- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why do Socialism Deniers ignore the overwhelming evidence that Socialism doesn't work
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:37 am to Antonio Moss
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:37 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
I never claimed that the public owned my retirement account. I claimed that it is the market parallel to Social Security (which it is).
In what way is a private retirement account and, your words, not mine....
"No, I claim that social security is in no way, shape, or form "socialism." It is simply a redistributive program within a capitalistic system."
SO you are stating that your personal, private retirement account is "a redistributive program within a capitalistic system"...again, your words???
If your 401K is truly what you are describing here my friend you need to end it immediately...take your tax hit and your penalties and start all over again...you are being fricked royally if your 401K account is being redistributed to someone who may or may not have contributed a penny to it.....
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:42 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
So now you are backing out of your original position?
No my friend you and I are on the same side...I was merely using the words that the right uses all of the time to describe government and collectivism....social security is a fine example...many on the right will argue that it is a socialist idea...when it is categorically is not...which you so succinctly spell out. I fully understand that there are very few socialists on the left in the United States....we are re-distributionists...probably even scarier to a capitalist who understands the term...we are not socialists...no one is advocating for the public ownership of the means of production, distribution or exchange....what we are advocating for is a system by which capital foots the bill for its production costs completely....and that capital does not pass the majority of those costs onto the public....redistribution, as you call it, merely asks that if you have a bill you pay it yourself, you don't ask the rest of us to pay it for you...once capital gets by with asking that EVERYONE in the nation is right to ask for it...because the alternative is a permanent underclass which has lead to the demise of ALL republics preceding ours.....
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:44 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
So now you are backing out of your original position?
You:
quote:
There has to be a happy medium between communism and laisseze faire capitalism....and that is where socialism fits and it is the essence of western civilization, thank goodness....
Again, using the term as the OP phrased it.....of course there is no large scale socialist movement in the United States....and certainly not in the democratic party....
Posted on 5/2/17 at 9:41 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Yet you do not know what socialism or communism means.
I do. American liberals want neither true communism or true socialism.
This post was edited on 5/2/17 at 10:06 am
Posted on 5/2/17 at 9:44 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
American liberals want neither true communism of true socialism.
And Republicans do not want true capitalism.
Well, some libertarians do, but those who graduated past Ayn Rand are usually against true capitalism.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 11:10 am to cokebottleag
The purpose of socialism is to control people, not better their lives. It works for them, the socialists.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 12:03 pm to germandawg
quote:
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.
The one I remember had the state owning the means of production and production was doled out as determined by the needs of the state.
I guess it has evolved to meet the current DNC narrative.
Your definition sounds closer to the old communism definition, where the people owned the means and the state told them what they could do with it.
It's been a long time so maybe I'm missing something.
Popular
Back to top
