Social security, a landmark liberal achievement

Into the Night said:
They attempted to. It failed.

Obamacare failed. What little is left is socialism. It is communism.

It is socialist. It is communism.

False equivalence fallacy. Medical treatment is NOT medical insurance. Most hospitals are NOT private. They are government owned and/or funded.

ALL of it is socialism.
Click to expand...

Nope
 
Flash said:
Marxism does not meet any of the elements of religion.
Click to expand...
It would seem that you simply don't know what a religion is or how to recognize one.

I can't help you there.

Flash said:
Marxist theory has little to do with actual socialism or communism as it exists today.
Click to expand...
... or it has everything to do with them both. I wonder which is correct, hmmm ....

Flash said:
It is almost impossible to find common elements in communist nations (even when more existed).
Click to expand...
No communist countries have ever existed. It's only possible in theory but is impossible in practice.
 
Flash said:
But, Obamacare, like Medicare, is not socialist because the medical establishment (hospitals, doctors, medical supply houses, nurses, etc.) are all private. The VA is socialism because it is government operated.
Click to expand...
Obamacare is just as socialist as Goering's Four Year Plan. When the government seizes operating control of private businesses and forces them to serve government requirements and government agenda, you have socialism.
 
Flash said:
Only in your world of made up facts.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a ' made up fact'. Learn what 'fact' means. Buzzword fallacy.

Your problem with not knowing English is YOUR problem. Only YOU can deal with it. Your problem with misquoting sources is YOUR problem. Only YOU can deal with it. Your problem with using false authorities is YOUR problem. Only YOU can deal with it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the VA is simply the military......they aren't competing with civilian hospitals.....compare for example, British Petroleum.....that is socialism......
Click to expand...

They don't have to compete with civilian hospitals to be socialist. In some communist countries all major industries are state owned and there is no private competition.
 
Flash said:
They don't have to compete with civilian hospitals to be socialist. In some communist countries all major industries are state owned and there is no private competition.
Click to expand...

you realize that's the difference between socialism and communism, right?.....socialists still permit some non-government competition......
 
Flash said:
The VA is government owned and operated and run by government employees. That is the essence of socialism although vets are now allowed to use private medical facilities in some areas.
Click to expand...

no....the essence of socialism is competition with private enterprise......the VA is no more socialism than the Army mess service.....the guys peeling potatoes and making shit on a shingle are also government employees.......so are the guys flying helicopters and the ones doing reconnaissance.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you realize that's the difference between socialism and communism, right?.....socialists still permit some non-government competition......
Click to expand...

That is not what distinguishes socialism and communism. You cannot really have a communist government without socialism; although, what exists in practice has endless varieties.

Communism also permits non-government competition. China is a great example. Even Cuba allows small private businesses. What is permitted depends on the whims of the particular government.
 
Flash said:
That is not what distinguishes socialism and communism. You cannot really have a communist government without socialism; although, what exists in practice has endless varieties.

Communism also permits non-government competition. China is a great example. Even Cuba allows small private businesses. What is permitted depends on the whims of the particular government.
Click to expand...
tired of lib'rul ignorance and lies.......it's all you have....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you realize that's the difference between socialism and communism, right?.....socialists still permit some non-government competition......
Click to expand...
The short answer:

Socialism and communism are phases in the "struggle" of the Marxism religion. In modern society, communists and socialists are diametrically opposed to each other (they are political enemies) and the general rule of thumb as to what to look for is:

Communists: oppose concentrations of power (and wealth) anywhere.
Socialists: push for a concentration of wealth and power, usually in the government, but it could be in private sector oligarchies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Democrat party, etc ...



The long answer:

All Marxism is religion, so when it comes to characterizing socialism vs communism, your mileage will vary for each person, with all perspectives falling into one of four general categories:

1. The views of those who refer to themselves as "communist," "Marxist anarchist," or "Marxist who wants democracy."
2. The views of those who refer to themselves as "socialist", "democratic socialist," "social democrat," or anyone who openly supports an existing Marxist government or oligarchy e.g. Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, etc ...
3. The views of those who do not claim any Marxist label but who are leftists, i.e. Democrats, liberals, etc ...
4. The views of those who support solid economic principles as the basis for all policy, i.e. conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, "capitalists", etc ..

The textbook biblical (Communist Manifesto) definition of socialism is the phase of the struggle marked by iron-fisted rule by an all-powerful oligarchy that precedes the communism phase. The socialism phase is a direct rip-off of the Christian Rapture, i.e. the global masses of God's children (proletariat) are oppressed by Satanic forces (bourgeoisie) until a divine leader (revolutionary) with a shimmering aura (or a megaphone) unites the faithful (who believe the leader/revolutionary without question) and leads them to overthrow the evil forces and establish heaven on earth (Utopia). The socialism phase is the revolutionary's oligarchy seizing complete control and establishing a new social order. In other contexts, the term for this is "extreme tyranny." Karl Marx declared that this is the inevitable result of the "struggle" and is absolutely necessary for communism to emerge and to take root.

This is where it gets totally funky. Karl Marx, in his complete denial of human nature, declared that the oligarchy that assumes complete control will act 100% selflessly in the interest of humanity, quickly establish the necessary social order and then ... step down. At this point, there will only be workers and their unions with no further need for any bourgeoise government hierarchy to oppress any of them. Communism is an anarchist Marxist religion, hence it is diametrically opposed to socialism, a totalitarian oligarchy Marxist religion. Hence, communists are always 100% opposed to anything that would install any socialism that is supposedly needed to bring about communism ... because communists know that no socialist oligarchy will ever step down. In fact, communists know that any socialist government will make its first order of business to hunt down any communists and make them "disappear." Upon gaining power, socialists immediately eliminate communists and outlaw firearms before they are toppled by such.
 
IBDaMann said:
The short answer:

Socialism and communism are phases in the "struggle" of the Marxism religion. In modern society, communists and socialists are diametrically opposed to each other (they are political enemies) and the general rule of thumb as to what to look for is:

Communists: oppose concentrations of power (and wealth) anywhere.
Socialists: push for a concentration of wealth and power, usually in the government, but it could be in private sector oligarchies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Democrat party, etc ...



The long answer:

All Marxism is religion, so when it comes to characterizing socialism vs communism, your mileage will vary for each person, with all perspectives falling into one of four general categories:

1. The views of those who refer to themselves as "communist," "Marxist anarchist," or "Marxist who wants democracy."
2. The views of those who refer to themselves as "socialist", "democratic socialist," "social democrat," or anyone who openly supports an existing Marxist government or oligarchy e.g. Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, etc ...
3. The views of those who do not claim any Marxist label but who are leftists, i.e. Democrats, liberals, etc ...
4. The views of those who support solid economic principles as the basis for all policy, i.e. conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, "capitalists", etc ..

The textbook biblical (Communist Manifesto) definition of socialism is the phase of the struggle marked by iron-fisted rule by an all-powerful oligarchy that precedes the communism phase. The socialism phase is a direct rip-off of the Christian Rapture, i.e. the global masses of God's children (proletariat) are oppressed by Satanic forces (bourgeoisie) until a divine leader (revolutionary) with a shimmering aura (or a megaphone) unites the faithful (who believe the leader/revolutionary without question) and leads them to overthrow the evil forces and establish heaven on earth (Utopia). The socialism phase is the revolutionary's oligarchy seizing complete control and establishing a new social order. In other contexts, the term for this is "extreme tyranny." Karl Marx declared that this is the inevitable result of the "struggle" and is absolutely necessary for communism to emerge and to take root.

This is where it gets totally funky. Karl Marx, in his complete denial of human nature, declared that the oligarchy that assumes complete control will act 100% selflessly in the interest of humanity, quickly establish the necessary social order and then ... step down. At this point, there will only be workers and their unions with no further need for any bourgeoise government hierarchy to oppress any of them. Communism is an anarchist Marxist religion, hence it is diametrically opposed to socialism, a totalitarian oligarchy Marxist religion. Hence, communists are always 100% opposed to anything that would install any socialism that is supposedly needed to bring about communism ... because communists know that no socialist oligarchy will ever step down. In fact, communists know that any socialist government will make its first order of business to hunt down any communists and make them "disappear." Upon gaining power, socialists immediately eliminate communists and outlaw firearms before they are toppled by such.
Click to expand...

So Nazis are marxists. At least you understand that...I've been saying that for years.
 
Guille said:
So Nazis are marxists. At least you understand that...I've been saying that for years.
Click to expand...
Yes. The creator of fascism is Giovanni Gentile. He was a huge fan of Marx's ideological creation. Gentile simply thought that Marx missed the mark in the marketing (did you see what I did there?). Gentile believed that portrayal of the struggle as being between the proletariat and the bourgeoise, was a bit outdated and that society could not relate to it anymore in those terms. Gentile argued that the socialism phase of the struggle would be brought about by nationalism, by the people rallying around an omnipotent socialist government that would bring about a new social order.

Aside from the manner in which the socialism emerged (fascism), it was the same underlying Marxist socialism. This is why Hitler's party was the National Socialist Worker's Party. Mussolini, on the other hand, complicated the matter by equating fascism with the iron-fisted nature of the rule of the government instead of the manner (via nationalism) in which socialism came to power.

iu
iu
iu


Remember that the brutal killings of more than one million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge sound so altruistic when Pol Pot explained that everything he did, he did for the country.
 
IBDaMann said:
Yes. The creator of fascism is Giovanni Gentile. He was a huge fan of Marx's ideological creation. Gentile simply thought that Marx missed the mark in the marketing (did you see what I did there?). Gentile believed that portrayal of the struggle as being between the proletariat and the bourgeoise, was a bit outdated and that society could not relate to it anymore in those terms. Gentile argued that the socialism phase of the struggle would be brought about by nationalism, by the people rallying around an omnipotent socialist government that would bring about a new social order.

Aside from the manner in which the socialism emerged (fascism), it was the same underlying Marxist socialism. This is why Hitler's party was the National Socialist Worker's Party. Mussolini, on the other hand, complicated the matter by equating fascism with the iron-fisted nature of the rule of the government instead of the manner (via nationalism) in which socialism came to power.

iu
iu
iu


Remember that the brutal killings of more than one million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge sound so altruistic when Pol Pot explained that everything he did, he did for the country.
Click to expand...

You're not anywhere near as smart as you obviously think you are. In fact I think you're boring. Wikipedia bores me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top