Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jul 7, 2020.
We have our own problems, yes. But the world is going to hades.
yes, and every time a democrat makes suggestions for policy similar to those in Denmark, what do republicans call us?
Communists or socialists.
Y'all really need to make up your minds.
What I would really like for republicans to is quit calling democrats communists, and many some democrats will return the favor and quit calling y'all fascists.
Then, maybe the day will come when we can talk to each other.
Now then, there's Bernie, in a class by himself. If you ask a true socialist is Bernie a socialist they will tell you NO. I don't know why Bernie calls himself a 'socialist', but every time you do, he'll correct you and say 'democratic socialism', which means he means something quite distinct from classic socialism. When you pin him down, he'll point to Denmark.
So, what Bernie, is trying to say is that 'democratic socialism' is to the right of socialism' and to the left of progressivism. But he's no authoritarian, that is certain. Unfortunately for Bernie, republicans have no interest in granting him that courtesy and distinction, their agenda is to call him a communist, period, which is what Trump is doing.
They are all liars (those who call dems and progressives 'communists' or 'socialists' -- meaning/implying totalitarian/authoritarianism), and I don't mean that in a nice, courteous, way, because they are not nice, nor courteous, when they do that, they are evil, therefore, I'm responding in kind, to those who do that, particularly, Trump.
The fascism is on the left, from regimented public school indoctrination to relentless political correctness which turns snakelike to bite the less-zealous. I've seen this cycle several times where they blame the right but are the true socialists, living off public taxes and telling us what we must do, from the time our little selves first enter a classroom. Your concept of "favor" is hilarious in light of all your anti-Trump, anti-capitalism and generally anti-social topics. Your posts speak for themselves. You're a socialist.
Socialism, Marxism, Communism, whatever you want to call it, it's all variations of the same theme. They're all 'steal from the productive, and give to the non-productive'. They only differ by the degree of brutality used to enforce compliance.
I did, watch the videos, but you're not interested in finding out.
There is no simple answer to that, it depends, which is why the wikipedia entry is 73 pages long, and I posted to videos to explain it.
And, there are as many pages and books on capitalism, as well. But, of course, whether you know it or not, we do not have a 100% pure capitalist society, nor does any nation I know of. Perhaps Hong Kong is the best example, but there, people are forced to rent 100 sq ft subdivided spaces in cages in apartments because rents are sky high. So much for unregulated capitalism, that's where we are headed.
so, you are saying all taxes are theft, right?
What part of my 92 year old mother's $800 social security check would you like to eliminate, hmmm?
Social Security isn't welfare.
I hate it when people throw up strawmen.
Before I watched the videos of David Pakman, I made a prediction to my self. The prediction is based upon a sampling of every single self-proclaimed socialist I have ever talked with. The prediction is that the Pakman video would follow the exact same line of argument that seems like the only tool left in the socialist's toolbox. That argument is:
If you do not like socialism, you don't know what it is because I, David Pakman, am the sole individual on the face of the planet who knows what true socialism is. If you don't believe me, David Pakman, then give me your definition of socialism and I will tell you why you are wrong because I am just that much smarter than you. If you provide examples of failed socialism, you are merely confusing socialism, which is good, for something else such as communism, right wing totlaitarianism, Marxism, unfettered capitalism, or anything else, which is bad. I David Pakman know you are wrong because if it was good, it would be socialism, but it is bad, so therefore it is something else.
In the first few minutes, David Pakman gives a definition of socialism:
A system of governance in which the state or the collective control the means of production. You can probably turn the video off at that moment because everything after that, the omniscient David Pakman simply shreds that definition of socialism and reverts to the socialism = good and everything else = bad definition. Mr. Pakman gave several examples where socialism was successful, such as the Sumerian Empire, but if I remember my history lessons, medieval serfdom was a step up for the average field grunt than the life of universal bondage of Sumeria. David Pakman, the wise, also used the system of government of Catalonia in the 1920's as an example of successful socialist countries, although he failed to mention that Catalonia soon fell under the dictatorship of Franco by the 1930's, so one would have to ask why a country which was obliterated is a good metric of success.
After about the 17 minute mark of the video, (or was it 17 years? It was pretty hard to tell.) Mr. Pakman the Magnificent declared that the socialist government of Venezuela wasn't really socialist in spite of the fact that Venezuela's government took over the means of production, which was exactly the definition that Mr. Pakman used to define socialism because, well, Venezuela's government was bad and bad is equal to not socialism.
After the 18 minute mark, at least I think it was 18 minutes because at that point in time I suffered a blottery acid flashback form my high school days of over indulgence as mind was screaming to get away from my ears. Anyways, at 18 minutes, David Pakman, who is just so much smarter than you, declared that the main examples of socialist success were the Nordic states, even though the Nordic states do not have control over the means of production and therefore seems to contradict David Pakman's own definition of socialism, but you are not David Pakman, you lazy minded cur, because Nordic states are good and therefore socialist.
The second video was of David Pakman explaining why he was a Socialist Democrat, as opposed to a Democrat Socialist because one is good and the other isn't and if you don't know the difference, it is because you are not David Pakman.
All and all, the videos were painful to endure and wholly and completely predictable. I wish David Pakman simply told the truth which I suspect is this:
David Pakman is an insecure person who feels like he will never be successful and socialism is the only means where he can get more out of society than he contributes which makes socialism a good deal.
Your assertion is that David Packman has the ability to define socialism for everyone? That's extraordinary. Will the gulags filled with the socialists who disagree with him be named Packman education camps?
What I hear from socialists are the definitions of problems that socialism intends to address. What I don't hear from socialists are solutions to problems that don't require the exercise of concentrated power of one group upon another. Those excitations wear many different masks, they are dressed in different costumes, but in the end they are all the same pig underneath. They are all founded in a controlled and forced redistribution of resources in a way that is completely divorced from the mechanisms that actually produce those resources.
Is the author of this thread a BOT? So much spamming and like 5-10 threads a day... it’s a DNC BOT
And once the government gains power they will never willingly give it back. In fact the government becomes worse than any corporation could ever dream of being.
I just said his video is educational. Why is everyone kneejerking? Just watch it, give it a chance. If you refute what he says, then do it.
yes, Trump is, but he is still our President for a few more months
This isnt cunning. Socialism is essentually protection of property rights. Labour is ensured the rights to the value of its work.
Marxism? We do have Marxist approaches to socialism, but it isnt a necessary condition. Schumpeter predicted socialism as the eventual outcome to the creative destruction process. Are right wingers who refer to creative destruction Socialist or Marxist? Of course not. However, we do know that Marxism is crucial in understanding capitalism. From unemployment to discrimination, the Marxist perspective is crucial. Anti-Marxists ironically are just ensuring economic ignorance.
And communism? Its an evolutionary outcome which hasn't happened. So why refer to it? You might have confused yourself with state capitalism (where the coercion involved is critiqued by the left). Here, we simply have the elite benefiting from replacement of the market with the economic planner. Exploitation of labour continues.
The video has been thoroughly debunked. It's just a guy with false opinions and an agenda.
Conservatism is exclusive of Socialism and Marxism.
That's not what you said in the post I quoted. I've asked many times for a definition of socialism that all socialists can agree upon. I gave one for capitalism. You said the video is that. Now it's not that?
The assertion that socialism is an elusive butterfly that exists in the penumbra of governments that do not call themselves socialists, and does not exist within the governments that do is a child's tale that adults laugh at.
If you want to have a democratic socialism, social democracy, or whatever you're trying to call it, you have to deal with the socialists that think that Venezuela is how socialism is implemented. That was their attempt. That's how it turned out.
Those are the people that will be voting in your democracy.
Right wing types have been calling the more Progressive countries of Europe Socialist for most of my life.
They still do it.
Because the world lacks a clear definition, it lacks utility.
Not socialism. The freaking Roman legions built roads all over Europe. Were they socialists or just trying to facilitate the movement of troops from one hot spot to another? The left's ridiculous attempt to redefine socialism as government is not only inaccurate and historically dubious, it is increasingly irritating.
I'm old enough to remember the American socialists applauding when Chavez was elected with 145% of the popular vote. Oh how he would put his boot on the necks of the capitalists.
Now that the primary occupation in Venezuela is digging though the trash to find something to serve as a side dish with their former family pet, suddenly not socialism.
The argument then becomes, oh it was the wrong people in charge.
That's the problem, those pesky non socialists keep getting the reigns of socialism. Why is that?
Very nicely said. Yes, the only way to maintain a socialist economy is authoritarianism. It is amazing how our colleges and universities are hurting our country.
I'll simplify the question. What mechanism prevents a citizen from voting for something that is in their own interest, instead of in the interest of the conceptual socialist system.
If it doesn't, how can such a system be caused to exist? You can't have free choice and limited choice at the same time, so voting makes zero sense in a socialist system.
I do agree that socialism is a poor word for the left wants. What the left wants is more government social spending - the very thing that has put us trillions of dollars in debt. Wrapping up that desire in the term socialism was a mistake. Socialism is complete loser every time. While I don't approve of federal social spending, it has not destroyed us yet like true socialism certainly would have.
It can't debunk a fact. Obviously there is some confusion about semantics. Government social spending does not require socialism. In fact socialism reduces the ability to afford it.
Separate names with a comma.