The Truth About Socialism

[realibrad]

Yes I do, hence I was intrigued to hear how you were going to compare socialism with rape. All you've done so far is engage in word substitution.

Before you embark on your comparison, maybe you need to clearly explain your understanding of what rape is because trying to compare a societal model to something that is illegal pretty much everywhere; it makes me wonder whether maybe we've got off on the wrong foot, you know in case you for example had a serious case of "autocorrect gone wrong" rather than trying to embark on a comparison that seems about as inappropriate as... no, tbh, I can't think of a more inappropriate comparison.

Yes I do, hence I was intrigued to hear how you were going to compare socialism with rape. All you've done so far is engage in word insertion.

Before you embark on your comparison, maybe you need to clearly explain your understanding of what rape is because trying to compare a societal model to something that is illegal pretty much everywhere seems about as inappropriate as... no, tbh, I can't think of a more inappropriate comparison. It makes me wonder whether maybe we've got off on the wrong foot, you know in case you for example had a serious case of "autocorrect gone wrong".

You seem like and idiot, but ill explain anyway.

I am comparing something objectively bad, to something that is in question of being inherently bad. I did not pick rape in a believe that its equally as bad, just something that we all agree is bad. I then placed it into a large group of things that make up society, just like how we have economies that are made of multiple things. Overall an economy can be "healthy" and growing, societies can be the same. An economy can have many bad parts, but if the good parts are greater than the bad parts, the overall economy may still be "healthy" and growing. Society, while having rape, may too also be overall "healthy" and growing. If you somehow believe I was attempting to equate the two in terms of anything beyond what I have just stated, then I think the question of whether or not you are an idiot becomes clear.

 

[fskimospy]

Meh people are conflating socializing the fire station with the political ideology of socialism. I think it is on purpose because whenever it is pointed out another failed socialist state just happened. It is time to trot out we pay for fire and police service. And Roads and even have a progressive tax system and social spending so socialism isn't bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean is anybody really arguing a fire station being run by the local city is the same as a command control economy at the behest of a socialist state? I only skimmed this thread so if somebody did lol at them. Anyways Socialism as the political ideology takes assets for the betterment of the state. It uses force to squash political opposition. It takes control of an economy from top to bottom. It controls the markets for production and goods. It consolidates power for itself by squashing individual rights. A far cry from socializing essential services.

I mean even some of the biggest examples of socialist states in Europe will tell you they are capitalist with free markets and a democratic process. They just decided to move some services into the role of govt and taxing appropriately to pay for it. There is no single party controlling everything within the country. I would venture in many parts of Europe they have more democracy and more free markets than we do in the States.

VZ is another example of the socialism political ideology doing what it does best, destroying a country and bringing down the economy with it.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism or some sort of straw man. Socialism CAN be as you describe it, with a command economy, but in its modern incarnation is it almost never that. Instead, socialism is a continuum, much like capitalism is. Every modern country has some aspects of it that are socialized and other parts that are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

[crashtech]

I don't think that, I wish you'd not mischaracterize my words. I think those goals are likely fundamentally unachievable, at least in our lifetimes and so we shouldn't use that as a standard for evaluating our models.

Did I? This clarification was not contained in the post I referenced, though. But I never defined a standard, only that the model be "successful," which is actually similar to your standard, which is "useful." So we're arguing over semantics, it seems.

EDIT: @fskimospy , somehow the wrong poster's name appeared in the text I quoted, sorry for the momentary misattribution.

 

[Genx87]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism or some sort of straw man. Socialism CAN be as you describe it, with a command economy, but in its modern incarnation is it almost never that. Instead, socialism is a continuum, much like capitalism is. Every modern country has some aspects of it that are socialized and other parts that are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

And yet the topic at hand is VZ. A socialist state as I described it.

 

[Jaskalas]

And yet the topic at hand is VZ. A socialist state as I described it.

There may be some derps who wanted to be like VZ, some even posted here, but most of us do not. The social safety net I seek is more like the successful European model, though updated for the pending labor apocalypse.

 

[fskimospy]

And yet the topic at hand is VZ. A socialist state as I described it.

I am pretty sure the topic is 'the truth about socialism', which covers far more than just Venezuela. Hell, your post covered a lot more than that. There's nobody here that defends the Venezuela model, so there isn't even anyone to argue against on that.

 

[glenn1]

No, this is what I said:



This argument is not only good, it is amply supported by the available empirical evidence. The only way your argument is logical is if you were trying to say 'well there's no way to actually know anything', which is also a stupid argument but for different reasons.

In closing your argument is either pedantic nonsense or a purposeful misstatement of my argument in the service of...well... more pedantic nonsense. Your arguments here are extremely bad and if you were anyone else on this board I would have probably already started simply mocking you for your stupidity rather than attempting to reason with you because... jesus....this is embarrassing. Because I know you're smarter than this I hope you think twice before doing this sort of ridiculous shit in the future.

No one really disputes that "socialism" for non-rivalrous public goods like highways is good. Where you completely fail is extending that to claim socialism is also good for rivalrous and exclusionary goods where clearly that's not the case. Hell, the entire premise of "inequality is inherently bad" is based on that same bullshit logic that not completely using up all excludable goods at all times is somehow a market failure that government should step in to "fix", with folks like Jhhnn outright saying "there's no way a rich man can spend all his money so we should take it from him and give it to those who will." Just because you think you can step in and stop that process at just the right point before it becomes "too much" socialism like Venezuela or North Korea just shows how you completely misunderstand what you're trying to do.

 

[fskimospy]

No one really disputes that "socialism" for non-rivalrous public goods like highways is good. Where you completely fail is extending that to claim socialism is also good for rivalrous and exclusionary goods where clearly that's not the case. Hell, the entire premise of "inequality is inherently bad" is based on that same bullshit logic that not completely using up all excludable goods at all times is somehow a market failure that government should step in to "fix", with folks like Jhhnn outright saying "there's no way a rich man can spend all his money so we should take it from him and give it to those who will." Just because you think you can step in and stop that process at just the right point before it becomes "too much" socialism like Venezuela or North Korea just shows how you completely misunderstand what you're trying to do.

Ridiculous straw man.

Speaking of not understanding things I'm still waiting on you to define what 'earned' means, considering you listed that as your proper standard for distributing wealth.

 

[mikeymikec]

You seem like and idiot, but ill explain anyway.

I am comparing something objectively bad, to something that is in question of being inherently bad. I did not pick rape in a believe that its equally as bad, just something that we all agree is bad. I then placed it into a large group of things that make up society, just like how we have economies that are made of multiple things. Overall an economy can be "healthy" and growing, societies can be the same. An economy can have many bad parts, but if the good parts are greater than the bad parts, the overall economy may still be "healthy" and growing. Society, while having rape, may too also be overall "healthy" and growing. If you somehow believe I was attempting to equate the two in terms of anything beyond what I have just stated, then I think the question of whether or not you are an idiot becomes clear.

No, I understand the difference between equation and comparison. What you have done is neither.

You say you picked rape because it was something you felt we could all agree on is bad. We don't however all agree that socialism is bad, so there's no basis for comparison, nor have you brought one to the discussion that may not have occurred to other participants. Your "comparison" would have been just as meaningless if you had substituted the word "rape" for "road traffic collisions", or "cyanide" or "rape apologists" or "Harvey the Dinosaur", because none of those have any apparent bearing or relation whatsoever on the topic. It makes no sense to attempt to attempt to draw such a comparison, and you still haven't supplied any basis for your comparison. The only one we can infer is that you think both are "bad", but the point of making a comparison is to help others understand one's position better, but all your "comparison" achieves is to cloud the issue and raise more questions while supplying no real insight into your argument.

 

[realibrad]

No, I understand the difference between equation and comparison. What you have done is neither.

You say you picked rape because it was something you felt we could all agree on is bad. We don't however all agree that socialism is bad, so there's no basis for comparison, nor have you brought one to the discussion that may not have occurred to other participants. Your "comparison" would have been just as meaningless if you had substituted the word "rape" for "road traffic collisions", or "cyanide" or "rape apologists" or "Harvey the Dinosaur", because none of those have any apparent bearing or relation whatsoever on the topic. It makes no sense to attempt to attempt to draw such a comparison, and you still haven't supplied any basis for your comparison. The only one we can infer is that you think both are "bad", but the point of making a comparison is to help others understand one's position better, but all your "comparison" achieves is to cloud the issue and raise more questions while supplying no real insight into your argument.

I did actually. The claim was that, because socialism is in "successful" economies it cannot be inherently bad. Just as rape is in "successful" societies therefor it too cannot be bad. I was not trying to say that Socialism was or is bad either. What I am saying is that if the argument is simply that something cannot inherently be bad if its part of an overall good system, then it too must mean rape is also good as rape is part of good societies. That is a flawed argument.

The argument to show rape is not the same as socialism should use the same tools in trying to see of socialism is bad/good. Simply saying that everything in a system must be good because the overall system is good is wrong.

 

[glenn1]

Ridiculous straw man.

Speaking of not understanding things I'm still waiting on you to define what 'earned' means, considering you listed that as your proper standard for distributing wealth.

Earned is simply (1) money obtained from lawful and voluntary exchanges as a result of ones labor or business, or (2) results from gains (investment or interest) on assets you personally own as a result of #1. Specifically excluded from "earned" is any means which the money gets obtained via illegal or involuntary means such as theft or government transfer or entitlement payments, for example welfare never is and never could be earned money.

 

[bshole]

I did actually. The claim was that, because socialism is in "successful" economies it cannot be inherently bad. Just as rape is in "successful" societies therefor it too cannot be bad. I was not trying to say that Socialism was or is bad either. What I am saying is that if the argument is simply that something cannot inherently be bad if its part of an overall good system, then it too must mean rape is also good as rape is part of good societies. That is a flawed argument.

The argument to show rape is not the same as socialism should use the same tools in trying to see of socialism is bad/good. Simply saying that everything in a system must be good because the overall system is good is wrong.

Ok we get it. You think the rape analogy is fantastic and terribly interesting. Can we move on now?

 

[mikeymikec]

I did actually. The claim was that, because socialism is in "successful" economies it cannot be inherently bad. Just as rape is in "successful" societies therefor it too cannot be bad. I was not trying to say that Socialism was or is bad either. What I am saying is that if the argument is simply that something cannot inherently be bad if its part of an overall good system, then it too must mean rape is also good as rape is part of good societies. That is a flawed argument.

The argument to show rape is not the same as socialism should use the same tools in trying to see of socialism is bad/good. Simply saying that everything in a system must be good because the overall system is good is wrong.

The difference of course being that socialism is a method of designing the way that a society works ie. it's an intentional part of the design, so therefore to argue that it's a bad thing involves discussing its negative effects or how it is not achieving its intended effects. Rape is not an intentional part of any society I'm aware of, so again it's an illogical comparison.

 

[bshole]

Earned is simply (1) money obtained from lawful and voluntary exchanges as a result of ones labor or business, or (2) results from gains (investment or interest) on assets you personally own as a result of #1. Specifically excluded from "earned" is any means which the money gets obtained via illegal or involuntary means such as theft or government transfer or entitlement payments, for example welfare never is and never could be earned money.

Thank you for that. Using your definition, we should up the inheritance tax to 100%. The people receiving that money did not earn a cent of it.

 

[realibrad]

Ok we get it. You think the rape analogy is fantastic and terribly interesting. Can we move on now?

You can do whatever you want. If someone asks me a question, I'm likely to respond. If you don't like it, don't read it.

 

[fskimospy]

Thank you for that. Using your definition, we should up the inheritance tax to 100%. The people receiving that money did not earn a cent of it.

Also when you get a job at your dad's law firm you earned that money and so it's justly yours. Not like these parasites that get money from the government without having to work for it.

/s

 

[realibrad]

The difference of course being that socialism is a method of designing the way that a society works ie. it's an intentional part of the design, so therefore to argue that it's a bad thing involves discussing its negative effects or how it is not achieving its intended effects. Rape is not an intentional part of any society I'm aware of, so again it's an illogical comparison.

That is irrelevant. The context is that you cannot argue that the parts that make up a system must be inherently good/bad simply because the overall system is labeled good/bad. You are trying to make it seem like I am equating again, and I did not. I took the underlying logic, replaced one system (economy) and one part of that system (socialism) and put in society and rape. If the underlying logic were sound, it should still hold true, and yet it does not. If the formula cannot have its inputs replaced, then its wrong.

 

[realibrad]

Also when you get a job at your dad's law firm you earned that money and so it's justly yours. Not like these parasites that get money from the government without having to work for it.

/s

Wait, why is it okay that you get to do this, but when I do it to you I get a pissy response?

 

[fskimospy]

That is irrelevant. The context is that you cannot argue that the parts that make up a system must be inherently good/bad simply because the overall system is labeled good/bad. You are trying to make it seem like I am equating again, and I did not. I took the underlying logic, replaced one system (economy) and one part of that system (socialism) and put in society and rape. If the underlying logic were sound, it should still hold true, and yet it does not. If the formula cannot have its inputs replaced, then its wrong.

Literally no one argued that and you know it. You need to go back and look at the posts you responded to and what they actually said.

 

[glenn1]

Thank you for that. Using your definition, we should up the inheritance tax to 100%. The people receiving that money did not earn a cent of it.

Congratulations for putting a completely unrelated policy question into a thread about socialism. And sure, why not? Basically it's just speeding up the timing of what socialism already wants (it doesn't bother waiting until you're dead to take the 100%, or if you prefer the euphmism "means of production"). That seems to be what folks like Jhhnn want anyway, can't let someone accumulate enough capital to actually create new wealth or enjoy it whatsoever. They think the wealthy should spend years working 100 hour weeks risking all you have, to enable progressives to take away whatever you have so the poors who dropped out of junior high can buy some Twinkies and booze instead of buying health insurance for themselves. Because somehow all that spending on consumables "trickles up" to the rich anyway in some perpetual motion machine version of economics.

 

[fskimospy]

Wait, why is it okay that you get to do this, but when I do it to you I get a pissy response?

You got a pissy response because you gave perhaps the stupidest argument I have ever read on here from someone who I think is actually interested in rational debate. This isn't an attempt to insult you, I genuinely mean that. It was that dumb. I even quoted back to you the post you responded to and your only argument was that you weren't responding to it despite that being the post you quoted when making your rape analogy.

You would be well served not to die on this hill. Your argument was illogical and bad.

 

[fskimospy]

Congratulations for putting a completely unrelated policy question into a thread about socialism. And sure, why not? Basically it's just speeding up the timing of what socialism already wants (it doesn't bother waiting until you're dead to take the 100%, or if you prefer the euphmism "means of production"). That seems to be what folks like Jhhnn want anyway, can't let someone accumulate enough capital to actually create new wealth or enjoy it whatsoever. They think the wealthy should spend years working 100 hour weeks risking all you have, to enable progressives to take away whatever you have so the poors who dropped out of junior high can buy some Twinkies and booze instead of buying health insurance for themselves. Because somehow all that spending on consumables "trickles up" to the rich anyway in some perpetual motion machine version of economics.

Ah good, we've reached the part of the thread where glenn goes into a rage meltdown and starts ranting.

 

[realibrad]

Literally no one argued that and you know it. You need to go back and look at the posts you responded to and what they actually said.

I have, and I just did again. You still said that socialism is not inherently bad because even the US has a lot of it in it's economy.

 

[Zaap]

Just because you think you can step in and stop that process at just the right point before it becomes "too much" socialism like Venezuela or North Korea just shows how you completely misunderstand what you're trying to do.

The fact that political liberals have fawned over places like Cuba and Venezuela doesn't help me trust them much THIS time around, in knowing where things become too much. (And that praise has been true regardless of the current 'pass!' excuse of just limiting it to AT P&N liberals running as fast as they can from the -now too obvious to stump for anymore- shipwreck of Venezuela, burying their copies of "Mi Amigo Hugo" alongside "The Motorcycle Diaries").

 

[realibrad]

You got a pissy response because you gave perhaps the stupidest argument I have ever read on here from someone who I think is actually interested in rational debate. This isn't an attempt to insult you, I genuinely mean that. It was that dumb. I even quoted back to you the post you responded to and your only argument was that you weren't responding to it despite that being the post you quoted when making your rape analogy.

You would be well served not to die on this hill. Your argument was illogical and bad.

The very first post I made in this thread was in response to this...

What you would decry as socialism is the current economic blueprint for basically all of the most successful economies in the world. Even the US is significantly socialist. While there are certainly countries that take it too far, the idea that socialism is inherently bad has been pretty conclusively disproven by history.

It’s hard to debate these things when you don’t even understand the terms of the discussion.

I have not had people at work read what you wrong, people that ideologically are varied and many do not agree with me about a great many things. Different educational backgrounds. Hell, even the guy who graduated from Harvard 5 years ago agrees that my interpretation of what you said is correct.

You were trying to say that socialism cannot be bad if its part of the overall system which is good. I don't seem to be getting anywhere with you, but I feel more and more validated the more I have people read what you wrote.

At this point I don't think you could agree with me and I don't know if it would matter. I got out of this what I wanted. I asked a question and got a response.