Everyone understands that Socialism is not Communism, right?

Jarod said:
For days now, The Sleepy PP, has tried to equate the two, you do know they are not the same thing, right?
Click to expand...
Literal words direct ancestors with a brain to mind a social consensus created by people that don't want to belong in thir own ancestry that conceived them to be alive here now.

Socialism created context over content social environments led by malcontents being alive since birth. Political parities an spiritual congregations legislate moral. legal, ethical, economic codes to silence honest from anyone describing the specificity of staying aliv while equally adapting in space daily here.

Communism are societies created by people ignoring all they been since a fertilized cell. the physical separation between gender occupying time and a soul serving humanity is choices followed cradle to gave ach generation gap at a time regardless which ancestral lineages defend the faith now isn't eternity as geneticlaly occupying space in plain sight living eternally spearate with each heartbeat and decision followed since birth.
 
I THANK THE MANY OF YOU WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM, BUT EVEN THE STUPID AMONG US (MEANING THE MAGA'S) KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS.

THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT NOBODY IS ADVOCATING FOR ADOPTING A SOCIALIST OR A COMMUNIST SYSTEM. WE ARE ADVCATING FOR A FAIRER SYSTEM...A FAIRER WORLD.

THAT APPARENTLY IS ABHORRENT TO MAGA MORONS.
 
IN THE MEANTIME, THOSE MAGA MORONS WHO CONTINUE TO DEMAND THAT THE DIFFERENCE BE STATED...I ASK: WHEN MY QUESTION WILL BE ANSWERED BY YOU.

PREDICATE TO MY QUESTION: THE TOP 1% OF FAMILIES OWN ONE-THIRD OF THE TOTAL WEALTH OF AMERICA. THE TOP 10% OF FAMILIES OWN TWO-THIRDS OF THE TOTAL WEALTH OF AMERICA. THE BOTTOM 50% OF FAMILIES OWN ON 2 1/2% OF THE TOTAL WEALTH OF AMERICA.

NOW FOR THE QUESTION; HOW GREAT MUST THAT DISPARITY GET BEFORE YOU ASSHOLES FINALLY REALIZE SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO STOP THE EXPANSION?

WOULD THE TOP 1% HAVE TO OWN 90% OF THE TOTAL WEALTH? 99% OF THE TOTAL WEALTH?

WHEN WILL YOU ASSHOLES FINALLY WAKE UP?
 
Last edited:
Ross Dolan said:
IN THE MEANTIME, THOSE MAGA MORONS WHO CONTINUE TO DEMAND THAT THE DIFFERENCE BE STATED...I ASK, WHEN MY QUESTION WILL BE ANSWERED BY YOU.

PREDICATE TO MY QUESTION: THE TOP 1% OF FAMILIES OWN ONE-THIRD OF THE TOTAL WEALTH OF AMERICA. THE TOP 10% OF FAMILIES OWN TWO-THIRDS OF THE TOTAL WEALTH OF AMERICA. THE BOTTOM 50% OF FAMILIES OWN ON 2 1/2% OF THE TOTAL WEALTH OF AMERICA.

NOW FOR THE QUESTION; HOW GREAT MUST THAT DISPARITY GET BEFORE YOU ASSHOLES FINALLY REALIZE SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO STOP THE EXPANSION?

WOULD THE TOP 1% HAVE TO OWN 90% OF THE TOTAL WEALTH? 00% OF THE TOTAL WEALTH?

WHEN WILL YOU ASSHOLES FINALLY WAKE UP?
Click to expand...
That's just the envy of wealth, and little more.

If the bottom half of families in America still own a car, have food on the table, a roof over their heads, and can meet their basic needs, even have some luxuries--which is the case in America--then who gives a flying fuck how rich the rich are?

This isn't some game where we're keeping score. So long as you meet your basic needs and wants, the rest is just gravy. Sure, if you are in that bottom half, you home might be smaller and shabbier, but if it meets your basic needs, it's good enough. If the car you drive is an older model but it meets your needs, it's good enough.

It's assholes on the Left, like you Ross, that want to play the politics of envy. History shows that wealth redistribution schemes fail every time.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That's just the envy of wealth, and little more.

If the bottom half of families in America still own a car, have food on the table, a roof over their heads, and can meet their basic needs, even have some luxuries--which is the case in America--then who gives a flying fuck how rich the rich are?

This isn't some game where we're keeping score. So long as you meet your basic needs and wants, the rest is just gravy. Sure, if you are in that bottom half, you home might be smaller and shabbier, but if it meets your basic needs, it's good enough. If the car you drive is an older model but it meets your needs, it's good enough.

It's assholes on the Left, like you Ross, that want to play the politics of envy. History shows that wealth redistribution schemes fail every time.
Click to expand...
Ahhh...so the asshole called TA will not answer the question.

Okay. I doubt most assholes like TA will.
 
Ross Dolan said:
IN THE MEANTIME, THOSE MAGA MORONS WHO CONTINUE TO DEMAND THAT THE DIFFERENCE BE STATED...I ASK: WHEN MY QUESTION WILL BE ANSWERED BY YOU.

PREDICATE TO MY QUESTION: THE TOP 1% OF FAMILIES OWN ONE-THIRD OF THE TOTAL WEALTH OF AMERICA. THE TOP 10% OF FAMILIES OWN TWO-THIRDS OF THE TOTAL WEALTH OF AMERICA. THE BOTTOM 50% OF FAMILIES OWN ON 2 1/2% OF THE TOTAL WEALTH OF AMERICA.

NOW FOR THE QUESTION; HOW GREAT MUST THAT DISPARITY GET BEFORE YOU ASSHOLES FINALLY REALIZE SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO STOP THE EXPANSION?

WOULD THE TOP 1% HAVE TO OWN 90% OF THE TOTAL WEALTH? 99% OF THE TOTAL WEALTH?

WHEN WILL YOU ASSHOLES FINALLY WAKE UP?
Click to expand...
The top 10% in this country pay 71 to 76% off all the federal taxes. The top 50% pay 97%. The top 10% have the means and methods to leave this country if they want. Now who do you think would make up that difference in taxes? Do you think a democratic socialist government is going to stop spending?
 
countryboy said:
How does socialism differ from communism? Be specific and detailed.
Click to expand...
Socialism, Elections for leadership, free markets exist along with heavily regulated markets (think American utilities), money and private ownership are the norm. Safety nets (think social security) are strong and universal. Land is usually privately owned. Socialism is something dialed up and down as needed. (Think the Federal Reserve).

Communism does not allow for elections, the Party runs the government. There is no private industry, the government owns the television station, the grocery store, and the technology companies… ALL of it. In a pure communist system there would be no cash money, Communism is absolute pure government management of everything Economic. All people are financially equal, no classes, the only social mobility is if the entire population moving up or down together.

Very different things. Communism is absolute, Cuba and Maybe North Korea. Capitalism and Socialism always go hand in hand as a balance.
 
Jarod said:
Socialism, Elections for leadership, free markets exist along with heavily regulated markets (think American utilities), money and private ownership are the norm. Safety nets (think social security) are strong and universal. Land is usually privately owned. Socialism is something dialed up and down as needed. (Think the Federal Reserve).

Communism does not allow for elections, the Party runs the government. There is no private industry, the government owns the television station, the grocery store, and the technology companies… ALL of it. In a pure communist system there would be no cash money, Communism is absolute pure government management of everything Economic. All people are financially equal, no classes, the only social mobility is if the entire population moving up or down together.

Very different things. Communism is absolute, Cuba and Maybe North Korea. Capitalism and Socialism always go hand in hand as a balance.
Click to expand...
Have you or any democrat on this board bothered to read the Democrat Socialists of America website? Any of you? Even though I have posted thier mission statement and link to thier site. It spells out communism in flowery language. And they are not hiding it.
 
Jarod said:
Socialism, Elections for leadership, free markets exist along with heavily regulated markets (think American utilities), money and private ownership are the norm. Safety nets (think social security) are strong and universal. Land is usually privately owned. Socialism is something dialed up and down as needed. (Think the Federal Reserve).

Communism does not allow for elections, the Party runs the government. There is no private industry, the government owns the television station, the grocery store, and the technology companies… ALL of it. In a pure communist system there would be no cash money, Communism is absolute pure government management of everything Economic. All people are financially equal, no classes, the only social mobility is if the entire population moving up or down together.

Very different things. Communism is absolute, Cuba and Maybe North Korea. Capitalism and Socialism always go hand in hand as a balance.
Click to expand...
Communist countries hold / held elections. The vote was simply rigged. Socialist countries do the same thing. Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Mexico (until very recently), etc. Even in the UK right now there's an uproar about Labor not holding an election for a change in PM.

That in Socialism the government owns only major industry, or just controls what they do and sell, makes them no different from Communist countries where the government owns almost all production and controls what they do and sell.

It's just a matter of degree to the same end.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
But they are the same thing, varying only in the degree of control and misery they cause.
Click to expand...
Nope. Simply untrue. Capitalism and Socialism always coexist. Communism cannot coexist with any other systems. (China tried with Hong Kong, but that failed.)

Communism can only exist when the entire economy is government managed, and owned, otherwise it’s not communism.

Socialism and capitalism depend on each other to survive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top