FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Are all Labour ....
Are all Labour ....
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
".... Tbh, I don't have a cliche like evil spring to mind, but maybe you do... Are all labour ... Woke? Are all labour ... Bad with money ? What says you ? (My guess is this thread won't grow as quick as the Tory one) " Not all of labour seem to be aware of social injustice, especially racism. But they seem more so than the Tories. Labour being the party bad with money narrative has been completely blown out of the water by the current government. What they're currently not doing, is offering any meaningful change. | |||
| |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is." You have had this explained on multiple occasions. Why do you insist on co tinting to ask a question you have the answer to? | |||
| |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. You have had this explained on multiple occasions. Why do you insist on co tinting to ask a question you have the answer to?" If I’d had it explained on multiple occasions I wouldn’t be asking the question. | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. You have had this explained on multiple occasions. Why do you insist on continuing to ask a question you have the answer to? If I’d had it explained on multiple occasions I wouldn’t be asking the question. "  | |||
| |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is." People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. | |||
".... Tbh, I don't have a cliche like evil spring to mind, but maybe you do... Are all labour ... Woke? Are all labour ... Bad with money ? What says you ? (My guess is this thread won't grow as quick as the Tory one) " Is the right cheek of a hairy ass better than the left cheek? | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. " Is that the definition of woke? Honestly? Is it a universal definition? | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. " I put it to you that woke is now used less as a virtue signal, and more of a dog whistle. Fair? | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values" Labour have never been a truly socialist party. | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. " I've heard a lot of non-dictionary definitions of "woke" but never this. It's so specific, probably almost no one on the planet falls into the category. Mostly people round here seem to use it in the Daily Mail sense, as an insult to someone who speaks out against racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. In some cases it's used to insult seems people who understand climate science. | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party." Can you explain pls | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls" Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure." Yes but they were socialist, in scotland anyway | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Yes but they were socialist, in scotland anyway" Labour has individual socialist members, and even MP’s, but they have *never* been a socialist party. | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. I've heard a lot of non-dictionary definitions of "woke" but never this. It's so specific, probably almost no one on the planet falls into the category. Mostly people round here seem to use it in the Daily Mail sense, as an insult to someone who speaks out against racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. In some cases it's used to insult seems people who understand climate science. " From Urban Dictionary and what I've been told in the past: "An oxymoron term used to describe the many indoctrinated & radically left-wing people of today's world who are obsessed with jumping on whatever mainstream bandwagon is necessary to feel included, though ironically being the most intolerant and hypocritical people on the planet. The irony is the term should be used if correctly to describe those who are 'awake' to the modern world however these people are so closed minded they cannot think critically, and are actually 'asleep.'" | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. Is that the definition of woke? Honestly? Is it a universal definition? " There doesn't have to be a universal definition. But when people complain about woke, everyone knows what they are talking about | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. I've heard a lot of non-dictionary definitions of "woke" but never this. It's so specific, probably almost no one on the planet falls into the category. Mostly people round here seem to use it in the Daily Mail sense, as an insult to someone who speaks out against racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. In some cases it's used to insult seems people who understand climate science. From Urban Dictionary and what I've been told in the past: "An oxymoron term used to describe the many indoctrinated & radically left-wing people of today's world who are obsessed with jumping on whatever mainstream bandwagon is necessary to feel included, though ironically being the most intolerant and hypocritical people on the planet. The irony is the term should be used if correctly to describe those who are 'awake' to the modern world however these people are so closed minded they cannot think critically, and are actually 'asleep.'"" Urban dictionary is famously a worthy source 
Woke’s meaning differs depending on who’s using it, that much is clear. Those on the generic right see it as a pejorative, and tend to use it to attempt to put an exclamation on whatever point they’re attempting to make.
It’s meaningless. | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure." Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism." It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. I've heard a lot of non-dictionary definitions of "woke" but never this. It's so specific, probably almost no one on the planet falls into the category. Mostly people round here seem to use it in the Daily Mail sense, as an insult to someone who speaks out against racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. In some cases it's used to insult seems people who understand climate science. " No one in the planet falls into this category? Everyone who asks for race focused hiring policies pretty much asks for it. | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. I've heard a lot of non-dictionary definitions of "woke" but never this. It's so specific, probably almost no one on the planet falls into the category. Mostly people round here seem to use it in the Daily Mail sense, as an insult to someone who speaks out against racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. In some cases it's used to insult seems people who understand climate science. From Urban Dictionary and what I've been told in the past: "An oxymoron term used to describe the many indoctrinated & radically left-wing people of today's world who are obsessed with jumping on whatever mainstream bandwagon is necessary to feel included, though ironically being the most intolerant and hypocritical people on the planet. The irony is the term should be used if correctly to describe those who are 'awake' to the modern world however these people are so closed minded they cannot think critically, and are actually 'asleep.'" Urban dictionary is famously a worthy source
Woke’s meaning differs depending on who’s using it, that much is clear. Those on the generic right see it as a pejorative, and tend to use it to attempt to put an exclamation on whatever point they’re attempting to make.
It’s meaningless."You are aware of how UD works aren't you? | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism." A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. I've heard a lot of non-dictionary definitions of "woke" but never this. It's so specific, probably almost no one on the planet falls into the category. Mostly people round here seem to use it in the Daily Mail sense, as an insult to someone who speaks out against racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. In some cases it's used to insult seems people who understand climate science. From Urban Dictionary and what I've been told in the past: "An oxymoron term used to describe the many indoctrinated & radically left-wing people of today's world who are obsessed with jumping on whatever mainstream bandwagon is necessary to feel included, though ironically being the most intolerant and hypocritical people on the planet. The irony is the term should be used if correctly to describe those who are 'awake' to the modern world however these people are so closed minded they cannot think critically, and are actually 'asleep.'" Urban dictionary is famously a worthy source
Woke’s meaning differs depending on who’s using it, that much is clear. Those on the generic right see it as a pejorative, and tend to use it to attempt to put an exclamation on whatever point they’re attempting to make.
It’s meaningless.
You are aware of how UD works aren't you?"I am aware, yes. That’s why I was surprised to see one of the more sensible forum posters using it, when all it does is back up my point. | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. I've heard a lot of non-dictionary definitions of "woke" but never this. It's so specific, probably almost no one on the planet falls into the category. Mostly people round here seem to use it in the Daily Mail sense, as an insult to someone who speaks out against racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. In some cases it's used to insult seems people who understand climate science. From Urban Dictionary and what I've been told in the past: "An oxymoron term used to describe the many indoctrinated & radically left-wing people of today's world who are obsessed with jumping on whatever mainstream bandwagon is necessary to feel included, though ironically being the most intolerant and hypocritical people on the planet. The irony is the term should be used if correctly to describe those who are 'awake' to the modern world however these people are so closed minded they cannot think critically, and are actually 'asleep.'" Urban dictionary is famously a worthy source
Woke’s meaning differs depending on who’s using it, that much is clear. Those on the generic right see it as a pejorative, and tend to use it to attempt to put an exclamation on whatever point they’re attempting to make.
It’s meaningless.
You are aware of how UD works aren't you?
I am aware, yes. That’s why I was surprised to see one of the more sensible forum posters using it, when all it does is back up my point.
"I don't think you are aware, otherwise you'd know that UD has entries from normal people which are then voted on. If something has a high rating on UD then it means that's what the general public are meaning when they use any term. You can stick to dictionary definitions if you like, are you aware of how they come about? | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism." Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . " But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. I've heard a lot of non-dictionary definitions of "woke" but never this. It's so specific, probably almost no one on the planet falls into the category. Mostly people round here seem to use it in the Daily Mail sense, as an insult to someone who speaks out against racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. In some cases it's used to insult seems people who understand climate science. From Urban Dictionary and what I've been told in the past: "An oxymoron term used to describe the many indoctrinated & radically left-wing people of today's world who are obsessed with jumping on whatever mainstream bandwagon is necessary to feel included, though ironically being the most intolerant and hypocritical people on the planet. The irony is the term should be used if correctly to describe those who are 'awake' to the modern world however these people are so closed minded they cannot think critically, and are actually 'asleep.'" Urban dictionary is famously a worthy source
Woke’s meaning differs depending on who’s using it, that much is clear. Those on the generic right see it as a pejorative, and tend to use it to attempt to put an exclamation on whatever point they’re attempting to make.
It’s meaningless.
You are aware of how UD works aren't you?
I am aware, yes. That’s why I was surprised to see one of the more sensible forum posters using it, when all it does is back up my point.
I don't think you are aware, otherwise you'd know that UD has entries from normal people which are then voted on.
If something has a high rating on UD then it means that's what the general public are meaning when they use any term.
You can stick to dictionary definitions if you like, are you aware of how they come about?"Did you use the UD highest ranking definition of woke, out of interest? | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't." That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. I've heard a lot of non-dictionary definitions of "woke" but never this. It's so specific, probably almost no one on the planet falls into the category. Mostly people round here seem to use it in the Daily Mail sense, as an insult to someone who speaks out against racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. In some cases it's used to insult seems people who understand climate science. From Urban Dictionary and what I've been told in the past: "An oxymoron term used to describe the many indoctrinated & radically left-wing people of today's world who are obsessed with jumping on whatever mainstream bandwagon is necessary to feel included, though ironically being the most intolerant and hypocritical people on the planet. The irony is the term should be used if correctly to describe those who are 'awake' to the modern world however these people are so closed minded they cannot think critically, and are actually 'asleep.'" Urban dictionary is famously a worthy source
Woke’s meaning differs depending on who’s using it, that much is clear. Those on the generic right see it as a pejorative, and tend to use it to attempt to put an exclamation on whatever point they’re attempting to make.
It’s meaningless.
You are aware of how UD works aren't you?
I am aware, yes. That’s why I was surprised to see one of the more sensible forum posters using it, when all it does is back up my point.
I don't think you are aware, otherwise you'd know that UD has entries from normal people which are then voted on.
If something has a high rating on UD then it means that's what the general public are meaning when they use any term.
You can stick to dictionary definitions if you like, are you aware of how they come about?
Did you use the UD highest ranking definition of woke, out of interest? "I have no idea if it's the highest ranked. Its highly ranked, one I've heard before and what I understand it to mean when I hear it used pejoratively. You asked for the definition, I've given you one. If you analyse the definitions both myself and lost have given you, they're fairly close. | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism." Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. | |||
| |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. I've heard a lot of non-dictionary definitions of "woke" but never this. It's so specific, probably almost no one on the planet falls into the category. Mostly people round here seem to use it in the Daily Mail sense, as an insult to someone who speaks out against racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. In some cases it's used to insult seems people who understand climate science. From Urban Dictionary and what I've been told in the past: "An oxymoron term used to describe the many indoctrinated & radically left-wing people of today's world who are obsessed with jumping on whatever mainstream bandwagon is necessary to feel included, though ironically being the most intolerant and hypocritical people on the planet. The irony is the term should be used if correctly to describe those who are 'awake' to the modern world however these people are so closed minded they cannot think critically, and are actually 'asleep.'" Urban dictionary is famously a worthy source
Woke’s meaning differs depending on who’s using it, that much is clear. Those on the generic right see it as a pejorative, and tend to use it to attempt to put an exclamation on whatever point they’re attempting to make.
It’s meaningless.
You are aware of how UD works aren't you?
I am aware, yes. That’s why I was surprised to see one of the more sensible forum posters using it, when all it does is back up my point.
I don't think you are aware, otherwise you'd know that UD has entries from normal people which are then voted on.
If something has a high rating on UD then it means that's what the general public are meaning when they use any term.
You can stick to dictionary definitions if you like, are you aware of how they come about?
Did you use the UD highest ranking definition of woke, out of interest?
I have no idea if it's the highest ranked. Its highly ranked, one I've heard before and what I understand it to mean when I hear it used pejoratively.
You asked for the definition, I've given you one. If you analyse the definitions both myself and lost have given you, they're fairly close. "You are you have no idea if it’s the highest ranked? I reckon someone is fibbing, because you know, the higher ranked one is first, and you had to scroll to get to the one you posted 
But yeah, that’s the pejorative definition, which differs from the ‘correct’ definition substantially, I’m sure we’ll all agree. So it’s a meaningless term, as I’ve always said.
My gut reaction to anyone using ‘woke’ as a slur, is that I’m probably dealing with someone who has trouble articulating their thoughts. | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you." Nobody decides what a true socialist is, we all decide together, and how are we getting on? After this we will need to then look at PR, but obviously tories wont be allowed to have a say | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you." Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism | |||
"This thread is running the same course as when Starmer was asked if he was a socialist. " I was on an NFL forum the other day where a poster was lamenting the lack of Trump’s authority to combat the threat from Communist Russia. The lack of awareness of what constitutes political doctrine these days is abysmal. | |||
"This thread is running the same course as when Starmer was asked if he was a socialist. " a socialist is a socialist. RS. | |||
| |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism "Wikipedia definition: Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership. Merriam-Webster: Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership. There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods. For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist. | |||
"This thread is running the same course as when Starmer was asked if he was a socialist. a socialist is a socialist. RS. " Sorry! That went over my head at first! | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. I've heard a lot of non-dictionary definitions of "woke" but never this. It's so specific, probably almost no one on the planet falls into the category. Mostly people round here seem to use it in the Daily Mail sense, as an insult to someone who speaks out against racism, homophobia, transphobia etc. In some cases it's used to insult seems people who understand climate science. From Urban Dictionary and what I've been told in the past: "An oxymoron term used to describe the many indoctrinated & radically left-wing people of today's world who are obsessed with jumping on whatever mainstream bandwagon is necessary to feel included, though ironically being the most intolerant and hypocritical people on the planet. The irony is the term should be used if correctly to describe those who are 'awake' to the modern world however these people are so closed minded they cannot think critically, and are actually 'asleep.'" Urban dictionary is famously a worthy source
Woke’s meaning differs depending on who’s using it, that much is clear. Those on the generic right see it as a pejorative, and tend to use it to attempt to put an exclamation on whatever point they’re attempting to make.
It’s meaningless.
You are aware of how UD works aren't you?
I am aware, yes. That’s why I was surprised to see one of the more sensible forum posters using it, when all it does is back up my point.
I don't think you are aware, otherwise you'd know that UD has entries from normal people which are then voted on.
If something has a high rating on UD then it means that's what the general public are meaning when they use any term.
You can stick to dictionary definitions if you like, are you aware of how they come about?
Did you use the UD highest ranking definition of woke, out of interest?
I have no idea if it's the highest ranked. Its highly ranked, one I've heard before and what I understand it to mean when I hear it used pejoratively.
You asked for the definition, I've given you one. If you analyse the definitions both myself and lost have given you, they're fairly close.
You are you have no idea if it’s the highest ranked?
I reckon someone is fibbing, because you know, the higher ranked one is first, and you had to scroll to get to the one you posted
But yeah, that’s the pejorative definition, which differs from the ‘correct’ definition substantially, I’m sure we’ll all agree. So it’s a meaningless term, as I’ve always said.
My gut reaction to anyone using ‘woke’ as a slur, is that I’m probably dealing with someone who has trouble articulating their thoughts."I did scroll past others to get to that one, as it happens none that are above it are higher ranked in terms of votes. It is just meaningless racist, transphobe, homophobe, far right etc are 
You agree it's the pejorative definition even though you didn't know its meaning and asked for a definition?
I've asked before, are you aware how 'correct' definitions are entered into a dictionary of your choice? | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist. "I copy pasted the wiki definition twice. Here is the webster definition: any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist. "Come on man, let’s not lie. Merriam-Webster: Socialism: noun. 1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“ | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
I copy pasted the wiki definition twice. Here is the webster definition:
any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"Correct - that’s socialism. As I’ve been arguing. You just lost your own argument | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
Come on man, let’s not lie.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism: noun.
1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“
"Check my previous post. I corrected my copy paste mistake. Here is a whole Wikipedia article on different types of socialism which you should probably read before lecturing other people on reading. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
Come on man, let’s not lie.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism: noun.
1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“
Check my previous post. I corrected my copy paste mistake.
Here is a whole Wikipedia article on different types of socialism which you should probably read before lecturing other people on reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism"I’m assuming you read the very first sentence in that link? | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
Come on man, let’s not lie.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism: noun.
1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“
Check my previous post. I corrected my copy paste mistake.
Here is a whole Wikipedia article on different types of socialism which you should probably read before lecturing other people on reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
I’m assuming you read the very first sentence in that link? "Yes, it says socialism includes a range of systems. There isn't one way to do it. They also include China in the list of socialist economies. | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
Come on man, let’s not lie.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism: noun.
1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“
Check my previous post. I corrected my copy paste mistake.
Here is a whole Wikipedia article on different types of socialism which you should probably read before lecturing other people on reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
I’m assuming you read the very first sentence in that link?
Yes, it says socialism includes a range of systems. There isn't one way to do it. They also include China in the list of socialist economies. "That’s not what the first sentence says. It’s ok dude, I’ll let off now. You’re wrong and have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. There no shame in misunderstanding what socialism is and isn’t - many folks fail to understand (which is why they confuse it with communism or indeed soc-dem). Go well | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. Is that the definition of woke? Honestly? Is it a universal definition? There doesn't have to be a universal definition. But when people complain about woke, everyone knows what they are talking about " They don't feel safe being prejudice against minorities. So they lash out at those who are calling them out. Everyone knows that's what's going on. | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
Come on man, let’s not lie.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism: noun.
1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“
Check my previous post. I corrected my copy paste mistake.
Here is a whole Wikipedia article on different types of socialism which you should probably read before lecturing other people on reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
I’m assuming you read the very first sentence in that link?
Yes, it says socialism includes a range of systems. There isn't one way to do it. They also include China in the list of socialist economies.
That’s not what the first sentence says.
It’s ok dude, I’ll let off now. You’re wrong and have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. There no shame in misunderstanding what socialism is and isn’t - many folks fail to understand (which is why they confuse it with communism or indeed soc-dem).
Go well "For the avoidance of doubt, these are the very first words on that link: Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems... | |||
| |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
Come on man, let’s not lie.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism: noun.
1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“
Check my previous post. I corrected my copy paste mistake.
Here is a whole Wikipedia article on different types of socialism which you should probably read before lecturing other people on reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
I’m assuming you read the very first sentence in that link?
Yes, it says socialism includes a range of systems. There isn't one way to do it. They also include China in the list of socialist economies.
That’s not what the first sentence says.
It’s ok dude, I’ll let off now. You’re wrong and have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. There no shame in misunderstanding what socialism is and isn’t - many folks fail to understand (which is why they confuse it with communism or indeed soc-dem).
Go well
For the avoidance of doubt, these are the very first words on that link:
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems...
"Why don’t you write the whole first sentence, as I specified, feisty? Here it is: “Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and organizational self-management of enterprises as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism” Let’s not be deceptive here, eh? | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriouslyead up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
Come on man, let’s not lie.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism: noun.
1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“
Check my previous post. I corrected my copy paste mistake.
Here is a whole Wikipedia article on different types of socialism which you should probably read before lecturing other people on reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
I’m assuming you read the very first sentence in that link?
Yes, it says socialism includes a range of systems. There isn't one way to do it. They also include China in the list of socialist economies.
That’s not what the first sentence says.
It’s ok dude, I’ll let off now. You’re wrong and have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. There no shame in misunderstanding what socialism is and isn’t - many folks fail to understand (which is why they confuse it with communism or indeed soc-dem).
Go well
For the avoidance of doubt, these are the very first words on that link:
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems...
I did say first sentence, I believe? Want to finish it off? "Full sentence: Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and organizational self-management of enterprises as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism. It definitely says 'a range' which is what he's said all along. He also said rheyre isn't one way to do it. Which that links also confirms. Why do you insist on arguing when it's in black and white? | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriously, read up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
Come on man, let’s not lie.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism: noun.
1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“
Check my previous post. I corrected my copy paste mistake.
Here is a whole Wikipedia article on different types of socialism which you should probably read before lecturing other people on reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
I’m assuming you read the very first sentence in that link?
Yes, it says socialism includes a range of systems. There isn't one way to do it. They also include China in the list of socialist economies.
That’s not what the first sentence says.
It’s ok dude, I’ll let off now. You’re wrong and have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. There no shame in misunderstanding what socialism is and isn’t - many folks fail to understand (which is why they confuse it with communism or indeed soc-dem).
Go well
For the avoidance of doubt, these are the very first words on that link:
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems...
Why don’t you write the whole first sentence, as I specified, feisty?
Here it is:
“Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and organizational self-management of enterprises as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism”
Let’s not be deceptive here, eh?"A chance to answer would be a fine thing | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriouslyead up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
Come on man, let’s not lie.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism: noun.
1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“
Check my previous post. I corrected my copy paste mistake.
Here is a whole Wikipedia article on different types of socialism which you should probably read before lecturing other people on reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
I’m assuming you read the very first sentence in that link?
Yes, it says socialism includes a range of systems. There isn't one way to do it. They also include China in the list of socialist economies.
That’s not what the first sentence says.
It’s ok dude, I’ll let off now. You’re wrong and have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. There no shame in misunderstanding what socialism is and isn’t - many folks fail to understand (which is why they confuse it with communism or indeed soc-dem).
Go well
For the avoidance of doubt, these are the very first words on that link:
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems...
I did say first sentence, I believe? Want to finish it off?
Full sentence:
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and organizational self-management of enterprises as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism.
It definitely says 'a range' which is what he's said all along. He also said rheyre isn't one way to do it. Which that links also confirms.
Why do you insist on arguing when it's in black and white?"“A range…characterised by” - It is indeed black and white | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriouslyead up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
Come on man, let’s not lie.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism: noun.
1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“
Check my previous post. I corrected my copy paste mistake.
Here is a whole Wikipedia article on different types of socialism which you should probably read before lecturing other people on reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
I’m assuming you read the very first sentence in that link?
Yes, it says socialism includes a range of systems. There isn't one way to do it. They also include China in the list of socialist economies.
That’s not what the first sentence says.
It’s ok dude, I’ll let off now. You’re wrong and have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. There no shame in misunderstanding what socialism is and isn’t - many folks fail to understand (which is why they confuse it with communism or indeed soc-dem).
Go well
For the avoidance of doubt, these are the very first words on that link:
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems...
I did say first sentence, I believe? Want to finish it off?
Full sentence:
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and organizational self-management of enterprises as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism.
It definitely says 'a range' which is what he's said all along. He also said rheyre isn't one way to do it. Which that links also confirms.
Why do you insist on arguing when it's in black and white?
“A range…characterised by” - It is indeed black and white
"Fuck me sideways, he's said all along there isn't one way. A 'range' concludes that. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriouslyead up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
Come on man, let’s not lie.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism: noun.
1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“
Check my previous post. I corrected my copy paste mistake.
Here is a whole Wikipedia article on different types of socialism which you should probably read before lecturing other people on reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
I’m assuming you read the very first sentence in that link?
Yes, it says socialism includes a range of systems. There isn't one way to do it. They also include China in the list of socialist economies.
That’s not what the first sentence says.
It’s ok dude, I’ll let off now. You’re wrong and have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. There no shame in misunderstanding what socialism is and isn’t - many folks fail to understand (which is why they confuse it with communism or indeed soc-dem).
Go well
For the avoidance of doubt, these are the very first words on that link:
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems...
I did say first sentence, I believe? Want to finish it off?
Full sentence:
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and organizational self-management of enterprises as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism.
It definitely says 'a range' which is what he's said all along. He also said rheyre isn't one way to do it. Which that links also confirms.
Why do you insist on arguing when it's in black and white?
“A range…characterised by” - It is indeed black and white
Fuck me sideways, he's said all along there isn't one way. A 'range' concludes that. "I’m rather afraid it doesn’t, since the phrase ‘characterised by’ is a definitive. Fuck me sideways indeed. I know nobody likes to lose arguments, especially to a thick lefty, but that’s what’s happened here. It’s ok. | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism." I hope you don't do announcements on your trains, no fucker would have a clue where they are | |||
"Dont know enough about labour to judge them,what i will say is that they have lost their socialist values Labour have never been a truly socialist party. Can you explain pls Socialism and soc-dem are not the same. Socialism is based around the fundamental belief that the workers own the means of production. Soc-Dem is a left leaning, socially aware capitalist structure. Workers owning the means of production is the Marxist version of socialism. There are many types of socialism, just like there are many types of communism. It’s the one fundamental core that ties all branches of socialism together. If it’s not included, it’s not socialism. A government owning means of production is also socialism. It doesn't have to be workers always. Workers overthrowing capitalism was a trend started by Marx and that's just one flavour of socialism. Government *is still* the people - elected by their peers. Seriouslyead up on socialism if you wish to wax lyrical about it . But government need not be always workers. If the government owns and runs one industry and not others it still means socialism albeit not implemented in full scale. Pretty much like China. There are industries where private enterprises are allowed and there are industries where they aren't. That’s not true socialism though. Same as we’ve had in the U.K for as long as anyone can remember. If you have private enterprise it’s *not* socialism. Who decides what is true socialism? You are sticking to the Marxist definition and thinking that's the end to all. A country can be partially socialist. That's exactly what China is. If you tell them they aren't socialist, they will probably disappear you. Socialism has a definition. Just because you don’t accept what it is, it doesn’t change that. Like I said, read up on socialism
Wikipedia definition:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems[1] characterised by social ownership of the means of production,[2] as opposed to private ownership.
There isn't a single way to be socialist. It encompasses multiple methods.
For someone who keeps lecturing others to read, it looks like you are the one who hasn't read anything about socialism. Marxism is not the only way to be socialist.
Come on man, let’s not lie.
Merriam-Webster:
Socialism: noun.
1: “any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods“
Check my previous post. I corrected my copy paste mistake.
Here is a whole Wikipedia article on different types of socialism which you should probably read before lecturing other people on reading.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
I’m assuming you read the very first sentence in that link?
Yes, it says socialism includes a range of systems. There isn't one way to do it. They also include China in the list of socialist economies.
That’s not what the first sentence says.
It’s ok dude, I’ll let off now. You’re wrong and have been shown to be wrong repeatedly. There no shame in misunderstanding what socialism is and isn’t - many folks fail to understand (which is why they confuse it with communism or indeed soc-dem).
Go well
For the avoidance of doubt, these are the very first words on that link:
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems...
I did say first sentence, I believe? Want to finish it off?
Full sentence:
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and organizational self-management of enterprises as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism.
It definitely says 'a range' which is what he's said all along. He also said rheyre isn't one way to do it. Which that links also confirms.
Why do you insist on arguing when it's in black and white?
“A range…characterised by” - It is indeed black and white
Fuck me sideways, he's said all along there isn't one way. A 'range' concludes that.
I’m rather afraid it doesn’t, since the phrase ‘characterised by’ is a definitive.
Fuck me sideways indeed. I know nobody likes to lose arguments, especially to a thick lefty, but that’s what’s happened here. It’s ok.
"you can't ever win being a socialist of sorts, those are the rules | |||
| |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. I hope you don't do announcements on your trains, no fucker would have a clue where they are "Well it seems that nobody here knows what socialism is (Most likely due to historically bad education on the topic, and conflation with other related but separate political ideologies) | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. I hope you don't do announcements on your trains, no fucker would have a clue where they are
Well it seems that nobody here knows what socialism is (Most likely due to historically bad education on the topic, and conflation with other related but separate political ideologies)
"I don't know how to break this to you.... After reading the thread, I would put you firmly in that category too. | |||
"Another candidate suspended.....let's hope that Labour doesn't snatch defeat from the Jaws of victory. " I'm sure it wont but it does make Starmer look shady, he was going to let him carry on and pulled him at the last moment with the message of making this the new labour, we don't stand for this. If it wasn't for the sudden publicity nothing would have been done and he knew all along exactly what was said. | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. I hope you don't do announcements on your trains, no fucker would have a clue where they are
Well it seems that nobody here knows what socialism is (Most likely due to historically bad education on the topic, and conflation with other related but separate political ideologies)
I don't know how to break this to you.... After reading the thread, I would put you firmly in that category too.
"A bit bizarre, given I’ve given ample evidence that I’m right, but it wouldn’t be the first time you’ve refused to accept it | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. I hope you don't do announcements on your trains, no fucker would have a clue where they are
Well it seems that nobody here knows what socialism is (Most likely due to historically bad education on the topic, and conflation with other related but separate political ideologies)
"Nobody knows what it is because there's so many versions of it, ie. a range. | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. I hope you don't do announcements on your trains, no fucker would have a clue where they are
Well it seems that nobody here knows what socialism is (Most likely due to historically bad education on the topic, and conflation with other related but separate political ideologies)
I don't know how to break this to you.... After reading the thread, I would put you firmly in that category too.
A bit bizarre, given I’ve given ample evidence that I’m right, but it wouldn’t be the first time you’ve refused to accept it "I'm not going through the thread again, it went up, down, left and, well it never went right. | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism." This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy. | |||
".... Tbh, I don't have a cliche like evil spring to mind, but maybe you do... Are all labour ... Woke? Are all labour ... Bad with money ? What says you ? (My guess is this thread won't grow as quick as the Tory one) " Woke - aware of social and political issues especially racism (taken from the Oxford dictionary) On that basis I think most political parties would be woke. Are Labour bad with money? Well they bang on about having a fully costed manifesto & have pulled back on spending on insulation stating they don't have the money to do it (definitely a U-turn) possibly wise financially. When you look at the alternative, it's quite clear that the current government are either incompetent or simply siphoning money to their rich mates. The Billionaires numbers reported to have grown 20% since the pandemic The richest 1% hold more money than 70% of people in the UK according to Oxfam Whilst poverty, low pay,high prices, crime, early mortality, homelessness, cuts in services, longer waiting lists, shops closing, business closing, suicide rise, along with the right to strike being restricted & new legislation on protesting turning the UK into more of a dictatorship it's not difficult to see people want a change | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy." You’re still not getting it. There is socialism, which is clearly defined. Then there are other political ideologies which borrow elements from socialism undoubtedly, but crucially do not include the one core socialist value - therefor they are definitively *not* socialism. I’m not sure I can make this any easier to understand. | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy. You’re still not getting it. There is socialism, which is clearly defined. Then there are other political ideologies which borrow elements from socialism undoubtedly, but crucially do not include the one core socialist value - therefor they are definitively *not* socialism. I’m not sure I can make this any easier to understand." Are you suggesting that there is only one definition of socialism, based on the social doctrines of reformers such as Robert Owen? Or are you suggesting that the definition of Socialism comes from the works od Marx and Engels? Or are you suggesting that the socialism of the early 20th century Labour movement is the definition that you allude to? Or revolutionary Russia/communism? Or the Labour post war reformist socialism? Or Blair/Brown? Or what? Political movements move with the times, sometimes going back to bygone eras but you cannot claim that there is one socialism because it suits your personal definition. | |||
".... Tbh, I don't have a cliche like evil spring to mind, but maybe you do... Are all labour ... Woke? Are all labour ... Bad with money ? What says you ? (My guess is this thread won't grow as quick as the Tory one) " I wouldn't tar all Labour and Labour supporters with any of those in the same way I wouldn't say all Tories are evil as per the other thread. We can only judge them on their actions, not the actions of those that have gone before. Not to long now until they get to show us all | |||
" Political movements move with the times, sometimes going back to bygone eras but you cannot claim that there is one socialism because it suits your personal definition. " I’ve not claimed a personal definition. I’ve used the accepted definition, as quoted in this thread. Socialism is socialism. And I’m not going round this thread again. | |||
| |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy. You’re still not getting it. There is socialism, which is clearly defined. Then there are other political ideologies which borrow elements from socialism undoubtedly, but crucially do not include the one core socialist value - therefor they are definitively *not* socialism. I’m not sure I can make this any easier to understand." I totally get what you are trying to do. This whole exercise of repeatedly saying "That's not real socialism" is a lame excuse to escape criticism of socialism everytime the ideology has failed. If this excuse is acceptable, you should never criticise the problems in US and UK economies as problems of capitalism because they aren't purely capitalistic societies either. I have hardly seen anyone says "That's not real capitalism because there are socialist elements" in the country. "That's not socialism" excuse has been used for over a century that it's become laughable at this point. Maybe North Korea has real socialism? | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy. You’re still not getting it. There is socialism, which is clearly defined. Then there are other political ideologies which borrow elements from socialism undoubtedly, but crucially do not include the one core socialist value - therefor they are definitively *not* socialism. I’m not sure I can make this any easier to understand. I totally get what you are trying to do. This whole exercise of repeatedly saying "That's not real socialism" is a lame excuse to escape criticism of socialism everytime the ideology has failed. If this excuse is acceptable, you should never criticise the problems in US and UK economies as problems of capitalism because they aren't purely capitalistic societies either. I have hardly seen anyone says "That's not real capitalism because there are socialist elements" in the country. "That's not socialism" excuse has been used for over a century that it's become laughable at this point. Maybe North Korea has real socialism?" I’m not saying anything isn’t real socialism, nor have I mentioned anything about it failing. I’m saying that’s socialism is a defined thing which has a core factor - the ownership of production by the worker (or by the people, if you prefer) If it doesn’t have that, it’s not socialism. You really have shit the bed on this one. | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy. You’re still not getting it. There is socialism, which is clearly defined. Then there are other political ideologies which borrow elements from socialism undoubtedly, but crucially do not include the one core socialist value - therefor they are definitively *not* socialism. I’m not sure I can make this any easier to understand. I totally get what you are trying to do. This whole exercise of repeatedly saying "That's not real socialism" is a lame excuse to escape criticism of socialism everytime the ideology has failed. If this excuse is acceptable, you should never criticise the problems in US and UK economies as problems of capitalism because they aren't purely capitalistic societies either. I have hardly seen anyone says "That's not real capitalism because there are socialist elements" in the country. "That's not socialism" excuse has been used for over a century that it's become laughable at this point. Maybe North Korea has real socialism? I’m not saying anything isn’t real socialism, nor have I mentioned anything about it failing. I’m saying that’s socialism is a defined thing which has a core factor - the ownership of production by the worker (or by the people, if you prefer) If it doesn’t have that, it’s not socialism. You really have shit the bed on this one. " It can also be owned by government and government is not same as workers. While you are at it, please tell us an example of a truly socialist government then. | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy. You’re still not getting it. There is socialism, which is clearly defined. Then there are other political ideologies which borrow elements from socialism undoubtedly, but crucially do not include the one core socialist value - therefor they are definitively *not* socialism. I’m not sure I can make this any easier to understand. I totally get what you are trying to do. This whole exercise of repeatedly saying "That's not real socialism" is a lame excuse to escape criticism of socialism everytime the ideology has failed. If this excuse is acceptable, you should never criticise the problems in US and UK economies as problems of capitalism because they aren't purely capitalistic societies either. I have hardly seen anyone says "That's not real capitalism because there are socialist elements" in the country. "That's not socialism" excuse has been used for over a century that it's become laughable at this point. Maybe North Korea has real socialism? I’m not saying anything isn’t real socialism, nor have I mentioned anything about it failing. I’m saying that’s socialism is a defined thing which has a core factor - the ownership of production by the worker (or by the people, if you prefer) If it doesn’t have that, it’s not socialism. You really have shit the bed on this one. It can also be owned by government and government is not same as workers. While you are at it, please tell us an example of a truly socialist government then." Government are workers - elected by workers. And despite self representation, there are no true socialist governments in the world today. There are communist states (not the same), soc-dem (not the same) and state-capitalist (not the same). China refer to themselves as socialist, but they have private enterprise - not socialist. | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy. You’re still not getting it. There is socialism, which is clearly defined. Then there are other political ideologies which borrow elements from socialism undoubtedly, but crucially do not include the one core socialist value - therefor they are definitively *not* socialism. I’m not sure I can make this any easier to understand. I totally get what you are trying to do. This whole exercise of repeatedly saying "That's not real socialism" is a lame excuse to escape criticism of socialism everytime the ideology has failed. If this excuse is acceptable, you should never criticise the problems in US and UK economies as problems of capitalism because they aren't purely capitalistic societies either. I have hardly seen anyone says "That's not real capitalism because there are socialist elements" in the country. "That's not socialism" excuse has been used for over a century that it's become laughable at this point. Maybe North Korea has real socialism? I’m not saying anything isn’t real socialism, nor have I mentioned anything about it failing. I’m saying that’s socialism is a defined thing which has a core factor - the ownership of production by the worker (or by the people, if you prefer) If it doesn’t have that, it’s not socialism. You really have shit the bed on this one. It can also be owned by government and government is not same as workers. While you are at it, please tell us an example of a truly socialist government then. Government are workers - elected by workers. And despite self representation, there are no true socialist governments in the world today. There are communist states (not the same), soc-dem (not the same) and state-capitalist (not the same). China refer to themselves as socialist, but they have private enterprise - not socialist. " Government need not be always elected by workers. There could be people who never worked and still elected the government. This shows that you have read none of Marx's writings. And yet you are here lecturing others to read. So there are no "truly socialist" countries in the present. Was there one in the past? I bet not. This is the criticism I made in the previous post. "True socialism was never tried" is a lame copout used by socialists to hide from all their failures. Going by your argument, capitalists can also argue that "True capitalism was never tried" because all countries always had some level of government interference and ownership in the markets. | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy. You’re still not getting it. There is socialism, which is clearly defined. Then there are other political ideologies which borrow elements from socialism undoubtedly, but crucially do not include the one core socialist value - therefor they are definitively *not* socialism. I’m not sure I can make this any easier to understand. I totally get what you are trying to do. This whole exercise of repeatedly saying "That's not real socialism" is a lame excuse to escape criticism of socialism everytime the ideology has failed. If this excuse is acceptable, you should never criticise the problems in US and UK economies as problems of capitalism because they aren't purely capitalistic societies either. I have hardly seen anyone says "That's not real capitalism because there are socialist elements" in the country. "That's not socialism" excuse has been used for over a century that it's become laughable at this point. Maybe North Korea has real socialism? I’m not saying anything isn’t real socialism, nor have I mentioned anything about it failing. I’m saying that’s socialism is a defined thing which has a core factor - the ownership of production by the worker (or by the people, if you prefer) If it doesn’t have that, it’s not socialism. You really have shit the bed on this one. It can also be owned by government and government is not same as workers. While you are at it, please tell us an example of a truly socialist government then. Government are workers - elected by workers. And despite self representation, there are no true socialist governments in the world today. There are communist states (not the same), soc-dem (not the same) and state-capitalist (not the same). China refer to themselves as socialist, but they have private enterprise - not socialist. Government need not be always elected by workers. There could be people who never worked and still elected the government. This shows that you have read none of Marx's writings. And yet you are here lecturing others to read. So there are no "truly socialist" countries in the present. Was there one in the past? I bet not. This is the criticism I made in the previous post. "True socialism was never tried" is a lame copout used by socialists to hide from all their failures. Going by your argument, capitalists can also argue that "True capitalism was never tried" because all countries always had some level of government interference and ownership in the markets." Here you go, mucker. I’m no longer engaging with you on this topic. I sincerely hope you read up on what socialism actually is, before you attempt to discuss it in future. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/socialist-countries | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy. You’re still not getting it. There is socialism, which is clearly defined. Then there are other political ideologies which borrow elements from socialism undoubtedly, but crucially do not include the one core socialist value - therefor they are definitively *not* socialism. I’m not sure I can make this any easier to understand. I totally get what you are trying to do. This whole exercise of repeatedly saying "That's not real socialism" is a lame excuse to escape criticism of socialism everytime the ideology has failed. If this excuse is acceptable, you should never criticise the problems in US and UK economies as problems of capitalism because they aren't purely capitalistic societies either. I have hardly seen anyone says "That's not real capitalism because there are socialist elements" in the country. "That's not socialism" excuse has been used for over a century that it's become laughable at this point. Maybe North Korea has real socialism? I’m not saying anything isn’t real socialism, nor have I mentioned anything about it failing. I’m saying that’s socialism is a defined thing which has a core factor - the ownership of production by the worker (or by the people, if you prefer) If it doesn’t have that, it’s not socialism. You really have shit the bed on this one. It can also be owned by government and government is not same as workers. While you are at it, please tell us an example of a truly socialist government then. Government are workers - elected by workers. And despite self representation, there are no true socialist governments in the world today. There are communist states (not the same), soc-dem (not the same) and state-capitalist (not the same). China refer to themselves as socialist, but they have private enterprise - not socialist. Government need not be always elected by workers. There could be people who never worked and still elected the government. This shows that you have read none of Marx's writings. And yet you are here lecturing others to read. So there are no "truly socialist" countries in the present. Was there one in the past? I bet not. This is the criticism I made in the previous post. "True socialism was never tried" is a lame copout used by socialists to hide from all their failures. Going by your argument, capitalists can also argue that "True capitalism was never tried" because all countries always had some level of government interference and ownership in the markets. Here you go, mucker. I’m no longer engaging with you on this topic. I sincerely hope you read up on what socialism actually is, before you attempt to discuss it in future. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/socialist-countries" 
That's hilarious. You just said that there are no true socialist states right now. Yet you share a link that lists India and Sri Lanka as socialist countries among few others.
I don't care engaging with you either. You are a typical modern socialist in a nutshell. I hoped to see a different argument. But it's the usual stuff:
- Sets selflessness as a moral basis for the socialistic ideal. Yet will not choose any available options to actually perform selfless acts and help others or try out a socialist society within this free country which allows you them to do so and lead by an example.
- When someone tries to point out the history of horrors related to socialism that makes it on par, if not worse than Nazism, they use the usual excuse of "But that's not true socialism. Real socialism was never tried". As though they know a lot about how to implement socialism than people like Stalin and Mao.
Good night | |||
| |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy. You’re still not getting it. There is socialism, which is clearly defined. Then there are other political ideologies which borrow elements from socialism undoubtedly, but crucially do not include the one core socialist value - therefor they are definitively *not* socialism. I’m not sure I can make this any easier to understand. I totally get what you are trying to do. This whole exercise of repeatedly saying "That's not real socialism" is a lame excuse to escape criticism of socialism everytime the ideology has failed. If this excuse is acceptable, you should never criticise the problems in US and UK economies as problems of capitalism because they aren't purely capitalistic societies either. I have hardly seen anyone says "That's not real capitalism because there are socialist elements" in the country. "That's not socialism" excuse has been used for over a century that it's become laughable at this point. Maybe North Korea has real socialism? I’m not saying anything isn’t real socialism, nor have I mentioned anything about it failing. I’m saying that’s socialism is a defined thing which has a core factor - the ownership of production by the worker (or by the people, if you prefer) If it doesn’t have that, it’s not socialism. You really have shit the bed on this one. It can also be owned by government and government is not same as workers. While you are at it, please tell us an example of a truly socialist government then. Government are workers - elected by workers. And despite self representation, there are no true socialist governments in the world today. There are communist states (not the same), soc-dem (not the same) and state-capitalist (not the same). China refer to themselves as socialist, but they have private enterprise - not socialist. Government need not be always elected by workers. There could be people who never worked and still elected the government. This shows that you have read none of Marx's writings. And yet you are here lecturing others to read. So there are no "truly socialist" countries in the present. Was there one in the past? I bet not. This is the criticism I made in the previous post. "True socialism was never tried" is a lame copout used by socialists to hide from all their failures. Going by your argument, capitalists can also argue that "True capitalism was never tried" because all countries always had some level of government interference and ownership in the markets. Here you go, mucker. I’m no longer engaging with you on this topic. I sincerely hope you read up on what socialism actually is, before you attempt to discuss it in future. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/socialist-countries
That's hilarious. You just said that there are no true socialist states right now. Yet you share a link that lists India and Sri Lanka as socialist countries among few others.
I don't care engaging with you either. You are a typical modern socialist in a nutshell. I hoped to see a different argument. But it's the usual stuff:
- Sets selflessness as a moral basis for the socialistic ideal. Yet will not choose any available options to actually perform selfless acts and help others or try out a socialist society within this free country which allows you them to do so and lead by an example.
- When someone tries to point out the history of horrors related to socialism that makes it on par, if not worse than Nazism, they use the usual excuse of "But that's not true socialism. Real socialism was never tried". As though they know a lot about how to implement socialism than people like Stalin and Mao.
Good night "Did you read the bit that said “ no country has ever succeeded in implementing a purely socialist or communist government, because some degree of capitalism and/or governmental overstepping always manifests” Because that’s the point that you’ve missed throughout this whole thread. Underpinning your lack of knowledge on the subject. | |||
| |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right." I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy. You’re still not getting it. There is socialism, which is clearly defined. Then there are other political ideologies which borrow elements from socialism undoubtedly, but crucially do not include the one core socialist value - therefor they are definitively *not* socialism. I’m not sure I can make this any easier to understand. I totally get what you are trying to do. This whole exercise of repeatedly saying "That's not real socialism" is a lame excuse to escape criticism of socialism everytime the ideology has failed. If this excuse is acceptable, you should never criticise the problems in US and UK economies as problems of capitalism because they aren't purely capitalistic societies either. I have hardly seen anyone says "That's not real capitalism because there are socialist elements" in the country. "That's not socialism" excuse has been used for over a century that it's become laughable at this point. Maybe North Korea has real socialism? I’m not saying anything isn’t real socialism, nor have I mentioned anything about it failing. I’m saying that’s socialism is a defined thing which has a core factor - the ownership of production by the worker (or by the people, if you prefer) If it doesn’t have that, it’s not socialism. You really have shit the bed on this one. It can also be owned by government and government is not same as workers. While you are at it, please tell us an example of a truly socialist government then. Government are workers - elected by workers. And despite self representation, there are no true socialist governments in the world today. There are communist states (not the same), soc-dem (not the same) and state-capitalist (not the same). China refer to themselves as socialist, but they have private enterprise - not socialist. Government need not be always elected by workers. There could be people who never worked and still elected the government. This shows that you have read none of Marx's writings. And yet you are here lecturing others to read. So there are no "truly socialist" countries in the present. Was there one in the past? I bet not. This is the criticism I made in the previous post. "True socialism was never tried" is a lame copout used by socialists to hide from all their failures. Going by your argument, capitalists can also argue that "True capitalism was never tried" because all countries always had some level of government interference and ownership in the markets. Here you go, mucker. I’m no longer engaging with you on this topic. I sincerely hope you read up on what socialism actually is, before you attempt to discuss it in future. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/socialist-countries
That's hilarious. You just said that there are no true socialist states right now. Yet you share a link that lists India and Sri Lanka as socialist countries among few others.
I don't care engaging with you either. You are a typical modern socialist in a nutshell. I hoped to see a different argument. But it's the usual stuff:
- Sets selflessness as a moral basis for the socialistic ideal. Yet will not choose any available options to actually perform selfless acts and help others or try out a socialist society within this free country which allows you them to do so and lead by an example.
- When someone tries to point out the history of horrors related to socialism that makes it on par, if not worse than Nazism, they use the usual excuse of "But that's not true socialism. Real socialism was never tried". As though they know a lot about how to implement socialism than people like Stalin and Mao.
Good night
Did you read the bit that said “ no country has ever succeeded in implementing a purely socialist or communist government, because some degree of capitalism and/or governmental overstepping always manifests”
Because that’s the point that you’ve missed throughout this whole thread. Underpinning your lack of knowledge on the subject.
"Did you even read what I said? By your argument, no country has ever has succeeded in implementing a purely capitalist government too because some amount of socialism and/or government ownership always manifests. Will you accept that as an argument if someone uses that to defend capitalism? Pretty sure this is the 5th time I am explaining the stupidity behind "True socialism has never been tried argument". You are being wilfully ignorant here. | |||
"I forgot to add that China is market socialism (which is also not true socialism). Or some refer to china’s economy as state capitalism- which still isn’t socialism. This is the problem. No economy is ideologically pure. The US is predominantly capitalistic with a sprinkling of socialism thrown. Social democracies are also predominantly capitalistic with more dosage of socialism. China is predominantly capitalistic with a part using capitalism. India was mostly socialistic until the 90s when they realised how dumb socialism was and shifted towards capitalism. India still has traces of socialism but it is mostly capitalistic. Government running an industry is a socialist method that can survive within a capitalistic country. Workers owning means of production and government owning means of production are two different things. If you think both are same, you have never read any of Marx's writings. There are so many flavours of socialism. So any debates on pros and cons of them require you to explain what you mean by socialism and what an ideal socialist country would look like. The moment we question this, most arm chair socialists cop out and say that all they wanted was "Scandinavian style" of economy. You’re still not getting it. There is socialism, which is clearly defined. Then there are other political ideologies which borrow elements from socialism undoubtedly, but crucially do not include the one core socialist value - therefor they are definitively *not* socialism. I’m not sure I can make this any easier to understand. I totally get what you are trying to do. This whole exercise of repeatedly saying "That's not real socialism" is a lame excuse to escape criticism of socialism everytime the ideology has failed. If this excuse is acceptable, you should never criticise the problems in US and UK economies as problems of capitalism because they aren't purely capitalistic societies either. I have hardly seen anyone says "That's not real capitalism because there are socialist elements" in the country. "That's not socialism" excuse has been used for over a century that it's become laughable at this point. Maybe North Korea has real socialism? I’m not saying anything isn’t real socialism, nor have I mentioned anything about it failing. I’m saying that’s socialism is a defined thing which has a core factor - the ownership of production by the worker (or by the people, if you prefer) If it doesn’t have that, it’s not socialism. You really have shit the bed on this one. It can also be owned by government and government is not same as workers. While you are at it, please tell us an example of a truly socialist government then. Government are workers - elected by workers. And despite self representation, there are no true socialist governments in the world today. There are communist states (not the same), soc-dem (not the same) and state-capitalist (not the same). China refer to themselves as socialist, but they have private enterprise - not socialist. Government need not be always elected by workers. There could be people who never worked and still elected the government. This shows that you have read none of Marx's writings. And yet you are here lecturing others to read. So there are no "truly socialist" countries in the present. Was there one in the past? I bet not. This is the criticism I made in the previous post. "True socialism was never tried" is a lame copout used by socialists to hide from all their failures. Going by your argument, capitalists can also argue that "True capitalism was never tried" because all countries always had some level of government interference and ownership in the markets. Here you go, mucker. I’m no longer engaging with you on this topic. I sincerely hope you read up on what socialism actually is, before you attempt to discuss it in future. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/socialist-countries
That's hilarious. You just said that there are no true socialist states right now. Yet you share a link that lists India and Sri Lanka as socialist countries among few others.
I don't care engaging with you either. You are a typical modern socialist in a nutshell. I hoped to see a different argument. But it's the usual stuff:
- Sets selflessness as a moral basis for the socialistic ideal. Yet will not choose any available options to actually perform selfless acts and help others or try out a socialist society within this free country which allows you them to do so and lead by an example.
- When someone tries to point out the history of horrors related to socialism that makes it on par, if not worse than Nazism, they use the usual excuse of "But that's not true socialism. Real socialism was never tried". As though they know a lot about how to implement socialism than people like Stalin and Mao.
Good night
Did you read the bit that said “ no country has ever succeeded in implementing a purely socialist or communist government, because some degree of capitalism and/or governmental overstepping always manifests”
Because that’s the point that you’ve missed throughout this whole thread. Underpinning your lack of knowledge on the subject.
Did you even read what I said? By your argument, no country has ever has succeeded in implementing a purely capitalist government too because some amount of socialism and/or government ownership always manifests. Will you accept that as an argument if someone uses that to defend capitalism?
Pretty sure this is the 5th time I am explaining the stupidity behind "True socialism has never been tried argument". You are being wilfully ignorant here."You’re being wilfully ignorant because I’ve not used the ‘true socialism has never been tried’ argument. I’ve simply spent altogether too long trying to explain to you what true socialism is - you’re the one who has failed to comprehend it and instead insisted on creating your own argument about what socialism is. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism"" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. " Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? " That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. " Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. " ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. " So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed?" Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical." I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. " In that case, full fledged capitalism also never existed. "Almost capitalism isn't capitalism". So don't blame capitalism for any issues you see in the Western world? Most pro-capitalists are reasonable enough to agree that even if it is not "full-fledged" capitalism, many countries are predominantly capitalistic in nature and happy to debate around it. Except the anarcho-capitalists, you wouldn't see anyone telling you that "It's not real capitalism" It's mostly the armchair socialists who do that. That's the reason why the statement "It's not real socialism" has become a meme at this point and people laugh at it when someone tells that about USSR or Maoist China. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not?" By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. In that case, full fledged capitalism also never existed. "Almost capitalism isn't capitalism". So don't blame capitalism for any issues you see in the Western world? Most pro-capitalists are reasonable enough to agree that even if it is not "full-fledged" capitalism, many countries are predominantly capitalistic in nature and happy to debate around it. Except the anarcho-capitalists, you wouldn't see anyone telling you that "It's not real capitalism" It's mostly the armchair socialists who do that. That's the reason why the statement "It's not real socialism" has become a meme at this point and people laugh at it when someone tells that about USSR or Maoist China." You’re still babbling on about a point that I never made. Presumably because your lack of knowledge has been shown up throughout this thread. Am I good to leave the convo now, or would you like another go around? | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. In that case, full fledged capitalism also never existed. "Almost capitalism isn't capitalism". So don't blame capitalism for any issues you see in the Western world? Most pro-capitalists are reasonable enough to agree that even if it is not "full-fledged" capitalism, many countries are predominantly capitalistic in nature and happy to debate around it. Except the anarcho-capitalists, you wouldn't see anyone telling you that "It's not real capitalism" It's mostly the armchair socialists who do that. That's the reason why the statement "It's not real socialism" has become a meme at this point and people laugh at it when someone tells that about USSR or Maoist China. You’re still babbling on about a point that I never made. Presumably because your lack of knowledge has been shown up throughout this thread. Am I good to leave the convo now, or would you like another go around?" Lol. You haven't answered a single question I asked about the contradictions in your arguments both in this thread and others. You speak a lot about reading yet you have repeatedly shown you know nothing about Marxism or communism. All you have done in this thread is deflecting and making strawman arguments. I am the one who babbles? You can leave the debate whenever you want. No one forced you to participate. We aren't socialists. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread "So, has socialism ever existed? Who even decides what socialism is? | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?"Who even decides how anything is defined? If something has a definition, it has a definition. Anything that doesn’t conform to that definition can’t be that thing. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?
Who even decides how anything is defined? If something has a definition, it has a definition. Anything that doesn’t conform to that definition can’t be that thing. "Different dictionaries have different definitions. Who is to be believed? Most words have more than one definition tbf, but not socialism, according to you anyway. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?
Who even decides how anything is defined? If something has a definition, it has a definition. Anything that doesn’t conform to that definition can’t be that thing.
Different dictionaries have different definitions. Who is to be believed?
Most words have more than one definition tbf, but not socialism, according to you anyway. "*sigh* The connection between socialism and the workers owning the means of production is well published. If you wish to pretend otherwise, that’s your prerogative, I guess | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?"Socialism has never existed. Capitalism also never existed. Nothing has ever existed. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?
Socialism has never existed. Capitalism also never existed. Nothing has ever existed."It’s all meaningless. There’s simply no point, to anything. We have no purpose and will just die anyway. So at least Nihilism is alive and, er, depressed! | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?
Socialism has never existed. Capitalism also never existed. Nothing has ever existed.
It’s all meaningless. There’s simply no point, to anything. We have no purpose and will just die anyway.
So at least Nihilism is alive and, er, depressed! "
It's all an illusion/maya. Let's just smoke some and walk towards extinction. Anti-natalism FTW. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?
Who even decides how anything is defined? If something has a definition, it has a definition. Anything that doesn’t conform to that definition can’t be that thing.
Different dictionaries have different definitions. Who is to be believed?
Most words have more than one definition tbf, but not socialism, according to you anyway.
*sigh*
The connection between socialism and the workers owning the means of production is well published. If you wish to pretend otherwise, that’s your prerogative, I guess "It's quite a simple question. Which dictionary definition is correct? | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?
Who even decides how anything is defined? If something has a definition, it has a definition. Anything that doesn’t conform to that definition can’t be that thing.
Different dictionaries have different definitions. Who is to be believed?
Most words have more than one definition tbf, but not socialism, according to you anyway.
*sigh*
The connection between socialism and the workers owning the means of production is well published. If you wish to pretend otherwise, that’s your prerogative, I guess
It's quite a simple question. Which dictionary definition is correct?"Well since both the Oxford English and Merriam-Webster refer to the means of production being owned/controlled by the state or the people, you can choose which you prefer. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?
Who even decides how anything is defined? If something has a definition, it has a definition. Anything that doesn’t conform to that definition can’t be that thing.
Different dictionaries have different definitions. Who is to be believed?
Most words have more than one definition tbf, but not socialism, according to you anyway.
*sigh*
The connection between socialism and the workers owning the means of production is well published. If you wish to pretend otherwise, that’s your prerogative, I guess
It's quite a simple question. Which dictionary definition is correct?"There’s even a correlating reference on UD, since I know you’re a fan of that source: “ 1. The political philosophy that the means of production should be owned by the working public rather than individuals” | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?
Who even decides how anything is defined? If something has a definition, it has a definition. Anything that doesn’t conform to that definition can’t be that thing.
Different dictionaries have different definitions. Who is to be believed?
Most words have more than one definition tbf, but not socialism, according to you anyway.
*sigh*
The connection between socialism and the workers owning the means of production is well published. If you wish to pretend otherwise, that’s your prerogative, I guess
It's quite a simple question. Which dictionary definition is correct?
Well since both the Oxford English and Merriam-Webster refer to the means of production being owned/controlled by the state or the people, you can choose which you prefer."Is it owned or regulated that makes it socialism? This country is heavily regulated but we're far from socialist. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?
Who even decides how anything is defined? If something has a definition, it has a definition. Anything that doesn’t conform to that definition can’t be that thing.
Different dictionaries have different definitions. Who is to be believed?
Most words have more than one definition tbf, but not socialism, according to you anyway.
*sigh*
The connection between socialism and the workers owning the means of production is well published. If you wish to pretend otherwise, that’s your prerogative, I guess
It's quite a simple question. Which dictionary definition is correct?
Well since both the Oxford English and Merriam-Webster refer to the means of production being owned/controlled by the state or the people, you can choose which you prefer.
Is it owned or regulated that makes it socialism?
This country is heavily regulated but we're far from socialist. "Owned. | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?
Who even decides how anything is defined? If something has a definition, it has a definition. Anything that doesn’t conform to that definition can’t be that thing.
Different dictionaries have different definitions. Who is to be believed?
Most words have more than one definition tbf, but not socialism, according to you anyway.
*sigh*
The connection between socialism and the workers owning the means of production is well published. If you wish to pretend otherwise, that’s your prerogative, I guess
It's quite a simple question. Which dictionary definition is correct?
Well since both the Oxford English and Merriam-Webster refer to the means of production being owned/controlled by the state or the people, you can choose which you prefer.
Is it owned or regulated that makes it socialism?
This country is heavily regulated but we're far from socialist.
Owned. "So we can ignore Oxford then. We might be getting somewhere here | |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?
Who even decides how anything is defined? If something has a definition, it has a definition. Anything that doesn’t conform to that definition can’t be that thing.
Different dictionaries have different definitions. Who is to be believed?
Most words have more than one definition tbf, but not socialism, according to you anyway.
*sigh*
The connection between socialism and the workers owning the means of production is well published. If you wish to pretend otherwise, that’s your prerogative, I guess
It's quite a simple question. Which dictionary definition is correct?
Well since both the Oxford English and Merriam-Webster refer to the means of production being owned/controlled by the state or the people, you can choose which you prefer.
Is it owned or regulated that makes it socialism?
This country is heavily regulated but we're far from socialist.
Owned.
So we can ignore Oxford then. We might be getting somewhere here "You can choose to ignore the Oxford dictionary if you prefer your own definition. I suspect you won’t win many debates like that, though. You’re a sharp guy, feisty. You like to pick holes and have fun, I know that. But you’re also smart enough to know how socialism is defined, and all the dancing around in the world won’t change that. Anyhoo, I’ve backed out of this convo a dozen times already and I’m not wasting further time on it. | |||
| |||
"Sorry _ostindreams, one last thing - Do you believe the Nazis were socialists? Because that’s literally the argument you’re making if you want to claim that there are actual socialist nations in the world today. I know that there has been a recent poster on fabs who claimed the Nazis were socialists, but he was proved wrong pretty substantially. Wondered if you believed him to be right. I never said Nazis were socialists. You are making a strawman argument here. Nazis had a mixed economy. They claimed to be socialist. But their economy was partially capitalistic and partially socialist. But the horrors they committed weren't down to their economic views but because of their social views. On the other hand, USSR under Stalin and China under Mao were predominantly socialist. The millions of deaths that caused(higher than that caused by Nazis) was down to socialism. After all the destruction they caused, what did the socialists say? "That's not true socialism" Neither of them were socialist. One of them claimed to be socialist, the other was communist. Lol. None of them were communist. Communism was a stated end goal of sociailism. No country ever reached there. You have never read a single word written by Marx, have you? That the point here - if you want to claim that some nations are socialist today because they call themselves socialist (like China) or because they have socialism written into a constitution (like India), you *also* have to claim that the Nazis were socialist for the same reason. Yet you just said the Nazis weren’t socialist - so you’re presenting a double standard. Yet another strawman. I did not call them socialist because they called themselves socialist. You are the one who just called a country communist. You shared an article that said India is socialist because they have Sociailism in their constitution. Not me. India was predominantly socialist until 1990s after which they chose to take the path of free matkets. because they called themselves communist. This debate is getting ridiculous at this point. You are putting your own words in my mouth. USSR and China under Mao were socialist because the government owned most(almost all) means of production. ‘Almost’ isn’t socialism. That’s the point you’ve consistently failed to pick up upon throughout this thread. You’ve demonstrated time and again that you don’t know what socialism is. We’re done here. So what you're saying is Socialism has never existed? Full fledged socialism has never (as far as I’m aware) been used, nor will it ever be used. It’s theoretical. I don't care for 'full-fledged', has socialism ever existed or not? By saying you don’t care for full-fledged, you’re answering it yourself, and it’s already been explained adequately in this thread
So, has socialism ever existed?
Who even decides what socialism is?
Who even decides how anything is defined? If something has a definition, it has a definition. Anything that doesn’t conform to that definition can’t be that thing.
Different dictionaries have different definitions. Who is to be believed?
Most words have more than one definition tbf, but not socialism, according to you anyway.
*sigh*
The connection between socialism and the workers owning the means of production is well published. If you wish to pretend otherwise, that’s your prerogative, I guess
It's quite a simple question. Which dictionary definition is correct?
Well since both the Oxford English and Merriam-Webster refer to the means of production being owned/controlled by the state or the people, you can choose which you prefer.
Is it owned or regulated that makes it socialism?
This country is heavily regulated but we're far from socialist.
Owned.
So we can ignore Oxford then. We might be getting somewhere here
You can choose to ignore the Oxford dictionary if you prefer your own definition. I suspect you won’t win many debates like that, though.
You’re a sharp guy, feisty. You like to pick holes and have fun, I know that. But you’re also smart enough to know how socialism is defined, and all the dancing around in the world won’t change that.
Anyhoo, I’ve backed out of this convo a dozen times already and I’m not wasting further time on it.
"I'm fascinated by 'there is a definition', but not what Oxford says, even though you said Oxford was good. | |||
"I’m still waiting for someone who uses woke as a pejorative to actually explain what it is. People who believe that every problem in the world boils down to one's identity(race, sexuality, etc.) and the solution to these problems is to take away the rights of people who they consider belonging to the oppressive identifies. " I think this man has given the best answer you’ve going to get. Go and do some research readers on the teachings of critical social justice. That is pretty much at the heart of the pushback against ‘woke’. | |||
| |||
".... Tbh, I don't have a cliche like evil spring to mind, but maybe you do... Are all labour ... Woke? Are all labour ... Bad with money ? What says you ? (My guess is this thread won't grow as quick as the Tory one) " Are all Labour bad with money?? Have you seen the size of the national debt now compared to how it was when the Tories took over and says Labour had left a huge debt? It has more than tripled yet we have had years of austerity and the money certainly isn't being spent on the people. I know we had covid etc. But the debt was out of control before then. | |||
