The Gov won't save our nation? The Gov is going to bail out FLorida

You don't think flood rescue is not a common good?
Now even floods are a bipartisan political snowball fight?

 

and here we have another who has no clue what socialism is.

This has already been addressed. Gov't collecting taxes and spending those taxes is not socialism otherwise every gov't in existence would have engaged in socialism.

Go look up what socialism is. The existence of a social service and socialism are NOT the same thing.

You're welcome.

 

You are right.
There is some socialism in almost all governments.
That is why most are known as having a MIXED ECONOMY.
The contribution and redistribution is the socialist part.
sigh.

 

Just because you are so polite, I wondered what YOU would call the redistribution of the common purse to provide for common need if it isn't a socialist principle.
It sure isn't capitalism, since every fire and police station, school etc would have to be owned by someone and make a profit. And you would have to pay to use it.
And it isn't communism because the community would own it and each would contribute according to their ability and take according to their needs.
So what would you call your public services? They sound, in fact, closer to communism than capitalism since you pay taxes according to your ability to pay and take when you need those services. And they belong to the community.
I call it socialism since they belong to a communal state system which redistributes finance but hey, what do I know about social organisation eh?

 

FEDERAL relief in Florida.

You know. The entire topic of this thread.

 

What the hell does that have to do with the fact that it's WORKERS who do the actual job?

Dear God! You are all over the place!

Never mind.... you are completely lost in this debate.

 

Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe you got it wrong and 75M people didn't?

I am sure you have been wrong at least once or twice in your life.

 

Wrong. The original definition from high school civ class was a system of government in which all strategic industries are owned and operated by the government,that would be steel, coal, aluminum, automotive and really almost anything the go ernment so defined. This is what britain had prior to thatcher. Since it failed in both Britain and the Soviet Union socialists started to call that state capitilism instead of what it is because socialist are such stubborn and disenguous tools that they'll never admit they are wrong. So now socialism is employee owned companies never mind that such companies are not outside the capitalist frame work as under capitusm people are free to organize there company in whatever method the think best.

 

Spending tax money isn't socialism mostly these days it's vote buying pandering with other people's money. It's immoral and should be illegal.

 

Sorry not contribution, which is voluntary, confiscation.

 

One speaks of tax contribution.
If you don't like contributing to the public welfare, your only other option is the absurdly clumsy method of privatising services and paying for them directly at the point of use.
Which of course is hugely expensive and means the poorer cannot afford them.
That sounds like a very cruel society to me.

 

Just a small correction.
The government didn't own all strategic industries in the UK before Thatcher.
They owned the coal mines and those sectors which served the nation...railroads, water, electricity etc. In the UK it is called nationalisation.
Thatcher did sell them off but some were bought by companies in orher countries....for example the electricity was bought by EDF, which is about 80% owned by the French state. So profits went to France. The railroads were split up into three parts, rolling stock, rail and I cant remember the third. These then started to put prices up because running them cost so much and the state didn't have to support them. Annual rail passes have frequently cost 2000 pounds a year and are part of a computer's pay package.
The water company has recently been outed as pouring illegal amounts of raw sewage into public amenities while the boss got over a million in bonuses last year.
The privatisation allowed you to buy shares but the company never listened to the shareholders.
Privatisation...the more capitalist regime, has proven to be of dubious benefit, so much so that there is serious talk of renationalising some industries. CEO 's of privatised companies are seriously overpaid with bonuses of often double their basic pay are becoming under more and more disapproval.
However local social necessities like fire and police, education and social services have always been run by regions which receive money from the central government . One reason being it simplifies the tax system.
And under Thatcher there were still many private companies including some car manufacturers.

 

So, as soon as you get a job, you become an owner of means of production and then voluntarily distribute something (what) among themselves.......where did you find such definition?

 

I said nothing of the kind.
To be an OWNER you have to buy yourself in.
And PROFITS are redistributed.or agreed to reinvest.
Have you noticed know this sounds l8ke shareholding?
Capitalism is HOW profits are made...the market economy.
Socialism is what you do with them

 

Capitalism = Private ownership. Socialism = Public ownership.

Public ownership doesn't mean people own shares of the corporations.

Public ownership = ownership by the government of an asset, corporation, or industry.

That's why socialism is government owned and operated means of production.

You are trying to argue that as long as taxes are collected then there is no difference between capitalism and socialism, which would mean every country is, and has always been socialist.

 

No

Socialism is ownership by the workers.
Not the state which is called by Engels the last vestinge of capitalism
I just posted a quote from him to that effect.
I am arguing that NO economy is pure anything. Almost all economies have a MIXED economy made up of different parts of textbook pure ideology.
There are elements of socialism woven through the US economy Because they make sense and save money.
They don't hurt and are so taken for granted that you don't notice them

 

Workers = Public = Ownership by the government of an asset, corporation, or industry.

North Korea is pure socialism. Everything is owned by "the people" and products are redistributed to everyone according to their needs (to keep them alive). Its not working too well for them. A good comparison is South Korea. The only difference between the two is their political system, - capitalism in the South, and socialism in the North. The outcome is like day and night.

See, North Korea IS socialism, and when people call social services like police force "socialism" they trying to associate all social services to places like North Korea where government owns and operates all means of production. Social services and capitalism can co-exist, but social services <> socialism.

 

Workers can own the means of production and bypass government ownership completely.
There is a large shop in the UK which was bought out by the employees...they bought "shares" in it and the government had no ownership of it at all.
There are many models of ownership. It is difficult to find a purely textbook state.

 

I've shown you how you are wrong.

Your rebuttal is just a repetition of the same argument.

You are dismissed.

 

No I showed you where you WENT wrong. Attention to details is key when you choose to play with me

And you were schooled

 

I would call that communism.
Of which, socialism has a tint of communism in it.
The RW cries about socialism with programs like SS and welfare. Which have little to do with Communism.

 

Sorry there are all sorts of people who contribute nothing to society. Some did so in the past but are no longer able due to to old age and/or infirmity. Others refuse to contribute because the government pays the to stay home and watch TV. The majority of those as with the majority of everything else are Caucasian.

Welfare is the left's chosen and primary means of assault upon the nuclear family. It has nothing to do with helping anyone. Rather it is but a tool for the creation of life long government slaves and the destabilization of the country.

 

Those who stay home are easily dealt with.
Put into law that when offered work through the benefits system they must take and turn up for work at one of them...adjust number of offers and in amount of time as you please).
If they don't comply but their benefits.
It worked in the UK.

 

And you will have every leftist out there yelling about how inhumane it is it is to demand that people at least in part carry there own weight. Note we did the same thing here during the Clinton administration after considerable wrangling between the Clinton and Gingrich it took about five years for the Democrats managed to completely gut the provisions. The results are obviously manifested where violent crime is rampant and girls are more likely to be raped than to graduate high school. That's what the left's welfare state has done. It has destroyed a generation of African Americans.
Suffice it to say that according to data from Wood's 1776 project African Americans showed educational gains against their white peers in every decade following the Civil War. Those gains had ended within five years of the adoption of LBJ's great society programs.

It is what it is and in the end when the left finally gets the iron clad control that has been there desire for decades the first victims will be the 'hood, and the blm rioters, antifa and the rest of rioters they have unleashed upon America. They will, with out doubt, follow in the path of Hitler's brown shirts and all other useful idiots. Down through history.

 

You misunderstand. "For profit" is more about being obligated to please share holders rather then the end user.
Plenty of non profits generate more revenue then for profits for instance. Their staff in some cases even get paid more. Medical services shouldn't be "for profit" because when it comes to cureing stuff, it may be more profitable to keep someone sick on chemo, than it is to cure them. And due to the obligation to the share holders that must happen with certain institutions.
Health insurance is a for profit entity, heavily regulated, which means customers money often goes to just bypassing regulations rather then the best treatment for a person. UHC, allows insurance companies to remain for profit. Socialist yes, but nessessary in my opinion.