South Africa's Nelson Mandela dies in Johannesburg

Dictionarius Confundus!!!


so·cial·ism (s sh -l z m)n.1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
~ American Heritage Dictionary

socialism [ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm]n1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels Compare capitalism
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need


~Collins English Dictionary

so•cial•ism (ˈsoʊ ʃəˌlɪz əm)

n. 1. a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.
2. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

~Websters College Dictionary

socialism1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole. Cf. utopian socialism.
2. the procedures and practices based upon this theory.
3. Marxist theory. the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism, marked by imperfect realizations of collectivist principles. — socialist, n., adj. — socialistic, adj.


courtesy of http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

whoops.

Dr Kynes said:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
so·cial·ism

noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ : a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies




Full Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done




seems like the DEFINITION is pretty well established.

no re-definition required.

except by YOU.

Click to expand...

It's number 3 dumbass. That doesn't mean all socialists are marxists. Orwell for example.

Dr Kynes said:

...bombs...authoritarian socialist...Neslon...a Black African...a convict...a terrorist...a card carrying Marxist

Click to expand...

nelson mandela was a great man who you are definitely trying too hard to smear.

but good job on trying to defend REAL AMERICA (white, euro, christian identity and heritage) from the multicultural wasteland of bullshit (immigrants, islam, and blacks).*

somehow kynes would argue that the above statement^^^ is not racist.

abandonconflict said:

It's number 3 dumbass. That doesn't mean all socialists are marxists. Orwell for example.

Click to expand...

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

they all have the same basic premise, and Marxist Socialism is the Fountainhead from which they all flow.

Whoops Again.

Socialism CAN mean different things, which is why THE SOCIALIST generally specifies how his version is different IN SPECIFIC.

thats what you refuse to do.

in the absence of a specific ad hoc definition for YOUR brand of Socialism, we are left only with the Default Brand, which bears the Marxist Label.

desert dude said:

"Socialism - the government owns all means of production and decides what and how much is produced.

Click to expand...

That is inapt. However, in fairness it is one of the most abused words in English. I get my information in Spanish which is far less abused but I find Orwell to have been correct.

There are various definitions but one thing they all have in common is opposition to privatization.

Dr Kynes said:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

they all have the same basic premise, and Marxist Socialism is the Fountainhead from which they all flow.

Whoops Again.

Socialism CAN mean different things, which is why THE SOCIALIST generally specifies how his version is different IN SPECIFIC.

thats what you refuse to do.

in the absence of a specific ad hoc definition for YOUR brand of Socialism, we are left only with the Default Brand, which bears the Marxist Label.

Click to expand...

This fallacy is called faulty generalization. This is akin to calling all dogs german shepherds. Yet again i will point out my form of socialism, libertarian socialism. Rothbard would have called me an anarchist because I oppose private ownership of capital resources. However I do believe you just got owned son...oh wait...you ain't got shit so I guess you're not capital.

Kkkynes always derails threads when he gets his ass handed to him.

Damn, 38 likes today...

abandonconflict said:

This fallacy is called faulty generalization. This is akin to calling all dogs german shepherds. Yet again i will point out my form of socialism, libertarian socialism. Rothbard would have called me an anarchist because I oppose private ownership of capital resources. However I do believe you just got owned son...oh wait...you ain't got shit so I guess you're not capital.

Click to expand...

If no one is allowed to own lumber or coal, how is it processed into final products? Who gets to say what person gets the resources to process? If there is a controlling body then there is ownership.

What if 2 people want to use the same public capital resource but there isnt enough? Who decides which person gets to use the resource? If there is someone who decides then there is ownership.

Either an individual is going to own it or an organization is going to own or control it. There is nothing else... If there is no controlling body nor ownership it is complete anarchy and nothing gets done with the capital resource because nobody owns it and nobody controls it so we all just stand around looking at each other until we die of starvation.

It is one solution...

NLXSK1 said:

If no one is allowed to own lumber or coal, how is it processed into final products? Who gets to say what person gets the resources to process? If there is a controlling body then there is ownership.

What if 2 people want to use the same public capital resource but there isnt enough? Who decides which person gets to use the resource? If there is someone who decides then there is ownership.

Either an individual is going to own it or an organization is going to own or control it. There is nothing else... If there is no controlling body nor ownership it is complete anarchy and nothing gets done with the capital resource because nobody owns it and nobody controls it so we all just stand around looking at each other until we die of starvation.

It is one solution...

Click to expand...

What the fuck does this have to do with Nelson Mandela?

abandonconflict said:

What the fuck does this have to do with Nelson Mandela?

Click to expand...

Well, I was commenting on no private ownership of capital. He was a communist but probably smarter than you... Does that help?

abandonconflict said:

This fallacy is called faulty generalization. This is akin to calling all dogs german shepherds. Yet again i will point out my form of socialism, libertarian socialism. Rothbard would have called me an anarchist because I oppose private ownership of capital resources. However I do believe you just got owned son...oh wait...you ain't got shit so I guess you're not capital.

Click to expand...

all dogs are not german shepards but NEARLY all german shepards are in fact Dogs.
"german shepards" ARE dogs unless they are actual krauts tending their flocks in the tyrolean alps.

thus the many different forms of "socialist" can be described acurately as "a type of Marxist" unless the Socialist explains IN DETAIL how he differs from Marx which you refuse to do.

a two word slogan, which is itself a meaningless buzzword, does NOT detail how Non-Marxist your brand of Socialism may be.

rothbard was a douche and ONLY YOU refer to his blatherings, nobody else. rothbard could have called you a purple unicorn, and it would still be the weak assertion of a fool.

and no, still in full possession of all my capital resources, including my ass.

yet curiously i am no longer in possession of YOUR ass, which i believe i have just handed to you.

Explain again how all dogs are german shepards.

abandonconflict said:

Explain again how all dogs are german shepards.

Click to expand...

you really are laughable, retarded and foolish.

i bet you think everbody is cheering your reductio ad retardum, lame strawmen and red herrings.

Socialist = Marxist until the claimant of Socialism demonstrates why HE is not a Marxist.

Dr Kynes said:

Socialist = Marxist until the claimant of Socialism demonstrates why HE is not a Marxist.

Click to expand...

Nelson Mandela was a democratic socialist.

UncleBuck said:

i bet desert dude complains about schuylaar's comment again while ignoring this completely.

Click to expand...

Bushy is not a regular here. His comment is so over the top that it looks like satirical trolling. SkyLard pretends to be a compassionate liberal and advocates multiple times to kill old white guys, and she is one of the regular pack of morons on here so she deserves ridicule, glowing skin and perky tits not withstanding.

Well this thread turned lame.

All I'll say is I never saw this much gloating and ire after Slobodan Milosevic died from the right wing of America. But then again that was Whites massacring Muslims so who cares right?

DutchKillsRambo said:

All I'll say is I never saw this much gloating and ire after Slobodan Milosevic died from the right wing of America. But then again that was Whites massacring Muslims so who cares right?

Click to expand...

Milosevic was a scumbag war criminal and got what he deserved. Fuck him

abandonconflict said:

Well this thread turned lame.

Click to expand...

mainly as a result of your attempt to assert that Marxism is a sub-order of Socialism, when in fact, as is clearly demonstrated by numerous citations, Socialism is a subset of Marxism.

to take your Marxism = Dog analogy to the logical conclusion...

Hitler was a German Shepard, aggressive, not very healthy, not very social, and ideal for operation within the Police State
Stalin was a Rottwieler, even meaner, nastier and more violent and equally non-social
Pol Pot was a rabid dingo, vicious and crazy
Mao was a chow chow, grumpy, somewhat social, but able to get some shit done when he wasnt trying to hump the other dogs in the pack
Trotsky was a Golden Retriever, eager, friendly but ultimately pretty dumb
Lenin was a Husky, always ready to work, and quite sociable within his own pack, but as mean as a bear with a sore tooth with outsiders
Mussolini was a Cane Corso. just plain dangerous, but he got the job done, and only killed half the kids in the playground doing it.
You are a Chihuahua, tiny, annoying, stupid yappy and ultimately pointless.

they were all dogs, and yes, all Marxists.

DutchKillsRambo said:

All I'll say is I never saw this much gloating and ire after Slobodan Milosevic died from the right wing of America. But then again that was Whites massacring Muslims so who cares right?

Click to expand...

nobody is gloating.

ultimately New Nelson was a good thing, but ignoring the faults of Nelson Classic is foolish.

apartheid lost to the efforts of New Nelson.

if it were left in the hands of Nelson Classic, aparthied would still be going strong.

he is an object lesson in how to effect real change for the better, and it rarely involves significant portions of Marxism.