Using basic terms incorrectly...

[Bad_Doggie]

Then by your argument, every US government since Independence has been socialist. They only differ in degrees of governmental control.

PS: Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is socialist by your use of socialism.

Not only every US government, but, every government that has ever been or will be; except perhaps, for a short period of time during the industrial revolution.

His definition is essentially meaningless; to mean anything, socialism has to be a desire for the means by which society produces things to be held in common, by the whole of that society, rather than by a clique of people who become very rich whilst the poor have no stake and little say, at all, in the society in which they live.

By means of production and distribution, we are especially talking about agriculture and heavy “smokestack” industries being owned by the state.

What he seems to be confusing here is the state upholding the economic order <sic> the ownership of the means of production by capitalists……(although not him which the state regards as a prole) with what is the standard definition of socialism is (Marx)….overthrowing ownership of the means of production by capitalists, and consequently, overthrowing the state that upholds the economic order.

Woof!

 

[jaF0]

Government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services.

Ask a truck driver or railroad engineer how much control the Government has over the loads they carry, vehicles they drive, routes they can travel, hours of driving vs. rest, etc.

 

[oggbashan]

Not only every US government, but, every government that has ever been or will be, except perhaps, for a short period of time during the industrial revolution.

His definition is essentially meaningless; to mean anything, socialism has to be a desire for the means by which society produces things to be held in common, by the whole of that society, rather than by a clique of people who become very rich whilst the poor have no stake and little say, at all, in the society in which they live.

By means of production and distribution, we are especially talking about agriculture and heavy “smokestack” industries being owned by the state.

What he seems to be confusing here is the state upholding the economic order <sic> the ownership of the means of production by capitalists……(although not him as the state regards as a prole) with what is the standard definition of socialism is (Marx)….overthrowing ownership of the means of production by capitalists, and consequently, overthrowing the state that upholds the economic order.

Woof!

I agree. But most 'socialism' as practised by such hard left states that have existed just transfers ownership by capitalists to a clique of 'socialist' leaders who consider themselves more equal than the rest, and therefore entitled to the proceeds of the transferred ownership.

The rest of the population is no better off. They have just changed the people who exploit them.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I agree. But most 'socialism' as practised by such hard left states that have existed just transfers ownership by capitalists to a clique of 'socialist' leaders who consider themselves more equal than the rest, and therefore entitled to the proceeds of the transferred ownership.

The rest of the population is no better off. They have just changed the people who exploit them.

I think most would agree who aren’t intent to make up their own definitions.

Sure…..there’s cronyism and corruption in socialism as much as there is in capitalism. That said socialism (light) as practised by the Nordic countries seems to work quite well.

I would also say the UK 50’s to 70’s was socialist…..which didn’t work so well, although that seems to being more and more disputed <sic> trains etc.

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

So what exactly where you claiming in these two statements?

That government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services is socialist.

And that regulations are the primary method of government control.

What part of that are you having such a hard time with?

Then by your argument, every US government since Independence has been socialist. They only differ in degrees of governmental control.

For the most part yes. The more government control over the means of production/exchange the more socialist.

We also give different names to it based upon the sales pitch involved for promoting said government control.

PS: Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is socialist by your use of socialism.

Most of it yea. I don't include the national defense stuff in there as it's

His definition is essentially meaningless; to mean anything, socialism has to be a desire for the means by which society produces things to be held in common, by the whole of that society.

That's just another way to say government control over the means of production, distribution and change of goods and services.

I'm glad we agree.

What he seems to be confusing here is the state upholding the economic order <sic> the ownership of the means of production by capitalists……(although not him which the state regards as a prole) with what is the standard definition of socialism is (Marx)….overthrowing ownership of the means of production by capitalists, and consequently, overthrowing the state that upholds the economic order.

Woof!

Now you're just making up a bunch of bullshit.

Ask a truck driver or railroad engineer how much control the Government has over the loads they carry, vehicles they drive, routes they can travel, hours of driving vs. rest, etc.

I know...that's why I say the USA isn't a capitalist nation.

We SWAT team lemonade stands and lawn boys, there isn't a single market here that is even remotely free.

I agree. But most 'socialism' as practised by such hard left states that have existed just transfers ownership by capitalists to a clique of 'socialist' leaders who consider themselves more equal than the rest, and therefore entitled to the proceeds of the transferred ownership.

The rest of the population is no better off. They have just changed the people who exploit them.

One of the biggest difference between the two with regard to exploitation is capitalist don't have the power of government....socialist do.

Sure…..there’s cronyism and corruption in socialism as much as there is in capitalism. That said socialism (light) as practised by the Nordic countries seems to work quite well.

What is "crony capitalism" to you?

 

[water505]

I love how the nazis are openly stating that they support trump, but people on here are attempting to claim that they're leftists.

Goobers indeed.

What do you call someone who calls people names because he's too stupid to discuss the issues?

Richard Daley.

 

[water505]

You are... and you refuse to acknowledge it, or post any proof that backs up any of your definitions...

You're misusing in this thread: socialism, left and right ideologies, and a couple of other terms as well.

Either show and prove, or stop using these words incorrectly.

Calling people Nazis is using the word, incorrectly, isn't it?

I love how you lecture people for things you do all the time.

The worst thing about being stupid is everyone knows it but you.

 

[Que]

Bad Doggie is describing communism, which is a subset of socialism, not a requirement of socialism.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

That's just another way to say government control over the means of production, distribution and change of goods and services.

I'm glad we agree.

No it’s not and you’ve been told repeatedly and not just by me the issue is ownership…..and this you repeatedly choose to ignore because it doesn’t fit with your world view, despite Websters, Oxford, Marx telling you otherwise.

Now you're just making up a bunch of bullshit....

Nothing made up, and therein shows how little you’ve actually read on the topic

overthrowing ownership of the means of production by capitalists, and consequently, overthrowing the state that upholds the economic order.

Is pretty much a direct quote from Marx (as best as I can remember it).

What he seems to be confusing here is the state upholding the economic order <sic> the ownership of the means of production by capitalists……(although not him which the state regards as a prole)

It’s the only explanation I have why you seem, constantly, confused about what Socialism is. This is in reference to what you have written elsewhere regarding how difficult it is to start a business in the US with the amount of regulation etc.

If your government is regulating in such a way as you, or others, cannot operate/start your/their business in favour of your multi-million dollar established competitor this is not socialism.

If your government is regulating in such a way as no one except the state or community can operate this business then this is socialism to some degree.

Woof!

 

[oggbashan]

...

One of the biggest difference between the two with regard to exploitation is capitalist don't have the power of government....socialist do.

What is "crony capitalism" to you?

I'll just pick up one point of your ridiculous response:

Who funds the US political parties? Who pays the lobbyists who try to influence US government decisions?

The US government is RUN by capitalists, whichever party is currently in power. That US government controls many aspects of US business, but is influenced by capitalists.

The people? Do you seriously think the people influence the decisions your government makes?

Money talks. It always has. It always will.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Bad Doggie is describing communism, which is a subset of socialism, not a requirement of socialism.

No it's not a requirement of socialism. It is the final inevitable stage of society in Marxist theory.

And there-in it should give you a clue that it is a political rather than economic subset of Marxist theory.

Woof!

 

[Que]

No it's not a requirement of socialism. It is the final inevitable stage of society in Marxist theory.

And there-in it should give you a clue that it is a political rather than economic subset of Marxist theory.

Woof!

It is the economic reality. Nothing about government screwing around with means of production increases wealth. The endgame is communism because you can temporarily profit from confiscating someone else's wealth.

 

[Que]

I'll just pick up one point of your ridiculous response:

Who funds the US political parties? Who pays the lobbyists who try to influence US government decisions?

The US government is RUN by capitalists, whichever party is currently in power. That US government controls many aspects of US business, but is influenced by capitalists.

The people? Do you seriously think the people influence the decisions your government makes?

Money talks. It always has. It always will.

Ultimately money has only two avenues to influence who are the politicians.

First is directly paying for essentially marketing that politician. That produces mixed results. Hillary outspent Trump 2-to-1 and lost.

The second is to lobby for changes that at least enough actual voters favor.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No it’s not

Yes it is.

and you’ve been told repeatedly and not just by me the issue is ownership

No it's not, it's control because control is effective ownership.

.and this you repeatedly choose to ignore because it doesn’t fit with your world view, despite Websters, Oxford, Marx telling you otherwise.

Oxford backs me up, so does Marx.

your government is regulating in such a way as you, or others, cannot operate/start your/their business in favour of your multi-million dollar established competitor this is not socialism.

Yes it is, because it is government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services.

If your government is regulating in such a way as no one except the state or community can operate this business then this is socialism to some degree.

Woof!

That's communism....maxed out totalitarian socialism.


Definition of communism
1
a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2
capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism


That doesn't mean state control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services isn't socialism.

I'll just pick up one point of your ridiculous response:

Who funds the US political parties? Who pays the lobbyists who try to influence US government decisions?

Special interest.

What is so ridiculous about my response?

US government is RUN by capitalists,

Then why are they pushing so much socialist shit in an effort to destroy capitalism?? Doing all they can to push the government to close markets off and prevent economic participation??

Because they aren't capitalist....they are socialist.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

It is the economic reality. Nothing about government screwing around with means of production increases wealth.

Umm this relates to socialism and not communism really.

And no-one has ever claimed that it increases wealth….what it claims to do is a fairer distribution of wealth, i.e. between the owners (state/commune/ workers) and the workers. And it seems to work reasonably well in the Nordic states.

However, it’s downfall, in my opinion, is that long term it doesn’t work across the board as this system lacks completion which stifles innovation and tends to lead to a malaise and economic stagnation/downfall.

The endgame is communism because you can temporarily profit from confiscating someone else's wealth.

Well that’s as loose a definition as to make little sense, but, I guess you could call it the “end game.”

The “end game” being a political/governmental system which Marx saw as the inevitable conclusion of a socialist economic system.

So basically what are Socialism and Communism?

The former is an economic system, the latter a political/governmental system. You can have capitalism (of some degree) under communism (China, Vietnam) and socialism under a multi-party democracy (Sweden, Norway etc).

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

The former is an economic system, the latter a political/governmental system. You can have capitalism (of some degree) under communism (China, Vietnam) and socialism under a multi-party democracy (Sweden, Norway etc).

Woof!

LOL you think China is capitalist?

Here let me help you out....

Capitalism
NOUN

mass noun
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/capitalism


Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism


Further more how do you reconcile the two existing in the same political space given their definitions?


Definition of communism
1
a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2
capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism


Communism (economic totalitarianism) and capitalism (economic anarchy) are totally incompatible and directly opposed to one another. All China has done is back off their totalitarianism and isolationism a bit. They are pretty far from being capitalist though.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Yes it is.

No it's not, it's control because control is effective ownership.

Read the Webster definition again…..or get someone to read it to you, slowly!

Oxford backs me up, so does Marx.

1A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
1.1 Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
1.2 (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/socialism

Lol yeah if you stop your reading at 1 and don’t carry on to points 1.1 and 1.2.

I’ve gotta ask what you think the” economic theory of socialism” and “Marxist theory” actually are?

Yes it is, because it is government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services.

And yet, as Ogg pointed out it’s the Capitalists running the show lol…..they’ve dupe ya hook line and sinker!

You're still ignoring points 1.1 and 1.2 though.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

LOL you think China is capitalist?

Here let me help you out....

Capitalism
NOUN

mass noun
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/capitalism


Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

China is pretty far from being capitalist, they have just backed off their totalitarian communism a teentsy bit.

Aha….exactly what I said and consistent with what I’ve been saying.

Today if I was a Capitalist with a huge amount of capital to invest I can go to China and invest in their businesses or even buy them up completely. I’m now a Capitalist heavily invested in China. And in some instances I would be subjected to less regulation than if I invested in the west….health and safety environment etc.

That’s not to say the economy still isn’t planned to some degree which is why I wrote “to some degree”

It is undeniable that Capitalists are investing in China and undeniable that the system of government is Communist although to a lesser degree than in the past.

50 years ago I couldn’t do that. Why? Because then it was a completely socialist/communist state.

To you and your definition China’s economy is socialist and so is the US, Singapore and very other economy that has ever existed and Capitalist and their ownership of property means absolutely nothing to the way an economy works. Ridiculous.

China is still a totalitarian communism state or do you know of a second political party that the rest of the world doesn't know about?

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Today if I was a Capitalist with a huge amount of capital to invest I can go to China and invest in their businesses or even buy them up completely.

But you cannot control/own them except under the conditions that China allows.

And they are IRON FISTED about it to the extent it's just an investment market. You're not really doing anything but providing money and hoping China gives you some return.

Calling that capitalism is quite the stretch....

It is undeniable that Capitalists are investing in China and undeniable that the system of government is Communist although to a lesser degree than in the past.

China is a market and a lucrative one, but to call their economic/social system a capitalist one is about as funny as when Daily called Stalin and Soviet Russia right wing because left wing = warm fuzzy unicorn farts and right wing = big meanie heads.

To you and your definition China’s economy is socialist and so is the US, Singapore and very other economy that has ever existed and Capitalist and their ownership of property means absolutely nothing to the way an economy works. Ridiculous.

Woof!

You didn't read what I said and made a bunch of assumptions.

I said that socialism is government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services.

Because it is.

I also said and have always maintained that it's a sliding scale, the more government control over those things (production etc.) the more socialist. Yes every government ever has engaged in socialism to some degree with varying degrees of success.

But I have never said that every economy that has ever existed is socialist nor that capitalist and their ownership of property means absolutely nothing to the way an economy works.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your not a totally dishonest piece of shit and just slipped up in the reading department like humans do.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

But you cannot control/own them except under the conditions that China allows.

And they are IRON FISTED about it to the extent it's just an investment market. You're not really doing anything but providing money and hoping China gives you some return.

Calling that capitalism is quite the stretch.... .

China is a market and a lucrative one, but to call their economic/social system a capitalist one is about as funny as when Daily called Stalin and Soviet Russia right wing because left wing = warm fuzzy unicorn farts and right wing = big meanie heads.

McDonald’s, Mercedes Benz, Bosch, Apple and many many more companies and corporations have outlets, production facilities and invest in China and they operate their businesses in exactly the same way as they do in the west; are free to open facilities, negotiate wages, production levels and set prices just as they can in the US. They are Capitalist ventures that operate as they do in the west. That is Capitalism.

The Capitalist can and does control and own his capital, he can choose to invest or sell as he wishes on their stock market as you can on the DOW…..that is Capitalism!

Ergo it is a quasi-Capitalist economy. Like I say try that 50 years ago when it was a Socialist economy, it wouldn’t happen.

You didn't read what I said and made a bunch of assumptions.

I said that socialism is government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services.

Because it is.

I also said and have always maintained that it's a sliding scale, the more government control over those things (production etc.) the more socialist. Yes every government ever has engaged in socialism to some degree with varying degrees of success.

But I have never said that every economy that has ever existed is socialist nor that capitalist and their ownership of property means absolutely nothing to the way an economy works.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your not a totally dishonest piece of shit and just slipped up in the reading department like humans do.

Oh I haven’t slipped up at all and am well aware what you are saying as well as what you are consistently ignoring and not addressing at all.

To you Websters doesn’t exist at all and just in the previous post I asked you what "economic theory of socialism” and “Marxist theory” actually are? They have disappeared as well.

What you are fixated on is this…..

1A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

You totally ignore " should be owned" and can only see "regulated." But, what regulation? Any, all? Who decides, you?

Because when you ignore it, it allows you to determine whatever YOU wish “regulation” to be. To be able to do this you also have to ignore points 1.1 and 1.2 in the Oxford definition because in them we can see what they intend “regulation” to be. That is to say in line with economic theory of socialism and Marxist theory. And if you read up on either of those you will know they both talk about the ownership or collective ownership of the means of production and the distribution of profit to the collective.

You keep mentioning control whilst at the same time ignoring the fact that the Capitalist has control of his capital…..he can choose to invest or not, be in a business or not, invest in the US, Germany or wherever he wants. And also ignore the effect on which Capitalists have on the political landscape and policy making. That he is free to set wages (with-in limits, I’ll give you minimum wage is socialistic), production levels, prices, profit taking etc.

Basically, your definition allows you to brand anything you don’t like Socialist and all we’ve been saying it ain’t so and your definition makes no sense.

Now address the points you keep ignoring or admit you can’t.

Woof!

 

[richard_daily]

That government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services is socialist.

And that regulations are the primary method of government control.

What part of that are you having such a hard time with?

So you are in no way, shape, or form, claiming that government regulations are socialism?

 

[richard_daily]

If your government is regulating in such a way as you, or others, cannot operate/start your/their business in favour of your multi-million dollar established competitor this is not socialism.

If your government is regulating in such a way as no one except the state or community can operate this business then this is socialism to some degree.

Woof!

This (Other than the incorrect spelling of favor).

 

[richard_daily]

Today if I was a Capitalist with a huge amount of capital to invest I can go to China and invest in their businesses or even buy them up completely. I’m now a Capitalist heavily invested in China. And in some instances I would be subjected to less regulation than if I invested in the west….health and safety environment etc.

That’s not to say the economy still isn’t planned to some degree which is why I wrote “to some degree”

It is undeniable that Capitalists are investing in China and undeniable that the system of government is Communist although to a lesser degree than in the past.

50 years ago I couldn’t do that. Why? Because then it was a completely socialist/communist state.

To you and your definition China’s economy is socialist and so is the US, Singapore and very other economy that has ever existed and Capitalist and their ownership of property means absolutely nothing to the way an economy works. Ridiculous.

China is still a totalitarian communism state or do you know of a second political party that the rest of the world doesn't know about?

Woof!

Modern-day China is a great example of how totalitarianism and capitalism work hand-in-hand.

Anyone who claims that capitalists aren't making money off of manufacturing their goods in China is either lying to themselves, or painfully ignorant.

 

[richard_daily]

You totally ignore " should be owned" and can only see "regulated." But, what regulation? Any, all? Who decides, you?

Because when you ignore it, it allows you to determine whatever YOU wish “regulation” to be. To be able to do this you also have to ignore points 1.1 and 1.2 in the Oxford definition because in them we can see what they intend “regulation” to be. That is to say in line with economic theory of socialism and Marxist theory. And if you read up on either of those you will know they both talk about the ownership or collective ownership of the means of production and the distribution of profit to the collective.

You keep mentioning control whilst at the same time ignoring the fact that the Capitalist has control of his capital…..he can choose to invest or not, be in a business or not, invest in the US, Germany or wherever he wants. And also ignore the effect on which Capitalists have on the political landscape and policy making. That he is free to set wages (with-in limits, I’ll give you minimum wage is socialistic), production levels, prices, profit taking etc.

Basically, your definition allows you to brand anything you don’t like Socialist and all we’ve been saying it ain’t so and your definition makes no sense.

Now address the points you keep ignoring or admit you can’t.

Woof!

In this sort of argument, there are two competing narratives that cannot possibly coexist together. You point that out, and you get crickets every time.

 

[water505]

Hey Dick...since you're the authority on misusing words what is the definition of Nazi?