Using basic terms incorrectly...

[BotanyBoy]

It would be as stupid of me to think that “it's not socialism till the government owns everything” as it would be to believe “it's not capitalism unless there is no regulation what-so-ever over the economy.”

That's what I've been saying and you keep saying "NU UHHH!!shit talk shit talk shit talk shit talk shit talk "

So that's what I've been left to assume, you're a reactionary LW kool-aid chugger.

There are many and various types of economy and a few regulations do not make your supposed Capitalist utopia (conveniently ignoring monopolises and oligarchs) instantly socialist.

I never said they did....that was your erroneous assumption.

I ignore the monopolies and oligarchs because they are not relevant to determining if a political ideology/theory/party is socialist or if a law/person/state is of a socialist nature.

You can have capitalist oligarchs and monopolies, you can have socialist ones too.

The question is do they advocate government control over the means.

The tipping point is where the state, or collective owns (certain parts of) the means and/or distributes the wealth evenly and that's what all the definitions keep telling you.

No it isn't and no it doesn't. You're making up your own definition by ignoring the first part of the definition.

You need to go back an re-read the definition of socialism in it's entirety.

Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

But I'm going to bet you keep ignoring that red part...oh god don't read that !!!

If you did you might understand that official state ownership over the means is not required for a political theory to be some flavor of a socialism, democratic, autocratic, corporate, nationalist etc.

If you are of a political ideology that advocates government control over the means....you're a socialist.

What kind of socialist is just a matter of how you think the government should control the means and your reasoning for that state control. The kind of sales pitch however doesn't have any bearing on weather or not a political philosophy/theory/agenda is a socialist one or not. The advocacy of state control over the means does.

 

[oggbashan]

I just have to repeat my post above to answer this:

Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

But I'm going to bet you keep ignoring that red part...oh god don't read that !!!

...

Your argument is still badly flawed. You say - Because socialism advocates government control, then all forms of government control are socialist.

That follows the logic:

Dogs have four legs; therefore any animal that has four legs is a dog.

Government control does not have to be based on socialist theory but perhaps on pragmatic common sense for example by ensuring that the food people eat is fit to eat.

...

You are still using the four-legged argument. Logic is not your strong point.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I just have to repeat my post above to answer this:

You are still using the four-legged argument. Logic is not your strong point.

No I'm not, LOL you've got it backwards.

I'm saying since the definition of Socialism is anything with four legs (advocating government control over the means), that anything with four legs (advocating government control over the means) is socialism by definition, because it is.

Doesn't matter how fluffy and loving or snarling and vicious it is.

The people pretending socialism = warm and fluffy altruistic goodness, not advocating government control over the means are the ones who have a hard time with logic. The people who think I'm saying all government control is socialism are having a hard time with logic....and basic reading skills obviously.

Read the definition of the word and get back to me on weather or not any political theory advocating the government control over the means is socialism or not.

 

[oggbashan]

As I said. Logic is not BotanyBoy's strong point.

 

[richard_daily]

No I'm not, LOL you've got it backwards.

I'm saying since the definition of Socialism is anything with four legs (advocating government control over the means), that anything with four legs (advocating government control over the means) is socialism by definition, because it is.

Doesn't matter how fluffy and loving or snarling and vicious it is.

The people pretending socialism = warm and fluffy altruistic goodness, not advocating government control over the means are the ones who have a hard time with logic. The people who think I'm saying all government control is socialism are having a hard time with logic....and basic reading skills obviously.

Read the definition of the word and get back to me on weather or not any political theory advocating the government control over the means is socialism or not.

You don't know what socialism means.

You also don't know what left wing means, or right wing.

You've used these terms incorrectly, consistently throughout this thread.

 

[BotanyBoy]

As I said. Logic is not BotanyBoy's strong point.

Nothing but shit talk....I expected better from you ogg.

You don't know what socialism means.

You also don't know what left wing means, or right wing.

You've used these terms incorrectly, consistently throughout this thread.

Yet you can't show me where or how according the definitions that you yourself provided and agreed too.

I thought the left was all about social equity and socialism was any political theory advocating government control over the means?

Can you point out where me and the definitions are wrong or are you just going to keep talking shit?

Thought so.





You two keep on ignoring the first part of the definition of socialism.

It just means warm fluffy altruistic goodness comrades!!!

LOL

 

[oggbashan]

You still don't understand logic, BotanyBoy.

Your ignorance is bottomless.

 

[richard_daily]

Yet you can't show me where or how according the definitions that you yourself provided and agreed too.

I thought the left was all about social equity and socialism was any political theory advocating government control over the means?

Can you point out where me and the definitions are wrong or are you just going to keep talking shit?

Thought so.

It's been pointed out to you a dozen times now... You just refuse to listen. Baker's dozen wouldn't make a difference. You're willfully ignorant on the topic of definitions, and you choose to continue to use them incorrectly at your own free will. It's dishonest, and you know better, but you'll do it anyways.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's been pointed out to you a dozen times now... You just refuse to listen. Baker's dozen wouldn't make a difference. You're willfully ignorant on the topic of definitions, and you choose to continue to use them incorrectly at your own free will. It's dishonest, and you know better, but you'll do it anyways.

No it hasn't. The only thing you keep pointing out is that you're not reading the first part of the definition and you don't really understand the concept of ownership. Probably because you don't own much.

I'm not using them incorrectly, you keep ascribing me some lunatic definition because you're either schitzo or borderline illiterate, as was made apparent in your other thread.

 

[richard_daily]

No it hasn't. The only thing you keep pointing out is that you're not reading the first part of the definition and you don't really understand the concept of ownership. Probably because you don't own much.

I'm not using them incorrectly, you keep ascribing me some lunatic definition because you're either schitzo or borderline illiterate, as was made apparent in your other thread.

You still can't give me a single example of "right wing anarchy", and you've ignored half a dozen examples I gave you.

It sounds like thou dost protest a little too loudly.

 

[oggbashan]

Many Republicans oppose gun control therefore any US citizen who owns a gun voted Republican.

That statement is as invalid as BotanyBoy's statements about socialism but he won't see the flaw in the argument.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

That's what I've been saying and you keep saying "NU UHHH!!shit talk shit talk shit talk shit talk shit talk "

So that's what I've been left to assume, you're a reactionary LW kool-aid chugger.

And this is either delusional or yet another outright lie. Which?

You’ve been left to assume nothing; I wrote several posts describing what socialism is and re-posted them( because of your previous misrepresentation), posted 4 definitions, 2 of which from the authorities of the English/American language and have given 2 crystal clear examples of working socialist states

I also criticised what I see as problematic with socialism. To be clear I should point out that this is my opinion and not a definition.

No it isn't and no it doesn't. You're making up your own definition by ignoring the first part of the definition.

You need to go back an re-read the definition of socialism in it's entirety.

Sure, let’s do just that, together and see where it leads, let’s make things nice and simple and break it all down for ya:

Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating

There is nothing to dispute here, I agree entirely with what is written.

But advocating what? We’ll see later. After all that exertion take a break, rest, sit down, breath.

Brief interlude:

From Plato there has been an array of socialist economic and political theories Maoism, Marxism, Leninism, Clement Attlee, Martin Luther King, Olof Palme to name but a few. They all differ but have 2 things in common; redistribution of wealth and ownership of the means of production.

Ok you ready now?

Let’s push on, together we can do this, take your time, take a long run up and read the next four words:

collective or governmental ownership

Yes I agree, do you?

And for completeness the rest of your quote:

and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Yes I agree, do you?

So I agree with your definition in totality; what I don’t agree with is your interjecting your supposed “critical thinking” “look past” “look beyond” “regulation=ownership, etc bullshit where you attempt to change what is written in favour of your worthless opinion, because there-in you demonstrate the title of this thread.

Woof!

 

[water505]

I just love, love, love Dick Daley's threads!

Nobody is better at creating false arguments, using red herrings and straw men, accusing others of things he is guilty of, and my favorite...saying really stupid shit. When someone dares to question him about his stupid shit, he goes into Mega Adrina mode and attacks the person who dares to challenge his stupid shit. And of course he pretends like the question was never asked.

It's all right out of the Lies for Liberals Playbook.

 

[Hypoxia]

We can recognize the corporate trolls here, posters blatantly trying to distract the few forum readers from the reality that US gov't is corporate-owned. US citizens are corporate-owned -- look at the mortgages, credit-card debt, wage slavery, everything that keeps the populace on a treadmill. The Dum vs Gup wars feature rival corporate alliances fighting for control.

Oh no, look at the socialists! The liberals who want to give my house to illegal immigrants! The slimey antifa thugs who defame and attack decent Nazis and Klansmen! The Obama-Clinton-Podesta-Schultz-Mueller Deep State conspiracy! And those traitors who dare criticize our President!

Yeah, look at all the commie scum! Just don't notice the corporate hand pulling the puppet strings. Don't look behind the curtain.

 

[richard_daily]

We can recognize the corporate trolls here, posters blatantly trying to distract the few forum readers from the reality that US gov't is corporate-owned. US citizens are corporate-owned -- look at the mortgages, credit-card debt, wage slavery, everything that keeps the populace on a treadmill. The Dum vs Gup wars feature rival corporate alliances fighting for control.

Oh no, look at the socialists! The liberals who want to give my house to illegal immigrants! The slimey antifa thugs who defame and attack decent Nazis and Klansmen! The Obama-Clinton-Podesta-Schultz-Mueller Deep State conspiracy! And those traitors who dare criticize our President!

Yeah, look at all the commie scum! Just don't notice the corporate hand pulling the puppet strings. Don't look behind the curtain.

They need a boogieman, to keep the public eyes off of their reverse robin hood antics.

"Socialism" fits the bill nicely.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You still can't give me a single example of "right wing anarchy", and you've ignored half a dozen examples I gave you.

That's because the example you provided are NOT actual anarchist, they were socialist posers, just like antiFa. And they aren't really right wing either though their interest are still much closer aligned to the right than that of the left.

You can't be anti-government (anarchist) and pro government control in pursuit of equity (left wing) at the same time.

By definition (the ones YOU provided) the two things are opposed to one another.

Nothing you or I say or examples we provide will ever change that.

Many Republicans oppose gun control therefore any US citizen who owns a gun voted Republican.

That statement is as invalid as BotanyBoy's statements about socialism but he won't see the flaw in the argument.

No it's not, quit squirming and bullshitting with your lies and poor comparisons.

My statements are that socialism is what the definition says it is, not the warm fluffy ball of political altruism every progressive lefty is deprecate to believe it is.

So I agree with your definition in totality; what I don’t agree with is your interjecting your supposed “critical thinking” “look past” “look beyond” “regulation=ownership, etc bullshit where you attempt to change what is written in favour of your worthless opinion, because there-in you demonstrate the title of this thread.

Woof!

I didn't interject anything, I just asked you to read the definition in it's entirety instead of being hung up on "government ownership" and ignoring the rest of the definition, all other definitions and what ownership means.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yeah, look at all the commie scum! Just don't notice the corporate hand pulling the puppet strings. Don't look behind the curtain.

Wouldn't be a problem if they government didn't have control over the means....there wouldn't be much of anything there for them to pull on.

They need a boogieman, to keep the public eyes off of their reverse robin hood antics.

"Socialism" fits the bill nicely.

What's wrong with wealth redistribution???

I thought you were a BIG fan of government control over the means.....

Besides it wouldn't be a problem if the government went back to a capitalist system and fucked off.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I didn't interject anything, I just asked you to read the definition in it's entirety instead of being hung up on "government ownership" and ignoring the rest of the definition, all other definitions and what ownership means.

Great we’re making progress….so you also agree entirely with your definition?

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

And agree there is no need for additional, qualifiers such as your; “critical thinking” “look past” “look beyond” “regulation=ownership etc?

If so the only logical conclusion is that to identify a state (or person) as socialist it has to be one in which social ownership is a core tenant, be that through the state, collective or cooperative.

The degree of ownership and of what is a matter of discussion; personally I view it as the ownership of heavy smoke stacked industries such as energy production, mining, steal making, car manufacture, ship building etc and agriculture. But, like I say this is just my opinion.


Look I don’t want to get in to another 4 page argument with you over technicalities, but, I hope you have time to read at least the intro of this…..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Libertarian_education_and_freethought

I’m not saying there is no such thing as a libertarian anarchist, but, traditionally Anarchism is an extreme left-wing ideology.

Very basically, to the anarchist the repression of the proletariat comes from the Capitalist through the mechanisms of the state.

They advocate the overthrow of the state to form stateless, self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions to govern at a local level based on socialist principles. Basically, representative small local government of the people, for the people. rather than big government.

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Great we’re making progress….so you also agree entirely with your definition?

And agree there is no need for additional, qualifiers such as your; “critical thinking” “look past” “look beyond” “regulation=ownership etc?

Yes we agree entirely with Websters definition.

You still have to critically think about what is being said in the definition and the whole definition, not just "government ownership".

And control is ownership.

If so the only logical conclusion is that to identify a state (or person) as socialist it has to be one in which social ownership is a core tenant, be that through the state, collective or cooperative.

Yep, and any collective or cooperate to come and control my means is just another government so we can stop with all the bullshitting already.

Any state/person/policy/theory in all their different forms and under all their different labels advocating state control over the means are some form of socialist.

The degree of ownership and of what is a matter of discussion; personally I view it as the ownership of heavy smoke stacked industries such as energy production, mining, steal making, car manufacture, ship building etc and agriculture. But, like I say this is just my opinion.

I think the degree of ownership and what sales pitch it's sold on is just a matter of what kind of socialist.

And we've seen it sold on all sorts of platforms. Democratic, nationalist, corporate, Marxist-Leninist....bla bla the list goes on.

As long as they advocate state control over the means, whatever their reasons or applications, is still a socialist.

I’m not saying there is no such thing as a libertarian anarchist, but, traditionally Anarchism is an extreme left-wing ideology.

I don't see how their no government stance is compatible with the left wings pro-government control.

As far as I can tell it's far more conducive to the capitalist....who also wants the government to fuck off.

Very basically, to the anarchist the repression of the proletariat comes from the Capitalist through the mechanisms of the state.

I think that's some pretty simplistic propaganda fueled bullshit fed to the politically illterate and here is why.

1)It's clearly conflating rich person with capitalist.....You can be rich as fuck and totally socialist.

2) Capitalist don't believe in the state even getting involved in the means, a capitalist advocates for as free of a market and as much private control as possible. Opposite the socialist.

3)Capitalist ALSO think oppression comes from mechanisms of the state. Primarily socialism...that's why they advocate free markets and private control over the means.

They advocate the overthrow of the state to form stateless, self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions to govern at a local level based on socialist principles.

Also there isn't anything about "based on socialist principles." or governing at a local level in any definitions I could find.

Certainly not websters.

Definition of anarchy
1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchy
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order

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

By every definition I could find anarchy = fuck all government .

Anarchy = welcome to Thunderdome!

Basically, representative small local government of the people, for the people. rather than big government.

Woof!

Which sounds VERY right wing does it not??

More American Republican conservative than anything but still RW....shit you couldn't come up with a better summary of the M'arican Republican ideology than that (behavior is a different story). Ideologically Ted Cruz and most of the "Never Trump" republicans are anarchist by your definition.

And that's in total conflict with most (all that I'm aware of) left wing which generally pushes for strong centralized government control over everything.

 

[OldJourno]

Quibble all you want about definitions, but I think we can all agree it's just wrong to yell "wolf" in a crowded theater.

 

[jaF0]

'Tastes great!'

'Less filling!'

'Tastes great!'

'Less filling!'

'Tastes great!'

'Less filling!'

'Tastes great!'

'Less filling!'

'Tastes great!'

'Less filling!'

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Yes we agree entirely with Websters definition.

You still have to critically think about what is being said in the definition and the whole definition, not just "government ownership".

And control is ownership.

Oh and it was going so well!

This, yet again, is an example of you interjecting YOUR “critical thinking” (opinion) to change the definition to support your political bias.

Seriously, are you so arrogant to believe that the good people at websters are not capable of writing “control” if that was an accurate reflection of socialism and it is left to YOU to make this interpretation?

The reason why they don’t is because in socialist theory; Private ownership of the means=political control=exploitation of the proletariat. Which is why ownership is important and why that is exactly what is written in the definition.

Any state/person/policy/theory in all their different forms and under all their different labels advocating state control over the means are some form of socialist.

No it is not and this is not what your definition says and to which you just said you “agree entirely.” The issue is ownership.

Control is a completely undefined term, to a degree that makes it worthless in determining what is and what isn’t socialism.

Let’s say we live in a society that has no control and no regulation at all over the means of production, you’re calling this Capitalism, right?

Now if the state brings in a regulation prohibiting the use of steroids in food production is this socialism? It’s certainly a control.

How about if they bring in a second regulation banning the employment of children under the age of 16, is this socialism? Regulation/control of what products can be used in Gin production, perhaps?

Show us where it’s defined what regulation(s)/control(s) makes it a socialist society or the number thereof?

I think the degree of ownership and what sales pitch it's sold on is just a matter of what kind of socialist.

Yes

As long as they advocate state control over the means, whatever their reasons or applications, is still a socialist.

No, not according to your definition.

Which sounds VERY right wing does it not??

More American Republican conservative than anything but still RW....shit you couldn't come up with a better summary of the M'arican Republican ideology than that (behavior is a different story). Ideologically Ted Cruz and most of the "Never Trump" republicans are anarchist by your definition.

And that's in total conflict with most (all that I'm aware of) left wing which generally pushes for strong centralized government control over everything.

That’s because you don’t know the history of anarchism or where it came from and have either refused to read the link or deny that it exists at all.

Beyond that, I’m not going to spend another 4 pages highlighting your various contortions to keep preconceived notions intact.

Woof!

 

[oggbashan]

End of Thread.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

End of Thread.

I wish I was as optimistic; I think we’re going to be in for another round of yeah but, “critical thinking” But “look past” But “look beyond” But “regulation=ownership etc very soon.

When you get to this level of cognitive dissonance, where someone doesn’t even believe the quote they themselves post…..there’s really little to do, they certainly can’t see it.

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Seriously, are you so arrogant to believe that the good people at websters are not capable of writing “control” if that was an accurate reflection of socialism and it is left to YOU to make this interpretation?

No I think you are just biased and that's why you're clinging to websters and ignoring others like....

https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/socialism
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/socialism


Oxford...Cambridge....Britannica....what a bunch of idiots!

Anyone who knows, knows socialism is about ownership and nothing to do with control....bad doggie said so!! Better let the academic community know what's up!! WOOF!

Control is a completely undefined term, to a degree that makes it worthless in determining what is and what isn’t socialism.

Not according to most reputable sources it's not.

And if that's the case you better call Oxford, Cambridge, Britannica and a bunch of others because they've all got it wrong according to you.

Let’s say we live in a society that has no control and no regulation at all over the means of production, you’re calling this Capitalism, right?

Now if the state brings in a regulation prohibiting the use of steroids in food production is this socialism? It’s certainly a control.

That would be a pure free market economy yes.

The regulation would be of a socialist nature that bumps a now less capitalist society further left. But it does not make the society an entirely socialist one, and I never said it did.

Show us where it’s defined what regulation(s)/control(s) makes it a socialist society or the number thereof?

I never said it did. That's all shit you're making up in your head.

That’s because you don’t know the history of anarchism or where it came from and have either refused to read the link or deny that it exists at all.

Beyond that, I’m not going to spend another 4 pages highlighting your various contortions to keep preconceived notions intact.

Woof!

What you think is the history of anarchism has nothing to do with it's definition being entirely antithetical to lefty politics.

If the left is what you, daily and everyone else says it is (pro government control) then Anarchy under every definition at the end of a google search is wholly incompatible by every definition of it including the lefty biased Websters.

You're just using the term Anarchist wrong because you can't critically think about what the definition means....you've twisted it in your head to be something leftists do.....LMFAO!

Left wing anarchist....LOL right in there with atheist-Muslim LMFAO!!