[Torcert]

Can anyone tell me were the leftist national socialists obtain their ridiculous definitions of Socialism?

I realize they like to use those grotesquely distorted definitions to try and claim success were it doesn't exist, but what is the source of this 'thinking'?

Is there some Commie Core lessons out there that define the organized evil of socialism in this manner?

Someone please try to explain this bizarre turn of events, your help would be greatly appreciated.

[Fhios]

Socialism is an evolutionary dead end.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I don't know how much help I can offer on your quest. The liberals love to set the terms of debate and like to redefine them at well. Socialism always sounds enticing on the surface because the definitions assume people will go along with the idea and work hard. This is not human nature and socialism bring out the worst in people. The best real warning and definition of socialism I have seen is found the in the Bible.

Proverbs 1: 10-15 “My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause: Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit: We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil: Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse: My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:”

A group of people who band together and use force to take what they do not deserve from others. That's socialism in a nutshell.

[BitWielder1]

I like this one I saw on a picture here on FR recently:

Socialism: You make it, they take it.

[KC Burke]

Socialism in concept was the goals of government being managing society with the force of government to produce good society of equal outcomes. From the first, there was no way to finance such a scheme. That is why Marx was under a time constraint for he and Engels to finish their economic system.

What happened was the economic system began to define socialism/communism as the original understanding was never approached.

[Little Ray]

Technically, socialism is government ownership of the means of production.

However, socialists got creative and decided they didn’t need to actually own the means of production (too much like work) and would settle for ‘controlling’ the means of production (through regulations) and seizing the profits from that productivity (through taxation).

So, for all intents and purposes, if the State is seizing some portion income or wealth of one group to transfer to another group that is not providing goods or services to State, or the group whose income is being seized, then you have socialism.

[Mase]

Bookmark

[Ohioan]

To understand what all Socialists movements have in common you have to understand what we call The Compulsion For Uniformity.

To understand the neurotic compulsion involved in promoting Socialist controls over free will, and the frantic efforts to substitute totalitarian dogma for personal responsibility, consider Compassion Or Compulsion?.

To understand the rationalizations employed to market socialist systems to the susceptible, see The Lies Of Socialism and Variations On Demonic Theme.

[lurk]

Socialism: Iniquity in state form.

[jonrick46]

Socialism is the system of public ownership that immorally seizes by force and against the will of the private owners, private property. Socialism also immorally seizes the means of production by seizing the land, regiments labor, substitutes taxation for savings as a means of capital formation and replaces the entrepreneur for the bureaucrat. The socialist State decides what the labor the individual should perform, where it should be done and how much should be earned. This allows individuals to be paid for not working.

[mjp]

economically,socialism de jure:

1) the government owns the means of production
2) and it is the government's responsibility to decide how they are to be used.