Why is it that everyone that wants socialism

Hmm...Laws get passed for a reason...Based on your logic...what should be illegal? Breaking a contract for starters...next, your turn.

 

So in your strange world socialism = capitalism. There is no point in reasoning with you then.

 

The swamp is inhabited by denizens of both parties. They all overspend. Shame on voters for bringing them back for more. It has nothing to do with redistribution.

 

What lacks reason is your strawman. I never said any such thing.

 

Big Gov't spending has everything to do with wealth redistribution. Where do you think they get the money ? Taxes. Since when is taxation not wealth redistribution ?

 

That is total weaseling bunk and totally dishonest. Your reply to my question as shown in post #402 was "I don't." And my question was clear. If you can't say what you mean due to confusion or poor writing skills, you might want to refrain from posting.

 

Not everyone wants socialism. Didn't someone just post a poll saying only 19% of Democrats want socialism. That percentage must be near zero for Republicans.

It just seems everyone wants socialism because the msm is pushing it 24/7.

 

LOL!!! I expect you meant to type "Democrats".

Keep in mind that Democrats and Republicans are committed to preserving capitalism and that is why they ran for office.

I think if you look into it you will find that between 35 and 40% of Americans have a positive view of socialism, and most people approve of worker co-ops.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/191354/americans-views-socialism-capitalism-little-changed.aspx

 

I stated exactly what I meant - with explanation. It is either your reading comprehension or lack of intellectual capacity that is the problem.

I stated clearly that Capitalism and Socialism (as practiced) ends up with at the same place in that both end up with a few elites owning all resources and means of production.

This does not mean that Capitalism regimes are the same as Socialist regimes. The means by which both systems reach the same place is completely different.

Get a grip and quit putting words in my mouth .. .and quit blaming me for your lack of reading comprehension.

 

They still believe in Santa but without the bit where you have to do good things first.

 

Well, even THAT is not true. It would be true if you had said "Capitalism and Socialism (as practiced) have not ended up at the same place yet " ... because the strategies for establishing socialism are still evolving, just as they did for capitalism for about 100 years.

 

Of course it is true .. Socialism "as practiced" has given us Mao's China and Stalin's Russia. In both cases you ended up with a few elite controlling all resources and means of production.

Do come up with an example of a system formed under the guise of socialism (state ownership of most resources and means of production) has ended up anywhere else.

 

One of the great flaws of socialism or communism is that they seem, except for the ruling elites, demand equality of outcome, economically speaking. I think this is one of many reasons it has always failed, when compared to capitalism.

Capitalism seems to better mesh with human nature, where the other "isms" have to work against it, and lose. The great idea of course was to condition a population to resist a very powerful human nature. It has never been able to do that. And never will. What happens, and has always happened is that human nature corrupts any system that does not at least somewhat mesh with it. That is why, IMO, what marx wrote looks wonderful on paper, but the reality of human nature will corrupt it, and you must have an iron fist in order to try to force a square peg into a round hole. It takes lots of murder in order to sustain either system, in an attempt to get there, to condition people. Most of these marxist driven nations tend to take out their intellectuals and most intelligent people, early on. People who can think at higher levels in particular fields.

 

That is because, as Marx warned could happen, both reverted to state capitalism. The experiment of socialism was brought to an end by capitalist-roaders.

That is not Marx's meaning of "socialism". It is a capitalist definition, so I reject it. But for some unknown reason you ask me for an example of a system formed under the "guise of socialism (that) has ended up anywhere else" after I just got done telling you that the strategies for establishing socialism are still evolving and that there are new strategies for establishing socialism because the previous attempts have not been reliable. And I'm not interested in defending a failed strategy that I've rejected.

 

That is not valid, but it reveals a dreadful lack of knowledge of the history of efforts to establish socialism.

LOL!!!! -A standard but empty objection. Human nature is a social one. People have always lived in communities for the benefits derived from cooperating and social interaction. They never formed communities to live isolated, independent lives. But that argument is good for the funny factor.

 

Yes, there was, the govt. was giving away free land...I am from Okiehoma and my Papa was a cattle rancher in south-central Ok...There were no cattle drives after the trains showed up and fences were built in the 1890's when my Papa was born in Texass..
You never heard of the Oklahoma land run where free land was given away? Man what do they teach kids in school nowadays?

 

So there is nothing in what marx wrote about equality of outcome? So there are classes in socialism, and it isn't about a classless society at all?

I think you lost it. Or trying to rewrite history.

I agree, when humans existed in tribes, there was cooperation and sharing of resources. But civilization changed that. Yet even within tribal societies status was present, but it wasn't about what one owned that determined status but other things. Status arose because of human nature. Status is intertwined with classes, both of human nature.

The rewards within cooperative tribal societies, even if different from the rewards of later on civilizations existed because of human nature.

So what are the awards within maxism? Personal awards? Does it affect status? Does it affect the way one feels about himself in regards to the rest of the society?

Again, marx talked about grand ideas, like a classless society. He thought the class break down in a capitalistic society created inevitable conflict. Are you sure you read Marx?

Equality of economic outcome supposedly will not create classes as capitalism creates with its non equality of outcome.

And of course dividing people whether a system does it, or they do it themselves can create conflict. Division creates conflict as you are in conflict with conservatives. Some people take it to another level, all of this because of human nature. Socialism, communism is in conflict with human nature, when it is applied to large societies, where there is no essential need to work together in cooperation for basic human survival. The survival of the tribe demanded cooperation and sharing, and so status was not based upon wealth, but other things, that complimented the hunter gatherers, the sharing of resources. A tribe helped to insure survival, and necessity is the mother of invention.

Civilization changed this, in a most fundamental manner. You no longer needed every person in a tribe in order for the tribe to survive which meant you as an individual would survive. The sharing and cooperation of a hunter gatherer tribe was no longer essential. Not down at the most fundamental level.

So what happens in a larger society where you have loafers? People who will not do their fair share of work, for a company? Do you think what happens, the friction, the conflict is not based upon human nature? Do you think it is not human nature to want to be recognized for your contribution?

So of course a system that rewards the bigger contributors, that sets them apart from the rest is going with the flow of human nature and not against it. And if you want a marxist classless society, individual achievement and effort, cannot be rewarded so that one has more of something than another. For as soon as you have that, you just created a different class of people. No wonder communism and socialism has been an abject failure wherever it has been tried. Human nature must be changed, and you cannot do that. But you can kill lots of folks in trying to do the impossible.

I do agree that most humans have something in the dna that is about cooperation, even sharing, but that existed, we evolved in that manner with status being involved as well, something that separates one from the others. It has taken different forms, but it always involves recognition of the group, in regards to certain people. This over time creates a class of people, different from others. Even tribal society was not a classless society. But of course nothing like today whether it is socialism or capitalism. It just looks like socialism has two classes, the ruling elites who live better, and the rest of the people. Capitalism has both of those classes plus one in the middle, the middle class.

What has been most successful, evidenced by whether it lived on, is not socialism or communism. At least when it comes to civilization. And whether or not it meshed better with human nature is a major reason for this. What does not mesh as well, fails, and what meshes better, survives. I think it is as simple as that.

 

I haven't memorized everything Marx wrote, but based on what I did read and remember plus discussions with Marxists, he may have used the word "equality" but he didn't advocate EQUAL incomes or possessions or dwellings under socialism. But I don't see how this relates to my post.

Correct. Marx referred to "the dictatorship of the proletariat" meaning a virtual dictatorship of the working class over the capitalist class. It is, according to Marx, a future communist society that is classless.

No, as I just showed, you are ignorant of Marxist theory, but that is expected given your political bias because misrepresenting it so you can attack your spin is in your interest.

That isn't a valid response. Why don't more people move to the wilderness of Alaska and live self-sufficient lives? Please answer this and be sure to answer what I asked and not something else. Thanks.

 

Because they want their necessities paid for with someone else's money, so they can spend their money on luxuries

 

The last commercial drive was in the early 1940's, going through Nocona, TX, and across the Red onto the Chisholm trail. But it went less than seventy miles before the longhorns were transferred onto a train. I met one of the hands that helped drive them on that run who then enlisted in the Marines to go to WWII. He said that when the larger cattle trailers and more capable diesels came out about that time, that was it for even the very short drives. Also the bridges had been improved crossing the Red at various places and there wasn't so many bridge collapses, which favored using trucks to the railroads.

Your point is correct that after the Civil War and progressively more track reaching more and more locations, the drives continually became shorter and shorter.

There's still a few roundups with the drive going through Nocona every once in a great while, but these are celebratory and traditional like a parade, not commercial. That old cowpoke was hoping he would get to see just one more.

 

Can you just try a sane, sensible argument for once? A huge portion of people in the US who advocate socialism are intellectuals and successful people with above average incomes. Look into it. And you will never find an advocate of socialism hinting that they want other to support them financially. But that is a good if fake argument to rally the righties who are too lazy to find out and think for themselves.

 

So they volunteer to pay the top tax rate so that nobody is supplementing their necessities, while they spend their own money on vacations to the Bahamas?

 

Do you know of an advocate of socialism who does that? My experience is that they are very willing to pay their legitimate way like everyone else must.

 

as long as others pay more than them

 

Ok I'll not be responding to your nonsensical and extreme personal ejaculations any further. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ejaculation