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

If you don't want the fear of "socialist" programs, stop adding to it by calling them socialist or trying to make a connection to one of the 20th century's biggest failures. Also start calling out people who call social services socialism. When it comes to this fear from association, you are part of the problem. Stop valuing the rehabilitation of a word that describes something that has killed 100 million with nothing to show for it above the programs and services you want. The lengths this video goes to show that socialism works could be used to show that homoeopathy works (more than the placebo effect would)
1
Have no idea on the Mormon result, but from reading up on the Kibbutz, it seemed to be best summed up as people lost interest and walked away (metaphorically if not literally) Kind of like what people were doing in the USSR before the wall went up.
1
As far as I can tell, they prefer dreams and professed (Given how the last century went, I just can't believe someone would sincerely want to help the poor AND be in favour of a socialist state. That requires too much ignorance of what actually happened whenever this was tried) intentions to real results. A sweatshop is a horrible place for us to work in, and sweatshop owners are paying them the minimum they can get away with. But the amount of good the sweatshop has done (even if for purely selfish reasons on part of the owners) is staggering.
1
Statistically speaking.... From all the other examples, including the Israeli Kibbutz. It would crumble.
1
No it's not What you gave is the definition of Socialism. For Communism, add dissolution of the state, classes, money, etc.
1
Well if he presented actual socialist states, rather than a straw-man redefinition, and then proceeded to defend them, he'd be a monster.
1
That suggests that it's worked. If it had worked, he wouldn't have had to spend so much time discussing things that weren't examples of successful attempts at Socialism.
1
But maybe it'll succeed next time!!!! Or if you're a geek: while [[ ${SOCIALISTSUCCESS} == "False" ]] do echo "Maybe it'll succeed next time" ./AttemptSocialism done And the loop just goes on, and on forever, consuming more resources, producing that can possibly justify the expense.
1
On the bright side, most "socialists" are morons who are clueless on the basic definition of the word. They just think it's taxpayer funded nice stuff.
1
Excuses mean more when there are successes to show it's not the common factor.
1
And then came 1922... And the Cheka, and so on. For something like this to work, it needs to work longer than four years. 1917 to 1921 created the environment that made the atrocities possible.
1
If you ignore the attempt to redefine socialism as 'general niceness' sure. If you do that, though, there isn't much left.
1
The 20th century shows us that if they won, they'd have still collapsed. Even the USSR took 70 years. Now where is it?
1
Whenever you paraphrase like that, you need to add "..... Again" to the end of it :P
1
You're using the wrong tense. Should have said "had" Any improvements in Venezuela are long gone.
1
The successful Socialist countries listed aren't Socialist. They're Capitalist social democracies. And Bu11y has no idea what Socialism is, even after he's run away from being educated several times.
1
As much as I disagree with the guy who made this video, you're not a lot better. It's a bit of a pity Christ wasn't more selective about his representatives on earth. What he allowed the various churches to do in his name for century after century is abhorrent. I'm not talking about the religious wars, persecution of X group the Churches disagree with. I'm talking about the rape of children. Men are bad, but Christ's churches have gone out of their way to enable and protect those committing the most selfish and evil of acts.
1
Was. Originally. When it was still ARPANET But Capitalism has taken the Internet from being a way to connect universities and defence networks to the all-encompassing driver of world economies it is today.
1
China doesn't use Capitalism to prop up Communism, it uses it to prop up the Communist party (which has long abandoned the quest for Communism, or even Socialism) And the improvements since they abandoned that quest have been massive. It's amazing what happens when you stop actively trying to screw things up.
1
Limerickman The label is communist. Kind of love how the DPRK is democratic. They ditched the attempt long ago. Now they're just another fascist dictatorship. And.... That is actually an improvement. Edit: I should be clear that I agree it's a fantastically bad idea that has shown no sign it'll actually work. But so far they haven't failed at implementing communism, they've failed at implementing socialism. They can't get past the first step. First they need to succeed at implementing socialism. Then they'll need to succeed at making it work. At this point, they can start to fail at implementing communism.
1
Weird. Notification came up, but no message. Anyway: No, not all Socialist states become dictatorships. In the Israeli Kibbutz, people just... Walked away. They weren't interested in continuing. Basically, at some point, people simply lose interest. Whether they become a dictatorship or simply dissolve really depends on whether the govt in power tries to force it. The Iron Curtain is a prime example of the other option. People were losing interest and leaving, so they needed to turn the country into a literal prison.
1
You wish you'd seen something that needs to redefine the term far out of scope and talk about countries that aren't Socialist to claim that it's worked? If you're honest, you wouldn't put it like he has. People like to conflate Socialism with Social Democracy. These are very different (even Democratic Socialism is different to Social Democracy)
1
It's not inconsistent to be opposed to dictatorships under any guise.
1
Right wing is conservative or reactionary. That's about it. Sulla was a right wing dictator. Caesar would probably have been a left wing dictator (He was a reformer. Left wing doesn't necessarily mean socialist, it's just someone who wants change) In many ways, Hitler was also a left wing dictator. He was definitely a reformer. The Kaiser was a right wing dictator. So... He's wrong in that it's a right wing system. What matters is what's done with the dictatorship. Also, the Nordic countries aren't socialist. They're social democracies and they invest in social programs. Socialism is about common ownership of the means of production. If the government isn't enforcing that, it's not socialist. Chavez and Maduro are, because they were implementing that. Northern European countries have very strong respect for property rights.
1
For your first paragraph, read my post as clarification more than argument. For the second... Yes. Absolutely. Remember these terms predate Socialism. Socialists were labelled left wing because they wanted change. Imagine you want the world to be X, but it's Y At that point in time, you're left wing. Now imagine you get what you want, and it becomes X. You don't want this to change. At that point in time, you're right wing. Now imagine the world becomes Z but you want it to go back to X. You're still right wing, because you're a reactionary, which is defined as wanting to go to how things were before. It's really as simple as that. These terms have become very loaded, but the basic definitions are still there. Going further a bit, in many ways, this is why the term liberal is misapplied. A Liberal is someone who's willing to accept, respect or listen to people who hold opinions or belief that disagree with him/her/InserFavouredPronoun. So, remember the Antifa riots started to stop various people speaking? They weren't liberal. By definition. Anyone who is willing to shut down, attack or silence someone else based on nothing more than the person's thoughts, beliefs or words is not a liberal. In many ways, Voltaire's "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it" is pretty much liberalism in a nutshell. Which made it hilarious when someone was calling me a Nazi for supporting the right of people I strongly disagreed with to speak.
1
You think this video is giving facts? After watching it, what successful Socialist states can you name?
1
@billyj3842 no Scandinavian country is socialist. They're social democracies, which is not the same as democratic socialism.
1
@billyj3842 Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist. At best he's an idiot who's misapplied the term. At worst, he's making use of idiots who don't know what he's talking about. He's a social democrat. Socialism isn't about where the money is spent, it's about who owns what produces it. If you're not talking about public ownership of the means of production, you're not talking about socialism.
1
Because he's like Mulder. He wants to believe. And he doesn't want to be on the same level as a holocaust denier, which is what someone who knows what socialism is yet still thinks it's a good idea would need to be.
1
The Israeli Kibbutz. But they kind of just walked away. Rather than become Totalitarian, people just lost interest.
1
If you ignore the economic collapse he set the scene for, as well as borrowing going into servicing debt rather than improving things, sure.
1
Does this include the ones that point out he found his 'successes' by redefining what socialism means?
1
@twisting2018 he wants to believe.
1
Vicious in your world = asking for quotes on where they're promoting this.
1
Well, the first lot is one big wad of projection. Anyway: >>So I'm answering your original question first: The Mondragon Corporation, centered in the Basque region of Spain, started out in the 1956. It has grown to producing billions in revenue annually, is the 10th largest corporation in Spain, and today boast almost 100,000 worker-owners.<< You could argue Capitalism wasn't abandoned there. Simply never adopted. It does ignore that the collection of cooperatives are existing in a Capitalist society, with a workforce that comprises of about 5% of the working population in the region (3 million in the basque region. Normally a workforce is about half of a population) So if that's your best argument, then well... Fair enough. A small lake of success in an ocean of costly failures. >>BOB, DON'T try to wave this aside as irrelevant or unimportant. If you try that, it will simply reinforce the image of a Sanctimonious Prick that you give. This is a place where abandoning capitalism has worked out well. It is the real deal, and it is a super example of a PRIVATE SOCIALIST ENTERPRISE.<< More projection. And again. A drop of success in an ocean of failure. If I tried making the same argument for Capitalism, I'd be rightly laughed out of the room. >>FURTHERMORE, he attempted to answer even your question of nations where socialism is practiced. He gave you a perfectly valid list, and you then redefined your question AGAIN, claiming that he had just given you a list of capitalist countries. Such vicious dishonesty, and you know as well as I do, that a majority of First World countries are, unquestionably, a combination of both capitalist and socialist. The two philosophies can and do successfully coexist, contrary to your terrified opinion.<< No. He didn't. None of those countries are Capitalist. You're just redefining the word to mean Capitalist taxpayer-funded nice things. >>I am just getting started, Bobbie boy. Now I am going to take every one of your points that the other fellow missed somehow, and address each and every one of them in a new post in these same comments. So even if you fail to appear here again, I am going to refute every single claim you made.<< Please continue. I'm enjoying being an irrumator. Edit: Actually, you should have done that by now. I can't see it. You've expressed fantasies about me performing homosexual acts (maybe I should remove my photo. It's obviously distracting you) and gone on about one company that would be utterly unremarkable in the Capitalist world, that's it. Can you link me? The original thread seemed to be the logical location.
1
>> His claims that the societies he named from today, including Canada and New Zealand, are the "best game in town" completely ignores the fact that the US is setting up a world order and defending them<< That and they're not Socialist. They're Capitalist. The only reason you'd use them to support a pro-socialist argument is if you had no good examples of actual socialist states.
1
>>I think both of you are correct, depending on what kind of socialist implementation one is referring to.<< Yep. There's "Things people call Socialism but aren't, because actual Socialism fails so frequently there are no working examples of actual socialism that pro-socialists can point to" then there's "actual attempts at socialism" The latter are the bad ones.
1
And yet after seeing them, you were still so clueless on what it is, when questioned you were forced to go off on an immediate tangent then delete the evidence. That was fun, BTW.
1
As for your cluelessness, evidence to date suggests otherwise. Let's see: First it was Scandinavian countries. Norway in particular. Then it moved to the Basque regions. Presumably because of Mondragon (employing 70k out of I think 1.5 million working age people in a collection of companies) Then it was a ramble on about your own ideals. Then it was an attempt at the US. Then it was thread deletion. And now... France? Because they elected Socialists to their executive branch. France does not have a Socialist economy. It has a heavily unionised one, that's true (at least traditionally. I haven't checked recently) but that's not the same as being socialist. And yes. The USSR was successful for a while.... Then it rather epically collapsed. (You can actually see the collapse on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg - A momentary bump, then a rapid decline. The stopping of the increase appears to be around the time Mao kicked the bucket) And ah, outside intervention. Seriously. You've given no successful Socialist states. All you've given is an assortment of states you fling out to see what sticks. (I wonder what'll come next. Normally people go for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc after that.) and excuses.
1
@ulissesgrant1618 you must be new to the internet. That's not how any of this works. If you don't feel you can defend your publicly stated opinions or beliefs, it's probably a good idea to re-examine those beliefs. Or accept that you can't cope with them being responded to with words and logic and stop inviting a response. There's plenty of safe spaces where you can have all the self-reinforcing echo chamber you like. YouTube isn't one of them. Anyway, you are clueless. We can add intellectually and emotionally stunted to the list of things your posts demonstrate. People will disagree with you. Words and ideas can and should be challenged on their merits. Grow up.
1
"I'll deal with you in a different way make sure you don't answer this comment keep it to yourself capish" So for how long do I need to keep looking over my shoulders for approaching assassins? It's been a week, and so far your response has been as ineffectual as your ability to cope with being disagreed with. If it helps, I haven't embarrassed you. You did that to yourself. But thanks for the entertainment :-)
1
>>Yeah sure. I've been called a fascist before, and a lot of bad things<< Just on this... I've been called a Nazi for supporting freedom of speech, even when I disagree with the person speaking. Many times. So yeah. Any term vaguely related to it has been abused to the point of meaninglessness. It's simply an overused label whose only merit is it makes the recipient of the label 'fair game' to certain groups.
1
Because China ditched socialism decades ago. And Cuban successes are very limited things that do, in some cases, match what's common in Western capitalist states. As for it being authoritarianism. You're confusing the term with dictatorship. And also making that term benign because no one holds power without support. Even Hitler had people he needed.
1
Socialist policy in this case isn't socialism. It's just the nice things that socialism is meant to pay for.
1
@blake4249 list them and we'll take a look 🙂️ Because what I saw was a lot of effort to redefine the word. Then find places that fit this new, erroneous definition
1
@Mr123robert1999 what does that have to do with your opening statement? And from that, I'm going to guess you don't know what socialism is.
1
@Mr123robert1999 before we start. What do you think socialism is?
1
@Mr123robert1999 no. It's an economic system that focuses on public ownership of the means of production. The things that make an economy run. Factories, farms, etc. That's why this video gets that many downvotes. It paints a straw man.
1
https://youtu.be/vyl2DeKT-Vs This is a video the guy who runs some Marxist website did explaining the differences. You could also open up a dictionary and check the definition.
1