Using basic terms incorrectly...

[Bad_Doggie]

Well they seem to think it's either totalitarian Marxist-Leninist socialism....or there is nothing socialist at all about government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.

20,000 pages of government regulations telling you how to run your bidnizz from top to bottom? 8 bureaucracies you need to jump through hoops for before you can open a lemonade stand or we'll SWAT team you like a cocaine kingpin for stepping on Jamba Juice turf?

That's just public safety!

TOTALLY FREE MARKET CAPITALISM BRUH!!!



Indeed....

The above is nothing, but, an outright, bold barefaced lie, misstatement and hyperbole. Quote where anyone has said any such thing.

I even gave you an example of socialism in an otherwise capitalist society above, you dishonest cunt.

And you didn’t answer either…….

I think you could make an argument that promoting universal single payer healthcare could accurately be termed socialist and I don’t think there’s anything to dispute.
You promoting single payer makes you a socialist in many of your countrymen’s minds. Are you a socialist?

Well are you a socialist? Because it’s certainly worth a few steps on your sliding scale.

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

The state is controlling/regulating what speed you drive, the condition of the tyres, and many other parameters; does that mean they can sell it, rent it to someone else, paint it another colour?

Yes they can. All they have to do is suspect you of a drug or gang crime and the government can totally fuckin' rob your ass.

So is this control as same as the control of ownership?

Yea...I don't see how it isn't.

They tell me what kind of car I can have, how to maintain and operate it and they can take it from me whenever they want just because they feel like it, auction it off and never even have to charge me with anything.

Of course not and it would be silly to suggest it; which is why ownership is an important part in the definition and regulation irrelevant except to you and your wish to make it whatever you don't like.

Woof!

LOL the brainwashing is so severe. Just because it's control you and most agree with, doesn't make it not control.

Gov is still telling you how to manage and operate your shit, making it somewhat the governments.

Don't think so? Violate the regulation and you'll find out real quick who actually owns that car.

The above is nothing, but, an outright, bold barefaced lie, misstatement and hyperbole.

Really? It took you like 4 pages just to admit ownership has an element of control to it.

And then there was this.

Quote where anyone has said any such thing.

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.

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

Woof!

And there you are ^^ right there^^...insisting that only official government ownership is socialism/socialist and that effective government ownership means nothing.

You're still trying to keep with that shit just now.

So you don’t understand the definition of control either! What kind of control is irrelevant is it?

As long as it's control over the means of production, distribution and exchange....no.

And you didn’t answer either…….

Well are you a socialist?

Because it’s certainly worth a few steps on your sliding scale.

Woof!

To some degree yes.

I think some socialist shit is highly effective at producing society wide positive effects.

I think like most folks in the 1st world with an education that too much socialism or not enough usually results in negative consequences.

 

[Que]

They see all of these things as binary choices and not continuums.

It's the same line of reasoning that holds that Libertarians are Nihilists. Just because you favor the least amount of government control practical doesn't mean you favor no government control at any time in any situation.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They see all of these things as binary choices and not continuums.

It's the same line of reasoning that holds that Libertarians are Nihilists. Just because you favor the least amount of government control practical doesn't mean you favor no government control at any time in any situation.

Lot's of folks are like that though.

It makes demonizing views outside your own easy and fun.

Ever try telling a Republican that pot isn't as bad as heroine and has by all indication more medical value?

Some are chill, most will tell you it's Satan's lettuce and must be eradicated from the Earth along with all the demons who use it and there isn't a fucking thing in the world that could ever even shake that belief.

 

[Hypoxia]

basic definitions

* socialist = someone you don't like because they're smarter
* communist = same as a socialist
* liberal = same as a commie
* atheist = another damn liberal

* fascist = someone you don't like because they're dumber
* nazi = a sort of fascist but can be hairier
* klansman = nazi with too much beard
* patriot = klansman who left his sheet at home

* anarchists smash states or anything handy
* corporatists buy states or their leaders
* bureaucrats keep states running somewhat
* diplomats say "nice doggy!" while finding a stick

* anarcho-syndicalists... ah fuck, it's time for hashish

 

[richard_daily]

* socialist = someone you don't like because they're smarter
* communist = same as a socialist
* liberal = same as a commie
* atheist = another damn liberal

* fascist = someone you don't like because they're dumber
* nazi = a sort of fascist but can be hairier
* klansman = nazi with too much beard
* patriot = klansman who left his sheet at home

* anarchists smash states or anything handy
* corporatists buy states or their leaders
* bureaucrats keep states running somewhat
* diplomats say "nice doggy!" while finding a stick

* anarcho-syndicalists... ah fuck, it's time for hashish

Hahaha... that sums up botanyboys position pretty much perfectly.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Yes they can. All they have to do is suspect you of a drug or gang crime and the government can totally fuckin' rob your ass.
Yea...I don't see how it isn't.
They tell me what kind of car I can have, how to maintain and operate it and they can take it from me whenever they want just because they feel like it, auction it off and never even have to charge me with anything.

You don’t? That’s because you wilfully ignored parts of my question which didn’t suit you. I’ll try again…..

As you drive your hire car away from the lot you are in control; does that mean you can sell it, drive it as fast as you wish, paint it another colour? So is this control as same as the control of ownership?

Gov is still telling you how to manage and operate your shit, making it somewhat the governments.

Requiring you to operate the car within the speed limit, have tyres in good condition and operational lights, do NOT affect your ownership what-so-ever.

Take it to private property and you can drive as fast as you wish, with bald tyres and no lights at all.

You’re regulated where your behaviour can have an impact on others. And why is that? It’s because regulating control is not the same as possessive control.

(snip)… insisting that only official government ownership is socialism/socialist and that effective government ownership means nothing.

And here you lie again.

I have repeatedly and explicitly said…..

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.

(snip)… 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.

(snip)… insisting that only official government ownership is socialism/socialist and that effective government ownership means nothing.

I have never said that and neither has anyone else except you. You could have a state with no state ownership at all, where all heavy industry is owned by the workers and/or cooperatives.

And that state would be socialist, by definition.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

To some degree yes.
I think some socialist shit is highly effective at producing society wide positive effects.

So you’re a socialist.

Every state or group of people that have existed, or ever will exist, are socialist.

And as capitalism/capitalists are diametrically opposed to socialism, it/they have never existed or ever will.

Even if we blithely continue to ignore the fact that you still HAVEN’T shown us a definition that says anything like what you say it is; you still don’t see how fucking ridiculous your contention is that this is a worthwhile way in defining anything?

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

It’s because regulating control is not the same as possessive control.

Yes, it is. The only fact that determines if it is socialist in nature or not is if that control is over the means.

example,

Don't murder: not socialist.

Don't price gouge: socialist.

I have never said that

Oh so you were just being an ass when you directly and rather explicitly implied it?

Fair enough.

So you’re a socialist.

In some small ways, but by far and large I'm a capitalist, classical liberal type out on the RW just to the left of libertarians and to the right of conservatives.

Even if we blithely continue to ignore the fact that you still HAVEN’T shown us a definition that says anything like what you say it is;

Any system that advocates state control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services?

Most definitions agree with me, pick one.

you still don’t see how fucking ridiculous your contention is that this is a worthwhile way in defining anything?

Woof!

What contention?

The only thing ridiculous is the "So all government is socialism!" lies you and the other lefties keep trying to ascribe me.

Everyone else seems to understand that I've very clearly said government regulations that aren't controlling the means, are not socialist regulation.

 

[james_1957]

It's a growing technique and a strategy for right wing blogosphere, which is where so many of the wingnuts on this board get all of their information from.

Used incorrectly every single day are the terms:
Socialism
Anarchist
Social Justice

along with many handful more.

These words are used by the RWCJ to mean vastly different things than their actual definitions.

Words have meanings. They don't mean what you simply want them to mean. They don't mean what you hope they mean. They don't mean what you really, really want them to mean.

Your devolution of these words is a path down the road to stupidity, ignorance, and Khmer Rouge-style totalitarianism.

So now, we have the right not only embracing nazis and fascism, but also communistic propaganda tactics and tendencies as well.

And there's a kind of gleeful stupidity around this tactic. The smarter ones probably know what they're doing, but they go along with it anyways, because it gets a reaction, and it's "anti-PC". The reality is, that it's actually far closer to PC than they realize, since "anti-PC" means speaking YOUR mind, not the opinions someone else has handed to you.

Right wing media has done a great job of confusing these folks and conflating basic terms. Right wing media has convinced its audience that nazis are "left wing fascists", and that anyone who they disagree with is a "socialist".

The people running these media outlets know exactly what they're doing, and the path down this road to total ignorance leads to a totalitarian state, with no individual rights or liberty.

Many on the right seems ok with that, especially in the wake of a "social justice warrior" being murdered by a nazi in Charlotte this weekend. The direction our country goes from here is really up to them. So each on the right wing has an individual choice. Do you follow the hatred that your preferred news sources are teaching you, or do you stand as true individuals?

Socialists, anarchists & social justice warriors = the Dems base.

 

[richard_daily]

Socialists, anarchists & social justice warriors = the Dems base.

Anarchists don't vote, dumbass.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Socialists, anarchists & social justice warriors = the Dems base.

I have yet to see any anarchists and social justice warriors are just generic socialist.....but ok.

 

[james_1957]

I'm an Anarchist and I Vote

Anarchists don't vote, dumbass.

Despite identifying as an anarchist since I was a teenager, I have voted in every Maine election I legally could after turning 18. Each time I would exercise a harm reduction approach to help ensure the person who would do the least harm was elected to local, regional and national government. On very few occasions did I vote for someone I actually liked, who I thought would really do an excellent job, save a handful of city councilors and one mayor.

This year in Maine, I will vote to boot my Tea Party, anti-abortionist, homophobic, anti-environmentalist, gun lobby apologist "representative" out of office, and to keep a right-wing proponent of bigotry from ever reaching the White House. Locally, there are a number of ballot initiatives I am happy to push for at the ballot box, and if they lose, with continued direct action. I will vote to decriminalize recreational marijuana. I will vote for ranked-choice voting for future governors, so least-liked candidates like LePage will never win office again. I will vote for background checks on all gun sales. I will vote to significantly raise the minimum wage for tipped and un-tipped workers.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37922-i-m-an-anarchist-and-i-vote

 

[BotanyBoy]

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37922-i-m-an-anarchist-and-i-vote

Then he's not an anarchist, he's just a democrat who's prone to hissy fits.



Definition of anarchism
1
: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.


Anarchist don't vote, and they are about as left wing as bald is a hair color and atheism is a religion. If anything they are the anti left wing as government control is at the core of left wing values. Real anarchist fucking hate the democrats, social justice warriors and other socialist just as much as they hate the rethuglican corporatocracy. They want government to fuck off even more than the libertarians and capitalist and generally just do whatever the fuck they want to do, anarchy is a gangsters paradise.

 

[richard_daily]

Then he's not an anarchist, he's just a democrat who's prone to hissy fits.



Definition of anarchism
1
: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.


Anarchist don't vote, and they are about as left wing as bald is a hair color and atheism is a religion. If anything they are the anti left wing as government control is at the core of left wing values. Real anarchist fucking hate the democrats, social justice warriors and other socialist just as much as they hate the rethuglican corporatocracy. They want government to fuck off even more than the libertarians and capitalist and generally just do whatever the fuck they want to do, anarchy is a gangsters paradise.

Dude, you do realize that Antifa are mostly anarchists, right?

Like circle A anarchists...

you can't possibly be that ignorant.

 

[richard_daily]

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37922-i-m-an-anarchist-and-i-vote

First word of your quote... "despite".

That SHOULD tip you off, but you're not the sharpest tack, clearly.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Dude, you do realize that Antifa are mostly anarchists, right?

Like circle A anarchists...

you can't possibly be that ignorant.

And what about their desire for government to be run with MORE control over both economic and social interaction makes them anarchist?

Definition of anarchism
1
: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.


The highlighted part in red makes it perfectly clear that AntiFa are by definition not anarchist. You can't be left wing (pro government control) and an anarchist (anti government everything) at the same time.

They are posers hiding behind the circle A.

Socialist dissidents with violent tendencies is far more of an accurate of a way to describe them.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Yes, it is. The only fact that determines if it is socialist in nature or not is if that control is over the means.

We know you like to make up your own definitions for things, but, I feel duty bound to point out the dictionary says your wrong.

1. Manufacturing: Device or mechanism installed or instituted to guide or regulate the activities or operation of an apparatus, machine, person, or system.
2. Law: Ownership of controlling shares in a company.
3. See management control.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/control.html

That's two definitions now that say you're wrong, shall we keep going till we have 10 again?

Oh so you were just being an ass when you directly and rather explicitly implied it?

Fair enough.

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.

What can be more explicit than that……what do you want? It has to be in pink, neon, flashing letters?

In some small ways, but by far and large I'm a capitalist, classical liberal type out on the RW just to the left of libertarians and to the right of conservatives.

So advocating the interference in a complete, enormous, industry and control over it is now “In some small ways!!!”

And you have previously said

"I think any political theory that advocates government control…… (Snip)

Many of your countrymen who corrupt the definition in the same way you do would openly label you as a socialist....even your own words make you one.

Any system that advocates state control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services?

Most definitions agree with me, pick one.

Post one that says that…..so far we have 10 which don’t.

What contention?

The only thing ridiculous is the "So all government is socialism!" lies you and the other lefties keep trying to ascribe me.

Everyone else seems to understand that I've very clearly said government regulations that aren't controlling the means, are not socialist regulation.

And this is another lie and misrepresentation; again……no one has said any such thing, apart from you.

What is ridiculous and what most of us have a problem with is when you say things like this……

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.

Which is patently false and not defined as such anywhere, you ignore any logical reasoning over this, countless times; then you go on to extrapolate this to include any and all regulation over business, it’s absurd.

You cannot tell us what is a socialist state other than one with some undefined amount of undefined regulation, which is worthless as well as absurd.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

In some small ways, but by far and large I'm a capitalist, classical liberal type out on the RW just to the left of libertarians and to the right of conservatives.

You know, your basic problem is that you, naively, seem to think that Socialist theory, particularly Marxist theory, calls for a top down imposition of control (Socialism in your bizarre definition) by government.

It does not; it calls for a bottom up imposition, by the workers. Marx advocates revolution by the workers to take ownership of the means from Capitalist and the overthrow of existing Capitalist system/government.

Others, less strident, advocate taking of ownership and overthrow of the system/government by other, less violent, means; but they all seek the same things, Ownership, redistribution of wealth and equal representation.

Again what they replace the existing government with or not at all…..depends on the flavour of Socialism, which is why you don’t understand what anarchism is either.

Rather funnily, it calls for the downfall of the current economic and governmental system, which we know is something close to your heart. So you’re not only a socialist, but, a Marxist to boot........to some degree!

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

We know you like to make up your own definitions for things, but, I feel duty bound to point out the dictionary says your wrong.

No it doesn't, it says exactly what I'm saying it says. And you should be looking at the definition of socialism for what determines if something is socialist or not. Not the definition of control.

Many of your countrymen who corrupt the definition in the same way you do would openly label you as a socialist....even your own words make you one.

If you include what I find acceptable, effective and or beneficial then yes I am.

If you're talking about what I want and how I think things SHOULD be, not at all.

Which is patently false

What else do you call state control over the means ??

It's sure as fuck not capitalism....

 

[BotanyBoy]

You know, your basic problem is that you, naively, seem to think that Socialist theory, particularly Marxist theory, calls for a top down imposition of control (Socialism in your bizarre definition) by government.

Because that is the only way it actually works.

Socialism on a voluntary basis is a more laughable notion than a purely free market capitalist one advancing beyond total gang wars and vice.

It does not; it calls for a bottom up imposition, by the workers. Marx advocates revolution by the workers to take ownership of the means from Capitalist and the overthrow of existing Capitalist system/government.

And what is the only chance in hell they have at doing that? Government power....sending in their own goons to steal from the owners.

Other, less strident, advocate taking of ownership and overthrow of the system/government by other, less violent, means; but they all seek the same things, Ownership, redistribution of wealth and equal representation.

And what is the only fucking chance in hell of any of that happening?

Government power....sending the gestapo in to control the means.

Again what they replace the existing government with or not at all…..depends on the flavour of Socialism, which is why you don’t understand what anarchism is either.

Not at all? That's not socialism...socialism calls for government control, not no government.

No government = anarchy, an elitist, capitalist paradise. Total fuckin' thug life.

If I don't understand anarchism then reconcile the definition that states rather clearly that anarchist are anti-government with the left's desire for strong government control over the means.

Rather funnily, it calls for the downfall of the current economic and governmental system, which we know is something close to your heart. So you’re not only a socialist, but, a Marxist to boot........to some degree!

Woof!

Not at all close to my heart, because it's not very capitalist and becomes less so on a regular basis.

How am I a Marxist?

 

[richard_daily]

And what about their desire for government to be run with MORE control over both economic and social interaction makes them anarchist?

Where are you getting the false idea that they want "MORE control over both economic and social interaction"?

Please provide your source.

Thanks.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Where are you getting the false idea that they want "MORE control over both economic and social interaction"?

Please provide your source.

Thanks.

How is it false?

They are promoting anti-capitalist, far left socialist and social justice changes to our society are they not?

My source is listening to these morons talk and reading their webpages.

What do you think antiFa is about?

 

[cleaver]

the trickery bores me, dick.

there was a real question here,
but you were...
impatient.

kind of like
a premature ej thing.

no red state/blue state to that state...
good luck.

 

[Que]

Anarchists don't vote, dumbass.

Anarchists seek to remove/disempower governments they object to using every means possible except the ballot box?