How to embolden your kids against Socialism!!

@averagejoe1 said
We’ll ck you off as losing another argument. Do you know, from what I gather up on the Internet you folks pay flat tax to cover all of the Socialism. In this country we get to literally decide how much tax we pay. I call that freedom. I have tax free, municipal bonds, for instance, which spin off money to me to live on. I do not pay tax on that money….So, where one man pa ...[text shortened]... t having use of a wonderful capitalistic system. If he lived where you do, you would eat him alive.

Capitlaism taxes.
Socialism taxes.

Just different causes and goal groups who benefit.
Don’t kid yourself.

Now, back to your OP.
How do you plan to embolden your kids against socialism, when you don’t understand the very concept?
You think unemployment benefit, for example, is socialistic. I’ve tried to explain to you why it’s not; it’s a relief valve in capitalism to stop the masses from rising against the ruling classes.

What do you think happens in a capitalist society without these implements of relief?
And why is that? And why does that scare the ruling classes into accepting a form of “watered down” capitalism?

In socialism there is no unemployment. Ergo, there is no unemployment benefit.

What?
Exactly. That’s why you need to comprehend dialectic materialism before you form an opinion on socialism.

If you don’t, you’ll go around in circles attempting to embolden your children from something very different to to socialism and, if they heed your words, they’ll bring about that very thing you so dread.

@shavixmir said
Weapons manufacturers aren’t manufacturing as a service to you.

Blah blah blah.

Pseud boy, provided the exchange is voluntary and rightfully owned property is the mode of exchange, that would be what is known as capitalism.

If those that wanted the weapons but didn't want to pay for them because they had no job, that would be known as the unemployment benefit or not-capitalism.

@wajoma said
Pseud boy, provided the exchange is voluntary and rightfully owned property is the mode of exchange, that would be what is known as capitalism.

If those that wanted the weapons but didn't want to pay for them because they had no job, that would be known as the unemployment benefit or not-capitalism.

What a crock of made up axiomas.
What constitutes rightful in this?

Owned is the appropriate term, the rightful part cannot be judged when there is no zero point of execution.

To continue with society and/ or capitalism, there needs to be a steady supply of ever more bodies (production units). So, mothers are the base investment for the needed continuation.
See. There is no explicit need for weapons, other than profit. How come the raising of kids, which is a necessity for capitalism, cannot be seen as profitable?

Who defines which markets are capitalist or not?
I know the answer. So the question that follows is if mothers declare no more kids, the value of raising kids suddenly increases.

Is that why American capitalists are so readily biblical and anti-abortion? They want to keep the costs of raising kids low?

Would you call that a fixed market then?
So, anti-capitalist?
Are you suggesting that Average Joe and his ilk are actually closet communists?

Mhmmm… one can only wonder at the conclusions your idiocy leads to.

@shavixmir said
What constitutes rightful in this?

Owned is the appropriate term, the rightful part cannot be judged when there is no zero point of execution.

Property that has been acquired other than by; force, threats of force and fraud.

@wajoma said
Property that has been acquired other than by; force, threats of force and fraud.

Uhuh.
So, when is the cut-off point?
At which point in history do you say: this is the start?

Or, do you just shrug and suggest that, well, if they have it now, then it falls under the capitalist regime?

You do comprehend that it’s all a load of rubbish. Everything you state is fabricated to defend capitalism after the fact.

@shavixmir said
Capitlaism taxes.
Socialism taxes.

Just different causes and goal groups who benefit.
Don’t kid yourself.

Now, back to your OP.
How do you plan to embolden your kids against socialism, when you don’t understand the very concept?
You think unemployment benefit, for example, is socialistic. I’ve tried to explain to you why it’s not; it’s a relief valve in capitalis ...[text shortened]... rent to to socialism and, if they heed your words, they’ll bring about that very thing you so dread.

"In socialism there is no unemployment. Ergo, there is no unemployment benefit."
what weird socialism are you talking about? are we calling communism socialism again?

"You think unemployment benefit, for example, is socialistic. I’ve tried to explain to you why it’s not; it’s a relief valve in capitalism to stop the masses from rising against the ruling classes."
you can make that argument for every social program.

@shavixmir said
Uhuh.
So, when is the cut-off point?
At which point in history do you say: this is the start?

Or, do you just shrug and suggest that, well, if they have it now, then it falls under the capitalist regime?

You do comprehend that it’s all a load of rubbish. Everything you state is fabricated to defend capitalism after the fact.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, do you not regard your extensive collection of over size donkey dick dildos as being rightfully your property?

Have you changed your tune after posting definitions of capitalism, that there is now no such thing as capitalism? Rightfully acquired property covers more than a piece of dirt, it covers the afore mentioned dildo collection too and if it were a choice between collecting guns or butt stretching latex shapes I'm going with guns every time.

@zahlanzi said
"In socialism there is no unemployment. Ergo, there is no unemployment benefit."
what weird socialism are you talking about? are we calling communism socialism again?

"You think unemployment benefit, for example, is socialistic. I’ve tried to explain to you why it’s not; it’s a relief valve in capitalism to stop the masses from rising against the ruling classes."
you can make that argument for every social program.

Socialism can have no unemployment.
It is, per definition, a social ownership of production.
To sum it up nicely, let me paraphrase Saint-Simonianism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Hence that unionism and voting rights for women, etc. can be considered socialist, but unemployment benefit cannot.

Obviously, I dare suggest that one could argue semantics until the cows came home, the point of me pointing this out to Average Joe is to help him think about critique before offering it.

@wajoma said
I have no idea what you're trying to say,

Obviously.
I forgive you your moronity.

@shavixmir said
Socialism can have no unemployment.
It is, per definition, a social ownership of production.
To sum it up nicely, let me paraphrase Saint-Simonianism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Hence that unionism and voting rights for women, etc. can be considered socialist, but unemployment benefit cannot.

Obviously, I dare suggest that ...[text shortened]... point of me pointing this out to Average Joe is to help him think about critique before offering it.

The limit of shag doody's reasoning, if it's not socialism it must be capitalism, and if it's not capitalism it must be socialism.

You've been told already, stick to single emoji responses, tis better to be thought a fool then speak up and remove all doubt.

@shavixmir said
Obviously.
I forgive you your moronity.

The pseud known as shag doody for brains said:

10 Apr '23 03:30

"I have no idea what you’re on about."

@wajoma said
The pseud known as shag doody for brains said:

10 Apr '23 03:30

"I have no idea what you’re on about."

Yes. You talk utter garbish, as I’ve pointed out multiple times.

And you’re too thick to understand what I’m writing, which I’ve also pointed out multiple times.

They don’t exclude each other.

Retard.

@wildgrass said
Warren Buffett is in favor of minimum tax rates for wealthy people like himself. He's said repeatedly how insane it is that he paid the lowest tax rate in his office, including his secretary

That is not what I am writing about, Wildgrass. What is it with you people . My post is to tell Zahlanzi that Netherlands has fixed restrictive unbending taxes, when we get to choose our own amount to pay in taxes. I am trying to show you libs what freedom is all about. It will be gone when y'all take over.

@averagejoe1 said
That is not what I am writing about, Wildgrass. What is it with you people . My post is to tell Zahlanzi that Netherlands has fixed restrictive unbending taxes, when we get to choose our own amount to pay in taxes. I am trying to show you libs what freedom is all about. It will be gone when y'all take over.

"when we get to choose our own amount to pay in taxes."

how the fuk do you choose the tax amount. Are you admitting to tax evasion here?


"I am trying to show you libs what freedom is all about"
You have no idea what freedom is. You're, on average, the least free first world country.

@shavixmir said
Socialism can have no unemployment.
It is, per definition, a social ownership of production.
To sum it up nicely, let me paraphrase Saint-Simonianism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Hence that unionism and voting rights for women, etc. can be considered socialist, but unemployment benefit cannot.

Obviously, I dare suggest that ...[text shortened]... point of me pointing this out to Average Joe is to help him think about critique before offering it.

First of all, it bears repeating that the donkey has no idea what he is talking about and he calls everything to the left of him socialism. From Germany to Norway to Venezuela to North fukin Korea, everything is socialism




"Socialism can have no unemployment.
It is, per definition, a social ownership of production. "
That's the communism flavour of socialism or the utopian fictional one that was never implemented. In communism you didn't have unemployment because you were given a shovel and told to dig something whether it was needed or not. That's not something to aspire to

As for the Star Trek like society it's not something you can reasonably consider applying in the near future.


If you want to talk theory, i guess a true socialism society doesn't have unemployment because, since production is owned by everyone, everyone would receive a UBI whether they work or not and technically that's not unemployment because it doesn't end.


However it's wrong to consider unemployment a capitalist measure. It's a social program in a capitalist society, which most countries on earth are.



"Obviously, I dare suggest that one could argue semantics"
Yeah i agree. Who the fuk knows what goes through his skull at any given moment and we know damn well anything we explain will never stick