Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

You are technically correct. My point is that if you remove tax exemption status from the organizations we are discussing they will no longer have incentive to organize as non profits and will cease to exist as such. I explained the consequences of that happening earlier—unrestrained lobbying and political action.

Then you don’t understand what democracy is or what a theocracy is. Maybe both.

In a pure democracy they do. They have a right to a theocracy, even!

LOL. They get it from you and your friends and neighbors.

 

But Obama sure as hell bowed to them.

 

Lobbying and political action are what we should expect from people who are civically engaged. It will be restrained by their ability to raise money. That ability will decline if they are no longer tax-exempt.

You are just objectively wrong again. Get a better dictionary.

Nonsense.

 

It will not necessarily decline. But it’s a fact they will have much more freedom to lobby. They will also be able to advertise the fact they are politically active to raise more funds.

You will have to offer some evidence I’m wrong. Accusations no longer suffice from you. Go...

Ah, you are in subsistence zero input agriculture. Cool. That’s very rare. LOL

 

False. You forgot the foolish, the exhausted, and the desperate, among others. There is a multi-trillion-dollar industry called "marketing" that exists because of the objective falseness of your claim. Or as George Carlin put it, "Think about how stupid the average person is. And then remember that half the people are stupider than that."

But more because advertisers and bankers want you to.

Thanks for another dose of your economic (let's be charitable) naivete. What happens if most people take your advice and reduce their consumption to the bare minimum? How many job opportunities will there be in an economy where most people are living lives of ascetic privation worthy of a Franciscan monk, hmmmm? You have forgotten that the only purpose of all economic activity is to enable consumption. So counseling people to reduce their consumption as a solution to the economic stress they are experiencing is just cretinous, anti-economic nonsense that can only make matters worse.

You need to stop typing and start thinking.

The privileged.

Of course they can. But more importantly, we don't live in a socialist system, and never will. We live under finance capitalism, wherein people's rights to liberty have been forcibly stripped from them by government and given to the privileged as their private property. The privileged OWN everyone else's RIGHTS. Clear?

Unless they are privileged, of course. Some people will always work at being parasites. It's called, "rent seeking behavior." You could look it up. As one wag put it, "Getting something for nothing is a lot of work."

No, that's just more of your evil, disingenuous, blame-the-victim filth. The reason people vote for a welfare state is that they know they can't bear the burden of the rich, greedy, privileged parasites they already have to carry.

No. The best, the most noble, virtuous and heroic thing we can do is what I am doing: trying to educate people as to their true situation, so that they can cast informed votes. By contrast, the worst, the most viciously evil and despicable thing we can do is what you are doing: trying to stop people from understanding their true situation so that their votes will remain uninformed.

False. The system of capitalist privilege forces everyone to carry the parasites, more or less in proportion to their productivity. Many people are just not productive enough to support both themselves and the load of parasites they are forced to carry.

My family history and dynamics??? What evil, despicable, blame-the-victim filth. Government created the parasites by issuing and enforcing privileges, and I will thank you to remember it.

That is nothing but more of your evil, despicable, blame-the-victim filth. The burden of privilege is by definition imposed by law, by force, with no other choice permitted.

GARBAGE. They are institutional. 50 years ago, homelessness was almost unheard of. Today it is an epidemic, especially in the USA and the other rich countries most in thrall to finance capitalism.

I see. So, somehow, there was no family breakdown, dysfunction or failure 50 years ago, but now there is?

What, evil, despicable, blame-the-victim filth.

 

That market is already saturated, haven't you noticed?

Democracy = rule by the people
Theocracy = rule by a priestly class
The people =/= a priestly class

Clear?

 

1) You think like an aristocrat. You literally believe we're so safe and privileged, that we can afford to make exceptions for people whose moods don't move them to productivity and self-discipline. Try that approach in the Third World, and see what happens to your resources. While you fete 'the foolish' (aka, people not desperate ENOUGH), the genuinely desperate - who continue to strive because they are desperate, will starve.

2) So you want to make exceptions for people who are easily seduced into spending, due to their personal preference to avoid any kind of self-discipline? Unbelievable. Why not just go around handing out free money to the laziest shopaholics you can find. Make sure they're fat, too. You can claim they live in a food desert. The starving will really appreciate you giving all the money to people who feed your aristocratic vision, rather than those who need it.

3) Who said anything about ALL people avoiding spending? I sure didn't. I mentioned only the poor.

4) A socialist system does not provide for non-productive over-consumers. Everyone works, and no one gets to spend freely.

5) They vote for welfare states because they want someone to look after them. They've discovered that looking after yourself and your own family (as was always done in the past, and still is in many societies) requires far too much work and responsibility.

6) Sure, you and your aristocrat thinking are a godsend. Lucky we have you to tell us how to think (like the privileged).

7) Parasites are individuals who refuse to carry their own weight.

8 ) You were complaining of having to carry parasites. I presume you mean @sshat family members. If so, why did you create family members who behave that way?

9) We live in democracies. We're all free to choose our fate. No one is forced to be poor, except perhaps the profoundly disabled orphan. Even then, such people often manage to have pretty good lives compared to their comparables in the Third World.

10) Homelessness is epidemic today because social disintegration has exploded. Families are unstable and fractured, addiction is rife, and welfare states make homelessness a viable option.

11) Exactly. 50 years ago there was a much more solid social infrastructure than there is today. People were much more stable, families were more solid and thus able to care for each other over a lifetime, there was less addiction and dissolution, etc etc. Social decay is the PRIMARY reason for all of it. It has nothing to do with economics. If you needed proof (and you shouldn't, because it's blindingly obvious), all you need do is remind yourself it's happened in the richest countries, not the poorest.

 

Evidence?

You are confused. Democracies typically are representative. Pure democracy isn’t anything more than a concept because it can’t exist long in reality. A democracy can give power to a priestly class. Just like they can give it to a rich class, an intellectual class, or a dementia class.

 

Get serious.

No, you are wrong, but unable to admit it.

They can also take it away. So I'm right, and you're wrong. Get used to it.

 

You just made that up. It has nothing to do with anything I said. If anything, it is the opposite of what I said.

You just made that up. I say all should have their rights secured equally, no exceptions. You are the one who wants the privileged to continue having their exceptional status by law.

You are just makin' $#!+ up again, such as that approach, which does not resemble anything I said.

You made that up, too.

You made that up, too. Desperate people are often made foolish by their desperation. There's more than one Bible story about that.

They starve because they have to feed the privileged -- whose nether parts you lick and kiss so assiduously -- before they get to feed themselves.

No, you made that up. I want them to have the same rights as everyone else.

Because you made it up.

Because I haven't advocated giving free money to anyone. You simply made that up out of whole cloth. You are just makin' $#!+ up.

You are the one who defends the privileged by blaming their victims, not me, and I will thank you to remember it.

First let's make sure people have their rights. Then we'll see who is still in need.

You included anyone who is in financial distress. That is most Americans.

Just non-productive under-consumers: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." -- Soviet era proverb

Problem is, human beings are not termites. When we earn money, we want to be able to spend it on the things we want, not just the things you think we should want.

No, because they know they can't defend themselves against the evil, greedy, privileged, parasitic rich whose privileges you rationalize and justify by blaming their victims.

Because first, they have to look after the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich.

You made that up. In fact, it's the exact opposite of the truth. Aristocracy comes from privilege, which I oppose, but you constantly rationalize and justify by blaming the victims.

You made that up. The privileged don't attack privilege. But I do.

No, they are individual predators who consume their victims in less than unit quantities. Like the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich.

No, I mean the privileged.

You made that up. You are just makin' $#!+ up.

Nonsense. Our democracies are not especially democratic, and our choices are constrained by laws and institutions that strip us of our rights and give them to the privileged as their private property.

Wrong. Almost all the poor are forced into poverty by the privileges of the rich.

Yes, such democratic accountability as our votes allow has required governments to rescue those least able to fend for themselves from enslavement, torture and murder by the privileged.

Because privilege has destroyed the livelihoods of ordinary people.

GARBAGE. Welfare states, minimum wages, union contracts, etc. were MORE generous 50 years ago. It is the victory of privilege over justice, which you celebrate so enthusiastically, that has made homelessness an unavoidable "option" for many.

Because the privileged were only taking half of what they take today.

GARBAGE. 50 years ago, one income was enough to raise a family, buy a home, pay for health care, and send the kids to college. Now two incomes is not enough.

It's happened in the countries where the privileged have been legally entitled to take everything from everyone else, and government feels no need to rescue the victims because their example -- especially blaming them for what has been done to them to make them feel guilty, as you always do -- keeps the rest in line.

 

I am serious. Make a cogent argument.

No, I made a well reasoned argument you can’t formulate an intellectual response to.

It’s irrelevant that they can take it away. People who are willing can take power away from priestly class no matter how the class came to power. You need to try making an actual argument instead of just saying someone is wrong. I’m already used to people like you who can’t make an intelligent argument but it’s fun to give you more rope sometimes.

 

What I learned from this thread.

1. Most socialists don't know what socialism is, can't define it, and can't agree on common implementations of it.
2. Socialists believe the problem with Capitalism is that the people currently in power got that way by focusing on their own self interest.
2. Democratic socialism gives the power to control socialism to everyone.
3. The people who don't understand socialism will reject their own self interest, vote for the best common interest, except in every one of those places where people thought they were voting for socialism, but instead somehow got tyranny.

 

How?

 

The Article II power to grant pardons is authoritarian?

 

Here is a typical example:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/brons...ike-the-wrong-things-on-social-media-n2572319

 

His dial is welded to the position of Over-reach.

 

<yawn> I've been making cogent arguments. You have been refusing to know facts.

Here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/257337/total-lobbying-spending-in-the-us/

$3.47G is more than $10 for every man, woman and child in the country, and that's just the official spending of officially registered lobbyists. If that isn't a saturated market for lobbyists, I don't know what would be.

Claiming that the people is the same as a priestly class is not a reasoned argument, sorry.

No it isn't. It's the proof that I am right and you are wrong.

Which "people"? How "willing"? Take it away how? History does not justify a lot of optimism that a priestly ruling class can easily be dislodged by popular vote. So you are just making an unfalsifiable claim, like, "If you just pray hard enough, God will answer your prayers."

I'm not the one claiming democracy can be theocracy or vice versa. You are.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

I’ve presented only things that are true.

It seems odd that spending would increase in a saturated market. I find it amusing when links provided by others prove my point. Thanks.

Agreed. That’s why I haven’t made that argument. That is your strawman.

It doesn’t matter how a theocracy begins or ends. Let’s try this. Do you think the Vatican is a theocracy? What was Homer talking about when he said “The voice of the people is the voice of the gods”?

Doesn’t matter how. That’s my point.

A democracy can instill a theocracy. That’s a fact. What would stop them? Your opinion?

Here’s a couple more feet of rope.

 

Yeah, you absolutely think like an aristocrat. Like a buddha, born to great wealth but moved to go out and make a show of pity for the little peasants. It's aristocrats who never get it right ... with their utterly indiscriminate largess. Wasting resources on those who don't require them, because that's far easier than addressing the real problems. Classic celebrity style 'compassion'.

And FTR, families are still raised on one income all over the world. Even in my country, one of the most expensive on the planet, people do it all the time. They are the people smart enough not to try living in places they can't afford (and if it takes two salaries, you can't afford it).

 

There is only one fundamental meaning (of both socialism and communism .. which are the same thing): If you don't work, you don't eat - no exceptions, no preferences, and no 'individualism'.

 

I watched the video. While it has some interesting historical references, it's classic sophistry. I particularly enjoyed the biblical quotes because the devil can cite the bible for his own purpose. Socialist apologists and believers wish to imagine a socialist system that works. Maybe it's "democratic" socialism, "national" socialism, "libertarian" socialism, or just the kind of socialism that you learn in Socialism 101. However, as soon as you strip away the adjectives and the sophistry, there is only one kind of socialism relevant for the discussion: state ownership of the means of production (as the video notes), or the word is meaningless.

Plato's Republic, contrary to the video's assertion that it first "articulated the notion of a socialist state", simply asks what is Justice? But the question is never answered within it's pages. We only learn that justice is NOT the interest of the stronger, NOR is it the will of the majority. Individualism does not guarantee justice, nor does collectivism. However, we can infer that there are at least two kinds of supposed justice: 1) Meritocratic justice, and 2) Distributive justice. Neither is complete.

When it comes to socialism, clearly we are asserting that collectivism, the will of the majority, and distributive justice are the goal. In the USSR the collective was the proletariet, not the burgeoisie. In National Socialist Germany, the collective was the Volksgemeinschaft, not the Jews. In China, the collective was the peasants, not the owners, and so forth. Hence the mass murder. In today's socialist fantasy, it appears that the collective is everyone EXCEPT wealthy, straight, white, males.

So socialism has come full circle, because it has always been rooted in a violation of the only commandment that involves an emotion: Thou shalt not covet.

The United States is not socialist. It is not imperialist. It is not corporatist. It is none of the above. The United States is the place where you get to have a voice, a debate, a vote, a representative self-government with a division of powers, and a peaceful and legal pathway to change. We have these things because we know we still can never fully answer the question: What is Justice? Every past example of socialism failed, because it thought it could. Every future example of socialism will fail for the same reason.

 

What is your definition of socialism. Seems like your definition is "Pure Socialism" where Gov't owns most all resources and means of production - and I agree that these systems did not work for the most part. Romania would be an exception.

Under this definition - there is no "socialist fantasy" among any the mainstream parties in the US as none wants complete Gov't ownership.

If we are talking some kind of hybrid - where socialism is defined as a function of the amount of wealth redistribution - then the US is definitely Socialist.

 

I don't have my own definition of socialism. It is what it is. Romania must be a unicorn. Socialist fantasizers better fess up to their apostacy, and the United States is not socialist.

 

I guess this proves the US is not a socialist country.

 

What definition are you using ? - that you claim US is not Socialist. The problem is that under some definitions US would be - under others it would not.

I have friends that escaped from Romania under Cseucescu - as in more than one - one a fellow and another a woman .. so know lots about the old country - then and now .. and through the transition .. In some ways they will say it was better than now - in others not - and rarely do they agree amongst each other. It is not a black vs white paradigm.

No idea which Socialist fantasy you are referring to - there are many.