The Benefits Of Socialism

[Mac1958]

Let’s try this and see if it works.
I see no benefit in the government owning and controlling the means of production and distribution.

I tried that. Not good enough.

But they won't tell me what WOULD be.
.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Awesome thanks Webster. Now tell us what separates Socialism from Communism.

The Difference Between Communism and Socialism


In a communist society, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people -- all are equal, and the community distributes what it produces based only on need.

socialism’s main focus is on equality. But workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production.

Hmm...seems like the same shit spun different ways...no?

More or less, who owns what sort of changes but only in name, the effect is the same.

As a greedy capitalist both are of the devil.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

WTF...are you bipolar?

Not at all, what part are you confused about?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

One minute you seem to support an expansion of socialism and the next you seem to stand firmly against it.
Is that just how you middlegrounders are?

 

[Mac1958]

Economic systems and government involvement in those systems exist on a continuum.

This fact appears to be too complicated for some.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Let’s try this and see if it works.

I see no benefit in the government owning and controlling the means of production and distribution.

So, if no one here is defending socialism, where's the argument?

The real debate is in the ‘elements’ of socialism and the beneficiaries of socialism.
The Left loves socialism and taxpayer investment in ShaQuita, Guadalupe and their litters of filth while some on the Right support taxpayers investing in our food sources, military and victims of natural disasters.

This is it in a nutshell. Both sides have their flavor of socialism they like and defend. Both sides word their version of socialism so that it sounds good and noble and make the other sides seem bad.

Let’s try this and see if it works.
I see no benefit in the government owning and controlling the means of production and distribution.

I tried that. Not good enough.

But they won't tell me what WOULD be.
.

I agree Gator....This isn’t as complicated as the Left wishes they could make it. I explained it early on in this thread.

“Some get fucked and most get free shit from those being fucked. The middle man (.GOV) decides the details / rules in the game of Fuck Or Be Fucked....That’s socialism without spin.”

 

[Mac1958]

“Some get fucked and most get free shit from those being fucked. The middle man (.GOV) decides the details / rules in the game of Fuck Or Be Fucked....That’s socialism without spin.”

So I guess America is socialist, huh?
.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Economic systems and government involvement in those systems exist on a continuum.

This fact appears to be too complicated for some.

Adam Smith thought government has a role in economic systems
so do most right wingers

your problem is with the childish left whose answer is government and laws for everything

 

[BrokeLoser]

“Some get fucked and most get free shit from those being fucked. The middle man (.GOV) decides the details / rules in the game of Fuck Or Be Fucked....That’s socialism without spin.”

So I guess America is socialist, huh?
.

In part...YES.
We have way too many elements of socialism worked in to what should have always been a full capitalist society.
See, that’s why I bitch and complain about all the thirdworld cockroaches joining in....these inherently low grade human beings are conditioned to love and beg for more socialism. You can witness it in every election, they vote for whoever promises the most free shit....again, this shit isn’t complicated...more thirdworld filth voting in elections equals more socialism.

 

[The Republicans]

People who are for the idea are going to redirect you to Norway, Denmark and the successful countries that are socialist or democrat socialism! What I don’t understand is what will change? Are we going to have the right to have homeownership?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Let's defend socialism, shall we??
.

Could you define socialism for us?

It seems the best way to start such a discussion.

A failed political experiment that causes it's population great pain.

 

[Edgetho]

In part...YES.
We have way too many elements of socialism worked in to what should have always been a full capitalist society.
See, that’s why I bitch and complain about all the thirdworld cockroaches joining in....these inherently low grade human beings are conditioned to love and beg for more socialism. You can witness it in every election, they vote for whoever promises the most free shit....again, this shit isn’t complicated...more thirdworld filth voting in elections equals more socialism.

Unfettered Capitalism can be as bad as socialism.

There's nothing wrong with a government that supplies people with a safety net. It's when government starts stepping on the toes of Private Enterprises that aren't hurting anyone and start telling them to straighten up or else.

A prime example was the CRA (community reinvestment act).

Enacted by Jimmy the Peanut, it was a well-meaning, decent rule intended to encourage Banks (lending institutions, whatev) to finance homes in less-than-desirable areas for less-than-desirable borrowers around the Country.

Bill The Rapist (more likely, Ubercunt) saw an opportunity and had Janet Reno send Jamie Gorelick (yes, the same Gore-lick that sat on the board of FHA for some ungodly reason) around the Country telling Banks in no uncertain terms that they had to increase the number of loans to people who didn't really qualify buying homes in neighborhoods that were iffy at best.

They tried but in the process, greedy bankers saw an opportunity to abuse the intent of the rule and started using the same loan criteria for everybody, not just for CRA loans.

FHA, keeping up with the socialist promises from the criminal Clintons, started buying bad paper like there was no tomorrow.... Franklin Raines, Gore-lick, et al.

Then, they turned around and sold that bad paper to people and Countries that thought they were getting AAA Bonds when they were actually getting shit bonds.

The resulting cascade caused the great recession. Bush saw it coming but was too gutless to do anything about it.

That is an example of what can happen when STUPID fucking socialists get their hands on Capitalism.

Anyway, in a truly Capitalist Society, the Government acts as a Baseball Umpire. All they do is call balls and strikes. They don't really interfere in the game unless asked to do so.

But dimocrap scum, dimocrap FILTH want government in every aspect of your life.

You want to raise your child as the boy he was born as? Good luck with that. By the time government schools get done with him, he'll be doing pirouettes in the driveway.

You want to start a business? Did you not see that the US is 48th in the world in business friendliness? BEHIND VIET NAM!!!!???

dimocrap scum want government in every part of your life. With them running the government, of course.

Which brings us to Donald Trump.

They HATE him because --

He's not one of them

 

[dblack]

People who are for the idea are going to redirect you to Norway, Denmark and the successful countries that are socialist or democrat socialism! What I don’t understand is what will change? Are we going to have the right to have homeownership?

It depends how far they take it. Ultimately, socialists want everything in society to be determined democratically - which would include how property is distributed. But of course they're not going to lead with that line.

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."

 

[dblack]

Unfettered Capitalism can be as bad as socialism.

Ahh... "unfettered". More of the orwelling wordsmithing.

Of course capitalism requires law and order. It hinges on property rights if nothing else. But all too often the "fettering" government imposes on markets is there to serve the goals of a specific interest group, and has nothing to do with protecting the rights of consumers.

 

[Edgetho]

It depends how far they take it. Ultimately, socialists want everything in society to be determined democratically - which would include how property is distributed. But of course they're not going to lead with that line.

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."

It is absurdly stupid to think you can have socialism and democracy at the same time. They are antithetical to each other.

Under socialism, rules and laws exist that violate human freedom in every way. Those that don't care to follow those rules and laws are met with force.

Just ask any citizen that has escaped socialism. Any of them.

If there is democracy and an anti-socialist is elected, the first thing he will do is start tearing down the pillars of socialism. Which can take years. Even decades.

Then, if a socialist is re-elected, he will start to build the disease of socialism. Which can take years or decades.

You can't have socialism and democracy. Anybody that thinks so is so stupid as to defy imagination.

 

[Edgetho]

Unfettered Capitalism can be as bad as socialism.

Ahh... "unfettered". More of the orwelling wordsmithing.

Of course capitalism requires law and order. It hinges on property rights if nothing else. But all too often the "fettering" government imposes on markets is there to serve the goals of a specific interest group, and has nothing to do with protecting the rights of consumers.

Examples?

Another surgeon's dream, I see.

open wide

 

[Mac1958]

It depends how far they take it. Ultimately, socialists want everything in society to be determined democratically - which would include how property is distributed. But of course they're not going to lead with that line.

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."

It is absurdly stupid to think you can have socialism and democracy at the same time. They are antithetical to each other.

Under socialism, rules and laws exist that violate human freedom in every way. Those that don't care to follow those rules and laws are met with force.

Just ask any citizen that has escaped socialism. Any of them.

If there is democracy and an anti-socialist is elected, the first thing he will do is start tearing down the pillars of socialism. Which can take years. Even decades.

Then, if a socialist is re-elected, he will start to build the disease of socialism. Which can take years or decades.

You can't have socialism and democracy. Anybody that thinks so is so stupid as to defy imagination.

So then, is your version of socialism the traditional definition, government ownership and control of production and distribution?
.

 

[dblack]

Ahh... "unfettered". More of the orwelling wordsmithing.

Of course capitalism requires law and order. It hinges on property rights if nothing else. But all too often the "fettering" government imposes on markets is there to serve the goals of a specific interest group, and has nothing to do with protecting the rights of consumers.

Examples?

ACA

 

[dblack]

It depends how far they take it. Ultimately, socialists want everything in society to be determined democratically - which would include how property is distributed. But of course they're not going to lead with that line.

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance."

It is absurdly stupid to think you can have socialism and democracy at the same time. They are antithetical to each other.

Under socialism, rules and laws exist that violate human freedom in every way. Those that don't care to follow those rules and laws are met with force.

Just ask any citizen that has escaped socialism. Any of them.

If there is democracy and an anti-socialist is elected, the first thing he will do is start tearing down the pillars of socialism. Which can take years. Even decades.

Then, if a socialist is re-elected, he will start to build the disease of socialism. Which can take years or decades.

You can't have socialism and democracy. Anybody that thinks so is so stupid as to defy imagination.

So then, is your version of socialism the traditional definition, government ownership and control of production and distribution?
.

And your version is "government ownership and control of ALL production and distribution", right? Version is versions.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Difference Between Communism and Socialism


In a communist society, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people -- all are equal, and the community distributes what it produces based only on need.

socialism’s main focus is on equality. But workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production.

Hmm...seems like the same shit spun different ways...no?

More or less, who owns what sort of changes but only in name, the effect is the same.

As a greedy capitalist both are of the devil.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

WTF...are you bipolar?

Not at all, what part are you confused about?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

One minute you seem to support an expansion of socialism and the next you seem to stand firmly against it.
Is that just how you middlegrounders are?

If it is not too much to ask, can you give an example of me supporting an expansion of socialism?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Hmm...seems like the same shit spun different ways...no?

More or less, who owns what sort of changes but only in name, the effect is the same.

As a greedy capitalist both are of the devil.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

WTF...are you bipolar?

Not at all, what part are you confused about?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

One minute you seem to support an expansion of socialism and the next you seem to stand firmly against it.
Is that just how you middlegrounders are?

If it is not too much to ask, can you give an example of me supporting an expansion of socialism?

You seem to have started this thread out with a salute to socialism....Did I misread you...AGAIN?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

More or less, who owns what sort of changes but only in name, the effect is the same.

As a greedy capitalist both are of the devil.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

WTF...are you bipolar?

Not at all, what part are you confused about?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

One minute you seem to support an expansion of socialism and the next you seem to stand firmly against it.
Is that just how you middlegrounders are?

If it is not too much to ask, can you give an example of me supporting an expansion of socialism?

You seem to have started this thread out with a salute to socialism....Did I misread you...AGAIN?

Yes, you did. I started this thread out trying to define socialism because it has 1000 meanings these days. Hell, we had an entire multi page thread where all the Trumpians were accusing Panera of socialism, as if a private company could in any way engage in socialism.

socialism is today's boggieman, it is what anything anybody does not like is called, thus rendering the word meaningless, and also at the same time taking the stigma away from socialism.