Failure of socialism

[Boobalaa]

:biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:..oh yeah..like USA Free Market Capitalism "suck" "ceeded" and better?!! what a joke!! Who the fuck bailed out all these fuckin banks that were "too big to fail"?..I've been to the bank more times in the past month than I have ever because of "administrative" management paperwork! All they did was change their names, so I have to go in and redo all the paperwork all over again..talk about a pain in the ass!!..It's the same old bosses with a new name..

 

[JacobFox]

Your form of conversation leaves me with little to say, bye.

]

You have to adore the "I'm taking my toys and going home" rebuttal.

 

[deleted15807]

You have to adore the "I'm taking my toys and going home" rebuttal.

:grinning-smiley-003

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Socialism is social justice. Present day capitalism is not the opposite of socialism, it is state-capitalism: use enterprise to become mega rich but get government to underwrite you with the taxes of the poor so that you will always profit. It isn't just Bangkok where people are realizing this.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Further proof that people don't actually know what socialism or communism is or tries to be. There has never been a pure example of either in any country. The countries being labelled as "socialist" are all capitalist welfare states. China is a totalitarian state that is more crony capitalist than most people realize.

 

[B_spiker067]

HAHAHAHAHA..........

At this point in the conversation the USSR wasn't socialist nor is Venezuela, Cuba, or N. Korea because there are/were totalitarian goverments in charge.

Tooooooooooooooo funny. Socialism for some only exists in the abstract world of a textbook definition. Really, funny. Thanks for the laughs.

I like how socialism = social justice. Give me some of that N. Korean life or that 30% inflation rate of Venezuela despite being a ridiculously oil rich country, strategically located and at a time of high oil prices.

 

[B_spiker067]

You have to adore the "I'm taking my toys and going home" rebuttal.

Why did you leave out the late [edit] part? It was a closing comment sufficient to express a point. Plus, all that had been said in argumentation was not addressed by Sargon. You got love that selective rebuttal practice.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

HAHAHAHAHA..........

At this point in the conversation the USSR wasn't socialist nor is Venezuela, Cuba, or N. Korea because there are/were totalitarian goverments in charge.

Tooooooooooooooo funny. Socialism for some only exists in the abstract world of a textbook definition. Really, funny. Thanks for the laughs.

I like how socialism = social justice. Give me some of that N. Korean life or that 30% inflation rate of Venezuela despite being a ridiculously oil rich country, strategically located and at a time of high oil prices.

It's not a tex book definition, it's the definition as laid out by the men who actually developed the ideology, Marx and Engels. You can laugh and pretend that anything you like is Socialism if you want but you're not lending any more weight to your position by doing so.


Indeed the USSR was not socialist nor in Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea. Totalitarian Dictatorship and Socialism are totally incompatible.

 

[B_spiker067]

It's not a tex book definition, it's the definition as laid out by the men who actually developed the ideology, Marx and Engels. You can laugh and pretend that anything you like is Socialism if you want but you're not lending any more weight to your position by doing so.


Indeed the USSR was not socialist nor in Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea. Totalitarianism and Socialism are totally incompatible.

The cognitive dissonance is stunning. NO clue that textbook socialism in the real world cannot exist because of basic human nature and that the examples illustrated are the reasonable facsimile put into practice.

Simply stunning.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

The cognitive dissonance is stunning. NO clue that textbook socialism in the real world cannot exist because of basic human nature and that the examples illustrated are the reasonable facsimile put into practice.

Simply stunning.

They're not even remotely a reasonable facsimile and even if they were it still would not make them actually Socialist, it would make them Socialist-approximate, which essentially means not Socialist but some other system based more or less on some Socialist principles or more accurately they pretend to be socialist in order to justify dictatorship.

Now as to whether or not Socialism is in fact possible to implement, we have no actual idea because except for a single instance which was extinguished by fascists in Spain we have no examples of any attempt to introduce Socialism rather than some one party dictatorship using the pretence of socialism to justify its tyranny.

As to your insults, frankly this isn't one of the US politics discussions, take your nasty mouth to one of them if you can't be civil.

 

[B_spiker067]

They're not even remotely a reasonable facsimile and even if they were it still would not make them actually Socialist, it would make them Socialist-approximate, which essentially means not Socialist but some other system based more or less on some Socialist principles or more accurately they pretend to be socialist in order to justify dictatorship.

Now as to whether or not Socialism is in fact possible to implement, we have no actual idea because except for a single instance which was extinguished by fascists in Spain we have no examples of any attempt to introduce Socialism rather than some one party dictatorship using the pretence of socialism to justify its tyranny.

As to your insults, frankly this isn't one of the US politics discussions, take your nasty mouth to one of them if you can't be civil.

Long before you posted this I cleaned up my language. Even if I hadn't I see no real problem with a little color in language.

They ARE a reasonable facsimile given HUMAN NATURE. So tell me how do you think socialism would work in the real world? If you have a command (planned) economy just who does get to command? What happens to those commanders when their planning invariably goes wrong? Do they get totalitarian in their response?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Long before you posted this I cleaned up my language. Even if I hadn't I see no real problem with a little color in language.

They ARE a reasonable facsimile given HUMAN NATURE. So tell me how do you think socialism would work in the real world? If you have a command (planned) economy just who does get to command? What happens to those commanders when their planning invariably goes wrong? Do they get totalitarian in their response?

What is "HUMAN NATURE"? A subjective variable which allows you a sliding rule which can justify more erzats definitions and biased assessments?

Read some descriptions of how life was lived and society organised in Catalunya during the Spanish Civil war, that's the nearest anyone came to actually introducing Socialism, though in fairness the experiment was cut short somewhat. We have no idea how it would have developed.

 

[B_spiker067]

What is "HUMAN NATURE"? A subjective variable which allows you a sliding rule which can justify more erzats definitions and biased assessments?

Read some descriptions of how life was lived and society organised in Catalunya during the Spanish Civil war, that's the nearest anyone came to actually introducing Socialism, though in fairness the experiment was cut short somewhat. We have no idea how it would have developed.

1) Catalunya: Likely idealized writings by biased observers.

2) Human nature can be studied and observed on a daily basis both in your personal life and in a historical context. It is why (a just, wonderful, perfect human being like) Chavez is slowly self destructing.

3) You repeat yourself w/o answering questions. How would socialism work off the textbook page?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

1) Catalunya: Likely idealized writings by biased observers.

2) Human nature can be studied and observed on a daily basis both in your personal life and in a historical context. It is why (a just, wonderful, perfect human being like) Chavez is slowly self destructing.

3) You repeat yourself w/o answering questions. How would socialism work off the textbook page?

1) there are a huge variety of accounts of the period, not all written by socialists, indeed many written by detractors.

2) if human nature can be descried from history why can't the benefits or drawbacks of socialism in Spain?

3) Again other than the example I pointed out I/we have no objective basis for an opinion on how Socialism would work in real life. I'm not a Socialist so asking me to justify Socialism is pointless.

 

[rob_just_rob]

That is of course impossible. Obviously, someone cannot possibly know if they will "like what you have to say" until they are actually made aware of "what you have to say".

CP>Edit Ignore List>Add a Member to Your List...
type "rob_just_rob"
click "Okay"

 

[B_spiker067]

1) there are a huge variety of accounts of the period, not all written by socialists, indeed many written by detractors.

2) if human nature can be descried from history why can't the benefits or drawbacks of socialism in Spain?

3) Again other than the example I pointed out I/we have no objective basis for an opinion on how Socialism would work in real life. I'm not a Socialist so asking me to justify Socialism is pointless.

You've provided no links to your example. I thought I was goading you into doing so. Link please.

So if you have no basis for an opinion on how socialism would work in real life what is your problem with people calling something in real life socialist based on the weight of the precepts involved? Chavez SAYS he's socialist. Why isn't that good enough? Most his followers say they are socialist. Isn't that good enough?

If I say an entitlement program is socialist in nature what real rebuttal do you have? "It's not a textbook definition? And never mind that many other people consider something socialist."

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

You've provided no links to your example. I thought I was goading you into doing so. Link please.

So if you have no basis for an opinion on how socialism would work in real life what is your problem with people calling something in real life socialist based on the weight of the precepts involved? Chavez SAYS he's socialist. Why isn't that good enough? Most his followers say they are socialist. Isn't that good enough?

If I say an entitlement program is socialist in nature what real rebuttal do you have? "It's not a textbook definition? And never mind that many other people consider something socialist."

I have to provide you with a link to a history of Socialism in Civil War Spain? Seriously?

I can call you a fascist and ardently believe that you are one, but does that mean that you are ? Of course not, because the objective standard for judging if you are a fascist or not would contradict my belief and assertions.

I really must say I don't have any idea what an entitlement program is, so you can call it whatever you want.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

CP>Edit Ignore List>Add a Member to Your List...
type "rob_just_rob"
click "Okay"

Well, you're acting like quite the child today...

lololololol... Nice tactic... Make a weak argument, back it up with nothing, and then when someone merely remarks that you could have done a better job of explaining yourself, whine that if they don't like your remarks, then they should ignore you.

What's next, are you going to stomp your feet and put your fingers in your ears?

 

[rob_just_rob]

Well, you're acting like quite the child today...

No, I simply refuted your assertion that it was impossible for you to avoid reading my posts.

I'm going to keep reading your responses to me, though. They're hilarious. To recap, you have:

- taken it on yourself to jump into an issue that didn't involve you
- misunderstood the relatively straightforward point in my initial post
- failed to understand the nuance between socialism and "socialism" - which, in the Politics forum, should be pretty obvious...

And now, having nothing better to say, you're onto ad hominem. Wow, you really got me with that one - calling me a child. Way to go. You're definitely winning this argument.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

For someone who was just whining about being taken out of context, you certainly have no qualms about doing it to others...

No, I simply refuted your assertion that it was impossible for you to avoid reading my posts.

That's not what I said, nor it is what I was hinting at, eluding to or whatever other phrasing you would like to assume I meant.

let's recap, since you seem eager to misconstrue things...

You said...

Don't like what I have to say, don't read it. *shrugs*

To which I responded...

Obviously, someone cannot possibly know if they will "like what you have to say" until they are actually made aware of "what you have to say".

Ignoring your posts, as you have suggested, would not allow someone to know if they like what you have to say or not, it would merely prevent them from ever knowing what you have to say in the first place, which is very obviously not the same thing.

Sheesh, and YOU bitch about people taking your remarks out of context???

- taken it on yourself to jump into an issue that didn't involve you

You're on a public discussion forum... exactly what did you think was going to occur?

failed to understand the nuance between socialism and "socialism" - which, in the Politics forum, should be pretty obvious...

As other posts have indicated, it isn't obvious... Why don't you be a sport and explain it to everyone in clear, unmistakable terms. Then perhaps the discussion can actually progress in a constructive manner, instead of being run around in circles by your word games.

(and btw, if you have a problem with people responding to your posts, then aren't YOU the one who should be utilizing the ignore feature? Or better yet, perhaps you shouldn't be posting on a public discussion forum at all, given that the entire point of posting here is to engage others in discussion.)