Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

"Social democracy originated within the socialist movement,[33] supporting economic and social interventions to promote social justice.[34][35] While retaining socialism as a long-term goal,[36][37][38][39][40] since the post-war period it has come to embrace a Keynesian mixed economy within a predominantly developed capitalist market economy and liberal democratic polity that expands state intervention to include income redistribution, regulation and a welfare state."

Again, the American Right has been describing countries like Denmark as Socialist as long as I can remember.

Guys here do it all the time...








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

 

As previously noted - the freedom from taxation is a consequence of the constitutional protections afforded to the free exercise of religions.

"Religious organizations" are non-profits.

 

Nazis were Socialist in name only.

 

Nazi Germany had a government with robust and effective social programs.
Under -your- definition, they were socialist.

 

Nothing constitutional about it. It is the result of the tax code.

Most are non profit and probably wouldn't pay any taxes if taxes were imposed.

 

You can define until you are blue in the face. All i said was using the term socialism is hurting your cause.

And most are on the left not the right. Denmark has a capitalist economy. It has never been a socialist country.

 

Usage determines meaning. I've seen socialism used that way hundreds of times. But mostly by Right wing sneaks that want to imply them liberals are really Commies.

The things I want are reforms, which are done one at a time (usually) and saying a word you seem to be afraid of will have no effect whatsoever.

 

Read what I said.
The freedom from taxation is a consequence of the constitutional protections afforded to the free exercise of religions.
The 1st Amendment is, obviously, something Constitutional about it.[/quote]

 

No need for radical changes. Capitalism took about 300 years to progress from the first business to the first nation with a capitalist economy, and it was done by building from without the existing system and winning converts by demonstrating greater promise and potential. Socialism will follow that same path.

Just about any problem we're experiencing in our economy and society was cause, and is preserved, by capitalism. Only a system in which the people are in control can solve such problems.

 

"Were the Nazis socialists? No, not in any meaningful way, and certainly not after 1934.

To say that Hitler understood the value of language would be an enormous understatement. Propaganda played a significant role in his rise to power. To that end, he paid lip service to the tenets suggested by a name like National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but his primary—indeed, sole—focus was on achieving power whatever the cost and advancing his racist, anti-Semitic agenda.

By the late 1920s, however, with the German economy in free fall, Hitler had enlisted support from wealthy industrialists who sought to pursue avowedly anti-socialist policies.

Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements...

In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps."

So what fantasy are you going to run by us next.

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

 

[/QUOTE]
I read what you said. I don't agree with it. No need to repeat yourself.

 

YOU said:
My definition of socialism is simply a government with robust and effective social programs.
Nazi Germany, w/o question, had robust and effective social programs.

And so, either your definition is invalid, or you must accept the fact Nazi Germany was socialist.
Let us know which you choose.

 

This does not negate the centuries of precedence on my side.

 

You need to amp up your trolling skills..

Or your reading comprehension, prob both!

 

That doesn't actually say anything though does it? Marx, for example, referred a lot to evolution.

You're not referring to an economic framework. You're referring to conservatism (which feeds off rent seeking behaviour). You know that's true as you have information on how those politicians feed at the big business trough.

 

You simply don't read what I say. I said you should choose another term than socialism. I hate repeating myself.

I have n

I don't agree with that either.

 

His definition is not valid today. See post 314.

 

Thanks for the laugh.
I'm sorry you don't like the fact that, under your definition, Nazi Germany was a socialist country - but the conclusion is inescapable, and you can not demonstrate otherwise.

 

Again, you need better trolls..

 

I read what you said. It doesn't change much, to be honest. Tell ya what, if you can get all the Right wingnuts to stop doing that, so will I..

 

Bazinga! Keep 'em coming!!

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

Nazi Germany, w/o question, had robust and effective social programs - how does it not meet your definition of a socialist country?

 

hahaha. yeah right.

 

Is that your way of saying that you don't have any evidence?

 

You can use any terminology you like. I don't care. I think it hurts your cause but you don't care. Let's end this joust.

 

Exactly WHAT do you want "evidence" of?

 

Rent seeking behavior? Like socialism?