Venezuela ravaged by socialism.

[August West]

Social ownership takes different forms. In general it deprives private appropriation of the surplus value of commodities.

So, in other words it is controlled by government. In other words, the government controls the means of production, and thus it also controls monetary policy, fiscal policy, and every other aspect of the business cycle.

Control by the government is one form, it's called public ownership, but it is not the only form. The cooperative is another. Collective ownership is yet another.

Government controls monetary policy and fiscal policy in the US. I guess you think we are living in a socialist country.

In many ways the US IS a socialist country. Far more than the Founders ever intended. There are many cooperative owned companies in the US. Define "collective ownership" and please provide an example.

How do you know what our Founders intended?

Because they wrote a great deal about their concerns and desires for the future of this country. I suggest you read some of what they had to say.

That`s a non answer. The slave owning founders did not give us an economic system.

 

[westwall]

So, in other words it is controlled by government. In other words, the government controls the means of production, and thus it also controls monetary policy, fiscal policy, and every other aspect of the business cycle.

Control by the government is one form, it's called public ownership, but it is not the only form. The cooperative is another. Collective ownership is yet another.

Government controls monetary policy and fiscal policy in the US. I guess you think we are living in a socialist country.

In many ways the US IS a socialist country. Far more than the Founders ever intended. There are many cooperative owned companies in the US. Define "collective ownership" and please provide an example.

How do you know what our Founders intended?

Because they wrote a great deal about their concerns and desires for the future of this country. I suggest you read some of what they had to say.

That`s a non answer. The slave owning founders did not give us an economic system.

They didn't? Now I KNOW you haven't a clue as to what you're speaking about.

 

[Tehon]

Socialism isn't defined by central control of an economy. It is defined by the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. In Marxist theory the wage laborer is freed from exploitation by private ownership of the capitalist class.

Define "social ownership".

Social ownership takes different forms. In general it deprives private appropriation of the surplus value of commodities.

So, in other words it is controlled by government. In other words, the government controls the means of production, and thus it also controls monetary policy, fiscal policy, and every other aspect of the business cycle.

Control by the government is one form, it's called public ownership, but it is not the only form. The cooperative is another. Collective ownership is yet another.

Government controls monetary policy and fiscal policy in the US. I guess you think we are living in a socialist country.

In many ways the US IS a socialist country. Far more than the Founders ever intended. There are many cooperative owned companies in the US. Define "collective ownership" and please provide an example.

Collective ownership is just what it sounds like. Any enterprise that is owned and operated collectively.

Township and Village Enterprises - Wikipedia

 

[westwall]

Define "social ownership".

Social ownership takes different forms. In general it deprives private appropriation of the surplus value of commodities.

So, in other words it is controlled by government. In other words, the government controls the means of production, and thus it also controls monetary policy, fiscal policy, and every other aspect of the business cycle.

Control by the government is one form, it's called public ownership, but it is not the only form. The cooperative is another. Collective ownership is yet another.

Government controls monetary policy and fiscal policy in the US. I guess you think we are living in a socialist country.

In many ways the US IS a socialist country. Far more than the Founders ever intended. There are many cooperative owned companies in the US. Define "collective ownership" and please provide an example.

Collective ownership is just what it sounds like. Any enterprise that is owned and operated collectively.

Township and Village Enterprises - Wikipedia

I guess you missed this part of the description. Highlighted so you can see it.....


Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs, simplified Chinese: 乡镇企业; traditional Chinese: 鄉鎮企業; pinyin: Xiāngzhèn qǐyè) are market-oriented public enterprises under the purview of local governments based in townships and villages in the People's Republic of China.



So, GOVERNMENT control. Local government owes its existence in China to the National Government, so local government does what the big boys tell them to. In other words the PEOPLE don't collectively own squat. They are merely cogs in the machine of government.

 

[Tehon]

Social ownership takes different forms. In general it deprives private appropriation of the surplus value of commodities.

So, in other words it is controlled by government. In other words, the government controls the means of production, and thus it also controls monetary policy, fiscal policy, and every other aspect of the business cycle.

Control by the government is one form, it's called public ownership, but it is not the only form. The cooperative is another. Collective ownership is yet another.

Government controls monetary policy and fiscal policy in the US. I guess you think we are living in a socialist country.

In many ways the US IS a socialist country. Far more than the Founders ever intended. There are many cooperative owned companies in the US. Define "collective ownership" and please provide an example.

Collective ownership is just what it sounds like. Any enterprise that is owned and operated collectively.

Township and Village Enterprises - Wikipedia

I guess you missed this part of the description. Highlighted so you can see it.....


Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs, simplified Chinese: 乡镇企业; traditional Chinese: 鄉鎮企業; pinyin: Xiāngzhèn qǐyè) are market-oriented public enterprises under the purview of local governments based in townships and villages in the People's Republic of China.



So, GOVERNMENT control. Local government owes its existence in China to the National Government, so local government does what the big boys tell them to. In other words the PEOPLE don't collectively own squat. They are merely cogs in the machine of government.

TVEs are an example. They don't define all collectives, not even within China.
From the same link;
TVEs were very flexible in terms of organizational and ownership structure. While some were run by local governments, others were more genuinely independent in nature. Wong has shown that through the 1980s most of the supposedly collective TVEs operated as private enterprises in practice.[8] In this sense, the use of the term collective masked the privatization of rural enterprise at a time when it was ideologically subversive to some.

 

[westwall]

So, in other words it is controlled by government. In other words, the government controls the means of production, and thus it also controls monetary policy, fiscal policy, and every other aspect of the business cycle.

Control by the government is one form, it's called public ownership, but it is not the only form. The cooperative is another. Collective ownership is yet another.

Government controls monetary policy and fiscal policy in the US. I guess you think we are living in a socialist country.

In many ways the US IS a socialist country. Far more than the Founders ever intended. There are many cooperative owned companies in the US. Define "collective ownership" and please provide an example.

Collective ownership is just what it sounds like. Any enterprise that is owned and operated collectively.

Township and Village Enterprises - Wikipedia

I guess you missed this part of the description. Highlighted so you can see it.....


Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs, simplified Chinese: 乡镇企业; traditional Chinese: 鄉鎮企業; pinyin: Xiāngzhèn qǐyè) are market-oriented public enterprises under the purview of local governments based in townships and villages in the People's Republic of China.



So, GOVERNMENT control. Local government owes its existence in China to the National Government, so local government does what the big boys tell them to. In other words the PEOPLE don't collectively own squat. They are merely cogs in the machine of government.

TVEs are an example. They don't define all collectives, not even within China.
From the same link;
TVEs were very flexible in terms of organizational and ownership structure. While some were run by local governments, others were more genuinely independent in nature. Wong has shown that through the 1980s most of the supposedly collective TVEs operated as private enterprises in practice.[8] In this sense, the use of the term collective masked the privatization of rural enterprise at a time when it was ideologically subversive to some.

Yes, that is the problem when you are dealing with collectivist governments, they hate to lose power. China is doing a much better job now of dealing with true entrepreneurs, however, the government still owns EVERYTHING. You merely get to lease it from them. Thus, whenever they decide they don't like you, they can take it back at will.

 

[P@triot]

Venezuela is ravaged by poor monetary policies. Socialism is just a scapegoat for the ignorant.

Socialism isn't a "scapegoat" for the ignorant, socialism is for the ignorant. My friend, you are a very uninformed, very immature idealist. Most likely because you don't want to hold a job and take any personal responsibility for your life. Socialism has a 100% failure rate world-wide. It has never succeeded. Never. Not once.

 

[Tehon]

Venezuela is ravaged by poor monetary policies. Socialism is just a scapegoat for the ignorant.

Socialism isn't a "scapegoat" for the ignorant, socialism is for the ignorant. My friend, you are a very uninformed, very immature idealist. Most likely because you don't want to hold a job and take any personal responsibility for your life. Socialism has a 100% failure rate world-wide. It has never exceeded. Never. Not once.

Read Karl Marx and get back to me. Then we can discuss what is Socialism. Cause right now you don't know shit.

 

[P@triot]

Venezuela is ravaged by poor monetary policies. Socialism is just a scapegoat for the ignorant.

Socialism isn't a "scapegoat" for the ignorant, socialism is for the ignorant. My friend, you are a very uninformed, very immature idealist. Most likely because you don't want to hold a job and take any personal responsibility for your life. Socialism has a 100% failure rate world-wide. It has never exceeded. Never. Not once.

Read Karl Marx and get back to me. Then we can discuss what is Socialism. Cause right now you don't know shit.

Bwahahaha! That's how the left operates. When proven wrong, they say "go do X" and then they run away. Snowflake...I know what socialism is. I've read far too much of Karl Marx (as has the rest of the world). The guy was an asshole and an idiot. The fact that you buy into the stupidity is your problem. That video just obliterated every stupid thing you've said in this thread. You're 100% wrong. Deal with it..

 

[P@triot]

Read Karl Marx and get back to me.

This flawlessly illustrates exactly what actually happens with socialism (and it just happened in Venezuela). Enjoy...

 

[westwall]

Venezuela is ravaged by poor monetary policies. Socialism is just a scapegoat for the ignorant.

Socialism isn't a "scapegoat" for the ignorant, socialism is for the ignorant. My friend, you are a very uninformed, very immature idealist. Most likely because you don't want to hold a job and take any personal responsibility for your life. Socialism has a 100% failure rate world-wide. It has never exceeded. Never. Not once.

Read Karl Marx and get back to me. Then we can discuss what is Socialism. Cause right now you don't know shit.

The problem you have is that we HAVE read Marx, and Engels, and Hess, and Heinzen etc. etc. etc. and to compound your problem we actually understand what they were saying. Marxism is wonderful, right up to the point that you add people to the mix. It is utopia, utopia is great. I wish we lived in a utopian world. The fact is we don't, and never will. Because once you get people added to the mix the whole concept collapses.

 

[Tehon]

Venezuela is ravaged by poor monetary policies. Socialism is just a scapegoat for the ignorant.

Socialism isn't a "scapegoat" for the ignorant, socialism is for the ignorant. My friend, you are a very uninformed, very immature idealist. Most likely because you don't want to hold a job and take any personal responsibility for your life. Socialism has a 100% failure rate world-wide. It has never exceeded. Never. Not once.

Read Karl Marx and get back to me. Then we can discuss what is Socialism. Cause right now you don't know shit.

The problem you have is that we HAVE read Marx, and Engels, and Hess, and Heinzen etc. etc. etc. and to compound your problem we actually understand what they were saying. Marxism is wonderful, right up to the point that you add people to the mix. It is utopia, utopia is great. I wish we lived in a utopian world. The fact is we don't, and never will. Because once you get people added to the mix the whole concept collapses.

You may have read him, you may even have understood him. You have yet to demonstrate it but it's possible, not likely, but possible. No way you can convince me Rottweiler did though.

 

[Tehon]

Read Karl Marx and get back to me.

This flawlessly illustrates exactly what actually happens with socialism (and it just happened in Venezuela). Enjoy...

Marx's theory had nothing to do with redistribution. In fact he called it "vulgar". Try again dumb-ass. Cartoons!

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

 

[P@triot]

Cartoons!

Well we had to simplify so that the left could understand it. And that "cartoon" flawlessly illustrates exactly what occurs in socialism. There is 0 motivation to perform at a high level so output/production continues to decline until there is collapse.

Karl Marx was a genuine dimwit who did what every immature left-wing idealist did: failed to account for human nature.

 

[Tehon]

Karl Marx was a genuine dimwit who did what every immature left-wing idealist did: failed to account for human nature.

How so? If it helps you, feel free to use cartoons.

 

[EverCurious]

Three Part Series if you can handle that much watching -

 

[P@triot]

Karl Marx was a genuine dimwit who did what every immature left-wing idealist did: failed to account for human nature.

How so? If it helps you, feel free to use cartoons.

Oh the irony....the cartoon covered "how so". The fact that you didn't pick that up is freaking fall down hilarious. Apparently, we can't dumb it down enough for you to grasp it.

 

[P@triot]

Marx's theory had nothing to do with redistribution. In fact he called it "vulgar".

That's not the only thing that was associated with Marx as being "vulgar". Here is your hero in all of his glory. This is how it always ends with your side of the aisle...

Communism is an ideology calling for government control over our lives. It was created by Karl Marx, who—along with his collaborator, Friedrich Engels—wrote a pamphlet called “Manifesto of the Communist Party.”

Already we see true intellectual obliterating your faux-intellectualism and your false narratives about Karl Marx. But it gets better son...

In 1867, Marx wrote the first volume of “Das Kapital.” The second and third volumes were published posthumously, edited by Engels. Few people who call themselves Marxists have ever even bothered to read “Das Kapital.”

I guarantee you are one of them. Further exposing your faux "intellectualism".

For example, Marx didn’t think much of Mexicans. When the United States annexed California after the Mexican War, Marx sarcastically asked, “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?

Shocking! You mean a left-wing marxist idealist was evil and racist? Gasp! Who would have imagined? Oh wait...it keeps going son....

"It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n*gger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product." - Karl Marx

Wow...more racism from a left-wing idealist. But that's what we've all come to expect.

Marx was also an anti-Semite, as seen in his essay titled “On the Jewish Question,” which was published in 1844. Marx asked:

What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

Here is the bottom line, snowflake. Karl Marx is a piece of shit. His theory is an idiotic failed ideology because he was too stupid to account for human nature (at even the most basic and obvious levels). And you are a genuine piece of shit as well for embracing and promoting something which has destroyed economies, nations, and lives. And you do it because you're a selfish and lazy piece of shit who doesn't want to support himself. You're the worst that humanity has to offer. A true disgrace to the human race.

The Ugly Racism of Karl Marx

 

[P@triot]

Read Karl Marx and get back to me. Then we can discuss what is Socialism. Cause right now you don't know shit.

As the typical immature, idealistic left-wing American, you have no idea what marxism/socialism/etc. is. Allow someone who actually lived through the nightmare to educate you, snowflake...

I grew up in communist Cuba, where I endured about eight years of daily Marxist, Leninist, and Castroist propaganda.

We Hear You: 'The Objective of Communism Is Total Servitude'

 

[Tehon]

Read Karl Marx and get back to me. Then we can discuss what is Socialism. Cause right now you don't know shit.

As the typical immature, idealistic left-wing American, you have no idea what marxism/socialism/etc. is. Allow someone who actually lived through the nightmare to educate you, snowflake...

I grew up in communist Cuba, where I endured about eight years of daily Marxist, Leninist, and Castroist propaganda.

We Hear You: 'The Objective of Communism Is Total Servitude'

I said read Marx and get back to me. What is this shit from The Daily Signal? Not one quote from Marx! Here, let me help you. See if you can decipher the meaning yourself and compare his beliefs here in his Critique of the Gotha Program with the reality that is Cuba.

Free state — what is this?

It is by no means the aim of the workers, who have got rid of the narrow mentality of humble subjects, to set the state free. In the German Empire, the "state" is almost as "free" as in Russia. Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".