Can you tell us why you support Trump over democrats?

[Monad Portal]

Illiteracy errors: Failure to begin a sentence with capitals.
Logic errors: Omniscience fallacy. Insult fallacy.

Trolling.

have an argument, dipshit.

 

[Monad Portal]

You don't have to, you know.

quit being such a committed fascist, please.

thanks.

 

[Into the Night]

quit being such a committed fascist, please.

thanks.

Redefinition fallacy (conservativism<->fascism).

 

[jbander]

I am going to correct you on one seemingly minor point. Marx wanted social ownership, and not state ownership. In the end communism, the state would whither and disappear, so would have been unable to own anything. So the codetermination of Germany, where just under half of the controlling votes are given to workers, would be considered social ownership, and therefore socialism.

I do agree the socialist parties of Western Europe have become extremely pragmatic, and willing to allow the means of production to be controlled heavily by private capital, which is why I call it at best light socialism. Europe has followed the German pragmatic theory of whatever works well.



Here we agree. The American right is claiming everything is socialism, and it has lost all meaning.

People get confused about the means of production owned and operated by the government. It is said in multiple different ways but all really meaning the same, Marx was always apposed to private property, that's the real point. The word government can be replaced with worker, state, public, in common, society. And means of production means everything other than the worker that is needed to make a product. That literally means just about everything. What Marx wanted was Communism, and socialism was nothing but a step to getting to communism. There has never been a country that was or is the communism of Marx. And there never will be.

 

[Walt]

People get confused about the means of production owned and operated by the government. It is said in multiple different ways but all really meaning the same, Marx was always apposed to private property, that's the real point. The word government can be replaced with worker, state, public, in common, society. And means of production means everything other than the worker that is needed to make a product. That literally means just about everything. What Marx wanted was Communism, and socialism was nothing but a step to getting to communism. There has never been a country that was or is the communism of Marx. And there never will be.

There were anarchist communists out there, that were completely opposed to the statist communists. They had some success in pre-WWII revolutions, but could not run a country for more than a few weeks. I guess you need government in control to have social ownership.

 

[Bigdog]

No. Communism is government ownership of markets. That cannot happen under anarchy. While anarchy is chaotic, due to rampant crime, capitalism is the predominant economic system. The crime, of course, is not capitalism.

No. You never have to accept them. Words mean things. Democrats speak a different language. I call it Liberal. It looks like English, but words have no meaning or shifting meaning. There is no purpose to try to communicate with anyone in Liberal, as opposed to English, since communication is simply not possible. Much of Liberal is used to chant.

While Mussolini coined the word 'fascism', it was also the practice of both Stalin, Hitler, and FDR at the time. The practice of government manipulating markets is much older than Mussolini. The word 'fascism' itself comes from the Italian word 'fascio', meaning 'group' or 'bundle', referring to the association of government 'bundling' markets (or manipulating them). An earlier form is 'fasces' referring again to a bundle. This term was used in Rome describing Roman manipulation of markets. Rome, of course, also sanctioned slavery and owned some markets (communism). This word is probably a mutated form of phakelos, also meaning 'bundle', but in Greek. This is also the origin of the term 'faggot', also meaning 'bundle', although 'faggot' was never really used to describe an economy.

Certainly.

Governments take many forms: including democracy (or government by popular vote), republic (government by law, or constitution), dictatorship (government by an individual, also called a monarchy or autocracy), oligarchy (dictatorship by committee), or theocracy (government by God, or religion). Plutocracy or technocracy is just an oligarchy.

Economic systems take just a few major forms:
Capitalism, or the voluntary production of products and services for sale to voluntary buyers (the only economic system that creates wealth),
Fascism (a form of socialism where government theft of wealth occurs through manipulation of markets),
Communism (a form of socialism where government theft of wealth occurs directly, by taking ownership of markets, including property),
Slavery (a form of socialism where government sanctions theft of wealth by theft of labor, or ownership of people).

Because socialism is theft of wealth, it must be implemented by force. That means an oligarchy or dictatorship.

Capitalism, fascism, and communism exist in most every nation today. Capitalism is the free market. It's immortal. It can't be killed, even if you drive it into a black market. See your local drug dealer for details.
Fascism and communism require elements in government that act like oligarchy or dictatorship. Examples in the States is the EPA (fascism), the Federal Reserve (communism), the Agricultural dept (fascism), etc. These government agencies specialize and act as an oligarchy over a particular market or markets. NONE of them are constitutional. NOTHING in the Constitution ever gave Congress or the President the authority to create these agencies.

Capitalism exists in every nation as well...even inside North Korea and Cuba. There is no stopping it, no matter how oppressive a government gets.

All forms of socialism and capitalism are economic systems, not forms of government. It is quite possible, for example, to have a dictatorship and still have capitalism. Black markets exist in every dictatorship.

"Like most writers of the 19th century, Marx tended to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. In his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), however, Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked, and the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism




The fascio is just a symbol of strength in unity.

Agree that fascism is a form of socialism. It is marked by authoritarianism, one party rule, and State servitude. Corporations, in fascism, were PINO, private in name only. The CEOs serve the State under the threat of death, imprisonment or bankruptcy.

And as you know, fascism in its original form had absolutely nothing to do with race, religion, etc., ... which is why the German people insisted they were National Socialists.

 

[Bigdog]

I am going to correct you on one seemingly minor point. Marx wanted social ownership, and not state ownership. In the end communism, the state would whither and disappear,

Here we agree. The American right is claiming everything is socialism, and it has lost all meaning.

Agree with your STATELESS definition for communism.

Disagree that the right claims everything is socialism. It is the Left that defines "the welfare State" as socialism. The Left that defines wokeism as socialism. The Left that defines "climate control" as socialism.

 

[Bigdog]

People get confused about the means of production owned and operated by the government. It is said in multiple different ways but all really meaning the same, Marx was always apposed to private property, that's the real point. The word government can be replaced with worker, state, public, in common, society. And means of production means everything other than the worker that is needed to make a product. That literally means just about everything. What Marx wanted was Communism, and socialism was nothing but a step to getting to communism. There has never been a country that was or is the communism of Marx. And there never will be.

Without the Worker, ... there is no means of production.

 

[jbander]

Without the Worker, ... there is no means of production.

What a goofball
you're posting nothing. Marx said in explaining the means of production that it is everything other than the worker, and that the worker was the controller of the means of production.

 

[jbander]

Without the Worker, ... there is no means of production.

Without your made up definition of everything we are talking about, you would have nothing to say , so what you do say now is just made up and actually getting quite boring. People get tired in dealing with fakes.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

An opinion on biased representation...Lawyers

As an attorney, I hesitated to forward this as it can be considered to be an indictment against my profession. But I believe there is much truth to the article below. Very thought provoking. Lawyers are adversarial and are trained to try to win at all costs. It may work in litigation but does not work well when governing our nation. Trying to win at any costs creates the polarization and hatred that now fills our country and leaves no room for common sense or legitimate debate.


Every Democrat presidential nominee since 1984 went to law school, although Gore did not graduate. Joe Biden (no surprise) was at the bottom of his class. Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Barack Obama was a lawyer. Michelle Obama was a lawyer. Hillary Clinton was a lawyer. Bill Clinton was a lawyer. John Edwards is a lawyer. Elizabeth Edwards was a lawyer. Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress: Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer is a lawyer. Former Senator Harry Reid was a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different. President Trump was a businessman. Presidents Bush 1 and 2 were businessmen. Vice President Cheney was a businessman. President Eisenhower was a 5 star General. The leaders of the Republican Revolution: Newt Gingrich was a history professor. Tom Delay was an exterminator. Dick Armey was an economist. Ex-House Minority Leader John Boehner was a plastics manufacturer. The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against actor Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers. This is very interesting. I had never thought about it this way before.

The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Trump, Bush, and Cheney, or who heal the sick like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history like Gingrich. The Lawyers Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And so, in the eyes of the Lawyers Party, we have seen the procession of official enemies grow. Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, which, in this case should be the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side. Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation.

When politicians, as lawyers, begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become adverse parties of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws. We are contorted by judicial decisions. We are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.

The United States has 5% of the world's population and 66% of the world's lawyers! Tort or legal reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association go to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high.

Lawyers are also not the sharpest tools in the shed. After all, they're mostly a bunch of liberal arts majors that took the simplest of degrees to get their law license. No math, no science, no classes in stuff that actually requires quantifiable and factual results, just a bunch of ones where they foist their opinions on shit...

 

[Bigdog]

What a goofball
you're posting nothing. Marx said in explaining the means of production that it is everything other than the worker, and that the worker was the controller of the means of production.

Post Marx's quote here for all to see, ... and your source.

Marx was a twisted sicko. All chiefs and no workers gets you zero production.

 

[Into the Night]

"Like most writers of the 19th century, Marx tended to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. In his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), however, Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked, and the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

Why are you posting quotes out of the Britannica?? Can't present your own arguments and you have to steal them from someone else?

The fascio is just a symbol of strength in unity.

Which is what fascism argues.

Agree that fascism is a form of socialism.

Good.

It is marked by authoritarianism, one party rule, and State servitude.

This is aspect of the oligarchy or dictatorship that is necessary to implement fascism, not fascism itself.

Corporations, in fascism, were PINO, private in name only.

They were private corporations. The government didn't own them.

The CEOs serve the State under the threat of death, imprisonment or bankruptcy.

This is correct. As you can see, it is also happening now, right here in the States.

And as you know, fascism in its original form

There is no 'original form'.

had absolutely nothing to do with race, religion, etc.,

None of these are aspects of fascism.
They are, however, often characteristics of the 'elite' in oligarchies or dictatorships.

... which is why the German people insisted they were National Socialists.

Nope. The German people were living under a dictatorship. Many were against the dictator (Hitler), but dared not speak out since the penalty was death or imprisonment. Some successfully escaped.

 

[Into the Night]

Agree with your STATELESS definition for communism.

Disagree that the right claims everything is socialism. It is the Left that defines "the welfare State" as socialism. The Left that defines wokeism as socialism. The Left that defines "climate control" as socialism.

This is absolutely correct.

It is DEMOCRATS that embrace socialism in all it's forms, fascism, communism, and slavery.

 

[Into the Night]

Without the Worker, ... there is no means of production.

Funny how the liberal fucks haven't figured that out!

 

[Into the Night]

What a goofball
you're posting nothing. Marx said in explaining the means of production that it is everything other than the worker, and that the worker was the controller of the means of production.

Try reading Marx. You obviously never read his works.

 

[Into the Night]

Without your made up definition of everything we are talking about, you would have nothing to say , so what you do say now is just made up and actually getting quite boring. People get tired in dealing with fakes.

He is not defining anything. You seem to be hallucinating.

 

[Into the Night]

Lawyers are also not the sharpest tools in the shed. After all, they're mostly a bunch of liberal arts majors that took the simplest of degrees to get their law license. No math, no science, no classes in stuff that actually requires quantifiable and factual results, just a bunch of ones where they foist their opinions on shit...

...and often badly!

I've found some of their antics in courtrooms quite hilarious. I've seen prosecuting attorneys present so badly they wind up helping the defense. I've seen defense lawyers so bad they wind up helping the prosecution. I've seen a judge roll their eyes at some of this idiocy as well, before finally shutting these idiots up.

And some of them went into government.

 

[Bigdog]

Why are you posting quotes out of the Britannica?? Can't present your own arguments and you have to steal them from someone else?

Which is what fascism argues.

Good.

This is aspect of the oligarchy or dictatorship that is necessary to implement fascism, not fascism itself.

They were private corporations. The government didn't own them.

This is correct. As you can see, it is also happening now, right here in the States.

There is no 'original form'.

None of these are aspects of fascism.
They are, however, often characteristics of the 'elite' in oligarchies or dictatorships.

Nope. The German people were living under a dictatorship. Many were against the dictator (Hitler), but dared not speak out since the penalty was death or imprisonment. Some successfully escaped.

Yes, Britannica, there is no argument. I'm sorry you buy into the white neo lib definition, instead of Marx's original definition.

Everyone understands strength in unity, even chimpanzees, Cape buffalo, meerkats, etc.. United we stand, divided we fall ... is in no way something new, invented by Mussolini.It predates Rome, it predates history.

This is aspect of the oligarchy or dictatorship that is necessary to implement fascism, not fascism itself.

Please elaborate.

They were private corporations. The government didn't own them.

The gov't does not need to own them. They just need to control them.

This is correct. As you can see, it is also happening now, right here in the States.

Yes, especially in regards to Silicon Valley rigging elections under the threat of losing Section 230 immunity.

There is no 'original form'.

The original form, created by Mussolini, was later perverted by German influences.

Nope. The German people were living under a dictatorship. Many were against the dictator (Hitler), but dared not speak out since the penalty was death or imprisonment. Some successfully escaped.

How many opposed, we will never know. Yes, Dissent was not permitted, as we see now with the Democrat party.

National Socialism is a form of dictatorship or oligarchy.

 

[Bigdog]

There has never been a country that was or is the communism of Marx. And there never will be.

There was until recently, it's called Somalia.