CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : 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
.....plus direct payment of subsidies and price supports through buying all the taxpayers can of the 3 times supply of dairy the market demands to create a taxpayer price support.
Govt. owns the financial risk of pensions. (PBCG)
Govt. owns the financial risk of overseas private [sic] investors. (OPIC)
Govt. taxpayers supports ethanol which does no good, hurts cars and takes 2200 gal. of fresh water to make 1 gal. of fuel.
Taxpayers (govt.) owned the risk of wall street fraud. TARP Socialism is alive and well in America. Wall street gives America the richest socialists in world history.
Taxpayers owned S&L fraud. (RTC)
Oh but for govt. to own the risk of our health in say an FHIC ya'know Federal Health Insurance Corp. just like the capitalist enjoys, now that would be socialism. You are to just go to the ER or go ahead and die.
It's called socialism for the rich...capitalism for the poor.
To answer your question no. But, I was wondering about a hypothetical scenario where people in high government possessions also owned most major industries privately. For example, I am the president, but I also own Walmart, McDonalds, and ExxonMobil. Also, other people in government would own plenty to. For example, Justice Ginsberg might own Subway, Giant Eagle, and a strip club. And the combined private control of people in government power would be 99.99% of the economy. What would you call that?
Small business has nothing to do with what you just spit out but i would like to know where 99.99 percent number came from since all you quoted were 6 companies!
ROTFFLMMFAO ! A so called business man would ask this IGNORANT question ! I am just quoting the FOOL that typed it up !!!!!!!!!! If the means of production stays in private hands, is it socialism?
SUPER STUPID does your LYING ASS have a FUCKIN BRAIN ???????????
The United States has the largest network of energy pipelines in the world, with more than 2.4 million miles of pipe. The network of crude oil pipelines in the U.S. is extensive. There are approximately 72,000 miles of crude oil lines in the U.S. that connect regional markets.
Is that means of production SOCIALISM in your FUCKIN PEA BRAIN ?????????
I think you need to ask Captain Blood the resident socialist expert what socialism is and isn’t as it changes its mind every posting , his latest rant has him saying Stalinism is ..........socialism
I think you need to ask Captain Blood the resident socialist expert what socialism is and isn’t as it changes its mind every posting
It's not my fault you are a retarded ass nugget. I have never changed my mind, you are just grasping for any excuse to be a dick because you suck.
his latest rant has him saying Stalinism
There is no such ideology as "Stalinism" you ignoramus cock sucker. Stalin himself was a Marxist Leninist who was not as wise as Lenin and more irresponsible as a leader.
the ideology and policies adopted by Stalin, based on centralization, totalitarianism, and the pursuit of communism.
Oh dear , do you actually ever get anything right .......wait no need to answer that
I don’t mean to be patronizing ( that means I don’t wish to appear to talk down to you ) but here is something that may help you in your confusion .....read it slowly there are some big words in the piece .........
An ideology is a collection of normative beliefs and values that an individual or group holds for other than purely epistemic reasons.
The term was coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy in 1796, who conceived it as the "science of ideas". In contemporary philosophy it is narrower in scope than that original concept, or the ideas expressed in broad concepts such as worldview, imaginary and ontology.
In contemporary political science it is used in a descriptive sense to refer to political belief systems. There are many political ideologies.
In the sense defined by French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, ideology is "the imagined existence (or idea) of things as it relates to the real conditions of existence".
Clearly, that is false. You have every intention of being patronising. Subsequently, that in turn implies that you are unprepared to entertain opinions other than your own.
An ideology is a collection of normative beliefs and values that an individual or group holds for other than purely epistemic reasons.
And Stalin's ideology involved very much the same autocratic policies being championed in Germany and Italy. The fact that he called himself a communist means absolutely nothing. On the one hand, you sit and condescend because you think you are the only person capable of using a dictionary, while on the other you attack people for not believing verbatim the narrative of Joseph Stalin. That's pretty stupid.
Dictatorship is not compatible with communism and it is that simple. The reason for this is that central to the theory of communism is the notion that the means of production shall be controlled collectively, rather than by one man or political party. In many ways (real) communism can be thought of as the dissolution of social hierarchy. Now contrast that with the hierarchical party system implemented by Stalin in Russia and it doesn't take a genius to understand that Stalin was essentially ignoring Marx and following in the footsteps of the fascist movements coming out of Eastern Europe.
Are you even aware of how Stalin came to power in the first place? He killed all his political rivals. There is something seriously wrong with your understanding of history if you think communism is a theory about how to implement a dictatorship, because the entire reason the theory was ever invented was to find a way to overthrow the Tsarist dictatorship which was already in existence. Stalin simply seized the opportunity of revolution to obtain power for himself, which was something that could never have happened in Tsarist Russia because he had the wrong bloodline.
Since you've been arrogantly condescending to people like you somehow are more intelligent than everybody else then let me conclude by explaining to you that intelligent people question things. They don't ignore glaring contradictions in narratives. No intelligent person who actually understood communism would fail to question the fact that Stalinism represented the theoretical antithesis of the system. Marx wrote about sharing the means of production, whereas Stalin seized the means of production and reverted Russia back to the exact same hierarchical dictatorship it had always been.
Did you literally just ignore everything I wrote, you irritating retard?
Hierarchical dictatorship is the fucking OPPOSITE of communism you uneducated little twerp. Stalin ran a fascist political/military dictatorship of which he was the supreme leader.
It absolutely amazes me that retards like you, who have been drowned in American capitalist propaganda since the time you were infants, somehow think yourselves qualified to attack Marx's ideas without ever fucking well reading or understanding them. You are biased to the point that it is absolutely pointless talking to you. If you are going to invent false equivalences between fascism and communism then it is absolutely clear you understand neither one of them. Indeed, you are simply repeating the things you have seen on American TV because that's the kind of know-nothing, robotic moron you are.
Clearly, that is false. You have every intention of being patronising.
Well spotted , sarcasm seems to fly over your head
Subsequently, that in turn implies that you are unprepared to entertain opinions other than your own.
But I’ve heard your opinions and you change your mind by the minute regarding what socialism is and is not
An ideology is a collection of normative beliefs and values that an individual or group holds for other than purely epistemic reasons.
And Stalin's ideology
But you claimed it wasn’t an ideology yet here you are admitting it was
involved very much the same autocratic policies being championed in Germany and Italy.
Well Hitlers politics were Socialist also but differed from Stalins
The fact that he called himself a communist means absolutely nothing.
But you agreed the USSR in its earliest days was the socialist ideal now it means nothing
On the one hand, you sit and condescend because you think you are the only person capable of using a dictionary,
You see it as condescension I see it as correcting your ever changing position regarding a simple question
while on the other you attack people for not believing verbatim the narrative of Joseph Stalin. That's pretty stupid.
What narrative am I believing only what you stated as in Stalinism was the ideal form of socialism your words buddy not mine
Dictatorship is not compatible with communism and it is that simple. The reason for this is that central to the theory of communism is the notion that the means of production shall be controlled collectively, rather than by one man or political party. In many ways (real) communism can be thought of as the dissolution of social hierarchy. Now contrast that with the hierarchical party system implemented by Stalin in Russia and it doesn't take a genius to understand that Stalin was essentially ignoring Marx and following in the footsteps of the fascist movements coming out of Eastern Europe.
Yawn ......
Are you even aware of how Stalin came to power in the first place? He killed all his political rivals
Trotsky was a brute and Lenin was no saint so Stalin is on the same page really
. There is something seriously wrong with your understanding of history if you think communism is a theory about how to implement a dictatorship, because the entire reason the theory was ever invented was to find a way to overthrow the Tsarist dictatorship which was already in existence.
Snore zzzzzzzzz
Stalin simply seized the opportunity of revolution to obtain power for himself, which was something that could never have happened in Tsarist Russia because he had the wrong bloodline.
Since you've been arrogantly condescending to people like you somehow are more intelligent than everybody else then let me conclude by explaining to you that intelligent people question things.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz
They don't ignore glaring contradictions in narratives. No intelligent person who actually understood communism would fail to question the fact that Stalinism represented the theoretical antithesis of the system. Marx wrote about sharing the means of production, whereas Stalin seized
Marx was the one who advocated seizing the means of production and tell how doe one “seize “ without violence?
Well spotted , sarcasm seems to fly over your head
I don't think you understand what sarcasm means, do you? I'll give you a clue, you pretentious imbecile: it DOESN'T mean doing something and then denying what you are doing. That's just called lying, you fucking retard.
But I’ve heard your opinions
I've heard yours too and they are fucking stupid.
you change your mind by the minute regarding what socialism is and is not
You are a laughable liar. Show me an example of me changing my mind about what socialism is and is not.
But you claimed it wasn’t an ideology
I did no such thing you stupid, irritatingly dishonest twit. Either you are confusing me with someone else, in which case you are stupid, or you are lying, in which case you are a scumbag. Either way you lack the moral high ground.
Well Hitlers politics were Socialist
OK, I'm going to stop reading there because you have revealed the problem. You're a fucking imbecile.
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
(interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck, 1923)
Does that compute you hilariously stupid little twat? They knew Hitler was the opposite of a socialist in 1923, you daft bastard. How come you don't know it a century later?
The fact remains that trying to have an intelligent conversation with you is impossible because you are not intelligent. Having an enormous mouth is not the same thing as being intelligent. Just an FYI.
I don't think you understand what sarcasm means, do you? I'll give you a clue, you pretentious imbecile: it DOESN'T mean doing something and then denying what you are doing. That's just called lying, you fucking retard.
Christ you really are a dummy ....I said “I don’t mean to be patronizing “
That was the sarcasm you dumb fuck because that’s exactly what I was being .....patronizing......are you really that stupid?
ive heard yours too and they are fucking stupid.
Yet you cannot say what socialism is ......hmmm m
You are a laughable liar. Show me an example of me changing my mind about what socialism is and is not.
You said the socialist ideal was in the early days of the USSR when Stalin was in power , make your mind up buddy
But you claimed it wasn’t an ideology
I did no such thing you stupid, irritatingly dishonest twit. Either you are confusing me with someone else, in which case you are stupid, or you are lying, in which case you are a scumbag. Either way you lack the moral high ground.
Really you never never said that? Here ya go in your own words you brain dead liar ......
There is no such ideology as "Stalinism" you ignoramus cock sucker.
So it is and it isn’t an ideology in your own words you idiotic creature ????
OK, I'm going to stop reading there because you have revealed the problem. You're a fucking imbecile.
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
(interview of Adolf Hitler by George Sylvester Viereck, 1923)
Does that compute you hilariously stupid little twat? They knew Hitler was the opposite of a socialist in 1923, you daft bastard. How come you don't know it a century later?
Interesting the National Socialist party were not socialists bwaaaaahahahahaha
The fact remains that trying to have an intelligent conversation with you is impossible because you are not intelligent.
But I’ve just caned you again
Having an enormous mouth is not the same thing as being intelligent.
Brit Troll stop the spinning it shows how stupid you are. Now if government is going to rebuild the infrastructure who is going to do that ? Are Members of Congress going to shutdown the government to get their hands dirty by doing manual labor ????
The means of production can be private for a publicly funded service using those goods.
The means of service can be provided in a publicly funded manner while the goods used are privately funded.
Even if some resources and workers involved with the means of production are publicly funded and the process is partly state-run, it's possible that the overall product is considered non-Socialist and/or vice versa.
Good question con. Strict definitions of socialism seem to neglect models wherein the government takes the fruit of your labor by force specifically to give it to someone else. What do you call it when the means are not socialized, but the ends are? Theft? Slavery? Just don’t call it socialism.
In capitalism the owners steal "surplus value" created by workers and the majority of people end up working for owners all their lives.
In capitalism the purpose of your existence is either to produce profit for someone else or to use other people to make profit for yourself. People who truly earn a considerable amount of wealth by doing things of true merit are the exception, not the norm.
You are operating on the labor theory of value (whether you know it or not). It’s a long defunct theory with no merit. You also seem to have missed the part where the government takes the fruit of your labor by force rather than by voluntary association.
No one can steel anything if you willingly give it in exchange for something they willingly give you. That’s simply the Marxist myth used to fire up those who aren’t so capable in a competitive free market, giving them moral sanction to steel what’s not theirs while claiming to simply be taking it back.
So workers sign contracts knowing they’re being robbed by their employer yet do so willingly ......really?
created by workers and the majority of people end up working for owners all their lives.
If you do not like the conditions of your employment change jobs , one is free to do so
In capitalism the purpose of your existence is either to produce profit for someone else or to use other people to make profit for yourself.
The purpose of a business is to make money and why should an owner not profit? He / she sets the business up pays the rental on a property , machinery , etc, etc , yet the socialist whines he’s being robbed but invests nothing into the business but yet willingly takes a wage
People who truly earn a considerable amount of wealth by doing things of true merit are the exception,
Well you have failed to mention small business owners with this stupid insane rant you made and i quote you. The majority of people end up working for owners all their lives. What is the percentage when you refer to majority ???????????
