It’s amazing she has managed to get this far in life.
She has the backing of even dumber people.
Jemele’s prosperity, despite her controversial views, is due entirely to her participation in a free, capitalist society. I think it’s more apt that she has no idea what socialism is since it’s clear she has never seen what happens in a socialist nation.
The dumber socialist party, which unsurprisingly has a blue check mark from a company that gained it’s financial and social power from capitalism, continues to espouse it’s puritan view an ideology than never ends up benefiting anyone. The ideology is built on the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
By the way, the entity and the failed sports reporter both still reside in non-socialist countries.
Funny how that works.
Sonoran Conservative 
1) No discussion of scarcity? How does socialism deal with a poor harvest, or rare but necessary resources? Based on history, they declare societies dealing with those issues to be “not true socialism”.
2) Society doesn’t own what I produce — I do. I made the decision to develop the skills I have; I made the decision how to continue developing those skills. If I craft something I want to keep for myself, “society” placing a claim on it is theft, or slavery. If you remove those choices from me, then it quite obviously is slavery, just one where “society” owns the slaves. And, again, based on history the result will be shoddy work, shortages, and the well-connected grabbing everything they can. And, again, the socialists will declare the result to not really be socialism.
3) Socialists spend a great deal of time promoting and defending states that call themselves socialist, then even more time explaining why those states weren’t socialist after their poverty, corruption, and tyranny are revealed. The facts on the ground didn’t change, only the public’s awareness of them did.
4) I want someone to ask the latest round of socialism’s fans what they will do when people don’t go along with their plans. How will they deal with resistance, whatever it’s basis? If unions won’t go along with Deep Green deindustrialization? If Muslims won’t go along with gay rights?
LikeLiked by 4 people
5) Prices are non-coercive rationing and information at the same time. High prices could indicate high demand or low supply — and consumers are able to substitute other products or go without of their own free will. They are also able to choose to pay the higher price, if the good is worth it to them. The informational content helps producers decide whether to make more of a product, or less, or to get into something else. Yes, those decisions all lag the reality, but welcome to the physical universe where causality rules and information has a maximum speed.
I’ve never seen a “socialist” who comprehends the idea of the limit of knowledge. The society they want depends on perfect knowledge — which is simply impossible. It depends on incorruptible people, and on people willing to be no more than cogs in a machine. It depends on complete selflessness. If we were angels we wouldn’t need government. But we are mortals, living in a world with real limitations.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Not just mortal (and therefore limited in knowledge) but also sinful and therefore not selfless but selfish by nature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much of the left claims to be non-religious, to “believe in science”. But while they claim to believe self-organizing chemicals gave rise to the Earth’s ecology, they cannot bring themselves to believe an economy cannot be self-organizing, and there must be a (corrupt) guiding hand behind it.
Meanwhile, they can’t seem to extrapolate their belief in survival by natural selection from species to societies, to understand that tradition is the collective knowledge of the thousands of generations that have gone before us. Instead they treat every tradition as if it’s as disposable as a piece of toilet paper, and treat every species as if it’s absolutely essential to the entire planetary ecology.
(And I’ve honestly seen some “concern” for the “ecology” of Mars and the Moon. *sigh*)
LikeLiked by 1 person
If anyone, be it state, company or individual, owns your services then they own you. They cannot help but state outright that they are desirous of being the slaveholders.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“…the socialist society will also own all the goods and services being provided by workers.”
My employer owns what I produce because I freely entered into an agreement to exchange a salary for giving them the sole rights to use what I produce. My choice; their choice; both parties can end the arrangement at any moment. If I spend some of my own time doing unrelated tasks for a charity, the company has no say. If I do something — like write code for open source projects — that relates to my job function, my employer has procedures to ensure I don’t accidentally step on intellectual property they own or give away a company trade secret. So it’s still possible for me to give away my (very) skilled labor, I just have to be a bit more careful about it.
Also note their line about “People will work, produce what’s required by society, and everyone will have free access to what they need.”
1) Wasn’t Occasional Cortex pushing a program that guaranteed a “basic income” to “those who don’t want to work”? Are they not included in “people”? Why should everyone else work, when “I don’t want to work” is sufficient to live as well as people who work every day?
2) Who says what they produce? Who determines “what’s required by society”? Why “required” and not “wanted”? Why “society” and not “other people”?
3) “Everyone will have free access to what they need”. NEED. Who says what people need? Who determines what’s in excess of need? Does a person need more than a single pair of shoes? What about things I WANT? If I’m willing to sacrifice in one area to get something I “merely” want, who has the right to tell me I cannot?
LikeLiked by 4 people