• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Herman Cain says U.S. headed ‘towards socialism and towards communism’

TheDemSocialist said:
:lamo
How are we even turning anything close to socialism?
How are we turning anything close to this: Chomsky on Socialism - YouTube
Click to expand...

How is Chomsky's ideas the only vision of Socialism? If any one person's ideas can be called that, it would be Marx, not Chomsky.

How can it be? Simple, some recognize the the results, regardless of mechanisms.

BTW, in one thread you tell me that a classless society is not the core of socialism, then here you state that as what socialism is trying to achieve. Do you not see the paradox of your own two statements?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
It's nationalized healthcare, put on by the Government.
Click to expand...

Nothing was nationalized. The people are just being extorted into purchasing goods and services from private corporations that lobby congress by their own government.
 
blaxshep said:
Nothing was nationalized. The people are just being extorted into purchasing goods and services from private corporations that lobby congress by their own government.
Click to expand...

Ok that is fair, however, taxpayers will pay for the people who can't/refuse. That is socialism.
 
DVSentinel said:
How is Chomsky's ideas the only vision of Socialism? If any one person's ideas can be called that, it would be Marx, not Chomsky.
Click to expand...
Marx is not the grandad of socialism. Socialism was around before Marx even defined his programs in the communist manifesto.
And its because that is the most simple definition of socialism is what Chomsky spoke of.


How can it be? Simple, some recognize the the results, regardless of mechanisms.
Click to expand...
What? Your going to have to explain..

BTW, in one thread you tell me that a classless society is not the core of socialism, then here you state that as what socialism is trying to achieve. Do you not see the paradox of your own two statements?
Click to expand...
Umm where did i say that here?
You also never answered my question..

What socialism is: "Those who work at the workplace should own it and the communities should own it. Calling for democracy in the workplace and in the communities is an expansion of socialism"
 
Lachean said:
The degree to which it is mixed, is the degree to which it is socialist.
Click to expand...

No. You cant have like "oh we have 20% socialism here, and 30% there, and oh 50% capitalism there". Hell i would argue our "mix" isnt even socialistic.
 
blaxshep said:
Unless we are talking about public ownership of the means of production we are not really talking about socialism.

Entitlement programs are simply corporations colluding with government to legislate their own profits.
Click to expand...

In the US, we have quite a lot of public ownership of production. Energy, healthcare, security, education, research, travel, entertainment, news, car manufacturing, banking. It goes on an on.
 
jonny5 said:
Thats why you didnt?
Click to expand...

:lamo
1.)We are not a classless society nor even going anyhwhere near that all one needs to look at is the vast inequalities of wealth
2.)We are not stateless society becasue we have a state and its not "dwindling away"
3.)Do i really need to go into any more dpeth?
 
jonny5 said:
In the US, we have quite a lot of public ownership of production. Energy, healthcare, security, education, research, travel, entertainment, news, car manufacturing, banking. It goes on an on.
Click to expand...

I would say a more accurate term would be public investment in not so much ownership of.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Marx is not the grandad of socialism. Socialism was around before Marx even defined his programs in the communist manifesto.
And its because that is the most simple definition of socialism is what Chomsky spoke of.



What? Your going to have to explain..


Umm where did i say that here?
You also never answered my question..

What socialism is: "Those who work at the workplace should own it and the communities should own it. Calling for democracy in the workplace and in the communities is an expansion of socialism"
Click to expand...

Obviously you have no real clue what socialism really is or to what people are referring to when they say socialism. When anyone, other than apparently you, refer to socialism, socialist, etc, they are referring back to Marx. Don't like that, tough ****. He coined the term, therefore, the use of it goes back to him, period. Anything else is either something else or a misuse/misinterpretation of terms related to socialism.

I guess it is not going to be any use actually trying discuss this with a "socialist" who doesn't even know what socialism really is.

Where did you say it? Live broadcast from turkey.
Me: Socialism, at it's core is the "classless society".
Your response: No.

So from now on, stick with real socialism, not TDS's made up alternative BS definition.
 
DVSentinel said:
Obviously you have no real clue what socialism really is or to what people are referring to when they say socialism. When anyone, other than apparently you, refer to socialism, socialist, etc, they are referring back to Marx. Don't like that, tough ****. He coined the term, therefore, the use of it goes back to him, period. Anything else is either something else or a misuse/misinterpretation of terms related to socialism.
Click to expand...
Marx didnt "coin" the term. Henri de Saint-Simon did in the early 1800's.


I guess it is not going to be any use actually trying discuss this with a "socialist" who doesn't even know what socialism really is.
Click to expand...

Coming from the guy who thinks Obama is a marxist and a socialist
Where did you say it? Live broadcast from turkey.
Me: Socialism, at it's core is the "classless society".
Your response: No.
Click to expand...
You said i claimed this: "BTW, in one thread you tell me that a classless society is not the core of socialism, then here you state that as what socialism is trying to achieve. "
That socialism is trying to achieve a classless society. Communism tries to achieve that not socialism.


So from now on, stick with real socialism, not TDS's made up alternative BS definition.
Click to expand...
:lamo Remeber Obama is a socialist :lamo
http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/thedemsocialist/469-if-obama-were-socialist.html
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Marx didnt "coin" the term. Henri de Saint-Simon did in the early 1800's.




Coming from the guy who thinks Obama is a marxist and a socialist

You said i claimed this: "BTW, in one thread you tell me that a classless society is not the core of socialism, then here you state that as what socialism is trying to achieve. "
That socialism is trying to achieve a classless society. Communism tries to achieve that not socialism.



:lamo Remeber Obama is a socialist :lamo
http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/thedemsocialist/469-if-obama-were-socialist.html
Click to expand...

Again, no use arguing or trying to get you to understand when you still refuse commonly used definitions. BTW, Marx defined socialism as the means to transition from capitalism to communism. So all the goals of communism are in fact, goals of socialism.
 
DVSentinel said:
Again, no use arguing or trying to get you to understand when you still refuse commonly used definitions. BTW, Marx defined socialism as the means to transition from capitalism to communism. So all the goals of communism are in fact, goals of socialism.
Click to expand...

:doh That is in the Marxian since of the word..
 
DVSentinel said:
There are only two acceptable definitions for socialist
Click to expand...
Well saying there are many kinds of socialism they all have one thing in common workers owning the means of production.


Marx's definition and that it is, in the end, a synonym for "target". Thats what I need to know.
Click to expand...
:roll:
Dear god your very very close minded.
 
DVSentinel said:
Again, no use arguing or trying to get you to understand when you still refuse commonly used definitions. BTW, Marx defined socialism as the means to transition from capitalism to communism. So all the goals of communism are in fact, goals of socialism.
Click to expand...

No they are actually two very different things and the planks of transition are not socialism. They are similar but in the end socialism is not classless and stateless. That is communism. Socialism is mostly about the means of production as DemSocialist has already posted.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Well saying there are many kinds of socialism they all have one thing in common workers owning the means of production.



:roll:
Dear god your very very close minded.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was incorrect, or at least incomplete. It is only a synonym for target when legalities and circumstances allow.
 
DVSentinel said:
Actually, I was incorrect, or at least incomplete. It is only a synonym for target when legalities and circumstances allow.
Click to expand...

What are you even talking about now?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Well saying there are many kinds of socialism they all have one thing in common workers owning the means of production.



:roll:
Dear god your very very close minded.
Click to expand...

Workers will never own means of production. Costumers always own the means of production and distribution.

No, not closed minded, just focused on enough other things that this minor item is really not worth the mental effort to concern myself with. While it would be nice to know everything about everything, well, we have limited time and mental resources, so we have to prioritize.
 
DVSentinel said:
Workers will never own means of production. Costumers always own the means of production and distribution.
Click to expand...
:doh
No... The bosses, the management own the means of production bud.


No, not closed minded, just focused on enough other things that this minor item is really not worth the mental effort to concern myself with. While it would be nice to know everything about everything, well, we have limited time and mental resources, so we have to prioritize.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. So much so your "not concerned about it" that you keep on responding and continuing this conversation.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:doh
No... The bosses, the management own the means of production bud.




Of course it is. So much so your "not concerned about it" that you keep on responding and continuing this conversation.
Click to expand...

The management/owners/etc only own it when they have customers willing to buy their products. No customers, no company to own, no company to work for.

So, I'm taking a rest break from working on the lawn mower atm, it's hot outside, and I get a bit of entertainment from this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom