By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Is socialism endan^gered in The United States?

MDMAlliance on 22 September 2013
DonFerrari said:
MDMAlliance said:
As for both of you, neither one of you want to admit you're wrong about what Socialism is. I didn't say "Germany is Socialist." I VERY specifically said they were a Democratic Socialist state. They have Socialist attributes, and no that "Socialist" part does not mean "human rights." That makes absolutely no sense, and human rights does not have an objective definition. It's a problem and the U.N basically decides what "human rights" are.

DonFerrari and Crazed, you both don't know what Socialism is. You think it is purely just what Marx says you need to have before you can achieve Socialism or what Marx wants of a Socialist or Communist state (they are different, Marx believed Socialism would come first, then Communism would follow). You guys are saying that Socialism is about complete control over the people by the government, but I clearly showed you what it meant and you still disregard my clear answer. And the whole loaded words, Crazed... you obviously don't study these things like I do.

To say "confiscate" makes it sound like Socialism is about taking what's rightfully yours and gives it to others. That isn't what it is. But no matter what I say, you'll put it back to that anyway and say "it's the same thing anyway" with your pedantic B.S. All I know in the end is that I'm arguing with two people who refuse to admit recognize that Socialism is not evil.

I agree with you, socialism is not evil, socialist people usually are... and having social concerns doesn't make a country socialist, if that was the case almost every country is socialist... as I said you cherry pick what definition you seem fit... cuba, china, vietnam, cuba, venezuela aren't socialist but germany is, are you sure?


I didn't say Germany is Socialist, I said they are a Democratic Socialist state. 
Democratic socialism is a variant of socialism that rejects centralized, elitist, or authoritarian methods of transitioning from capitalism to socialism in favor of grassroots-level movements aiming for the immediate creation of decentralized economic democracy. Most notably, democratic socialists reject the perceived authoritarian character of Vanguardism and similar ideas central to Leninismand Marxist-Leninist socialist movements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 22 September 2013

I don't see how socialism is dying in the US in fact it's growing evidently and this is what will cause the US to collapse because of government subsidizations of property. (Look here Odumbdumb we don't have any f#cking money left and clearly your the one to have spent it irresponsibly.)



DonFerrari on 22 September 2013
MDMAlliance said:
DonFerrari said:
MDMAlliance said:
As for both of you, neither one of you want to admit you're wrong about what Socialism is. I didn't say "Germany is Socialist." I VERY specifically said they were a Democratic Socialist state. They have Socialist attributes, and no that "Socialist" part does not mean "human rights." That makes absolutely no sense, and human rights does not have an objective definition. It's a problem and the U.N basically decides what "human rights" are.

DonFerrari and Crazed, you both don't know what Socialism is. You think it is purely just what Marx says you need to have before you can achieve Socialism or what Marx wants of a Socialist or Communist state (they are different, Marx believed Socialism would come first, then Communism would follow). You guys are saying that Socialism is about complete control over the people by the government, but I clearly showed you what it meant and you still disregard my clear answer. And the whole loaded words, Crazed... you obviously don't study these things like I do.

To say "confiscate" makes it sound like Socialism is about taking what's rightfully yours and gives it to others. That isn't what it is. But no matter what I say, you'll put it back to that anyway and say "it's the same thing anyway" with your pedantic B.S. All I know in the end is that I'm arguing with two people who refuse to admit recognize that Socialism is not evil.

I agree with you, socialism is not evil, socialist people usually are... and having social concerns doesn't make a country socialist, if that was the case almost every country is socialist... as I said you cherry pick what definition you seem fit... cuba, china, vietnam, cuba, venezuela aren't socialist but germany is, are you sure?


I didn't say Germany is Socialist, I said they are a Democratic Socialist state. 
Democratic socialism is a variant of socialism that rejects centralized, elitist, or authoritarian methods of transitioning from capitalism to socialism in favor of grassroots-level movements aiming for the immediate creation of decentralized economic democracy. Most notably, democratic socialists reject the perceived authoritarian character of Vanguardism and similar ideas central to Leninismand Marxist-Leninist socialist movements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

That i can accept as reasoning, but still don't make socialism good, since as you said is democratic socialism, not socialism... and even so I preffer a small government control and size (I live in Brazil and I'm sorry to say it's impossible to trust any government here, so its a case of the smaller the better - and don't even matter the inclination of the party there - have been burned to many times).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

MDMAlliance on 22 September 2013
DonFerrari said:
MDMAlliance said:
DonFerrari said:

I agree with you, socialism is not evil, socialist people usually are... and having social concerns doesn't make a country socialist, if that was the case almost every country is socialist... as I said you cherry pick what definition you seem fit... cuba, china, vietnam, cuba, venezuela aren't socialist but germany is, are you sure?


I didn't say Germany is Socialist, I said they are a Democratic Socialist state. 
Democratic socialism is a variant of socialism that rejects centralized, elitist, or authoritarian methods of transitioning from capitalism to socialism in favor of grassroots-level movements aiming for the immediate creation of decentralized economic democracy. Most notably, democratic socialists reject the perceived authoritarian character of Vanguardism and similar ideas central to Leninismand Marxist-Leninist socialist movements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

That i can accept as reasoning, but still don't make socialism good, since as you said is democratic socialism, not socialism... and even so I preffer a small government control and size (I live in Brazil and I'm sorry to say it's impossible to trust any government here, so its a case of the smaller the better - and don't even matter the inclination of the party there - have been burned to many times).


If you're arguing about pure Socialism, then I don't think there are any States that are.

However, whether or not you know it, public education (free or subsidized) is a socialistic idea.  Same for anything the government helps pay for that can be used by anyone.  Roads, schools, etc.  In a capitalistic state, the corporations would be the ones paying for it.  Both of these things exist in the United States.  The government pays for the roads and maintenance, while they will often times hire private companies to do the work.  These are things that Socialism does.  The reason it counts as Socialism is because your taxes go to pay for it.   The government makes money only from taxes.



nuckles87 on 22 September 2013
MDMAlliance said:
As for both of you, neither one of you want to admit you're wrong about what Socialism is. I didn't say "Germany is Socialist." I VERY specifically said they were a Democratic Socialist state. They have Socialist attributes, and no that "Socialist" part does not mean "human rights." That makes absolutely no sense, and human rights does not have an objective definition. It's a problem and the U.N basically decides what "human rights" are.

DonFerrari and Crazed, you both don't know what Socialism is. You think it is purely just what Marx says you need to have before you can achieve Socialism or what Marx wants of a Socialist or Communist state (they are different, Marx believed Socialism would come first, then Communism would follow). You guys are saying that Socialism is about complete control over the people by the government, but I clearly showed you what it meant and you still disregard my clear answer. And the whole loaded words, Crazed... you obviously don't study these things like I do.

To say "confiscate" makes it sound like Socialism is about taking what's rightfully yours and gives it to others. That isn't what it is. But no matter what I say, you'll put it back to that anyway and say "it's the same thing anyway" with your pedantic B.S. All I know in the end is that I'm arguing with two people who refuse to admit recognize that Socialism is not evil.

I'm curious: would you say that America has socialistic attributes? What would you define publically owned institutions such as the military, police, fire fighters?

Edit: It seems you just answered my question. From everything I have read and studied, I understood institutions like this, programs like medicare, publc works such as the highways and the Hoover Dam, to be socialistic projects. For a moment there I thought you were implying that they weren't.



Around the Network
MDMAlliance on 22 September 2013
nuckles87 said:
MDMAlliance said:
As for both of you, neither one of you want to admit you're wrong about what Socialism is. I didn't say "Germany is Socialist." I VERY specifically said they were a Democratic Socialist state. They have Socialist attributes, and no that "Socialist" part does not mean "human rights." That makes absolutely no sense, and human rights does not have an objective definition. It's a problem and the U.N basically decides what "human rights" are.

DonFerrari and Crazed, you both don't know what Socialism is. You think it is purely just what Marx says you need to have before you can achieve Socialism or what Marx wants of a Socialist or Communist state (they are different, Marx believed Socialism would come first, then Communism would follow). You guys are saying that Socialism is about complete control over the people by the government, but I clearly showed you what it meant and you still disregard my clear answer. And the whole loaded words, Crazed... you obviously don't study these things like I do.

To say "confiscate" makes it sound like Socialism is about taking what's rightfully yours and gives it to others. That isn't what it is. But no matter what I say, you'll put it back to that anyway and say "it's the same thing anyway" with your pedantic B.S. All I know in the end is that I'm arguing with two people who refuse to admit recognize that Socialism is not evil.

I'm curious: would you say that America has socialistic attributes? What would you define publically owned institutions such as the military, police, fire fighters?

There's absoultely no denying that the United States has socialistic attributes. 



nuckles87 on 22 September 2013

So in other words, we all enjoy the benefits of socialism every day: the roads we use, the schools that teach us, the military that protects us...



DonFerrari on 22 September 2013
MDMAlliance said:
DonFerrari said:
MDMAlliance said:
DonFerrari said:

I agree with you, socialism is not evil, socialist people usually are... and having social concerns doesn't make a country socialist, if that was the case almost every country is socialist... as I said you cherry pick what definition you seem fit... cuba, china, vietnam, cuba, venezuela aren't socialist but germany is, are you sure?


I didn't say Germany is Socialist, I said they are a Democratic Socialist state. 
Democratic socialism is a variant of socialism that rejects centralized, elitist, or authoritarian methods of transitioning from capitalism to socialism in favor of grassroots-level movements aiming for the immediate creation of decentralized economic democracy. Most notably, democratic socialists reject the perceived authoritarian character of Vanguardism and similar ideas central to Leninismand Marxist-Leninist socialist movements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

That i can accept as reasoning, but still don't make socialism good, since as you said is democratic socialism, not socialism... and even so I preffer a small government control and size (I live in Brazil and I'm sorry to say it's impossible to trust any government here, so its a case of the smaller the better - and don't even matter the inclination of the party there - have been burned to many times).


If you're arguing about pure Socialism, then I don't think there are any States that are.

However, whether or not you know it, public education (free or subsidized) is a socialistic idea.  Same for anything the government helps pay for that can be used by anyone.  Roads, schools, etc.  In a capitalistic state, the corporations would be the ones paying for it.  Both of these things exist in the United States.  The government pays for the roads and maintenance, while they will often times hire private companies to do the work.  These are things that Socialism does.  The reason it counts as Socialism is because your taxes go to pay for it.   The government makes money only from taxes.

I myself think that there isn't anything the government does that a private company can't do better... and public education and infraestructure are things that preced socialism (but I won't dewell in that to far), and you are still confunding pure free initiative vs estatism with capitalism vs socialism. But that don't matter, as far as we agree that "pure" socialism is a cancer and most of its avocates have hidden agenda I'm fine. I'm not libertarian or total free market so won't discuss against you that some services can't be left for private companies because they only do profitable investiments, and there are things that don't profit or that for it to be profitable much wouldn't have acess...

But food stamps aren't a thing i approve in the way it's applied (at least here) there is no return, just "donation of taxes" to the alleged poor... but initiatives as the infraestructure being built with government funds employing people in dire needs I can support because I see a win situation for everybody (and I also see the benefits of education support, but not always done right)... but I simply can't acept most of the "rights" people claim are needed support from tax money.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

haxxiy on 22 September 2013
nuckles87 said:
So in other words, we all enjoy the benefits of socialism every day: the roads we use, the schools that teach us, the military that protects us...


Do not mistake social contract for social solidarity. The notion of socialism is closer to the later rather than the former.

I don't know where this notion that anything the State does is automatically socialism as opposed to, well, statism. That's close to doublespeak IMO.



 

 

 

 

 

DonFerrari on 22 September 2013
haxxiy said:
nuckles87 said:
So in other words, we all enjoy the benefits of socialism every day: the roads we use, the schools that teach us, the military that protects us...


Do not mistake social contract for social solidarity. The notion of socialism is closer to the later rather than the former.


And almost everything he listed is prior to the notion of even capitalism...

And socialism would be "you are obligated to enlist the army (here it is, but we also had military dictatorship), private school is banned, all transportation is owned/controlled by the government".

And would be really strange if public roads were all private owned and you had to pay a small fee for each street you change...



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."