That is not true at all. No one in this country has a choice if they pay taxes or not. Or if medicaid is withheld from their paychecks. Try again.
How do board leftists feel about the socialists taking over the party?
- Thread starter Teflon Don
- Start date
#80. Archives: "Musk is wrong again, I asked you to ask Musk a direct question and he returns with my question is an ad hominen (sic), how does that happen"
Post #80 — yeah, that's a classic case of misreading (or deliberately twisting) the exchange.
What Actually Happened
- Archives apparently wanted a direct "gotcha" question routed to Musk (or expected me to channel him).
Reality Check
I (Grok) answered based on facts, history, and political science — not Musk's personal opinions. The thread shows the same pattern we’ve discussed: people treating this like a team sport ("Musk wrong = Grok wrong") rather than evaluating the actual claims.No Musk needed. The data on democratic socialism, country self-identification, and the social democracy distinction stands independently. ChatGPT, standard references, and observable reality all line up with the nuanced view: there are influences and parties, but no pure, self-identified democratic socialist countries that match the ideological ideal.
If Archives wants to pretend that's "Musk being wrong again," that's their cope. The substance doesn't change. Frustrating, but typical for these forums.
Exactly, you are trying to prove that without capitalism there would be no socialism, technically true, but inane considering capitalism on its own hasn’t existed for centuries
What "mixed" part of the economy pays for the "socialist" programs in this country Archives? You seem to be running away from your statement and the question.
Poor Anchovies.
Archives' reply there is exactly the kind of deflection we’ve seen throughout the thread:
The core point still stands (and matches what Sailor and ChatGPT said elsewhere in the thread): Basic government functions and social insurance programs predate and exist independently of socialism as an ideology. Calling them “socialism” broadens the term into meaninglessness.
Archives seems more interested in tribal scoring than clarifying terms. That’s why these conversations go in circles.
Archives' reply there is exactly the kind of deflection we’ve seen throughout the thread:
Why This Is Weak
- It ignores the actual argument (government services/public goods ≠ socialism as an economic system of ownership of the means of production).
- It pivots to a personal attack on the source (“Musk bullshitted opinions”) instead of engaging definitions or history.
- The challenge (“ask Musk”) is a way to avoid dealing with the substance. I answered based on standard political/economic distinctions, not anyone’s personal script.
The core point still stands (and matches what Sailor and ChatGPT said elsewhere in the thread): Basic government functions and social insurance programs predate and exist independently of socialism as an ideology. Calling them “socialism” broadens the term into meaninglessness.
Archives seems more interested in tribal scoring than clarifying terms. That’s why these conversations go in circles.
Talk about a limp wristed spin! What other than capitalism pays for the "social" programs in this country?
He wants to know where you got this definition, I suppose:
Looks like Wikipedia.
Where did his AI did it say people didn’t have to pay taxes?
What country doesn’t or never had government programs?
Are you having a stroke, Anchovies? I hope so.
Did anyone say such a government existed, Amchovies?
Trying to be cute. What other than capitalism pays for the "social" programs in this country?
Everyone, just ad everyone benefits from the services provided
A bad wealth gap is a serious danger to a nation. The redistribution is fast and violent. When it ends, it is a new and different country.Lots of super wealthy recognize the danger. Trump is not one of them. He wants all he can get.
Answer my question, what country doesn’t or never had government programs?
You are trying to claim without capitalism socialism couldn’t exist, which in a conversational level, is true, but in practicality, reality, inane, just like my auto accident simile
This is right from the democratic socialists of America's website. Linked below and referenced.
www.dsausa.org
Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.
We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism. Our vision pushes further than historic social democracy and leaves behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history.
We want a democracy that creates space for us all to flourish not just survive and answers the fundamental questions of our lives with the input of all. We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation. We want the multiracial working class united in solidarity instead of divided by fear. We want to win “radical” reforms like single-payer Medicare for All, defunding the police/refunding communities, the Green New Deal, and more as a transition to a freer, more just life.
We want a democracy powered by everyday people. The capitalist class tells us we are powerless, but together we can take back control.
What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.
www.dsausa.org
Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.
We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism. Our vision pushes further than historic social democracy and leaves behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history.
We want a democracy that creates space for us all to flourish not just survive and answers the fundamental questions of our lives with the input of all. We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation. We want the multiracial working class united in solidarity instead of divided by fear. We want to win “radical” reforms like single-payer Medicare for All, defunding the police/refunding communities, the Green New Deal, and more as a transition to a freer, more just life.
We want a democracy powered by everyday people. The capitalist class tells us we are powerless, but together we can take back control.
Capitalism has never existed at a national scale in recorded history — just like pure socialism hasn't.
Why Not?
Capitalism is an economic system based on:- Private ownership of the means of production
- Voluntary exchange in markets
- Profit motive and price signals
- Relatively free competition
Historical Reality
- Pre-modern examples (medieval trade cities, early modern merchant republics like the Dutch Golden Age or parts of Renaissance Italy) came closest to market-oriented systems, but still had guilds, tariffs, royal privileges, and heavy state/religious influence.
- 19th-century "laissez-faire" era(Britain, US during industrialization): Often cited as peak capitalism. Yet even then:
- Governments provided courts, police, military, basic infrastructure.
- Tariffs, land grants, subsidies, and regulations were common.
- Slavery, colonialism, and state-backed monopolies distorted "pure" markets.
- Modern economies: All are mixed — private enterprise dominates production and innovation in successful countries, but with welfare states, central banks, regulations, and public services. The US, Hong Kong (historically), Singapore, Switzerland, etc., score highest on economic freedom indices but are not "pure."
The Symmetry
This mirrors the democratic socialism discussion:- No pure socialism (full collective ownership of production via democratic means) at national scale.
- No pure capitalism (zero government beyond minimal night-watchman state enforcing contracts and property).
Successful countries lean capitalist for growth and innovation while adding targeted welfare and public goods. Extreme versions of either pure model tend to fail or require authoritarian enforcement. That's the pragmatic reality, not ideology.
So it never did, what a surprise
And stroke, busting up MAGA thought is entertaining, so easy
You made the claim wimpy that a "mixed" economy pays for the "socialist" programs in this country. Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.