US is now more socialist than capitalist

Watermark said:
It seems you have a ridiculously broad definition of the word "socialism", one that encompasses all possible government functions.
Click to expand...

"Socialism, a system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces."

That came from Encyclopedia Britannica. Now, please try to argue that our Public Education System and our Military, as social organizations, do not meet this definition. They are, in fact, socialist institutions.
 
Mottleydude said:
"Socialism, a system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces."

That came from Encyclopedia Britannica. Now, please try to argue that our Public Education System and our Military, as social organizations, do not meet this definition. They are, in fact, socialist institutions.
Click to expand...

Mottley, you are an idiot, do not pretend to argue with me or for a second believe you are on my level of intelligence. This is a stupid argument. I refuse to grant it a serious response.
 
Mottleydude said:
Wow, what an astounding, erudite and fact filled rebuttal. I am chastined. (Sarcasm Button Off).
Click to expand...

Wow, a smug, gay, bitch, who thinks that citing Britannica and using large words makes him appear more intelligent than he actually is. :clink:

I have Britannica too, and the editors at Britannica would disagree with you, for broadening the definition of socialism beyond all reason. It is just a pedantic definitions game. It is stupid.
 
Watermark said:
It seems you have a ridiculously broad definition of the word "socialism", one that encompasses all possible government functions.
Click to expand...

That's only because he's developed in an ideational environment mostly manufactured by marketing executives and fascists, American Culture (tm). In this day and age being against human slavery makes you a communist who's against "Free Trade". Cut him some slack.
 
Watermark said:
Mottley, you are an idiot, do not pretend to argue with me or for a second believe you are on my level of intelligence. This is a stupid argument. I refuse to grant it a serious response.
Click to expand...


Bluff, bluster and empty rhetoric. Put up or shut up or we'll all know what league your in.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That's only because he's developed in an ideational environment mostly manufactured by marketing executives and fascists, American Culture (tm). In this day and age being against human slavery makes you a communist who's against "Free Trade". Cut him some slack.
Click to expand...

OK...now when I actually can figure out just what the hell you said....I might thank you! LOL
 
Watermark said:
Wow, a smug, gay, bitch, who thinks that citing Britannica and using large words makes him appear more intelligent than he actually is. :clink:

I have Britannica too, and the editors at Britannica would disagree with you, for broadening the definition of socialism beyond all reason. It is just a pedantic definitions game. It is stupid.
Click to expand...

Again, you failed to address the issue at point. So I'll challenge you again in reverse. Please explain to me, if my definition is just to broad, why these institutions would not be considered a socialist institution? This is just my polite why of saying that, despite your bluster, "You don't know what you're talking about and you can't back it up."
 
Mottleydude said:
Again, you failed to address the issue at point. So I'll challenge you again in reverse. Please explain to me, if my definition is just to broad, why these institutions would not be considered a socialist institution? This is just my polite why of saying that, despite your bluster, "You don't know what you're talking about and you can't back it up."
Click to expand...

They are not teh socialist b/c mostly they choose not to seek a smaller distribution of teh welath.
 
Mottleydude said:
"Socialism, a system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces."

That came from Encyclopedia Britannica. Now, please try to argue that our Public Education System and our Military, as social organizations, do not meet this definition. They are, in fact, socialist institutions.
Click to expand...
In what way are the military and education system property? In what way do they produce income? Last I looked, neither the military nor the education system produces wealth.

Socialism deals with the manner property and/or wealth is owned or created and distributed. The Britannica states that pretty clearly. Neither the education nor the military has anything to do with ownership of property, nor with creation of wealth, nor with distribution of wealth.
 
Good Luck said:
In what way are the military and education system property? In what way do they produce income? Last I looked, neither the military nor the education system produces wealth.

Socialism deals with the manner property and/or wealth is owned or created and distributed. The Britannica states that pretty clearly. Neither the education nor the military has anything to do with ownership of property, nor with creation of wealth, nor with distribution of wealth.
Click to expand...

DUH. There Public property and OUR income is distributed to them in a socialist manner. You can argue lame points all you want to. Both of these institutions are, in fact, socialist institutions. Just as labor unions are socialist institutions.
 
Good Luck said:
Last I looked, neither the military nor the education system produces wealth.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Our military makes the world "free and democratic", meaning "open for business". And our schools train the technocrats of the corporocratic future-ocracy, and also the mindless consumer.
 
"We had to struggle with the enemies of peace -- business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering," Roosevelt said about his first term in office. "They had begun to consider the government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob."
------- FDR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top