Reply With Quote
...don't waste breath or your time...Socialism = anything not completely privatized to Republicans..
Yes, to say that someone would consider supporting govt control of utilities is a different matter altogether than saying that one would support full-fledged socialism.
Now, I too find it ironic that people who criticize, often rightfully, that the govt is corrupt, cannot run a war, cannot protect us, and is unable to enforce law and order, turn right around and would like to give the government greater control over the flow of wealth, the oil industry, and other sectors of the economy. As if the govt could competently run those!
...don't waste breath or your time...Socialism = anything not completely privatized to Republicans..
I'd rather have the govt run them than have them support those companies behind the scenes while lining their pockets heavily in the process. Why do you think we are in war right now?? It's not to find weapons of mass destruction.
Socialism allows for exploitation while capitalism encourages exploitation.
You're insane...
You think that doesn't happen in Socialism? It's 10 times more likely to happen.
Why do you think we are in war right now?? It's not to find weapons of mass destruction.
I see...and your solution is to make them even more powerful.
That's just ing brilliant.
You just let us know when the Socialists figure out what Socialism is and agree on it...then we'll talk.
For now we'll just use my definition:
A bunch of people too stupid to either run businesses and/or governments, running both.
I love all these socialists that haven't had to live under socialism...
Just like Marx.
Beg pardone...but true socialism most certainly does.
That's not socialism...that's Democracy.You can have a true democratic socialist state,
And those are sooooooo successful.a socialist republic,
Proof that even socialists don't know what socialism means.a socialist dictatorship, etc.
That's not democratic...that's the people not smart enough to figure out how to run businesses and governments, stealing them from those who do. And if they are smart enough to run businesses and goverments...it's a merely a way of making them more powerful.In fact, the very core of socialism, is the working class controls everything, meaning it leans towards a democratic state.
A lack of class separation is an abomination of nature...it occurs nowhere in the natural world. There is always separation, there will always be elite, and the big lie/ or fantasy is that there won't be.This actually leads to a fault in socialism when applied to large countries/areas because the further away you get from the working class, the less ideal the situation.
Natural selection you know.
A leaderless society is not a society...and a society with a leader, has class separation.
You might as well go get a suntan in the shade...
Further proof that even socialists don't know what socialism means.
Lennin's version of socialism believes the working class needs an elite group of leaders, which led to the idea of an elitist single party government in the USSR.
Last edited by whottt; 03-27-2008 at 04:01 AM.
And BTW, socialism always has to be imposed, so it is always a form of governance...the bigger the socialism, the more it has to be imposed, because eventually, even the stupid people figure out it pretty much sucks except in small cases or absolute necessity.
What a huge lie to say otherwise.
I swear...trying to explain socialism to people that defend it is like trying to explain Santa Claus doesn't exist to a 5 year old...
They'll never believe it till they spend all night under the tree...or grow up.
Last edited by whottt; 03-27-2008 at 04:11 AM.
Socialism is a form of economics. Communism is a form of government. Capitalism is a form of economics. Democracy is a form of government. China is now called Capitalist Communism. Much of Europe has Social Democracies. There is a difference and they are not interchangeable.
And whottt still thinks the NBA CBA is a form of capitalism and not socialism.
whottt you seriously have no idea of what you're talking about. Just give it up already.
More proof that socialists don't know what socialism means.
And still more.And whottt still thinks the NBA CBA is a form of capitalism and not socialism.
So tell me Purple and Gold...
You a big fan of the Bush Admin? I trust you'll be voting for the Republicans in this coming election?
Because since you want them to be more powerful...I'd hope so.
I'm voting for them because they're the smart ones...relatively speaking.
Actually, the best example of socialist ideals in the US is that more and more companies are offering stock (as part of 401k contributions, bonuses, and discounted purchase deals) as part of their base compensation deals, and not just to the high level execs.And whottt still thinks the NBA CBA is a form of capitalism and not socialism.
Government should be involved in three basic areas:
1) Security
2) Education
3) Healthcare
All other parts of the economy should be run by the private sector, with Government oversight (more oversight insome industries than others).
Agreed. However, I would more broadly define it as defense.
The government has no business in the education business. It becomes indoctrination instead of education.
The government has no business in the healthcare business. You end up with under-qualified, under-staffed, and under-motivated health care professionals.
Regulating interstate commerce and providing interstate law enforcement are two that come to mind.
Settling disputes between states is another.
Oh, and representing, through the Executive, the United States of America to all other countries.
State and local governments should be in the business of maintaining civil order and facilitating common services such as electricity, water, sewage, garbage removal, and transportation infrastructure.
The government has the obligation to provise healthcare and education to whoever cannot affort it. I'm not saying private hospitals and private schools should not exist, what I'm saying is that public hospitas and public schools should exist for anybody who needs them.
These are pretty obvious duties. Nobody else but the Government can perform them.
Last edited by smeagol; 03-27-2008 at 01:04 PM.
And...are they all equal? Do they all own the same amount? Do they all have the same job security? Etc.
That's not socialism.
What's next...you going to say the Law is Socialist too?
The NBA teams aren't equal either...
There's no law against joint ownership...the socialists didn't invent that, it's been around forever.
You're insane...Compe ion is the best thing for quality healthcare...
On top of that...that's another case of trusting the government more than they deserve to be trusted. Any government.
It's bad enough that all these pharmaceutical companies are pushing health destroying drugs on people...you put the government in charge of that and what little quality control and safety standards there are, are completely gone.
I don't want the Government in charge of health care. I don't trust them with it.
You want to make medical care less expensive?
Eliminate medical insurance.
You're a big fan of whitespace, aren't you.
I said it was an example of socialist ideals that stock options are spreading to the common worker. I didn't say it was the fulfillment of the socialist dream. It's a start, though. You really are rather clueless about what socialism really is.
Read my last post.
I never said the Government should be in charge of Healthcare.
All I said is that the government should guaranty some sort of healthcare system, such as public hospitals.
Good lord you're a ing idiot.
However I am glad you think think stocks, option compensation you ing idiot, Dell etc. Are examples of socialist principles...in that case you can shut the up about a socialist dream.
Right, so therefore it isn't socialism...I didn't say it was the fulfillment of the socialist dream.
And BTW, why don't you enlighten us as to what the Socialists dream is
Go ahead...this ought to be good.
It's a start, though.
It's only a start because it isn't soclialism...idiot. Once it becomes soclaism, it's no longer a start...it's an end.
Those stock options would be ing worthless if everyone had them...you idiot.
And if Michael Dell wasn't in charge, working for that company would be equally worthless.
And since he is in charge, it's not socialism you ing idiot.
You really are rather clueless about what socialism really is.
...I'm not the one contradicting myself by using something that isn't socliam, citing it as an example of socialism, then pointing out it isn't soclialism, and then telling others they don't know what the they are talking about.
Idiot...I guess every publicly traded company is an example of socialist principles then...I mean after all, the common workers can own them.
I challenge any two of you pro socialist idiots in this thread to define socialism...
Go for it.
For the record, I'm pro-mixed market, not pro-socialism (which I made abundantly clear early in this thread). And I've already defined the core ideal of socialism previously in this thread.
Me too!
Yeah...and your definition differs from several others I have read...including Karl Marx.not pro-socialism (which I made abundantly clear early in this thread). And I've already defined the core ideal of socialism previously in this thread.
You know...the sharing of limited resources is not socialism...that's ing common sense.
Multiple speices of animals sharing a waterhole in Africa can figure that out....doesn't make it a Utopia.
There is nothing inherently intelligent or requiring a great deal of thought and effort in that concept...
It becomes stupid and dysfunctional when it is applied and enforced on a large scale...IE, Socialism.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
