Quote from: K-Dog on Dec 02, 2025, 10:53 AMNo, I didn't say "socialism." But you went straight to the most tired, brain-dead anti-socialist talking point anyway, so yeah — I'm going to address it.

Quote from: K-DogYou frame socialism as the arbitrary seizure of property.😛

How can I be framing socialism when I didn't even say it?

Quote from: K-Dog on Dec 02, 2025, 10:53 AMSocialism is more American than apple pie, and half the shit wrapped in the American flag.  Always Russia is brought up, and as always the comparison is tedious and brain dead.

So...good for socialism! Except for socialism that has been co-opted by all the places that claim it...but you don't like those examples anyway?

So can we agree that like any political system, socialism and claims of who has it, or who doesn't, or why Russia did it poorly, can also be nothing but a chocolate flavored turd regardless of what it might theroretically be capable of?

Quote from: K-DogThe Socialist Party of America was one of the largest socialist parties in the world in the early 1900s.
Eugene Debs, an American, won 6% of the 1912 presidential vote in 1912.  Milwaukee, Flint, Berkeley, Schenectady, Minneapolis, Reading, Bridgeport, and other cities had socialist mayors.  The new deal is the largest social-democratic program ever.

Cool! So the US did social programs good, and the USSR didn't. And didn't I list all the social stuff that the US has already? Is there something wrong with comparing and contrasting good socialism, which I did with the Scandanavian countries, to the bad ones?

My point being its a crap shoot. It is just a word for a thing that can be good or bad, and as I said before is relative in the mind of the claimant. You have a good perpective of it. I simply note that there is ZERO requirement it be a positive system.

Quote from: K-DogIf you knew anything about what happened in Russia you would know that the Revolution was Betrayed and Stalin's system was STATE CAPITALISM.

And again....I offer up the relative nature of definitions/perspectives. Thank you for providing more evidence for my original point.

Quote from: K-Dog

QuoteI don't blame you, wouldn't we all like to be Brezos?

Fuck no. Why the fuck would I want to be a billionaire parasite who treats workers like disposable trash?

Because then you wouldn't have to complain about the fraction of your hourly wage that danish and coffee cost?

Quote from: K-DogBack to socialism, you assume that the word has no stable meaning.

I was specific. I said it has a relative to the user meaning. Characterize correctly please.

Quote from: K-DogWhen I use the word socialism, I'm not expecting anyone to guess my private definition. I use the standard, academically recognized one, which is:

QuoteCollective investment in public goods, financed by progressive taxation, within a democratic political system.

Excellent. I like definitions....be it for oil, or social systems.

QuoteSocialism is a political and economic theory advocating community (social) ownership and control of the means of production (factories, resources) rather than private ownership, aiming for more equitable wealth distribution and societal benefit over individual profit, often through democratic or state control, differing from capitalism's emphasis on private enterprise and free markets

Sure sounds like it fits places like the USSR, and the US has components of it, primarily in the redistribution of wealth for the social systems previously mentioned.

So...in summary...socialism can be all sorts of things...and as I've previously stated...relative to the person who happens to use the word. You don't like Russia, but it certainly fits into parts of the definition as the US. And as you pointed out the US has quite a few components of socialism already built into it, why your strident voice against  current political conditions? Because our socialist country allows too many rich folks into the mix? Or even high net worth individuals....whom you and I are personally familiar with.