New York City

[Alexis Jacobi]

Does 'your attitude' include explaining what the 'actual problem' is, exactly, and then explaining what the 'actual route' to 'solving it' is, exactly?

If yes, then great, will you now do this?

Of course.

[accelafine]

Unfortunately for your theory, Canada's not even close to Socialist. Neither, as somebody else pointed out, is Australia. Nor are the Nordic countries normally cited as such...they have limited social programs for things like health, retirement and maybe education, but their whole economies run on free market principles, 'capitalism', personal property, private enterprise, and all the things that Socialists both detest and depend upon for their "high standards of living." Even China could not make Socialism work, and has had to opt for what they call "Red Capitalism."

Do you know who has a Socialist economy? North Korea. Zimbabwe. Cuba. Go there, if you want to see what Socialism actually does. You won't be singing about "high standards of living," trust me.

Since you refuse to define 'socialism' (despite constantly claiming that you have in 'previous posts' ) then just shut the fuck up about it.

Yeah...that'll be happening.

Keep pointlessly wasting your time then. Just as well you have a 'socialist' old age pension to support you in your decrepitude which gives you that luxury

[phyllo]

Trump said get rid of Obamacare and give the money back to the people so they can provide their own healthcare for themselves.

Let me guess how that will go.

People won't get enough money to even pay for a thumbsplint.

OR

Poor people will use the money to pay for food, rent, car repairs ...or sure smokes and booze.

And they still won't have healthcare.

[accelafine]

So the fearmongering about Mamdani turning NY socialist is way off.

As is all the fearmongering about the US becoming Marxist, communist, socialist if they have universal healthcare, or DEI or food stamps or any number of government funded programs.

'DEI' has nothing to do with any of those other things. 'Interesting' how you managed to poke it in there so casually as if it does It's a patronising safety hazard and part of a very specific, cultish ideology.

[Age]

He thinks socialism is communism.

Actually, Communism is utopian Socialism. So it's one sub-variety of the larger toxicity, but not the only version.

As I would suggest, the chief distinction between the two is that in Communism, the government is supposed (allegedly) to eventually give up all its power and "wither away," voluntarily and spontaneously, resulting in a worker's utopia. But in Socialisms, the government becomes the totality, nobody has freedoms, and the government never yields its power to the proles. It rules perpetually and completely.

'This' is "immanuel can's" own personal interpretation, and definitions, here.

Now, does anyone else, here, agree with and accept "immanuel can's" interpretation, and definitions, here?

There are other distinctions, but this is primary. For Communism, Socialism is a stage...a big one, but not the final one. But for the various Socialisms, such as "Democratic" Socialism, Maoism or Nazism, the State never yields its total control to anybody. It just takes over more and more areas of life, just as the new mayor has said..."nothing to big, nothing too small" for the government to control.

This is what Gary thinks he wants.

So, what does "immanuel can" think it wants, exactly?

Let us see if "Immanuel can" provides any thing 'better'.

I can't imagine why he thinks it's going to work out in his favour.

What do you think is going to work out in your favour "immanuel can"?

Do you think believing, and having faith in, a thing with a penis will, really, work out in your favour?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Medicine and of course a pension (and all else) requires an earner who, in one way or another, pays for it. No earner, no moolah, and thus no service.

While I understand the concept of Universal Healthcare, it is really a question of having an economy to pay for it. And no matter what it must be paid for.

The question is really in how the money is obtained, isn’t it? How it is paid for.

[phyllo]

So the fearmongering about Mamdani turning NY socialist is way off.

As is all the fearmongering about the US becoming Marxist, communist, socialist if they have universal healthcare, or DEI or food stamps or any number of government funded programs.

'DEI' has nothing to do with any of those other things. 'Interesting' how you managed to poke it in there so casually as if it does It's a patronising safety hazard and part of a very specific, cultish ideology.

Google it.

The claim that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a form of socialism is a viewpoint held by some critics, who argue that DEI's focus on group identity and redistribution of resources based on identity is similar to socialist principles
. Other perspectives reject this comparison, viewing DEI as a tool to promote fairness, or as a corporate response to social justice movements, not an ideology rooted in socialism.

Arguments for the connection between DEI and socialism:

Goal of Equity: Critics argue that the DEI goal of "equity" (equal outcomes, rather than just equal opportunity) is a form of socialist redistribution, where resources and power are shifted to certain groups based on identity characteristics.
Focus on Group Identity: Some theories suggest DEI analyzes society through a Marxist lens of group struggle (e.g., race, gender) rather than individual merit, which is seen as a component of socialist theory.
Rebranding: Some commentators claim DEI is a modern repackaging of socialist ideas, using "equity" as a new term for a socialist goal of creating equal outcomes.

[phyllo]

Medicine and of course a pension (and all else) requires an earner who, in one way or another, pays for it. No earner, no moolah, and thus no service.

While I understand the concept of Universal Healthcare, it is really a question of having an economy to pay for it. And no matter what it must be paid for.

The question is really in how the money is obtained, isn’t it? How it is paid for.

Oddly enough, the question arises more often with respect to healthcare and less often with respect to military weapons.

What about fewer weapons and more healthy people?

USA is at close to $1 trillion in military spending. Far more than any other country.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Now, does anyone else, here, agree with and accept "immanuel can's" interpretation, and definitions, here?

::: lays down AK-47, slowly raises hand :::

I, sir. I see IC’s overall analysis as being sound.

Do you think believing, and having faith in, a thing with a penis will, really, work out in your favour?

What, are you proposing that we must put our faith in that Entity residing at the center of the female genitalia?!

WTF?!

[phyllo]

I, sir. I see IC’s overall analysis as being sound.

What about all the factual errors?

This:

As I would suggest, the chief distinction between the two is that in Communism, the government is supposed (allegedly) to eventually give up all its power and "wither away," voluntarily and spontaneously, resulting in a worker's utopia. But in Socialisms, the government becomes the totality, nobody has freedoms, and the government never yields its power to the proles. It rules perpetually and completely.

The Soviet Union lasted 69 years. The Warsaw Pact countries abandoned communism.

[MikeNovack]

That's not enough to justify calling a society "Socialist." Definitionally, a Socialist state must ...........

Analogy to what you are doing.

IC, suppose I (based on what I know about SOME Christian sects) presumed to tell YOU what Christianity was. You would be POed, and tell me I knew far too little about Christianity to do something like that.

Suppose I responded to that with something like "that's how Friends" define it (or the Catholics, some other sect) so that's what the definition is.

I'm saying you don't know enough about the various traditions of "leftism" to be saying what IS. Especially since most leftist factions do not agree with other factions (not unlike with Christianity). Many do not even consider leftists of some other faction.

When you say "owned by the state", what do you think you are saying? For example, where I live, and most of the US, electricity is supplied by corporations (owned by stockholders). But nearby in Vermont in some places there is "municipal" electricity, the corporations "owned by the city or town (or group of towns). Most places in the US water is supplied by similar municipal entities, but in some places by privately owned.

MOST socialists (or communists) would consider a municipal electric company or water company examples of SOCIALISM.

[Immanuel Can]

Since you refuse to define 'socialism' (despite constantly claiming that you have in 'previous posts' ) then just shut the fuck up about it.

Yeah...that'll be happening.

Keep pointlessly wasting your time then. Just as well you have a 'socialist' old age pension to support you in your decrepitude which gives you that luxury

Ah, the usual. Socialists want all the credit for things they never did, and none of the blame for things they always do. No wonder they hate history; it doesn't put them in a good light at all.

[accelafine]

Google it.

Blah blah word salad, meaningless jargon blah blah blah....

Yep

[Immanuel Can]

That's not enough to justify calling a society "Socialist." Definitionally, a Socialist state must ...........

I'm saying you don't know enough about the various traditions of "leftism" to be saying what IS.

Here's the funny bit. I'm not saying what I think...

I'm quoting Marx. And if you think you know more about him, I'm more than happy to discuss it. I've got The Communist Manifesto and Das Kaptal right here, beside my computer.

So you don't think Marx and Engels know enough about Socialism to say that:

"The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

-- The Communist Manifesto

[Gary Childress]

That's not enough to justify calling a society "Socialist." Definitionally, a Socialist state must ...........

I'm saying you don't know enough about the various traditions of "leftism" to be saying what IS.

Here's the funny bit. I'm not saying what I think...

I'm quoting Marx. And if you think you know more about him, I'm more than happy to discuss it. I've got The Communist Manifesto and Das Kaptal right here, beside my computer.

So you don't think Marx and Engels know enough about Socialism to say that:

"The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."

-- The Communist Manifesto

I take it you aren't in favor of the working class running society? Instead it should be run by people like Trump and Elon Musk, the private owners of the means of production? Is that correct?