Why is it that everyone that wants socialism

Then you'd have to fully expand that and make everyone of the same race, creed, and income.

But they are not.

I don't agree that is necessarily a complete definition.

I disagree, because again you are defining your concept of fair without consideration to the fact that people are in different circumstances. Which is why I asked the question: "Why don't you support a real flat tax where everyone pays the same dollar amount of tax?" Because if you follow the logical end of "fair" as you (and the other member) are defining it, then an equal dollar tax could be the only "fair" thing, right?

Your concept of "fair" would be that a $20,000 tax imposed on both a family making $20,000, and a guy making $200,000,000, is truly "fair".

But IMO your analysis is faulty because you do not take into account the different circumstances they are in.

A $20,000 tax on the family making $20,000 means they starve to death. A $20,000 tax on a guy making $200,000,000 isn't even a rounding error.

Do you *really* claim that is truly "fair"? Honestly?

Not necessarily. See above.

 

That's wonderful for folks who might have well off relatives willing to help them. That is certainly not true for all or many or even most, and it's fantasy to claim otherwise.

 

I don't give a s*** about your opinion of me. And it's ironic that you call me infantile and then accuse conservatives right after you just made an ad hominem. I don't think discussion with you will be productive so I'm going to end it here.

Have a good day

 

Yes.
It is a response to it.

The historical end results of the good intentions of socialism that you have espoused.




This video puts what you are saying into contemporary perspective.
It's not just history. It's real.

 

Oh yea, forgot about that too. Apart from the genocide happening left and right also no old folks in Europe.

 

Because they have this college taught pie in the sky view of what it really is. They think everybody else support each other financially but they get to keep what they make. One hard look at Venezuela should change their minds.

 

Socialism only makes everyone equally poor but the government.

 

No, it's because your view is false. "Contributing nothing" means paying little or no income taxes I assume. I want socialism and my net worth is in excess of $1 million. I pay taxes, and I've attended meeting of organizations like Democratic Socialists of America where I met attorneys, accountants, teachers, and other professionals. In fact, while our economic situation has created a condition in which about half the population has so little income that they don't qualify to pay income taxes, my observation of people I meet in such organizations tells me that those with good jobs and good incomes there are disproportionately high as compared to the nation as a whole.

The foolishness of your highlighted statement, "logical1", is reflected in the foolishness of P.Peabody's highlighted comment.... Imagine,.... "everyone that seems to want socialism contributes almost nothing to government anyway", ... "because they have college taught views". (!!!!) They're "college-educated" and earn little enough to "contribute nothing"!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!

 

"Why should I work/sweat hard for many years for something when a liberal Democrat politician can just steal it and just GIVE it to me!?" Socialism sounds pretty good to the lazy.

 

Cuba is such a failure that they won't even let people leave the country, or have internet service.

 

What did you miss about the poor third world villagers, who are interdependent? This has nothing to do with money. It's about taking responsibility for your relationships. That doesn't cost a cent .. all it requires of you is self-sacrifice, responsibility, and conformity (to the expectations of the group).

If you're unlucky (and unlikely) enough to have literally not a single living relative, or every living relative is a lazy, self-centred ******, then clearly you need to establish and maintain solid friendships or an alternative mutually supportive network. It's not rocket science.

Since it isn't rocket science, and doesn't require wealth or privilege, then we know it's a CHOICE when people end up all alone in their declining years. That's very important information .. it tells us we do not need to pity or assist such people. For their own reasons, they elected to put 'personal freedoms' ahead of the relationships in their lives. It's not our job to mess with that.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't find your poor third world alternative attractive. Maybe others think it's a great idea.

 

What does that even mean? Why are you required to be attracted to it (again, whatever that means)?

This is about people being responsible to their social group, in order to avoid ending up alone in later life. I use 'third world villagers' (and the Amish, and solid families etc) as examples of people who work hard to retain that solid network with each other.

Old people who end up homeless/alone have chosen NOT to maintain good relationships with an interdependent group ... therefore we are not required to 'feel sorry' for them.

 

It means I don't think you analogy to third world practices is attractive or apt. Maybe others do.

I've already stated my opinion, which is that your argument that we don't need SS because people will have relatives who will take care of them is just RW fantasy.

That was the model before 1935. Those who managed to live to 65 had the highest rate of poverty of any age group. I don't think that is a better solution.

If you want to make the argument that not everyone needs SS and that we should make it means tested, that's something we could discuss. I mean, Warren Buffet and the Koch brothers don't really need to be on the SS dole.

 

what the hell does 'attractive' mean in this context? you didn't explain that. and even still, the third world villager was just one iteration of the same thing. solid families were also mentioned.

or are you saying you don't find the idea of mutual interdependence and responsibility to a social group attractive? if you don't, you're not alone. non-religious westerners almost always loathe the idea of such things.

 

All good points Kode! Something is going wrong in the Universities--and I mean seriously wrong. I think the Alt-Right went to the University of Ad Hominem and minored as insult artists.

I never seen such clap-trap as when people—who have never read Marx, or Engels-- bloviate on the difference between “socialism,” and “communism” without any idea whatsoever of what they are talking about. Marx and Engel simply used the term “communism” to distinguish themselves from the “utopian socialist” factions who only wanted to do piecemeal reforms without affecting capitalists’ real power.

Marx was a student of the Enlightenment and assumed much of the new view of Man. Early in Marx’s career he tried to use this language but he was concerned with a “scientific” analysis of capitalism. Scientific here is understood in a philosophical sense of "systematic" such as dialectical reasoning provided. The earlier utopian socialists used romantic language of individual rights and the existential situation of human existence in market capitalism. Nevertheless, these utopian socialists did not impress the scientific economists of the era so Marx didn’t just want to say, “capitalism is bad, but explain why capitalism is bad.” Engel wrote of the unscientific nature of the utopian socialism of Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier.

 

And by the way...Fallacy of defective induction, also, known as "Hasty generalization" has this form:

1. X is true for A.
2. X is true for B.
3. Therefore, X is true for C, D, E, etc.

And you are welcome!!!

 

I said...........

You turned it into what you wrote. You must be trying to be a comedian, but are turning up something else to the readers.

 

You didn't explain how what I said was wrong. Do you understand what I found to be wrong?

 

How many victims are there from the Christian Inquisitions in Britain under Oliver Cromwell, the Spanish Inquisition, Portugal Inquisition, and the Rome Inquisition? That's what I thought, you don't know. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth must of been a psychopath--Reductio ad absurdum.

However, here is a count that can be made...
US HAS KILLED MORE THAN 20 MILLION IN 37 NATIONS SINCE WWII
By James A. Lucas

 

You would find anything I said as wrong, why should I care what ever you say?

 

Add all these together and Socialism has trumped them all.

You''ll need to add the Black Death to that score before you can match Socialisms kills.

More lethal than the Black Death. Socialism.
Oh how I want more of it.

 

How can anyone think they are entitled to any part of what others have earned???????????????

 

You're blaming Marx for botched implementation of someone else's strategies for creating socialism! Marxist analysis has nothing to do with what happened in Stalin's Russia: it's like blaming Jesus Christ for the Inquisition in Spain.

 

So you admit you're not here to discuss and debate. The only other option is to be here to say what you want and refuse to be held accountable for falsehoods.