Honest invitation to the Leftist Liberals -- please, tell us on the Right what you REALLY want!

If you are unable or unwilling to discuss this above board and without personal attacks and accusations, I'll leave you to your games.

 

Time to start ignoring you since you have no argument. Bye.

 

I’m sorry you don’t like my argument. Analogy is often useful but I guess it fails miserably when the mind is not open to the underlying ideas.

Thanks for the discussion in a good thread. See you around.

 

Name one successful pure socialist country in existence. I won't be holding my breath.

 

When you start off your so-called "history" with, "The Soviet Union didn't have communism," nothing you say after that can be trusted to be within ten miles of the truth. Your "history" is so much fart gas.

 

That was someone else who said that. I was responding to your claim:

And note there's no spinning in those facts, they are just facts. Try arguing with those instead. There's more than enough evidence there that the poor can indeed afford extravagances if they want them. Most blacks are not poor (something like 65% of blacks are middle class and another 5% are rich), but just for comparison, 77% of blacks have smartphones, the same percentage as for whites.

 

Communists are a lot like religions. There are competing theories on what it actually means, so they end up killing each other over different interpretations of the same fundamental ideas. One can claim that true communism is X and the other is Y, so they end up killing each other over the difference.

One thing is for sure. Communists can't handle disagreement. That's why you get guys like this who will say that you're not talking about communism. You're not talking about his particular variant is all.

 

I have been say, like...... forever, ..... that there has never been a stable, functioning socialist country. So when you name a country like Russia or Venezuela as "examples" of socialism failing, they aren't examples. Clear enough?

 

Your view of this stems from, and depends upon, your lack of any valid understanding of what communism is. Most people know communist society is, by definition, classless and stateless. Did the USSR have classes? Was there a government running the country and ruling over the people? Yes and yes. Hence it was not a communist society!!

Marx said communism will appear as classes and the state "wither away" under socialism. OBVIOUSLY this would take many generations to happen.

Try shedding the brainwashing propaganda that you and I and everyone has assimilated over the last 70 years.

 

Well, when you want to refer to communism in such a pure form, I think the onus is on you to clarify that when 90% of the population equate communism with Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Castro politics. Similar to free enterprise or capitalism both are capitalism but only one is free enterprise.

 

That's a horrible analogy for several reasons that I won't get into here, but look at the bold words above for a clue as to the problem here. If you go back to my post you'll notice that I referred to "communist society", which you refer to as its "pure form". But in the same sentence you refer to communist politics. This is a very common mistake people make, and this mistake is part of the propaganda we've been fed, as it serves to confuse and in the end, completely disarm one of reliable facts and accuracy.

Specifically, the mistake you made is that of referring in one moment to communist society, and in the next, to communist politics, but you refer to both of them as "communism". A socio-economic system, of course, is not a theoretical system or a body of politics and political ideas. But vagueness on this and an unconscious shift, mid-sentence, from one to the other, makes for a confused, and frankly impossible, discussion.

When you fully grasp this rather stark distinction and reread my post, it suddenly makes sense.

 

I'm sorry you can carry on the conversation without me. My point was that if you say communism as you 'see" it you just have to explain it further, as 90 percent of people;s definition differs from your's whether yours is correct or not.

 

Bottom line: you were actually, unconsciously saying that Russia was organized on the basis of "communist politics" (which typically means the politics of a Communist Party), and I was saying Russia did not have a communist socio-economic system. To that extent we are both correct. I only request more precise language for a subject that has been rendered confusing quite intentionally for 70 years.

 

Oh good lord. The Bolshevik Revolution in October and November of 1917 was based on the COMMUNIST Manifesto...the drivel spewed by Karl Marx. You can call it Marxism, you can call it Leninism, you can call it Trotskyism or you can call it Communism.....but it's all the same....it's socialism implemented by force. And that's the ONLY way socialism in its true form works. Communism is pure socialism. And the reason why (by force) is because we live in a post-modern society, post industrial revolution. Socialism relies on taking the wealth of others (usually the productive people) and giving it to the envious and jealous aka usually the uneducated, lazy, lower class.



Karl Marx was just an academic who thunk up a theory....before electricity, cars, telephones, running water, etc was invented. Marx's communistic socialism may work in the stone age, but not now. You're welcome to go try it out in the tribal areas of the Middle East but it ain't gonna fly here.

 

I don’t think I’m the only one who cares the same about communist/socialist semantics as I do flat earther semantics.

It all has the same relevance.

 

I wonder why.

Unless of course you take the view that they did actually try it and it failed.

 

The Communist Manifesto is not a nation with its economy. It's a book.

The Communist Manifesto is not a nation with its economy. It's a book.

Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is government legislating over classes. Communism, by definition, is classless, stateless society. Maybe you don't like definitions.

Wow would you know when there has never been a society with an economy owned and run by workers?

Then it wasn't a society. It was a theory. I'm glad we agree on that finally.

Since neither has ever existed, you couldn't know that. I have proved neither has ever existed but you apparently prefer tp pretend it was never said so you don't have to agonize over a convincing counter argument that doesn't exist.

 

You wonder. But do you want to KNOW why? I'll doubt it until you shock me with a "yes".

Right, but that view would be a spin and a lie having nothing to do with reality. They never "got to" socialism.

 

Sorry but you're 'government legislating over classes' definition is bunk.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

'dictatorship of the proletariat' means dictatorship over the bourgeoisie (French word for middle and upper class capitalists) by the by the working class (proletariat in French).

Here in 'merica we call that blue collar dictatorship over white collar, exactly opposite of capitalism. AKA the stupid notion that the poors write the checks. Those bad millionaires and billionaires again! How dare they employ people!!

Lenin...such a working class guy....holed up in the Peterhof. I have to say people are easily duped into buying a load of bullshit when they spend most of their time bitching about successful people instead of taking care of their own business.

The Russians bought the lie and it took 74 years to correct it. They were better off under the Romanovs.

 

LOL!!!!! If you can't stick to the definition of socialism when you're discussing socialism you're not up to the challenge of this discussion. I specifically said "Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is government legislating over classes." So your definition of communism is unrelated and irrelevant.

What a joke. You pretend to "inform" me as to the meanings. LOL!!!!!!!!!! At least, even after saying my reference to government legislating over classes is bunk, you admit there are classes involved. So then smart guy, what did Marx say governments'/states' roles are regarding classes? Since you don't know you will tell me it doesn't matter and use such an excuse to dodge the question entirely.

LOL!!!!! Yes, it's true that capitalist ideologues try very hard to demean the working class. Fine. Go ahead and spin your BS.

LOL!!!!!! Ok, suppose I stroke your ego by telling "I'm impressed". Would that make you feel better? You're obviously looking for praise since you deviated like that from the substance of the discussion.

Your confusion between socialism and communism remains, and I can't help you only because you refuse to hear the facts.

 

I know why. It is you who doesn't. They never "got to" socialism because it's a ****ing failure of a system that cannot possibly work. It has failed every ****ing time it has been tried because it's a ****ing mess. Read Rush Limbaugh's See, I Told You So about the communist experiment in the Plymouth Bay colony. Read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged for a description of what happened in a company that adopted, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Read what happened in France after the Revolution when the do-gooders and the levellers tried to impose socialism on the country. Read The Black Book of Communism for the end result of the communist experiment. Hell, go live in ****ing Venezuela if you want to see socialism in action. Or North Korea if you want to see communism in action. I'm sure they'll let you in.

 

All you know about is a series of different strategies to establish socialism. It is the strategies that failed. Socialism has never failed because socialism has never existed. And the evidence of the bankruptcy of your viewpoint is found in your attempt to show "what happened in a company" in a friggin fiction novel!! LOL!!!!

North Korea is an autocratic dictatorship with state machinery, so it isn't communism. You remain highly resistant to facts.

 

Yep, and someone doesn't seem to understand that communism is pure socialism in reality (not like utopian theories in books). They don't know history and apparently have been fluffed by some academics hooked on hallucinogens.

 

But what I described to you was actually the capitalist system as it was initially intended. Religion is the system which constrains people to their belief system. Marriage is a social construct, which forces people to get on with one another, to love each other.

Private ownership is a method in which limited resources are distributed to those who need them. Having to give up something in order to have something else of greater value to YOU is the foundation of capitalism.

Having the right to fail under capitalism, enforces personal responsibility, discourages negative behavior. Forces people to first think before having birth.

Religion teaches people to internalize consequences. Moreover religion teaches people morals, to have a conscience. I.e if I lie, cheat and steel, I will live in eternal hell and pain in the after life. Thus giving you a society constrained by it's value system.

God is not a "single living human with all the power", thus even our most powerful are still answerable to someone higher than themselves.

Your response only proves my point, the both capitalist and socialists want the same result. We just differ on how to get there. It also proves my point, the current left have no values, to them it's about opposition, to them, the ends justifies the means. The left have no answers to the questions like where do morals (what behavior is considered right and wrong) get taught in a socialist system without a state (remember the perfect socialist world is one which is stateless). How do limited resources get distributed fairly?

 

Do you think welfare programs encourage or discourage this behavior?

10 years ago, when we did have religion in our society, people did care, not anymore.

Nearly all of those situations were caused by government intervention. So laws not so good.