Using basic terms incorrectly...

[BotanyBoy]

End of Thread.

I guess you also thought that I was saying 1 regulation makes a society a socialist one?

The 4 legged thing now makes more sense...I couldn't leap that far off the wagon to get where you two were at sorry.

Not in any way shape or form.

 

[oggbashan]

I guess you also thought that I was saying 1 regulation makes a society a socialist one?

...

That is exactly what you were saying, over and over and over again.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That is exactly what you were saying, over and over and over again.

Not a single time was that what I said.

 

[oggbashan]

Not a single time was that what I said.

Read the damn thread. That is the only logical meaning of your statements.

Then go back to school to learn the meaning of English.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Read the damn thread. That is the only logical meaning of your statements.

Then go back to school to learn the meaning of English.

Couldn't quote me saying it or anything close could you??

No it's not....you like the doggie kept ignoring key parts of what I was saying and making up some fantasy.

I repeatedly denied that ascription you two continue repeatedly engaging in, because it's insane.


Go back and read...I said that more than once that not all regulation is of a socialist nature and that the degree of how socialist most modern mixed economies are judged is by how much ownership/administration/control/regulation, however you want put it, the government has over the means.

Nothing about that or anything I ever said EVER implied I thought or was trying to say any regulations of any kind make a society a Marxist-Leninist totalitarian socialist one. That is 100% your creation.

Never got anything but A's in Engerish.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

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!

I’m not clinging to anything, websters is the definition you, yourself, introduced and have been posting over and over despite it refuting you. Yeah it’s that funny.

OED is the authority of the English language and websters of American English, but, ok I feel your desperation to find something that supports you so let’s take a look at some more of your definitions…….(in the same order as your links.)

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of asociety to communism, characterized by the imperfectimplementation of collectivist principles.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,[10] as well as the political theories, and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity.[12]There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[13] Social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms

socialismnoun [ U ]
US /ˈsoʊ·ʃəˌlɪz·əm/
any economic or political system based on government ownership
and control of important businesses and methods of production

A 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. 1.1 Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

2. 1.2 (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

And one more that you mentioned before to make it a round 10 quotes we now have…..

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means ofproduction are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.

So what do we now have from these 10 definitions?

8 which say exactly what I’ve been saying and nothing about control/regulation which you have been contending

1 OED which mentions regulation but then clears up what kind of regulation in points 1.1 and 1.2 which is also what I’ve been saying

And 1, Britannica, which says…..

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. (snip)…. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

Which says “should be owned” but mentions “control.” And this allows you to weave in your bullshit so I think we can guess which one you’re going to plump wholeheartedly for and ignore the rest, huh?

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!
I not that I said so; websters, EOD and all your above additional links say so.
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.

Seems I have no need to let the academic community know, it already does, huh.

I guess you also thought that I was saying 1 regulation makes a society a socialist one?

Go back and read...I said that more than once that not all regulation is of a socialist nature and that the degree of how socialist most modern mixed economies are judged is by how much ownership/administration/control/regulation, however you want put it, the government has over the means

That’s the thing; we have no fucking idea what you’re blabbering on about, as you’ve been utterly incapable of substantiating your claims, preferring instead, for some odd reason, to actively refute your own bullshit.

You’ve been ask by several people, repeatedly to …..

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

What we’re looking for is something more substantive than your blabbering about your; “critical thinking” “look past” “look beyond” “regulation=ownership etc?

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

8 which say exactly what I’ve been saying and nothing about control/regulation which you have been contending!

So then we agree that socialism is what all the definitions say it is yes??

Progressive approved, good, bad, popular, unpopular, effective, ineffective, nationalist, fascist....none of that shit has got anything to do with determining if a political ideology/philosophy/party/person etc. is socialist or not right? All that's needed is that advocacy of state ownership/regulation/control/administration over the means.

Which says “should be owned” but mentions “control.” And this allows you to weave in your bullshit so I think we can guess which one you’re going to plump wholeheartedly for and ignore the rest, huh?

And others say regulate and others yet say administer some qualify it with and or....but they are all talking about the same thing.

Control.

Control is ownership is administration is regulation, it's not bullshit that's why they are all used in the same capacity across various definitions from the most reputable of resources available.

That’s the thing; we have no fucking idea what you’re blabbering on about,

Because you don't want to, you keep ignoring what I'm saying.

My whole point was to shit on RD's idea that socialism has something to do with equality and warm fuzzy progressiveness. That socialist can be tyrannical assholes to.....but he just said the Soviet Union and Red China were right wing capitalist and ran off in a huff. LOL

Stalin the capitalist!!! Lmfao!!! Just ask RDaily.

You’ve been ask by several people, repeatedly to …..
"Show us where it’s defined what regulation(s)/control(s) makes it a socialist society and the number thereof?"

Woof!

And I've told you all repeatedly it's right in the definition....

Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories That's the number, right there, any. advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and that part is what determines if something is socialist or not. If it advocates government control over the means, it's socialist, if not, it's not socialist.

As for a society as a whole, I've answered numerous times that the 1st world western kind are almost all of a mixed nature. The ones with fewer government controls over the means seen as more capitalist, and those with tighter controls over the means are seen as socialist leaning....because the definition of socialism and capitalism, complexities of democracies and republics etc.

 

[oggbashan]

BotanyBoy gets a Fail for Logic; a Fail for Understanding; and an A for pointless persistence when he has lost the meaning of what he is saying multiple times.

Give up, BotanyBoy. You don't even understand your own posts.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

So then we agree that socialism is what all the definitions say it is yes??

I agree yes, seems you are still struggling with it though.

All that's needed is that advocacy of state ownership/regulation/control/administration over the means.

No, the requirement is ownership of the means by the state/collective/cooperative and 8 of the 10 definitions say exactly that. I’ll repeat that again for you, 8 out of the 10.

And others say regulate and others yet say administer some qualify it with and or....but they are all talking about the same thing.

Control.

Control is ownership is administration is regulation, it's not bullshit that's why they are all used in the same capacity across various definitions from the most reputable of resources available.

Of the 10 we have 8 that either don’t mention regulation/control/administration at all or say “and” regulation/control/administration ….(example)

www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism

noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vestingof the ownership and control of the means of production anddistribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of asociety to communism, characterized by the imperfectimplementation of collectivist principles.

Where it’s clearly defined ownership is the main requirement “and” which gives control.

We have one OED which says………

ownership or control

But then further in the description explains what the control is in accordance with 1.1 and 1.2 which when you look them up, both, call for the ownership.

We have one Britannica which says…..

ownership or control of property

and

therefore, should own or at least control

So the Britannica definition is the ONLY ONE which is even remotely close to what you are saying.

Woof!

 

[phrodeau]

Anyone who thinks ownership is equivalent to control has never owned a cat.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Because you don't want to, you keep ignoring what I'm saying.

Not at all, I want to understand how your idea works in practice and have a clear authoritative definition. I tried to get you to do that over the page, but, you either didn’t understand or ducked out of it…….I’ll try again.

You agreed that…..

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?

To which you replied….

That would be a pure free market economy yes.

I then asked you

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

To which you replied….

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.

So our pure free market capitalist society is now one step on your capitalist/socialist sliding scale to the left but still Capitalist right?

I then asked you…..

How about if they bring in a second regulation banning the employment of children under the age of 16, is this socialism?

You didn’t answer, so I’m left to assume….. our pure free market capitalist society is now two steps left on your capitalist/socialist sliding scale right? Is it still capitalist?

I then asked you….

Regulation/control of what products can be used in Gin production, perhaps?

So we’re now three steps along your capitalist/socialist sliding scale right? Is it still capitalist?

What you need to do is give us an authoritative definition of at what point our capitalist society ceases to be a Capitalist society and becomes a Socialist one. If you can’t your theory doesn’t have any validity and is worthless in determining what kind of society we have.

As for a society as a whole, I've answered numerous times that the 1st world western kind are almost all of a mixed nature.

I agree entirely. And think this is for good reason; the extremes of both are problematic from a working point of view and even dangerous for society as a whole.

The ones with fewer government controls over the means seen as more capitalist, and those with tighter controls over the means are seen as socialist leaning....because the definition of socialism and capitalism, complexities of democracies and republics etc.

And here’s where we disagree, because “control” as you are using it, is undefined to a degree that makes no sense.

Fundamentally, what all flavours of socialists are preoccupied with is the unequal distribution of wealth between the wealth creators; the owners AND the workers. This imbalance of wealth distribution creates an unequal distribution of power and representation in society. Socialism is seen as a way to redress these inequalities by the redistribution of wealth through state/ community/cooperative ownership of the means of production.

Hence……

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?

Are NOT controls which have anything to do with Socialism, because they are NOT concerned with the distribution of wealth or ownership. They are only control which ensure the health of population which could be present in a purely Capitalist society as in any other.

You could possibly make an argument that taxation is socialist, but, it’s tenuous at best.

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

I agree yes, seems you are still struggling with it though.

Not at all.

No, the requirement is ownership of the means by the state/collective/cooperative and 8 of the 10 definitions say exactly that. I’ll repeat that again for you, 8 out of the 10.

It doesn't require ownership, it requires advocacy of ownership.

Where it’s clearly defined ownership is the main requirement “and” which gives control.

Like I said, with you, it's not socialism until the government hangs a "Department of" sign on it.

Effective ownership means nothing to you.

Of the 10 we have 8 that either don’t mention regulation/control/administration at all or say “and” regulation/control/administration ….(example)

Most of them say and, because regulation/control/administration is effective ownership.

If you have 20,000 pages of regs by which you're required to run your business it's not really your business....you're just management for a government program.

Are NOT controls which have anything to do with Socialism, because they are NOT concerned with the distribution of wealth or ownership. They are only control which ensure the health of population[/B] which could be present in a purely Capitalist society as in any other.

There is the the problem we are having.

Socialism is not about the distribution of wealth. It's about government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.

For what reason or how is IRRELEVANT.

 

[phrodeau]

So a nation is socialist if it thinks it wants to be socialist? What else can "advocacy of ownership" mean?

 

[BotanyBoy]

So a nation is socialist if it thinks it wants to be socialist? What else can "advocacy of ownership" mean?

Well I can identify as a cat and you have to accept that or you're a racist Nazi KKK fascist.

I don't see why a nation that wants to control the means of production can't identify as socialist.

 

[phrodeau]

Well I can identify as a cat and you have to accept that or you're a racist Nazi KKK fascist.

I don't see why a nation that wants to control the means of production can't identify as socialist.

"Why then 'tis none for you, for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." ----Shakespeare

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." ----Lewis Carroll

Congratulations on destroying your own language in order to make a point.

 

[BotanyBoy]

"Why then 'tis none for you, for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." ----Shakespeare

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." ----Lewis Carroll

Congratulations on destroying your own language in order to make a point.

I wasn't being serious .......I don't actually buy into the whole "I identify as____" bullshit like you do.

LMFAO....

 

[phrodeau]

I wasn't being serious .......I don't actually buy into the whole "I identify as____" bullshit like you do.

LMFAO....

These words you're using… what are they supposed to mean?

 

[Bad_Doggie]

It doesn't require ownership, it requires advocacy of ownership.

None of them define ownership as the main requirement, they all define advocacy of ownership/control as the main requirement.

That’s great, in which case you’ll have no problem quoting them here and underlining where they say that.

Like I said, with you it's not socialism until the government hangs a "Department of" sign on it.
Effective ownership/control/administration means nothing.

Again….your frustration is misplaced. I can only suggest you get in touch with the writers of the quoted 10 definitions. Good luck!

This thread is about misused definitions and you’re demonstrating that in spades, thanks.

No, they all do......you just have to read the rest of the definition in it's entirety, not just "government ownership" and think about what it says.

This is just yet another version of your “critical thinking” But “look past” But “look beyond” But “regulation=ownership, bullshit, where you make up things.

So after all that blabber……..and for the 3rd time of asking now……

What you need to do is give us an authoritative definition of at what point our capitalist society ceases to be a Capitalist society and becomes a Socialist one. If you can’t your theory doesn’t have any validity and is worthless in determining what kind of society we have.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

So a nation is socialist if it thinks it wants to be socialist? What else can "advocacy of ownership" mean?

Apparently, it can mean whatever he wants it to mean......he just has to close his eyes and wish really, really hard.

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

That’s great, in which case you’ll have no problem quoting them here and underlining where they say that.

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.

 

[oggbashan]

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.

You're back with your failed logic again.

A dog has four legs therefore every animal with four legs is a dog.

Just because socialism advocates that does not mean that every collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods is socialism.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Again….your frustration is misplaced. I can only suggest you get in touch with the writers of the quoted 10 definitions. Good luck!

I have no beef with them, they are right.

You're the one who looks at the definition and only sees "Government onwership" and repeatedly ignoring the rest of the definition or thinking at all about what it means.

This is just yet another version of your “critical thinking” But “look past” But “look beyond” But “regulation=ownership, bullshit, where you make up things.

So after all that blabber……..and for the 3rd time of asking now……


Woof!

No it's not and I didn't make anything up.

And for the 3rd time answering that's a loaded question given the nature of the modern world and it's a mixed economy.

Doesn't change that government control over the means is socialism, or of a socialist nature in the case of a law.

Apparently, it can mean whatever he wants it to mean......he just has to close his eyes and wish really, really hard.

Woof!

You're the only one making shit up here.

 

[oggbashan]

I'm the only one making shit up here.

Corrected your post.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're back with your failed logic again.

A dog has four legs therefore every animal with four legs is a dog.

More like anything quadrupedal walks on four legs, therefore dogs are quadrupedal.

Just because socialism advocates that does not mean that every collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods is socialism.

Oh...this ought to be good, tell us how only fluffy warm altruistic government control over the means is socialism.

What qualifiers are there on the government control over the means that make it socialist or not...??

I didn't see anything of the sort in the definition.

 

[oggbashan]

It is pointless trying to educate you. You are just too stupid.