America - The Official Thread

[UKMikey]

For someone on this forum who appears to have no idea what socialism is, he sure seems OK with being publicly owned.

(Marxist gif)

 

[Groundfish]

Did I not make post 30,922?
People are “teaching me” about facts I literally just posted?
That’s almost as funny as a self described Socialist hitting it big economically and keeping it all to himself!
“Me me me!”
I honestly find the situation funny too in that some of his viewers get offended.
They don’t think he really believes what he says for his entertainment channel do they?

 

[Danoff]

Did I not make post 30,922?
People are “teaching me” about facts I literally just posted?

Incorrectly. This:

Guys like him will say Socialism great you like roads and police and fire departments lol but it’s not like govt controlling the means of production which is what it is.

...is incorrect.


Just to drive home this point - because I had occasion to correct someone else who was similarly confused about marxism and socialism - I was recently presented with the statement that unemployment benefits are marxist/communist. I responded by saying that unemployment benefits are incompatible with marxism and communism, because the entire concept of employment, and unemployment is market-based. There's no such thing as "unemployment" in communism, or really even "employment" when you get right down to it. Unemployment benefits are fundamentally socialist.

 

[UKMikey]

"facts" lol

 

[Famine]

For someone on this forum who appears to have no idea what socialism is, he sure seems to be OK with being publicly owned.

Well, I've never seen fifth-degree burns before.

 

[McLaren]

That’s almost as funny as a self described Socialist hitting it big economically and keeping it all to himself!

In his own words, Hasan has said, "Tax the **** out of me if you think I should pay more & I'll do it".

Pepega.

 

[Groundfish]

In his own words, Hasan has said, "Tax the **** out of me if you think I should pay more & I'll do it".

Pepega.

If he were truly consistent in terms of being a real socialist then the revenues generated by his stream would be collectively owned by all the members of the socialist society he streams from right?
In this case he’s not manufacturing widgets and selling them.
If there’s a widget factory in Socialism all of us would be part owners and share in the success or failure of making widgets correct?
In this case it is a stream that has created success, in fact I’m quite sure that it’s more success than is attained by a single widget worker right?
Under Socialism that’s just his ability.
It’s not really relevant that he’s tremendously talented beyond average and creates a lot more success than most average widget workers.
His talent does not change the Socialist system, we would all own equally the success (revenue) from his labor.
That’s by definition.
By definition we would ALL have equal part in that success and revenue just as in revenue and success from a widget factory as an example.
His stream is a business and under Socialism all business has collective ownership by definition.
By definition Socialism is a collective ownership of means of production.
So it sounds great to the lowest of the low because hey you get free stuff but look what happens if you aren’t the lowest of the low-what if you produce disproportionately more than average?
It all goes away to everyone equally according to need. No reward for excellence!
Of course IN REAL LIFE we see what happens when a person works hard in the USA they reap the fruits of that labor!
They don’t get all the fruit loaded onto trucks and come to the community square and say here guys take all this free fruit!
Oh no!
That’s not reality!
I think this streamer guy is hilarious it’s hilarious! He’s like-
I am a Socialist-that is unless I achieve more than average income, in that case I keep it all! TAX ME, PLEBs!
This guys funny as heck I’d love to have a beer with him…

 

[Danoff]

By definition Socialism is a collective ownership of means of production.

No, not in the way you're applying this - which is to say, a complete lack of ownership. Socialism has a pretty broad scope. You're describing communism.


Here:

Socialism vs. Communism: How Are They Different?

Find out the difference between communism and socialism, two related but distinct political theories and systems.

www.thoughtco.com

�

Communism vs. Socialism
Attribute	Communism	Socialism
Basic Philosophy	From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.	From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.

Socialist Countries​

Once again, most modern countries that identify themselves to be socialist may not strictly follow the economic or social systems associated with pure socialism. Instead, most countries generally considered socialist actually employ the policies of democratic socialism.

=====================================================


It's a big term that encompasses from a complete lack of market economy, all the way to very capitalist. You'd need to actually learn about the policies someone was advocating to figure out what they mean when they say socialist. It's too big to just assume that it's marxism, or even marxist-adjacent. It covers a lot of ground.

 

[McLaren]

That's a lot of words to say you still don't know what socialism is.

Edit* LOL, did you just go into Hasan's chat and try this? B/c someone named maticsucks just dropped in, never watching Hasan before, & proposed your same argument and got banned. "Socialism is not some poverty cult; that is a right-wing talking point"- Hasan.

 

[ryzno]

Y'all are wasting your time giving him views?
Don't know the dude, don't care about his house.

 

[Groundfish]

@Danoff
This that you put up…

rom each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.

Is a page straight from Stalin’s 1936 playbook.
Marx knew this was impossible, due to other costs incurred by infrastructure etc as shown here:

So yeah sounds great right?

Stalin killed millions. A Stanford historian answers the question, was it genocide?

When it comes to use of the word “genocide,” public opinion has been kinder to Stalin than Hitler. But one historian looks at Stalin’s mass killings and urges that the definition of genocide be widened.

news.stanford.edu

Lol literally the very quotes you said were not Marx were in fact Marx and worse
STALIN.

Funny thing about this semantically goalpost shift definition swapping mid argument style is no matter what it’s called it results in atrocities and pain.

There’s equity of outcome in mind with these socialist and communist theoretical concepts but equity of outcome doesn’t motivate people.
So then we have to do gulags and torture them if they do not work.
Total slavery is the result and genocide and poverty.

The sad thing is since “too big to fail”
Things are moving more quickly in a direction that only leads to the past imo. We’ve seen the results for hundreds of years and every time it’s the same tired playbook ie
“You don’t understand it”
“It’s different this way”
Etc etc etc. I will end my input with Margaret Thatchers words…

“The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money”

 

[UKMikey]

Is that the same Thatcher whose own cabinet had to stop her destroying the welfare state and our socialised healthcare system?

Thatcher pushed for breakup of welfare state despite NHS pledge

PM declared the health service was ‘safe with us’ but secretly pressed on with radical proposals, archives reveal

www.theguardian.com

Guess quoting "radical right" reformists like the Iron Lady makes a change from quoting socialists like Orwell and Ike "left of Bernie" Eisenhower at least.

---

If you can't accept that, let's discuss which of these statements you think is wrong:

• Social Security is socialist
• Social Security is a US program since 1935
• The presence of a broad sweeping socialist program makes the US a socialist country

Pick one you think is out of place and we can discuss.

You forgot option four:

• Ignore all of your points and go back to bashing Hasan again because he doesn't fit my definition of a socialist

Kudos for attempting to initiate a discussion, though.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff
This that you put up…

rom each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.

Is a page straight from Stalin’s 1936 playbook.
Marx knew this was impossible, due to other costs incurred by infrastructure etc as shown here:
View attachment 1075488View attachment 1075489
So yeah sounds great right?

Stalin killed millions. A Stanford historian answers the question, was it genocide?

When it comes to use of the word “genocide,” public opinion has been kinder to Stalin than Hitler. But one historian looks at Stalin’s mass killings and urges that the definition of genocide be widened.

news.stanford.edu

Lol literally the very quotes you said were not Marx were in fact Marx and worse
STALIN.

Funny thing about this semantically goalpost shift definition swapping mid argument style is no matter what it’s called it results in atrocities and pain.

There’s equity of outcome in mind with these socialist and communist theoretical concepts but equity of outcome doesn’t motivate people.
So then we have to do gulags and torture them if they do not work.
Total slavery is the result and genocide and poverty.

The sad thing is since “too big to fail”
Things are moving more quickly in a direction that only leads to the past imo. We’ve seen the results for hundreds of years and every time it’s the same tired playbook ie
“You don’t understand it”
“It’s different this way”
Etc etc etc. I will end my input with Margaret Thatchers words…

“The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money”

It covers a lot of ground. As I said before. Did you ignore the parts I posted? Socialism is a big blanket term that covers a huge swath of governments.... as I said 3 times earlier now. You're still obviously picking at communism (citing the USSR, Marx, and Stalin). Try this... figure out the difference between socialism and communism and then get back to me.

 

[Imari]

There’s equity of outcome in mind with these socialist and communist theoretical concepts but equity of outcome doesn’t motivate people.

Do you find that you do anything without either explicit financial motivation or physical threats? Because I find that I do lots of stuff, but you make it sound like there's almost nobody who has actual self-motivation.

I can only imagine that you're being either paid or threatened to post here, because there can't possibly be any other motivation.

 

[TexRex]

Modern American conservatism is insane!

Mandel is a Republican candidate for the United States Senate.

 

[Groundfish]

Here’s what one of if not the greatest leaders of all time said about socialism.
It’s true. They are talking about the gap again today…

The foreign attempts at ideological subversion have been taking hold somewhat as evidenced by those repeating the same tired Marxist playbook.
They shift the goalposts semantically by saying no no all those negative realities aren’t what we mean, that’s not socialism that’s communism lol.
The same playbook, same old story same old song and dance…


These ideological subversion attempts have been coming out of communist countries for decades.
It’s the Marx playbook capitalism-socialism-communism.

Literally above as I pointed out Danoof was quoting Stalin saying it doesn’t mean that!
Lol suuuuure.

 

[TexRex]

Here’s what one of if not the greatest leaders of all time said about socialism.
It’s true. They are talking about the gap again today…

The foreign attempts at ideological subversion have been taking hold somewhat as evidenced by those repeating the same tired Marxist playbook.
They shift the goalposts semantically by saying no no all those negative realities aren’t what we mean, that’s not socialism that’s communism lol.
The same playbook, same old story same old song and dance…


These ideological subversion attempts have been coming out of communist countries for decades.
It’s the Marx playbook capitalism-socialism-communism.

Literally above as I pointed out Danoof was quoting Stalin saying it doesn’t mean that!
Lol suuuuure.

Trumpism, man.

 

[ryzno]

Also I heard somewhere that the UK and a couple of other countries are planning on filing suits in the UN over our withdrawal.

 

[McLaren]

She's posturing for brownie points with her base. She actually despises Afghanistan's people to no one's surprise & couldn't care less about them.

I'm pretty upset with... Brain Kemp for just openly saying he would welcome Afghan in refugees. I'm against that. I don't want another Minneapolis in GA. Especially after we saw those refugees produce Ilhan Omar.

Modern American conservatism is insane!



Mandel is a Republican candidate for the United States Senate.

I feel like the real story is the server still came to work b/c she couldn't afford to stay home. Maybe Mandel got really close to understanding the actual reason she needed a raise.

 

[Rossell2]

Here’s what one of if not the greatest leaders of all time said about socialism.
It’s true. They are talking about the gap again today…

Tip from a Brit. Don't put Thatcher and "greatest leader" in the same sentence.

 

[UKMikey]

It’s the Marx playbook capitalism-socialism-communism.

Literally above as I pointed out Danoof was quoting Stalin saying it doesn’t mean that!
Lol suuuuure.

Marxism, Socialism, Stalinism... it's all the same, right? Therefore, Stalin's definition of socialism is the only one that matters, of course

Wotta maroon. I guess next we're going to hear that the US isn't a democracy again.

Tip from a Brit. Don't put Thatcher and "greatest leader" in the same sentence.

So great her own party stabbed her in the back and canned her because she was a liability to their electoral future...

Let's be honest and say she was divisive at best.

 

[Tyrone B]

Weren't people playing "Ding-Dong The Witch is Dead" when Thatcher passed away?

 

[Rossell2]

All socialism is equal, but some more equal than others.

I'd make a joke about Thatcher but sadly it's unsuitable for miners...sorry, minors.

 

[Danoff]

They shift the goalposts semantically by saying no no all those negative realities aren’t what we mean, that’s not socialism that’s communism lol.

Actually take a shot at what I said. See if you can figure out a difference between socialism and communism. They're different words, they mean different things. When you figure out the difference, it will help with your confusion.

 

[Groundfish]

It’s very important in the subversion process to say no no that’s Marxist communism while at the same time pointing to Stalin’s 1936 verbiage as good.
Lol same old story same old song and dance…

 

[Danoff]

It’s very important in the subversion process to say no no that’s Marxist communism while at the same time pointing to Stalin’s 1936 verbiage as good.

I don't remember pointing to any of this as good. I'm saying these terms have meanings, and you don't know those meanings.

 

[UKMikey]

LOL, Bezmenov again.

For the "useful idiots" who don't gargle every right-wing thing they see on YouTube.

Unfortunately, however, upon full examination of his most well-known work, it becomes clear that Bezmenov was not really quite the gallant & selfless truth-teller he proclaimed (and some folks believed and still believe) to be. There was, in fact, a rather noticeable amount of outright B.S. stuffed in, particularly in regards to “Love Letter to America”…..much of it seems to have been deliberately designed to appeal to and rile up the American far/extreme right, and some of it wasn’t just questionable but actually downright nasty stuff. So, without further ado, here we go.

 

[McLaren]

Lol same old story same old song and dance…

It is because GTP Red Pill Overdosed already presented this same nonsense, with the same video, in the same manner of eventually deciding to stop responding to arguments & members in favor of just posting random talking points.


And in that same manner, you'll eventually dip back out of the section back to the GT forum. Hell, all that's missing is you changing your name to own da libs.

 

[Groundfish]

Well to respond directly @McLaren, I noticed in one of your previous posts you asked if I went into the Twitch guys chat?
The answer is really? You really are that afraid of interacting with someone you perceive to be your ideological enemy as to try to smear me with a question like that?
No, only a total loser would do something like that.
However since you mentioned the guy posted the same thing I did and was immediately banned…
If I reflect I find it quite funny.
Number one I’m guessing the streamer knows logically that it’s true AND he cannot contradict the truth of it.
He also does not wish for his viewers to be exposed to the truth, for fear they would stop viewing, and he would lose money.
It’s really funny if you think on it here’s a guy espousing socialism and going full tilt censorship banning so that hes free to spread his propoganda unopposed lol.
Yeah, I mean in all reality though chances are the guy got banned for something more like being an out and out jerk somehow or cursing etc or breaking Twitch TOS.
The fact remains though that according to you his response was “it’s a right wing talking point-socialism is t poverty”
Well to that I’d say look at history.
Historically the opposite is true.
That’s not to mention his response is not an argument at all it’s a way to escape an argument ASAP, since it’s one he already knows is lost.
As far as not responding to others, @danoof presented an argument based on 3 points three postulates if you will, one of which being any country that has a socialist policy is socialist
Well that’s laughable, so to me the argument is immediately moot since what followed was logically consistent but based on 2 of 3 false pretenses.

It’s important to always remember

everything free came from someone who worked.

edit I liked Reagan and Thatcher but now currently I do wish Reagan hadn’t gotten rid of the fairness doctrine.
It would be nice if when arguments were presented if both sides (or more)
HAD to be shown, so that people could make up their own minds.
I’m not a big fan of most regulation, but you need some imo

 

[McLaren]

Number one I’m guessing the streamer knows logically that it’s true AND he cannot contradict the truth of it.

He did respond to it and the user was banned for going, "LOL, Hasan is wrong", and would not present anything more that indicated an above single-digit IQ.

Pulling the stunt you do here with never actually responding to the argument and continuously posting nonsensical statements & ironic claims is how you get banned in his chat b/c he sees you have no intention of actually discussing anything. He's got 30-40,000 people watching, he doesn't have time to listen to folks like you who try present some sophisticated talking point when you just appear anything but.