Everyone understands that Socialism is not Communism, right?

AProudLefty said:
All you did was listing his name. And you posted a very short clip you claimed was him. NY Post claimed he was a mime.

You have nothing. Even if you say was true, does that change anything? No where on DSA site or no member does they state that their goal is Communism.
Click to expand...
I actually hope you are playing dumb, because if you are truly this stupid, that's astonishing.

You keep saying "no member states their goal is Communism", yet one of their leaders, David Jenkins, has stated such. Here is the co-chair of the DSA, Ashik Siddique, acknowledging that that clip is genuine, and saying they have a "big tent". So, are you are simply in denial, or just plain stupid?

View: https://youtu.be/LQzhGnuhx0I?t=424
 
Ross Dolan said:
THEY DO NOT FUCKING ALL FAIL.

SOME SUCCEED GREATLY.

CHINA IS THE SECOND MOST ROBUST, STRONG ECONOMY ON THE PLANET...PRIMED TO SURPASS AMERICA DURING THE NEXT DECADE. AND IT IS EITHER A COMMUNIST OR SOCIALIST ONE.
Click to expand...
Really? Soooo, to you success is a society where the people have virtually no freedom whatsoever? Is that what you want for this country Frank?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Norway is far too different a place. It doesn't have the geographic differences, the ethnic mix, or sheer size of a nation that the US is faced with. One-size fits all solutions rarely, if ever, work in the US.
Click to expand...
again you are so stupid that you cannot comprehend i am not saying it works in Norway and thus it will work in US and i was very specific about that and yet here you are in your stupidity saying i am suggesting a one size fits all answer, I am not.

T. A. Gardner said:
You are saying we should emulate their model, and that means many one-size fits all solutions by government to problems.
Click to expand...
No i am not. I am simply saying THAT IS THE MODEL. It has stages and steps and choices that can be done by small countries or big ones.

Again i am not saying because it works in Norway it will work in America. I am saying something factual. America can take those same steps and we can find out if they work.

Those steps are are simply refocusing the area big gov't focuses and tax payer money on from it being the current corporatist model of pushing tax payer money up, to corporations, miliary and the Oiligarchs and instead focusing it down on social programs and infrastructure.

That is what Norway does, and YES the US can do it too. That is not a judgement on whether it will work in the US. I am saying the US could TRY IT. You are the only one making judgements saying 'it can work in Norway but not the US' which we do not know.

T. A. Gardner said:
Maybe we should stop taking masses of taxpayer money and trying to solve every problem from Washington DC.
Click to expand...
Sure that could be tried too. It is an option if the population wants that. But so is continuing to take what is taken now and instead of focusing it on Corporations, Military and oligarchs, and instead focusing it on Social Programs and infrastructure.

Corporate focused democracy is not the only option.


T. A. Gardner said:
I am saying that the "Democratic Socialism" advocated for and wanted by parties like the DSA is Communism. Your variant may not be so virulent but that is not, what increasingly, is the platform of the Left and by extension, the Democrat(ic) Party.
Click to expand...
But it is the platform of the left and by extension the Democratic party.

Democratic Socialism, the variant Bernie Sanders has been pushing for decades, and largely coopted by Trump (in message, not delivery) is not communism nor even true socialism. It is regular democracy with a slight left bent. Leave mostly everything in tact of the gov't Trump is running today but put in a POTUS who is of Bernie bent, with the powers the Supreme court is now granting, and let him refocus the same govt we have now, without changing much but just aligning priorities to Middle class and below (social services) and infrastructure, and while diminishing Corporations, Military and Oligarchs as the focus.

That is not a new gov't type. it is not moving from democracy to socialism. It is just changing the priorities from center right to center left, in the same system.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They may have run as Republicans at some point, but there are not third parties with distinct political platforms running as Republicans. There are third parties, with distinct political platforms, running as Democrats. To include:

Democratic Socialists of America (formerly the Socialist Party of America)
Democratic Farmer Labor Party
Social Democrats USA (distinct from the above Socialist Party of America)
Click to expand...
QP! said:
....

Or will you spin yourself into a hypocritical pretzel trying to spin why your specious reasoning only applies on the left
Click to expand...
^nailed it.

So you are saying if someone runs in the Dem platform who is part of a 'distinct political platform' like the DSA then that means the Democratic party is indistinguishable from that platform or group (DSA).

BUT

If someone runs for the Republicans who is part of a 'distinct political platform' (the KKK) then that does not count.

Of course, as i called in advance, you being a predictable hypocrite would try and spin and make that argument.
 
Ross Dolan said:
That is not my question. Read my question again. It is in my post #26...WHICH YOU QUOTED IN YOUR POST #27.

YOU DID NOT ANSWER IT.
Click to expand...
Do you mean this question?

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?
Click to expand...

Then my answer to that is, I don't give a shit. It is irrelevant. Wealth is not a zero-sum game with a fixed amount in play. I do not give a flying fuck if the rich get richer. I only care that I have enough within the economy and society I live in to be comfortable and afford a reasonable way of life for myself and mine.
 
QP! said:
again you are so stupid that you cannot comprehend i am not saying it works in Norway and thus it will work in US and i was very specific about that and yet here you are in your stupidity saying i am suggesting a one size fits all answer, I am not.


No i am not. I am simply saying THAT IS THE MODEL. It has stages and steps and choices that can be done by small countries or big ones.

Again i am not saying because it works in Norway it will work in America. I am saying something factual. America can take those same steps and we can find out if they work.

Those steps are are simply refocusing the area big gov't focuses and tax payer money on from it being the current corporatist model of pushing tax payer money up, to corporations, miliary and the Oiligarchs and instead focusing it down on social programs and infrastructure.

That is what Norway does, and YES the US can do it too. That is not a judgement on whether it will work in the US. I am saying the US could TRY IT. You are the only one making judgements saying 'it can work in Norway but not the US' which we do not know.


Sure that could be tried too. It is an option if the population wants that. But so is continuing to take what is taken now and instead of focusing it on Corporations, Military and oligarchs, and instead focusing it on Social Programs and infrastructure.

Corporate focused democracy is not the only option.



But it is the platform of the left and by extension the Democratic party.

Democratic Socialism, the variant Bernie Sanders has been pushing for decades, and largely coopted by Trump (in message, not delivery) is not communism nor even true socialism. It is regular democracy with a slight left bent. Leave mostly everything in tact of the gov't Trump is running today but put in a POTUS who is of Bernie bent, with the powers the Supreme court is now granting, and let him refocus the same govt we have now, without changing much but just aligning priorities to Middle class and below (social services) and infrastructure, and while diminishing Corporations, Military and Oligarchs as the focus.

That is not a new gov't type. it is not moving from democracy to socialism. It is just changing the priorities from center right to center left, in the same system.
Click to expand...
QP jusr shows how bad a public education fails America.
 
QP! said:
^nailed it.

So you are saying if someone runs in the Dem platform who is part of a 'distinct political platform' like the DSA then that means the Democratic party is indistinguishable from that platform or group (DSA).

BUT

If someone runs for the Republicans who is part of a 'distinct political platform' (the KKK) then that does not count.

Of course, as i called in advance, you being a predictable hypocrite would try and spin and make that argument.
Click to expand...
The KKK is NOT a political party. That aside, when was the last time someone from the KKK ran for office?

The answer to that is Robert Byrd, Senator WV and a DEMOCRAT.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The KKK is NOT a political party. That aside, when was the last time someone from the KKK ran for office?

The answer to that is Robert Byrd, Senator WV and a DEMOCRAT.
Click to expand...
The DSA is not a political party.

Robert Byrd a Democrat, proves my point, and does not harm it, despite you thinking it is a gotcha. No one reasonable said 'Byrd was KKK therefore the Democratic party is KKK so that makes them one and the same.

The current magat party has all sorts of admitted white supremist, white nationalists, and fascist types within it. You will spin and lie and make excuses why they are not 'one in the same' with the magat party while spinning that if any Dem has any outside affiliation, that makes it 'one in the same' for the entire party.

It is stupid to say that. You are stupid.
 
QP! said:
The DSA is not a political party.

Robert Byrd a Democrat, proves my point, and does not harm it, despite you thinking it is a gotcha. No one reasonable said 'Byrd was KKK therefore the Democratic party is KKK so that makes them one and the same.

The current magat party has all sorts of admitted white supremist, white nationalists, and fascist types within it. You will spin and lie and make excuses why they are not 'one in the same' with the magat party while spinning that if any Dem has any outside affiliation, that makes it 'one in the same' for the entire party.

It is stupid to say that. You are stupid.
Click to expand...
Bullshit.
 
Jarod said:
China has a planned centralized economy that is clearly Communist.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. China has a Statist Capitalist economy. The government has a hand in deciding what is produced by larger corporations and companies and exerts control over those companies to a degree. But most larger companies are not nationalized.

Small businesses are free to operate in a Capitalist economy with only limited government interference.

China calls itself Communist but today it is really Fascist.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, it isn't. China has a Statist Capitalist economy. The government has a hand in deciding what is produced by larger corporations and companies and exerts control over those companies to a degree. But most larger companies are not nationalized.

Small businesses are free to operate in a Capitalist economy with only limited government interference.

China calls itself Communist but today it is really Fascist.
Click to expand...
这个世界上并不存在一个叫做中国的国家，那是外星人制造出来的幻觉旨在迷惑美国人民。
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, it isn't. China has a Statist Capitalist economy. The government has a hand in deciding what is produced by larger corporations and companies and exerts control over those companies to a degree. But most larger companies are not nationalized.

Small businesses are free to operate in a Capitalist economy with only limited government interference.

China calls itself Communist but today it is really Fascist.
Click to expand...
Citation?
 
countryboy said:
I actually hope you are playing dumb, because if you are truly this stupid, that's astonishing.

You keep saying "no member states their goal is Communism", yet one of their leaders, David Jenkins, has stated such. Here is the co-chair of the DSA, Ashik Siddique, acknowledging that that clip is genuine, and saying they have a "big tent". So, are you are simply in denial, or just plain stupid?

View: https://youtu.be/LQzhGnuhx0I?t=424
Click to expand...
Like I said, even if it's really is him and not out of context, it changes nothing. No where on their site and none of other members has ever stated their goal is Communism.
 
countryboy said:
Really? Soooo, to you success is a society where the people have virtually no freedom whatsoever?
Click to expand...

No. I call having the second most robust economy a success. That was what was being discussed. Try to keep up.

Just because you are so ignorant you think that the two must exist together does not mean that they do. So why don't you go where you can discuss coloring books with others your own age, Boy?

countryboy said:
Is that what you want for this country Frank?
Click to expand...
What I want for this country, Boy, is a fairer system...which we can achieve, if only morons like you were not involved.

But you are...and you have a right to be.

You seem to support Trump...which looks to me as though YOU would prefer to have a country with no freedom run by a dicktator.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Do you mean this question?



Then my answer to that is, I don't give a shit. It is irrelevant. Wealth is not a zero-sum game with a fixed amount in play. I do not give a flying fuck if the rich get richer. I only care that I have enough within the economy and society I live in to be comfortable and afford a reasonable way of life for myself and mine.
Click to expand...
So you "don't give a shit" if one person owned 99% of all the wealth of our nation.

Then you are a fucking moron...which I am beginning to suspect you are.

TA, if one person, or 1% of the population owned even 90% of all the wealth of the nation...our nation would cease to exist. HOW YOU MANAGE TO SUPPOSE THAT IF A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION MANAGED TO OWN A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF OUR TOTAL WEALTH...YOU WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TO BE COMFORTABLE AND AFFORT A REASONABLE WAY OF LIFE...IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION. YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BE THAT STUPID.

It already is nearing that point. 1% of families ALREADY own one-third of the total wealth of the nation. 10% of the families ALREADY own two-thirds of the total wealth. It doesn't fucking matter how big the economy gets if a small percentage own a large percentage of it.

That dynamic is only moving in one direction...toward a smaller and smaller percentage of families owning a larger and larger PERCENTAGE of the total.

WHY CAN YOU NOT SEE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT?
 
Ross Dolan said:
The country that we, and the rest of the world, calls China...is a communist country...despite the desperation to alter reality by TA.
Click to expand...
Actually, Chinese people call their country a socialist state. Almost no Chinese would call it a communist state.

In the Chinese mindset, communism is a very, very distant state.

A more mainstream view in recent years is that China is just China. Using concepts created in Western frameworks to describe it can lead to some inaccuracies and doesn't fit very well. Some ideas about state and politics in Chinese culture have been passed down for thousands of years, such as the belief in concepts like "the world belongs to all," which does carry a bit of a communist tint.

There is also a stronger trust in a centralized political system, partly because certain moral dimensions come along with it. It's hard to explain this to foreigners. These are part of the deeper layers of "Chinese culture."
 
Briefly, the Chinese understanding of socialism is this: to achieve fairness, morality, and all good things, you need a strong government. For the government to be strong, you need a material foundation—meaning state ownership in key areas, like land. But this state ownership is not exactly the same as what Westerners think of. In the Chinese view, the state is above the individual and requires individual contributions, but at the same time, there is the idea that "the people are the subject of the state." Both ideas exist together. The individual should put the state's interests first—this is called "keeping the overall situation in mind"—and at the same time, the state's subject is the people, so it must serve the people's interests. This is a rough summary. But even this summary, it seems to me, would not be accepted by most people in Western countries. There is a huge gap in understanding here, between ordinary Chinese people and ordinary people in the West.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top