Lets just ignore every single exaple of socialism, call it not real socialism, and just blindy blast ahead saying socialism is better. even though you cant produce one SINGLE example and every example presented "isnt real socialism" lmao. Even when its called " socialism" . . There is a reason why it has never worked well in the past.
think about it, capitalism in the USA during the 1950's. You could work at a gas station and support your family of 4. So why is it no longer working as great? well its called corporatism or crony capitalism. i personally think we should have state owned banks. Although for the most part I prefer capitalism other then that. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0rJWnRFUJA"]ALL BANKS SHOULD BE LIKE THE Bank of North Dakota - YouTube[/ame]
not 1 "socialist" in this thread has adressed the issue of what happens when the private company owners dont want to turn over their property to the state. Not 1 single answer to that question. they would rather talk about how " thats not a real example of socialism " then actually produce any. Strawman city. I have a headache now.
Generally speaking, the accepted method of rebutting an argument is to submit some type of evidence that refutes your opponent's claim, not rolling your eyes and saying their inaccurate. Once again.
If you want to argue about pseudosocialisms being bad, then go ahead, but so far your cop out also applies to you considering you refuse to acknowledge the true ideals and mature of socialist programs working well in a non-socialised society (to use your term).
All the corporate policies that contribute to crony capitalism is to blame on the free market, while any socialist state that has failed is not due to socialism but other random factors we can't factually explain. Logical argument.
You have the whole internet to reference yet you've posted nothing to back your argument. I think it's your job to provide examples if you want any sort of intellectual debate. Are you saying socialists can't even express their ideals without some sort of government incentive?
I'm on my iTouch and can't insert hyperlinks I find from a google search you could just as easily perform, but are apparently refusing to.
So you have no answer ? Ill ask again. what happens if the person who owns the private business doesn't want to turn it over to the government? Since we can't use any real world examples since they don't fit your scope of socialism, tell us what happens ?
Me? Why me? I'm nit the one proposing government takeovers. You've been the one proposing that as far as I can tell.
He's asking if you support a violent takeover to redistribute his land to the collective. Is the individual inferior or have any less of a right to his land than the majority does?
do you support the ideology in repossessing land/property for the collective, do 99 people have more of a right to that land rather than the original owner who has built and maintained the property/machinery?