Everyone understands that Socialism is not Communism, right?

Dutch Uncle said:

​

A business man goes to Japan for a business meeting but arrives late at night. He was feeling a little lonely, so he got a Japanese hooker.

During sex in the dark, the hooker began screaming "Machigatta ana! Machigatta ana". Thinking she was saying "Great! Great!" and enjoying her enthusiasm, the man continued until satisfaction was achieved.

The next day, the man went golfing with the Japanese business men he'd come to visit. During their golf outing, he gets a hole in one! The Japanese men start screaming and celebrating in Japanese words. The man got very excited too and yelled out the only Japanese phrase he could think of, and that was the one he learned from his hooker. He yelled it out but all the Japanese business men look at him strangely.

One of them asks the business man, "what you mean wrong hole?"
Click to expand...
The joke is painful. Lol.
 
LibLover said:
Didn't read all the posts here debating whether there is a difference between socialism and communism. However, most would agree that both of those isms are detrimental to our American Constitutional Republic. Lets see now, which party between the Democrat and Republican party do we see its people engaging in both Socialism and Communism? Could it be the democrat party, where we see its new up and coming and old school comrades like mamdani, sanders, Pocahontas, AOC, Platner, the squad, etc. praising every aspect of both socialism and communism?
Click to expand...
A healthy mix is the issue, Capitalism and Socialism are both detrimental to the American system if out of balance.

The real issue here is that The Sleepy PP is trying to trick his people into believing that Communism and Socialism are the same thing, they are not. Communism really only exists in Cuba, and they are falling apart. Everywhere else in the developed world, is a mixed economic system.
 
QP! said:
When it comes to the CONCEPT OF SOCIALISM it does not require big gov't, nor does it require any forced redistribution.

Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote about such communal ownership (socialism) in early native and other clan like communities where land was considered community property, not individual, food shared based on need, not wealth, jobs like hunting, cooking, farming delegated out to all in society based on their skills hunting was cooperative and where no personal wealth was accumulated beyond what was needed or held by others in the community.

This was done with a community counsel, generally at most, and no real concept of government.

What you are conflating is individual examples of how some big countries have instituted it in the most abusive cases whereas you can contrast that with the least intrusive form such Norway, which many call 'modern socialism' or 'democratic socialism'.
Click to expand...
What you describe, and why Socialism / Communism fail, is that people will freely choose to be altruistic in large groups. That is, each person in a society is willing to work hard and give away, willingly, a good portion of what they produce to those that do little or nothing. In a small group, like a family or tight knit small village, this might work where everyone knows everyone else and has some affinity for each other. It doesn't work in a larger society where the fruits of labor are going to unknown persons.

In a large society, altruism will not be universal. That alone causes Socialism / Communism to fail.

You call that, "conflating." I call it simple human nature. People are NOT naturally altruistic to everyone they meet or everyone in society. To make Socialism / Communism work on the large scale, you need some hierarchy that decides who gets what, organizes collection and distribution, and in general makes sure everyone gets equal shares. Then you need a means of coercion to keep those that are reluctant or refuse to be cooperative and altruistic. That all results in the need for a big government that can dictate the outcomes and enforce them.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agree on not trusting the honesty of SCOTUS. All of Trump's appointees lied under oath during their confirmation hearings.

Now there's a movement to have some of the older conservative justices retire so Trump can appoint younger ones who'll live another 40 years.

RBG screwed the Democrats by not retiring under a Democratic President.
Click to expand...
Yes Alito is retiring. That was accidentally leaked. Thomas should retire but like RBG he loves the power and grift so I'm hoping he does not.

I expect Emil Bov, will be Trump's first nominee. He is a flat out criminal who showed Trump he would lie to courts and defy court orders which is the top most qualification Trump looks for.

Eileen Cannon i suspect would be his second pick.
 
Jarod said:
Study up!

Socialism is an economic system, not a form of government. It describes who owns and controls the means of production (collectively or by the state, rather than privately), while “form of government” describes how political power is organized — democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, and so on. - Claud AI


You have no idea how stupid you sound to an educated person.
Click to expand...
While I appreciate you basically demonstrating you don't actually know anything with every post, it's really not necessary. To make the idiotic claim that socialism isn't a form of government, is to demonstrate that you really have no idea what socialism is. Perhaps you should actually read the writings of the two dipshits that invented socialism/communism. Because it most certainly is a form of government, and they really saw no distinction between the two.

Come on Jarod, take down that copy of the Communist Manifesto I know you have on your bookshelf, dust it off, and actually open it. It's not just for display.
 
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...
A difference with NO distinction halfwit. But alas, you want to pretend that there is a difference as if it makes the lunatic Marxist rhetoric coming from Democrat candidates look harmless and sane.

You really are too stupid for words. :palm:
 
T. A. Gardner said:
What you describe, and why Socialism / Communism fail, is that people will freely choose to be altruistic in large groups. That is, each person in a society is willing to work hard and give away, willingly, a good portion of what they produce to those that do little or nothing. In a small group, like a family or tight knit small village, this might work where everyone knows everyone else and has some affinity for each other. It doesn't work in a larger society where the fruits of labor are going to unknown persons.

In a large society, altruism will not be universal. That alone causes Socialism / Communism to fail.

You call that, "conflating." I call it simple human nature. People are NOT naturally altruistic to everyone they meet or everyone in society. To make Socialism / Communism work on the large scale, you need some hierarchy that decides who gets what, organizes collection and distribution, and in general makes sure everyone gets equal shares. Then you need a means of coercion to keep those that are reluctant or refuse to be cooperative and altruistic. That all results in the need for a big government that can dictate the outcomes and enforce them.
Click to expand...
And Democratic Socialism is just a left leaning version of western capitalism.

Whereas the rights version of western capitalism is all about huge governments, massive debt, while redistribution is to the corporations and oligarchs. The leftist version, is basically the same but focuses redistribution to the working class and below.

Those two are closer to each other than any is to theoretical Socialism or communism.
 
countryboy said:
While I appreciate you basically demonstrating you don't actually know anything with every post, it's really not necessary. To make the idiotic claim that socialism isn't a form of government, is to demonstrate that you really have no idea what socialism is. Perhaps you should actually read the writings of the two dipshits that invented socialism/communism. Because it most certainly is a form of government, and they really saw no distinction between the two.

Come on Jarod, take down that copy of the Communist Manifesto I know you have on your bookshelf, dust it off, and actually open it. It's not just for display.
Click to expand...
You keep conflating Communism with Socialism. They are not even in the same category. Communism is a political system with its own built in economic system. Socialism is an economic system not a form of government.

I really do not belive you are dumb, I do believe you are tying yourself up in pretzels to try to justify The Sleepy PP's rhetoric.
 
countryboy said:
While I appreciate you basically demonstrating you don't actually know anything with every post, it's really not necessary. To make the idiotic claim that socialism isn't a form of government, is to demonstrate that you really have no idea what socialism is. Perhaps you should actually read the writings of the two dipshits that invented socialism/communism. Because it most certainly is a form of government, and they really saw no distinction between the two.

Come on Jarod, take down that copy of the Communist Manifesto I know you have on your bookshelf, dust it off, and actually open it. It's not just for display.
Click to expand...
What country has a socialist government structure?
 
countryboy said:
Perhaps you should actually read the writings of the two dipshits that invented socialism/communism. Because it most certainly is a form of government.
Click to expand...
Marx said that no government would be required under communism.
A socialist dictatorship of the proletariat was just a transitional state on the way to the evolution of ideal communism.

The major democratic socialist parties of Europe and Canada are not Marxist, because they are not advocating or practicing dictatorship.
 
Cypress said:
Marx said that no government would be required under communism.

A socialist dictatorship of the proletariat was just a transitional state on the way to evolving ideal communism.

The major democratic socialist parties of Europe and Canada are not Marxist, because they are not advocating or practicing dictatorship.
Click to expand...
BAM, and they are not promoting Communism.
 
QP! said:
And Democratic Socialism is just a left leaning version of western capitalism.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. By their own admission, they are trying Communism over again with a new label. It's 'New and Improved Communism!'
QP! said:
Whereas the rights version of western capitalism is all about huge governments, massive debt, while redistribution is to the corporations and oligarchs. The leftist version, is basically the same but focuses redistribution to the working class and below.

Those two are closer to each other than any is to theoretical Socialism or communism.
Click to expand...

No, Capitalism is not about any of that. The closest in US history to a purely Capitalist economy came during the Robber Baron period.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, it isn't. By their own admission, they are trying Communism over again with a new label. It's 'New and Improved Communism!'


No, Capitalism is not about any of that. The closest in US history to a purely Capitalist economy came during the Robber Baron period.
Click to expand...
Sillly nobody is trying Communism, except Cuba. Socialism is simply not Communism. You are just trying to justify your silly PP's claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top