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

  1.  @acitrid  he gives a good definition at the start, then proceeds to ignore it. Attempts to link it to general niceness Anyone thinking he's vaguely accurate in this video will come away with a warped idea of what socialism is.
    1
  2.  @acitrid  exactly. He ignores that it's about public ownership of the means of production and tries to apply it to anything nice. If you're not talking about public ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about socialism.
    1
  3.  @acitrid  the ideas are fine. Claiming they're socialism is a lie. And the problem is the person who wants to implement socialism is quite happy to accept the support of people who don't have a clue of what it means. This is an idealogy that's killed far more than Hitler. Imagine if someone tried to rehabilitate national socialism in the same way as people try to rehabilitate socialism.
    1
  4.  @acitrid  ​ >>if you think socialistic policies are what killed all those people then you obviously don't know what it is either. Few people who support socialism want communism<< It sounds like you've confused Socialism and Communism. What do you think these terms mean? As far as I've seen, most people who think they're Socialists are Social Democrats. People also tend to think Socialism = Social Democracy and Communism = Socialism. Ideas that ruin economies 100% kill people. Masses of them. Collectivised farming leading to insufficient food production, leading to starvation is 100% a socialist policy that kills. To say nothing of the people who are declared enemies because the theory is good, therefore it's capitalist saboteurs that are the problem. >>and frankly its ridiculous that red scare is still present today<< As much as the CCP has embraced Capitalism, there's still major Socialist parties who are working to subvert democratic states. Sam Dastyari is our own example. >>National socialism what socialism in name only, and if you actually do research on what led to the eventual conditions in germany, you will see that socialism as socialism was never the plan. << I never said otherwise. What I said was imagine if people tried to rehabilitate that term. I also said that Socialism is an ideology that has killed far more than Hitler has. Which should have been another indication that I separated the two terms. >>socialism isnt some malevolent force that wants to kill you<< No. It's an idea. Socialists, on the other hand.... You might say they don't want to, but anyone who can still be a socialist after the 20th century (and know WTF they're talking about) is promoting an ideology that has killed masses of people with nothing to show for it. I don't really care if death is intentional or via misguided accident. Dead is dead and we've seen the results of the experiment. >>looking at ideas as ideas rather than scary words can really help to understand things like that. now how how about i make my own ridiculous comparison. uhhhhh imagine if someone tried to bring back nazis like people want to bring back commies, oh wait people already rally and do that together in public, and are supported under "free speech". << I'm in favour of free speech. Notice I'm not saying you can't talk? All I'm doing is pointing out the facts behind that experiment, and my own observations on where you seem to not know what the terms actually mean. The word is just a sound. What the word represents is terrifying. Also, Neo Nazis have no serious backing. It's a discredited ideology. Socialism has serious backing. People take it seriously. Presidential candidates have proudly stated they're socialist. Bernie Sanders is the best example. There are openly socialist members of congress abc Western governments around the world. Endorsed by major parties. AOC is a prime example. Which would you be more concerned about?
    1
  5.  @acitrid  ​ Yeah, I think I'm going to need you to start quoting me when you reply like this. For instance: I didn't say "Bernie Sanders and AOC are going to "kill more than hitler" because they call themselves socialists" - I used them as examples that show Socialism still has legitimacy (and mass support) whereas Neo Nazism doesn't. Considering I was explicitly talking about backing of the ideology, and not about what they, personally are going to do, simply because they call themselves Socialist, that's past misunderstanding and well into straw man territory. >>please give me any actual reason why.<< Re-read my post and ignore your own straw men. I gave a major real word example of a socialist policy that led to mass starvation. >>Look at their policy and explain to me how it's going to lead to food shortages<< Repeating that it's done, and look at the 20th century. >>All I'm asking for is reasons besides "venezuela" or "stalin"<< Or Mao, or really, it seems a safe bet that any of the 20th century monsters who contributed to these deaths will be ignored. Anyway, what's wrong with the statement I made? Please quote it when you're explaining it. I no longer trust you to speak in good faith. >>. Also if you think white supremacy exists at a negligible size in the US you aren't really paying attention<< You're not paying attention to what I wrote. Read it again. I was doing a comparison. I didn't say they were at a negligible size, I said they lacked serious backing. Then proceeded to give examples (examples which that statement clearly shows you read in the correct context, despite your previous misrepresentation of what I said) >>People are more scared of socialists than nazis, and that's because THEY think they're the same thing as communists. I never said that they were so I dont really know where you got that from.<< 1. People should be for the reasons I gave. 2. You know how I asked you for what you thought these words mean? The answer to that appears to be missing. It was literally in the first line of my response, so it's clear that you read the question. Anyway, please try again. Quote what I said. Anything incorrect will be jumped on, as you've got no excuse for not being a bit more careful the next time round. Edit: Not that this is the first time I've pointed out where you've misrepresented what was said. One time is an accident, repeated, however... It starts to look intentional.: >>National socialism what socialism in name only, and if you actually do research on what led to the eventual conditions in germany, you will see that socialism as socialism was never the plan. << I never said otherwise. What I said was imagine if people tried to rehabilitate that term. I also said that Socialism is an ideology that has killed far more than Hitler has. Which should have been another indication that I separated the two terms.
    1
  6.  @acitrid  I'm interested in why you don't think the idea that words have meaning is relevant. Would you feel the same of someone tried to redefine national socialism to mean something nice and fluffy? (and as a by product, help white wash some of the 20th century's greatest monsters, as well as make people receptive to the idea that national socialism isn't all that bad?) If you're not against the removal of private ownership of industry, you're not a socialist. Social democracy isn't socialism, it's using capitalism to provide the things that socialism failed to. Be a social democrat by all means, but please don't participate in this word play that's intended to make an idealogy that killed 100 million with nothing to show for it palatable. The atrocities committed while trying to make it work really were on the same level as anything Hitler had done. If you try to make that ideology (and by extension, things associated with it) acceptable, what separates you from a holocaust denier?
    1
  7. You enjoy spreading misinformation?
    1
  8. Socialist supporters have been forced to redefine it. Otherwise they're supporting something that's killed twice as many as Hitler.
    1
  9. That and Socialism has a fairly simple definition. But if he tried to claim what it actually is worked, well.... A lot of people have died during failures to make actual socialism work. Which is why people like him need to try and redefine it into something nice.
    1
  10. It was, once Hitler was in power and things were going his way. Up until that, it was left wing. After things stopped going his way, he was still right wing (A reactionary. He sure as shit wanted things to go back to the way they were) Because all right/left wing really mean is whether you're opposed to, or in favour of the status quo. If you want change, you're left, if you don't want change, or want to revert, you're right.
    1
  11. It kind of was towards the end. Left/right wing are descriptors of someone's openness to change. The later leaders were against change. So they were right wing, by definition. Someone who doesn't have what he wants is left wing. Someone who has what he wants and doesn't want it to change is right wing (Conservative). Someone who had what he wants, but lost it and wants it back is right wing (reactionary)
    1
  12.  @williamcanady8636  crack open a dictionary. You've got this romanticised idea of what someone who is probably conservative is now, while having no idea of the root of the words. Someone who is left is someone who wants change. Someone who is right falls under conservative - someone who opposes change or supports the status quo. And reactionary - someone who wants things to go back to a previous state. That is all those words mean. Someone who doesn't have what he wants is left. (Hitler when he was on his way up) Someone who has what he wants is right wing conservative (Hitler when he was at his peak) Someone who wants to go back to what he had before is right wing reactionary (Hitler in the bunker) A socialist in a socialist state is right wing. A capitalist in a socialist state (that has been socialist for a while) is left wing. A socialist in a capitalist state is left wing. A capitalist in a capitalist state is right wing. But I'd already explained this simple concept, so..... If it helps, Pakman is also an idiot on it. If you still disagree, tell me... Does a conservative in Saudi Arabia give a damn about the rights of the individual VS the rights of the state? Or in Iran?
    1
  13.  @williamcanady8636  I'm not really trying to appear superior, but you're making it difficult to avoid. It's basically looking like you think America is the world. So.. I guess.. Open up an atlas, then open up a dictionary.
    1
  14.  @williamcanady8636  they changed the language to make certain concepts impossible. I'm pointing out what the words meant from day one. You're trying to change them for your own ideology. Next thing for you to look up is projection.
    1
  15.  @williamcanady8636  the government... And?
    1
  16. >>The statists are trying to change the meaning of words to bend the law to the point of fracture<< How I'm using the words is how they've been used for centuries. >>The "conservatives" are trying to maintain the meaning of words so the application of laws will remain faithful to intent<< That is what a conservative would do. So you're not a conservative. >>Conservatives believe that if you don't like a law, you change it<< See, this is how I know you're not a conservative. Because conservatism is an opposition to change. By definition. You're trying to change the definitions of words. >>If you don't like the constitution as written, you amend it<< That is exactly not what a conservative would do. A prime example of what being a conservative isn't all about. If you think the constitution needs to change on a subject, on that subject you're not a conservative (unless you're changing it back to how it was in a previous iteration) - You're a progressive. >>Progressives can't seem to garner the support to amend the constitution, so they bend to the point of fracture the meaning of words in the law to facilitate the desired change of application.<< All constitutional changes have been made by progressives. Because someone who wants to change it is a progressive by definition. You can't be in favour of change on a particular subject AND be a conservative on a particular subject. By definition. Can you do me a favour and start arguing in favour of Socialism? I'm not really happy when idiots identify as being on a side I support. You'd do our own causes a much greater service if you could defect.
    1
  17.  @williamcanady8636  you're going to need to quote where I said I was a socialist.
    1
  18. >>Robert Bray I do apologize for calling you a socialist. It is a very derogatory statement and should not be launched without great care and accuracy<< On about the same level as Nazi. And I find it entertaining to watch an Antifa supporter to explain the difference between 20th century Socialism and Nazism. >>So what is your preferential ideological association so that I don't again liken you to such a vile ideology as socialism<< Fairly centrist (Political tests have me in the middle. I'm an Atheist Capitalist who supports gay marriage and thinks the SJW movement is pure cancer who supports the Australian Liberal (Conservative) party because he won't, under any likely circumstances, support the socialist union-dominated Labor party.. -10 + 10 = 0) libertarian. Classic liberal (Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion, supporter of due process in all situations) And from my paycheck, very, very Capitalist. Liberal is using the dictionary definition. Not the one you probably have in your head. Specifically: "favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs." (Someone who thinks the constitution needs to be changed who tries to do this is a liberal under that definition) And "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties." This includes the freedom to fail because of your own retarded choices. I take great pleasure in the amount of baristas who studied useless degrees. My wife was a Chinese Communist party member when I met her. Deprogramming her was.... Actually quite fun.
    1
  19. Overall, yep. The only thing I'd highlight is the difference between definition and common effect. "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt changespecifically" = Definition "such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage)" = an example effect in countries like the US. In the USSR, that would have (except for national defense) been the policies of a radical liberal. An Australian conservative has very different specific policy platforms to an American one. (In Australia, it's more about the individual vs the group though, rather than left v right) A USSR conservative was 100% a near polar opposite to an American conservative when it came to specific platforms. Both conservatives, though. And so on.
    1
  20. No. In Australia, the Liberal (conservative) party is about the individual whereas the Labor (Union-dominated socialist) is about the group. So on this stance, Australian conservative and US conservative is the same And obviously a Soviet conservative was about the collective. An Australian conservative is fully in favour of public healthcare though (This is fairly bipartisan) Although I'd say the other major distinction is favouring the business vs favouring the union. Religion is just barely a topic here.
    1
  21. With nothing to show for it. You forgot about that bit. Not a single success. Just excuses.
    1
  22. It's really very simple. But after the 20th century, someone who supports the reality of it is actually a monster. So people try to obfuscate the meaning.
    1
  23. Yep. Not sure why you gave a list of Social Democracies, though... I thought this was about Socialism.
    1
  24. Yes. Social Democracy has fairly common ideological roots to Socialism. The problem with Socialism isn't where the money goes (It's easy to make a long list of laudable goals) but where the money comes from. And on that (which is kind of a requirement for the nice things in life) it fails pretty epically. Over and over again. Which is why it's Capitalist countries delivering the things that Socialism promised, while Socialist states end in varying degrees of bad within a relatively short timescale.
    1
  25. That's social democracy, which isn't democratic socialism.
    1
  26. What's most fun is seeing the sort of people who defend socialism. Generally clueless people who've never cracked open a dictionary.
    1
  27. Because equally poor doesn't help. You and your neighbour are on ten dollars a day. Assume 0 inflation. What's better? You and your neighbour staying on ten dollars a day? Or you going to 20 while your neighbour goes to 100?
    1
  28.  @sveingeraldhansen7275  no reason. There's no magic stopping a cooperative from working. However, start forcibly taking away private property and watch everyone who's capable of making something bigger than himself get out or refuse to take risks. The people who are really capable of making economies work, of really making something big are relatively few and far between. They're also welcome literally everywhere and by and large, they will go where the biggest rewards are. That guy you voted in to management? If he was good enough to run the company, he would probably already be running the place (or something similar).
    1
  29.  @sveingeraldhansen7275  so you're going to make a time machine to take us back to those times? Otherwise, yeah you would need to.
    1
  30. And none of those things are what any of the major Socialist revolutionaries had in mind. Imagine if Lenin had made the goal of his Socialist revolution the introduction of schools and a welfare state. Then left the actual economy alone. History would have been more than a touch different, but to people like this, that would still be Socialism.
    1
  31. Neither of those things are socialism.
    1
  32. Socialism is an economic model based on who owns the means of production. You can't base an economy off simply handing out free stuff. There needs to be profit (something else Socialism fails at)
    1
  33.  @arrow-lo7jf  yeah. If he nationalised the farms, you'd have a point. All you're really saying here is if you change the meaning of the word, you have it. If that's what you want to do, fine. Your head is your own private kingdom. In it, you can do as you wish.
    1
  34.  @arrow-lo7jf  it you want it, stop conflating it with what it's not. The people who do this are those who are against social services and want to link it to the failure of socialism, and those who are in favour of socialism and want to link it to the success of social services. Neither is accurate and neither is your friend.
    1
  35. Or to put it another way: He didn't miss out a single example of successful Socialist countries. </silverlining>
    1
  36. To be replaced with what? Surely you're not suggesting Socialism, with its 100% failure rate (There are no Socialist states in Europe) is a viable replacement.
    1
  37.  @egalitarianvegan8806  and now when I ask you to name them, you'll give me capitalist social democracies such as the Denmark and Sweden. Is that about right?
    1
  38.  @TheTerminator-2  I don't find that you're an idiot humiliating in the least.
    1
  39.  @egalitarianvegan8806  I did, but I'm interested in what these successful socialist states are. To see how seriously the rest of what you said should be taken if you were able to get something simple and current correct.
    1
  40.  @egalitarianvegan8806  or you could show what you've learnt and list some countries. It's a very simple question. What do you think Socialism is?
    1
  41.  @egalitarianvegan8806  there is also an overriding decision, and it's not beyond people to try and misrepresent what it actually is. Including people who claim that social democracy and democratic Socialism are the same thing. So... Can you (personally) give me the definition? Can you (personally) list some successful socialist states? When you get evasive like this on the basics, it suggests you don't know the basics well enough to be confident in your own words. If you don't, why should anything else you say be taken seriously?
    1
  42.  @egalitarianvegan8806  I can see you're not the expert. You don't even know and understand the basic definition enough to write it out and list examples of successful countries yourself. You certainly came across as confident in your knowledge before these extremely basic questions were asked. So why should anything else you say be taken seriously?
    1
  43.  @KingDorner1x1  and they have a strong tendency to not have a basic clue of wtf they're talking about.
    1
  44.  @egalitarianvegan8806  you say many things. What you haven't said is anything that gives any indication you have the slightest clue of the basics of what you're talking about. Why would anyone listen to someone who can't do that? Would you listen to me on any subject about which I couldn't or wouldn't even display knowledge about the basics?
    1
  45.  @egalitarianvegan8806  I need a reference for asking you for examples of successful countries and for what you think Socialism is?
    1
  46.  @egalitarianvegan8806  I asked what you thought it was. Someone else's words aren't your thoughts. This could have been over a long time ago with a couple of simple sentences. I think socialism is insert definition Countries that have successfully implemented Socialism are one two three. Instead we have someone you have decided sounds like he knows what he's talking about with zero signs of personal understanding.
    1
  47.  @egalitarianvegan8806  well. If you want to claim that your OP post was anything more than the ramblings of someone who was so clueless on this subject he was unable to find even the basic definitions of the words he's using, it really is.
    1
  48.  @egalitarianvegan8806  if you knew what Socialism was and the history of China, you would know that China is an epic failure of Socialism and a brilliant capitalist success story. China's success started when Deng Xiaoping embraced capitalism and foreign investment. The socialist attempt was a complete failure. The high growth rate was a result of the government not actively going out of its way to suppress capitalism. And China looks ready to fail because an autocracy doesn't have the flexibility it needs to survive. So you say you've done your study, but all you've shown is you've learnt to parrot a few talking points you don't understand. You've had plenty of opportunity to show something deeper. You haven't.
    1
  49. ​@Mallard >>"Infinite growth on a finite planet" assumes there are no innovations that compensate for the growth and that nothing can be renewed or recycled, both of which are false assumptions. << Also, as places develop economically, the birthrate plummets. >>You're right, and that's the entire reason why China doesn't want to make a deal with Trump. They know that that deal means they'll have to embrace capitalism because they won't be able to steal intellectual property from other countries to the benefit of their own economy. If they can't steal, they must innovate or they will stop growing, and the only way to incentivise innovation is through capitalism.<< Oh, there's a whole shitload more to it than that. The Chinese economy is Capitalist, and has been since the 'economic miracle' started (This is part of Dennis's cluelessness on it.) but the govt is still socialist with a big emphasis on state owned enterprises. Not really because of economic benefit, though (That's provided by the Capitalist economy. Last time they were full-on socialist there was mass starvation... Mass seems an inadequate word), but because of political benefit. Also, it makes political leaders, generals, etc stinking rich. >>Their government knows they're in a tough spot right now and are trying (and hoping) Trump doesn't get back into office in 2020 because then they're going to have to do something if he does. All they can do right now is wait until then and let both economies suffer in the meantime. << Which is the really funny thing. It no longer matters if he gets back in or not. He's normalised pushing back on the PRC all over the world. It's become a unifying factor of major political parties in every developed country. Both economies will suffer, actually all of them will, but if America has a recession, there'll be an election, whoever's in charge might be kicked out, and a new lot will come into power. In the PRC, civil war is a likelihood. I'm living in HK now, and the risk to the economy is about the only reason I can think of why I haven't seen PLA troops going past my apartment. >>@Mallard Better institute those fantasy innovations very soon, because humanity is running out of time. << They're being implemented constantly. This is part of your general cluelessness. You don't see what's been a rapid process because it's been a rapid process your entire life. There's no magic wand that'll be implemented overnight, just a huge amount of individual advancements. I doubt you have the slightest idea of what you're actually looking for with these innovations. >>@Mallard I see things very differently. I view capitalism as the instrument of our own self destruction. There is world of evidence that backs up this analysis. The fact capitalism drives inequality I have never viewed it as a positive thing for humanity. << Again here we're getting back to your demonstrated inability to articulate even simple things in detail on your own. Those are standard tired talking points. Whereas you can't even give a basic definition of the words we're using. And really, thinking that China is a Socialist success story really is a hilarious level of ignorance. Adding onto that, if you're against inequality, China is a failure by that standard. China had equality. Everyone was dirt poor. Now, thanks to Capitalism, a decent amount are wealthy, hundreds of millions are OK, and only a small minority come close to the crushing poverty they endured under its old Socialist economy. Overall though, China is massively unequal. As soon as you leave the major cities, you enter a different world. Which further shows (as if further evidence was needed) that you haven't thought this through, there are far worse things than inequality.
    1
  50. Notice how you're saying socialistic or socialist ideas, rather than actual socialism? There's a reason for that. Many of the ideas aren't bad. The good ideas aren't particularly original, (do nice things) but they're in socialistic because they're the the goals that it's meant to achieve. The problem isn't the nice goals, it's the method of trying to achieve those goals, which is socialism.
    1