Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Dumbing-Down of America


spain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Would you please define socialism for us? I would like to comment, but I want a clear definition so that we aren't talking past one-another.

 

He can't define it, he just knows it doesn't work. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My problem isn't/wasn't with the article - it's with you saying your going to refute something and then dodging the challenge.

 

EDIT - as in "name the countries and I'll tell you why socialism doesnt' work for them" - countries named and no explanation why socialism doesn't work for them. Cripes, even when I put up Finland and the Scandinavian countries, I could find the reason why they wouldn't be considered "socialist"; the sad part is, you couldn't, so I called shenanigans.

 

Don't be stupid. I did refute Socialism, and I did show why it won't work.

Would you please define socialism for us? I would like to comment, but I want a clear definition so that we aren't talking past one-another.

 

Are you serious? :D

 

That's the second time you've asked that question. Take some initiative and define it yourself. :D

I know the exact definition of Socialism, I just think it's interesting you nor Chavez has found it yet. :tup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you serious? :D

 

That's the second time you've asked that question. Take some initiative and define it yourself. :D

I know the exact definition of Socialism, I just think it's interesting you nor Chavez has found it yet. :tup:

 

I'm not the one rambling on about Socialism without having defined what I mean by the term.

 

Give me your "exact definition of Socialism".

 

(Seriously, what are you afraid of?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the exact definition of Socialism, I just think it's interesting you nor Chavez has found it yet. :D

 

You seem to regard "socialism" as a top-down, state-controlled economy. Which is fine, though I've always seen that regarded more as "communism."

 

I tend to think more in, well, societal terms than economic when it comes to socialism - it's pretty obvious that a market economy (like the US), to paraphrase Winston Churchill, is the worst kind of economy except all the others that have been tried.

 

Wiegie's point is that our definitions of socialism may differ from yours - YOU define what you mean when you say "socialist" so we know EXACTLY what you're talking about. It makes things easier.

 

Your article refuted what I'd term "communism" and as far as showing why it didn't work:

 

 

I actually did expect either Finland or the Scandanavian countries to be mentioned, however, my first assumption was thinking that Finland and Co. had a large Oil reserve of their own. Obviously that was not the case, and I am not completely sure why those countries are "successful" while also under a Socialist controlled government. In either case, there is no way Socialism will work in the U.S..

 

 

:D Maybe I'm missing something, but your refutation lacks....well, refuting.

Edited by Chavez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not the one rambling on about Socialism without having defined what I mean by the term.

 

Give me your "exact definition of Socialism".

 

(Seriously, what are you afraid of?)

 

You're a teacher aren't you? :D If you think you can teach me something, then go.... let's see what you have to offer me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The socialist doctrine demands state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth. The doctrine specifically advocates nationalization of natural resources, basic industries, banking and credit facilities, and public utilities. It places special emphasis on the nationalization of monopolized branches of industry and trade, viewing monopolies as inimical to the public welfare. It also advocates state ownership of corporations in which the ownership function has passed from stockholders to managerial personnel.

 

Chavez, theres a lot more that goes into Socialism than this as well, and if you have any sort of knowledge about it then you'd understand that. I'm not going to define every aspect of socialism because then I'd be writing my own book, which I'd title "Why Socialsm Doesn't Work". :D

 

In either case, I'm going to stick with the Capitalist mind-set and stick with the economic incentives that I have today. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The socialist doctrine demands state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth. The doctrine specifically advocates nationalization of natural resources, basic industries, banking and credit facilities, and public utilities. It places special emphasis on the nationalization of monopolized branches of industry and trade, viewing monopolies as inimical to the public welfare. It also advocates state ownership of corporations in which the ownership function has passed from stockholders to managerial personnel.

Was that so hard?

Chavez, theres a lot more that goes into Socialism than this as well, and if you have any sort of knowledge about it then you'd understand that.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was that so hard?

 

:D

 

There is a lot more to it though. :D

 

The definition that I just offered to you is pretty much the same Socialist doctrine that I've been refuting the last couple of days. There's no freakin' way the type of government control will start in the U.S. and not have some major negative flaws to it. You take away corporate incentives and all of a sudden you have a lot less productive corporations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The definition that I just offered to you is pretty much the same Socialist doctrine that I've been refuting the last couple of days. There's no freakin' way the type of government control will start in the U.S. and not have some major negative flaws to it. You take away corporate incentives and all of a sudden you have a lot less productive corporations.

 

 

But you SAID

 

 

No, no... I first want you to explain to me who "they" are. After you name the country I'll then explain to you the core reason that Socialism is able to go on for so long in that country. I'm pretty sure I already know where this is going, and I have no reason to believe that my comment was wrong: Socialism doesn't work.

 

...then managed to give no reasons why socialism works in the Nordic countries; you merely shifted gears to "well, it won't work in the US" (as though there is a greater than zero chance that socialism will ever take hold in the US).

 

I cannot abide intellectual dishonesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you SAID

...then managed to give no reasons why socialism works in the Nordic countries; you merely shifted gears to "well, it won't work in the US" (as though there is a greater than zero chance that socialism will ever take hold in the US).

 

I cannot abide intellectual dishonesty.

 

OOOOOOh... :D Now I see the insignificant piece of information that you've decided to pick out and discuss. Not sure why you chose that one, but I already mentioned why I said that. Try going back and reading....

 

If you can't find it then, I'll quote it and say it again for you. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you SAID

...then managed to give no reasons why socialism works in the Nordic countries; you merely shifted gears to "well, it won't work in the US" (as though there is a greater than zero chance that socialism will ever take hold in the US).

 

I cannot abide intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

 

THANK YOU.

 

Grunt - in response to this:

 

actually go google socialist countries and there education( some are better than the u.s.)..... then report back.... they track, send kids off in directions that will help them and society....

 

 

 

 

You said this:

 

No, no... I first want you to explain to me who "they" are. After you name the country I'll then explain to you the core reason that Socialism is able to go on for so long in that country. I'm pretty sure I already know where this is going, and I have no reason to believe that my comment was wrong: Socialism doesn't work.

 

 

 

And everyone here but you knows you haven't yet answered. You've changed the subject but will not answer what you said you would. In fact, the closest to an answer was admitting you don't know why it doesn't work in the same countries you expected him to answer with right here:

 

I actually did expect either Finland or the Scandanavian countries to be mentioned, however, my first assumption was thinking that Finland and Co. had a large Oil reserve of their own. Obviously that was not the case, and I am not completely sure why those countries are "successful" while also under a Socialist controlled government. In either case, there is no way Socialism will work in the U.S..

 

At this point I can only assume you are fishing for a reaction from me, but as far as I'm concerned I've stated my point and offered a relevant article to help explain my points. :D

 

 

 

So...you were ready for the Noridc countries to be used as the example and you cannot understand why they succeed with the elements they use.

 

That's the closest admission to what is clearly apparent: you're talking out of your ass, and short of speaking with a few hippie types who probably have as much understanding of capitalism as you have of socialism (ie-they can cut and paste an 'answer' but cannot personally provide one) you are full of it. Please, just stop now or come clean without changing the subject. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOOOOOh... :D Now I see the insignificant piece of information that you've decided to pick out and discuss. Not sure why you chose that one, but I already mentioned why I said that. Try going back and reading....

 

 

I did read. The answer wasn't there the first time, and it won't be there now either.

 

 

The reason I'm picking that out is because I posted the challenge, AND I know the answer that would get you off the hook; what's amazing is that an expert like yourself doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THANK YOU.

 

Grunt - in response to this:

You said this:

And everyone here but you knows you haven't yet answered. You've changed the subject but will not answer what you said you would. In fact, the closest to an answer was admitting you don't know why it doesn't work in the same countries you expected him to answer with right here:

So...you were ready for the Noridc countries to be used as the example and you cannot understand why they succeed with the elements they use.

 

That's the closest admission to what is clearly apparent: you're talking out of your ass, and short of speaking with a few hippie types who probably have as much understanding of capitalism as you have of socialism (ie-they can cut and paste an 'answer' but cannot personally provide one) you are full of it. Please, just stop now or come clean without changing the subject. :D

 

Then there is the Pope Flick types, who can actually go back and find the informating being looked for, but they have to make it sound as though they've been in the discussion the whole time. Pope Flick, I don't think it's me that doesn't understand it, I think it's you that doesn't understand what I'm saying. :tup:

 

Thanks for trying though. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did read. The answer wasn't there the first time, and it won't be there now either.

The reason I'm picking that out is because I posted the challenge, AND I know the answer that would get you off the hook; what's amazing is that an expert like yourself doesn't.

 

No, Pope Flick actually got it right when he went back to read previous posts. I mentioned:

I actually did expect either Finland or the Scandanavian countries to be mentioned, however, my first assumption was thinking that Finland and Co. had a large Oil reserve of their own. Obviously that was not the case, and I am not completely sure why those countries are "successful" while also under a Socialist controlled government. In either case, there is no way Socialism will work in the U.S..

 

At this point I can only assume you are fishing for a reaction from me, but as far as I'm concerned I've stated my point and offered a relevant article to help explain my points. :D

 

Just freaking read what I said -- maybe slowly if it takes you longer -- but you will clearly see that I've admitted I was wrong with that one insignificant statement I said a few days ago. I thought it was oil that kept their tiny little country from running out of money. I was wrong. But I was NOT wrong with the other statements regarding the FACT that Socialism will not work here in the United States as well as Capitalism does. They both have flaws, but Capitalsm has less of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you will clearly see that I've admitted I was wrong with that one insignificant statement I said a few days ago. I thought it was oil that kept their tiny little country from running out of money. I was wrong. But I was NOT wrong with the other statements regarding the FACT that Socialism will not work here in the United States as well as Capitalism does. They both have flaws, but Capitalsm has less of them.

 

It looked more like a dodge than a concession of a point - to SEVERAL people, not just me. Perhaps a little more clarity is in order next time. And I still think you're misusing socialist and communist - which is probably a common mistake, much like people confusing atheist and agnostic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The socialist doctrine demands state ownership and control of the fundamental means of production and distribution of wealth. The doctrine specifically advocates nationalization of natural resources, basic industries, banking and credit facilities, and public utilities. It places special emphasis on the nationalization of monopolized branches of industry and trade, viewing monopolies as inimical to the public welfare. It also advocates state ownership of corporations in which the ownership function has passed from stockholders to managerial personnel.

Thank you--that wasn't so hard to do now, was it? :D (I basically agree with the definition you provided, but I don't think everybody here thinks of Socialism in this way--which is why it was important to clearly define what is being talked about.)

 

Also, I would suggest that using this definition it is hard to argue that either Finland or Sweden should be called Socialist. And it is impossible to plausibly argue that the United States has moved towards being more Socialist over the last few decades.

 

Now, Grunt, since you want to learn something, I suggest that you read the following paper:

 

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0895-3309...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

 

(You'll have to access it using your school's library website.)

Edited by wiegie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grunt - no one understands what you're saying except you. Do you see a problem with that?

 

Dude, socialism doesn't work. Except when it does. Give it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you--that wasn't so hard to do now, was it? :D

 

I would suggest that using this definition it is hard to argue that either Finland or Sweden should be called Socialist. And it is impossible to plausibly argue that the United States has moved towards being more Socialist over the last few decades.

 

 

Geez, wiegie solved the Nordic riddle without even trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you--that wasn't so hard to do now, was it? :D(I basically agree with the definition you provided, but I don't think everybody here thinks of Socialism in this way--which is why it was important to clearly define what is being talked about.)

Also, I would suggest that using this definition it is hard to argue that either Finland or Sweden should be called Socialist. And it is impossible to plausibly argue that the United States has moved towards being more Socialist over the last few decades.

 

Now, Grunt, since you want to learn something, I suggest that you read the following paper:

 

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0895-3309...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

 

(You'll have to access it using your school's library website.)

 

Maybe Pope Flick can learn a few things here too. :D

 

Your suggestion clearly explains why it is hard to argue that either Finland or Sweden should be called Socialist. They do have Socialist characteristics, but I won't be surprised to hear a different definition to describe their economy. I just don't know enough about those countries to be the one to say it.

 

wiegie, I bet you make for an awesome instructor. :tup: All I had to do was offer a little of what I know and it opens doors to receive some of your knowledge in return. HOWEVER, I don't like the sigline bet you won with thecerwin. :D

:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wiegie, I bet you make for an awesome instructor. :D

Well, it only took you 2,319 posts, but you finally got something right. :D

 

HOWEVER, I don't like the sigline bet you won with thecerwin. :D

:doh:

 

The best part about it is that I don't think your brother realizes yet that it insults him too. :tup:

Edited by wiegie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I had to do was offer a little of what I know and it opens doors to receive some of your knowledge in return.

By the way, the paper I cited actually supports your basic thoughts--it should help you clarify your thinking though. (Note also that I assign this paper in my classes sometime.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information