Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

That would at least be better than not thinking at all...

Justice is not pity, stop makin' $#!+ up.

Equal individual rights for all is indeed "indiscriminate"; but it is not "largesse."

No, because the real problem isn't that some lack resources. The real problem is that resources are taken unjustly from both those who consequently lack them and those who are nevertheless able to obtain them.

As usual from you, that is just garbage unrelated to anything I have said.

But not to the standard common in advanced economies 50 years ago.

Why would it take two salaries just to live in a location where you have access to economic opportunity?

Such a mystery.

To you, that is.

 

Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. It happens when workers and/or peasants murder and/or imprison the private owners of the means of production, confiscate their wealth, and take control of their government. This has not happened in the United States, a democratic capitalist republic, free and prosperous. This is the place where refugees from socialist countries like Romania often seek asylum and citizenship in order to enjoy the fruits of liberty, and escape the oppression of socialist tyranny.

 

Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. It happens when workers and/or peasants murder and/or imprison the private owners of the means of production, confiscate their wealth, and take control of their government. This has not happened in the United States, a democratic capitalist republic, free and prosperous. This is the place where refugees from socialist countries like Romania often seek asylum and citizenship in order to enjoy the fruits of liberty, and escape the oppression of socialist tyranny.

 

Under this definition - we have almost no socialist nations in the world - and certainly no mainstream socialist parties in the US - so the claim that some Socialist movement exists - in any significance is false according to your definition.

 

Everything about this post is ridiculous except, possibly, the part about there being no "mainstream socialist parties in the US". It depends upon what you mean by mainstream. There is, for example, a Socialist Party USA that wants "the people [to] own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_USA
Clearly, with self-proclaimed socialists like Bernie Sanders and other "Justice Democrats" like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that have been elected to the legislative branch, socialism is very close to the mainstream. It's within the Democratic Party.

 

FACT: Socialism has never worked. fixed it for ya

 

It was you that came up with the definition. Sanders does not want full state ownership. So by your definition he is not a Socialist.

I stated from the beginning that there are different definitions. Don't blame me that under your "Pure Socialism" definition that Sanders is not even close to being a "Socialist"

I said from the beginning that under my definition Sanders would be a socialist - as my definition includes wealth redistribution.

You are contradicting your definition by claiming Bernie is a Socialist - but not my definition - so YOU are the one claiming Bernie is not a Socialist - not me.

Bernie is obviously operating under a different definition than you.

 

There you have it. Bernie Sanders is either a socialist or a liar.

 

You are the only one in the room claiming that Sanders is not a Socialist.

 

First of all, you don't get to have your own definitions. I could say cows are three legged pink things that swim at the bottom of the ocean, but I would be unable to debate ranching. If Bernie Sanders says he's a socialist, but is against state ownership of the means of production, then he is a liar.

 

You are engaged in mindless idiocy - claiming that your definition of "pure Socialism" is the only one such that anyone claiming to be for socialism or socialist policy - but not for "Total State Ownership" is a liar.

 

Did anyone watch the videos in the OP?

Just asking...............

 

I'm claiming it, too. He's a raving capitalist.

 

There is no pure or impure socialism. There is only feasible or non feasible. State ownership isn't a feasible form.

Sanders, however, is clearly a social democrat. The use of socialism is a useful tag. I don't have a problem with that. A social democrat US wouldn't be a mass killer

 

Hey buddy, why don't you google the definition of socialism. If that's not enough google the Merriam-Webster definition of socialism. From there you can go to the Oxford, and so forth.

 

If you think you can define political economy just with a dictionary definition then you are lost.

 

If you think you can use a vague, practically irrelevant reference to "political economy" as some kind of straw man to discredit or change the clear definition of socialism, then you are lost, not me.

 

Feel the Burn !!

 

What an ignorant reply! If you want to impress with genuine socialist political economy (or critique of it) then be my guest. Anyone suggesting socialism can be explained by dictionary definition is in cloud cuckoo land

 

Well go ahead then! Give your personal definition of socialism! Let's see where that goes.

 

I've repeatedly given it. My preference is post-Hayekian market socialism, given its feasibility and focus on individualism. Worker control and ownership without the state capitalism of nationalisation.

Given you just have a dictionary, where can you go with your grunt?

 

"Worker control and ownership". That's also known as a worker cooperative. Here in America, all you have to do is ally with your co-workers, pool your resources, and buy the company. You won't even need a coercive revolution as as long as the current owner is willing to sell for the price you offer. Oh wait! We have that! It's called capitalism.

 

It's almost as if socialists can't agree on what socialism is.

 

We should just label it a failure and call it a day.

In order for them to define what it truly is would be to admit it's coercive nature.

 

What ever position one chooses - one should be consistent. If one wants to claim - Socialism is Only full state ownership of everything - fine - that is one definition. But then don't turn around and call Sanders and that ilk "Socialists"

To me this is a ridiculous position - as while they are not for full state ownership - they engage in "Partial" state ownership via regulation and taxation and other means of "wealth redistribution" (WR) - being a primary function and tenet of Socialism.

Its like - The State can own 80% of everything - but that would not be socialism because its not "100%"