IC please clarify for us

[Immanuel Can]

If people in the third world were paid comparable living wages by the industry owners who employ them, then they might be able to have access to affordable computers also.

No, you, Gary...you're the Socialist. Stop telling other people what to do, and show that you are a Socialist. How have you redistributed "to each according to his need"? You. You. You.

I just told you,

No, you did not, Gary. You've said nothing about what YOU are doing to implement Socialism. Like a typical Socialist, you're just dictating to others what you want, and investing no action in behaving socialistically yourself, apparently.

Nice for you. Not so great for 2/3 of the world. And you have the luxury to tell others what to do?

[Gary Childress]

No, you, Gary...you're the Socialist. Stop telling other people what to do, and show that you are a Socialist. How have you redistributed "to each according to his need"? You. You. You.

I just told you,

No, you did not, Gary. You've said nothing about what YOU are doing to implement Socialism. Like a typical Socialist, you're just dictating to others what you want, and investing no action in behaving socialistically yourself, apparently.

Nice for you. Not so great for 2/3 of the world. And you have the luxury to tell others what to do?

I'm not telling anyone to do it. I'm explaining how to achieve it. You can choose to vote for it or you can choose not to. That's how democracy works.

[Immanuel Can]

I just told you,

No, you did not, Gary. You've said nothing about what YOU are doing to implement Socialism. Like a typical Socialist, you're just dictating to others what you want, and investing no action in behaving socialistically yourself, apparently.

Nice for you. Not so great for 2/3 of the world. And you have the luxury to tell others what to do?

I'm not telling anyone to do it.

Yes, you were. You were saying what you think other people should do, not what YOU do.

[Gary Childress]

No, you did not, Gary. You've said nothing about what YOU are doing to implement Socialism. Like a typical Socialist, you're just dictating to others what you want, and investing no action in behaving socialistically yourself, apparently.

Nice for you. Not so great for 2/3 of the world. And you have the luxury to tell others what to do?

I'm not telling anyone to do it.

Yes, you were. You were saying what you think other people should do, not what YOU do.

I think we all should vote for it. Do you not agree with me? Would you not want to vote for Medicare for all?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not telling anyone to do it.

Yes, you were. You were saying what you think other people should do, not what YOU do.

I think we all should vote for it.

No, not "we all," Gary. You. In what way are you actualizing the Socialist dream with your own possessions and privileges? Just you. What you do. Not anybody else. Not a "we," not a "them," nobody. Gary Childress, all by himself.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, you were. You were saying what you think other people should do, not what YOU do.

I think we all should vote for it.

No, not "we all," Gary. You. In what way are you actualizing the Socialist dream with your own possessions and privileges? Just you. What you do. Not anybody else. Not a "we," not a "them," nobody. Gary Childress, all by himself.

I will try to "actualize" that dream by voting for a political candidate who supports Medicare for all.

[MikeNovack]

Orwell, it is said, once told the English Socialists, "You don't love the poor; you just hate the rich." Apocryphal or not, the saying perfectly captures the Socialist spirit. It's not about the poor, or equality, or justice or fairness: it's about how to covet and acquire the possessions of those who have more.

Having computer problems, here late and will bw spotty (cataract surgery)

IC, your conception that "socialists" are some sort of united faction is getting in the way of your understanding a quote like that. By and large, the different factions treat each other as enemy except fr bref periods when "popular front" unity exists. Orwell is a socialist of one faction criticizing socialists f anther. To get a longer look at Orwell n "factionalism" (at a time trying to fight a common foe) try Homage to Catalonia.

[Immanuel Can]

IC, your conception that "socialists" are some sort of united faction

Good thing I don't have that conception.

By and large, the different factions treat each other as enemy...

Yes. Like the National Socialists regard the Communist Socialists. Quite correct.

But it's a mere family quarrel. They all want the same things: big government, control of the means of production, totalitarian state power, a subdued dependent and obedient public, elimination of private property, elimination of all political rivals, a utopian ideal future...they don't argue over methods, just over who gets to take it all.

[MikeNovack]

No, you did not, Gary. You've said nothing about what YOU are doing to implement Socialism. Like a typical Socialist, you're just dictating to others what you want, and investing no action in behaving socialistically yourself, apparently.

But you don't say WHY you consider "universal health care" to be socialism/theft but do not consider say "free universal public education " not to be socialism/theft == or why that from kindergarden to grade 12 (US) would not be socialism/theft but continuing on to college/trade school would be socialism/theft.

[Gary Childress]

IC, your conception that "socialists" are some sort of united faction

Good thing I don't have that conception.

By and large, the different factions treat each other as enemy...

Yes. Like the National Socialists regard the Communist Socialists. Quite correct.

But it's a mere family quarrel. They all want the same things: big government, control of the means of production, totalitarian state power, a subdued dependent and obedient public, elimination of private property, elimination of all political rivals, a utopian ideal future...they don't argue over methods, just over who gets to take it all.

I've highlighted in red the things you claim socialists "want" that I haven't seen mentioned by Marx in the communist manifesto. Are we not using Marx's definition of "socialist" anymore?

[Immanuel Can]

I think we all should vote for it.

No, not "we all," Gary. You. In what way are you actualizing the Socialist dream with your own possessions and privileges? Just you. What you do. Not anybody else. Not a "we," not a "them," nobody. Gary Childress, all by himself.

I will try to "actualize" that dream by voting for a political candidate who supports Medicare for all.

So you don't do anything personally at all? Because all voting is, is using a piece of paper to require somebody else to do something.

You'll keep your own tennis racquet and computer, and instead imagine that if worldwide redistribution happened, you'd come out ahead?

I've got bad news for you. According to AI, if all the wealth in the world were equally distributed, you'd get about $15,000 per year. For everything.

I don't see your Socialist dream coming out of that kind of cash, do you?

[Gary Childress]

No, not "we all," Gary. You. In what way are you actualizing the Socialist dream with your own possessions and privileges? Just you. What you do. Not anybody else. Not a "we," not a "them," nobody. Gary Childress, all by himself.

I will try to "actualize" that dream by voting for a political candidate who supports Medicare for all.

So you don't do anything personally at all? Because all voting is, is using a piece of paper to require somebody else to do something.

You'll keep your own tennis racquet and computer, and instead imagine that if worldwide redistribution happened, you'd come out ahead?

Now, now, IC. Did I "say" any of those things?

[Immanuel Can]

IC, your conception that "socialists" are some sort of united faction

Good thing I don't have that conception.

By and large, the different factions treat each other as enemy...

Yes. Like the National Socialists regard the Communist Socialists. Quite correct.

But it's a mere family quarrel. They all want the same things: big government, control of the means of production, totalitarian state power, a subdued dependent and obedient public, elimination of private property, elimination of all political rivals, a utopian ideal future...they don't argue over methods, just over who gets to take it all.

I've highlighted in red the things you claim socialists "want" that I haven't seen mentioned by Marx in the communist manifesto. Are we not using Marx's definition of "socialist" anymore?

You don't see them because Socialists never say all they are going to need in order to create Socialism. They don't want you to know. But you can figure it out.

They must have total power, because Socialism is a total system of life and needs-provision. They even must control your reproduction and child-rearing, because they have to create "Socialist Man."

They have to keep the public subdued and obedient, because they can't risk having Socialism itself threatened, overthrown, or opted-out-of. If they allowed that, Socialism would be eliminated.

They cannot allow any political rivals, because Socialism claims to be the ultimate and final political solution, and it would be undone by any contrary regime.

And so on. If you understand Socialism, you can see that it's going to need all these things and more.

[Immanuel Can]

I will try to "actualize" that dream by voting for a political candidate who supports Medicare for all.

So you don't do anything personally at all? Because all voting is, is using a piece of paper to require somebody else to do something.

You'll keep your own tennis racquet and computer, and instead imagine that if worldwide redistribution happened, you'd come out ahead?

Now, now, IC. Did I "say" any of those things?

Okay, then what do you do personally? Do you actually redistribute to those with less anything you have, at all?

And why are you a Socialist, since Socialism would instantly reduce you to well below the poverty line?

[Gary Childress]

Good thing I don't have that conception.


Yes. Like the National Socialists regard the Communist Socialists. Quite correct.

But it's a mere family quarrel. They all want the same things: big government, control of the means of production, totalitarian state power, a subdued dependent and obedient public, elimination of private property, elimination of all political rivals, a utopian ideal future...they don't argue over methods, just over who gets to take it all.

I've highlighted in red the things you claim socialists "want" that I haven't seen mentioned by Marx in the communist manifesto. Are we not using Marx's definition of "socialist" anymore?

You don't see them because Socialists never say all they are going to need in order to create Socialism. They don't want you to know. But you can figure it out.

They must have total power, because Socialism is a total system of life and needs-provision. They even must control your reproduction and child-rearing, because they have to create "Socialist Man."

They have to keep the public subdued and obedient, because they can't risk having Socialism itself threatened, overthrown, or opted-out-of. If they allowed that, Socialism would be eliminated.

They cannot allow any political rivals, because Socialism claims to be the ultimate and final political solution, and it would be undone by any contrary regime.

And so on. If you understand Socialism, you can see that it's going to need all these things and more.

OK. So what you are saying makes sense. If someone like Donald Trump got into office and just all of a sudden dismantled Medicare for all after it was instituted, then there would likely be a human rights catastrophe until the system recovered from the shock. Socialism does depend upon an enlightened public who will vote for politicians who are truthful about their planned policies and follow through with them, an enlightened intelligentsia that can successfully run public institutions according to the mission of the institution, and a free and independent press that the public can trust to be impartial, truthful, and fair. I don't know how to guarantee those things. Since Trump made it into office, I'm not sure what can be guaranteed anymore. The only way I can think of nipping something like that in the bud is to take away at least some of the power of the executive office and give Congress more power. Perhaps taking away a LOT of the power of the executive office would be in order.