Anonymous
08/27/2019 08:53
Subject: How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Socialism defined by the laws of math. I produce 4 widgets, the less productive person next to me produces 2 widgets. I now have three widgets. How many do you think I will attempt to produce tomorrow.
See, for example, East Germany.
Bernie and Warren love the good old East Germany.
I wonder why they didn't move there.
Do you have a source for that, or are you merely making stuff up?
No, it's Bernie who's making stuff up.
Anonymous
08/27/2019 08:48
Subject: How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Socialism defined by the laws of math. I produce 4 widgets, the less productive person next to me produces 2 widgets. I now have three widgets. How many do you think I will attempt to produce tomorrow.
See, for example, East Germany.
Bernie and Warren love the good old East Germany.
I wonder why they didn't move there.
Do you have a source for that, or are you merely making stuff up?
No, it's Bernie who's making stuff up.
Anonymous
08/27/2019 06:51
Subject: How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Socialism defined by the laws of math. I produce 4 widgets, the less productive person next to me produces 2 widgets. I now have three widgets. How many do you think I will attempt to produce tomorrow.
See, for example, East Germany.
Bernie and Warren love the good old East Germany.
I wonder why they didn't move there.
Do you have a source for that, or are you merely making stuff up?
Anonymous
08/26/2019 23:33
Subject: Re:How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:will there be “great schools” and a continuing bourgeois emphasis on material goods and travel sports and lily white bubbles in the new America? If not, what will 90 percent of y’all do?
We will move away. You guys threaten to leave but you don’t actually pull the trigger. If you manage to make the US socialist, I will bail out. I don’t want to live in the hell of Cuba or Venezuela. That may be paradise to you bozos but not so me. Especially because as a productive and self sufficient member of society, I am pretty sure I will be floating your be worthless parasitic butts in your socialist utopia even more than I am now. Not thanks.
+100
We feel the same way. And we wouldn’t threaten to leave and then not follow through (cough, cough, DCUM).
Anonymous
08/26/2019 23:30
Subject: Re:How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:will there be “great schools” and a continuing bourgeois emphasis on material goods and travel sports and lily white bubbles in the new America? If not, what will 90 percent of y’all do?
We will move away. You guys threaten to leave but you don’t actually pull the trigger. If you manage to make the US socialist, I will bail out. I don’t want to live in the hell of Cuba or Venezuela. That may be paradise to you bozos but not so me. Especially because as a productive and self sufficient member of society, I am pretty sure I will be floating your be worthless parasitic butts in your socialist utopia even more than I am now. Not thanks.
Anonymous
08/26/2019 23:08
Subject: How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Socialism defined by the laws of math. I produce 4 widgets, the less productive person next to me produces 2 widgets. I now have three widgets. How many do you think I will attempt to produce tomorrow.
See, for example, East Germany.
Bernie and Warren love the good old East Germany.
I wonder why they didn't move there.
Anonymous
08/26/2019 23:05
Subject: Re:How do you define Socialism?
will there be “great schools” and a continuing bourgeois emphasis on material goods and travel sports and lily white bubbles in the new America? If not, what will 90 percent of y’all do?
Anonymous
08/26/2019 22:25
Subject: How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Democrats want socialism. Stop lying to yourselves.
No we don’t, PP. Please get informed and stop believing the pathetic propaganda.
DP. Democratic Socialists absolutely do want that. Ask AOC and friends.
Anonymous
08/26/2019 22:23
Subject: Re:How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Socialism is the battle cry of the undereducated and fearful.
No Democrat wants socialism as a form of government. Not one.
What absolute BS. And I do believe Bernie, AOC, et al would beg to differ.
No they wouldn’t. Even Democratic Socialism isn’t socialism.
Turn off Fox and read an actual newspaper. Better yet, borrow your grandkid’s social studies book.
If anything, it seems you need to take your own advice.
“The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States.”
-from the DSA website
So what?
So there is no disagreement between PPs and the Democratic Socialists of America party that Democratic Socialism as pursued in the US by prominent Democratic politicians is indeed socialism, in direct contradiction to the bolded part above.
+1,000
There’s a reason they’re denying it. I’d be embarrassed too if my party had a huge socialist wing.
Anonymous
08/26/2019 21:54
Subject: How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:Socialism defined by the laws of math. I produce 4 widgets, the less productive person next to me produces 2 widgets. I now have three widgets. How many do you think I will attempt to produce tomorrow.
See, for example, East Germany.
Anonymous
08/26/2019 21:52
Subject: How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Socialism - i work to support others that don't.
I don't understand why people try to shorten the definition of socialism since the original definition is pretty compact already. You are not saving much time typing so why not just use the original succinct definition.
Because it needs a more relevant explanation
Anonymous
08/26/2019 21:06
Subject: Re:How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Corporate welfare
Farmer Subsidies
There is a pretty clear distinction between welfare programs and socialism. I see many other people in the thread making the mistake. Socialism is the collective ownership of means of production/distribution. Corporate welfare, or other regulations that unfairly benefit corporations, does not result in collective ownership of the corporations and is therefore not socialism. Farm subsidies which either seek to advantage farmers or to make up for some observed disadvantage of farmers do not result in collective ownership of the farms and are therefore not socialism. During the aftermath of the financial crisis, the US "bailed out" a lot of large banks and the US automotive manufacturers by giving "loans secured by equity" - even though the US government tried very hard to only provide stability for the recovery, the fact remains that this action nationalized a portion of these banks and auto manufacturers, resulting in the partial collective ownership of these entities, and was therefore socialism.
It’s wealth redistribution ... it’s socialism.
Anonymous
08/26/2019 18:26
Subject: How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:Socialism defined by the laws of math. I produce 4 widgets, the less productive person next to me produces 2 widgets. I now have three widgets. How many do you think I will attempt to produce tomorrow.
The pilgrims had this exact problem.
Guess how they solved it?
Anonymous
08/26/2019 18:14
Subject: Re:How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Socialism is the battle cry of the undereducated and fearful.
No Democrat wants socialism as a form of government. Not one.
This is true. Even Bernie has never endorsed Socialism as a form of government. Democratic Socialism is a very different thing.
Fox and Republicans are scaring the stupid and undereducated with false claims that Democrats want a socialist government.
Another lie from our friendly neighborhood dcum leftists.
Bernie actually said he’s a socialist.
And no, socialism doesn’t work.
Anonymous
08/26/2019 16:02
Subject: How do you define Socialism?
Anonymous wrote:He who does not work, neither shall he eat.
So people will not work unless under the threat of starvation? In a twist of argument, let me note that the ruling class is not under the threat of starvation, and therefore by the claim made above, we must put them into an economic position in which they are impoverished so we can get a good day's work out of them.