What IS The Free Market

[bripat9643]

I already replied to that. A command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, it is directly socialism. The question is to name a system where government owns all property and the economy is NOT socialist, not one that is socialist

No. Socialism is not the same thing as a command based economic system. While you can have a command based economic system that includes socialsm, they are not the same thing.

Said another way a feature of communist system is using a command based economic system. But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

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

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.

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.

 

[kaz]

I already replied to that. A command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, it is directly socialism. The question is to name a system where government owns all property and the economy is NOT socialist, not one that is socialist

No. Socialism is not the same thing as a command based economic system. While you can have a command based economic system that includes socialsm, they are not the same thing.

Said another way a feature of communist system is using a command based economic system. But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

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

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.

If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the keys and the car can only be driven when and where your neighbor wants, is it actually your car?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No. Socialism is not the same thing as a command based economic system. While you can have a command based economic system that includes socialsm, they are not the same thing.

Said another way a feature of communist system is using a command based economic system. But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

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

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.

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.

absolutely correct. It seems some people like to split hairs rather than debate serious, basic issues.

 

[RKMBrown]

No. Socialism is not the same thing as a command based economic system. While you can have a command based economic system that includes socialsm, they are not the same thing.

Said another way a feature of communist system is using a command based economic system. But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

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

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.

If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the keys and the car can only be driven when and where your neighbor wants, is it actually your car?

Yes.

 

[RKMBrown]

No. Socialism is not the same thing as a command based economic system. While you can have a command based economic system that includes socialsm, they are not the same thing.

Said another way a feature of communist system is using a command based economic system. But that does not mean that socialism and command based economic systems are the same thing.

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

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

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.

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.

Nonsense.

 

[RKMBrown]

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

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

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.

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.

absolutely correct. It seems some people like to split hairs rather than debate serious, basic issues.

No. It's not splitting hairs.

 

[kaz]

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

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

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.

If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the keys and the car can only be driven when and where your neighbor wants, is it actually your car?

Yes.

Well, there you go, that's your delusion

 

[RKMBrown]

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

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

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.

If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the keys and the car can only be driven when and where your neighbor wants, is it actually your car?

Yes.

Well, there you go, that's your delusion

Huh?

Let's put it this way... If some lib comes on and says there's no difference between socialism and a free market society, would you agree with his mixing of terms?

 

[kaz]

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

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.

If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the keys and the car can only be driven when and where your neighbor wants, is it actually your car?

Yes.

Well, there you go, that's your delusion

Huh?

Let's put it this way... If some lib comes on and says there's no difference between socialism and capitalism, would you agree?

Socialism is the opposite of capitalism, a command economy is one form of socialism. How does that question make sense?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

If your car is parked in your neighbor's driveway and your neighbor has the keys and the car can only be driven when and where your neighbor wants, is it actually your car?

Yes.

Well, there you go, that's your delusion

Huh?

Let's put it this way... If some lib comes on and says there's no difference between socialism and capitalism, would you agree?

Socialism is the opposite of capitalism, a command economy is one form of socialism. How does that question make sense?

I showed you the definitions of two terms that are not the same terms, yet you continue to insist they are the exact same terms. If all words can be shown to have some vague similarity in some instances, then by your modification they can all be combined into one word? So just pick your word and say every word is that word.

 

[Agit8r]

It's essentially a myth. We have always had a corporate, mercantilist system. Even in this present age of free-trade agreements, our states practice internal protectionism against one another on a massive scale.

 

[kaz]

I showed you the definitions of two terms that are not the same terms, yet you continue to insist they are the exact same terms. If all words can be shown to have some vague similarity in some instances, then by your modification they can all be combined into one word? So just pick your word and say every word is that word.

No I din't, I said Command Based Economy is a FORM of socialism. I said it's like Monkey to Mammal. I did not say they are the "same terms."

 

[RKMBrown]

I showed you the definitions of two terms that are not the same terms, yet you continue to insist they are the exact same terms. If all words can be shown to have some vague similarity in some instances, then by your modification they can all be combined into one word? So just pick your word and say every word is that word.

No I din't, I said Command Based Economy is a FORM of socialism. I said it's like Monkey to Mammal. I did not say they are the "same terms."

Ok since you still don't get it I'll put in bold the part you still keep screwing up: you said "Command Based Economy is a FORM of socialism."

No, that is not the definition of command based economy.

A command based economy is "an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned."

Let's break it down since you clearly don't understand even simple words like "is."

is: present 3d singular of be

Not only is socialism NOT A COMMAND BASED ECONOMY. Socialism ISN'T EVEN AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

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.

Way: how someone or something does something : how someone or something behaves, appears, feels, etc.

In other words SOCIALISM IS a characteristic for how one might organize a society. Socialism is not an economic system. Socialism is a "way" of "organizing" a society.. In this WAY OF ORGANIZING "major industries are owned and controlled by govco.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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???

 

[bripat9643]

Command based economic system is a centrally planned economy, that is socialism by definition. You are claiming government can own all assets and the economy can not be socialist, which is ridiculous, as is your saying socialism isn't socialism

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

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

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.

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.

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?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Meaningless blather.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So basically you are either incapable of telling the difference, such as between apples and oranges cause they are both food, or you are missing the subtleties of my statements. Let's try to come about this differently. How about you tell us what the difference is between command based economy and socialism. Cause you appear to be having a problem with the term "is" so maybe we can start with "is not" first. Or maybe you could go out on a crusade to stop use of the term command based economic system since by your definition it's just a waste of words where socialism is better used for that term. Hell for that matter maybe you could join up with firefox in defining all the terms you don't like, such as progressive, leftist, communist, liberal, democrat, .... as all meaning the same thing.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[RKMBrown]

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???

I have a pet peeve over people redefining what words mean.

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.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Meaningless blather.

Ironic.