Deep thoughts. By Ocasio-Cortez.

[Lummy]

Enjoy.

https://grabien.com/story.php?id=184509

Is there anything there? Anything at all?

Because it doesn't seem like there is even enough to critique.

Is jibberish the new orange?

[Mr.Soxes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
This is a much better answer,.:afro:

[Green Arrow]

It wasn’t the most well-worded response, but that happens when you get a regular American and put them on a national stage. People get nervous.

Calling it gibberish is a stretch. Her points were pretty clear.

[Lummy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
This is a much better answer,.:afro:

She isn't running for a national office, soxes. :facepalm:

[Mr.Soxes]

She isn't running for a national office, soxes. :facepalm:
I would totally vote for her.:dancing:

[stjames1_53]

It wasn’t the most well-worded response, but that happens when you get a regular American and put them on a national stage. People get nervous.

Calling it gibberish is a stretch. Her points were pretty clear.

yep...............socialism...................who' s going to pay for this and how much is it going to cost? Where is the incentive to achieve and own?
Everyone is equal, but some are more equal, amirite?

[Lummy]

She blew her answers right out her ass, as far as I can tell.

[Mr.Soxes]

She blew her answers right out her ass, as far as I can tell.

Is there a well run beaner municipality or country?:dontknow:

[Lummy]

There are strong-arm politicians and rulers aplenty. It appears that might be the only way they get things done in government.

[Lummy]

All these third world delusions of grandeur have to stop, however. They can't deliver, and the result is always a strong-arm politician.

[Lummy]

A sample:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqOSNI7l0bQ

[Lummy]

What to do? What to do?

[Common]

I read a poll that found 73% of Americans would not vote for a candidate who professed socialism. That kind of number includes many democrats and damn near all independents.

The democrat party is very much afraid of the push for socialism

[Tahuyaman]

Deep thoughts. By Ocasio-Cortez.She's a gift to Republicans. What were the voters there thinking?

[Boris The Animal]

It wasn’t the most well-worded response, but that happens when you get a regular American and put them on a national stage. People get nervous.

Calling it gibberish is a stretch. Her points were pretty clear.You mean that Communism is the answer? Sorry Greenie. But Communists are nothing but losers.

[Boris The Animal]

I read a poll that found 73% of Americans would not vote for a candidate who professed socialism. That kind of number includes many democrats and damn near all independents.

The democrat party is very much afraid of the push for socialism
It would be political suicide for the Democrat party, and one I would hope they keep pushing because the Democrat party are nothing BUT whacked out Leftists.

[Green Arrow]

You mean that Communism is the answer? Sorry Greenie. But Communists are nothing but losers.

I’m not a communist, and neither is Ocasio-Cortez.

[Boris The Animal]

I’m not a communist, and neither is Ocasio-Cortez.
Socialism=Communism=Progressivism=Liberalism. Same old sh!t, different flies. It's all about making more people depend on the government for their basic existence, to the point of becoming SLAVES to the government. America was never founded that way.

[Green Arrow]

Socialism=Communism=Progressivism=Liberalism. Same old sh!t, different flies. It's all about making more people depend on the government for their basic existence, to the point of becoming SLAVES to the government. America was never founded that way.

You are incorrect.

[countryboy]

You are incorrect.
Tell us what socialism is, because Ocasio-Cortez certainly doesn't know. Don't you think she should have her facts straight if she wants to be taken seriously? Or are you perfectly fine with her just making stuff up?

[stjames1_53]

You are incorrect.
Socialism is the tool, communism is the force behind the tool.
Name one country where socialism promotes the Individual. Or has used Socialism successfully (still running a Socialistic government) Now, now, don't use Venezuela.
Democracy=Socialism

[stjames1_53]

She blew her answers right out her ass, as far as I can tell.
............more like reached up and pulled them out.......jest sayin'

[Crepitus]

It wasn’t the most well-worded response, but that happens when you get a regular American and put them on a national stage. People get nervous.

Calling it gibberish is a stretch. Her points were pretty clear.

They can call that gibberish but tRump's disconnected sentence fragments are just misunderstood.

[Crepitus]

You mean that Communism is the answer? Sorry Greenie. But Communists are nothing but losers.

Socialism is not communism there comrade Boris.

[Green Arrow]

Socialism is the tool, communism is the force behind the tool.
Name one country where socialism promotes the Individual. Or has used Socialism successfully (still running a Socialistic government) Now, now, don't use Venezuela.
Democracy=Socialism
Incorrect, again. Socialism predates communism, they are two competing ideologies. Communism was created when Marx was unsatisfied with socialism and created what he believed was the superior ideology.

Democracy is not socialism but socialism can exist in a democracy.

[Green Arrow]

Tell us what socialism is, because Ocasio-Cortez certainly doesn't know. Don't you think she should have her facts straight if she wants to be taken seriously? Or are you perfectly fine with her just making stuff up?

I have yet to encounter a statement of hers where she seems to misunderstand socialism. You’d have to be more specific.

[countryboy]

I have yet to encounter a statement of hers where she seems to misunderstand socialism. You’d have to be more specific.

I want you to be specific. What is socialism? Hint, it's not free stuff from the government.

[Boris The Animal]

Incorrect, again. Socialism predates communism, they are two competing ideologies. Communism was created when Marx was unsatisfied with socialism and created what he believed was the superior ideology.

Democracy is not socialism but socialism can exist in a democracy.Yeah, three foxes and a chicken voting for what to have for dinner. Fortunately for us as Real Americans, the US was never meant to be a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.

[mamooth]

I read a poll that found 73% of Americans would not vote for a candidate who professed socialism. That kind of number includes many democrats and damn near all independents.
Yet a strong of ll voters, Republicans included, would vote for policies, such as Medicare-for-all, policies that you swear are socialist.

So, voters love "socialist" policies. That's a problem for Republicans, so they have to propagandize about how a vague thing called "socialism" is evil, and therefore voters should vote against the policies the voters support.

And that's why Ocasio-Cortez is such a threat to Republican, and why they go after her so hysterically. She cuts through the "demonize the socialists" propaganda. And without that propaganda, the Republicans collapse.

[Captdon]

I saw a piece on tv today where people were asked if they favor medicare for all, and free college. When asked how to pay for it:

"Well, taxes and the rest from the government."

"You know the government only has taxes?"

"Umm, no, well-"

That's the socialist mindset.

[Captdon]

I have yet to encounter a statement of hers where she seems to misunderstand socialism. You’d have to be more specific.


I have yet to hear her make statement she or I understood.

Interview:
Her: "We can save two trillion this way"

Reporter: "But it will cost 20 trillion. How do you make upo the difference?"

Her: "Oh, we can find a way."

real dumbass.

[Captdon]

I’m not a communist, and neither is Ocasio-Cortez.

Sure she is. You may not be but she is.

[Captdon]

Yet a strong of ll voters, Republicans included, would vote for policies, such as Medicare-for-all, policies that you swear are socialist.

So, voters love "socialist" policies. That's a problem for Republicans, so they have to propagandize about how a vague thing called "socialism" is evil, and therefore voters should vote against the policies the voters support.

And that's why Ocasio-Cortez is such a threat to Republican, and why they go after her so hysterically. She cuts through the "demonize the socialists" propaganda. And without that propaganda, the Republicans collapse.


strong of ll voters- wonder what this stared out to be.



I pity you. I really do. Your people are down in the shithole and you think you are in charge. I feel sorry for someone like you.


The woman is stupid and pathetic.

[Hoosier8]

Yet a strong of ll voters, Republicans included, would vote for policies, such as Medicare-for-all, policies that you swear are socialist.

So, voters love "socialist" policies. That's a problem for Republicans, so they have to propagandize about how a vague thing called "socialism" is evil, and therefore voters should vote against the policies the voters support.

And that's why Ocasio-Cortez is such a threat to Republican, and why they go after her so hysterically. She cuts through the "demonize the socialists" propaganda. And without that propaganda, the Republicans collapse.

Meh, democrats are not to fond of the nitwit either.

[Ethereal]

She needs to put her socialist ideology into a meaningful context of some sort, otherwise it will struggle to attain coherence. Specifically, she should put it into the context of decentralization or localized socialism on the municipal and state levels. Because you will never, ever, transform the US federation into a socialist nation. Not only would it be rejected by a large percentage of the population, but it would be an absolute disaster. Socialism, much like democracy, is limited by its scale. Any failure to recognize this on the part of socialists will prevent them from achieving the sort of relevance they desire.

[Mini Me]

Sure she is. You may not be but she is.

Its very noticeable that you contards default to the Commie Card when you have no argument at all!

This shows an incredible lack of inteligence!

[Mister D]

Without central planning how could her vision be implemented?

[Mr.Soxes]

Without central planning how could her vision be implemented?
Look at Mexico for the model!:wink:

[Captdon]

Its very noticeable that you contards default to the Commie Card when you have no argument at all!

This shows an incredible lack of inteligence!

I show a lack of intelligence. I? She's a commie and you nor seeing it doesn't change that.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Its very noticeable that you contards default to the Commie Card when you have no argument at all!

This shows an incredible lack of inteligence!


She is a commie

[El Guapo]

She blew her answers right out her ass, as far as I can tell.

No no...she sat down with a NOBEL PRYZ WINNIN ECONOMEEST hyarrr

guuuhhh

[El Guapo]

duharr it'll only cost 4 trillion dollarz to transzishun to pinwheelz and pedal carz dontcha no?


if warren buffet just paid 15% tax hyuuuuunghhhh

[El Guapo]

FAWK what a FAWKWIT :rofl:

[Sergeant Gleed]

No no...she sat down with a NOBEL PRYZ WINNIN ECONOMEEST hyarrr

guuuhhh


She sat in his lap and they talked about the first thing to pop up?

[Hoosier8]

I am sure she thinks she is a brilliant wit but she is half right.

[Brat]

I cannot understand how this gawping, deluded crazy-eyed Commie got nominated in the first place. She is an embarrassment.

[Green Arrow]

I want you to be specific. What is socialism? Hint, it's not free stuff from the government.

Socialism at its core is an economic system in which social ownership and worker management of the means of production are inherent. The ultimate goal is to produce goods and services for human need rather than profit (in contrast to capitalism, where the main goal is to produce goods and services for profit/capital accumulation). There are many different forms of socialism that all seek to accomplish that ultimate goal, and the specific means by which that is pursued depend entirely on which form of socialism you're looking at.

[Green Arrow]

Sure she is. You may not be but she is.

She is a democratic socialist. I haven't seen anything from her to indicate communism.

[Mr.Soxes]

I am sure she thinks she is a brilliant wit but she is half right.
:wink:

[Ethereal]

She is a democratic socialist. I haven't seen anything from her to indicate communism.
The question becomes: How can genuinely democratic socialism be implemented within the context of a large federation like the USA?

[Mr.Soxes]

The question becomes: How can genuinely democratic socialism be implemented within the context of a large federation like the USA?

It cant as long as there is fair voting and the 2nd Amendment!:flag:MAGA

[Green Arrow]

The question becomes: How can genuinely democratic socialism be implemented within the context of a large federation like the USA?
I’m not sure that it can, honestly. Not without severe compromises that ultimately water down the final product.

[Peter1469]

It cant as long as there is fair voting and the 2nd Amendment!:flag:MAGA
It can't because there are too many competing interests. Scandinavia did well with democratic socialism until their nations were invaded by migrants from South West Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. Now they are quickly deciding that a massive welfare state is a bad idea.

[Mister D]

I’m not sure that it can, honestly. Not without severe compromises that ultimately water down the final product.
I don't think Ethereal has severe compromises in mind but rather the coercion and violence her ideas would necessarily entail.

[Mr.Soxes]

It can't because there are too many competing interests. Scandinavia did well with democratic socialism until their nations were invaded by migrants from South West Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. Now they are quickly deciding that a massive welfare state is a bad idea.
Hitler did well with it to until the world bankers declared war on it!:cry:

[Ethereal]

I’m not sure that it can, honestly. Not without severe compromises that ultimately water down the final product.
I believe it can be, but it has to be done at the local level where real democracy happens. Trying to implement democratic socialism from the top down via national government is an oxymoron. And I don't think Sanders and Cortez understand that.

[Mr.Soxes]

I don't think Ethereal has severe compromises in mind but rather the coercion and violence her ideas would necessarily entail.
Especially when the folks they hate are very proficient at securing food and the use of firearms!:smiley_bar:

[Mr.Soxes]

I believe it can be, but it has to be done at the local level where real democracy happens. Trying to implement democratic socialism from the top down via national government is an oxymoron. And I don't think Sanders and Cortez understand that.

I dont thin eithere of them even understand water is wet!:fish:

[Ethereal]

I don't think Ethereal has severe compromises in mind but rather the coercion and violence her ideas would necessarily entail.

Right. Simply put, the kind of nationalized, top-down planning that Cortez wants is socialist, but it's not democratic.

[Green Arrow]

I believe it can be, but it has to be done at the local level where real democracy happens. Trying to implement democratic socialism from the top down via national government is an oxymoron. And I don't think Sanders and Cortez understand that.

I apologize, my answer was in reference to doing it at the national level, that’s what I thought you were asking about. I should have made that clear. I absolutely think it can work on the state and local level, just not on the national level without watering-down compromises.

[Admiral Ackbar]

She is a democratic socialist. I haven't seen anything from her to indicate communism.

She is a Commie

[Captdon]

I cannot understand how this gawping, deluded crazy-eyed Commie got nominated in the first place. She is an embarrassment.

Solid Blue district with a representative who took the Hillary route to vic- losing.

[Captdon]

Its very noticeable that you contards default to the Commie Card when you have no argument at all!

This shows an incredible lack of inteligence!

Compared to you?

[Captdon]

I believe it can be, but it has to be done at the local level where real democracy happens. Trying to implement democratic socialism from the top down via national government is an oxymoron. And I don't think Sanders and Cortez understand that.

It can't be done at the local level. It's all in or all out. It would take all the money as a nation to try to make it work. No way that it would work in poor areas on its own.


I'm open to being shown how it could be done.

[Peter1469]

Hitler did well with it to until the world bankers declared war on it!:cry:
The German people were, well, German people. He got rid of the others.

[countryboy]

Socialism at its core is an economic system in which social ownership and worker management of the means of production are inherent. The ultimate goal is to produce goods and services for human need rather than profit (in contrast to capitalism, where the main goal is to produce goods and services for profit/capital accumulation). There are many different forms of socialism that all seek to accomplish that ultimate goal, and the specific means by which that is pursued depend entirely on which form of socialism you're looking at.

You are partially right. It is government ownership of the means of production. That's it, period, end of story. There are not "many different forms of socialism", and there's no such thing as "Democratic socialism". Socialism requires the theft of private property, and has resulted in tyranny every time it's been tried.

[countryboy]

She is a democratic socialist. I haven't seen anything from her to indicate communism.

No such thing "Democratic socialism".

[countryboy]

It can't because there are too many competing interests. Scandinavia did well with democratic socialism until their nations were invaded by migrants from South West Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. Now they are quickly deciding that a massive welfare state is a bad idea.

Scandinavia never implemented "Democratic socialism", there's no such thing. The countries in that region are capitalist with big government. Denmark's prime minister considered Bern's reference to them as a "socialist country", a slur.

[Admiral Ackbar]

You are partially right. It is government ownership of the means of production. That's it, period, end of story. There are not "many different forms of socialism", and there's no such thing as "Democratic socialism". Socialism requires the theft of private property, and has resulted in tyranny every time it's been tried.

Outstanding Peter. So lets talk some Hitler since the Left sees a Hitler everywhere they look (with exception of course for the mirror). Take for example stealing the property of the Jews ( by law) remember they didn't just do it, there was a law. The Nazi's also seized property from those that disagreed with it. Kind of like a rough draft of civil asset siezures with out due process that we have here.

This is just an example of government deciding who should have what.

So in short the Nazis are socialist party. Hmmm sensing a trend here.

As always I leave you with this.


God Bless America and God Bless Donald Trump.


Socialism kills not mater how you try to dress it up with a cute girl like Jenny from the Block. (Bless her heart she is not that bright)

[Green Arrow]

No such thing "Democratic socialism".

Yes, there is.

[Green Arrow]

You are partially right. It is government ownership of the means of production. That's it, period, end of story. There are not "many different forms of socialism", and there's no such thing as "Democratic socialism". Socialism requires the theft of private property, and has resulted in tyranny every time it's been tried.

You are incorrect. There are many different forms of socialism that have been practiced throughout history. Some involved government, others involved no government. You can disagree with them all you want, but you can’t factually deny that there are not different forms.

[Peter1469]

Scandinavia never implemented "Democratic socialism", there's no such thing. The countries in that region are capitalist with big government. Denmark's prime minister considered Bern's reference to them as a "socialist country", a slur.

Political scientists disagree. Democratic socialism, is not socialism where the government controls the means of production, but rather a democracy that has a great deal of government spending / social welfare programs. Like Scandinavia. Like what Bernie wants for the US.

[Ethereal]

You are partially right. It is government ownership of the means of production. That's it, period, end of story. There are not "many different forms of socialism"...

Nope, not end of story. You are just flat out wrong. Per The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_1718-2):


A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises.

Notice how "socially owned" can take on various forms, i.e., state, socialized or cooperative enterprises.

So who should people believe? Some random guy on the internet spouting off or a peer-reviewed economics dictionary?

Mmmmm, tough choice.


...and there's no such thing as "Democratic socialism".

Wrong again.

(Wikipedia) Democratic Socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism)

[Ethereal]

Scandinavia never implemented "Democratic socialism"...

It's generally referred to as social democracy. And because their countries tend to be smaller and more culturally homogeneous, it works well for them. And, no, they don't have a "big" government. Like the Scandinavian countries themselves, their governments are actually quite small.

[Ethereal]

Political scientists disagree. Democratic socialism, is not socialism where the government controls the means of production, but rather a democracy that has a great deal of government spending / social welfare programs. Like Scandinavia. Like what Bernie wants for the US.

Right. But what Bernie fails to realize is that the scale of the US precludes it from becoming a genuine social democracy like in Scandinavia. The only feasible level on which it could work in the US is at the State and local level.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Yes, there is.

You are wrong. Socialism has one outcome. That outcome is always the same. Oppression. This is why Americans disavow it lock stock and barrel.

[Ethereal]

You are wrong.

No, he isn't. Socialism can and has taken on a variety of forms.


Socialism has one outcome. That outcome is always the same. Oppression. This is why Americans disavow it lock stock and barrel.

That's certainly true of large scale socialism like we saw in Soviet Russia and Maoist China, but it's not true of the more localized and therefore democratic forms of socialism where the people assent to some form of socialized ownership over resources.

[Ethereal]

She needs to put her socialist ideology into a meaningful context of some sort, otherwise it will struggle to attain coherence. Specifically, she should put it into the context of decentralization or localized socialism on the municipal and state levels. Because you will never, ever, transform the US federation into a socialist nation. Not only would it be rejected by a large percentage of the population, but it would be an absolute disaster. Socialism, much like democracy, is limited by its scale. Any failure to recognize this on the part of socialists will prevent them from achieving the sort of relevance they desire.

By the way, I would say the same thing about capitalism. It is also experiencing obvious problems with its scale and has been for some time. In order to sustain it (i.e. prevent a popular insurrection), a massive and economically unsustainable welfare state was erected starting with FDR.

[Green Arrow]

No, he isn't. Socialism can and has taken on a variety of forms.



That's certainly true of large scale socialism like we saw in Soviet Russia and Maoist China, but it's not true of the more localized and therefore democratic forms of socialism where the people assent to some form of socialized ownership over resources.

I would also point out that Soviet Russia and Maoist China were actually Marxist (and later morphed into their own forms) communism rather than socialism.

[Ethereal]

I would also point out that Soviet Russia and Maoist China were actually Marxist (and later morphed into their own forms) communism rather than socialism.

I would have to disagree. Communism is stateless by definition. So they may have called their political ideologies communist, but clearly that's not what they were in practice. I think it would be more logical to define them, not by what they called themselves, but by what they actually practiced, i.e., state socialism (socialized ownership, state management). And as we already noted, democratic socialism exists in contradistinction to that and other forms of socialism.

[Green Arrow]

I would have to disagree. Communism is stateless by definition. So they may have called their political ideologies communist, but clearly that's not what they were in practice. I think it would be more logical to define them, not by what they called themselves, but by what they actually practiced, i.e., state socialism (socialized ownership, state management). And as we already noted, democratic socialism exists in contradistinction to that and other forms of socialism.

I can accept that.

[countryboy]

Yes, there is.

Big government and free stuff isn't socialism.

[Ethereal]

I can accept that.
SHUT UP DOO-DOO HEAD!

:grin:

[Ethereal]

Big government and free stuff isn't socialism.
Right, it's just the government socializing wealth in order to promote economic equality. Definitely NOT socialism.

:rollseyes:

[Peter1469]

Right. But what Bernie fails to realize is that the scale of the US precludes it from becoming a genuine social democracy like in Scandinavia. The only feasible level on which it could work in the US is at the State and local level.

True. And Sweden is second guessing its level of social programs because Swedes don't want to pay for non-working migrants from Southwest Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.

[Green Arrow]

Big government and free stuff isn't socialism.

First you said it was, now you’re saying it isn’t. Which line of rhetoric are you going to choose?

[stjames1_53]

Right, it's just the government socializing wealth in order to promote economic equality. Definitely NOT socialism.

:rollseyes:

you do realize that "equality" doesn't really exist......it is a liberal pipe dream, to tear down another's work just to shut the whiners up
read Rourke's speech in The Fountainhead. What is mine, is mine, not society's. I owe society nothing.

[Green Arrow]

you do realize that "equality" doesn't really exist......it is a liberal pipe dream, to tear down another's work just to shut the whiners up
read Rourke's speech in The Fountainhead. What is mine, is mine, not society's. I owe society nothing.

Again, the fact that you disagree with it does not change the fact that it exists, whether that existence is in practice or in philosophical theory.

[Orion Rules]

Posted by Ethereal:

I believe it can be, but it has to be done at the local level where real democracy happens...


Ethereal: By the way, I would say the same thing about capitalism. It is also experiencing obvious problems with its scale and has been for some time. In order to sustain it (i.e. prevent a popular insurrection), a massive and economically unsustainable welfare state was erected starting with FDR.

The way the moth works. Inflation strikes. So, Hitler was right. Up until the Holocaust. Who will be the next world leader admonished for such guilt? How much less are those dollar bills? The world has wrapped itself around such a hollow message of so many false promises it can never figure the premises.

The biggest lie the world ever told as stuck by is that the issue that was wrong inside of Germany was the Germans. Living in their own lands inside of treaties. How they caged in the Indians. Everything will be reverting to ancient tribal lands. The rights of nations to self-secede is a right they have to stop the invaders.


Posted by Mr.Soxes:

Hitler did well with it to until the world bankers declared war on it!


Peter1469: The German people were, well, German people. He got rid of the others.


...So lets talk some Hitler since the Left sees a Hitler everywhere they look (with exception of course for the mirror). Take for example stealing the property of the Jews ( by law) remember they didn't just do it, there was a law. The Nazi's also seized property from those that disagreed with it. Kind of like a rough draft of civil asset siezures with out due process that we have here.

This is just an example of government deciding who should have what.

So in short the Nazis are socialist party...

Socialism kills not mater how you try to dress it up...

No matter how something is dressed up, the right-wing German National Socialists did not believe in rule by the money changers and their rigid banks imposing wars and depressions on the people of whole countries to take another red cent. The practice of usury, is it called something good so that it receives interest? Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists, who came to power in 1933, thwarted the international banking cartel by issuing their own money. There was a certain group tied into what they were overthrowing. Of the same group who put Jesus away.

The term "Nazis" belongs with the Ashkenazis found in Genesis 10:3 of the Christian Bible. The descendants of Noah to how many times will it take Europe to see the scriptures? 'Give no heed to the lies of devils.' The amount of theft that is done during this time of war is emblematic of the last days. The amount of unrestrained capitalism of where it may show up to fund 1. wars for social statistics; 2. more corrupt dictators; 3. special privileges, 4. etc., and so state capitalists. An example of what this is might be in the realm of state capitalism and its storefronts of China love the President.

[countryboy]

First you said it was, now you’re saying it isn’t. Which line of rhetoric are you going to choose?

I never said it was. You are mistaken. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. You know, like in Venezuela. Scandinavia is capitalist, not socialist.

[stjames1_53]

Again, the fact that you disagree with it does not change the fact that it exists, whether that existence is in practice or in philosophical theory.
Only because jackalopes encourage laws seizing my money for failed programs. You are in for it, I am not. That doesn't change a thing.

"Equalizing" money is the epitome of socialism. The force required is called communism.
What happens if you don't pay fed income tax?

[Green Arrow]

I never said it was. You are mistaken. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. You know, like in Venezuela. Scandinavia is capitalist, not socialist.

Some forms of socialism involve government ownership, others don’t.

[Green Arrow]

Only because jackalopes encourage laws seizing my money for failed programs. You are in for it, I am not. That doesn't change a thing.

"Equalizing" money is the epitome of socialism. The force required is called communism.
What happens if you don't pay fed income tax?

You are way off. Socialism and communism are two distinct ideologies.

[nathanbforrest45]

You are way off. Socialism and communism are two distinct ideologies.

Yes they are and both are evil personified. Both are anti individual and both suck the soul out of anyone subjected to their rule.

[nathanbforrest45]

Some forms of socialism involve government ownership, others don’t.
Explain what form of socialism does not require government ownership?

[Green Arrow]

Explain what form of socialism does not require government ownership?
Libertarian socialism, anarcho-socialism, utopian socialism, scientific socialism, really I’d say state socialism is the only form of socialism that absolutely requires government.

[countryboy]

Some forms of socialism involve government ownership, others don’t.

That's just not true. Words have meaning, and socialism is no exception. No offense, but you are either ignorant, or purposefully being disingenuous.

[stjames1_53]

You are way off. Socialism and communism are two distinct ideologies.
explain it to the Chinese. I'm sure they'll understand it

[stjames1_53]

That's just not true. Words have meaning, and socialism is no exception. No offense, but you are either ignorant, or purposefully being disingenuous.

he has the mindset of Socialism............he embraces big government. the bigger, the better...the more the merrier.

[Green Arrow]

That's just not true. Words have meaning, and socialism is no exception. No offense, but you are either ignorant, or purposefully being disingenuous.

I agree that words do have meanings. It’s a fact that anarchist and libertarian socialism predates any government form of socialism. I would recommend you pause this discussion and look into the works of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Joseph Schumpeter, Sylvain Maréchal, Charles Fourier, and Pyotr Kropotkin (among others).

[Tahuyaman]

Explain what form of socialism does not require government ownership?

The types of socialism one has to invent out of thin air.


Socialism is a failure. So to coax people into giving it another chance, they nee to re-name it or add a modifier.

[mamooth]

Libertarian socialism, anarcho-socialism, utopian socialism, scientific socialism, really I’d say state socialism is the only form of socialism that absolutely requires government.

Remember corporate socialism, which is what most conservatives are aiming for.

That's where corporations own the government and the means of production.

Naturally, liberals fight to save capitalism from conservative corporate socialism.

[Brat]

This Ocasio chick would be endlessly amusing with her malapropisms and her non-understanding of fundamental economic principles, if she wasn't so downright dangerously bent.

[Green Arrow]

The types of socialism one has to invent out of thin air.


Books don’t bite. Here, I’ll even give you a headstart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[Tahuyaman]

Books don’t bite. Here, I’ll even give you a headstart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Didn’t I already dismiss you?

Wilipedia. There’s a credible source. Sheesh.

[Tahuyaman]

This Ocasio chick would be endlessly amusing with her malapropisms and her non-understanding of fundamental economic principles, if she wasn't so downright dangerously bent.

She’s becoming the new face of the Democratic Party. This is a good thing

[Tahuyaman]

Books don’t bite. Here, I’ll even give you a headstart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism If it’s in a book it’s true. If it’s on the internet it’s true.

[Ethereal]

Didn’t I already dismiss you?

Wilipedia. There’s a credible source. Sheesh.

Are you still under the impression that you have the ability to dismiss people on an internet forum?

Pro tip: You cannot.

And studies have shown that Wikipedia is just as accurate as conventional encyclopedias, so your attempt to attack the source falls flat as well.

[Green Arrow]

Didn’t I already dismiss you?

Wilipedia. There’s a credible source. Sheesh.

It’s more credible than a random dick on the internet. Of course, you ignored the list of authors I already cited that weren’t Wikipedia. I wonder why.

[Tahuyaman]

It’s more credible than a random dick on the internet. Of course, you ignored the list of authors I already cited that weren’t Wikipedia. I wonder why.
Anyone can go in and edit a wikipedia page.

[Tahuyaman]

Are you still under the impression that you have the ability to dismiss people on an internet forum?

Pro tip: You cannot.

And studies have shown that Wikipedia is just as accurate as conventional encyclopedias, so your attempt to attack the source falls flat as well.
Bless your heart.

Only a nit-wit cites Wikipedia.

[Green Arrow]

Anyone can go in and edit a wikipedia page.

They can’t go in and edit the books written by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

[Green Arrow]

Bless your heart.

Only a nit-wit cites Wikipedia.

Correction: Only a nitwit doesn’t know how to look at the source list embedded in every Wikipedia article.

[Tahuyaman]

They can’t go in and edit the books written by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.

What makes some random anarchist an authority on anything?

[Tahuyaman]

Correction: Only a nitwit doesn’t know how to look at the source list embedded in every Wikipedia article.

How does one recognize some garden variety nit-wit who fancies himself an intelectual icon?

[Green Arrow]

What makes some random anarchist an authority on anything?

He’s not a random anarchist, he was a primary, foundational theorist of libertarian socialism.

[Tahuyaman]

He’s not a random anarchist, he was a primary, foundational theorist of libertarian socialism.

Hes a garden variety anarchist.


Sheesh

[Green Arrow]

Hes a garden variety anarchist.


Sheesh

That’s at least preferable to being a garden variety troll.

[El Guapo]

How does one recognize some garden variety nit-wit who fancies himself an intelectual icon?

♫♪ Look for the commie label ♫♪

[El Guapo]

https://i.imgur.com/7Jsa6zh.jpg

[Sergeant Gleed]

He’s not a random anarchist, he was a primary, foundational theorist of libertarian socialism.

What the heck?

No such thing as a libertarian SOCIALIST.

Sheesh.

Next you'll be babbling incoherently about "libertarian" anarchists.

Can't you people learn that words have MEANINGS, and you're using them WRONGLY?

[Sergeant Gleed]

Libertarian socialism,

Let's see....

Libertarianism is the philosophy of the most respect for individual rights, ESPECIALLY the right of the individual to own property.

Socialism is the political ideology of theft.

Ergo, no such thing as "libertarian socialism" is possible.


anarcho-socialism,

Anarchy is the refusal to accept government authority.

Socialism is the maximum possible imposition of government power.

Ergo, anarcho-socialism is unicorn pee.


utopian socialism,

NOW you're talking.

Venezuela.
North Korea.
National Socialist Germany.
Mao See Dung's China.
The Soviet Union.
Cuba.
Zimbabwe.

Wonderful places. So wonderful all the normal people always wonder why the socialists haven't moved there. Something to do with no toilet paper in paradise, I guess.


scientific socialism,

Science is the exposure of reality by the removal of falsehood.

Socialism is the painting over of reality with really big lies.

Once again, something like "scientific socialism" can only be found on the horns of a straight homo-phobic unicorn.

And we all know how common homophobic unicorns are.

And it has to be a homophobic unicorn that DOES NOT poop in rainbows.


really I’d say state socialism is the only form of socialism that absolutely requires government.

"state socialism" is the ONLY kind of socialism that EVER happens.

Because tyranny is the ONLY goal socialists have.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Deep thoughts. By Ocasio-Cortez.

She's a gift to Republicans. What were the voters there thinking?

If they were capable of thought, the district would have gone for Trump. All those idiots are doing it replacing an old white-guy slave master with a young buck-toothed slave master. They feel there's a difference.

There isn't.

Socialism is always slavery.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Socialism is not communism there comrade Boris.


As far as anyone has ever told anyone, socialism is never socialism.

No matter where it's tried, and the con is over 2400 years old, it's failed. But, wait, that wasn't "real" socialism".

Isn't that right?

But this time, ...oh, THIS TIME, you guys are special, you guys have the REAL STUFF.

It'll work this time. All we have to do is put our heads in that noose.

Right?

[Sergeant Gleed]

Democracy is not socialism but socialism can exist in a democracy.
It sure can.

"Democracy, no, wait, SOCIALISM is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch".

Isn't that right?

[Sergeant Gleed]

I have yet to encounter a statement of hers where she seems to misunderstand socialism. You’d have to be more specific.


Well, Ocasio-Corteeth certainly knows one thing about socialism that's definite.

Nobody EVER knows how it gets paid for.

YOU don't.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Yet a strong of ll voters, Republicans included, would vote for policies, such as Medicare-for-all, policies that you swear are socialist.

After having escaped, barely, the existential threat of MessiahCare, who the hell would be stupid enough to vote for MORE fascist medical plans like that?

Besides all the morons that voted for Hillary and Bernie, that is.

[Sergeant Gleed]

She needs to put her socialist ideology into a meaningful context of some sort,

That would be this:



24042

[Sergeant Gleed]

I cannot understand how this gawping, deluded crazy-eyed Commie got nominated in the first place. She is an embarrassment.

Race baiting, is how.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Socialism at its core is an economic system in which social ownership and worker management of the means of production are inherent. The ultimate goal is to produce goods and services for human need rather than profit (in contrast to capitalism, where the main goal is to produce goods and services for profit/capital accumulation). There are many different forms of socialism that all seek to accomplish that ultimate goal, and the specific means by which that is pursued depend entirely on which form of socialism you're looking at.


There's only one kind of socialism.

Starts with an "F".

Failed.

[Sergeant Gleed]

The question becomes: How can genuinely democratic socialism be implemented within the context of a large federation like the USA?

It can't be, because there's no such thing as "democratic" socialism.

In socialism, ultimately only one hand can wear the One Ring, only one hand can wield The Whip.

[Sergeant Gleed]

I apologize, my answer was in reference to doing it at the national level, that’s what I thought you were asking about. I should have made that clear. I absolutely think it can work on the state and local level, just not on the national level without watering-down compromises.

Really?

It can work on the state level?

California is $420 billion in debt and spending more....and the WORKERS and the COMPANIES are FLEEING.

How's socialism working out for CA?

What happens when the state can't sell any more boondoggle bonds?

How's Illinois doing?

The Commie States are DYING.

[Sergeant Gleed]

It can't be done at the local level. It's all in or all out. It would take all the money as a nation to try to make it work. No way that it would work in poor areas on its own.


I'm open to being shown how it could be done.


The reality is always this:

It takes ALL the money in a nation, and all the money it can print, to NOT WORK.

NOT WORKING is the only thing socialism can do. It's good at that. Perfect record of not ever succeeding.

[Sergeant Gleed]

You are incorrect. There are many different forms of socialism that have been practiced throughout history. Some involved government, others involved no government. You can disagree with them all you want, but you can’t factually deny that there are not different forms.


You forgot to mention that even though every single one of those forms was special in that each was tyrannical, it was also special in that each FAILED.

Can you explain why you socialists NEVER point out the fact that socialism ALWAYS fails?

[Sergeant Gleed]

Nope, not end of story. You are just flat out wrong. Per The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_1718-2):



Notice how "socially owned" can take on various forms, i.e., state, socialized or cooperative enterprises.

So who should people believe? Some random guy on the internet spouting off or a peer-reviewed economics dictionary?

Mmmmm, tough choice.



Wrong again.

(Wikipedia) Democratic Socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism)


Do you think putting lipstick on Hillary meant Hillary really wasn't a pig?

[Sergeant Gleed]

No, he isn't. Socialism can and has taken on a variety of forms.



That's certainly true of large scale socialism like we saw in Soviet Russia and Maoist China, but it's not true of the more localized and therefore democratic forms of socialism where the people assent to some form of socialized ownership over resources.

Know how that happens legally in the United States?

Y'all wil lhave to ratify several Amendments to the Constitution.

You'll have to repeal the First Amendment, to shut people up about the truth of what you're trying to pull.

You'll have to repeal the Second Amendment, because there's a specific reason the 2A exists. Food isn't it.

You'll have to repeal the Fifth Amendment, because that's the only way to steal that much property from people.

That's just for starts.

You see...socialism is unconstitutional in these here American states.

[Sergeant Gleed]

By the way, I would say the same thing about capitalism. It is also experiencing obvious problems with its scale and has been for some time. In order to sustain it (i.e. prevent a popular insurrection), a massive and economically unsustainable welfare state was erected starting with FDR.


The problem capitalism always has is...rich people like to buy favors from politicians.

All we need is to restore the Constitution to it's place as the Law.

Probably take a lot of strange fruit decorating street lamps for the politicians to realize this, though.

[Sergeant Gleed]

I would also point out that Soviet Russia and Maoist China were actually Marxist (and later morphed into their own forms) communism rather than socialism.


Communism Marxism fascism Maoism Keynesianism Kenyanesianism, it's all socialism.

Saying it isn't socialism is like trying to say Obama wasn't a white man.

[Sergeant Gleed]

You are way off. Socialism and communism are two distinct ideologies.

YOU are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

The jews dying in Auschwitz under National Socialism were DEFINITELY better off than the jews dying in the communist gulags of Stalin.

No doubt about it.

[Green Arrow]

There has been a serious brain drain on this forum in the last couple years.

[stjames1_53]

Really?

It can work on the state level?

California is $420 billion in debt and spending more....and the WORKERS and the COMPANIES are FLEEING.

How's socialism working out for CA?

What happens when the state can't sell any more boondoggle bonds?

How's Illinois doing?

The Commie States are DYING.

CA...standing around with its hand out looking to bill the rest of the US for a failed housing program. Their taxes are so high and management is so bad, they will find themselves conquered by the illegals, and all done without firing one damned shot

[Sergeant Gleed]

There has been a serious brain drain on this forum in the last couple years.


That explains why we have people trying to say there's a big difference between communism and socialism.

[Green Arrow]

That explains why we have people trying to say there's a big difference between communism and socialism.

Sure buddy, that’s what it is.

[Sergeant Gleed]

CA...standing around with its hand out looking to bill the rest of the US for a failed housing program. Their taxes are so high and management is so bad, they will find themselves conquered by the illegals, and all done without firing one damned shot

And with Illinois and New York and Taxachusetts and New Jersey and a few of the other Greedy Socialist States, they almost have enough votes to force bills through to bail themselves out with Americans' money.

Good thing we have Trump there to veto any such nonsense.

But what about after, and by 2024 things will be that much the worse for the GSSes.

[Sergeant Gleed]

Sure buddy, that’s what it is.



We normals don't need confirmation from people who rely on the presence of homophobic unicorns to guide their ideological pathways.


But glad to see you're waiting with bated breath for my every post. You sure responded quickly.