Which part of this do you think is advocating for central planning by the government without Direct Democracy?
You are the one injecting the empty buzzword "Direct Democracy" into this. There is no requirement for this empty buzzword.
If you are referring to the "democracy" inherent in Communism then that does not exist in any form whatsoever under socialism.
Two things to keep in mind. First, Karl Marx didn't invent Socialism.
Before you go down the wrong tangent, keep in mind that Karl Marx absolutely invented Marxism. When we talk about Socialism we are talking within the context of Marxism and we are simply agreeing to not have to write "Marxist Socialism" every time and that just "Socialism" will do, i.e. we know that's what we are talking about.
Secondly, Marx didn't actually write about Socialism and Communism that much,
The amount is irrelevant. Marx defined both with the
Communist Manifesto. We have a common reference for discussion.
... and when he did, he usually didn't outline a coherent philosophy.
We have achieved some common ground!
Marx was a firebrand preacher of a terrible religion based on a highly disfunctional economic model, i.e. one that can never work because it denies human nature in the same way that Catholicism denies human sexuality. Naturally the Manifesto will seem incoherent because everything in it is contradictory.
Most of his writings were dedicated to roasting Capitalism, not building an ideology of Socialism. The closest thing we have to this is somewhat outlined in Das Kapital, not the Communist Manifesto.
Das Kapital is more of the same. In fact it is three grinding volumes of the same gibberish, just expanded. If you'd like, you can pick your favorite paragraph or two from Das Kapital and I'll tell you what's wrong with it ... and I will likely be able to point to its basic mention in the
Manifesto.
The Soviet Union did, Nazi Germany did not. So even if we're going by your definition, the Nazis were not Socialists, anymore than the North Korean government is democratic.
You have brought us full circle. You made this comment previously and I have already addressed it thoroughly.
"Capitalism" in its modern context was coined by Louis Blanc, not Marx.
You did yourself a grave disservice. You rushed to Wikipedia and regurgitated what it told you to believe without first checking any authoritative sources or even performing a common sense check.
Capitalism, as it is used today, was coined by Karl Marx. Blanc coined the term, yes, but just to refer to dealing with material equity. Marx, on the other hand, took the term and ascribed to it the meaning of a slur of general economics principles. Marx made the term derogatory and used it to refer to simply doing business and to all of the machinery of an economy.
Fast forward to today. Marxists still hurl the word "capitalism" with the same disdain that Marx had ... it's just that people who recognize that economics works don't see the word "capitalism" as a slur any more than I would worry about a Japanese national calling me a "Yankee."
It was Marx, not Blanc.
No, I think the rich should pay much more in taxes.
When everyone pays the same flat percentage, those with greater incomes pay more. So why do you feel the need to make certain people unequal under the law? Why do you need to make thiings unfair for some people? Would you approve of a law that allows homeless people to steal your stuff because rich people like you should have to "pay more" and the homeless need your stuff more than you do so why are you complaining anyway you heartless greedy bastard! Well, you get my point. Why be unfair to people who you demonize just because they have more than you, but the law shouldn't be unfair to you in the same way?
No. School vouchers.
I don't think parents should be allowed to homeschool their kids if they're teaching things that are objectively wrong.
... and I suppose you determine what is objectively wrong? Would you send in social services if the parents, while homeschooling their children, should make a mistake?
Just so you know ... I chose those two questions because I knew you would answer this way and yes, you are a socialist. You are giving the socialist party-line answers. You seek to punish the successful just because you envy them. It is not enough for you to just let everyone be happy living their lives, you need to fúk with those who you envy and confiscate what they have as punishment. That is standard socialism.
I am certain that at some point you learned the concept of "fair" and that you know that it is not fair to be unfair to people. You have apparently forgotten that. Marx was all about being totally unfair and totally angry all the time. That's why he insisted that taxation be totally unfair.
As long as you feel that it is the State's job to redistribute other people's wealth rather than to simply have everyone pay their
fair share to run the government then you are indeed a socialist.
Yes I did. Social Democracy allows for private property.
... so does socialism, progressivism and democratic socialism. There is a good reason for that. They are all the same.
There's a more important point to be made here. You have not defined any of them and simply saying what one of them "allows" does nothing to define it.
IBDaMann: Is there any difference between noise-cancelling headphones, a martini and a La-Z-Boy recliner?
StoneByStone: Of course. The noise-cancelling headphones allow you to relax.
IBDaMann: ... but so does the martini, and so does the La-Z-Boy recliner.
Socialism does not allow private property.
Yes it does. The NAZIs allowed people to retain their "ownership" of the businesses they nonetheless assumed full control. You keep trying to reach for the word "ownership" but the word "control" is what you need.
Democratic Socialism originally referred to Socialism with elections, but that's not how it's used in modern America. When Bernie talks about Democratic Socialism, he's really describing Social Democracy.
Ummm, like I said, there's no difference.
Progressivism just refers to social reform,
It refers to very specific reform, e.g. abolition of capitalism, redistribution of wealth, i.e. socialism.
BLM is neither an organization nor Marxist. It's a movement.
Nope. You did yourself a grave disservice by rushing to Wikipedia ... oh wait, I already mentioned this.
The Marxist organization that currently calls itself Black Lives Matter has been around for a long time. It has simply rebranded itself relatively recently, leveraging a little political opportunism in Florida with the George Zimmerman controversy to pretend like they just sprang into existence over that event. There's a reason that BLM is 60%-70% caucasian.
I disagree with BLM because I don't think there is systemic racism against Blacks.
Good, good ... we found some more common ground. Do you remember me explaining unfalsifiability in a previous post? There is no such thing as "systemic racism." I could tell BLM to prove to me that there is "systemic racism" and they can respond "Prove to us that it doesn't exist!"
I do think we have a major problem with police brutality,
How many cases of police brutality are there when people don't fúk with the cops?
One of the reasons I think the Democrats are less terrible is because they don't grow government as much as Republicans do.
Let me know when you are ready for some bad news.
So there you go, we redefined marriage and the world didn't end. So what's wrong about redefining it to accept same-sex marriage?
LGBTQIATIOAPP is their own worst enemy. They are very similar to the Palestinians who simply refuse everything. You could be elected to Congress, successfully push through legislation to legalize same-gender marriage provided there is a special form filled out that details responsibilities should children be adopted and LGBTQIATIOAPP will demonize you, they will NOT be happy, they will not credit you for getting them almost all the way there, they will protest and ultimately they will seek to get your insulting travesty undone. They will complain that you "didn't go far enough" and that you didn't make it legal for them to adopt children ... because you are obviously homophobic ... and they will whine and bitch and complain about being victims. Come election time, they will support your Democrat rival and you won't understand why.
Then you will realize why politicians don't dare try to help LGBTQIATIOAPP in any substantive legislative manner. Nobody dares try to pander to them lest they be punished for the effort.
