Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I cleared up my position regarding what I meant by socialism in the context of the conversation as well as pointed out your use of the non-word "socialisms" (indicating that perhaps you don't have much of a clue on what it means).
1) You did not clear up your position regarding socialism
2) You dont get to just create your own definition of socialism, and then pretend the rest of the world is wrong for not using your definition
3) I quoted the definition of the word socialism, which doesnt meet your definition, nor does it support your position that those countries are socialist
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
Maybe you're one of those people who thinks TARP wasn't a socialist policy.
I opposed TARP, but that wasnt socialism either. The fact that you continue to use the word in an incorrect context makes me wonder if you even have the ability to learn what socialism is.. Must be the new cool word for some of you guys..
1) You did not clear up your position regarding socialism
2) You dont get to just create your own definition of socialism, and then pretend the rest of the world is wrong for not using your definition
3) I quoted the definition of the word socialism, which doesnt meet your definition, nor does it support your position that those countries are socialist
It seems that MANY people regard socialism in that context, as indicated in the clip (creating many social welfare nets). Dictionaries do adjust to suit those changing needs.
But fine, socialism in this context is defined as "many social welfare nets". Happy?
Quote:
I oppsed TARP.. try again...
Considering how much you defended it in the context of the Paul Ryan thread, I'm surprised.
Oh yeah, it is socialism. It extracted from the richer taxpayer to redistribute to the poorer (aka broke) banks. It doesn't get to lose that title just because a RINO signed the bill into law.
Like I said before, socialism "works" (using the term VERY loosely) in countries/areas like Germany, Scandinavia and Japan because assimilation is forced and the population is not nearly as diverse.
I'd like for someone to provide material evidence to this or I shall maintain that correlation =/= causation.
Like I said before, socialism "works" (using the term VERY loosely) in countries/areas like Germany, Scandinavia and Japan because assimilation is forced and the population is not nearly as diverse. But, it's still fun to watch Krugman make up excuses as to why we can't implement socialism in America. Maybe it's because Americans don't want it?
Hey, Krugman, this just in: Socialism does not work. See last November to find out why.
Like I said before, socialism "works" (using the term VERY loosely) in countries/areas like Germany, Scandinavia and Japan because assimilation is forced and the population is not nearly as diverse. But, it's still fun to watch Krugman make up excuses as to why we can't implement socialism in America. Maybe it's because Americans don't want it?
Americans are an independent bunch of people. Look at Europe, they screamed for more government, and more handouts, when they faced an economic crisis, in America we scream for less government, and are outraged over the handouts; or at least the 80% of the nation who do not call themselves liberals.
Like I said before, socialism "works" (using the term VERY loosely) in countries/areas like Germany, Scandinavia and Japan because assimilation is forced and the population is not nearly as diverse. But, it's still fun to watch Krugman make up excuses as to why we can't implement socialism in America. Maybe it's because Americans don't want it?
Well according to actual socialist no country ever became socialist.
Here's how actual socialist view this:
Quote:
Isn't socialism what they had in Russia, or in China or Cuba, or in Sweden?
No. Socialism, as understood by the World Socialist Movement, was never established in any country. A short definition of what we understand to be socialism:
a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole.
If there are wages and salaries, it is not socialism.
State ownership is not socialism.
Social programs are not socialism.
Socialism means democracy at all levels of society, including the workplace.
Socialism means a wageless, moneyless society.
Socialism means voluntary labour.
Socialism means free access to the goods produced by society.
Socialism would work if people were mindless zombies
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
