you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

No, it's an EXTREMELY NARROW definition. The entire English-speaking world has been the object of a vast psyop brainwashing campaign to make you believe that is THE definition, so you can't think the entire spectrum of socioeconomic thought and from there, control you. It's working extremely well. Your VERY NARROW definition comes from whom? From Marx of course, you communist.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Marx invented it therfore he gets to name it. You don't get to use his word and claim it means something else.

Not using socialism to talk a out shit that is not socialism does not prevent you from talking about those other things. You can invent your own names for the made up systems you invented. Calling your made up shit socialism does nothing but muddy the water and create confusion. It is completely counter productive, unless your intent is to pull a bait and switch; tricking idiots to support "socialism" by convincing them it's this other thing then switching in real socialism when those fools help you destroy the current system.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Eh, nope. Marx didn't invent it, the word SOCIALISM was about a century old when he wrote Das Kapital. He twisted the definition around so hard, he pretended it meant the contrary of what it did.

In 1840, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon published a book in which he explained his anarchist socialist philosophy and how it might get implemented. It remained DIAMETRICALLY opposite the meaning you and Marx attribute to the term.

Freaking COMMUNISTS. Stop it Canbot. Please, just tell us you are a die-hard communist, since you are repeating Marx's written diarrhea and delusions.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Socialism is communism lite.

Both claim to solve all problems through government. One claims government will have this power (and dutifully fulfill all promises) if only you give government full control of buisness. The other simply says that buisness is not enough, you must give over control of property as well. Once socialism fails to fulfill its promises the only thing to do is go even further into that same logic and give up property.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nope. Try again.