Reply With QuoteŠñøü†ê® (02-07-2012)
Cowpunk says what?Originally Posted by Cyclone Ranger
Šñøü†ê® (02-07-2012)
Big Steve has made me think more about owl shit than I ever thought possible.
Also, having a few redistributionist tendencies or a desire to see the federal government take a more active role in people's lives != socialist. In fact, the brand of liberalism that Obama subscribes to was created as a more capitalistic, individualistic alternative to socialism, from back when there were real concerns of a commie takeover. This might make him an asshole or failure in your eyes, and that's fine. Doesn't mean he's a Marxist or socialist, though.
Archaix (02-07-2012)
OK, a piece of shit at least then.
Šñøü†ê® (02-07-2012)
That's subjective, but totally fair.
Entitlements are social programs. Why are social programs not socialist? Do not some people get more out of these entitlements than they put in? It seems to me that this conversation is pointless. If you will not accept the fact that the majority of our national government's spending goes directly to benefit individual Americans is socialist, then I don't know what to tell you.
Let me ask you this...what would you accept as evidence that America is a socialist country? That Obama (or any other poltician) is a socialist? It seems to me that no matter what arguments or evidence is presented, you fail to accept it. So, what would you accept?
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."
caddis (02-06-2012)
Why would social programs iimply organizing a violent overthrow of the institutions of capitalist production; ie, socialism?
America would be a socialist country if we abolished the existence of private property, and instituted cooperative share ownership of the means of production by the workers.
Government lays claim to money that is private property. By doing so it controls the means of production and uses violence to maintain it's hold.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
Taxes aren't private property. They're what you legitimately owe for the privilege of living in a sovereign nation.
Archaix (02-07-2012)
Fuck that, commie.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
Šñøü†ê® (02-07-2012)
Income taxes are the will of the American people as expressed through our democratic process, and all the stupid name-calling in the world won't change it.
If you don't like it, move to some other jurisdiction.
Archaix (02-07-2012)
Fuck that too, commie.
When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man? [Henry David Thoreau]
Šñøü†ê® (02-07-2012)
Socialism
1.A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
I'd venture to guess that 99.9% of all production, distribution, and exchange is owned, controlled or regulated by the government
One of the last relatively free forms of enterprise left is the internet and that's just a matter of time before it's completely controlled and taxed to death.
Scandal? The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi.
Socialism requires that all private property be abolished, not simply "regulated." If all property and the means of production aren't owned cooperatively by the people, a government is not socialist.
Well, no. It's possible to be a socialist and merely want to restrict the negative effects of capitalism -which is what I believe. Don't forget that to Marxists 'socialism' is supposed to be what you get before you reach pure communism, a sort of almost-perfect transitionary stage. Since I, and I suspect the vast majority of socialists, do not believe entirely centrally-planned economies work it isn't a definition I would support. In all other regards you've been correct in this thread (IMHO).
That's an utterly stupid definition of socialism. What do you think currency is, if not a form of control/regulation of production, distribution and exhange? All societies have in some form had most/all economic functions regulated, and at least some parts directly controlled by the state, like, since about 800AD. Think for one fucking minute before you say or type anything else today, please.
Last edited by Archaix; 02-07-2012 at 07:19 AM.
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
optimus (02-07-2012)
No it doesn't. You have just defined socialism to it's most extreme and narrow definition in order to feel you have control of the argument. You only fool yourself
Scandal? The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi.
Freedom&Liberty (02-07-2012), Šñøü†ê® (02-07-2012)
I realize that you and cowpunk are the resident, armchair experts with anything to do with socialism and marxism but that doesn't mean you are correct. I also notice that you are good at telling us what socialism isn't but you haven't quite defined it yourself. Regardless, if you feel the definition is "utterly stupid" then complain to wiki. I found it to be a better definition of socialism than the narrow minded definition that cowpunkski has given.
Yeah, and all societies that regulate production, distribution, and exchange are socialist to one degree or another it's not a black/white, either/or proposition.What do you think currency is, if not a form of control/regulation of production, distribution and exhange? All societies have in some form had most/all economic functions regulated, and at least some parts directly controlled by the state, like, since about 800AD.
Were you an OCD, anal retentive, freak as a child? Did you throw the crayon back at your kindergarten teacher and scream "This isn't green you fucking bitch, this is forest!!!"
Yeah, sure thing boss....**60 seconds later**... I think I'll say fuck you, cocksucker.Think for one fucking minute before you say or type anything else today, please.
Scandal? The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi.
That line this thread just crossed is one the mods watch closely. Be careful.
The ambassador died, Obama lied.
While that's a fair enough comment, I also think Caddis' post is one more beautiful illustration of how miniscule his intellect really is. I counsel him to keep his opinions to himself.
You find the definition of socialism that suggests absolutely everything is socialist is a "better definition" than, uh, Cyclone Ranger's definition of it as a specific political concept? Wait, of course you do, because you have no sense.
No, because that's not what socialism means. Yes, it isn't black and white, but that spectrum is between people that think society needs some sort of crumple zone between it and capitalism, all the way through to people who think that we should formulate a new economy not based on wealth accumulation. It doesn't extend to people who merely think some state regulation is needed to make sure companies aren't commiting fraud, endangering their workers or (even more merely) those among us that think we should at least have some broadly comparable currencies to standardise trade, i.e. pretty much everyone.
Oh, you're making me very sad now, Caddis. Very sad indeed. You've made me reconsider all my political positions all in one go.
Show us not the aim without the way, for ends and means on earth are so entangled
That changing one, you change the other too; each different path brings other ends in view
optimus (02-07-2012)
Barack Obama turned the United States into a democratic dictatorship:
http://www.unintimidatedpress.com/dictatorship.htm
That is utterly retarded, if I may say so. Europe's democracies have not had their governments violently overthrown nor do they generally abolish private property...yet they call themselves socialist!! Can you explain this?
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks