Why is it that everyone that wants socialism

Yup. Sure does. LAWS make it legal. The NEED makes it right.

Be my guest.

 

gotta admit that you guys always end up circling back to the ol' "Killing jews was right because Hitler said so" excuse.

Never ever ends with you guys. It's like waking up from a late saturday night to discover it's sunday morning.

 

That is a "definition" created by capitalist based on observations guided by assumptions. Every effort to establish socialism to which people on both sides of the argument refer, was guided and inspired by Marxian analysis and definitions, and Marx said that socialism is worker control of the means of production. That is the implication of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" (over the "bourgeoisie,"... -the capitalist class). Whats more we have seen in the cases of the USSR and China that the "socialist state" transformed into "state capitalism" which continues to own the means of production. So there is no mystery and no need for confusion because in those cases you have the state owning the means of production and the resources, yet you have no socialism/worker control.

As in China and Russia. And so if the workers are getting the shaft, -and they are, -then it is NOT a system that has liberated the workers, and so it is not socialism.
Read Marx, -not capitalist dictionaries.

GOOD question!! Just as North Korea calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", yet we know it is not democratic by any definition, so too is state control of the MoP not "socialism" even when it calls itself "socialism", as state capitalism proves. Don't be fooled by liars! You cannot have worker control and worker liberation if you have state capitalism!

And to further answer your question, socialism is in its "figuring it out" stage. All we have seen of it has been attempts to establish it. And since the failures resulting from seizing state power by violent overthrow, new strategies have been developed that take a new approach, much like the way capitalism established itself during its own 100-year "figuring it out" stage. So we can't really talk about a socialism that didn't become a few elites owning and controlling the MoP yet remained socialism. The two are contradictory. All we have are attempts to create it and no successes yet.

Yup.

Yup.

 

That is EVIL of you! I never came CLOSE to saying any such thing! It's far more accurate to say that you defend a racist misogynist who is guilty of child abduction and treason. But you don't seem capable of recognizing that that is what it is.

Don't worry about it. Soon you will get stuffed back under your rock by the people and you will again be afraid to show your face.

 

So the socialists give some guy complete control of the means of production, and then wonder why they live in a dictatorship rather than a utopian fantasyland?

Yeah, that's kinda the problem with socialism no matter where you go. There's always gotta be that one guy, whether it's a Castro or a Hitler or a Mussolini or a Stalin or a Pol Pot or a Kim il sung or a Mao Zedong or a Maduro or a Ho Chi Minh or a Che Guevera or a...

It's like you guys keep rooting for the Washington Generals even though you've never once managed to beat the Globetrotters.

 

Whenever you use the law to defend immoral behavior, that's exactly what you do.

Instead of saying "because it's the law" try defending the need for the law.

 

Need makes it right. Wow.

 

I needed to fart while in a crowded elevator once.

Need does sometimes make it right, I guess.

 

Ya know, you don't even try. You just spew crap like a troll would. And when you can't think of an argument, you bring up the Hitler card to spread more lies and crap. I'm done and will be putting you on "ignore" again so you can't pester me further.

 

Almost everyone? Almost everyone on the left perhaps. The founders were looking for equality not fairness. The law must treat everyone the same. It should never put the interests of one over those of another. Government wealth redistribution is socialism in its worst form.

 

lol! Because you can't argue against me.

Yes, put me on ignore. You are...



oh, and not liking the fact that nazi literally means national socialist, so of course the socialists freak out whenever this is pointed out...

lol!!!!

 

What cowpoke is being driven?

 

When I ran my business I had to hire workers, for some reason I couldn't do it all by myself, since it took a crew to perform all the duties involved..and to move tonnage a day....But I did keep my azz..

 

What do you "contribute" to the govt.?

 

Do they dine at leisure or are they needing to hurry because of a long line of zombie workers?

 

Air is free, sunlight also. So there are some things that are free, see?

 

God kills more people than the leading cause of human deaths, bacteria..

 

The largest increase in median income and the middle class was the era of military vets after WWII getting that almost free education.

If you had actually attended a real university you could have seen King Lear, where Shakespear described it best when Lear is speaking to his daughters about the usurpation of the crown, Lear retorts to his daughters when they refuse to answer Lear's charges of disloyalty, " nothing shall come from nothing, I speak anon.".

 

It was longhorns that got driven, as soon as there was green grass in spring, from Red River Station across the Red and onto the Chisholm Trail. When all hands were paid at Abilene they had to head south and find another drive or find another job -- back in the saddle, work another job, outlaw and be hung, or starve. There was no such thing as free stuff.

 

You may have a point. And it's not even a race thing or poor thing. It's gotten to where the folks who can't create are doing it.

 

Seems we are on nearly the same page but here is the problem I find with your analysis. (same thing I have been bitching about from the start).

You often couch "Socialism" in black and white terms. "If there isn't worker control - its not true socialism" - while I agree with this - the problem is that "True Socialism" does not exist and IMO can not exist.

As such - myopic focus on this strict definition (or any black vs white paradigm in relation to politics) does not help to solve some of the problems that do exist.

How often do we hear people use terms such a Liberal "Liberals are this/Liberals are that" as if Liberals constitute some solid black vs white concept. Same is true with the term Republican.

When I correct people saying "the Liberal establishment hates classical liberalism and the Republican Establishment hates Republicanism" - few disagree and those that do are quickly quashed into submission (sans the complete idiots in denial).

While most people - at some level - realize that the black vs white characterization is not true, they act/vote as if it is.

"Bernie Sanders is a Socialist" ... this is preposterous nonsense - even if we are not using the strict definition you give and just go with state ownership of most resources of means and production. Bernie wants no such thing. Bernie is about more equal wealth redistribution and elimination some of the inequalities within capitalism that make the playing field unfair.

I am not shilling or Sanders here. Rather I am pointing how a black vs white "label" - a label that has no basis in reality - forms the basis by which many peoples actions are dictated.

This also illustrates how when labels are used - the conversation loses all meaning and has no basis in reality. One side is screaming "Liberal/Socialist" - meaning wealth redistribution to the poor. The other side is screaming "Republican/Capitalist" meaning wealth redistribution to the Rich.

The left is not generally against Capitalism (it is against Crony Capitalism) - and the right is not generally against wealth redistribution (roads, infrastructure and in particular the military).

The right will claim that they are against wealth redistribution ( crying socialism .. socialism) .. when in reality they are not against wealth redistribution - they are against wealth redistribution to the poor/lower class. They are actually for wealth redistribution - but only to areas that they agree with. The same is true on the other side (although to a lesser degree).

 

The Right loves wealth redistribution - in fact it is tough to determine who loves wealth redistribution more - right or left.

The Right talks a good game but actions speak louder than words. The Right establishment loves big Gov't, big Gov't spending and big deficits .. and the base keeps electing them despite this.

 

That's why Trump got elected -- because working people couldn't get any representation no how, no way.

That's why Trump was able to dispatch to the trash heap the 16 mostly ordinary, business as usual republican candidates in the 2016 primaries.

 

It is incorrect as well as disingenuous for anyone to claim that any permutation of capitalism (elite control of the MoP) is "socialism". Do you agree?

 

I don't. While in "theory" this is not socialism ... this Utopian idea of Socialism does not exist in reality .. and it will never exist.

Even among the Borg there was a hierarchy

In all systems which have touted the banner of socialism "workers unite and so on" and come to power as a result - the elites ended up controlling most resources and means of production.

Each of these systems also ended up in totalitarianism.

What is the point of pretending some kind of realistic form of Utopian Socialism exists .. when it does not ?

We can make up any definition of "socialism" we want - if this definition does not reflect reality - what good is it ?