Socialismphobia

[Divair]

No.

The lack of classes and currency are what make communism its own unique variant of socialism. It is socialist because it has democratization of the workplace.

it's PART socialist not socialist.

It's entirely socialist.

Socialism advocates one thing and one thing only:
Democratization of the workplace.

[Dinahia]

Socialism does not advocate currency or classes.
Did you read my posts?
Here they are again:

You're the one that didn't read mine ...I said communism doesn't advocate classes and a currency not socialism.

Neither does socialism!

[Camelza]

You're the one that didn't read mine ...I said communism doesn't advocate classes and a currency not socialism.

Neither does socialism!

Where did I say that socialism advocates classes and a currency?

[Dinahia]

Neither does socialism!

Where did I say that socialism advocates classes and a currency?

"...I said communism doesn't advocate classes and a currency not socialism.", implying that communism is not socialism because socialism does advocate those things. (Which it doesn't.)

[Camelza]

Where did I say that socialism advocates classes and a currency?

"...I said communism doesn't advocate classes and a currency not socialism.", implying that communism is not socialism because socialism does advocate those things. (Which it doesn't.)

No I implied that despite not advocating classes and a currency,socialism if you exclude classes and a currency is communism ...which is different,but I don't frankly care.

[Divair]

it's PART socialist not socialist.

It's entirely socialist.

Socialism advocates one thing and one thing only:
Democratization of the workplace.

No response?

[Camelza]

It's entirely socialist.

Socialism advocates one thing and one thing only:
Democratization of the workplace.

No response?

I said I accept your opinion in the last page ...what do you want? a prize?

[Steel Harvest States]

I don't want socialism in America because I believe that a person should succeed or fail based on his own abilities; So should a business. Some businesses exist long after they should have failed, due to outside financial support (General Motors, Anyone?), because they are "no good" in their field; Some people remain employed at tasks at which they are no good, usually because someone else is making up for their failings. I despise socialism, and socialists, because the lesson it teaches is that, as long as you surround yourself with those who are competent, then it's acceptable to be INcompetent!

After all, Why try harder than you have to?

I don't want to live surrounded by folks like that...

[Divair]

No response?

I said I accept your opinion in the last page ...what do you want? a prize?

Yes, please. Payment in bacon would be best.

[Camelza]

I said I accept your opinion in the last page ...what do you want? a prize?

Yes, please. Payment in bacon would be best.

here ..enjoy your prize.

[Dinahia]

"...I said communism doesn't advocate classes and a currency not socialism.", implying that communism is not socialism because socialism does advocate those things. (Which it doesn't.)

No I implied that despite not advocating classes and a currency,socialism if you exclude classes and a currency is communism ...which is different,but I don't frankly care.

It's not different. The socialism doesn't disappear when you remove classes and currency.

[Liberty of Republic]

Mods can be harsh sometimes but you'll forget about it eventualy,I'm sure.


Socialism is a form of capitalism,and I can't answer to your question.

Socialism is a form of Capitalism? What?

*bounces question back at Alaje*

Well to me it would seem that a Capitalist would see Socialism as anti-individual or promoting a hive mentality. True, Socialism is collectivist in the sense that in encourages that the members of a community should be responsible to eachother, but that isn't to the extent most Capitalists imagine.

It is extreme when you see how you can put priorities of community or individual.

[Camelza]

No I implied that despite not advocating classes and a currency,socialism if you exclude classes and a currency is communism ...which is different,but I don't frankly care.

It's not different. The socialism doesn't disappear when you remove classes and currency.

I think I said: I DON'T CARE ...okay? Can we move on now?


and by the way your way of trying to put words into other peoples' mouths is despicable.

...no bacons for you.

[Dinahia]

It's not different. The socialism doesn't disappear when you remove classes and currency.

I think I said: I DON'T CARE ...okay? Can we move on now?


and by the way your way of trying to put words into other peoples' mouths is despicable.

...no bacons for you.

I'm not putting words into other people's mouths.

...and I don't like bacon.

[Camelza]

I think I said: I DON'T CARE ...okay? Can we move on now?


and by the way your way of trying to put words into other peoples' mouths is despicable.

...no bacons for you.

I'm not putting words into other people's mouths.

...and I don't like bacon.

Good,because you aren't getting any.

[Liberty of Republic]

1) England (and Europe) was not the global economic system, nor was European economy the only way economies developed, you are missing out Asia and the Middle East in particular. Monopolies did occur, take the silk trade.

2.

a) Markets don't always demand a good be exchanged, nor are goods always exchangeable (bonds, loans, shares,etc).
b) You claimed exchange becomes very impractical in the absence of Law and Order. There is law and order just not centralized law and order, though there would still be law and order under a non-state system; especially under nomadic societies.

1) How do markets form?

2a. Again,of no consequence. the transfers must occur. Something must make transfer practicable.
2b.

You claimed exchange becomes very impractical in the absence of Law and Order. There is law and order just not centralized law and order,

I realises that... but do you? Will it affect the distances over which transfers occur? Why are goods not simply exchanged in the middle of the ocean?

When an individual trades or sells a item to another individual.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

It is extreme when you see how you can put priorities of community or individual.

And in an English sentence, that would read as...?

[Zweite Alaje]

I don't want socialism in America because I believe that a person should succeed or fail based on his own abilities; So should a business. Some businesses exist long after they should have failed, due to outside financial support (General Motors, Anyone?), because they are "no good" in their field; Some people remain employed at tasks at which they are no good, usually because someone else is making up for their failings. I despise socialism, and socialists, because the lesson it teaches is that, as long as you surround yourself with those who are competent, then it's acceptable to be INcompetent!

After all, Why try harder than you have to?

I don't want to live surrounded by folks like that...

Once again, the opposition presents its utter failure to comprehend the Socialist agenda.

In Socialism one would fail or succeed in relation to the amount and quality of their labor (labor includes ideas/intellectual contributions too, not just manual labor). If one doesn't lend labor into society, then you should expect no compensation or assistance from the community and you shall rightly be left to die from your own incompetence and selfishness.

Also subsidization of the economy by the state isn't an integral part of the Socialist mindset, but it is an intelligent policy decision if the business in question is of significant importance to the national economic stability. If the US government hadn't saved General Motors, how many more people to you think would've lost their jobs? The unemployment rate would've been even worse.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I don't want socialism in America because I believe that a person should succeed or fail based on his own abilities; So should a business. Some businesses exist long after they should have failed, due to outside financial support (General Motors, Anyone?), because they are "no good" in their field; Some people remain employed at tasks at which they are no good, usually because someone else is making up for their failings. I despise socialism, and socialists, because the lesson it teaches is that, as long as you surround yourself with those who are competent, then it's acceptable to be INcompetent!

After all, Why try harder than you have to?

I don't want to live surrounded by folks like that...

Once again, the opposition presents its utter failure to comprehend the Socialist agenda.

In Socialism one would fail or succeed in relation to the amount and quality of their labor (labor includes ideas/intellectual contributions too, not just manual labor). If one doesn't lend labor into society, then you should expect no compensation or assistance from the community and you shall rightly be left to die from your own incompetence and selfishness.

NOTE: Unless you're incapable of labour, in which case the state or the community looks after you.

[Mavorpen]

Why don't you experiment with your ideas on someone else (who is willing to be experimented on)? Then come back and tell me how it turns out. Amercians do not want to be guinea pigs.

Going by your refusal to address anything in my post, I'm to assume you're admitting you're wrong, correct?

[Liberty of Republic]

It is extreme when you see how you can put priorities of community or individual.

And in an English sentence, that would read as...?

Sorry let me retype that.

It is extreme, when you put priorities of the community over the individual. That is what socialism/communism/progressivism does. Put the community rights over the individual rights.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

And in an English sentence, that would read as...?

Sorry let me retype that.

It is extreme, when you put priorities of the community over the individual. That is what socialism/communism/progressivism does. Put the community rights over the individual rights.

Please do explain how.

[Frisivisia]

And in an English sentence, that would read as...?

Sorry let me retype that.

It is extreme, when you put priorities of the community over the individual. That is what socialism/communism/progressivism does. Put the community rights over the individual rights.

Bullshit.

[Divair]

Sorry let me retype that.

It is extreme, when you put priorities of the community over the individual. That is what socialism/communism/progressivism does. Put the community rights over the individual rights.

Please do explain how.

Taxes are evil.


Or something.

[Liberty of Republic]

I don't want socialism in America because I believe that a person should succeed or fail based on his own abilities; So should a business. Some businesses exist long after they should have failed, due to outside financial support (General Motors, Anyone?), because they are "no good" in their field; Some people remain employed at tasks at which they are no good, usually because someone else is making up for their failings. I despise socialism, and socialists, because the lesson it teaches is that, as long as you surround yourself with those who are competent, then it's acceptable to be INcompetent!

After all, Why try harder than you have to?

I don't want to live surrounded by folks like that...

Once again, the opposition presents its utter failure to comprehend the Socialist agenda.

In Socialism one would fail or succeed in relation to the amount and quality of their labor (labor includes ideas/intellectual contributions too, not just manual labor). If one doesn't lend labor into society, then you should expect no compensation or assistance from the community and you shall rightly be left to die from your own incompetence and selfishness.

Also subsidization of the economy by the state isn't an integral part of the Socialist mindset, but it is an intelligent policy decision if the business in question is of significant importance to the national economic stability. If the US government hadn't saved General Motors, how many more people to you think would've lost their jobs? The unemployment rate would've been even worse.

Maybe that would of woke up the workers to look else where. Sometimes things have to die on the vine in order to move on. The progressives keep talking about progress, how do you do that when you artificially prop up businesses as failures?

The slippery slope though of collectivism is that soon you will have society/government and such telling individuals what they can produce or what not to produce rather than having the individual find out naturally by demand.
One reason why Communist party of Russia in the early 1920s started off as a pure communist/socialist system until they realized that humans will always have parties/camps or ideologies that are different. Can not compartmentalize society into a socialist system and push down the individual for long.