Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

I see sanders as a fraud and an opportunist.

But he's not corrupt and we haven't failed so you are 0-2.

 

Ask the socialists?

Within your definition of capitalism is al property including land absolutely privately owned? In your definition can the government take private land and use it for the "common good"? In your definition of capitalism do taxes exist? Are those taxes if they exist in your theoretical country allways and absolutely "traded" voluntarily? Are government services provided? How are government services funded? Do people who want or need government services pay for them voluntarily or do people in your theoretical cauntry get taxed in order to get those services?

You see Indo not believe anyone who says complex things are easy peazyily explained.

 

Sorry that is not a logically supported definition. Who set the 50% threshold rule? You?

 

Trump is Corrupt, and he has set us on the path of failure

 

Trump is also corrupt and a failure as a businessman and as a president so is Trump a socialist too?

 

How are they related and no he is not a failed businessman. He is a businessman that has had failed ventures. Big difference. As far as corrupt, perhaps morally.

 

Well we shall agree to disagree about Trump.

 

Question for anyone here! Is China a socialist country? Is China a socialist country?

 

Common sense. The threshold is probably nearer to twenty percent. He was being liberally generous with them. They are owned by their own choices.

 

Very true!

 

When better than half your party platform relates directly to socialism, it makes your party... socialist.
Thus, the Socialist in National Socialist.

 

It is your definition and your threshold not necessarily common sense.

 

He is successful abroad and at home. The left has failed.

 

It has a communist government with a mixed economy.

 

You are doing what Inwarned people about. You are using the word socialism to define socialism. It is as if you were asked to define murder and you said " murder is murder". Easy Peezy!

 

Being successful by Putin's defition is not a ringing example of success.

 

How about it is a capitalist country that uses Commist political control to conduct business and control the population.

 

I have. I get a different answer every time.

 

Btw, capitalism is not a form of government. It is a system of trade.

 

The same thing happens when you ask someone who claims to be a capitalist to define capitalism.

The answer to a complex question is almost never simple.

 

Socialism is a form of government that attempts to impose a system of trade.

Hence the comparison

 

And yet every one of them would agree with my definition of capitalism. Can you define socialism in a way all socialists would agree?

 

I think it's called state capitalism.

 

You are conflating 'nice' with 'courteous'. There is no obligation to be nice. But I think we should strive to at least not be rude. So, by being courteous I mean avoiding being rude, and one can be firm, even not-so-nice, as in stern, but one does not have to sling mud in doing so.

Does that mean I'm guilt free on that point No, nor, by asking to be courteous in this thread, am I making that point ( but you are ). When it comes to ignorance, I'll admit to ignorant comments I've been down right mean, and I've been chided by the moderator a couple of times for overstepping certain boundaries.. I do not apologize for being mean to ignorance and stupidity, to being off topic, to not contributing to the OP in a constructive manner. However, I do strive to be courteous. I don't always succeed, as I am human. However, getting snarky unjust unwarranted comments, especially if they are off topic, do not offer constructive criticism, etc., is difficult not to be mean or respond in kind. However, my points, despite the fact that we are all human, and are given to these things, we should strive for higher ground. I don't see you chiding anyone guilty of such things when they agree with your point of view, only those that do not. Right?

As for 'deck packing' let me just say the view I present reflects that Trump is: 1. A threat to US national security, but more importantly 2. An existential threat to the planet because of his view that climate change is a hoax. So, because of that proposition, which I hold to be true, my comments will often reflect the urgency of that position, and, for that, I do not apologize. In fact, that comment of 'deck packing' what does that even mean? I find it rather meaningless. You mean to say that I shouldn't back up my claims in every way possible? I should not have convictions and I should be wishy washy about my point of view? What does that even mean? I know there are some who go around claiming they are 'independent', but what I often find is someone so afraid to take a point of view, they become rather wishy washy, and I see no virtue in that.

While I do not claim to be guilt free on the subject of not being nice, I do strive to be, and I think we all should. Now, if you can demonstrate that your comments are educated, not 'deck stacked' feel free to do so. I mean, if you are chiding me for 'uneducated', then pray tell, dazzle us with your education, I'm all eyes and ears. As for educated commentary, I believe I research my position as good as the next person -- but you are making generalizations, So if you have something specific to refer to, feel free to so, within the context of this thread. Your comment smacks of the very thing you accuse me of, and there's a word for that, they call it 'projecting'.

Generalizations, to the point of being meaningless.

Mr Pakman is both educated and smart, and slices and dices your 'philosophy' every which way, but, of course, you'll make assumptions about content then chide me for being mean to ignorance and being rude. You totally ignored my comment, trotted out the usual right wing tired tropes and generalizations and assumptions about my point of view ( noting that I'm not a socialist by any means.) I mean, if you are taking the position that I'm not 'educated', then you are implying that you are, and on that point, you are not being very convincing.

The best way to debate is to be specific, and steer away from generalizations, arguing over generalizations, which can be appropriate at times, but done wantonly is a fool's errand, in my view.

The big reason I referred to Pakman's videos, as he, with great skill, debunks the tired tropes of the right, and their usual strawman arguments about what the left is all about, and makes the distinction between, socialism, communism, , anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, as well as the difference between a democratic socialist and a social democrat, and, in all of these flavors, he asserts he is the latter, as am I. It's very educational, yet you are claiming I'm not being educated, and you've made an assumption before you even reviewed the content of the videos. What does that say about you?

You assert that Chomsky is a ' ****ing moron', but that sure sounds like something a moron would say, given the fact that William F. Buckley would NEVER debate a moron, but he did debate Chomsky at least once, that I can recollect.

Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian,[c] social critic, and political activist. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics",[d] Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He holds a joint appointment as Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Laureate Professor at the University of Arizona, and is the author of more than 100 books on topics such as linguistics, war, politics, and mass media. Ideologically, he aligns with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism. -- Wikipedia

Chomsky's wikipedia entry is all of 35 pages long, so, you can call Chomsky anything you want, but only someone given to ignorant comments would call him a moron. Being intelligent doesn't mean you are correct all the time, but there is a reasonable proposition that an intellectual leader appeals to people, and Chomsky does.

Now, I don't agree with Chomsky on his 'anarcho-syndicalism', or on all of his positions, but I would, in no way, call him a 'moron' no more than I would call Jordan Peterson a moron whose views, like many libertarians, I view is about half right.

But that system (anarcho-syndicalism) has been used with good success in Catalonia, as Pakman points out. But, of course, in your (let me guess, your...) narrow view of the world, he's a moron. yeah, Right, not many morons have tenure at a university, written a hundred books, and are generally regarded as authorities in the field of linguistics and one of the founders of cognitive science, so, yes, that ('he's a ****ing moron") is an 'educated' comment if there ever were one. To me, a moron is someone who offers strawman arguments, tired generalizations, avoids specifics, engages in ad hominems, mudslinging, loaded language, has a hard time saying on point, given to weasel words , etc etc etc. And, if you are claiming you are educated, or any of your arguments are 'educated' you sure as hell are not being very convincing on that particular point. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, a courtesy which you did not extend to me, feel free to prove me wrong.

I think the famous quote by Shakespeare is appropriate here,

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

Or, perhaps;

Physician, heal thyself.

 

I call it an economic system. Trade can and has occurred between capitalist and communist( socialist) systems. I am talking by economic definitions. So if capitalism is only a trading system or your words a system of trade how is it possible to trade between the two diferrent species?