I Hate Socialism

[Revoltingest]

That is a close cousin of those who refuse to accept any expert input (vaccines etc) that contradicts their bias.

You're the one buying into all the various flavors
of mis-information on the internet, Lassie.
Dictionaries are edited by lexicographers.
Wikipedia is edited by internet gadflies like me.
When a type of "socialism" violates the very
definition of "socialism", ya gotta question WTF.

And if'n ya wann associate me with anti-vaxers,
then I'll put you in bed with loony fundamentalists.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's futile to discuss a topic that in part depends on a shared meaning of a word.

Shared meanings are the best meanings.

 

[sun rise]

You're the one buying into all the various flavors
of mis-information on the internet, Lassie.
Dictionaries are edited by lexicographers.
Wikipedia is edited by internet gadflies like me.
When a type of "socialism" violates the very
definition of "socialism", ya gotta question WTF.

And if'n ya wann associate me with anti-vaxers,
then I'll put you in bed with loony fundamentalists.

I gave you another source besides Wikipedia. But here's the internet types of socialism - Google Search

 

[Revoltingest]

I gave you another source besides Wikipedia. But here's the internet types of socialism - Google Search

Look here, Rover....there's gonna be disagreement.
Just accept it.
I use my definition, ie, the people own the means of production.
And you use wrong ones.
Live & let live.

 

[Lyndon]

Revoltingest is not interested in the truth about socialism, just in spouting nonsense about socialism, its like having a conversation with a brick wall!!

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltingest is not interested in the truth about socialism, just in spouting nonsense about socialism, its like having a conversation with a brick wall!!

And I respect you too. I've naught but high praise.
Your detailed cogent arguments supported by many
evidentiary links, your always friendly demeanor, &
your never making anything negative or personal.
The finest exemplar of leftish thought.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well .... it's complicated. The term 'socialism' means a lot of different things to a lot of different folks. To take such an umbrella term and judge it as 'bad', something to be hated, to me means you haven't done your homework. I know I don't understand the economics of my own country, Canada, let alone any of the Scandinavian countries, or China, or Russia, or any of another 100 countries that somebody some where has called socialist.
Carry on.

 

[sun rise]

I gave you another source be

Look here, Rover....there's gonna be disagreement.
Just accept it.
I use my definition, ie, the people own the means of production.
And you use wrong ones.
Live & let live.

Wrong, haggis breath. I use the commonly accepted definitions from respected economic sources and the Britannica and you insist on using a limited dictionary definition. And you refuse to click on a link that would show you how the word is used in economic circles.

 

[Revoltingest]

I gave you another....

I know the link.
I also notice that you don't use the same like regarding types of capitalism.
I've nothing to add.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

China and Russia.

China is Marxist–Leninist Communism and Russia is on paper a Presidential Republic; however Putin has turned it to an Authoritarian Dictatorship. So neither are "Socialist" governments...

 

[Nakosis]

China is Marxist–Leninist Communism and Russia is on paper a Presidential Republic; however Putin has turned it to an Authoritarian Dictatorship. So neither are "Socialist" governments...

Yes, no true socialism. I wonder why.

 

[Heyo]

luxory

But if we ever do, cops & soldiers, who are from the same
general population, would be allies.

Depends on how well the cops and soldiers are rewarded by the government.
Making cops not responsible for their actions (qualified immunity) is one of the boons of the job that make cops side with those who gave it to them. And all that money that goes into the military and the veneration of the job make the soldiers side with the government.

 

[Heyo]

Of course there can be both.
But why have any government run means of production?

To keep prices for essential goods and services reasonable, even in crisis, would be one reason.
I like it better if my water, energy, communication isn't in danger of being gauged by a revenue interested private corporation, especially when there's a risk of a monopoly or oligopoly forming.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Personal?

Yes. Dictionaries aren't democratic or objective. What's more, there are multiple dictionaries, so you can always just pick the definition you want. It's still personal.

That seems the wrong criticism because it criticizes
dictionaries for what they fundamentally are, ie,
descriptive.
https://dictionary.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/226229927-How-does-a-word-get-into-the-dictionary-
If someone wants to advocate that socialism or
capitalism be used to achieve goals beyond what
defines them, that's fine. I have goals for capitalism
that go far beyond the definition.

But the word doesn't mean such prescriptive &
proscriptive agendas. Nor does it mean the
inexorable emergent properties of systems the
word describes, eg, socialism's always resulting
in authoritarianism.

Definitions don't sum up toalities.
By analogy, the definition of "physics" doesn't
describe statistical mechanics of gases. It says
only what physics is.

Socialists don't get to re-define "socialism" as
a personal utopian vision equality, peace, &
prosperity of a populace all singing Kumbaya
in unison. That's a dream...not a definition.
It's not even anything in reality.

Except you're interpreting an interpretation, and dismissing anything other than that as being flawed.

If you want to sit at the kid's table, you can. But don't expect to be taken seriously if you refuse to move off dictionary definitions when it comes to the understanding of an economic and political concept. I understand that you may not like what you read, but without trying, nobody improves.

I mean, statements like "socialism always ends up in authoritarianism" just definitively prove your inability to understand what socialism even is, much less the history of it . If you want to keep being wrong, go ahead. The rest of us will be fine.

 

[Revoltingest]

luxory

Depends on how well the cops and soldiers are rewarded by the government.
Making cops not responsible for their actions (qualified immunity) is one of the boons of the job that make cops side with those who gave it to them. And all that money that goes into the military and the veneration of the job make the soldiers side with the government.

There are indeed complexities & risks in a revolution.
I'd rather not have one.
(It would be hell on my stock portfolio.)

 

[Revoltingest]

To keep prices for essential goods and services reasonable, even in crisis, would be one reason.

Government needn't achieve that with socialism.
Just temporary wage & price regulation.
(I oppose that too.)
Nixon & Carter dabbled in that crap.

I like it better if my water, energy, communication isn't in danger of being gauged by a revenue interested private corporation, especially when there's a risk of a monopoly or oligopoly forming.

Gauged?
Do you mean "gouged"?
If so, no one gouges us worse on price & service
than government. I've much experience with that
here. Perhaps your country is better. Ours is run
by imperious nincompoops. (Picture Trump &
Santos in your mind...such are our leaders.)

At least I have the option to get water, energy, &
communication services from multiple sources.
(Water is least flexible. But my home has a well.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. Dictionaries aren't democratic or objective.

They largely are. Lexicographers survey common
usage of words. That's more objective than
mustachioed commies defining socialism according
to their utopian fantasy....& buzz cut coiffured
Republicans defining socialism per their fears
of Stalinists running our universities.

What's more, there are multiple dictionaries....

I've surveyed many.
Dictionary.com is representative.

...so you can always just pick the definition you want. It's still personal.

You've not actually surveyed them to verify
differing definitions, have you? I knew it!

I understand that you may not like what you read, but without trying, nobody improves.

I see much room for improvement under capitalism.
But adopting socialism would worsen things, as
history shows. Even the PRC realized it needed
to incorporate capitalism to achieve prosperity.

I mean, statements like "socialism always ends up in authoritarianism" just definitively prove your inability to understand what socialism even is....

I've given examples of every attempt by a country
to adopt socialism. Every single one has been
authoritarian. You've not been able to counter
this with a single example.
So who's the one who doesn't understand, eh.
Argue with evidence...not faith in a dream.

 

[metis]

Sure, I understand that. I'm not really asking about that. You're fine with capitalism, I'm fine with capitalism. I'm asking more from the pov of the anti-capitalists. Those that see capitalism as evil.

Laissez faire capitalism did qualify as being "evil" since there were no safety nets other than charity, which wasn't enough during hard times especially. Victor Hugo captured that quite well, imo, with his historical fiction book "Les Misérables".

 

[RestlessSoul]

The UK's experiment with Social Democracy lasted from 1945, until Margaret Thatcher's government began dismantling it in 1979. A handful of the benefits - the NHS in particular - are still being enjoyed now. Having been born in 1961, right in the middle of this fascinating social experiment, my impression is that all the optimism of that period, as well as the sense of community felt by many, has drained away. The replacement of social democratic values with free market fundamentalism and neo-liberal dogma, has led to rampant inequality, an angry and anxious population, and a selfish, dog-eat-dog approach to life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They largely are. Lexicographers survey common
usage of words. That's more objective than
mustachioed commies defining socialism according
to their utopian fantasy....& buzz cut coiffured
Republicans defining socialism per their fears
of Stalinists running our universities.

Nope. It's functionally identical.

I've surveyed many.
Dictionary.com is representative.

I would say it's a fairly good broad definition, it just lacks specificity. And, I believe you misunderstand it.

You've not actually surveyed them to verify
differing definitions, have you? I knew it!

Are you hearing voices?

I see much room for improvement under capitalism.
But adopting socialism would worsen things.

You are not sufficiently educated to make that judgement.

To be fair, I believe few are. But I think someone who doesn't even know what socialism is can't really claim much about it.

I've given examples of every attempt by a country
to adopt socialism. Every single one has been
authoritarian.

Give me a list, then.

You've not been able to counter
this with a single example.

Doing so is useless if you refuse to understand what socialism is. If you think the USSR, China or Nazi Germany (as you have indicated in the past) were or are socialist, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

So who's the one who doesn't understand, eh.
Argue with evidence...not faith in a dream.

I argue ideas. I was very clear about this. And it's clear capitalism's failings make it no less of a dream - it's just one that a small portion of very powerful people are really, really invested in keeping going.

Stop grand standing. Put up the ideas, not your skewed, inaccurate and historically-illiterate view of the world.