abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Thanks for your opinions. Do you have a logical retort to any of my arguments? KKKynes didn't.
Obama, the King of Corporate Welfare
- Thread starter ginwilly
- Start date
Thanks for your opinions. Do you have a logical retort to any of my arguments? KKKynes didn't.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
he doesnt believe wealth can be created, it can only be stolen from others. this is the basis for Marxist Economic Theory.
the Koch Brothers daddy invented a new more efficient way to extract and refine oil, and thus became rich, despite growing up "middle class" (thats Working Class to everybody else) and being a damned good engineer.
AC believes these new inventions were already there, Grampy Koch simply exploited the proles for his own benefit, and the little Koch boys inherited those ill gotten gains, when they should have been taxed into the same level of poverty as marxists demand.
he has very little to say about wealthy leftists, like George Soros, since they are granted Plenary Indulgence based on their claimed dedication to Scientific Marxism camouflaged behind a screen of Chompsky-Approved Newspeak.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I keep hearing this. I hear it so much I almost believe it. It was my socialist VA disability checks that gave me actual freedom.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Look at kynes rail on for four paragraphs about what he thinks I believe.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
which was based on a Voluntary Contract, and is predicated on the rest of us paying our taxes dutifully to honour that contract.
thats SOCIETY, not Socialism.
if you had spilled hot coffee on your vagina ($640k), or sat on your own dick in a Jack in the Box bathroom ($920K), you could have grabbed the brass ring without having to serve in the armed forces.
Not at all bro, you earned that VA check.
If you were never in the military and got checks, that would be a socialist VA check.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
for anyone else that would be ONE SHORT PARAGRAPH, but i broke it into easy to digest independent phrases, so you wouldnt blow a brain gasket trying to put it all together.
i notice you did not refute my statements, despite the format specifically designed for ease in doing so.
i hope these "two paragraphs" werent too hard for you to digest.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Fascism is a form of capitalism, hence the privatization. Therefore it can't be a form of socialism. Your tactic of blaming the left and socialist ideas on the rightward shift toward privatization is dishonest.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
How come most of the right tards posting here are sitting at home during the day posting?
Anytime I post during the day it is during my work break, and is short because it is from my phone.
So what's up with that? You guys are the 47% who dont work or pay taxes?
Anytime I post during the day it is during my work break, and is short because it is from my phone.
So what's up with that? You guys are the 47% who dont work or pay taxes?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So you are suggesting that a thing is socialist or not socialist based upon whether or not it was earned. That shows no regard for the definition of socialism, which has nothing to do with whether or not a thing is earned, but by how production and resources are owned. However, instead of simply dismissing your argument, I'll explicate it more charitably. By that I mean, I will receive the part of it that conveys a concept I do wish to respond to.
Whether or not a thing is earned, is an honorable sentiment. I think that what you hate about what you see as a tenet of socialism would be valid if it were correct. If anyone is receiving unearned privilege, it is the rich people who own everything but create no wealth.
Not at all my friend, it would only be considered socialism if the government forced others to pay for it.
If your definition of Socialism has nothing to do with what is earned and what is not, then in your utopia, what would happen to the people that chose not to earn?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Again, incorrect. As has been demonstrated, the gov't can force you to pay and tax you whether it is socialist or capitalist. That is what authoritarian gov't does. Obamacare for example, forces people to purchase insurance from a private company. There is nothing socialist about that, definitely somewhere between centrist and fascist. Authoritarian and capitalist. It is not socialist. However, I am not claiming that authoritarian socialism does not exist or that it was ever benevolent or that it doesn't force people to pay, clearly it does. I'm just calling out the difference.
As for your other question, I'm not sure what you're asking exactly.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
This is not an orthodox definition. Source citation?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Mirriam Webster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
cap·i·tal·ism
noun \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\ : a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government
Full Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
I have glossed over quite a few and never once have I seen capitalism defined without a description of privatization. This was the only one I could find that didn't actually say the word private (in any form) because I didn't want to be accused of using a definition that only suits my argument.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I see what you're saying. The only alternative to privatization is collectivization. It's more akin to quantum science (eigenstates) than the continuum model more familiar from classical models. It's either/or with hybrids being chimerae, patchwork constructs and not true intermediate states ...
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I believe that the underlined is incorrect, but if I make a radical suggestion, it will be dismissed, because some people are not mature enough for radical suggestions.
I'll suggest it anyway.
What if the earth itself could be defined as alive such that it has rights and can not be property, collective or hereditary?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Who would do that defining? Humans. That reduces what should be social philosophy to religion, definition by fiat and not by trial. I do not see that as a serviceable/durable solution.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Property is a religion.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I am disinclined to agree without some supporting ideas that don't smell of Chomsky. I consider him to be an incorrigible sophist.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You can just quote me.
Similar threads
