Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have a pet peeve over people redefining what words mean.Put another way. Socialism is not a Socialist Economic System. A Socialist Economic system is not socialism. But you could say socialism is the way a socialist economic system is organized.
why not debate whether socialism is better or worse than capitalism rather than waste your time on pure utter trivia???
As for socialism vs capitalism... they both have pros and cons, but the real issue is "unchecked" socialism and "unchecked" capitalism. That's the real problem. If you don't regulate monopolies, be they individual, group, or government owned, those groups having said monopolies will eventually lead to tyranny.
Nonsense.In reality, there is no practical difference between the two. Socialism has never been implemented any way other than a command economy, and a command economy is socialism by definition.Again, you don't seem to understand what the term "is" means. If socialism was a centrally planned economy, then there would be no need for the term socialism. But again your definitions are completely fucking wrong.Well asshole, there are a lot of forms of socialism. Socialism isn't a monkey, it's a mammal. Command based is a monkey. Your argument boils down to no it's not a mammal, it's a monkey.
Socialism is a centrally planned economy, There are communist socialists, democracy based socialists, Kibitzes, command based economies, fascists, but they are all socialists, they all centrally planned economies.
We do have the answer to bripat's question though, you didn't know what socialism means, you thought there was only one form of it. There isn't even only one form of it in modern governments so I don't know how you thought that. Personally I think you're smarter than that and you're being obstinate because of the stick up your butt. Maybe you should focus on pulling it out instead off digging deeper into stupid
Websters: Socialism is a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.
Websters: A command economy is an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned.
NOTE THE USE OF THE TERM IS.
Now you CITE TO YOUR SOURCE FOR YOUR fucked up DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM and your fucked up definition of command economy.
No, that's reality. Socialism, as implemented, has always meant a command economy. There has never been any other real tangible form of socialism in recorded history. A command economy fits the definition of socialism, so it's socialism by definition. How can a command economy be anything other than socialism?
well I suppose a dictatorship could be considered a command economy. A dictator just doesn't make such a big show about how he's commanding the economy for the benefit of the people the way a socialist would.
NONSENSE.I have a pet peeve over people redefining what words mean.Put another way. Socialism is not a Socialist Economic System. A Socialist Economic system is not socialism. But you could say socialism is the way a socialist economic system is organized.
why not debate whether socialism is better or worse than capitalism rather than waste your time on pure utter trivia???
As for socialism vs capitalism... they both have pros and cons, but the real issue is "unchecked" socialism and "unchecked" capitalism. That's the real problem. If you don't regulate monopolies, be they individual, group, or government owned, those groups having said monopolies will eventually lead to tyranny.
All monopolies are government creations. There's no such thing as a natural monopoly. Government simply isn't needed to prevent monopolies. In fact, the surest way to prevent monopolies is to eliminate government.
NONSENSE.[/QUOTE]All monopolies are government creations. There's no such thing as a natural monopoly. Government simply isn't needed to prevent monopolies. In fact, the surest way to prevent monopolies is to eliminate government.
Would it be better to rape me for bad cause of a worse cause? I choose to keep my money. You want a hand job do it yourself.interesting the way Marx still has us talking about monopolies even when there are none and mostly never were any thanks to capitalism. And, how we never talk about the utter destruction caused by 10,000 bankruptcies each month in the capitalist war to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.NONSENSE.
Wouldn't it be better to give welfare to failed businesses who tried so hard to contribute to society rather than to failed individuals who never tried to do anything?
Nonsense.In reality, there is no practical difference between the two. Socialism has never been implemented any way other than a command economy, and a command economy is socialism by definition.Again, you don't seem to understand what the term "is" means. If socialism was a centrally planned economy, then there would be no need for the term socialism. But again your definitions are completely fucking wrong.
Websters: Socialism is a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.
Websters: A command economy is an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned.
NOTE THE USE OF THE TERM IS.
Now you CITE TO YOUR SOURCE FOR YOUR fucked up DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM and your fucked up definition of command economy.
No, that's reality. Socialism, as implemented, has always meant a command economy. There has never been any other real tangible form of socialism in recorded history. A command economy fits the definition of socialism, so it's socialism by definition. How can a command economy be anything other than socialism?
well I suppose a dictatorship could be considered a command economy. A dictator just doesn't make such a big show about how he's commanding the economy for the benefit of the people the way a socialist would.
Not really. Some dictators, like Stalin, choose to control the all the minutia of an economy, and some, like Pinochet, don't. Whether a dictator practices socialism or not is up to the dictator.
t it's not truly capitalism
You mean like health care?Nonsense.In reality, there is no practical difference between the two. Socialism has never been implemented any way other than a command economy, and a command economy is socialism by definition.
No, that's reality. Socialism, as implemented, has always meant a command economy. There has never been any other real tangible form of socialism in recorded history. A command economy fits the definition of socialism, so it's socialism by definition. How can a command economy be anything other than socialism?
well I suppose a dictatorship could be considered a command economy. A dictator just doesn't make such a big show about how he's commanding the economy for the benefit of the people the way a socialist would.
Not really. Some dictators, like Stalin, choose to control the all the minutia of an economy, and some, like Pinochet, don't. Whether a dictator practices socialism or not is up to the dictator.
Exactly, the final say is government. Just like China, they are allowing capitalism to a large extent, but it's not truly capitalism for that reason. In the end, government doesn't approve and they overrule. you.
Would it be better to rape me for bad cause of a worse cause? I choose to keep my money. You want a hand job do it yourself.interesting the way Marx still has us talking about monopolies even when there are none and mostly never were any thanks to capitalism. And, how we never talk about the utter destruction caused by 10,000 bankruptcies each month in the capitalist war to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.NONSENSE.
Wouldn't it be better to give welfare to failed businesses who tried so hard to contribute to society rather than to failed individuals who never tried to do anything?
You mean like health care?Nonsense.
No, that's reality. Socialism, as implemented, has always meant a command economy. There has never been any other real tangible form of socialism in recorded history. A command economy fits the definition of socialism, so it's socialism by definition. How can a command economy be anything other than socialism?
well I suppose a dictatorship could be considered a command economy. A dictator just doesn't make such a big show about how he's commanding the economy for the benefit of the people the way a socialist would.
Not really. Some dictators, like Stalin, choose to control the all the minutia of an economy, and some, like Pinochet, don't. Whether a dictator practices socialism or not is up to the dictator.
Exactly, the final say is government. Just like China, they are allowing capitalism to a large extent, but it's not truly capitalism for that reason. In the end, government doesn't approve and they overrule. you.
What are you drinking?Would it be better to rape me for bad cause of a worse cause? I choose to keep my money. You want a hand job do it yourself.interesting the way Marx still has us talking about monopolies even when there are none and mostly never were any thanks to capitalism. And, how we never talk about the utter destruction caused by 10,000 bankruptcies each month in the capitalist war to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate.NONSENSE.
Wouldn't it be better to give welfare to failed businesses who tried so hard to contribute to society rather than to failed individuals who never tried to do anything?
What on earth are you talking about?? If you try to express yourself clearly you often find that you're not making any sense..
What part of in the end, if government doesn't approve they will overrule you RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA?You mean like health care?No, that's reality. Socialism, as implemented, has always meant a command economy. There has never been any other real tangible form of socialism in recorded history. A command economy fits the definition of socialism, so it's socialism by definition. How can a command economy be anything other than socialism?
well I suppose a dictatorship could be considered a command economy. A dictator just doesn't make such a big show about how he's commanding the economy for the benefit of the people the way a socialist would.
Not really. Some dictators, like Stalin, choose to control the all the minutia of an economy, and some, like Pinochet, don't. Whether a dictator practices socialism or not is up to the dictator.
Exactly, the final say is government. Just like China, they are allowing capitalism to a large extent, but it's not truly capitalism for that reason. In the end, government doesn't approve and they overrule. you.
what????
" BOTH ARE BAD ..
Why piss good money away on bad investments? I work hard for my income." BOTH ARE BAD ..
why bad. why not help failed business people trying to contribute to society rather than failed individuals.
so, we all know we have big liberal govt here, and????What part of in the end, if government doesn't approve they will overrule you RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA?You mean like health care?well I suppose a dictatorship could be considered a command economy. A dictator just doesn't make such a big show about how he's commanding the economy for the benefit of the people the way a socialist would.
Not really. Some dictators, like Stalin, choose to control the all the minutia of an economy, and some, like Pinochet, don't. Whether a dictator practices socialism or not is up to the dictator.
Exactly, the final say is government. Just like China, they are allowing capitalism to a large extent, but it's not truly capitalism for that reason. In the end, government doesn't approve and they overrule. you.
what????
This is a discussion about the free market, or lack therein. Try to keep up.so, we all know we have big liberal govt here, and????What part of in the end, if government doesn't approve they will overrule you RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA?You mean like health care?Not really. Some dictators, like Stalin, choose to control the all the minutia of an economy, and some, like Pinochet, don't. Whether a dictator practices socialism or not is up to the dictator.
Exactly, the final say is government. Just like China, they are allowing capitalism to a large extent, but it's not truly capitalism for that reason. In the end, government doesn't approve and they overrule. you.
what????
Why piss good money after bad investments?" BOTH ARE BAD ..
why bad. why not help failed business people trying to contribute to society rather than failed individuals.
if I denied it was about free market I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??This is a discussion about the free market, or lack therein. Try to keep up.so, we all know we have big liberal govt here, and????What part of in the end, if government doesn't approve they will overrule you RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA?You mean like health care?Exactly, the final say is government. Just like China, they are allowing capitalism to a large extent, but it's not truly capitalism for that reason. In the end, government doesn't approve and they overrule. you.
what????
No it does not make sense to piss money away on bad investments.Why piss good money after bad investments?" BOTH ARE BAD ..
why bad. why not help failed business people trying to contribute to society rather than failed individuals.
it would help them try again which is the nature of capitalism. HJ Heinz and many others failed 10 times or more before something clicked. It makes a lot more sense to help them than personal welfare which everyone takes for granted when it is just waste.
What part about my statement confused you?if I denied it was about free market I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??This is a discussion about the free market, or lack therein. Try to keep up.so, we all know we have big liberal govt here, and????What part of in the end, if government doesn't approve they will overrule you RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA?You mean like health care?
what????
