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

Forums - Politics Discussion - What is "socialism"? - An attempt to clear up myths/misconceptions

o_O.Q said:
VGPolyglot said:

So, the average age of a billionaire is 64 years old, so strength obviously is not the main factor when power comes into play since I'm pretty sure a lot of fit young adults could kick their ass. 

In regards to class, I mean their relation in regards to labour and production.

In terms of differences, lower class people can be either male or female, any age and any race.

"So, the average age of a billionaire is 64 years old"

do you suppose they get their wealth instantaneously at that age or is it more sensible to consider that perhaps they build their wealth through their lifetime?

 

"In regards to class, I mean their relation in regards to labour and production."

so people are all equal when it comes to labour and production?

 

"In terms of differences, lower class people can be either male or female, any age and any race."

yes... so what?

You know what? How about I put you on the defensive for once, since you obviously love to try to just shift what we're saying in attempt to denounce us rather than coming up with sources yourself. Show me sources that explain that socialism means "anything the government does", and that socialist movements actually adopted this position. Also, while we're at it, yes, they do get their wealth instantaneously, because it's often inherited, so it's not from their labour or effort as you're trying to insinuate.



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:

"we do all of the things you listed here."

yes... because america is not a completely capitalist society.. despite what socialist claim... america has a combination socialist and capitalist policies which i would think is actually desirable... giving those who want to excel the space to do so while still maintaining to some degree a safety net for those who aren't well off

 

"Y-yeah socialists support trade unions which is why they also want to ban them (?)."

and how did they ban them? through government intervention right?

 

"Ah nice admission that you didn't read my link about privatization of the Nazi German economy, give it a read why don't you?"

the point i was trying to make is that these sectors were handed over to supporters of the nazi party through the government

and that's the problem with giving all of your rights away because some socialist or communist guarantees that they'll set things right as was the case in germany

 

"Or maybe it's because Nazis and Communists hate each other"

they did.... and your point is what? that this means that the nazis weren't socialist? despite all of the socialist policies i listed and you unintentionally listed?

to reiterate government control over services is socialist in nature

"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

this means that when the government seized the steel works for example, that was a socialist action living up to their name


despite what you may claim the government has always been how the community chooses to regulate things.. that's why there's a vote


capitalism on the other hand is about leaving people to run their business with minimal or no government intervention

 

"Link was a book about an alliance of the DNVP and the Nazis. The DNVP were a party of reactionary conservatives, obviously the natural ally of socialists."

this really means nothing when you actually consider what his actions were and that's all that's really important

Ah, good old "not real capitalism". There's a special irony of someone like yourself using a tactic that the left is accused of using in regards to countries like the USSR and China. Such a thing doesn't exist.

Here's a meme which sums up your argument perfectly:

 

Using your logic, Mr. Dawkins. That means we're all socialists, sure wonder what all those socialists are complaining about if we're all socialist, hm... How about you put down your dictionary and read some socialist literature, maybe you'll learn a bit about what socialists believe. Capitalism is not an ideology, it's a mode of production. Of course it means something, you don't align with someone that you completely disagree with lmao.

Are you new to politics or something? Hard to believe someone can be as misinformed as you, especially when you've been in this thread for a while.



VGPolyglot said:
o_O.Q said:

"So, the average age of a billionaire is 64 years old"

do you suppose they get their wealth instantaneously at that age or is it more sensible to consider that perhaps they build their wealth through their lifetime?

 

"In regards to class, I mean their relation in regards to labour and production."

so people are all equal when it comes to labour and production?

 

"In terms of differences, lower class people can be either male or female, any age and any race."

yes... so what?

You know what? How about I put you on the defensive for once, since you obviously love to try to just shift what we're saying in attempt to denounce us rather than coming up with sources yourself. Show me sources that explain that socialism means "anything the government does", and that socialist movements actually adopted this position. Also, while we're at it, yes, they do get their wealth instantaneously, because it's often inherited, so it's not from their labour or effort as you're trying to insinuate.

", since you obviously love to try to just shift what we're saying in attempt to denounce us rather than coming up with sources yourself. Show me sources that explain that socialism means "anything the government does""

 

government definition: the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

socialism definition: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

can you give me anything other government used to regulate on a society wide basis?

 

" Also, while we're at it, yes, they do get their wealth instantaneously, because it's often inherited, so it's not from their labour or effort as you're trying to insinuate."

 

did their parents just wave a magic wand and pull the money out of the aether? or did they work for it and pass it down to their descendants?

shouldn't it be obvious that i'm not talking about inheritance? 

are you now advocating for the state to take away the money from rich people when they die? i'm not saying you are implying this i'm just curious and lets not say state lets say "community" because that's different somehow



o_O.Q said:
VGPolyglot said:

You know what? How about I put you on the defensive for once, since you obviously love to try to just shift what we're saying in attempt to denounce us rather than coming up with sources yourself. Show me sources that explain that socialism means "anything the government does", and that socialist movements actually adopted this position. Also, while we're at it, yes, they do get their wealth instantaneously, because it's often inherited, so it's not from their labour or effort as you're trying to insinuate.

", since you obviously love to try to just shift what we're saying in attempt to denounce us rather than coming up with sources yourself. Show me sources that explain that socialism means "anything the government does""

 

government definition: the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

socialism definition: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

can you give me anything other government used to regulate on a society wide basis?

 

" Also, while we're at it, yes, they do get their wealth instantaneously, because it's often inherited, so it's not from their labour or effort as you're trying to insinuate."

 

did their parents just wave a magic wand and pull the money out of the aether? or did they work for it and pass it down to their descendants?

shouldn't it be obvious that i'm not talking about inheritance? 

are you now advocating for the state to take away the money from rich people when they die? i'm not saying you are implying this i'm just curious and lets not say state lets say "community" because that's different somehow

OK, so for government you didn't mean state, you meant a governing body of any community? Wouldn't that mean essentially every corporation is socialist then, since they govern their community of workers? In that sense capitalism doesn't exist then. And I'm advocating for the elimination of the state, wealth and classes in general, not merely social democratic policies.

Last edited by VGPolyglot - on 07 February 2018

Leadified said:
o_O.Q said:

"we do all of the things you listed here."

yes... because america is not a completely capitalist society.. despite what socialist claim... america has a combination socialist and capitalist policies which i would think is actually desirable... giving those who want to excel the space to do so while still maintaining to some degree a safety net for those who aren't well off

 

"Y-yeah socialists support trade unions which is why they also want to ban them (?)."

and how did they ban them? through government intervention right?

 

"Ah nice admission that you didn't read my link about privatization of the Nazi German economy, give it a read why don't you?"

the point i was trying to make is that these sectors were handed over to supporters of the nazi party through the government

and that's the problem with giving all of your rights away because some socialist or communist guarantees that they'll set things right as was the case in germany

 

"Or maybe it's because Nazis and Communists hate each other"

they did.... and your point is what? that this means that the nazis weren't socialist? despite all of the socialist policies i listed and you unintentionally listed?

to reiterate government control over services is socialist in nature

"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

this means that when the government seized the steel works for example, that was a socialist action living up to their name


despite what you may claim the government has always been how the community chooses to regulate things.. that's why there's a vote


capitalism on the other hand is about leaving people to run their business with minimal or no government intervention

 

"Link was a book about an alliance of the DNVP and the Nazis. The DNVP were a party of reactionary conservatives, obviously the natural ally of socialists."

this really means nothing when you actually consider what his actions were and that's all that's really important

Ah, good old "not real capitalism". There's a special irony of someone like yourself using a tactic that the left is accused of using in regards to countries like the USSR and China. Such a thing doesn't exist.

Here's a meme which sums up your argument perfectly:

 

Using your logic, Mr. Dawkins. That means we're all socialists, sure wonder what all those socialists are complaining about if we're all socialist, hm... How about you put down your dictionary and read some socialist literature, maybe you'll learn a bit about what socialists believe. Capitalism is not an ideology, it's a mode of production. Of course it means something, you don't align with someone that you completely disagree with lmao.

Are you new to politics or something? Hard to believe someone can be as misinformed as you, especially when you've been in this thread for a while.

"Ah, good old "not real capitalism"."

with regards to what? be specific because honestly i'm lost now

we went from talking about hitler's socialist policies (which you have not addressed btw) to talking about... well honestly i'm lost now

 

"Using your logic, Mr. Dawkins. That means we're all socialists"

that what? americans are all socialists? what are you talking about? please state clearly what i've posted that means we're all socialists

 

" Capitalism is not an ideology, it's a mode of production."

when did i claim that its an ideology? this what i stated about capitalism

"capitalism on the other hand is about leaving people to run their business with minimal or no government intervention"

 

" Of course it means something, you don't align with someone that you completely disagree with lmao."

i'm going to assume this is about your laim that hitler was allied with right wingers

...ok so what about his many socialist policies?

which is more important in determining his stance? his actions and policies or who he claims to be allies with?

something i'm really curious about btw is are you in denial that him seizing various private businesses is a socialist measure?

 

"How about you put down your dictionary and read some socialist literature, maybe you'll learn a bit about what socialists believe."

i have... i've gone all the way back to the origins of the term "liberal" and the first may 1st labour day which no one talks about now lol and i'm sure you don't know... since if you did you wouldn't be advocating for this ideology but this a digression are you giving up on talking about hitler's socialist policies?

 

is this like some kind of cop out now or something? lol if so its amusing thank you 



Around the Network
VGPolyglot said:
o_O.Q said:

", since you obviously love to try to just shift what we're saying in attempt to denounce us rather than coming up with sources yourself. Show me sources that explain that socialism means "anything the government does""

 

government definition: the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

socialism definition: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

can you give me anything other government used to regulate on a society wide basis?

 

" Also, while we're at it, yes, they do get their wealth instantaneously, because it's often inherited, so it's not from their labour or effort as you're trying to insinuate."

 

did their parents just wave a magic wand and pull the money out of the aether? or did they work for it and pass it down to their descendants?

shouldn't it be obvious that i'm not talking about inheritance? 

are you now advocating for the state to take away the money from rich people when they die? i'm not saying you are implying this i'm just curious and lets not say state lets say "community" because that's different somehow

OK, so for government you didn't mean state, you meant a governing body of any community? Wouldn't that mean essentially every corporation is socialist then, since they govern their community of workers? In that sense capitalism doesn't exist then. And I'm advocating for the elimination of the state, wealth and classes in general, not merely social democratic policies.

"Wouldn't that mean essentially every corporation is socialist then, since they govern their community of workers?"

how in the fuck do you jump from i said to this?



o_O.Q said:
VGPolyglot said:

OK, so for government you didn't mean state, you meant a governing body of any community? Wouldn't that mean essentially every corporation is socialist then, since they govern their community of workers? In that sense capitalism doesn't exist then. And I'm advocating for the elimination of the state, wealth and classes in general, not merely social democratic policies.

"Wouldn't that mean essentially every corporation is socialist then, since they govern their community of workers?"

how in the fuck do you jump from i said to this?

A business is a body that governs its community of workers, so if a body that governs a community counts as government, then every business is a government, and through your claim that government action is socialist, that means that every business is socialist. So, what is capitalism then if every business is socialist? People that work on their own or people that work without registering as a business?



VGPolyglot said:
o_O.Q said:

"Wouldn't that mean essentially every corporation is socialist then, since they govern their community of workers?"

how in the fuck do you jump from i said to this?

A business is a body that governs its community of workers, so if a body that governs a community counts as government, then every business is a government, and through your claim that government action is socialist, that means that every business is socialist. So, what is capitalism then if every business is socialist? People that work on their own or people that work without registering as a business?

 

" so if a body that governs a community counts as government"

we are talking on a state wide basis not down at the level of individual companies obviously... whenever you've heard the term government what were the  people referring to? i mean are you playing dumb right now?

 

" So, what is capitalism"

as i've said capitalism refers to private ownership of businesses 

if the government then chooses to seize control of a business that is socialism at work as i said to the other guy



o_O.Q said:
VGPolyglot said:

A business is a body that governs its community of workers, so if a body that governs a community counts as government, then every business is a government, and through your claim that government action is socialist, that means that every business is socialist. So, what is capitalism then if every business is socialist? People that work on their own or people that work without registering as a business?

 

" so if a body that governs a community counts as government"

we are talking on a state wide basis not down at the level of individual companies obviously... whenever you've heard the term government what were the  people referring to? i mean are you playing dumb right now?

 

" So, what is capitalism"

as i've said capitalism refers to private ownership of businesses 

if the government then chooses to seize control of a business that is socialism at work as i said to the other guy

Ah, so government just means the state then? So does that mean that trade unions can't be considered socialist if they're independent from the state? And if capitalism is private ownership of business, why would the government seizing control of it count as socialism? They could just seize it and re-privatize it, so that'd still count as capitalism then.



o_O.Q said:
Leadified said:

Ah, good old "not real capitalism". There's a special irony of someone like yourself using a tactic that the left is accused of using in regards to countries like the USSR and China. Such a thing doesn't exist.

Here's a meme which sums up your argument perfectly:

 

Using your logic, Mr. Dawkins. That means we're all socialists, sure wonder what all those socialists are complaining about if we're all socialist, hm... How about you put down your dictionary and read some socialist literature, maybe you'll learn a bit about what socialists believe. Capitalism is not an ideology, it's a mode of production. Of course it means something, you don't align with someone that you completely disagree with lmao.

Are you new to politics or something? Hard to believe someone can be as misinformed as you, especially when you've been in this thread for a while.

"Ah, good old "not real capitalism"."

with regards to what? be specific because honestly i'm lost now

we went from talking about hitler's socialist policies (which you have not addressed btw) to talking about... well honestly i'm lost now

 

"Using your logic, Mr. Dawkins. That means we're all socialists"

that what? americans are all socialists? what are you talking about? please state clearly what i've posted that means we're all socialists

 

" Capitalism is not an ideology, it's a mode of production."

when did i claim that its an ideology? this what i stated about capitalism

"capitalism on the other hand is about leaving people to run their business with minimal or no government intervention"

 

" Of course it means something, you don't align with someone that you completely disagree with lmao."

i'm going to assume this is about your laim that hitler was allied with right wingers

...ok so what about his many socialist policies?

which is more important in determining his stance? his actions and policies or who he claims to be allies with?

something i'm really curious about btw is are you in denial that him seizing various private businesses is a socialist measure?

 

"How about you put down your dictionary and read some socialist literature, maybe you'll learn a bit about what socialists believe."

i have... i've gone all the way back to the origins of the word "liberal" which no one talks about now lol and i'm sure you don't know... since if you did you wouldn't be advocating for this ideology but this a digression are you giving up on talking about hitler's socialist policies?

 

is this like some kind of cop out now or something? lol if so its amusing thank you 

You're hilarious, dude. I am greatly amused by your posts.

First go back and read my post, I already debunked your post: Yes and HOT DOGS are also made out of real dogs! Maybe you don't live in a first world country but surprise, we do all of the things you listed here.

YOU equated social security with socialism when you listed Hitler's "socialist policies", somehow you didn't realise that most of those policies are also implemented in practically ever developed country today. Whoops! I thought you were trying to debunk socialism here?

Your definition of capitalism is a fantasy, it doesn't work like that in the real world, and it never did.

Are you in denial about Hitler privatizing the economy? If you read the link you would know that the property used to be public, hence PRIVATIZATION therefore your point is moot.

Nice, which socialist literature did you read? Let us all know, I eagerly await to see.


So let's review. You replied to Jaicee and used Nazi Germany as an example of socialism gone wrong. I countered it, then you shot back by listing social security measures the Nazis did, which I stated is used by other countries, which then you approved of (surprisingly), so I turned your argument on you to conclude that all who use these measures must be socialist, and now you're confused.

You're confused because you've effectively set fire to your own argument here, so now if you don't want to accept the logical conclusion of your own argument. You need to go back to my original post.

Last edited by Leadified - on 07 February 2018