WDSmart

Socialism doesn't incite weakness. It promotes sharing. Freedom is not the ultimate expression of capitalism. Selfishness is the ultimate expression of capitalism.

I started my comment proceeding this one by stating I didn't know what you meant by "self ownership." I thank you for your explanation above explaining your use of that term. It's basically selfishness - putting your desires above the community's needs and best interests. And, yes, you're right. That is the opposite of socialism. The USA is now a republic of fifty states under the constitution you describe above. This does not annoy the left (or at least me). What annoys me is the right's (people like you?) decision of what constitutional rights are versus what can be legislated individually by each state. Your example is a good one. How is DEI Hire a violation of constitutional rights and not a law that can be legislated by a state? It's not the Constitution that is thought to be "in the way of progress" by the left. It's the right's interpretation of the Constitution that is in the way of progress. But, of course, that is one of the major differences between liberals who are open to and promote change and conservatives who are against change. An example is "Make America Great Again" vs. "Make America Greater." If businesses are leaving states that favor DEI Hire, it is because they want the right to ensure their workforce is populated mainly with superior people - straight White males. Socialism is for the strong and accepting. A good example of socialism is how most people envision an ideal family. Some in the family contribute more than others. Some don't contribute much or are even a burden, like a child who is retarded or crippled. But all are given as much as the family can give. "From each according to ability. To each according to need," Capitalism is just the Law of the Jungle. The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. People who are a burden are ignored and cast out. I do agree with your last sentence, "Self ownership is the epitome of capitalism and self expression which is at 180 degree odds of socialism." Sharing, using self expression, is the epitome of socialism.

Public services are socialist aspects of any society. I don't consider taxes specifically socialistic, but they are a way to fund the government. In a true socialistic society, there would be no taxes because there would be no wages paid. People would just work at what they felt was best for the society ("from each according to ability). Socialism existed long ago. It was the way humans (and many other animals) have lived together since time began. The terms "socialism," "capitalism," and "authoritarianism" were created long after that, but even those terms have existed in the English language for centuries. Most all "murderous, hate-ridden dictatorships" were not socialistic or communistic. Many claimed to be, but they were not. Most of these were plutocracies and tried to gather all the wealth of the country into a few people at the top of their authoritarianistic governments). Socialism and communism do not "divide the world into Exploiters and Eploitees." Both socialism and communism don't divide the "world" (society) at all. They treat everyone the same. In the case of socialism, that treatment is based on the perceived needs of the individual ("to each according to need"). In communism, there is no division at all. Everyone owns everything equally. The only historical example that I know of is the legends in the Bible of Jesus and his disciples. There have been some communes (communistic societies) established in some countries, but these are just experiments in communism. It is capitalism that divides people into exploiters (those with the capital) and exploitees (those who work for them).

I assume you are referring to Greene, not AOC... 😉

You described authoritarianism right there. Any infringement on self ownership is authoritarian. The US constitution requires that the government is run by the people for the people. But that really annoys the left because they want to call all the shots for you and dictate who gets what, entitled rewards without merit. I'm not sure what you mean by "self ownership" or why you think socialism does not support that. I assume you think "to each according to needs" means the government would determine what your needs are (and are not). That part is true, but whether or not that's "authoritarian" depends on the type of government. If the government were a democracy, then everyone would vote on what your needs were . If the government was a representative democracy, then the elected representatives would together determine on what your needs were, or the elected officials in your area would determine that. If the government were an authoritarian type, like a monarchy, then the monarch or his appointed representatives would determine that. That's exactly how it is done today in the USA (my home country), which is, for the most part, a representative democratic republic.

I disagree with AOC on this, which I seldom do. Greene's nomination/appointment is not "hilarious.' It's, as are all Trump's cabinet nominations/appointments, "outrageous" and will be catastrophic for my home country during the next four years. But that's what the plurality of the voters apparently wanted, or at least were conned into believing would be the best route for them. 😞

Bondi is certainly a step up from Gaetz, but as with all Trump's nominations, she will cause chaos in the upcoming government. 😞

Why do you think it is "impossible" to have socialism without authoritarianism? Socialism is "from each according to ability, and to each according to need." What part of that do you think requires an authoritarian government? A historical example is Native American Indian tribes. Although they had a Chief, he did not instruct them in their everyday life. They could go hunt or fish individually, whatever and whenever they liked. They could also agree to go together to accomplish some tasks for the entire tribe. Logic tells us that economies and governments are separate entities. They have to work together to serve the society, but none have a one-to-one relationship. If you think one does, I'd say you should consider capitalism paired with a plutocracy (rule of the wealthy). My education (BA, BS-CSE, and MBA) did not teach me there was a one-to-one link between socialism and authoritarianism. I do concede that I've heard that is taught today in some places, but that's more of an indoctrination than an education. Most government-provided services labeled "Public" are examples of socialism. These services are provided to ALL citizens and paid for by the government. A good example is a public park or a public street. Everyone can go, and no one has to pay a fee. That's "to each according to need." The park is maintained by the government using funds that have been collected through taxes. Some citizens don't pay taxes, some pay only a little taxes, and some pay a lot. That's "from each according to ability.'

Yes, women do clean men's restrooms in Thailand where I live. Sometimes a man does, but most times, a woman. I don't think the male cleaners are allowed in women's restrooms, though, but I don't know that for sure. And, in Thailand, there are 'ladyboys' (gay men who sometimes dress as women). I wonder which restrooms they go to. I've seen them occasionally in men's restrooms, but not very often. Maybe they usually go to women's restrooms? But, when I lived in the USA, sometimes at big events, like rock concerts or baseball/football games, women would go into men's restrooms during a break or halftime because the line to the women's restrooms was so long. When that happened, no one (men) really cared at all. Some were amused, but no one objected.

Yes, I agree with most of what you say above about the two extremes you describe above, but where do you draw the line? I think the line should be drawn in the same place for everyone, not just for transsexuals. For example, I would not want to see a woman coming into a men's restroom, taking off her underware, and lying on the floor with her legs spread. That presents a danger to men and boys.

The scary thing for me is that you and perhaps even the majority of my fellow citizens (USA) believe both socialism and communism have to be paired with authoritarianism. Socialism, communism, and capitalism are economic systems. Democracy, authoritarianism, monarchy, etc., are governmental systems. Economic systems can be paired with a variety (but not all) of governmental systems. Socialism, communism, and capitalism can all be paired with a democracy. Socialism and communism cannot be paired with a plutocracy like capitalism because, in socialism and communism, there are no people who have more wealth than others. The USA, like most countries, has a mixed economy with both socialistic and capitalistic aspects. Most services that start with "pubic" are socialistic services, like public libraries, public schools, public parks, public fire departments, etc. Services that start with "private" are capitalistic, like private hospitals, private schools, etc. The main arguments about the economy in the USA are not about whether or not there should only be capitalism or socialism; it's about the percentage of the mix. I hope you have learned something from the ooze above... 😉

I am a Democrat, a far-left liberal, and yes, I am a socialist. Socialism is an economic system like capitalism. A democratic government can administer a socialistic, capitalistic, or even communistic economy. A democratic government can indeed run a socialistic economy with a constitution, and yes, it has freedoms. It has, for example, the freedom for you to work at whatever you want, whatever you think will most benefit society. The good thing about socialism is that the government then fulfills your needs as best it can, using all the assets of society. In a capitalistic economy with a democratic government, needs are fulfilled by the individuals as best as they can, with no help at all from the government. If you are not a successful worker or entrepreneur, you'll starve.

MSNBC is history. RIP Oops! I take that back! I never watch MSNBC or Morning Joe, but I just looked them up on the Internet, and they are considered a liberal news outlet, not a conservative one. So, I hope Morning Joe gets his viewers back, and MSNBC continues to present the news from the perspective I prefer.

No, I do care about the USA's constitution, but some of the aspects of it are outdated. One is the topic of this Forum, and I've suggested another one, the Electoral College. It was put into place 248 years ago because after the votes in each state were collected and counted, they would have to ride on horseback to Washington, DC, to include them in the tally to determine who won the presidential election. Also, because of the emphasis on state's rights, each state was allowed to determine how their votes would be cast. Now, with our computers and communications structures, we should just be able to send the votes electronically and have them tallied as the popular vote. That's what I'd recommend. Of course, I'm a Democrat (favoring a democracy) and not a Republican (favoring a republic). If you're worried that I'm trying to change the results of this election, I'm not. I accept the fact that Trump won (accept it disappointedly). He won the plurality of the popular vote, so he would have been elected president in that case. However, there is the possibility that if no one wins a majority, the top two candidates will have a run-off election. That would have been an interesting event should it have happened this time.

Who knows. I'm not riven by hate so I can't guess their motives. I guess it's a religious thing. I just wonder because I don't care if my toilet facilities are used by other men, women, or transvestites of either gender unless, of course, they assault me. But that would apply to anyone at any time, not just transvestites.

Why? Do transvestites arouse them in ways they don't want to occur in public?

I never thought there would be anything I would agree with RFK, Jr. about, but I guess I was wrong!

Love it! It's about time...

Good! I hope he loses his show permanently.

These are just the beginning signs of what will be destructive and catastrophic four years.

Where, then, would transvestites go when they have to go to the toilet? There is now one that will be in the House of Representatives.

How about men's restrooms? Are women also not allowed in them?

I include the Electoral College in the list of historical but outdated aspects of our (the USA's) constitution.

Lock them up!

Lock him up!