Really? You don’t think the powerful don’t get rich in socialist regimes?JonNC:
Well, yes, in that they accepted a huge government contract that made them rich and survived the war to enjoy their ill-gotten riches.
Something that doesn’t happen often under Socialist regimes.
Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up'
- Thread starter LeafByNiggle
- Start date
- Status
I
Inisfallen
Guest
How many of the previously powerful retained tbeir power, wealth and status after the October Revolution?
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
Very few…after enormous bloodshed most were replaced by new people with all the wealth and power.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Speculation is a lot less costly in terms of lives lost, resources wasted and general misery created than running another live “experiment” with socialism putting millions of human Guinea pigs in jeopardy. At this stage in the game, it is up to the socialists to prove – beyond empty promises – that they know for certain in great detail with all t’s crossed and i’s dotted that the high resolution rendition of what they propose will work as advertised.HarryStotle:
So,…speculation then.LeafByNiggle:
Trajectory.HarryStotle:
Evidence? Or just your speculation?LeafByNiggle:
Yeah, they are. They do have their finger to the wind to gauge how far towards the extreme they can legitimately talk others into, but they definitely are pushing hard in that direction.
I prefer my “speculation” to the speculation of Sanders, Ocasio–Cortez, Gillum and company. It is up to them to demonstrate their bona fides before many more lives are put in jeopardy. None of them have proven any real economic acumen and, in fact, have demonstrated quite the opposite. They have little to no political or economic savvy and have the kind of inabilities that should make us run away in the opposite direction from what they are proposing.
The fact that these are the three candidates you propose for leading the next socialist revolution doesn’t exactly help your case. We would be wise to run far and run fast.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Yes. National healthcare is socialist, socialism is the same as Naziism, Bernie Sanders advocated for national health insurance, therefore Bernie is a Nazi. QED. I’m sure that’s what he said at his bar mitzvah. “Today I am a man. Seig Heil!”
Do you honestly think you’re convincing anyone with this? Or are you just scoring points among the amen corner?
Last edited:
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
Calm down…I never said the Bernster was a Nazi. He doesn’t have the business acumen to run a business like the Nazi’s did.
I was clearly replying to Leafs erroneous statement that the leaders of the Democrat party (Occasio, Bernster), along with Gillum, don’t want the government to take over the us economy
I was clearly replying to Leafs erroneous statement that the leaders of the Democrat party (Occasio, Bernster), along with Gillum, don’t want the government to take over the us economy
Last edited:
It is interesting. You are the only one saying this.
I never claimed this. Boatswain hadn’t said it
Only you.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
No, not only me. Another frequent “conservative” poster often advances this theory.
And the posts claiming that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez want to, or will, turn the United States into Venezuela or Cuba are legion.
Who?
It may not be Venezuela or Cuba, but socialism destroys prosperity. This is undeniable.
It also requires so level of authoritarian rule to impose it.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Government funded healthcare is not strict control of the economy. It is no more socialism than Medicare.LeafByNiggle:
Well…except for healthcare!
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
It’s about 20% of it.
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
One more attempt to get Leaf (and other leftists) to see the absolute ridiculousness of this:
"Was it a poor choice of words? Sure, but only because the media is so determined to weaponize every alleged misstatement — by a Republican. (Democrats get to make easily weaponized gaffes all the time.) Like Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” remark, this wasn’t proof of bigotry but of liberals’ wanting all of their opponents to be the cartoon racists they imagine them to be. "
"Was it a poor choice of words? Sure, but only because the media is so determined to weaponize every alleged misstatement — by a Republican. (Democrats get to make easily weaponized gaffes all the time.) Like Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” remark, this wasn’t proof of bigotry but of liberals’ wanting all of their opponents to be the cartoon racists they imagine them to be. "
Loading…
www.nationalreview.com
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I see.HarryStotle:
Well, it’s not, of course. It’s authoritarian, of course, but it’s Communist in name only.
Unfortunately, you are incorrect. It is still communist in much more than name.
The government controls every aspect of the economy and society. Pretty much every bank is state-owned, and the government decides the businesses and individuals that will get loans, and whether businesses will revert to government ownership on any pretext. The media is all state-owned and always promote the party line. All of the land belongs to the state, although buildings and assets can be held privately, at the government’s discretion.
All government workers and leaders at all levels must belong to the Communist Party and always answer to the party head. The lower level government leaders have state power to control all private assets and businesses.
Not exactly in name only.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Well, actually, it is more socialist than Medicare because when the government fully funds healthcare, it controls the cost of that healthcare since it is virtually the only customer. Canada, for example, has provincial health care ministries that set the prices that will be paid for drugs, medical equipment, physician billing and the number of physicians and medical staff in each area. The provinces together with the federal government do control the economy of medicine in Canada, so it is strict control in one sector of the economy and thus more socialist.Boatswain2PA:
Government funded healthcare is not strict control of the economy. It is no more socialism than Medicare.LeafByNiggle:
Well…except for healthcare!
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Your argument is specious for several reasons.
For one, Hitler’s anti-Semitism was only an accidental feature of his brand of socialism and not essential to it. He only invoked it to scapegoat the Jews as a “common enemy” of the people in order to have a pretext for marshaling the ranks – i.e., to have an identifiable enemy to blame for the broken state of Germany following WWI, and a pretext for confiscating a great deal of wealth in order to fund his initiatives.
Second, every revolutionary form of socialism requires some kind of binding together of the classes or peoples who will benefit from it by targeting and disenfranchising some group or other. Stalin had the Kulaks, Hitler the Jews, Marx the bourgeois, Mao the entrenched and corrupted (to him) ruling communist party, and American socialists like Gillum, Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders are currently attempting to blame and disenfranchise privileged whites, albeit under the guise of taxing them in order to give free stuff to the coalition of minorities and identity-based groups currently being wooed.
Well, okay, Sanders is a little off the narrative, since he happens to belong to the class being targeted. So his tune is the 1% (aka the super rich) since it resonates well with the large number of college students indoctrinated by leftist academies.
Last edited:
I
Inisfallen
Guest
:grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
That’s what I call an “everything but the kitchen sink” post.
Racial animosity, leftist academics, Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are just like Maoists, etc.
Well played!
That’s what I call an “everything but the kitchen sink” post.
Racial animosity, leftist academics, Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are just like Maoists, etc.
Well played!
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
That’s not at all what he said, but probably what you heard.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Let’s hone it down to one sharp paring knife then, shall we? Seeing as too much information at one time seems overwhelming.
You claimed others were saying socialism = Nazism. Which wasn’t what others were saying. They were making the point that Nazism was one embodiment of socialism, but not that everything the Nazis did was based upon socialism.
You added that if Nazism = socialism then Sanders must be a Nazi since he is a socialist. The would be an odd thing for a Jewish man to be because the Nazis persecuted Jews.
I pointed out that your argument is specious because it relies upon the false equivalency between Nazism and socialism. One does not equate to the other.
I also pointed out that socialism, if it is brought about through some kind of revolution, frequently targets some identifiable group as a scapegoat in order to bring the eventual beneficiaries together.
That would be a common feature (though not a necessary one) of socialism. Still, it’s common enough that it shows up almost inevitably.
Sanders isn’t scapegoating Jews, but he is, like all social revolutionaries, targeting an identifiable group – the very rich.
Still confused?
Perhaps your inability to sort through an argument makes you a good candidate for socialist propaganda, since it relies more on creating heat by friction than light by understanding.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Are you denying that there exists more racial animosity now than before Obama’s term as president?
Are you arguing that Gillum’s characterizing of DeSantis’ words as ‘racist’ doesn’t create more racial animosity?
Are you denying that universities have become predominantly leftist and socialist to the point that they ban anyone with a different perspective from speaking on their campuses?
Are you denying that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez always seem to point at some identifiable group – the rich, privileged whites, etc.) in order to scapegoat that group to their target audience?
Yeah, I know, too much information. Take it one sentence at a time.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The problem with this argument is that it is entirely made up of questions with no conclusions. The conclusions are all implied in the reader’s mind. But the reader’s mind may not have the same conclusions as you do. So we don’t really know what point you intended to make from these questions. But if you actually try to flesh out your argument with declarative sentences, you may find your argument to be weaker than you imagine it might be.Inisfallen:
Are you denying that there exists more racial animosity now than before Obama’s term as president?
Are you arguing that Gillum’s characterizing of DeSantis’ words as ‘racist’ doesn’t create more racial animosity?
Are you denying that universities have become predominantly leftist and socialist to the point that they ban anyone with a different perspective from speaking on their campuses?
Are you denying that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez always seem to point at some identifiable group – the rich, privileged whites, etc.) in order to scapegoat that group to their target audience?
Yeah, I know, too much information. Take it one sentence at a time.
- Status