Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
12
... LastLast
  1. #181
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thMountainMan View Post
    Lol the reason we have dictionaries is so that we can accept a standard meaning for a certain combination of letters. I'm sorry but I'll take the definition of a word to tell me its meaning before I waste my life reading what some obscure academic contrived to justify his tenure. Socialism is what the dictionary says it is. It's unfortunate for you that it does not fit your personal narrative, but that's your problem not mine.
    "I'm not going to listen to the arguments of people more educated and knowledgeable than myself in a given subject because it does not agree with my a priori and anecdotally based conclusions about how the world as I see it works."

    The dictionary is a good place for pups to start, but it is a purely layman's context especially when it comes to political ideologies.

    Socialism is an economic system where the means of production and distribution of goods are held in public (yes that means government) hands. Capitalism is the economic system where the means of production and distribution of goods are held in private hands. Now we can have intelligent discussions about how much we should embrace one or the other over this or that, but the defining characteristics of the two systems remain distinct. You cannot narrow the definition of socialism to a particular application in one circumstance that fits your personal narrative. Despite what Endus would have you believe, state control of the means of production is a defining characteristic of socialism, and it is therefore authoritarian in its very nature.
    'Public' does not automatically mean 'state' or even 'government'.

    Now you might find a functioning socialist society where the state uses its control over the means of production and distribution of goods for the benefit of the majority of its people, but that only succeeds so long as the individuals within that power structure decide to do so out of the goodness of their hearts. Capitalism on the other hand does not assume anyone will do anything out of the goodness of their heart. It assumes individuals will always work towards their maximum personal benefit. Capitalism does not guarantee equal outcome, or opportunity. It just supposes that outcomes aught to be decided on the personal merits of the individual instead of the merits of the collective. Like I said earlier, I'm not a purist. I believe a certain amount of government regulation is required to maintain a competitive environment. The means of production however, aught to remain solidly in private hands.
    A very simplistic and binary view that doesn't account for the fact that public and private benefit are not always mutually exclusive, nor are they zero sum.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Saucexorzski View Post
    Not good ones.
    They're as good as yours, to be frank.

  2. #182
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Saucexorzski View Post
    In your opinion oh mighty overlord of GenOT.
    No, in the opinion of pretty much every single economist on the planet, and any reasonable source you can find on the Internet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism


  3. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I don't think anyone's denying that. We're pointing out that variations of Stalinist theory are not the sole form that socialist principles can take.
    Trying to argue that they're capitalist is just as incorrect. And yet, you're only here attacking me, rather than all those lauding capitalism as the "great savior".
    So, I'm clarifying that they're mixed economies. You present it as arguing they're capitalists. I argue that we need to acknowledge the reality of what socialism is today. And I'm attacking you? rofl.

    Why would I attack anyone?. I have the luxury of living in a place with a socialist party as well as several other left-aligned ones; a place where we can debate about socialist market economy, and expect the average person to know what we're talking about. Why would I even care about deluded arguments?.

    I'm, as usual, shaping up my side. You just happen to want to abstract it to XIX century rhetoric, to the point where Scandinavia doesn't apply, to then throw it back in. We can't operate on both scopes simultaneously; socialism does promote social ownership (cooperatives, for instance), but it's not defined solely as an economic principle. We can't pretend it to be an abstract idea to then offer examples that don't follow the abstract at all. We can't have the cake and eat it too.

    Seriously, Endus, comrade, cut the persecution complex.
    Last edited by nextormento; 2016-05-22 at 01:20 AM.

  4. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is 100% false.



    Your issue is that you don't go by the dictionary definition; you cited one earlier and deliberately and dishonestly ignored half the definition in question, because it directly and explicitly contradicted the position you then advocated.
    Sigh, no it didn't, and for you to say so is completely disingenuous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Neither of these is correct. As you should know, since you cited a definition for "socialism" earlier which directly contradicted this. This is why we can't take you seriously; you don't even abide by your own cited sources. You literally make things up, and then act aghast when we point out that they're made-up and incorrect.
    You're just contriving crap and throwing mud now. I've stuck to a very clear understanding of what those two words mean from the beginning to the end of this discussion. All of you are the ones who've been hopping around over what socialism means or does not mean based on your personal perception of it. We've literally come full circle here. It started with all of you making the claim that Venezuela isn't socialist. I showed that it matched all the criteria of a socialist state. Then I'm accused of "not knowing what socialism means." I cite the definition. Then I'm told the dictionary is wrong. I point out that is retarded. Then you come around and say I'm not using the dictionary definition. You can't have it both ways man. Choose one idiotic statement and run with it. Don't use multiple ones that refute each other.

    You specifically tried to deny socialism's authoritarian nature despite public control of the means of production and distribution being the very definition of socialism. When I challenged you to cite a single historical example of socialism not being governed by a centralized power structure, you responded with what amounts to "Just because it hasn't happened does not mean it can't (paraphrased)." Until you can give me an example of something bigger than your social justice seminar governing itself without centralized control, public ownership means government ownership. You're trying so hard for this precious little word to mean something else that you're making up new definitions for the words in the definition. Calm the hell down. It's okay for you to be wrong. You don't have to change the English language out of spite.

  5. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by Zombergy View Post
    All of these arrogant youngin' radicalized millennial types clamoring for socialism should take a close look to see exactly what socialism is.
    But but but...
    "Feel the Bern!" Kek...

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    "I'm not going to listen to the arguments of people more educated and knowledgeable than myself in a given subject because it does not agree with my a priori and anecdotally based conclusions about how the world as I see it works."

    The dictionary is a good place for pups to start, but it is a purely layman's context especially when it comes to political ideologies.
    Just because you say something is complicated does not mean it is. It's actually quite simple.


    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    'Public' does not automatically mean 'state' or even 'government'.
    It does in every practical manifestation of the word in the real world. If you want to discuss metaphysics, you need to bring beer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    A very simplistic and binary view that doesn't account for the fact that public and private benefit are not always mutually exclusive, nor are they zero sum.
    I never made that claim. In fact, I've said a version of your statement several times during this discussion.

  7. #187
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Just like 'capitalism' is a system of distribution designed to fuck over the vast majority of the population while enriching a few privileged individuals.

    I can make loaded definitions too.
    The median household income here is 60k, the vast majority of people I see are not fucked over. Just living normal happy lives.

  8. #188
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Joresh View Post
    This is just verifiably false.

    The INE listed the venezuallian poverty rate at 32% in 2013 and the UN Economic Commission for Latin America listed it at 24% in 2012. Regardless of which report you believe this is well above the (incorrect) 8% that you give

    Sources:
    http://www.cepal.org/en/pressrelease...-latin-america

    http://www.ine.gov.ve/index.php?opti...104&Itemid=45#
    well I got it from here
    Sources: World Bank, UNHCR, Reuters, OPEC, EIA, IMF, UNODC and INE

    Households (% of total declared) Extreme poverty - second half 19.3 7
    Population (% of total declared) Extreme poverty-second half 23.4 8.5
    first line 1999 second line 2011
    Notice how they clarify EXTREME poverty.
    Maybe there is a legal difference between poverty and extreme poverty?

  9. #189
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,903
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thMountainMan View Post
    Sigh, no it didn't, and for you to say so is completely disingenuous.
    Let's check the post history, Bob.

    Quote Originally Posted by 10thMountainMan View Post
    socialism
    Related to socialism: fascism, communism
    so·cial·ism (sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
    n.
    1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    New color coding is mine. You falsely tried to claim that the part in red was the entire definition, and that all socialism involved state ownership. This clearly contradicts the definition, which clearly includes the green clause (and first, no less), separated from that red clause by a little "or" I put in blue, just to emphasize it.

    A company where the employees are all shareholders is "owned collectively", and is thus an example of socialist theory.

    Yes, as you put it, words have meaning, and you don't get to just ignore the words whose meaning contradicts your viewpoint.

    You specifically tried to deny socialism's authoritarian nature despite public control of the means of production and distribution being the very definition of socialism.
    Because your own definition clearly stated that it was not the definition of socialism. See above.


  10. #190
    Warchief Bollocks's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    La Paz, Bolivia
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thMountainMan View Post
    Sigh, no it didn't, and for you to say so is completely disingenuous.



    You're just contriving crap and throwing mud now. I've stuck to a very clear understanding of what those two words mean from the beginning to the end of this discussion. All of you are the ones who've been hopping around over what socialism means or does not mean based on your personal perception of it. We've literally come full circle here. It started with all of you making the claim that Venezuela isn't socialist. I showed that it matched all the criteria of a socialist state. Then I'm accused of "not knowing what socialism means." I cite the definition. Then I'm told the dictionary is wrong. I point out that is retarded. Then you come around and say I'm not using the dictionary definition. You can't have it both ways man. Choose one idiotic statement and run with it. Don't use multiple ones that refute each other.

    You specifically tried to deny socialism's authoritarian nature despite public control of the means of production and distribution being the very definition of socialism. When I challenged you to cite a single historical example of socialism not being governed by a centralized power structure, you responded with what amounts to "Just because it hasn't happened does not mean it can't (paraphrased)." Until you can give me an example of something bigger than your social justice seminar governing itself without centralized control, public ownership means government ownership. You're trying so hard for this precious little word to mean something else that you're making up new definitions for the words in the definition. Calm the hell down. It's okay for you to be wrong. You don't have to change the English language out of spite.
    The reason the dictionary is wrong or rather incomplete, its due its simplistic nature as you may have seen in the merriam webster dictionary it literally says that socialism involves all theories that advocate for collective ownership:

    : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
    That is the reason you need books to understand what socialism is about as in a in-depth view, to have a general idea of what it is. If I asked the dictionary what fascism is I would get:
    a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
    Which technically is correct, because fascism is a form of totalitarianism, but that definition is incomplete as fascism covers more complex issues.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    The median household income here is 60k, the vast majority of people I see are not fucked over. Just living normal happy lives.
    Go to Asia, specifically south East Asia, where capitalism runs rampant. Poverty and living conditions there are up the hole

  11. #191
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by bollocks View Post
    Go to Asia, specifically south East Asia, where capitalism runs rampant. Poverty and living conditions there are up the hole
    China has a low GDP per capita. They have a similar scale and natural resources as the US but they overpopulated their region by a factor of 4x, mass poverty is their own doing.

  12. #192
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimaryColor View Post
    China has a low GDP per capita. They have a similar scale and natural resources as the US but they overpopulated their region by a factor of 4x, mass poverty is their own doing.
    When you say South East Asia it usually means countries like indonesia or singapore. Not China.

  13. #193
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    When you say South East Asia it usually means countries like indonesia or singapore. Not China.
    Okay but Indonesia is an even better example, 250m people on a small landmass and their GDP per capita is even worse than China's.

  14. #194
    The Lightbringer stabetha's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    middle of the desert U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And?

    I'm a market socialist, ideologically speaking. I'm unapologetically socialist, but about as far from authoritarian as you can get. If you want to talk about how authoritarianism is "bad", sure, but that's got nothing to do with socialism.

    Look at those credit unions, so scary.
    lol I'm sure many of us got a good laugh out of that one.
    you can't make this shit up
    Quote Originally Posted by Elba View Post
    Third-wave feminism or Choice feminism is actually extremely egalitarian
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    I hate America
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    I don't read/watch any of these but to rank them:Actual news agency (mostly factual):CNN MSNBC NPR

  15. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Let's check the post history, Bob.



    New color coding is mine. You falsely tried to claim that the part in red was the entire definition, and that all socialism involved state ownership. This clearly contradicts the definition, which clearly includes the green clause (and first, no less), separated from that red clause by a little "or" I put in blue, just to emphasize it.

    A company where the employees are all shareholders is "owned collectively", and is thus an example of socialist theory.

    Yes, as you put it, words have meaning, and you don't get to just ignore the words whose meaning contradicts your viewpoint.



    Because your own definition clearly stated that it was not the definition of socialism. See above.
    Don't use green its quite hard to read without highlighting it. And yea people get socialism and communism confused.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by stabetha View Post
    lol I'm sure many of us got a good laugh out of that one.
    I chuckled a little only because its endus...but he is correct.

  16. #196
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by stomination View Post
    I chuckled a little only because its endus...but he is correct.
    Then we need to ask all socialist if they identify more with authoritarianism or libertarianism.

  17. #197
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Canada,we've got freedom too, except we don't pretend to be american when we travel.
    Posts
    2,673
    this entire thread: cons:fuck socialism it's terrible! libs: you guys are assholes!
    reality: you all stink, libs, cons, doesn't matter, you're two sides of the same dumb ass coin.
    Libs, you'd give everything away until nobody had anything
    Cons, you're polishing the brass on the titanic, it's like 'strike up the band' as the water keeps flooding in.
    Seriously, there isn't a day that goes by that I don't see you guys take polar opposite sides and shit on eachother like some shitty zoo monkeys.
    Truth of the matter is, it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

    1: the poor have always been held down, that isn't going to change.

    2: NONE of you rich doinks are rich enough to count as ruling the world, thus you belong to the poor and are too stupid to know it because you have some change to rub together.

    So, tldr? You're all in this together, and just so completely too stupid to realize it and work together, which is exactly how the powers that be like it.
    carry on and have internet arguments and heart attacks over it.
    /reality out
    "There are other sites on the internet designed for people to make friends or relationships. This isn't one" Darsithis Super Moderator
    Proof that the mmochamp community can be a bitter and lonely place. What a shame.

  18. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by Allybeboba View Post
    But but but...
    "Feel the Bern!" Kek...
    People who feel the "bern" should try...



    ...but one should always consult their physician for correct "bern" treatment.

    MAGA
    When all you do is WIN WIN WIN

  19. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    What's your point?

    Utilities don't do any better in private hands - point in fact, they gravitate towards lower quality and higher cost for the consumer.
    you do know that Venezuela is suffering from power outages and why they only can work 4 days a week because of the black outs because guess what they nationalized the power companies

  20. #200
    Legendary! TirielWoW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,616
    From what I've read, a major issue is that the people that Chavez put in power had no idea what they were doing, and many of them have been essentially raping the country for profit. I need to dig up the article in question, but it explained that they're making huge profits off of the suffering privation of the people in the country, so they're not inclined to change anything for the better.
    Tiriél US-Stormrage

    Signature by Shyama

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •