The "horrors" of Socialism Explained

1) A tool is a tool. It's not the tool shed. A political party will employ various tools, so the party is the shed - not the tool. And Socialism is a tool employed by MANY kinds of groups, politics is just one of them. It is therefore not a Tool Of Politics. It's a tool of human coexistence.

2) The tool is used to aid the most survival for the most people (by sharing labour and resources). That's IT.

3) No, not 'any' society practices Socialism. Far from it. Socialism depends - for it to work - upon SHARED labour and SHARED resources. It absolutely does not allow for non-participation in either of those requirements. So, only groups in which all members share the fruits of their labour, and share all resources, qualify.

 

What? Politics is a tool employed by politics, but is not a tool of politics?

You are talking nonsense again.

What is it?

Society, not socialism, is what ensures the survival of human beings. We need to live in a society to reproduce, work in tandem, produce, help each other, protect each other, better use and protect the available resources, care for the young, develop technology... Socialism simply means that we need to take whatever steps we can to strengthen society. Which is a purely political precept. Which means decisions need to be made. And if those decisions about society are made by the people or their representatives, then we have a Democratic Society. If they are made by a dictator, we have a Dictatorial Society.

Again: Political Science 101.

Qualify for what? What the hell are you talking about? What is "shared labor"? Everybody works. They don't work, they don't make money, and they are poor. They can better themselves by studying, or looking for something they are good at.. They work more, they are rich. They can own a yacht. I have no idea what "shared labor"means. But everybody has the opportunity to learn, get a college degree and get a better job. If you have some dexterity, you may be able to make some money in a technical profession And on and on.... It's capitalism. You have all the liberty you want. Your rights are only limited by the rights of others. Because there is justice. And you have a say on how decisions are made, and how leaders are elected.

What the hell is "shared labor"????.

 

1) Society is not Socialism. A certain KIND of society is Socialism. Not all societies practice common purse. I'm sure you know this, but are simply blustering.

2) Qualify as Socialist, obviously. And shared labor means what needs to be done gets done, regardless of whether we 'like that kind of work' or not. It means every member of the group is willing to do whatever is needed. The work is 'shared', because it's not always dedicated. I hate cleaning windows, but as a Socialist, I cannot simply say "I don't do windows". Only Capitalism allows for self-gratification in labor, because it involves SURPLUS, and surplus is what 'funds' choice.

3) Finally, and for the hundredth time: No one gets a free lunch under Socialism. Whether that's in an extended family (where all adults must contribute to the common purse and pull their weight around the house), or a large community collective.

 

So damn sad. I once worked my way through A Westminster Catechism of faith that had been printed in the 1890's. Lotd of words had changed meaning in that time some had even changed usage, some were no longer in use. The point was that English is a living language Latin is not the ignorance sir is yours. Socialism, sir which is not what you have proclaimed it to be at anywhere in this entire thread from your opening gambit to these latest 'bon mots' and I use the term loosely. Under Socialism, the economic system that reigned in Great Britain Prior to Margaret Thatcher most everyone was employed by the government. Please note I did not say 'worked for' but 'employed by' because mostly this group that group or the other group were out on strike. Quality was all but non existent. The car leasing company my mother worked for lease an XKE Jaguar to one of their customers who returned it two months later complaining that it would save time if you just poured the oil on the floor rather than put it in the engine because it would wind up on the floor anyway. I remember seeing similar complaints in a Car and Driver magazine at the time. and the Jag, then and now was supposed to be a top line luxury sports car.

The point sir what ever nonsense you wish to argue is that Socialism is not just a few random programs strapped onto a capitalist economic system.

 

Thank you!

 

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner if that's not a dictatorship in your logic, nothing is.

 

I'm glad you are putting all of that superior intellect to good use on an internet forum.

/sarcasm

 

I would be OK with socialism after I retire. Let me stuff my mattress with cash and bury gold in my yard first. Then I can pretend to be one of the poor. We can open the borders so we can have cheap labor that we can turn around and tax the crap out of to pay us.

Sounds like a great idea. It will probably be a generation before the government is a full fledged dictatorship. I will either be dead or too old to care. Sure the next generation will suffer greatly but not me.

 

Quote:

“It's that simple. We have always had socialism in this country. Our road system is socialist. Our public education system. Medicare, Social Security, our Postal Services....”

This is false advertising

We do allow governent to do things that individuals cannot be expected to do for themselves

Such as build roads or the postsl service

Thats not socialism but rather just practical common sense

But leftists do impose their twisted belief system known as socialism when they demand government wipe every nose through the welfare system

Because individuals should be expected to provide for their own basic needs rather than taking the hard work of one person and giving it to a stranger

 

You accuse him of making up his own language with his use of the word republic. I jump into the language debate by showing what the dictionary has to say about the meaning of the word. I provided the entire definition as opposed to cherry-picking one of several. You in turn call using the dictionary a disingenuous tactic in a debate about the meaning of a word.

In other words, the dictionary doesn't know the meaning of the word......apparently only you do. LOL...

You are TRULY a piece of work. You will stop at nothing to remain in your self imposed delusional bubble.

FWIW...Your link provided a very specific set of criteria for how using a dictionary can correctly titled a logical fallacy, NONE of which were met. That doesn't matter for you however, because all you wanted was the headline, the actual substance of your link be damned. For that matter, I have seen you misuse the concept of a dictionary-driven logical fallacy several times before when it similarly did not apply. You clearly misuse the language quite often and bogusly jump to that concept in your defense.

​

 

Of course not! Just like bread is not butter.

No kind of bread is butter! None whatsoever. You can make bread better if you put a little butter on it, just like you make society better if you put a little socialism on it.... But not too much, or your cholesterol will spike out of control

No, I'm sure some can afford a more expensive purse like a Prada or Bvlgari. But some will have to settle for a more common one they get at Walmart.

What nonsense!

No such thing in Democratic Socialism. Therefore its irrelevant.

Nobody gets a free lunch under any political system. But what that has to do with anything whatsoever I wrote will forever lie hidden in the depths of your mind.

 

Based on what? Market socialism is very much focused on democracy. And economic analysis confirms our cooperative nature.

 

You're punching air. It's been entertaining, but it's starting to get a little old now.

 

In my logic and in the logic of any rational human being that's nonsense

Democracy is people freely deciding about how their society will be run to better benefit that society. How would killing a member of a society composed of two wolves and one sheep make that society better?

You have a concept of Democracy that is akin to the educational level of Limbaugh, Hannity,... or some wingnut pundit of similar caliber.....

 

[QUOTE="garyd, post: 1070326010, member: 59458" The point was that English is a living language Latin is not the ignorance sir is yours. [/QUOTE]
Latin? Who said anything about Latin? For Heaven's sake, you're actually confusing Old English with Latin!!!!

Yes, English is a living language. But words don't evolve to mean one thing, then evolve to means something completely different to suddenly de-evolve to mean what they originally meant. I didn't take enough classes in linguistics to have any kind of title, but I did take enough to understand the basics. And, I worked 3 Semesters as Academic Research Assistant to the Director of the Linguistics Department in my University. Which doesn't mean much. But seeing your arguments, it would probably be comparable to a PhD

 

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Calling something nonsense because you can't formulate a valid argument is dishonest and weak-minded

False, it's the majority oppressing there minority by definition

Well feel free to show me how in majority rule the minority won't be oppressed.

I'm all ears.

 

Bingo!

You're saying that socialism is common sense? My God! You are making sense!!!!

I can assure you right here and right now that we do not demand that the government wipe every nose. In fact, we vehemently oppose, for example, the government wiping many noses: Like Big Pharma, Big Agro, Big Oil, Big Polluters, the greedy donor Class that is all "gimme gimme gimme" more welfare for the rich....

I agree with this 100%

 

I seem to recallwhen voting for whether or not people should be allowed to marry a same-sex partner that the majority decided to vote against it. It was only through the judicial system which is not Democratic at all that same-sex couples actually got to get married.

If we were a democracy no such thing would exist. People in the minority would just have to get f*****. Because they don't make enough of the population to change anything.

the idea that someone would vote for something to benefit the minority out of the goodness of their heart is not just completely moronic and stupid and naive, but it also means the minority would be subject of the majority so they wouldn't really have any rights because they could just to be voted away.

There's a reason why our country is not a democracy that isn't freedom it's oppression.

 

Latin? Who said anything about Latin? For Heaven's sake, you're actually confusing Old English with Latin!!!!

Yes, English is a living language. But words don't evolve to mean one thing, then evolve to means something completely different to suddenly de-evolve to mean what they originally meant. I didn't take enough classes in linguistics to have any kind of title, but I did take enough to understand the basics. And, I worked 3 Semesters as Academic Research Assistant to the Director of the Linguistics Department in my University. Which doesn't mean much. But seeing your arguments, it would probably be comparable to a PhD[/QUOTE]

Well you are obviously correct in that you don't know enough about linguistics to get a degree. Meanings in Latin do not change because no one uses the language conversationally any more. English changes all living languages change over time and distance especially the former. There is a Spanish word that in the Castilian dialect means nail and in the Costa Rican dialect means fingernail circa 1960. By now It may well have changed by because there is now far more linguistic contact between Spain and Costa Rica than there was 50 - 60 years ago. That's the internet for you. So yes words can evolve in quite odd ways but nice of you to avoid the question.

Did Washington or Jefferson and most other presidents of the 19th century who never stopped running there private businesses while they were president violate the constitution? After all almost of the cotton and tobacco Washington and Jefferson grew was sold to English Merchants. So no the likelihood that Jefferson et al were talking about normal every day business dealings is slim to none.

 

You cut the "first of all" part. What the dictionary says is not how you defined "Republic", and does not invalidate the case of NK

But most relevant: There was no "furthermore". That was your only argument. If you had said that this was to rebut my argument that you were making up the definition (and if it actually did correspond to your definition, which it doesn't), then you might have had a case. But that was not even the argument you were making. You were trying (unsuccessfully) to show that NK was not a Republic by using a Dictionary. That is a logical fallacy.

For these reasons it was a "Fallacy of Appeal to Definition"

 

It has more to do with real life than with socialism In a Democracy, all people are not willing or even required to do whatever is needed

 

That's quite a dogma you have there in your head, isn't it?

In a Democracy the majority gets to make the majority of decisions. But the minority also has a voice and much participation in the most relevant decisions. For example, the minority does participate in decisions that alter the fabric ot the social structure is part of Democracy. This is what Mitch McConell did when he applied the nuclear option to the Supreme Court. It was too important a decision for that. So he took away a bit of our Democracy. But we can't remove a President before their term expires without the assent of the minority. We can't Amend the Constitution.... Any change that is fundamental to our society needs the input and assent of the minority.

And, of course, apart from that, in a Democracy there are absolute limits to the power of the majority no matter what. There is no number of votes that can overturn human rights.

Slowly we learn what those rights are. And they have to be decided by courts. Not by votes. For a long time there has been speculation that if we submitted things like abolition, homosexuality, some religions (catholicism, islam, judaism...) to a vote.... they would all lose. But it would be illegal to submit those to vote. It doesn't matter how many people voted against those, they would violate human rights. So, in a Democracy, there are absolute limits to the majority.

In any case, Democracy is much much more than simply "majority". It's the participation of the people in government. It means knowledge. All this government secrecy, for example, is anti-democratic. This is why we have FOIA. It is access to our leaders. It is many many things more than simply... voting.

 

Of course it was democratic. Why would it be democratic to vote for homosexual marriage and not for heterosexual marriage?

It would be like putting to vote if women could eat in public or not, but men could eat in public with no problem

Again you show you have a weird (and completely wrong) concept of what "Democracy" means.

 

It's the reality.

And the minority is oppressed.

We covered this.

 

so the supreme Court is just inside my head too?

what?

What?

So what is my concept of what democracy means?