Oh the irony.

[Hughinn]

After following the news, I've seen an ironic theme.

Working class people in Cuba and Hong Kong China, are in the streets fighting against fascism and communism carrying American flags and fighting for liberty and freedom.

While at the same time, liberals, who've never done a single hard day's labor in their lives in western Europe and America are carrying communist flags and fighting for fascism and communist ideals.

Oh the irony.

 

[RoidmeDangerfield]

Your post made me think of this video I recently saw on youtube. It involves Cubans who are demanding democracy and how BLM, a marxist movement, supports Cuba's communist ways:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaROYsMUNAU&t=2s


I hope and pray people wake up and ultimately reject all forms of socialism/communism. They are, for the most part, the horribly ignorant and uneducated and have absolutely no idea what they're supporting/fighting for.

 

[Test_Subject]

I hope and pray people wake up and ultimately reject all forms of socialism

So you’re going to stop using public roads, not collect social security, avoid calling the fire department if your house catches on fire and not use public sanitation or water supplies, then?

Have fun with that.

 

[RoidmeDangerfield]

So you’re going to stop using public roads, not collect social security, avoid calling the fire department if your house catches on fire and not use public sanitation or water supplies, then?

Have fun with that.

That's a fallacious counterpoint. Social programs and welfare programs to help sustain a society are not the same as socialism. This is probably one of the reasons why the idea of socialism will never die. In addition to people thinking that socialism will provide them with "free" money that magically falls out of nowhere from the sky they're incapable of distinguishing the difference between the two.

Our taxes that we pay help to sustain roads and pay for public servants such as fire and police departments. Socialism is complete government control and regulation over everything, including banks. This is why socialism fails in every country it's ever been practiced in. Show me a socialist country that is an actual success and I'll take you to a nearby farm where the pigs have wings and can fly over the moon.

 

[Test_Subject]

Socialism is complete government control and regulation over everything, including banks. This is why socialism fails in every country it's ever been practiced in.

No it isn’t. Socialism is literally “social ownership of the means of production.” Please explain to me how publicly owned roads and services don’t fall under that umbrella…

As with anything, there are varying degrees to which things are socialized. To say “socialism is complete government control” is complete bullshit and shows a lack of understanding of the term. It’s McCarthyist fear-mongering at its worst.

 

[RoidmeDangerfield]

Again, name countries where socialism has been successful. I can name countries that tried it and that thankfully rejected it after they saw what a complete failure it created.

According to dictionary.com here are the three accepted definitions of the term socialism:

socialism​

[ soh-shuh-liz-uhm ]SHOW IPA


See synonyms for socialism on Thesaurus.com

---

noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

You'll see that it's a "theory" which when actually practiced never works.

Look up the word capitalism and you'll see it clearly defined as a system; not a "theory."

If it were so great as you claim it to be then why don't all first tier countries throughout the world adopt this "theory" and put it into practice?

 

[Test_Subject]

Again, name countries where socialism has been successful. I can name countries that tried it and that thankfully rejected it after they saw what a complete failure it created.

Every G7 country? As I said before (and you conveniently skimmed over, clearly), it’s a matter of degree. Socialism isn’t a yes or no proposition. It’s useful in some cases and not in others.
For example, a socialized retirement fund is a good idea. A fully planned economy is not.

If it were so great as you claim it to be then why don't all first tier countries throughout the world adopt this "theory" and put it into practice?

Where did I claim that it was great? Please quote me. That might be a bit of a challenge for you since I never said that.

And all “first tier” countries do put it into practice. See my comment above and look up the term “mixed economy.”

You’re vastly oversimplifying and trying to make what is a sliding scale into a false dichotomy.

 

[lifter6973]

Interesting debate you two got going @Test_Subject @putazorra. I like the way both of you state your points. I will stay out of it but I do like seeing the difference in viewpoints.

 

[RoidmeDangerfield]

Again, social programs to ensure the welfare of a state is not the same as socialism. Just think about what you're stating. You answered that G7 states are socialists countries. Then earlier you stated the definition of socialism which is NOT how these countries are defined. Everything you're saying is a contradiction from one statement to the next. Japan, Canada, the USA or any of the G7 countries flourish for the simple, obvious fact that they all have private businesses of all types which result in competitive successful economies. That, by itself in no way aligns with "“social ownership of the means of production."

Public roads are not an example of socialism. Federal and state governments that spend money for the public's needs is not socialism. Conflating government spending to maintain the welfare of the state is not socialism. It is the job of the federal government to ensure our safety so we can all function efficiently as a society, get to work through reasonable means, etc.

It's truly unbelievable how socialists can't help but redefine the term socialism to fit their romanticized agenda. I'm going to take a guess that you're pretty young (a Gen Z or millennial, perhaps) and are also a big supporter of globalism by some of the terms you've used. I always question the true motive of people who advocate socialism in any way. Are they genuinely ignorant or are they being corrupt with an overall insidious plan to try and sway uninformed people to their side?

I remember, not too long ago, when people used to state that Denmark, Sweden and Norway were examples of socialist countries as a way to prove that socialism can be successful. Even Bernie Sanders stated this publicly. How wrong they all were:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lxD-gikpMs

 

[Test_Subject]

Again, social programs to ensure the welfare of a state is not the same as socialism. Just think about what you're stating. You answered that G7 states are socialists countries.

No, I didn’t. I said that all of the G7 are mixed economies which utilize some forms of socialism. Again. For the third time, socialism isn’t “yes or no”. What about this are you not getting?

Public roads are not an example of socialism. Federal and state governments that spend money for the public's needs is not socialism. Conflating government spending to maintain the welfare of the state is not socialism. It is the job of the federal government to ensure our safety so we can all function efficiently as a society, get to work through reasonable means, etc.

Again, explain to me how literal social ownership of the means of production isn’t socialism.

It's truly unbelievable how socialists can't help but redefine the term socialism

I gave you the definition defined by the guy who wrote the book on the subject but OK.

I'm going to take a guess that you're pretty young (a Gen Z or millennial, perhaps) and are also a big supporter of globalism by some of the terms you've used.

I am a millennial but I’m 40. So speaking of terms that you’re using incorrectly: add “millennial” to the list. No I don’t support globalism. I’m an upper middle class guy in his 40s with a wife and kid.

I always question the true motive of people who advocate socialism in any way. Are they genuinely ignorant or are they being corrupt with an overall insidious plan to try and sway uninformed people to their side?

Did you even read what I wrote, or are you just going to be content sticking to your script?

I remember, not too long ago, when people used to state that Denmark, Sweden and Norway were examples of socialist countries as a way to prove that socialism can be successful. Even Bernie Sanders stated this publicly. How wrong they all were:

Ah yes, Youtube opinion videos the undeniable truth.

 

[NLM36]

Interesting debate you two got going @Test_Subject @putazorra. I like the way both of you state your points. I will stay out of it but I do like seeing the difference in viewpoints.

Well @putazorra sounds like an idiot who even after posting the definition has such terrible logic and comprehension skills he still
doesn’t realize that SOCIAL programs are socialist programs.
Sweden which follows the Nordic Model and is a social democracy. It’s a free market capitalist country economically but socially it is well very very socialist. The redistribution of wealth is very clear if you look at their welfare state and the wide support of unions and workers who control the means of production is very socialist.
People fail to see that any extreme whether it’s complete Lasez-fair capitalism or strict socialism or communism is the problem. The reason people want a mix is because that’s what works. A capitalist economy with strong social programs.
Guys like dipshit arguing against socialism doesn’t know what he wants and is scared of a dirty word that doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.

 

[Test_Subject]

Well @putazorra sounds like an idiot who even after posting the definition has such terrible logic and comprehension skills he still
doesn’t realize that SOCIAL programs are socialist programs.
Sweden which follows the Nordic Model and is a social democracy. It’s a free market capitalist country economically but socially it is well very very socialist. The redistribution of wealth is very clear if you look at their welfare state and the wide support of unions and workers who control the means of production is very socialist.
People fail to see that any extreme whether it’s complete Lasez-fair capitalism or strict socialism or communism is the problem. The reason people want a mix is because that’s what works. A capitalist economy with strong social programs.
Guys like dipshit arguing against socialism doesn’t know what he wants and is scared of a dirty word that doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.

I don’t know what it is, but I don’t like it!

 

[RoidmeDangerfield]

Well @putazorra sounds like an idiot who even after posting the definition has such terrible logic and comprehension skills he still
doesn’t realize that SOCIAL programs are socialist programs.
Sweden which follows the Nordic Model and is a social democracy. It’s a free market capitalist country economically but socially it is well very very socialist. The redistribution of wealth is very clear if you look at their welfare state and the wide support of unions and workers who control the means of production is very socialist.
People fail to see that any extreme whether it’s complete Lasez-fair capitalism or strict socialism or communism is the problem. The reason people want a mix is because that’s what works. A capitalist economy with strong social programs.
Guys like dipshit arguing against socialism doesn’t know what he wants and is scared of a dirty word that doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.

Calling me an idiot or dipshit is nothing more than ad hominem attacks. How ironic of you to accuse me of having such terrible logic when all you can do to refute my argument by resorting to personal attacks with name calling. It clearly shows you have no leg to stand on. You haven't explained or elucidated on anything other than your talent for hurling insults and what looks like angry emotional attacks.

Here's a well written article by Rick Kahler clearly explaining how social programs are not socialism.

Increased Social Programs Don’t Equal Socialism by Rick Kahler, 12/1/20

Here's another article from the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research:

Socialism: The Opiate of the Corrupt and Ignorant

Do you believe that social security is a form of socialism? In a nutshell, it was invented in 19th century Germany by conservative Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck in 1889; a right-winger - not a socialist.

Social Security History

 

[NLM36]

Calling me an idiot or dipshit is nothing more than ad hominem attacks. How ironic of you to accuse me of having such terrible logic when all you can do to refute my argument by resorting to personal attacks with name calling. It clearly shows you have no leg to stand on. You haven't explained or elucidated on anything other than your talent for hurling insults and what looks like angry emotional attacks.

Here's a well written article by Rick Kahler clearly explaining how social programs are not socialism.

Increased Social Programs Don’t Equal Socialism by Rick Kahler, 12/1/20

Here's another article from the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research:

Socialism: The Opiate of the Corrupt and Ignorant

Do you believe that social security is a form of socialism? In a nutshell, it was invented in 19th century Germany by conservative Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck in 1889; a right-winger - not a socialist.

Social Security History

Calling you a fucking retard isn’t an ad hominem you fake ass google scholar. I didn’t say you were wrong because you’re a retard. I called you an idiot and a dip shit and explained why you were wrong.
Social security, welfare, unemployment, public schools, things paid for by tax dollars that benefit the public is a redistribution of wealth. Hence ……. Elements of socialism.

Social security is a socialist program I don’t care if the Mises institute or Ayn Rand implemented it.
It’s a government run pension system that cuts out private money managers.
A country can be economically a free market but have strong social programs. Its not an either or scenario.

 

[RoidmeDangerfield]

No, I didn’t. I said that all of the G7 are mixed economies which utilize some forms of socialism. Again. For the third time, socialism isn’t “yes or no”. What about this are you not getting?



Again, explain to me how literal social ownership of the means of production isn’t socialism.


I gave you the definition defined by the guy who wrote the book on the subject but OK.



I am a millennial but I’m 40. So speaking of terms that you’re using incorrectly: add “millennial” to the list. No I don’t support globalism. I’m an upper middle class guy in his 40s with a wife and kid.


Did you even read what I wrote, or are you just going to be content sticking to your script?


Ah yes, Youtube opinion videos the undeniable truth.

I clearly asked you, "Again, name countries where socialism has been successful. I can name countries that tried it and that thankfully rejected it after they saw what a complete failure it created."

And you replied with, "Every G7 country? As I said before (and you conveniently skimmed over, clearly), it’s a matter of degree. Socialism isn’t a yes or no proposition. It’s useful in some cases and not in others."

You have this bad habit of answering concretely and then go through this mild backpedaling of redefining the term. Japan is a collectively capitalist. Germany is considerably more socialist than the rest on that list. I predict Merkel's socialism reform for Germany will backfire eventually. Just like it has everywhere else (e.g. Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina, Brazil, Nordic countries).

I don't see why the two of you get so worked up over my dispute. Clearly, if a country like France combines capitalism and socialism you're obviously fine with calling it a socialist country. But then you get all bent out of shape when I focus on the pure true definition of the word. I can provide video footage of prime ministers clearly stating that the countries that they lead are not socialist yet none of that seems to matter.

 

[RoidmeDangerfield]

Calling you a fucking retard isn’t an ad hominem you fake ass google scholar. I didn’t say you were wrong because you’re a retard. I called you an idiot and a dip shit and explained why you were wrong.
Social security, welfare, unemployment, public schools, things paid for by tax dollars that benefit the public is a redistribution of wealth. Hence ……. Elements of socialism.

Social security is a socialist program I don’t care if the Mises institute or Ayn Rand implemented it.
It’s a government run pension system that cuts out private money managers.
A country can be economically a free market but have strong social programs. Its not an either or scenario.

My my..

Such hostility in you. Are you a socialist, by chance? LOL

Call me fake all you want. I'm able to cite sources from real people with actual credentials. Apparently your credentials involve four letter words you learned in grammar school. All you're capable of doing, apparently, is regurgitating the same line over and over about.

I believe and support social programs but social programs are not the same as socialism. By your definition if any government uses any money earned by the people for the sake of upkeep and good functioning then all countries that implement this practice, even in it's slightest form, are socialist. That's absurd.

 

[NLM36]

My my..

Such hostility in you. Are you a socialist, by chance? LOL

Call me fake all you want. I'm able to cite sources from real people with actual credentials. Apparently your credentials involve four letter words you learned in grammar school. All you're capable of doing, apparently, is regurgitating the same line over and over about.

I believe and support social programs but social programs are not the same as socialism. By your definition if any government uses any money earned by the people for the sake of upkeep and good functioning then all countries that implement this practice, even in it's slightest form, are socialist. That's absurd.

God you fail at reading comprehension. I didn’t say anywhere was strictly a socialist country. I explained how they benefit from socialism and use socialist programs.

 

[Test_Subject]

God you fail at reading comprehension. I didn’t say anywhere was strictly a socialist country. I explained how they benefit from socialism and use socialist programs.

Yeah, I give up.

He can’t seem to understand that a mixed economy (which almost every country is) utilizes socialist programs but that doesn’t mean that any of them are “socialist” countries.

He’s making things black and white when they aren’t. It’s very sloppy thinking.

It’s like saying that any country is 100% capitalist: there is no such thing.

 

[NLM36]

Yeah, I give up.

He can’t seem to understand that a mixed economy (which almost every country is) utilizes socialist programs but that doesn’t mean that any of them are “socialist” countries.

He’s making things black and white when they aren’t. It’s very sloppy thinking.

It’s like saying that any country is 100% capitalist: there is no such thing.

He also said originally that he hopes people wake up and reject ALL forms of socialism but then went on to say he supports social programs

 

[Test_Subject]

He also said originally that he hopes people wake up and reject ALL forms of socialism but then went on to say he supports social programs

The power of propaganda.

Socialism as evil… as long as you ignore the multitude of ways that social programs increase your quality of life.