| Potentially, what could happen? on 14:10 - Aug 10 with 1023 views | Ebo |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 08:49 - Aug 10 by felixstowe_jack |
Funny how many Socialist states turn into totalitarian dictatorships when the "moderate socialists" gain power then supress the opposition. Russia, China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Cambodian, North Korea, Venezuela, Nation Socialist Germany AKA NAZI. The list goes on but still people keep voting for them disregarding history and are surprised when History repeats itself. |
Wrong again you cock smothering arse mustard.
Nazi germany had nothing to do with socialism, far from it. You need to research your history first before posting. |  |
|  |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 14:14 - Aug 10 with 1018 views | pikeypaul |
What does the term Nazism stand for ?
Answer.
The political principals of the National SOCIALIST German workers party. [Post edited 10 Aug 2017 16:27]
|  |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 15:16 - Aug 10 with 990 views | Mo_Wives |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 14:10 - Aug 10 by Ebo |
Wrong again you cock smothering arse mustard.
Nazi germany had nothing to do with socialism, far from it. You need to research your history first before posting. |
Can I ask you to define what you mean when you say socialism. What qualifies a socialist state for you? |  |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 15:31 - Aug 10 with 984 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 15:16 - Aug 10 by Mo_Wives |
Can I ask you to define what you mean when you say socialism. What qualifies a socialist state for you? |
One that practices socialism as opposed to just saying it does. Most western economies practice at least partial socialism to a greater or lesser degree whether they like to admit it or not. Some more so than others. Probably to a far greater extent than any dictatorship that uses socialism as a cover for totalitarian despotism. |  |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 16:17 - Aug 10 with 958 views | Mo_Wives |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 15:31 - Aug 10 by exiledclaseboy |
One that practices socialism as opposed to just saying it does. Most western economies practice at least partial socialism to a greater or lesser degree whether they like to admit it or not. Some more so than others. Probably to a far greater extent than any dictatorship that uses socialism as a cover for totalitarian despotism. |
Thank you for your reply ECB.
I agree that most countries today have many social programs. What I am asking is how is Ebo (or you) are defining a socialist state?. How does a state "practise socialism"?. What marks one state as socialist while the next one non-socialist?
Merriam-Webster basically defines it as:
1: Various economic and political theories where the government controls the means of production and distribution
2 a: A society with no private property
b: A society where the means of production are controlled by the state
3: A stage of society in transition between Cap. and Comm. distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
(I've paraphrased slightly)
Now according to these we have...
North Korea means of production owned by the state. While Sweden has ownership in nearly all private hands.
North Korea scores a low 5 on the property rights index (source: heritage foundation and wall street journal) While Sweden scores a high 90. (scores range 1-100, 1=bad 100=good)
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Asia/North-Korea/property-rights-index
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Sweden/property-rights-index
I also think it's fair to say that North Korea is closer to Communism than Sweden.
Oh, and as I showed earlier in this thread, the Danish prime minister says they are not socialist while North Korea says they are (I know this does not prove anything).
Now what I am asking is what definition Ebo (or you) is using which allows him to say North Korea is not socialist...but Scandinavia is.
And I need to pin down the definition, otherwise debating with a socialist becomes like sword fighting a fart.
I'd also like to add that they (socialists) point at a system which is closer to Corporatism and blame Capitalism. They never cry out "that's not real Capitalism". | |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 16:59 - Aug 10 with 945 views | Ebo |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 14:14 - Aug 10 by pikeypaul |
What does the term Nazism stand for ?
Answer.
The political principals of the National SOCIALIST German workers party. [Post edited 10 Aug 2017 16:27]
|
A label and nothing more. It's like saying a 'Car' is is the same as a 'Carpet'.
I find it astonishing that complete biscuits like yourself cannot differentiate between Socialism, Communism and Nazism. The same goes for the massive bell whiffs who cannot tell the difference between Anti-zionism and Antisemitism. | |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 17:02 - Aug 10 with 940 views | Jackfath |
Time maybe running out for these petty squabbles. Make peace with your loved ones while you still have the chance. |  |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 17:06 - Aug 10 with 939 views | Mo_Wives |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 17:02 - Aug 10 by Jackfath |
Time maybe running out for these petty squabbles. Make peace with your loved ones while you still have the chance. |
Great post. I will take heed...thank you once again for your mentoring.  | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Potentially, what could happen? on 17:27 - Aug 10 with 926 views | pikeypaul |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 16:59 - Aug 10 by Ebo |
A label and nothing more. It's like saying a 'Car' is is the same as a 'Carpet'.
I find it astonishing that complete biscuits like yourself cannot differentiate between Socialism, Communism and Nazism. The same goes for the massive bell whiffs who cannot tell the difference between Anti-zionism and Antisemitism. |
Your being silly now.
You obviously know nothing about Nazism and jumped in giving it the big one
when you actually know jack shite.
Google is your friend.
Great game by the unwashed making up stupid insults it's worth reading the thread just to
see the children try to out do each other. | |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 18:44 - Aug 10 with 912 views | nice_to_michu |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 17:27 - Aug 10 by pikeypaul |
Your being silly now.
You obviously know nothing about Nazism and jumped in giving it the big one
when you actually know jack shite.
Google is your friend.
Great game by the unwashed making up stupid insults it's worth reading the thread just to
see the children try to out do each other. |
Yes, Google is your friend. Perhaps you should use it?
The fact that you think that because Nazism is related to or representative of socialism is quite revealing. Are the dictatorships and failed states seen in Asia (Philippines etc), various Middle Eastern countries, numerous African countries (Equatorial Guinea, Somalia, Egypt) representative of Capitalism? |  | | |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 20:39 - Aug 10 with 893 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 16:17 - Aug 10 by Mo_Wives |
Thank you for your reply ECB.
I agree that most countries today have many social programs. What I am asking is how is Ebo (or you) are defining a socialist state?. How does a state "practise socialism"?. What marks one state as socialist while the next one non-socialist?
Merriam-Webster basically defines it as:
1: Various economic and political theories where the government controls the means of production and distribution
2 a: A society with no private property
b: A society where the means of production are controlled by the state
3: A stage of society in transition between Cap. and Comm. distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
(I've paraphrased slightly)
Now according to these we have...
North Korea means of production owned by the state. While Sweden has ownership in nearly all private hands.
North Korea scores a low 5 on the property rights index (source: heritage foundation and wall street journal) While Sweden scores a high 90. (scores range 1-100, 1=bad 100=good)
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Asia/North-Korea/property-rights-index
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Sweden/property-rights-index
I also think it's fair to say that North Korea is closer to Communism than Sweden.
Oh, and as I showed earlier in this thread, the Danish prime minister says they are not socialist while North Korea says they are (I know this does not prove anything).
Now what I am asking is what definition Ebo (or you) is using which allows him to say North Korea is not socialist...but Scandinavia is.
And I need to pin down the definition, otherwise debating with a socialist becomes like sword fighting a fart.
I'd also like to add that they (socialists) point at a system which is closer to Corporatism and blame Capitalism. They never cry out "that's not real Capitalism". |
I'll leave Ebo address most of your post as he made the original assertion. My view is that neither North Korea or Sweden are "socialist" states. In fact I'd argue that there's never been such a thing. The closest thing I can think of is post-war UK under Attlee. Most established democracies use a mix of free market capitalism and established socialist principles like wealth redistribution. Dictatorships are dictatorships and they can include the word "socialist" in the name as much as they like. It doesn't follow that they espouse socialism.
As an aside (and this isn't aimed at you, Mo) anyone who believes that the Nazis espoused socialism is clearly a blithering idiot. | |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 21:11 - Aug 10 with 873 views | Mo_Wives |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 20:39 - Aug 10 by exiledclaseboy |
I'll leave Ebo address most of your post as he made the original assertion. My view is that neither North Korea or Sweden are "socialist" states. In fact I'd argue that there's never been such a thing. The closest thing I can think of is post-war UK under Attlee. Most established democracies use a mix of free market capitalism and established socialist principles like wealth redistribution. Dictatorships are dictatorships and they can include the word "socialist" in the name as much as they like. It doesn't follow that they espouse socialism.
As an aside (and this isn't aimed at you, Mo) anyone who believes that the Nazis espoused socialism is clearly a blithering idiot. |
An excellent post, Mr Boy. I was just trying to get a handle on what X person says when they use this label. Thank you for your time. | |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 21:16 - Aug 10 with 866 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 21:11 - Aug 10 by Mo_Wives |
An excellent post, Mr Boy. I was just trying to get a handle on what X person says when they use this label. Thank you for your time. |
You're most welcome. | |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 22:02 - Aug 10 with 851 views | Jack_Meoff |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 16:17 - Aug 10 by Mo_Wives |
Thank you for your reply ECB.
I agree that most countries today have many social programs. What I am asking is how is Ebo (or you) are defining a socialist state?. How does a state "practise socialism"?. What marks one state as socialist while the next one non-socialist?
Merriam-Webster basically defines it as:
1: Various economic and political theories where the government controls the means of production and distribution
2 a: A society with no private property
b: A society where the means of production are controlled by the state
3: A stage of society in transition between Cap. and Comm. distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
(I've paraphrased slightly)
Now according to these we have...
North Korea means of production owned by the state. While Sweden has ownership in nearly all private hands.
North Korea scores a low 5 on the property rights index (source: heritage foundation and wall street journal) While Sweden scores a high 90. (scores range 1-100, 1=bad 100=good)
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Asia/North-Korea/property-rights-index
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Sweden/property-rights-index
I also think it's fair to say that North Korea is closer to Communism than Sweden.
Oh, and as I showed earlier in this thread, the Danish prime minister says they are not socialist while North Korea says they are (I know this does not prove anything).
Now what I am asking is what definition Ebo (or you) is using which allows him to say North Korea is not socialist...but Scandinavia is.
And I need to pin down the definition, otherwise debating with a socialist becomes like sword fighting a fart.
I'd also like to add that they (socialists) point at a system which is closer to Corporatism and blame Capitalism. They never cry out "that's not real Capitalism". |
I guess labels mean different things to different people. For example, you've said that the Danish prime minister says they're not socialist, but in the article he also says “We have universal health coverage - you don’t pay to see your doctor or go to the hospital. We have a high degree of social security. You are entitled to benefits if you lose your job, if you get sick, if you are disabled. We have one year of maternity leave, we have one subsidised early childhood education and care and we ensure care for our elderly if they cannot manage on their own,” he said.
“We also have a strong and fee educational system. Students in institutions for higher education and university do not pay for their education, on the contrary they receive educational grants for studying,” he added.
To me, whatever label you put on that society, you're starting on a very strong foundation. Doesn't matter what you actually call it. Labels are perhaps too simplistic and don't allow for nuance. Far too black and white, and perhaps deliberately framed so. Sword fighting a fart indeed.
Ah f*ck I'm not explaining myself well. Enjoyed your Truman Show post by the way, funnily enough one of the books I'm reading at the moment is 'Esoteric Hollywood' by Jay Dyer. He talks about symbolism, allegory, propaganda and geopolitical context within films by such luminaries as Lynch, Spielberg, Kubrick and Hitchcock (amongst others). Interesting read anyways. |  |
| If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever. |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 22:04 - Aug 10 with 842 views | waynekerr55 |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 20:39 - Aug 10 by exiledclaseboy |
I'll leave Ebo address most of your post as he made the original assertion. My view is that neither North Korea or Sweden are "socialist" states. In fact I'd argue that there's never been such a thing. The closest thing I can think of is post-war UK under Attlee. Most established democracies use a mix of free market capitalism and established socialist principles like wealth redistribution. Dictatorships are dictatorships and they can include the word "socialist" in the name as much as they like. It doesn't follow that they espouse socialism.
As an aside (and this isn't aimed at you, Mo) anyone who believes that the Nazis espoused socialism is clearly a blithering idiot. |
Of course Nazi's didn't espouse socialism, Hitler was a Zionist mun 😉😂 |  |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 22:09 - Aug 10 with 831 views | Jack_Meoff |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 22:04 - Aug 10 by waynekerr55 |
Of course Nazi's didn't espouse socialism, Hitler was a Zionist mun 😉😂 |
So what's your take on the Transfer Agreement of 1933 wayne? | |
| If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever. |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 22:19 - Aug 10 with 821 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 22:02 - Aug 10 by Jack_Meoff |
I guess labels mean different things to different people. For example, you've said that the Danish prime minister says they're not socialist, but in the article he also says “We have universal health coverage - you don’t pay to see your doctor or go to the hospital. We have a high degree of social security. You are entitled to benefits if you lose your job, if you get sick, if you are disabled. We have one year of maternity leave, we have one subsidised early childhood education and care and we ensure care for our elderly if they cannot manage on their own,” he said.
“We also have a strong and fee educational system. Students in institutions for higher education and university do not pay for their education, on the contrary they receive educational grants for studying,” he added.
To me, whatever label you put on that society, you're starting on a very strong foundation. Doesn't matter what you actually call it. Labels are perhaps too simplistic and don't allow for nuance. Far too black and white, and perhaps deliberately framed so. Sword fighting a fart indeed.
Ah f*ck I'm not explaining myself well. Enjoyed your Truman Show post by the way, funnily enough one of the books I'm reading at the moment is 'Esoteric Hollywood' by Jay Dyer. He talks about symbolism, allegory, propaganda and geopolitical context within films by such luminaries as Lynch, Spielberg, Kubrick and Hitchcock (amongst others). Interesting read anyways. |
That's one of the best posts I've ever seen .
Superb |  |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 07:45 - Aug 11 with 780 views | Mo_Wives |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 22:02 - Aug 10 by Jack_Meoff |
I guess labels mean different things to different people. For example, you've said that the Danish prime minister says they're not socialist, but in the article he also says “We have universal health coverage - you don’t pay to see your doctor or go to the hospital. We have a high degree of social security. You are entitled to benefits if you lose your job, if you get sick, if you are disabled. We have one year of maternity leave, we have one subsidised early childhood education and care and we ensure care for our elderly if they cannot manage on their own,” he said.
“We also have a strong and fee educational system. Students in institutions for higher education and university do not pay for their education, on the contrary they receive educational grants for studying,” he added.
To me, whatever label you put on that society, you're starting on a very strong foundation. Doesn't matter what you actually call it. Labels are perhaps too simplistic and don't allow for nuance. Far too black and white, and perhaps deliberately framed so. Sword fighting a fart indeed.
Ah f*ck I'm not explaining myself well. Enjoyed your Truman Show post by the way, funnily enough one of the books I'm reading at the moment is 'Esoteric Hollywood' by Jay Dyer. He talks about symbolism, allegory, propaganda and geopolitical context within films by such luminaries as Lynch, Spielberg, Kubrick and Hitchcock (amongst others). Interesting read anyways. |
An excellent post.
Yes labels do mean different things which is why I'm trying to nail down what people think. I have argued with 'filthy commies' (not that I'm saying anyone here is one) before and their standards change depending on the success of a country.
When I think of Capitalism I think of:
Voluntary exchange of goods.
Protection of property rights.
Enforcement of contract law.
Small Government.
When I think of Communism:
Workers/government own the means of production
No private property
Equal share of resources no matter how much work you do.
Big government.
Now, as Merriam-Webster says Socialism is the link between these and as ECB points out, nearly all countries fall on this line. Denmark, to me, is a country with Social programs paid for by a capitalist market economy (they also have big natural resources and America pay for a large part of their defence budget via NATO). So to praise socialism for it's success is the same as praising Mrs Siggurdsson for buying her big house and cars by sitting in the house watching loose women.
North Korea and Venezuela are far closer to Communism on the sliding scale than Denmark is. So how people can say These two aren't real socialism then point to Scandinavia (which is closer to Capitalism) as an example is not consistent and dishonest IMO. Or...they are using a different definition of socialism to me
I am not against social programs, but I do distrust governments, so I want them to have less influence in our lives. What I find with Socialist/Communists is they think they are anti-establishment, but they want the government to have more power. They want a nanny state. They cry about the Federal reserve and central banks (quite rightly) and don't realise they (central banks) are straight out of the Communist Manifesto (even though not privately owned). Capitalism would say no bank is to big to fail, so when government give bail outs to banks because "if they fail it will cause an economic crash and the country will suffer" they are making a 'needs of the many' argument. Which is a socialist (or star trek) argument.
So I see the same problems in society, but I blame the government and want less of their involvement. I want a move back towards Capitalism, or, at least, stay where we are.
Socialist see the problem as being rich people and want to give the government more powers to deal with them.
I will stop ranting now because I told my friend Jackfath I would take his advice.
As for Jay Dyer I have not read his books but have heard him on radio shows. An author you may like along those lines is Dave McGowan. One of his books (weird scenes inside the canyon) shows the links between rock stars and Hollywood personalities who lived in Laurel Canyon and the military industrial complex (also esoteric groups like the process church and scientology). For example, a fun fact: The admiral in command of the U.S naval forces during the 'Gulf of Tonkin incident', which got the U.S into the Vietnam war, was Admiral George Stephen Morrison, the father of the Doors singer Jim Morrison.
Thank you for your reply and I love your hat. I have one very similar but don't wear it that often these days. | |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 07:55 - Aug 11 with 776 views | Mo_Wives |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 22:19 - Aug 10 by oh_tommy_tommy |
That's one of the best posts I've ever seen .
Superb |
OK. Calm down, Tom. Adults are speaking.  | |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 08:47 - Aug 11 with 765 views | felixstowe_jack |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 14:10 - Aug 10 by Ebo |
Wrong again you cock smothering arse mustard.
Nazi germany had nothing to do with socialism, far from it. You need to research your history first before posting. |
That's is exactly what I have done. Hitler's socialist policies to nationalise many industries and to embark on a large scale public infrastructures works like the autobans. This was to give jobs to the huge numbers of unemployed in Germany at the time. The workers voted for him and threw out the old order. It was only once he was in power for a few years his party turned from socialism to a dictatorship when is what usually happens when Socialist decide they know better than the people. |  |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 10:11 - Aug 11 with 748 views | Mo_Wives |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 08:47 - Aug 11 by felixstowe_jack |
That's is exactly what I have done. Hitler's socialist policies to nationalise many industries and to embark on a large scale public infrastructures works like the autobans. This was to give jobs to the huge numbers of unemployed in Germany at the time. The workers voted for him and threw out the old order. It was only once he was in power for a few years his party turned from socialism to a dictatorship when is what usually happens when Socialist decide they know better than the people. |
I think I may have an answer to why the socialist states have a high propensity towards authoritarianism (as socialist and all 'round great human being George Orwell warned).
I think it comes from the mind set of 'the needs of the many out way the needs of the few'. This collectivist mind set is opposite to the individualist mind set of Capitalism.
So in a society which puts the individual before the state, the state can not infringe on your rights. If the state can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime, you go free. In a collectivist state, 'the many' come before 'the few' and the state is the representative of 'the many'. So the state comes before the individual. Therefore if there is suspicion of you committing a crime against state (the many) then f*ck your rights, because the protection of individual rights are an after thought to the protection of the state...and off to the gulag you go.
I may be wrong, but that's my take on it. [Post edited 11 Aug 2017 10:15]
| |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 12:34 - Aug 11 with 723 views | Mo_Wives |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 22:09 - Aug 10 by Jack_Meoff |
So what's your take on the Transfer Agreement of 1933 wayne? |
I think they should have let him go for £49 and 10shillings, earlier in the window, rather than holding out for the full £50. His replacements could have had a full pre-season then. | |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 13:01 - Aug 11 with 716 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
| |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 13:08 - Aug 11 with 715 views | Mo_Wives |
 | |
| |
| Potentially, what could happen? on 13:34 - Aug 11 with 710 views | Jackfath |
At this time I think we need to confess on here to absolve our sins.
I also post as DYSS. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
