTH TO GIVE IT TO THOSE THAT DON'T DO SHIT, AND THUS BUY THEIR VOTE IS UP FOR GRABS! Your subversiveness is following you like a trail of diarrhea!

Not at all, socialism is democratic ownership of the means of production. You're an idiot.

Cut the bullshit...Socialism sets up a system where equality is dispensed in a level of misery for all the lies just below the boiling point while the elite ruling class of a few get to enjoy the spoils of everyone else's hard work....In return, the great unwashed masses get oppression almost beyond the point of human endurance....Venezuela is a perfect example. Greece, while not quite as oppressed, is another example of the failures of socialism or "social contract"....

 

[Bombur]

We fought socialism in world war 2? Really? We fought with the USSR against the fascist pigs. In the words of a fascist: "Fascism is a mix of corporate and state power"

You are such a fucking genius, why are you here?

Socialists caused World War II. History refresher ...
rexcurry.net/socialistwar.html
Socialists caused World War II. ... During World War II, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics formed an alliance with the ... in the United States, ...

Ah, such factual dishonesty and stupidity is astounding. The nazi's only took the word "socialism" to appeal to the lower classes, they did nothing even remotely close to trying to achieve socialism. Then again, your posts are a journey in stupidity.

Of course SOCIALISM, the TAKING AWAY OF ONES WEALTH TO GIVE IT TO THOSE THAT DON'T DO SHIT, AND THUS BUY THEIR VOTE IS UP FOR GRABS! Your subversiveness is following you like a trail of diarrhea!

Not at all, socialism is democratic ownership of the means of production. You're an idiot.

Cut the bullshit...Socialism sets up a system where equality is dispensed in a level of misery for all the lies just below the boiling point while the elite ruling class of a few get to enjoy the spoils of everyone else's hard work....In return, the great unwashed masses get oppression almost beyond the point of human endurance....Venezuela is a perfect example. Greece, while not quite as oppressed, is another example of the failures of socialism or "social contract"....

When people talk about implementing ideas that some people would call socialism these days they tend to point to nations like Sweden or Germany. In the US some people even call UHC socialism even though every industrialized capitalist nation has some form of UHC.

 

[thereisnospoon]

1. there is no unemployment but no one works.

It is simple; only the right claims that to their stock holders. There could be no longer any natural rate of unemployment or simple poverty and those Persons could be on unemployment compensation and going to school, learning a vocation, or simply pursuing Happiness; and, still spending capital under our form of Capitalism where Only money actually needs to work.

Mere speculation from a true believer!

Not at all; unemployment compensation has already been proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy which meets the criteria for an Investment in the general welfare. Isn't it self-evident that no one in the private sector could be worse off by eliminating a poverty of capital under Any form of Capitalism not just ours.

Only the Capital Right fails to understand that Capital concept and the implications for our economy and our tax burden.

So why not have this...NO ONE working while collecting from the government which is funded by....OOPS>..Wait a minute. If no one is working because with your logic unemployment stimulates the economy, WHO is going to pay the taxes to fund your socialist utopia?....
The one thing you lefty wackos ignore >>>.."the money HAS to come from somewhere"....
In order to fund your free shit, someone has to create wealth. That means someone HAS to work and achieve.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You are such a fucking genius, why are you here?

Socialists caused World War II. History refresher ...
rexcurry.net/socialistwar.html
Socialists caused World War II. ... During World War II, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics formed an alliance with the ... in the United States, ...

Ah, such factual dishonesty and stupidity is astounding. The nazi's only took the word "socialism" to appeal to the lower classes, they did nothing even remotely close to trying to achieve socialism. Then again, your posts are a journey in stupidity.

Of course SOCIALISM, the TAKING AWAY OF ONES WEALTH TO GIVE IT TO THOSE THAT DON'T DO SHIT, AND THUS BUY THEIR VOTE IS UP FOR GRABS! Your subversiveness is following you like a trail of diarrhea!

Not at all, socialism is democratic ownership of the means of production. You're an idiot.

Cut the bullshit...Socialism sets up a system where equality is dispensed in a level of misery for all the lies just below the boiling point while the elite ruling class of a few get to enjoy the spoils of everyone else's hard work....In return, the great unwashed masses get oppression almost beyond the point of human endurance....Venezuela is a perfect example. Greece, while not quite as oppressed, is another example of the failures of socialism or "social contract"....

When people talk about implementing ideas that some people would call socialism these days they tend to point to nations like Sweden or Germany. In the US some people even call UHC socialism even though every industrialized capitalist nation has some form of UHC.

Hey, if you want to pay those confiscatory tax rates and keep far less of your earnings, have at it. Just please do it elsewhere.
Look, if we implemented Western European style socialism here, one thing is for sure, nobody's pay is going to be increased to make up for the additional taxation. In essence, such a system would create more hardship and more poverty.

 

[Bombur]

Ah, such factual dishonesty and stupidity is astounding. The nazi's only took the word "socialism" to appeal to the lower classes, they did nothing even remotely close to trying to achieve socialism. Then again, your posts are a journey in stupidity.

Of course SOCIALISM, the TAKING AWAY OF ONES WEALTH TO GIVE IT TO THOSE THAT DON'T DO SHIT, AND THUS BUY THEIR VOTE IS UP FOR GRABS! Your subversiveness is following you like a trail of diarrhea!

Not at all, socialism is democratic ownership of the means of production. You're an idiot.

Cut the bullshit...Socialism sets up a system where equality is dispensed in a level of misery for all the lies just below the boiling point while the elite ruling class of a few get to enjoy the spoils of everyone else's hard work....In return, the great unwashed masses get oppression almost beyond the point of human endurance....Venezuela is a perfect example. Greece, while not quite as oppressed, is another example of the failures of socialism or "social contract"....

When people talk about implementing ideas that some people would call socialism these days they tend to point to nations like Sweden or Germany. In the US some people even call UHC socialism even though every industrialized capitalist nation has some form of UHC.

Hey, if you want to pay those confiscatory tax rates and keep far less of your earnings, have at it. Just please do it elsewhere.
Look, if we implemented Western European style socialism here, one thing is for sure, nobody's pay is going to be increased to make up for the additional taxation. In essence, such a system would create more hardship and more poverty.

A lot of European nations don't have the problems with poverty the US has. They have far less people in prison and far better living standards for large segments of their population.

UHC is also way more efficient at delivering health care than our system.

Your understanding of the world is incomplete because you have been sold so many lies.

 

[danielpalos]

1. there is no unemployment but no one works.

It is simple; only the right claims that to their stock holders. There could be no longer any natural rate of unemployment or simple poverty and those Persons could be on unemployment compensation and going to school, learning a vocation, or simply pursuing Happiness; and, still spending capital under our form of Capitalism where Only money actually needs to work.

Mere speculation from a true believer!

Not at all; unemployment compensation has already been proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy which meets the criteria for an Investment in the general welfare. Isn't it self-evident that no one in the private sector could be worse off by eliminating a poverty of capital under Any form of Capitalism not just ours.

Only the Capital Right fails to understand that Capital concept and the implications for our economy and our tax burden.

Come on Nancy, get REAL!

Nancy Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create ...
RealClearPolitics - Opinion News Analysis Videos and Polls/.../nancy_pelosi_extending_unemployment...
Video embedded · Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create 600,000 Jobs "The unemployment insurance extension is not only good ... economy," House Minority Leader Nancy ...

I am real. It is the lazy Right that fails to even try to understand the issues but blame the least wealthy for not working hard enough under our form of Capitalism, where it only takes capital to make more capital.

Now, new evidence from a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush Administration reaffirms the value of UI as an automatic economic stabilizer during the latest recession. This study was conducted by the research firm IMPAQ International in conjunction with the Urban Institute and using the macroeconomic model from Moody’s Economy.com. --Source: ETA News Release US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance 11 16 2010

 

[Vigilante]

1. there is no unemployment but no one works.

It is simple; only the right claims that to their stock holders. There could be no longer any natural rate of unemployment or simple poverty and those Persons could be on unemployment compensation and going to school, learning a vocation, or simply pursuing Happiness; and, still spending capital under our form of Capitalism where Only money actually needs to work.

Mere speculation from a true believer!

Not at all; unemployment compensation has already been proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy which meets the criteria for an Investment in the general welfare. Isn't it self-evident that no one in the private sector could be worse off by eliminating a poverty of capital under Any form of Capitalism not just ours.

Only the Capital Right fails to understand that Capital concept and the implications for our economy and our tax burden.

Come on Nancy, get REAL!

Nancy Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create ...
RealClearPolitics - Opinion News Analysis Videos and Polls/.../nancy_pelosi_extending_unemployment...
Video embedded · Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create 600,000 Jobs "The unemployment insurance extension is not only good ... economy," House Minority Leader Nancy ...

I am real. It is the lazy Right that fails to even try to understand the issues but blame the least wealthy for not working hard enough under our form of Capitalism, where it only takes capital to make more capital.

Now, new evidence from a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush Administration reaffirms the value of UI as an automatic economic stabilizer during the latest recession. This study was conducted by the research firm IMPAQ International in conjunction with the Urban Institute and using the macroeconomic model from Moody’s Economy.com. --Source: ETA News Release US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance 11 16 2010

Yes, what was the American Dream of our fathers, is now the GIVE ME FREE SHIT scum!

 

[danielpalos]

1. there is no unemployment but no one works.

It is simple; only the right claims that to their stock holders. There could be no longer any natural rate of unemployment or simple poverty and those Persons could be on unemployment compensation and going to school, learning a vocation, or simply pursuing Happiness; and, still spending capital under our form of Capitalism where Only money actually needs to work.

Mere speculation from a true believer!

Not at all; unemployment compensation has already been proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy which meets the criteria for an Investment in the general welfare. Isn't it self-evident that no one in the private sector could be worse off by eliminating a poverty of capital under Any form of Capitalism not just ours.

Only the Capital Right fails to understand that Capital concept and the implications for our economy and our tax burden.

So why not have this...NO ONE working while collecting from the government which is funded by....OOPS>..Wait a minute. If no one is working because with your logic unemployment stimulates the economy, WHO is going to pay the taxes to fund your socialist utopia?....
The one thing you lefty wackos ignore >>>.."the money HAS to come from somewhere"....
In order to fund your free shit, someone has to create wealth. That means someone HAS to work and achieve.

Because; Only the right is that lazy.

 

[danielpalos]

1. there is no unemployment but no one works.

It is simple; only the right claims that to their stock holders. There could be no longer any natural rate of unemployment or simple poverty and those Persons could be on unemployment compensation and going to school, learning a vocation, or simply pursuing Happiness; and, still spending capital under our form of Capitalism where Only money actually needs to work.

Mere speculation from a true believer!

Not at all; unemployment compensation has already been proven to engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy which meets the criteria for an Investment in the general welfare. Isn't it self-evident that no one in the private sector could be worse off by eliminating a poverty of capital under Any form of Capitalism not just ours.

Only the Capital Right fails to understand that Capital concept and the implications for our economy and our tax burden.

Come on Nancy, get REAL!

Nancy Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create ...
RealClearPolitics - Opinion News Analysis Videos and Polls/.../nancy_pelosi_extending_unemployment...
Video embedded · Pelosi: Extending Unemployment Benefits Will Create 600,000 Jobs "The unemployment insurance extension is not only good ... economy," House Minority Leader Nancy ...

I am real. It is the lazy Right that fails to even try to understand the issues but blame the least wealthy for not working hard enough under our form of Capitalism, where it only takes capital to make more capital.

Now, new evidence from a study commissioned by the Labor Department during the Bush Administration reaffirms the value of UI as an automatic economic stabilizer during the latest recession. This study was conducted by the research firm IMPAQ International in conjunction with the Urban Institute and using the macroeconomic model from Moody’s Economy.com. --Source: ETA News Release US Labor Department study underscores positive impact of unemployment insurance 11 16 2010

Yes, what was the American Dream of our fathers, is now the GIVE ME FREE SHIT scum!

Still don't understand Capitalism. What a coincidence; lazy Person on the Right.