RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 4:28:28 PM)

quote:

Socialism has been demonized by the actions of those who say they are socialists. Pol Pot did much more deionizing than McCarthy ever could.

100% correct, and yet that also does not invalidate the claim that the word "socialist" is generally misused by most political discussions involving Americans.



Nnanji -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 4:51:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Socialism has been demonized by the actions of those who say they are socialists. Pol Pot did much more deionizing than McCarthy ever could.

100% correct, and yet that also does not invalidate the claim that the word "socialist" is generally misused by most political discussions involving Americans.

I once heard an English Professor, at Yale, say that as a native English speaker the English I heard was most probably correct. We here, for instance, squabble with the Brits about whether or not "color" should be spelled with a "U". Or, whether it's a lift or an elevator. I, therefore, have to tell you that your definitions are all wrong and you should probably learn the real definitions of the words you use before casting stones about. It's perfectly reasonable that men an women in the same house hear a different meaning to words used. It's also perfectly reasonable that you decide you disagree with the meaning of a word. Yet, you are not the only person that has a right to define a word meaning. We do just fine in our expressions and if you believe a word's meaning should be agreed upon before a discussion can continue you may offer up any strange definition you wish and ask for consensus.



thompsonx -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 5:33:28 PM)


ORIGINAL: Nnanji

I once heard an English Professor, at Yale,

Is this meant to con us into believing that you not only went to college but to yale?[8|]


say that as a native English speaker the English I heard was most probably correct. We here, for instance, squabble with the Brits about whether or not "color" should be spelled with a "U". Or, whether it's a lift or an elevator. I, therefore, have to tell you that your definitions are all wrong and you should probably learn the real definitions of the words you use before casting stones about. It's perfectly reasonable that men an women in the same house hear a different meaning to words used. It's also perfectly reasonable that you decide you disagree with the meaning of a word. Yet, you are not the only person that has a right to define a word meaning. We do just fine in our expressions and if you believe a word's meaning should be agreed upon before a discussion can continue you may offer up any strange definition you wish and ask for consensus.


You have been snorting cordite again haven't you?[8|]
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



MrRodgers -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 6:07:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

You are exactly correct. Socialism is defined as govt. ownership of the means of production.

No it is not. Socialism is a socio-economic system that holds that the means of production and distribution ought to be in the hands of the workers, not the government.

Not true Dizzy. That you ascribe certain presumed social benefits to socialism doesn't change its historical (classical) definition. Socialism was, is and always has been defined as...govt. ownership of the means of production...simply.



Lucylastic -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 6:22:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Nnanji

I once heard an English Professor, at Yale,

Is this meant to con us into believing that you not only went to college but to yale?[8|]


say that as a native English speaker the English I heard was most probably correct. We here, for instance, squabble with the Brits about whether or not "color" should be spelled with a "U". Or, whether it's a lift or an elevator. I, therefore, have to tell you that your definitions are all wrong and you should probably learn the real definitions of the words you use before casting stones about. It's perfectly reasonable that men an women in the same house hear a different meaning to words used. It's also perfectly reasonable that you decide you disagree with the meaning of a word. Yet, you are not the only person that has a right to define a word meaning. We do just fine in our expressions and if you believe a word's meaning should be agreed upon before a discussion can continue you may offer up any strange definition you wish and ask for consensus.


You have been snorting cordite again haven't you?[8|]
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



quote:

We here, for instance, squabble with the Brits about whether or not "color" should be spelled with a "U".

No, we dont.
Its settled. No squabble at all
neighbour



thompsonx -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 6:27:47 PM)

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: Nnanji

I once heard an English Professor, at Yale,

Is this meant to con us into believing that you not only went to college but to yale?[8|]


say that as a native English speaker the English I heard was most probably correct. We here, for instance, squabble with the Brits about whether or not "color" should be spelled with a "U". Or, whether it's a lift or an elevator. I, therefore, have to tell you that your definitions are all wrong and you should probably learn the real definitions of the words you use before casting stones about. It's perfectly reasonable that men an women in the same house hear a different meaning to words used. It's also perfectly reasonable that you decide you disagree with the meaning of a word. Yet, you are not the only person that has a right to define a word meaning. We do just fine in our expressions and if you believe a word's meaning should be agreed upon before a discussion can continue you may offer up any strange definition you wish and ask for consensus.


You have been snorting cordite again haven't you?[8|]
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



We here, for instance, squabble with the Brits about whether or not "color" should be spelled with a "U".
No, we dont.
Its settled. No squabble at all
neighbour

??????????



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 6:51:29 PM)

quote:

Yet, you are not the only person that has a right to define a word meaning.

But that's just it, I am not defining the meaning, you are. I am accepting the definition of those who coined the term. I base my definitions on the actual accepted definitions used within the study of political science, rather than those used by sensationalist media.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 6:54:52 PM)

quote:

Not true Dizzy. That you ascribe certain presumed social benefits to socialism doesn't change its historical (classical) definition. Socialism was, is and always has been defined as...govt. ownership of the means of production...simply.

I take it you have never actually read anything written by any of those who formulated the socialist philosophy, correct? Or even the wikipedia article on socialism for that matter.
Your assertion is so utterly and completely incorrect as to no longer even be laughable, but jaw dropping in it's inanity.
It leads me to ask the following: You cannot possibly be serious, can you?



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 6:57:58 PM)

quote:

We here, for instance, squabble with the Brits about whether or not "color" should be spelled with a "U". Or, whether it's a lift or an elevator.

Actually nobody squabbles over any of those things, we each do it our own way and vive la difference.

Actually I must amend that, I have seen some Americans insist that using the "u" in colour was wrong, regardless of the place of origin of the writer. I have not seen anybody in the rest of the world insist that leaving it out was wrong, except in the context of a grade school spelling class.



MrRodgers -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 7:02:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Yet, you are not the only person that has a right to define a word meaning.

But that's just it, I am not defining the meaning, you are. I am accepting the definition of those who coined the term. I base my definitions on the actual accepted definitions used within the study of political science, rather than those used by sensationalist media.

Oxford definition: A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (govt.)

Dictionary.com: socialism definition

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled (owned) substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.

There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

And all of that is still not what I learned in school. Then it was strictly govt. ownership. Oh and the term was coined by the French in 1835.



Phydeaux -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 7:06:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Yet, you are not the only person that has a right to define a word meaning.

But that's just it, I am not defining the meaning, you are. I am accepting the definition of those who coined the term. I base my definitions on the actual accepted definitions used within the study of political science, rather than those used by sensationalist media.


Bullshit. Your defintions of left, liberal,communist socialist are all inane, unique to you. Please provide a mainstream cite for your definition of socialism.



Phydeaux -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 7:13:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Of course socialism is central to the issue. Endemic to socialist nations is the promising of social benefits, and the idea of rejiggering society to be more 'fair'.

Actually, not a core definition of socialism. Social democratic nations also seek to provide a safety net for the poor, disabled, and elderly, but do not own or control the means of production. Surely, you understand the distinction. Furthermore, a free market cannot function without the guarantee of order provided by a democratic or fascist government.


Arraunt nonsense. Do you suppose free markets cease to function under a monarchy?

Second point: I said endemic to socialist nations is the promising of social benefits...

I did not say that promising social benefits was the definition of socialism. I said it was endemic in socialist nations. And of course, it is.
Anytime you abandon the rule of free markets, you imposing some other value scale by which to award good & services. The rule of money - where everyone that has it can purchase a good gives way to the rule of the mob, or the rule of croneyism.

Socialists say it is not 'fair' to allocate by money. Or it is too important not to nationalize, or.. so venezuala for example nationalizes a food distribution market.
Now, who decides who gets the food? Those in power.

I'll stick with capitlism .. thank you very much.



Phydeaux -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 7:15:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

China (yes, I know you think its communist. Remember that under marxist theory socialism is the necessary precursor step, until all is perfected. Communist refers to the ultimate goal, not the current state.)

Nope, neither communist nor socialist. It is a mix of capitalist and fascist.

quote:

Cuba

Nope, merely an old fashioned totalitarian regime
quote:

Laos

I have to admit I am not familiar enough with how their economic infrastructure is organized to be able to say, so you may have this one, though from a brief review, though seeing as the US government has declared it to no longer be a Marxist-Leninist state, it may in fact be a socialist one (seeing as those two things are incompatible).
quote:

Vietnam

Nope, not that one either. It's
quote:

Zimbabwe - Although with them its hard to tell. Mugabe says he's a socialist - but you could argue its just a cult of personality aka dictator.

Nope, also just an old school totalitarian regime.



It seems you need to go spend some time at wikipedia - since all those countries are listed as socialist nations there.
Oh - and while you're at it - spend some time revising their constitutions, which one and all declare them to be socialist states.

Once again - another factless liberal offering nothing but their opinion as a basis for argument.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 7:20:47 PM)

And did the Oxford dictionary coin the term or develop the philosophy?
Did dictionary.com?
No.



Phydeaux -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/2/2016 7:34:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

And did the Oxford dictionary coin the term or develop the philosophy?
Did dictionary.com?
No.


No, but oxford is the definitive source for the English language.

But apparently, since you want to be spanked in a different language - here is the definition from http://dictionary.reverso.net/french-definition/socialisme


1 dénomination générique de diverses théories, doctrines et sensibilités condamnant à des degrés divers la propriété privée, l'exploitation capitaliste des prolétaires et le système généralisé des échanges
2 dans la théorie marxiste, stade de passage entre l'effondrement du capitalisme et la disparition de l'État
3 ensemble des doctrines de la gauche non marxiste

Translated:

1 generic name of various theories , doctrines and condemning sensitivities to varying degrees of private property, capitalist exploitation of the proletariat and the generalized system of trade
2 in Marxist theory , the stage of transition between the collapse of capitalism and the disappearance of the State
3 all the doctrines of the non-Marxist left


So using the Dictionary.com - you are wrong.
Using Oxford - you are wrong
Using a reverso French Dictionary - you are wrong.
Using collins French dictionary - you are wrong.


Notice - especially #3. All doctrines of the non-Marxist left. So I shall expect you to admit you were wrong, and an apology forthwith. Of course like all lefties - you don't have a shred of intellectual honesty. I have used the term correctly, you were flatly, wrong.

Notice what I don't see - in any of those definitions? One that says socialism is solely when the means of production are owned by the workers.

Notice what else you were wrong in? I told you the meaning of socialism varied. You said no. And yet - it does.

When I posted that Venezuela undertook a socialist action when it sought to control to whom their products could be sold, and at what price, I was exactly correct. So while you're eating crow - I expect you to admit that my understanding of the definition of socialism was actually greater than your own.



mnottertail -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/3/2016 6:41:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Of course socialism is central to the issue. Endemic to socialist nations is the promising of social benefits, and the idea of rejiggering society to be more 'fair'.

Actually, not a core definition of socialism. Social democratic nations also seek to provide a safety net for the poor, disabled, and elderly, but do not own or control the means of production. Surely, you understand the distinction. Furthermore, a free market cannot function without the guarantee of order provided by a democratic or fascist government.


Arraunt nonsense. Do you suppose free markets cease to function under a monarchy?

Second point: I said endemic to socialist nations is the promising of social benefits...

I did not say that promising social benefits was the definition of socialism. I said it was endemic in socialist nations. And of course, it is.
Anytime you abandon the rule of free markets, you imposing some other value scale by which to award good & services. The rule of money - where everyone that has it can purchase a good gives way to the rule of the mob, or the rule of croneyism.

Socialists say it is not 'fair' to allocate by money. Or it is too important not to nationalize, or.. so venezuala for example nationalizes a food distribution market.
Now, who decides who gets the food? Those in power.

I'll stick with capitlism .. thank you very much.


Free market have never worked in any form of government. Unless you think Nigeria successful.




MrRodgers -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/3/2016 7:28:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

And did the Oxford dictionary coin the term or develop the philosophy?
Did dictionary.com?
No.

I wrote who coined the term.



mnottertail -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/3/2016 7:36:28 AM)

NOUN
OED

1A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Example sentences
1.1Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
Example sentences
1.2(In Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
Example sentences
The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy

and the changing meaning:

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/05/changing-meaning-of-socialist/




MrRodgers -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/3/2016 7:40:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Of course socialism is central to the issue. Endemic to socialist nations is the promising of social benefits, and the idea of rejiggering society to be more 'fair'.

Actually, not a core definition of socialism. Social democratic nations also seek to provide a safety net for the poor, disabled, and elderly, but do not own or control the means of production. Surely, you understand the distinction. Furthermore, a free market cannot function without the guarantee of order provided by a democratic or fascist government.


Arraunt nonsense. Do you suppose free markets cease to function under a monarchy?

Second point: I said endemic to socialist nations is the promising of social benefits...

I did not say that promising social benefits was the definition of socialism. I said it was endemic in socialist nations. And of course, it is.
Anytime you abandon the rule of free markets, you imposing some other value scale by which to award good & services. The rule of money - where everyone that has it can purchase a good gives way to the rule of the mob, or the rule of croneyism.

Socialists say it is not 'fair' to allocate by money. Or it is too important not to nationalize, or.. so venezuala for example nationalizes a food distribution market.
Now, who decides who gets the food? Those in power.

I'll stick with capitlism .. thank you very much.


Free market have never worked in any form of government. Unless you think Nigeria successful.



Actually just like pure socialism has never been used, a pure free market has never been used. Both socialism and the so-called free market have been corrupted. One by fascism and to much govt. control and the latter...corruption, greed and capitalism's use of its power and money through govt....i.e., a bastardization of the free market into a plutocracy.

Definition:

1.the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2.a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3.a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.



mnottertail -> RE: Insulting the vultures of capitalism...I mean the bird. (5/3/2016 7:56:47 AM)

and pure capitalism has never been used, except perhaps in nigeria, or the barbary coast.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875