Comments by "Bob" (@bobs_toys) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1.  @Mr123robert1999  why do you think feelings were put before facts?
    2
  2. Ok. More basic question. When you wrote that, did you know what you meant?
    2
  3. Without giving any actual basis for it. Unless you've got a reason to say this that's more than mindlessly parroting what someone you disagree with says, then all it does is confirm the whole NPC thing. When he says it, it's easy to see the reasoning behind it. You've got a lot of people who are obsessed with eliminating things they feel bad, rather than results. They're more concerned with feeling that they're doing 'the right thing' than doing something that actually has positive real-world results. When you say it.... Not even you know what you mean.
    2
  4. For other people. Never for themselves.
    1
  5.  @rebeccatreeseed410  first, businesses are taxed on profit. Second, what do you think socialism is? It looks like you just think it's a welfare state.
    1
  6. There are no socialist states in europe. Socialism isn't taxpayer funded stuff.
    1
  7. In fairness, if the definition of socialism isn't diluted beyond all real meaning, examples of it working are pretty few and far between. Or maybe not... What's between two things that don't exist?
    1
  8. What do you think socialism and capitalism are?
    1
  9.  @ripsumrall8018  so where has socialism worked? The only country I can think of that fits under that idea of both working is Norway (although I guess Saudi Arabia might count.) and that's only because of statoil.
    1
  10.  @ripsumrall8018  maybe read my next paragraph for clarification. What do you think of as a mixture and where has this mixture worked?
    1
  11.  @ripsumrall8018  in what way do you think Australia is socialist? Can you give examples?
    1
  12. He might know what he's talking about. How much effort he puts into the video to divert the discussion away from socialism and to 'socialistic' stuff wasn't an accident.
    1
  13. There's two socialist umbrellas. One is about an economic system that is based on public/non-private ownership of the means of production. Anything under that banner is best referred to as "Socialism". The other is about things that aren't that. That can be called "Not Socialism" They're both types of Socialism, as can be seen from that Socialism is in the name. What you're thinking of probably falls under the latter.
    1
  14.  @Rin-qj7zt  You know how you say 'socialistic'? That's because you're not talking about socialism. I've got no problem with social programs, as long as they're affordable. What's the point in having wealth if you can't use it to improve stuff? But it's not socialism. It's just the nice stuff that socialist economies were meant to provide, but epically failed at. You want those things? Then stay right the fuck away from Socialism. The only system that's shown an ability to deliver the promises of Socialism is Capitalism. Anyway: There are two types of people who benefit from the conflation of social programs and socialism. 1. People who are against social programs, who want to link them to the epic failure that was socialism. 2. People who are in favour of socialism (which is a system that simply doesn't work. Not can't work, but doesn't) who want to link it to the epic successes of things like public education. Neither is my friend. Everyone else who perpetuates this is just a useful idiot gulled by those two groups of people.
    1
  15. Yeah, I'm fairly convinced that people who support socialism generally think that all words with social in them are the same.
    1
  16.  @TheTerminator-1  with tax dollars taken from a capitalist industry... Open a dictionary.
    1
  17. Heaps of them. The list is endless. Most notably, those that never tried to implement Socialism, or gave up the attempt before it did too much damage.
    1
  18. LOL Yeah. This disrespect for life and property isn't a prime candidate for dictatorship. The theory of Socialism is bullshit. The reality of what the bullshit theory leads to is all that matters. 100 million dead because of bullshitters like you. With nothing but failure to show for it. Anyway, thank you for so clearly showing your true colours. People don't support Socialism because they want to help the poor, but because they hate the successful. And then morons such as yourself wonder why targeting the successful turns countries into shitholes. Over and over and over again.
    1
  19. Social democracy.
    1
  20. I'll just paste here, because left/right aren't tied to particular policies, but are tied to someone's attitude towards things that are new. Whether a policy is left or right purely depends on whether the environment you live in either has, or has had that before. Someone who wants a state to become socialist is left wing. Someone who's in a socialist state that wants it to remain socialist is right wing. Someone who wants something new is left wing Someone who likes the status quo is right wing (conservative) Someone who wants to return to a previous status quo is right wing (reactionary) This is the basic definition of that, dating back to 1789. We apply the label to Socialists, because in countries that aren't socialist, they are definitely left wing. It's not being left wing or right wing that's the problem, it's supporting retarded ideas that don't work. For Fascism, I'll use Hitler as an example: Hitler was left when his power was increasing. He really wanted a lot of change, and as he didn't turn Germany over to the Kaiser, we can see he wasn't a reactionary. When his power was at its height, the war was going well, etc, he was right. He didn't want things to change. And after that, when things fell apart, he was still reactionary. At least, I assume he wanted to go back to when he was still succeeding.
    1
  21. I'd argue that there comes a time when any authoritarian govt will become right wing. But that's because left/right is defined as wanting change vs wanting the status quo. When a dictator gets everything it wants, its attentions go towards supporting the status quo and it becomes right.
    1
  22.  @coreywiley3981  well I do (seriously) respect pedantry. But for the accuracy of this video... After watching it, what successful socialist states can you name?
    1
  23. Crack open a dictionary. Look at the definition of the word. And compare that with what he's saying.
    1
  24. So do you have any examples of successes? (Actual socialist countries. Scandinavian countries aren't Socialist) or just a list of excuses?
    1
  25. No, I mean they aren't Socialist. They're also not Communist. Canada is not Socialist. As much as Marx used Socialism and Communism fairly interchangeably, it was refined a bit. TL;DR, if you're talking about a state that has money, government... Is a state.... You're not talking about Communism. It's viewed as the next thing to try after people stop fucking up the attempt at making Socialism work. If you're not talking about common (via the state) ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about Socialism. If you're talking about using funds generated by Capitalism to improve the lives and opportunities of citizens of X area, you're talking about Social Democracy. The only reason you have this misconception is that states that have ACTUALLY attempted to become Socialist have been pretty epic failures. So instead we've got this sophistry used to make Socialism look like it isn't the completely retarded idea the 20th century repeatedly demonstrated it to be.
    1
  26. >>Wow your level of ignorance is beyond repair. You don't even know what neither of them are and you talk like some kind of expert. Virtually every country in the world today is socialist.<< No. It isn't. Virtually every govt today has a government that does stuff. Governments doing stuff isn't Socialism. >>and no Marx did not use these terms interchangeably, socialism was the transition period between capitalism and communism,.<< Either way, with the lack of Communist states. It was still a series of failed attempts to achieve Socialism. >>Socialism refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. << With this level of control varying on how badly it failed earlier. Redefinitions in an attempt to keep respectability. >>In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few ''Communist'' regimes.<< Essentially because the attempt to implement it has failed consistently. >>Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, << And about as accurately as people are when they say 'evolution is just a theory' Social Democracy != Democratic Socialism. I get that both have the word 'Social' - just like 'social services' - and that this is confusing to a lot of people, but they're simply different systems. >>in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.<< Which is again, without common ownership of the means of production, not Socialism. Chavez and Maduro didn't achieve it either. They fucked up the attempt. Nokia is a company you wouldn't have in a Socialist state. Neither is Ikea. I really do get the feeling that true believers need to redefine the word to avoid looking like they're imbeciles supporting a fairly consistently horrific system, but that doesn't make them correct. It just makes them dishonest.
    1
  27. This is from merriam webster. Unfortunately I can't see where you quoted that... Or how this agrees with you. 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 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Anyway: >> Your argument is basically “democratic socialism” is not socialism because it's not pure socialism or ''the classical definition''<< Yeah. Given I've explicitly said that democratic socialism != social democracy, and it's social democracy that's not socialism, this is simply a lie. >> I define Socialism as the range of economic doctrines that are between the free market and communism so virtually every country is socialist but to different degrees, some have partial ownership of means of production and private properties, some have complete control of means of production and property. But they are all socialists.<< I have absolutely no reason to care about your personal definition of it. >>I think the problem is that you believe that a system is either capitalist or socialist, failing to admit they can overlap. State-Capitalism is Socialism, but it's not the free market. And pure or classical socialism is not communism because it still uses money.<< The problem is that I don't really care about your personal definition. Which from your last post is clearly what you've been reduced to. (Otherwise why mention what you define it as?)
    1
  28. For your question, what you're basically describing is out of scope. Capitalism isn't a set of moral values. It's an economic system that works. It's a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. And your idea of what Socialism is seems to be basically wrong. You're conflating things that contain the word "social" with "Socialism" If we're not talking about common ownership of the means of production, we're not talking about Socialism. Which is why Social Democracy is a very different beast to Democratic Socialism. The big problem with Socialism (which isn't Social Democracy, that needs to be made clear) is that it just doesn't work. Its proponents make promises that gull people until they realise it can't deliver. Instead it has a tendency to cause damage in direct proportion to how much effort is put into implementing it.
    1
  29.  Pagan Cloak  either you're an idiot who couldn't read and understand the subsequent lines, or there's something else you'd like to say. Which is it?
    1
  30.  @Erl0sung  so advocating got for something that's not socialism makes it a socialist?
    1
  31.  @rogggggerful  only if you redefine the word to mean something different.
    1
  32.  @5thdisciple940  I never said they were. What I have said, though, is that there's a basic condition that needs to be met to qualify. If it doesn't meet that basic criteria, it isn't.
    1
  33.  @williamsastard8830  I'm going to need you to quote where I said Russia was communist.
    1
  34.  @MoneyStrategiesSOULutions  what do you think being capitalist entails?
    1
  35.  @timothyhammer6154  because it doesn't work. When you try really hard to do something that just won't work, you can make horrible things happen. Yeah, it's people implementing it. But that doesn't change that it's a bad idea. All shifting the focus away from it does is make people think the idea is fine, but the wrong people implemented it... Over and over again.
    1
  36.  @salomaoserra9169  it's a broad umbrella with a specific definition. Why include Sweden on a video about socialism succeeding if you're not trying to link it to socialism? What do you think socialism is?
    1
  37.  @johngalush8790  speaking slowly.
    1
  38.  @nonemo138  the leadership of a country has influence over the path a country takes, but doesn't define what it is. What do you think socialism is?
    1
  39.  @potassium7705  the "spirit of socialism" is basically doing nice things for those who need them. Which isn't exactly a new concept. It also isn't socialism. What's actually quite funny is that Socialism epically fails to do the things that are in "the spirit of Socialism" Whereas Capitalism has had many, many successes in that area.
    1
  40.  @potassium7705  >> I think you over analyse what I mean.<< From the looks of the rest of this post, not really. >>No shit its not a new concept. This is a non-point. Socialism isn't socialism? << Socialism is Socialism. Socialism isn't what you think it is. Very few 'socialists' actually have a clue of what the word means. They listen to bullshitters who try to conflate them with welfare and social services and leave it at that. Those who are against social services try to discredit them by linking them to the epic failure that was Socialism. Those who are in favour of Socialism try to polish that turd by linking it to the stunning success of things like a public education system. Neither is your friend. >>How? Nordic countries consistently enjoy higher quality of life. << Yes, those Capitalist Social Democracies (which isn't Socialism, democratic or otherwise) are doing very well. But they're not Socialist. >>And no, authoritarian dictatorships aren't socialism the same way the Democratic People's Republic of China or Korea aren't very democratic at all.<< Who are you replying to there? I don't think it's me, as I'm fairly sure I've never said that. I've said Socialism leads to authoritarian dictatorships (over and over again), but that's a very different statement. >>The last claim is simply false. Unchecked capitalism expands the lower class, among plenty of other issues. And again, Scandinavia tends to perform better in this regard, because of socialistic policies.<< You say it's false, then go on to list Capitalist states that have succeeded in doing what Socialism is meant to have done. And 'Socialistic' (in the way you use it) != Socialism. Socialism is about the public (IE: Non-private) ownership of the means of production. It's about who owns what generates wealth, not what you spend it on. If listing Capitalist states as examples of Socialism working aren't evidence of just how badly Socialism has failed over and over again, I don't know what could possibly be.
    1
  41. @The American Fascis no it's not. Capitalism doing the stuff socialism is meant to do (but fails massively at) is social democracy. But socialism is the means, not the goals.
    1
  42.  @bacc3088  you've done nothing to debunk the number. Anyway, what's the actual toll, according to you? The best question will obviously be whether this number of deaths was acceptable for an ideology that consistently ends in failure. How many people dying for nothing are you ok with?
    1
  43.  @shogun7p7  the video is crap.
    1
  44.  @shogun7p7  I'm willing to listen. It's how I know the video is crap.
    1
  45.  @shogun7p7  the video isn't called "debunked, social democracy has never worked" Edit: it looks like you're one of those people who think that social democracy is a type of socialism. It isn't. Socialism has a specific definition in which social democracy doesn't fit.
    1
  46.  @shogun7p7  save time and crack open a dictionary. And I have no problems with social democracy. What I have a massive problem with is people who attempt to conflate socialism (which has been responsible for 100 million deaths and no successes) with something good. And if you're in favour of social democracy, you should be vehemently against anyone who attempts to make people link it with the epic failure that was socialism.
    1
  47.  @shogun7p7  it's the place to go for the fundamental definition. There are other subsets, but long story short, if you're not talking about public ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about socialism.
    1
  48.  @designobservatory  the video is crap. Reasons have been given multiple times in this thread.
    1
  49.  @vdub2014  maybe to save time on these replies to a five year old comment, you could quote what I've said that's inaccurate. To save further time, try not to argue something I've already addressed, but look at how I've addressed it and point out how it's wrong.
    1
  50.  @vdub2014  so basically, the person who accuses someone else of not paying attention doesn't have a clue of what's going on. Not the first halfwit in this thread. Although on a five year old one, maybe the last.
    1