Socialism

I've referred to the political economy and how its used. You're not aware of the analysis? Golly gosh, what a surprise!

The US cannot be compared to the liberal democratic countries. Her ability to sustain higher poverty makes her quite distinct.

 

Obviously you didn't read what I said. I listed seven variants of socialism that I not only don't support, but am actively hostile toward.

Your apology and retraction are welcome anytime.

It's a form of socialism, but Marx is far from the guy that "defined" the word "socialism." He defined a variant of socialism and a progression of socialism (communism), but he was branching off from an already existing idea.

 

Non-Marxist socialism pre-dates Marx. The Real American Thinker isn't much of a thinker when it comes to socialism (he certainly has no notion of feasible socialism), but he's correct over your fibbing

 

You're more than welcome to point out where I have erred. It is ironic that you would claim I'm "not much of a thinker when it comes to socialism," since I am a socialist.

 

Fourth, that they refuse to respond to criticism, especially personal criticism of their decadent character. Once they get into power, they ban freedom of speech.

There is no socialism because of the socialists. They get into this movement from ulterior motives and abandon it once they opportunistically seize power over the people they pretend to want to protect. Anyone who believes in job-killing environmentalism should be banned from the movement. Their pet project of racial quotas also takes jobs away from the proven productive workers. Their fantasy of a New Economy reveals that they hate industrialism itself while pretending to only hate capitalist industrialists. Their contempt for religion is only jealousy that they themselves are not worshipped.

They really have no respect for blue collar people, treating them paternalistically as social inferiors.

 

I am completely aware. Liberal democracy has nothing to do with the form of the economy. You can look up any published definition of the term and you won't find any requirement of capitalism or a particular poverty rate. You should stick with parroting economic jargon as you only make a fool of yourself trying to stray into political science

 

Clearly you're not. The analysis goes back to the likes of Esping-Anderson. As usual, your argument is effectively "I'm poorly read so you are wrong".

 

Sounds like you've listen to that Canadian singer's song way too much. Irony is lost on you.

You have no understanding of feasible socialism. You have also made silly response (and openly lied) when confronted with feasible socialism comment that you are unaware of

 

A republic is just an elitist oligarchy, which inevitalbly turns into a plutocracy or a hereditary aristocracy. You can't have democracy until you abolish the unearned privilege of receiving inheritance. Our Constitution abolished titles, which are merely names, but kept everything significant about aristocracy, which is the cancer that has destroyed all civilizations. Our Constitution abolished indentured servitude, but kept college education, which is just like it, except for the children of the aristocracy.

Electing is not voting; citizens are given a weak right to choose between pre-owned candidates who will do all their voting for them. Referendum is the only representation. Having representatives is not representation; they can vote any way they want as long as they are a lesser evil than their opponents.

 

So point it out and we'll talk about it.

 

Martin Luther King was misdirected to take White people's jobs and break up their union solidarity instead of concentrating on getting far higher pay for Black people's jobs. When he actually helped Black people do that instead of leading them to hurt White people, as in the Black union in Memphis, he was shot.

 

Already have and I'm really not interested in you fibbing over what I say again. Go and learn something about feasible socialism, then get back to me

 

Which page? I'd be happy to review it and correct any mistake I made.

I have no idea what you're referring to when you say "feasible socialism." Be specific and I'd be happy to look it up.

 

Every comment you made about my reference to Austrian economics was a fib.

That you're unaware of the term demonstrates your innocence. I'm not interested in your baby steps. Go and learn

 

Really? Let's review.

Did you not say you were part of the Austrian school?
Did you not say that this is the same Austrian school as Ludwig von Mises?

Hard to learn if I don't know where to start. All I'm asking for is two sentences of detail. Why is that so hard?

 

Nope.

Nope.

I'm not your teacher. To be honest, I find knowledge deficient socialists a proper chore.

 

Yes I did read. It's still STRAINS of socialism you accept, those you oppose, and those you don't even recognize as socialism. Marx defined socialism, Burczak defined socialism, I suspect every variant of socialism in your list has one or a few individuals who have defined their variants of socialism.

 

...yeah, and? What the hell's your point?

 

The intentionally ignored key to Marxism's failure is that Marx was from the upper middle class, married to a pure aristocrat (a "von") and partners with Engels, another heirhead. Experience has proved that such people should not be allowed to participate in a revolutionary movement. They don't have minds of their own but are driven solely by class instinct, with an intolerant "born to rule" attitude. They practice the most dangerous form of insincerity by lying to themselves about what really motivates them. Anyone born with a silver spoon in his mouth will always speak with a forked tongue.

As the minister answered when asked whether he'd allow a prostitute into his church, "I'd let her attend services, but I wouldn't let her preach."

 

Wrong. Burczak took Hayekian analysis and strengthened market socialist political economy. Nothing to do with defining socialism; merely an appreciation that the socialist calculation debate has been won

 

Nutless wonder. You ponder why people oppose socialism, yet refuse to define it. And YOU are the one who said this Burczak strain of socialism "encompass" the Austrian school. Which is absurd. Everyone is knowledge deficient as to the silly ideas bouncing around in you head. You like to keep them to yourself, otherwise you might need to actually defend them

 

There is no lie. There is no need to apologize. Do you understand?

 

Defined it yonks ago. And this thread isn't about definitions. I'm not interested in how you and that other fellow are competing on your knowledge deficiency.

You know nothing of the socialist calculation debate, Hayek's output and how that output actually strengthened market socialism. You don't even understand supply & demand. You have nothing to offer, except to advertise ignorance of the topic

 

Yes I do know. Did you have anything relevant to the post of mine you chose to quote and respond to? I didn't think so

 

Do you now? Please tell! Start with the Walrasian auctioneer and go from there