45 Comments

We already know.... you're so right-wing brainwashed, you'll never be able to "see the point" (too difficult for your to comprehend).

THE POINT:
"Tax Cuts" don't lay golden eggs for tax revenue..... LOL! ... as the hard data shows, all they do is cause more borrowing, because unlike you, most intelligent Americans understand that the Republicans never "cut spending" as you gullibly believe they do, when they introduce "tax cuts." In fact, just as we saw when they took over this last time.... Federal Spending Grew FASTER once Republicans took over both the Senate and the House, and even faster when Trump won the White House.

Only uneducated (thus "easily brainwashed") right-wing "morons," too stupid to look up the hard data, actually believe that Republican "Tax Cuts" (slower revenue growth) combined with faster spending growth somehow makes them "fiscal conservatives"..... LMAO!
.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154729
----------------------

Yeah, it is ironic that Canada, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are all socialist countries all in the top 10 category for quality of life, and yet somehow none of them are no longer considered socialist. Go figure. (the times, they are a changing)
P.S: I can't wait until Americans discover that they are a fascist country, beholden to corporate interests, and that they have been living high on the hog by subjugating the world around them by military force, and that none of these corporations had their best interests at heart. When China takes over, we are all going to be in for a rude awakening!



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154738
----------------------

I said I couldn't think of any. And even though I corrected myself and said that I do know of two, that doesn't change the fact that I have no idea what the names of any of these other politicians who won minor offices around the country are. So my initial statement was correct, except for Bernie and AOC.

saying that a few people won small elections around America doesn't mean their entire party supports their ideas. There are a LOT of people with really weird policies in state governments around the country. But none of them actually mean their position is a popular one, it just means their opponent was less popular than they were.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154720
----------------------

Typical liberal/socialist mentality..take from those who earn and work for a living to support those who will not work for a living but end up having all sorts of kids out of wedlock, pumping themselves full of drugs and alcohol, as well as socialist rhetoric, then wanting everyone else to take charge of their welfare in life. Doesn't work that way..never has and never will. Nobody is against giving a helping hand to those who are truly sick, aged, have documented issues such as severe learning disabilities. But to the illegal aliens, , drug addicts and other criminal...screw them..they just want a handout and someone to support them.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154753
----------------------

Well thanks (honestly) for finally responding with something substantial.

My take:
The "3rd" pillar is something controlled by any country in the world. By saying that having trade agreements with other countries is by definition "socialist", that means that it is impossible to have trade with other countries without being socialist. Which is BS.

From a left publication:

Capitalists, not governments, drive trade policy


https://disq.us/url?url=h...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://www.leftvoice.org/F" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >https://www.leftvoice.org...leftvoice.org/F...

I will agree that trade agreements are hardly free trade. But just because something isn't "free trade" doesn't automatically make it socialist.
https://disq.us/url?url=h...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://www.capitalismmagaz" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >https://www.capitalismmag...capitalismmagaz...

Be that as it is, the US Government has no ownership of production or distribution. And the concept that community services such as trash pickup and firefighters is somehow "socialism" is a canard.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154749
----------------------

3.

1 and 2 sound good in theory, but in practice, they're terrible. They would lead to a country with a very small, incredibly wealthy ruling class, no middle class, and a very poor, very large lower class.

Hell, most people would probably spend their entire paychecks paying for the right to drive on the roads they take to get to work, and wouldn't have any left over for their extremely high food bills due to having no government subsidies making staple foods affordable. And they CERTAINLY wouldn't be able to afford the fees they would have to pay to the fire department, the police department, to 911, to the military, and to every single other government organization that ensures their safety.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154758
----------------------

You have obviously been lucky so far that you or a family member of yours hasn't contacted a serious, possibly life threatening disease or illness. If your wife or daughter had been struck with cancer, you would change your tune. Before ACA the Health Insurers were free to deny coverage to anyone they thought might cut into their profits, and until you have been denied coverage, you haven't a clue what that feels like.
You go ahead and just worry about you and what health insurance costs you, but you had better start praying that you and your family DON'T develop some serious, life threatening disease.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154761
----------------------

Biscuits, pay attention.

The reason people say it (communism) has never been tried is because it has always failed. Marxism is theory and it has never and can never be applied to human social environments. It requires murder and theft to accomplish and from the very start that dooms it to failure.
Socialism is a process step to totalitarian communism, a necessary step. Sometimes it is brief and sometimes it is as far as the Marxist gets.

The problem with some of these biscuits here is they have literally no knowledge of Marxist theory or a working knowledge of how Marxist movements were implemented, either as socialism or proletarian communism. Hence their sophomoric embrace of fluffy platitudes of what socialism is.



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154733
----------------------

"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this.
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested
in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power.
What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different
from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing.
All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and
hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close
to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize
their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that
they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that
just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would
be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes
power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means;
it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard
a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship." - George Orwell, 1984



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154739
----------------------

It is a paraphrase. Word for word doesn't translate well for memes. But it IS accurate. Here are a couple of actual quotes:

What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the 'first', or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production become common property, the word 'communism' is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism


The State and Revolution

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly


The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It



Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=36044&lang=EN#vin3Comment-154735
----------------------