Using basic terms incorrectly...

[Rightguide]

Your definitions don't exist in the established world.

That's the point of this thread.

You're using your own invented versions, and you refuse to show where you're getting your definitions from. You're claiming they're in "every political science textbook", but they aren't. I am willing to bet you $100 to that effect.

Want to take me up on that? or are you ready to admit that you're making them up?

Your problem is the "established world" is bigger than your house.

 

[Rightguide]

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.

^^^
Too dumb for words.

 

[richard_daily]

^^^
Too dumb for words.

Are you pretending that you don't shop at walmart?

 

[richard_daily]

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

Here you go, twinkletoes...


noun, plural Nazis.
1.
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, which controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler and advocated totalitarian government, territorial expansion, anti-Semitism, and Aryan supremacy, all these leading directly to World War II and the Holocaust.
2.
(often lowercase) a person elsewhere who holds similar views.

 

[BotanyBoy]

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;

LMFAO!!

Go start a bidnizz in China and get back to me on that.

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!

No he/she doesn't and no they can't. There are VERY specific guidelines and nearly every market has access controlled, many prohibited.

That is NOT capitalism, you need to go look up the definition of the word.

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.

Because control = ownership.

And no it doesn't allow me to determine whatever I wish "regulation" to be.

You keep mentioning control whilst at the same time ignoring the fact that the Capitalist has control of his capital…

No they don't, there are mega guidelines and government bullshit you have to go through to spend and invest/spend your money and if you step out of bounds you're going to prison.

Go try and spend a million without getting the government involved and your ass will be getting FUCKED by the state.

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!

No it doesn't, it only allows me to brand government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services socialism.

Example...again.

Regulation/government control/LAW: Don't murder people....NOT SOCIALISM.

Regulation/Government control/LAW: You can only sell x volume of your product and you have to distribute it thought one of two state approved companies = socialist as fuck.

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

I'm in no way, shape or form, claiming that all government regulations are inherently socialism, no.

I'm claiming that government regulations over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services are socialist.

Is there some part of that you don't understand?

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

You cannot have capitalism under a totalitarian communist state, leftism is 100% incompatible with capitalism.

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

Making money and manufacturing =/= capitalism.

 

[water505]

Here you go, twinkletoes...


noun, plural Nazis.
1.
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, which controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler and advocated totalitarian government, territorial expansion, anti-Semitism, and Aryan supremacy, all these leading directly to World War II and the Holocaust.
2.
(often lowercase) a person elsewhere who holds similar views.

You got something right!

One out of ten.

Have a cookie.

 

[oggbashan]

You cannot have capitalism under a totalitarian communist state, leftism is 100% incompatible with capitalism.



Making money and manufacturing =/= capitalism.

Very wrong.

1. A totalitarian communist state? Apart from N Korea, which state has ever been that?

2. leftism is 100% incompatible with capitalism? Many Western democracies are 'leftist' and yet they have, and encourage, capitalists. China encourages capitalists. In Hong Kong (2 systems 1 state) they allow capitalists to flourish in ways that other social democracies might not.

Your premises that leftist = communist and socialist = communist and that capitalism and leftist are incompatible - are ALL wrong.

'Leftist' covers too many degrees; so does socialist; so does communist. Most versions of all three welcome capitalists as part of a mixed economy.

European communist parties, particularly the French and Italian versions, are not totalitarian. They are left wing, further left perhaps than some socialists, but nothing like Marxist, Leninist or Stalinist communists, and certainly not like Chinese communists. They are closer to the Tito version of communism in Yugoslavia that encouraged private enterprise and capital investment to make money.

This thread is full of you using basic terms incorrectly and using your own biased definitions.

 

[Hypoxia]

Note that the National Socialist German Workers' Party, far from being 'socialist', was actively backed by major German industrial and financial firms who found Hitler's guys quite useful for stomping bothersome Commies, unionists, rights activists, business competitors, etc. Hitler perfected Mussolini's model of Fascism: the marriage of gov't and business.

 

[jaF0]

And Volkswagen, BMW and quite a few others benefited heavily from those policies and are still around today.

 

[BotanyBoy]

.

Your premises that leftist = communist and socialist = communist and that capitalism and leftist are incompatible - are ALL wrong.

Communism isn't left? LMAO!!

Free market private exchange of goods and services is compatible with government control over the exchange of goods and services ??

LOL I didn't think you were as goofy as Mr.Soviet Russia was RIGHT WING! Daily.....

Whatever you say though.

Left = unicorn rainbow farts and right = big meanie heads!! I'm done trying to point out that isn't the case to all the Kool-Aid chuggers.

 

[Ishmael]

Note that the National Socialist German Workers' Party, far from being 'socialist', was actively backed by major German industrial and financial firms who found Hitler's guys quite useful for stomping bothersome Commies, unionists, rights activists, business competitors, etc. Hitler perfected Mussolini's model of Fascism: the marriage of gov't and business.

And you should note that the USSR also banned all unions, unionists, rights activists, etc. and that both used the most extreme measures in enforcing their policies.

So you can go ahead and fixate on the one extreme while turning a blind eye to the other. Both lead to slavery in the end.

Ishmael

 

[BotanyBoy]

And you should note that the USSR also banned all unions, unionists, rights activists, etc. and that both used the most extreme measures in enforcing their policies.

So you can go ahead and fixate on the one extreme while turning a blind eye to the other. Both lead to slavery in the end.

Ishmael

These retards think the USSR was a right wing joint ruled by the iron fist of a free market!!

These is no point in even attempting to show them a different perspective.

Left is wonderful people and right is bad people, that's as far as this conversation goes with them.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Communism isn't left? LMAO!!
Free market private exchange of goods and services is compatible with government control over the exchange of goods and services ??
LOL I didn't think you were as goofy as Mr.Soviet Russia was RIGHT WING! Daily.....
Whatever you say though.
Left = unicorn rainbow farts and right = big meanie heads!! I'm done trying to point out that isn't the case to all the Kool-Aid chuggers.

You totally misstated his position and ascribed a new one to him. Typical.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You totally misstated his position and ascribed a new one to him. Typical.

You're right but I never even suggested that leftist = communist and socialist = communist either so I was just returning the favor.

 

[oggbashan]

You're right but I never even suggested that leftist = communist and socialist = communist either so I was just returning the favor.

Neither did I. Your reading ability is zero. From my post above:

Your premises that leftist = communist and socialist = communist and that capitalism and leftist are incompatible - are ALL wrong.

'Leftist' covers too many degrees; so does socialist; so does communist. Most versions of all three welcome capitalists as part of a mixed economy.

Your three premises:

1. leftist = communist
2. socialist = communist
3. capitalism and leftist are incompatible

Are still wrong.

Your later statement:

Communism isn't left? LMAO!!

Has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

 

[jaF0]

I hate the whole 'left' and 'right' thing. I've too often seen 'left' positions supported by the 'right' and vice versa. I see plenty of good and bad ideas on both sides and I really don't fully support or oppose either side.

It's just one of the Human trait flaws that we need to name things.

 

[Que]

The only reason anyone on the left begrudgingly accepts some form of privately controlled enterprise is if they assume that they will have more plunder to take, and it is involving some activity that is simply not practical for them to administer.

Regardless of which label they're willing to accept the entire premise of the left is that wealth is a pie of known, limited size and the important thing is how you slice it. It never even occurs to them to open a bakery, much less a fully automated pie factory.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I hate the whole 'left' and 'right' thing. I've too often seen 'left' positions supported by the 'right' and vice versa. I see plenty of good and bad ideas on both sides and I really don't fully support or oppose either side.

It's just one of the Human trait flaws that we need to name things.

Gee, that sounds awfully familiar.

 

[Rightguide]

These retards think the USSR was a right wing joint ruled by the iron fist of a free market!!

These is no point in even attempting to show them a different perspective.

Left is wonderful people and right is bad people, that's as far as this conversation goes with them.

They probably had Communist teachers, always trying to shift the blame.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Your three premises:

1. leftist = communist
2. socialist = communist
3. capitalism and leftist are incompatible

The only premise there that is mine is #3.

And if it's wrong then explain to me how private exchange of goods and services on a FREE MARKET is compatible with government control over the market and exchanges.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They probably had Communist teachers, always trying to shift the blame.

https://pics.me.me/college-professors-be-like-nazi-kills-a-1-million-people-19874941.png

 

[jaF0]

As has been explained before, it's an issue of ownership. The Government can control exchanges through means of permits, licenses and inspections without having ownership.

The Government can regulate ownership to prevent monopolies which can harm trade and the economy.

When the Government prohibits ownership and retains that for itself is when we have a problem.

 

[BotanyBoy]

As has been explained before, it's an issue of ownership. The Government can control exchanges through means of permits, licenses and inspections without having ownership.

Total government ownership would be totalitarian socialism and control is effective ownership.

That doesn't make everything up and until that point free market capitalism and government control not socialist.

The Government can regulate ownership to prevent monopolies which can harm trade and the economy.

Good or bad is irrelevant to weather or not it's socialism.

When the Government prohibits ownership and retains that for itself is when we have a problem.

If you're stupid........the problem comes long before the state just takes everything.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Blah, blah blah……I’m going to say anything except answer a direct question for the second time

So for the third time now

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

Woof!

What rational are you using to ignore the following definitions:

Definition of SOCIALISM
1. 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2. 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3. 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

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

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

So we know what it is being regulated in accordance with......Marxist theory....


Socialist mode of production Marxist theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_mode_of_production

] In Marxist theory, socialism, also called the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. The Marxist definition of socialism is a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Marxist production for use is coordinated through conscious economic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of to each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership or private artisanal tools and self-management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.

Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_mode_of_production_(Marxist_theory)

The capitalist mode of production is characterized by private ownership of the means of production, extraction of surplus value by the owning class for the purpose of capital accumulation, wage-based labour, and, at least as far as commodities are concerned, being market-based

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

This thread is full of you using basic terms incorrectly and using your own biased definitions.

It’s like he’s compiling an ever growing list.

Shocking really.

I'm concerned to mention that his idea of completely free market won't lead to Capitalist utopia he thinks it will.......but that would mean another 3 pages explaining yet more terms he probably won't understand!

Woof!