The Beginning of Socialism

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The very thing you use to define us as socialist is the same thing you use to say China and North Korea aren't. Go figure.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The very thing you use to define us as socialist is the same thing you use to say China and North Korea aren't. Go figure.

Actually it is much more complicated than that, but I'm not going to go into it because you aren't interested in understanding the difference, only in trying to catch me in a verbal "gotcha" moment. So enjoy your victory, you drove me from the thread in frustration.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your explanation was "because we have social services". That doesn't make us a socialist society. Not a single person I know would call America "socialist".

I brought up the point other places have social services too, and you said well their government is different. I had originally brought our style of governments and you said it's not the same. You are the one doing double talk, I'm not trying to trick you into anything, I'm simply repeating YOU.

It seems to sound different when I say the same exact thing you do, but when you say it it makes sense?

America isn't a socialist society, it's capitalistic by nature. Constitutional Republic by definition.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker


Much of our Constitution and Bill of Rights originated in France...

Actually wrong.

Most of it orginated here in the English Bill of rights in 1689 even your right to bear arms.
The problem in 1776 was the British were just not following it!

Ahh, you SO kind, full of the Christmas spirit.

The U.S. Bill of Rights was heavily contributed to by a collaboration between Jefferson and Lafayette in France. The French version was heavily influenced by Jefferson.

The Founding Fathers certainly weren't consulting with the Brits. Most of the points in the English Bill of Rights pre-date the British as well. A part of the evolution? Sure. Not the sole contributor whatsoever.

Have a nice Christmas...

France was not a republic at the time.

France was a absolute monarchy and a worse Tyranny than the British (least we had a constitutional monarchy). Only reason you guys begged for there help was because the French hated the British and you guys new they wouldn’t hesitate at a chance to screw us Brits over.

As for Jefferson formulating the constitution in France? Sure I mean he had to do it somewhere and that somewhere sure as hell wasn’t going to be in London. But he didn’t get his inspiration from the French. It was mainly from the English Bill of rights and Magna Carta with tweaking and refinement.
The constitution wasn’t even the main concept of the war. Before Saratoga Washington and most your founding fathers would have quite happily settled for a pardon, American MP’s in Parliament and promise us Brits would have respected your rights. And us Brits should have accepted those terms.

a reply to: Vector99

Like I said you are wrong because you are trying to over simplify things, but you don't want to attempt to understand the nuances between socialism and communism (one being that modern communism is a form of governance while socialism isn't). Just because you don't think Democractic Socialism exists in this country doesn't make it true. Like I said, I'm done talking in circles with you.

PS: I don't care about your echo chamber of friends who all agree with you on the matter. Wow a bunch of conservatives don't agree with Socialism? Stop the presses!

ETA: If you really cared about the differences, read this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you are a fan of socialism, good for you, doesn't make America socialist.
From your link

From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce to complement individual wages/salaries.

Two kinds of property: Personal property, such as houses, clothing, etc. owned by the individual. Public property includes factories, and means of production owned by the State but with worker control.

Class distinctions are diminished. Status derived more from political distinctions than class distinctions. Some mobility.

How is America socialist again?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Socialism is an economic system which is entirely dependent upon the beneficent guidance of omniscient rulers and omnipotent enforcement.

Well since the people are in charge of the government, they are beholden to elect the right people to make sure that is the case now isn't it?

Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Socialism is an economic system which is entirely dependent upon the beneficent guidance of omniscient rulers and omnipotent enforcement.

Well since the people are in charge of the government, they are beholden to elect the right people to make sure that is the case now isn't it?

Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?

Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: MystikMushroom

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What makes it socialist? Last I checked we had a capitalist economy. Are you going to say welfare? China and North Korea have welfare too.

The social programs that are considered Socialist in nature.

China and North Korea's governments aren't ran like our governments. So comparing them is irrelevant. Stop trying to suggest that Socialism is the same as Communism. There is some overlap, yes, but they AREN'T the same thing. Should I just go around labeling all conservatives as fascists? No, that doesn't get us anywhere.

Interventionism (the philosophy of all western nations at present) is not socialism.

Interventionism is a step towards socialism but, not actually socialism.

Perhaps, if I may suggest a new term for the purposes of clarity and accuracy, that you refer to interventionist policies as proto-socialist or socialesque if the term interventionist rubs you the wrong way?

Agreeing on terminology is a necessary first step if we are to discuss the actual implications of these ideas and their application in our society.

a reply to: greencmp

Actually you are muddying the waters. The proper term to be used is Democratic Socialism. There is no need for another label like "interventionism" or whatever that is when we already have Democratic Socialism.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Socialism is an economic system which is entirely dependent upon the beneficent guidance of omniscient rulers and omnipotent enforcement.

Well since the people are in charge of the government, they are beholden to elect the right people to make sure that is the case now isn't it?

Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?

Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.

History proves exactly the opposite.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Socialism is an economic system which is entirely dependent upon the beneficent guidance of omniscient rulers and omnipotent enforcement.

Well since the people are in charge of the government, they are beholden to elect the right people to make sure that is the case now isn't it?

Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?

Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.

History proves exactly the opposite.

Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Socialism is an economic system which is entirely dependent upon the beneficent guidance of omniscient rulers and omnipotent enforcement.

Well since the people are in charge of the government, they are beholden to elect the right people to make sure that is the case now isn't it?

Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?

Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.

History proves exactly the opposite.

Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.

I concur. A sentence saying I'm wrong isn't going to cut it in this case. Especially since over the course of two threads discussing the history of Socialism I've demonstrated that it has worked QUITE well for us.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Actually you are muddying the waters. The proper term to be used is Democratic Socialism. There is no need for another label like "interventionism" or whatever that is when we already have Democratic Socialism.

Here is the definition of Democratic socialism

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production.

Where are all the state factories?

a reply to: Vector99

State factories? What are you talking about?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Socialism is an economic system which is entirely dependent upon the beneficent guidance of omniscient rulers and omnipotent enforcement.

Well since the people are in charge of the government, they are beholden to elect the right people to make sure that is the case now isn't it?

Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?

Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.

History proves exactly the opposite.

Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.

I concur. A sentence saying I'm wrong isn't going to cut it in this case. Especially since over the course of two threads discussing the history of Socialism I've demonstrated that it has worked QUITE well for us.

The UK has many examples of how socialism has benifited the nation as a whole and also how capitalism has been detrimental, as an example I would offer the privatisation of our utilities that are now mostly owned by overseas investors and other nations so prices rise and the profits go straight out of our own economy and into others.

I am interested as to the evidence the poster will give me to prove me wrong on this.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
Socialism is an economic system which is entirely dependent upon the beneficent guidance of omniscient rulers and omnipotent enforcement.

Well since the people are in charge of the government, they are beholden to elect the right people to make sure that is the case now isn't it?

Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?

Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.

History proves exactly the opposite.

Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.

USSR comes to mind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vector99

State factories? What are you talking about?

Ohhh I so want to say in your prison system but I will refrain...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is what socialism is. OMG you don't even know what socialism is.

a reply to: nonspecific

I really tire of arguments where I present tons of evidence of Socialism working and the only responses I get are "Nuh HUH! Your (sic) wrong!"