Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

Quite so. In fact, no Democrat is a socialist.

 

This is Econ 101 ramble. The MRPL informs us two things. First, labour should be paid according to their value of their labour. To underpay, to create a productivity gap such as the one in the US, will create deadweight loss. Second, even orthodox economists have to assume that wage underpayment is naturally created in capitalism. Any labour supply elasticity faced by the firm will create economic rent and inefficient wage differentials.

How might socialists add to this slice of basic supply and demand? We can refer to empirical evidence. The MRPL is not exogenous. Worker ownership is found to actually increase productivity. Ironically, the Austrian School- through their love of individualism- provide an explanation. Corporations are based on hierarchical relations. This negatively impacts on information flows (i.e. problems with Hayekian distributed knowledge are accentuated). Anti-socialists are therefore coercive by their very nature as they demand the destruction of economic value.

 

This is inane soundbite. Of course this is a standard feature of conservatism. Given its not based on any sound political econonic footing, there are no principles underpinning stance. Soundbite comes crucial in manipulating Joe Herd. Thus, they apparently care about individualism, but they're really funded by big business...

 

My definition of socialism is simply a government with robust and effective social programs.

What's yours?

 

I was born in USSR and still remember some of it. Socialism will never work. Elimination of greed is no different from elimination of racism - it’s impossible.

 

Yes it is. But the free exercise of religion without undergoing taxation is not a right.

Business taxes are levied on net profits, not revenue. One would assume that the same would apply to religious organizations. In other words the taxes would be levied on funds not used for the function of the religion. I'm fine with tax freedom for churches. I'm also fine with some churches being amazingly profitable. That is the American way. But I see nothing unconstitutional with taxing those profits.

 

But your definition isn't what socialism is incorrect. You should use the term social spending. Calling it socialism only harms your beliefs because socialism is actually a terrible thing.

 

So, you can't refute my claim.

 

No, I'm not conflating anything, your posts are biased/slanted to the point of being obnoxious, and that is neither "courteous," "nice" or any other rationalizations your thread-spam on the forum deserves. The intent is clear. Those of us around here for any time have seen many iterations of -you-, thread-spamming and generally spamming posters who miraculously appear around election time. Could it be coincidence? Sure, not in your case, though, because your posts are transparent. Again, you aren't fooling anyone. Didn't bother with most of the rest. It is what it is. Your intent was -never- to engage in anyone in a legitimate, adult political discussion. Spare the ruse.

Chomsky is a moron. That is my opinion. Feel free to disagree, or attempt a passive aggressive personal insult in response, up to you.

From the talk page, and FYI, wikipedia is no longer a respectable, objective source of anything due to the types of issues described in the quote. Anyone is one PR agent away from a 35 page wiki article.

"This Noam Chomsky article seems biased, as if a publicist wrote it. It overtly aggrandizes a living person.
As a simple example, the article has more lines, words and active links in its first paragraph than Wikipedia articles on: Jesus, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and Nelson Mandela, among only a few deceased notables. That gives one pause.
Among living notables, based upon the same above criteria, the article dwarfs: Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. The entire article comes off as a promotion of a man and perhaps his philosophy. Virtualkelly (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)"

Why does the LW love Chomsky? 1. He is methodically and dogmatically anti U.S. without any edifice of educated, adult reasoning attached, just vague, abstract jargon and gibberish that the LW is famous for spouting and proliferating similar empty jargon so birds of a feather, 2. He is very good at using said gibberish to conceal what collectivists of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex are about, taking more from taxpayers at the end of a government gun barrel for Complex benefit. See also "John Maynard Keynes." 3. He is able to trade on an ancient, hoary reputation in linguistics from many decades ago, lending faux academic credibility.

But as the man said, "What have you done for me lately?"

Want to be treated reasonably or courteously or even "nicely" by people, do without so much absurd, fallacious deck-stacking.

 

What is moronic is claiming Chomsky is without any edifice of educated adult reasoning attached.

While this is a good descriptor for your posts - it does not reflect on Chomsky - whose books you have never read and have zero qualification to critique.

 

I've read many of your posts unfortunately, most inaptly-named poster on the forum, so no thanks. One thing I notice here is that the Chomskyites and their ilk are long on revering Chomsky, short on actually discussing any coherent arguments... thus I can sit back and sling ad hominem because the opposition, like YOU for instance, are U-N-A-R-M-E-D, like fish in a barrel. That's because it's completely fallacious, overwrought, abstract jargon that can't pass the blush test... but here, let me summarize Chomsky once and for all.... ready? get ready now... get out your pad and get ready to learn... "U.S. bad." There you go, you are welcome. Your education in "Chomsky-gibberish" is now complete. Want more? Start a thread and discuss something in your own words that isn't some Chomsky jargon pulled from wiki or youtube. You aren't fooling anyone... or START THE THREAD. You won't like the results.

But I have read many of Chomsky's "works," over the last 40 years or so, together with all manner of related abstract collectivist-jargon crapola, everything from French "philosopher-linguist" communists hiding behind social science, to Frankfurt School hoodoo, to pretty much of any of the utterly discredited things Marx ever wrote, to pretty much all social sciences today that are infested by the cancer of collectivism towards well-evident self-interest via government fiat. All the same ball of wax, the same, unintelligible, circular, fallacious, incoherent, ball of doodoo-wax.

 

You have not read a single book of Chomsky - but this has little to do with Chomsky as it would not matter who it was. As soon as you come across some author who disagrees with you - you automatically default to name calling and slander aka "demonization of the messenger"/ ad hom fallacy rather than attacking the message.

This is - in your words " without any edifice of educated adult reasoning"

I don't like many of Chomsky's diatribes - and IMO he has flip flopped on some issues - but that does not make him an uneducated moron. The difference here is that when I criticize someone I give "reasons" rather than just engage in name calling.

You then move on to Marx - claiming that everything Marx wrote has been discredited. Aside from this being completely false and nonsensical - you do not give any examples.

"The cancer of Collectivism" is something I truly hate - and understand well. You on the other hand do not. Red establishment and Red in General "Love" collectivism.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

Make the thread. Not going to waste more time on you or any Chomsky-gibberish until you do. Post a thread on a simple, clear, original or noteworthy, explicable position/argument of Chomsky's on politics. Any. Or don't.

Get ready for the resulting semantically null gibberish and jargon to be ripped apart with little effort. I'm not special, most any adult can point out the vague, unworkable abstractions and fallacies that infest all of Chomsky's political arguments and claims. Chomsky is fish food for foolish collectivist, anti U.S. guppies to suck up out of the tank towards confirmation bias, nothing more.

 

Well, PDS, I like D. Pakman well enough, but he's off the mark on this. His long examination of all the historical "socialistic-type ideas" is so much fluff. Let's cut to the chase. EVERY modern (since 1900) reference to "socialism" and every attempt to actually create a socialist nation was carried out by various communist parties and every one of those parties and revolutions reference, praised, and was guided by Karl Marx. So that pretty well makes Marx the modern "father of socialism" and the recognized source of socialist theory.
THEREFORE, Marx is the determinant of what "socialism" is.

Not just Marx, but every advocate of socialism has presented it as the "antidote" to capitalism. It has consistently been held up as a system that completely ends "exploitation" and the system of private ownership of the MoP for private profit. It ends "wage slavery" which is a reference to employees as "capital" and business owners as "dictators" in their businesses. Socialism has been presented as "workers seizing the MoP and owning it."

Hence, socialism is not "sharing" and it is not "being nice to everyone". It isn't "kindness" and "equal treatment". It is the dictatorship of the proletariat over the capitalist class. It is a complete change in the relationship of worker to boss by putting the worker in charge of the MoP. It ends private control, or minority control, of production and profits.

When Pakman gave the standard definition of socialism as "collective ownership" of the MoP he did the standard thing of a supporter of capitalism looking at it through the lens of 80 years of capitalist propaganda against socialism. It is VERY MUCH in the interest of capitalist ideologues to ignore Marx's influence and work to confuse all issues as Pakman did.

SOCIALISM IS A SOCIOECONOMIC SYSTEM IN WHICH THE WORKING CLASS ACTUALLY AND FACTUALLY OWNS AND CONTROLS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

If the workers aren't the owners and controllers, it isn't socialism. If some entity, be it a CEO and board of directors or a government, controls and directs the workers and decides what to produce, where to produce, how to produce, and what to do with the profits, IT IS NOT SOCIALISM. Instead, it is some form or permutation or perversion of CAPITALISM because it is not owned and controlled by the workers.

Discussion?

 

What part of "This has nothing to do with Chomsky" did you not understand the first go around. ?

You are the one calling someone a uneducated moron - it is up to you to support your claim. Running around crying "Moron Moron" is not an argument for anything - and me posting some of Chomsky's accomplishments will not change this fact.

You then go on about collectivism as if you know what this is - and you clearly don't. Who are these "anti US collectivists" you are referring to ? and what part of .. the GOP are huge collectivists did you not understand the first go round ?

 

Yeah, thought not. Not surprised.

 

I realize that your commentary lacks thought - no sense in repeating the obvious.

You can't support your position and so you default to "Prove me wrong" as if this constitutes proof of claim = fallacious gibberish.

In Chomsky's book - and subsequent video "Manufacturing Consent" - The political economy of the mass media - he describes how the MSM operates - and the various influences - giving numerous examples from media sources - showing how the media shapes the news in order to fit the Establishment political agenda of the day.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with Chomsky's political views - his assessment of how the media works to "Manufacture Consent" among the masses is spot on - and demonstrably true.

I did not like Obama much -but this does not change the fact that not everything he did was "Moronic". You seem to have trouble separating your emotions from your assessment of reality.

 

You don't have anything. Conservatism is like pish on the desert sand. It means naff all. I've already demonstrated that by referring to its exact meaning: skewed weighting to encourage the status quo. That status quo, of course, can be deeply damaging (such as a finance capitalism built on buying off politicians to ensure optimal policy is not pursued).

 

That magazine would be driven out of business in today's very-unfunny leftist world of cancellation. It is a sacred article of faith that nothing is ever funny to a leftist. They are humorless dreary echoes of productive people, obsessed in negativity.

 

I thought there was a wall of separation between church and state. How can that wall exist if churches are funding the state? What happens when churches with the persuasive power to get thousands or millions of worldwide members to fund them are no longer subject to the substantial part test and can spend limitless amounts lobbying money hungry politicians?

 

You did't read what I said.
Churches are individuals joined by a common belief;
A common belief. Doctrine s dervive from this. Thus, your point is na absolute fabrication, and thereby, moot.

That is an outright fabrication on your part.
If the "related to" is an action that derives from the common belief, then yes it is.

The above non-seq is an outright fabrication on your part.

That is an outright fabrication on your part.
If the "related to" is an action that derives from the common belief, then yes it is.

And yet, they don't. At least not in my state. No property tax, no tax on charitable giving, no income tax - no tax.
Oh - churches are also not-for-profits, so there are no profits to tax.

Already refuted.

 

Stability is important for a functional society. Making radical changes, which make people worse off, for tbe sake of change is not the way I want to go.

Also; what evidence, that you can submit, proves that another economic framework would eliminate corruption?

 

A bald claim.

No. You can't

No. It doesn't, as your posts demonstrate otherwise.

I haven't a clue - the scores lost all meaning to me the moment I was accepted into the grad school of my choice.
Hopefully someday you will experience this and achieve the level of understanding it bring.s

 

Thank you for making it clear I need waste no more time on you.

 

You cannot demonstrate this definition to have any validity; you also cannot then demonstrate how, under your definition, Nazi Germans was not a socialist country.