OtherGround Forums Trump just became a legend.

9 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30367
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

that's not a concession, it is me realizing that you're not bringing anything worthy of debate so I am choosing not to engage in debate with you.  instead, I am giving you what you are worth, pithy insults and and ruffle of the hair.

 

for the rest of the room, free market anarchy is socialism as defined by the originators, and is also known as free market socialism according to a reasonably accepted resource

No, it is not. It is you clinging to a term that is not even it's own specific ideology,  rather a catch all phrase for multiple different philosophies. 

 

I've not only broken it down in a basic simple format for you understand,  and given examples of, but I even sourced a link for you to better understand what you're arguing about. 

 

You just can't handle the concept of being wrong, and instead of embracing information people are providing you, you petulantly pretend I didn't offer you facts and information with sourced links that are much more detailed than your wiki generalizations. 

 

What you deem as "not worthy" is in actuality the facts about the broad term you want to pretend is Socialism when you yourself already said it wasn't. 

 

You said you don't agree with wiki. Your words. You also gave your own "understanding" which in no wag resembles Socialism at all. 

 

Your ego is just too massive to concede anything. Ever. 

I think you're misunderstanding our conversation.  The two of us are having fun and taking the piss out of each other a little.  He's being plenty reasonable IMO.

9 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 54261
Pura Vida -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

that's not a concession, it is me realizing that you're not bringing anything worthy of debate so I am choosing not to engage in debate with you.  instead, I am giving you what you are worth, pithy insults and and ruffle of the hair.

 

for the rest of the room, free market anarchy is socialism as defined by the originators, and is also known as free market socialism according to a reasonably accepted resource

No, it is not. It is you clinging to a term that is not even it's own specific ideology,  rather a catch all phrase for multiple different philosophies. 

 

I've not only broken it down in a basic simple format for you understand,  and given examples of, but I even sourced a link for you to better understand what you're arguing about. 

 

You just can't handle the concept of being wrong, and instead of embracing information people are providing you, you petulantly pretend I didn't offer you facts and information with sourced links that are much more detailed than your wiki generalizations. 

 

What you deem as "not worthy" is in actuality the facts about the broad term you want to pretend is Socialism when you yourself already said it wasn't. 

 

You said you don't agree with wiki. Your words. You also gave your own "understanding" which in no wag resembles Socialism at all. 

 

Your ego is just too massive to concede anything. Ever. 

I think you're misunderstanding our conversation.  The two of us are having fun and taking the piss out of each other a little.  He's being plenty reasonable IMO.

I did notice his transformation from calling you a socialist and attacking your ability to succeed in life, to the playful banter the last page or so. You two have fun! B-)

8 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30396
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Pura Vida -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

that's not a concession, it is me realizing that you're not bringing anything worthy of debate so I am choosing not to engage in debate with you.  instead, I am giving you what you are worth, pithy insults and and ruffle of the hair.

 

for the rest of the room, free market anarchy is socialism as defined by the originators, and is also known as free market socialism according to a reasonably accepted resource

No, it is not. It is you clinging to a term that is not even it's own specific ideology,  rather a catch all phrase for multiple different philosophies. 

 

I've not only broken it down in a basic simple format for you understand,  and given examples of, but I even sourced a link for you to better understand what you're arguing about. 

 

You just can't handle the concept of being wrong, and instead of embracing information people are providing you, you petulantly pretend I didn't offer you facts and information with sourced links that are much more detailed than your wiki generalizations. 

 

What you deem as "not worthy" is in actuality the facts about the broad term you want to pretend is Socialism when you yourself already said it wasn't. 

 

You said you don't agree with wiki. Your words. You also gave your own "understanding" which in no wag resembles Socialism at all. 

 

Your ego is just too massive to concede anything. Ever. 

I think you're misunderstanding our conversation.  The two of us are having fun and taking the piss out of each other a little.  He's being plenty reasonable IMO.

I did notice his transformation from calling you a socialist and attacking your ability to succeed in life, to the playful banter the last page or so. You two have fun! B-)

Even the calling me a socialist and attacking my ability to succeed in life was fun.

7 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5221
Pura Vida -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

that's not a concession, it is me realizing that you're not bringing anything worthy of debate so I am choosing not to engage in debate with you.  instead, I am giving you what you are worth, pithy insults and and ruffle of the hair.

 

for the rest of the room, free market anarchy is socialism as defined by the originators, and is also known as free market socialism according to a reasonably accepted resource

I know most of the current well known and/or written free-market anarchists and none of them would consider it socialist.  In fact, universally its fair to say they consider anarchism and socialism incompatible.

Not arguing what wiki says, but the reality is the term as used today is the literal antithesis of socialism.

But, great touche in our debate to find wiki defining it as such.  Well played sir.

The thing about it is this:

 

Free market anarchism refers to how the market is set up, not how the governing structures are set up.  If you are simply an "anarchist" it is implied that there is no governmental structure, and no market structure.  You don't need to then further define yourself as a "free market anarchist" because the free market is incorporated by reference by simply being an anarchist.

 

Why does this matter?

 

You could have a government, and free market anarchy, as long as the government plays no role in the market and there are no rules to regulate the means of production established you can have government coexisting with free market anarchy.  

 

Why is free market anarchism socialist?  Because there is no government structure the means of production are controlled by the society, which fits the definition of socialism.  If the government isn't regulating the economy, and there is no economic system established because anarchy, the only thing left to control the means of production is the society within which that means of production exists, and that fits the defintion of socialism.  Socialism does not rely on a governmental structure, it is simply a philosophy that states that the means of production is owned and regulated by the community as a whole.

 

Sorry I let this marinate for a few days, Ive only had time for some quick replies on threads I am a subject matter expert on.  


 

6 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 54338

So to summarize Cuck, he feels he can technically call PV a Socialist as long as he means it as a philosophy and not a desired form of government. Even though he knows full well that when throwing that term around, everyone will take it as the desire for a a Socialist government. 

 

In other words, he "wins" on semantics even though he knows his intent is to label PV a "Socialist" the way it is commonly used as support for a governing system over a society. 

 

Childish. 

6 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 54339
Pura Vida -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Pura Vida -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

that's not a concession, it is me realizing that you're not bringing anything worthy of debate so I am choosing not to engage in debate with you.  instead, I am giving you what you are worth, pithy insults and and ruffle of the hair.

 

for the rest of the room, free market anarchy is socialism as defined by the originators, and is also known as free market socialism according to a reasonably accepted resource

No, it is not. It is you clinging to a term that is not even it's own specific ideology,  rather a catch all phrase for multiple different philosophies. 

 

I've not only broken it down in a basic simple format for you understand,  and given examples of, but I even sourced a link for you to better understand what you're arguing about. 

 

You just can't handle the concept of being wrong, and instead of embracing information people are providing you, you petulantly pretend I didn't offer you facts and information with sourced links that are much more detailed than your wiki generalizations. 

 

What you deem as "not worthy" is in actuality the facts about the broad term you want to pretend is Socialism when you yourself already said it wasn't. 

 

You said you don't agree with wiki. Your words. You also gave your own "understanding" which in no wag resembles Socialism at all. 

 

Your ego is just too massive to concede anything. Ever. 

I think you're misunderstanding our conversation.  The two of us are having fun and taking the piss out of each other a little.  He's being plenty reasonable IMO.

I did notice his transformation from calling you a socialist and attacking your ability to succeed in life, to the playful banter the last page or so. You two have fun! B-)

Even the calling me a socialist and attacking my ability to succeed in life was fun.

I'm having fun too! 

6 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30446
Cuckoldberry Finn - 
Pura Vida -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

that's not a concession, it is me realizing that you're not bringing anything worthy of debate so I am choosing not to engage in debate with you.  instead, I am giving you what you are worth, pithy insults and and ruffle of the hair.

 

for the rest of the room, free market anarchy is socialism as defined by the originators, and is also known as free market socialism according to a reasonably accepted resource

I know most of the current well known and/or written free-market anarchists and none of them would consider it socialist.  In fact, universally its fair to say they consider anarchism and socialism incompatible.

Not arguing what wiki says, but the reality is the term as used today is the literal antithesis of socialism.

But, great touche in our debate to find wiki defining it as such.  Well played sir.

The thing about it is this:

 

Free market anarchism refers to how the market is set up, not how the governing structures are set up.  If you are simply an "anarchist" it is implied that there is no governmental structure, and no market structure.  You don't need to then further define yourself as a "free market anarchist" because the free market is incorporated by reference by simply being an anarchist.

 

Why does this matter?

 

You could have a government, and free market anarchy, as long as the government plays no role in the market and there are no rules to regulate the means of production established you can have government coexisting with free market anarchy.  

 

Why is free market anarchism socialist?  Because there is no government structure the means of production are controlled by the society, which fits the definition of socialism.  If the government isn't regulating the economy, and there is no economic system established because anarchy, the only thing left to control the means of production is the society within which that means of production exists, and that fits the defintion of socialism.  Socialism does not rely on a governmental structure, it is simply a philosophy that states that the means of production is owned and regulated by the community as a whole.

 

Sorry I let this marinate for a few days, Ive only had time for some quick replies on threads I am a subject matter expert on.  


 


I put free market in front of it to differentiate from the pretend anarchists (anarchocommunists etc) in settings where there are other people familiar with the concept of freedom, I just use voluntarist. Here where most are huge government Trumpets desperate to be cared for by the collective, most can't even fathom the concept of freedom.

you can have an established economic system in an anarchist society.

in free market anarchy everything is privatelty owned, society doesn't own anything as a collective. Its the antithesis of socialism.

you can't have a government and a free market because every single thing the government does is interfering with some market. Every service it provides keeps the market from providing that service freely. Its existance is fundamentally antithetical to the free market.

6 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5222
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

So to summarize Cuck, he feels he can technically call PV a Socialist as long as he means it as a philosophy and not a desired form of government. Even though he knows full well that when throwing that term around, everyone will take it as the desire for a a Socialist government. 

 

In other words, he "wins" on semantics even though he knows his intent is to label PV a "Socialist" the way it is commonly used as support for a governing system over a society. 

 

Childish. 

socialism is a political philosophy, nowhere in the definition does it mention government structure.  It is a theory of social organization period.

 

I am literally correct. people throw socialism around not understanding what it actually means, that is not my fault.

6 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5223
Pura Vida -
Cuckoldberry Finn - 
Pura Vida -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

that's not a concession, it is me realizing that you're not bringing anything worthy of debate so I am choosing not to engage in debate with you.  instead, I am giving you what you are worth, pithy insults and and ruffle of the hair.

 

for the rest of the room, free market anarchy is socialism as defined by the originators, and is also known as free market socialism according to a reasonably accepted resource

I know most of the current well known and/or written free-market anarchists and none of them would consider it socialist.  In fact, universally its fair to say they consider anarchism and socialism incompatible.

Not arguing what wiki says, but the reality is the term as used today is the literal antithesis of socialism.

But, great touche in our debate to find wiki defining it as such.  Well played sir.

The thing about it is this:

 

Free market anarchism refers to how the market is set up, not how the governing structures are set up.  If you are simply an "anarchist" it is implied that there is no governmental structure, and no market structure.  You don't need to then further define yourself as a "free market anarchist" because the free market is incorporated by reference by simply being an anarchist.

 

Why does this matter?

 

You could have a government, and free market anarchy, as long as the government plays no role in the market and there are no rules to regulate the means of production established you can have government coexisting with free market anarchy.  

 

Why is free market anarchism socialist?  Because there is no government structure the means of production are controlled by the society, which fits the definition of socialism.  If the government isn't regulating the economy, and there is no economic system established because anarchy, the only thing left to control the means of production is the society within which that means of production exists, and that fits the defintion of socialism.  Socialism does not rely on a governmental structure, it is simply a philosophy that states that the means of production is owned and regulated by the community as a whole.

 

Sorry I let this marinate for a few days, Ive only had time for some quick replies on threads I am a subject matter expert on.  


 


I put free market in front of it to differentiate from the pretend anarchists (anarchocommunists etc) in settings where there are other people familiar with the concept of freedom, I just use voluntarist. Here where most are huge government Trumpets desperate to be cared for by the collective, most can't even fathom the concept of freedom.

you can have an established economic system in an anarchist society.

in free market anarchy everything is privatelty owned, society doesn't own anything as a collective. Its the antithesis of socialism.

you can't have a government and a free market because every single thing the government does is interfering with some market. Every service it provides keeps the market from providing that service freely. Its existance is fundamentally antithetical to the free market.

Socialism doesn't necessarily mean that society as a whole owns anything.  the cliff notes definition of socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

 

Should be owned OR regulated, not owned AND regulated.  In an anarchistic society the means of production are regulated by each individual, society is made up of a group of individuals, this fits under the OR clause.  That established economic system in an anarchistic demographic IS the socialism as society is regulating the economy (means of production)

 

I also don't agree that you can't have a free market economy and government at the same time.  The idea of free market anarchy is that there is no over-riding system of regulation and control, it is regulated by the members of the society.  A government could be instrumental in ensuring that those conditions continue to exist, example a defensive force that ensures tribal interests do not impose their will on other operating within the anarchy.

6 days ago
11/10/18
Posts: 5224
Cuckoldberry Finn -

hahahahaha

 

next, freezers to eskimos

Will never happen unless Melania gets involved.

6 days ago
9/13/19
Posts: 794
Cuckoldberry Finn - 
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

So to summarize Cuck, he feels he can technically call PV a Socialist as long as he means it as a philosophy and not a desired form of government. Even though he knows full well that when throwing that term around, everyone will take it as the desire for a a Socialist government. 

 

In other words, he "wins" on semantics even though he knows his intent is to label PV a "Socialist" the way it is commonly used as support for a governing system over a society. 

 

Childish. 

socialism is a political philosophy, nowhere in the definition does it mention government structure.  It is a theory of social organization period.

 

I am literally correct. people throw socialism around not understanding what it actually means, that is not my fault.


You fucking twit, it is impossible to have "socialism" on any large scale without a significant "government" structure. You could say, "oh, we won't call it government, we will call it something else!", but that is semantics you freaking fudge packer. Next time, try and think above a 5-year old level before posting stupid shit.

Thanks!
6 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30448
Cuckoldberry Finn - 
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

So to summarize Cuck, he feels he can technically call PV a Socialist as long as he means it as a philosophy and not a desired form of government. Even though he knows full well that when throwing that term around, everyone will take it as the desire for a a Socialist government. 

 

In other words, he "wins" on semantics even though he knows his intent is to label PV a "Socialist" the way it is commonly used as support for a governing system over a society. 

 

Childish. 

socialism is a political philosophy, nowhere in the definition does it mention government structure.  It is a theory of social organization period.

 

I am literally correct. people throw socialism around not understanding what it actually means, that is not my fault.


your not literally correct because nothing is publicly owned in free market anarchy.

There is NO public or common ownership of anything in free market anarchy and thats socialism. There is 0 social ownership in free market anarchy. It is (literally) the system most antithetical to socialism.

6 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30449
you're...
6 days ago
9/13/19
Posts: 795
Pura Vida - 
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Pura Vida -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

that's not a concession, it is me realizing that you're not bringing anything worthy of debate so I am choosing not to engage in debate with you.  instead, I am giving you what you are worth, pithy insults and and ruffle of the hair.

 

for the rest of the room, free market anarchy is socialism as defined by the originators, and is also known as free market socialism according to a reasonably accepted resource

No, it is not. It is you clinging to a term that is not even it's own specific ideology,  rather a catch all phrase for multiple different philosophies. 

 

I've not only broken it down in a basic simple format for you understand,  and given examples of, but I even sourced a link for you to better understand what you're arguing about. 

 

You just can't handle the concept of being wrong, and instead of embracing information people are providing you, you petulantly pretend I didn't offer you facts and information with sourced links that are much more detailed than your wiki generalizations. 

 

What you deem as "not worthy" is in actuality the facts about the broad term you want to pretend is Socialism when you yourself already said it wasn't. 

 

You said you don't agree with wiki. Your words. You also gave your own "understanding" which in no wag resembles Socialism at all. 

 

Your ego is just too massive to concede anything. Ever. 

I think you're misunderstanding our conversation.  The two of us are having fun and taking the piss out of each other a little.  He's being plenty reasonable IMO.

I did notice his transformation from calling you a socialist and attacking your ability to succeed in life, to the playful banter the last page or so. You two have fun! B-)

Even the calling me a socialist and attacking my ability to succeed in life was fun.


No one needs to attack that... it simply is what it is lolol....
6 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5224
PwnedCakes -
Cuckoldberry Finn - 
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

So to summarize Cuck, he feels he can technically call PV a Socialist as long as he means it as a philosophy and not a desired form of government. Even though he knows full well that when throwing that term around, everyone will take it as the desire for a a Socialist government. 

 

In other words, he "wins" on semantics even though he knows his intent is to label PV a "Socialist" the way it is commonly used as support for a governing system over a society. 

 

Childish. 

socialism is a political philosophy, nowhere in the definition does it mention government structure.  It is a theory of social organization period.

 

I am literally correct. people throw socialism around not understanding what it actually means, that is not my fault.


You fucking twit, it is impossible to have "socialism" on any large scale without a significant "government" structure. You could say, "oh, we won't call it government, we will call it something else!", but that is semantics you freaking fudge packer. Next time, try and think above a 5-year old level before posting stupid shit.

Thanks!

You're wrong

6 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30450
PwnedCakes - 
Pura Vida - 
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Pura Vida -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -
Cuckoldberry Finn -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

Or just put me on ignore if you'd rather stick to Wiki and think you know everything. Lol.

why would I need to know everything?  you know everything and are perfectly willing to make sure everybody knows it.

I accept your passive aggressive and childish concession that you don't know wtf  you're talking about. 

 

Carry on. Have a lovely day. 

that's not a concession, it is me realizing that you're not bringing anything worthy of debate so I am choosing not to engage in debate with you.  instead, I am giving you what you are worth, pithy insults and and ruffle of the hair.

 

for the rest of the room, free market anarchy is socialism as defined by the originators, and is also known as free market socialism according to a reasonably accepted resource

No, it is not. It is you clinging to a term that is not even it's own specific ideology,  rather a catch all phrase for multiple different philosophies. 

 

I've not only broken it down in a basic simple format for you understand,  and given examples of, but I even sourced a link for you to better understand what you're arguing about. 

 

You just can't handle the concept of being wrong, and instead of embracing information people are providing you, you petulantly pretend I didn't offer you facts and information with sourced links that are much more detailed than your wiki generalizations. 

 

What you deem as "not worthy" is in actuality the facts about the broad term you want to pretend is Socialism when you yourself already said it wasn't. 

 

You said you don't agree with wiki. Your words. You also gave your own "understanding" which in no wag resembles Socialism at all. 

 

Your ego is just too massive to concede anything. Ever. 

I think you're misunderstanding our conversation.  The two of us are having fun and taking the piss out of each other a little.  He's being plenty reasonable IMO.

I did notice his transformation from calling you a socialist and attacking your ability to succeed in life, to the playful banter the last page or so. You two have fun! B-)

Even the calling me a socialist and attacking my ability to succeed in life was fun.


No one needs to attack that... it simply is what it is lolol....

well I'm not a socialist and my life is a raging success, so sorry to burst your bubble.
6 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5225
Pura Vida -
Cuckoldberry Finn - 
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

So to summarize Cuck, he feels he can technically call PV a Socialist as long as he means it as a philosophy and not a desired form of government. Even though he knows full well that when throwing that term around, everyone will take it as the desire for a a Socialist government. 

 

In other words, he "wins" on semantics even though he knows his intent is to label PV a "Socialist" the way it is commonly used as support for a governing system over a society. 

 

Childish. 

socialism is a political philosophy, nowhere in the definition does it mention government structure.  It is a theory of social organization period.

 

I am literally correct. people throw socialism around not understanding what it actually means, that is not my fault.


your not literally correct because nothing is publicly owned in free market anarchy.

There is NO public or common ownership of anything in free market anarchy and thats socialism. There is 0 social ownership in free market anarchy. It is (literally) the system most antithetical to socialism.

I answered this in my reply to you

6 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30451
Cuckoldberry Finn - 
PwnedCakes -
Cuckoldberry Finn - 
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA -

So to summarize Cuck, he feels he can technically call PV a Socialist as long as he means it as a philosophy and not a desired form of government. Even though he knows full well that when throwing that term around, everyone will take it as the desire for a a Socialist government. 

 

In other words, he "wins" on semantics even though he knows his intent is to label PV a "Socialist" the way it is commonly used as support for a governing system over a society. 

 

Childish. 

socialism is a political philosophy, nowhere in the definition does it mention government structure.  It is a theory of social organization period.

 

I am literally correct. people throw socialism around not understanding what it actually means, that is not my fault.


You fucking twit, it is impossible to have "socialism" on any large scale without a significant "government" structure. You could say, "oh, we won't call it government, we will call it something else!", but that is semantics you freaking fudge packer. Next time, try and think above a 5-year old level before posting stupid shit.

Thanks!

You're wrong


its possible, but I don't see how it happens. it would require the entire society to be well behaved without a government and no ability to employ private resources for protection etc.
6 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30452
CF,

Public ownership is absolutelt fundamental to socialism. Collective ownership is a hallmark. If everything is privatelty owneed there cannot be socialism.




6 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5226
Pura Vida - CF,

Public ownership is absolutelt fundamental to socialism. Collective ownership is a hallmark. If everything is privatelty owneed there cannot be socialism.




No, it is not a fundamental characteristic, it is just how it has been traditionally applied.  Look carefully at the definition I posted above.  Simply being regulated by the society is enough to meet the test of what socialism is.  Just because we have never seen that type of example does not mean that it does not fit the definition, probably because 'socialist' countries are never truely socialist as capitalist countries are never purely capitalist.  But we are discussing political philosophy, not political history.  Interestingly enough, there isn't a great  modern example of what you call free market anarchy happening anywhere on the planet, yet your belief is still possible because it is a philosophy

 

6 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 30453
there's no private property in socialism, in free market anarchy there is only private property.

in all ways they are complete opposites.
6 days ago
11/18/15
Posts: 5227
Pura Vida - there's no private property in socialism, in free market anarchy there is only private property.

in all ways they are complete opposites.

Where does it say that there is no private property in socialism?  Socialism isn't about property, it is about how the means of production is managed and distributed period.