Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Practical meaning of Socialism


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#46    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,478 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 30 November 2012 - 08:56 PM

View PostGromdor, on 30 November 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

If you read the article, It is assuming that by "nationalizing" he means "bailing out".
I did. I just think it looks bad that the socialists want to do what Obama does which is waste the tax payers money deciding which businesses get to succeed and which ones don't to the tune of billions of our dollars. Seriously, if a company as big as GM came up and asked you to help them out with your money because apparently they can't manage their own money and there is no guarantee they'll pay you back and in all likelihood they won't, would you think this is a wise investment? I wouldn't. Unfortunately Barack didn't give me a choice.

Posted Image

#47    with bells on

with bells on

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined:25 Oct 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:50 PM

this clip is a commercial by Ronald Reagan and explians why it is that Americans are so brainwashed about socialism and socialised healthcare.. propaganda!!.. Obamacare sucks balls.. but its going to take decades until someone comes in and takes away control from your healthcare companies and free's America from this joke..

the poster that said the US slags Canada for being socialist, you are spot on.. they have to do that to keep the fear alive in the minds of the people.. couldnt have them waking up and revolting.. no, keep them asleep, they believe whatever we feed them that way.. (ie 9/11).. American people are cool and fun.. ive never met such confident people as Americans..  but the government is a diff story.. if i was American i would be moving to Canada..





#48    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,478 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:58 PM

View Postwith bells on, on 30 November 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:





That's funny but is that really a commercial. Feels like there is some missing context. There could've possibly been some more elaboration. Otherwise, that's just an alarming PSA. Not hat I don't agree with it but those less informed might be scratching their heads over that clip.

Posted Image

#49    with bells on

with bells on

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined:25 Oct 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:03 PM

its from Sicko, that doco by Michael Moore.. its def real..


#50    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,478 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:27 PM

View Postwith bells on, on 30 November 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

its from Sicko, that doco by Michael Moore.. its def real..
Well that might explain why it seems edited down to look more like sensational alarmism by a republican rather than a commercial with substance. It just comes off as too simplified. I know you're from Australia but in case you don't know Michael Moore hates republicans.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 30 November 2012 - 10:28 PM.

Posted Image

#51    with bells on

with bells on

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined:25 Oct 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:11 PM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 30 November 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:


Well that might explain why it seems edited down to look more like sensational alarmism by a republican rather than a commercial with substance. It just comes off as too simplified. I know you're from Australia but in case you don't know Michael Moore hates republicans.

its still propaganda.. regardless.. and is just a small point in how Americans have been brainwashed with the socialism issue.. the rest of the first world just doesnt understand this American socialism issue.. its complete brainwashing..

yes, i know Michael Moore is anti republicans.. smart guy!


#52    F3SS

F3SS

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,478 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, Pa

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:14 AM

View Postwith bells on, on 30 November 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:



its still propaganda.. regardless.. and is just a small point in how Americans have been brainwashed with the socialism issue.. the rest of the first world just doesnt understand this American socialism issue.. its complete brainwashing..

yes, i know Michael Moore is anti republicans.. smart guy!
Well it has to do with american exceptionalism. I found this and maybe it'll shed some light on the issue.
http://en.wikipedia...._exceptionalism
In June 1927 Jay Lovestone, a leader of the Communist Party in America and soon to be named General Secretary, described America's economic and social uniqueness. He noted the increasing strength of American capitalism, and the country's "tremendous reserve power"; a strength and power which he said prevented Communist revolution.[23] In 1929, the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, disagreeing that America was so resistant to revolution, called Lovestone's ideas "the heresy of American exceptionalism"[24]—the first time that the specific term "American exceptionalism" was used.[25] In the 1930s, academicians in the U.S. redefined American exceptionalism as befitting a nation that was to lead the world, with the newer United States ready to serve the older European societies as an example of a liberated future free from Marxism and socialism.[24] More recently, socialists and other writers have tried to discover or describe this exceptionalism of the U.S. within and outside its borders.[26]

Posted Image

#53    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,033 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:29 AM

View Postwith bells on, on 30 November 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

its still propaganda.. regardless.. and is just a small point in how Americans have been brainwashed with the socialism issue.. the rest of the first world just doesnt understand this American socialism issue.. its complete brainwashing..
What isnít propaganda?  Is it that we are brainwashed or enlightened?  If Americanís are then enlightened then that means that the rest of the world is brainwashed and deeply so.  If you consider that most of the world up until just a few generations ago were all under the rule of Monarchies, which is a form of rule that you hear Reagan speak off.  So, is it much of a brainwashing job to move such populations from Monarchy to Socialism?  It would seem to be an easy fit.  America broke away from Monarchy over two hundred years ago and we became accustomed to freedom.  Socialism is therefore still fairly alien to most Americans although it has been intertwined in our lives for perhaps that last century.  And there are things in our system now that we really donít understand is more Socialist than not and that is perhaps why Europeans scratch their heads at us.  But itís still not too late for us to reverse the course that the rest of the world has taken and heed Reaganís warning and remain free.

BTW, I found this PSA which supports my op.



*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#54    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,033 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:48 AM

View PostCradle of Fish, on 29 November 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

I'm not going to argue semantics, because you've shown time and time again that it isn't your strong suit.
Oh really?  Please continue.

Quote

I think my point is highly relevant. You act like you're the most brilliant mind on the forum,
Really?  I act like a person that writes with conviction and passion.  I think the truth is that I threaten your ego.  This is all a game for you.  At least that has been my experiences with the like.  I see these boards a bit more serious than most.  Itís not just a place to BS, but to share different ideas and points of view.  I expect the serious participant to at least try to understand Ė to be curious.

Quote

and that any failure of the reader to comprehend your posts is their fault, not yours.
Well, what do you call when someone (like me) writes something clearly in various and multiple ways and the reader still doesnít understand?  Uhm?  Itís not my problem.  But the question becomes, is the reader unwilling to understand or incapable of understanding?  If you disagree with me, thatís fine but donít act like an ignorant slob and say Iím wrong when you, yourself wonít even make an attempt to so show that you understand.  All you and others can do is harp on semantics and definitions, but you still lack understanding.  Several here have already shown that they are curious and willing to understand.

Quote

In fact I'd go so far to say that you sound just like college socialists yourself.
Boy, you are full of it today.  I do tend to write in a terse manner.  I do try to make things black & white and if I canít do that, then reduce the shades of gray.  That is probably where you have problems identifying my semantics.  Also, before I post most of the time, I try to consider what the responses of my detractors (as another poster said) and add on a comment to counter your would be response.  And when I do that, somebody still responds.  Thatís another indication that they arenít trying to understand.  That is probably another source of your confusion.

Quote

You do raise good points from time to time,
Really?  just from time to timeÖ  Then I guess I canít say that I do twice more than you do because twice nothing is still nothing.

Quote

but you tend to go about it in a very undiplomatic manner.
I just write them the way I see them.  I have no use for diplomacy when dealing with stupidity.  I know I push the limits at times, but ďnever argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experienceĒ.  I try to walk away before then and Iím getting real close with you.

Proverbs 26:4-5
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Quote

The Democrats are capitalists too,
Over taxation and over regulation makes them anything else but capitalists.  Thatís not rocket science.  It doesnít take a brilliant mind to recognize that.  The Democrat Party no longer exists anyway.  It is the Socialist Party of America.  ĎDemocratí is just a label of convenience.

Quote

the fact that Obama continued with the bailouts and didn't allow the economy to crash is proof of that.
The matter of the fact is that Bush should have never taken the advice of the Socialists to begin the bailout.  As Bush issued a measured amount, Obama gave hand-over-fist.  Nothing is too big to fail.  If you hadnít noticed, the economy did crash.  It was when Frank & Dodd knocked the legs out from under it.  What sectors collapsed?  Who were in charge of those sectors in Congress?  Just follow the paper trail.  Then Obama throwing more money at the auto industry just made the collapse worse.

Yes GM was saved for the time being but the fact is, is that if the reasons for GMís failure arenít fixed (and there are no indications that they were), itíll be on the doorstep of bankruptcy once again in a few years.  The American people have already lost $50 billion on that deal.  It would have been better for everyone for it to have gone through bankruptcy in the first place.

What Socialists donít understand is that failure is a very important part of a healthy Capitalist system.  Milton Friedman perhaps saw it as more important.  ( )  Most of the companies that were forced to take TARP in the frenzy didnít even need it.  They turned around and gave their CEOs bonuses and there has been no stipulation to pay it back even though many have returned it (to save face, they call it Ďpaid backí).

Quote

Welfare is also a capitalist idea - that money gets spent, even if its on frivilous things like iPhones and Xboxes which stimulates the economy further.
I have to disagree.  Our founding fathers considered welfare as taking care of the widow and orphan (emphasis Ė ONLY those two groups).  Today, it is the philosophy of dependency and dole.  Capitalism isnít just about spending or making money.  Itís a philosophy of wealth creation and improving oneís situation.  Since I brought up Friedman, I would highly suggest you view his ďFreedom to ChooseĒ series which has been on youtube for several years now.  It is 10 1-hour episodes.  This was 30 years ago.  Things have changed to some degree but these shows are still relevant and things remain the same.  

If you are not serious or donít want to be inspired, please donít watch them.  Especially donít watch them if you think they are going to be over your head.  Perhaps it would be best to start a thread on them??  Ouch!  That would mean I should go review them again myselfÖ.  I donít have the time, but I would like to watch comments from both sides.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#55    Gromdor

Gromdor

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,325 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2011

Posted 01 December 2012 - 05:44 PM

Going back to the overall subject of the post-  I feel that you have to use terminology in it's correct context during discussions and debates or it diminishes your argument.  If a car mechanic insists on calling fuel injectors in a diesel engine "spark plugs"  because the fit into the cylinder head and are part of the combustion cycle (making them practically the same thing!).  I would think that he was uneducated about his subject and discount his arguments (and not take my car to him to be fixed, for that matter).


#56    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 5,985 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 01 December 2012 - 07:04 PM

Bailouts are not  "SOCIALISTIC" .... they are the result of the    Bailees    having control of our government.     Were the bailouts regulated by the community as a whole?

socialism |ˈsōSHəˌlizəm|nouna political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that themeans of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#57    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,441 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 01 December 2012 - 07:52 PM

Reading through a bit of Sister Carrie by Theodore Dreiser and came upon these words: Our civilization is still in a middle stage, scarcely beast, in that it is no longer wholly guided by instinct, scarcely human in that it is not yet wholly guided by reason.

Wonder if that still applies today, a century later?


#58    darkmoonlady

darkmoonlady

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Medford Oregon

  • Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'-Shawshank Redemption/Life is a buffet and most poor suckers are starving to death-Auntie Mame

Posted 01 December 2012 - 08:03 PM

One thing hasn't made sense to me is the rich are a small percentage who rely on capitalism to keep their riches. They don't want people to just receive entitlements they didn't work for like universal health care etc, but doesn't that risk the whole republic by thinking that way? A large population who do not hold wealth are going to become very bitter towards those that are wealthy, and the population of those people with out wealth are either going to demand entitlements or revolt. To avoid that revolt you would think the rich would be for a more socialist ideology for anyone other than themselves just so keep their goodies safe. Yet here we have the Republicans here in the US so against entitlements, blaming the outcome of the election on the "gift basket" Obama supposedly offered up. With out the government helping those getting very little, wouldn't those people target the rich? The Republicans have drawn a line in the sand about the fiscal cliff, drawn a line in the sand about taxing the rich but refuse to offer up help to those in need. This just seems like a ticking time bomb, and is it all in the name of stopping socialism?

Ferris: Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.

ďThe beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance Öor change... logic can be happily tossed out the window. Religious mania is one of the few infallible ways of responding to the worlds vagaries, because it totally eliminates pure accident. To the true religious maniac, itís ALL on purposeĒ Ė Stephen King, The Stand

#59    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,415 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 01 December 2012 - 08:23 PM

View Postdarkmoonlady, on 01 December 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

One thing hasn't made sense to me is the rich are a small percentage who rely on capitalism to keep their riches. They don't want people to just receive entitlements they didn't work for like universal health care etc, but doesn't that risk the whole republic by thinking that way? A large population who do not hold wealth are going to become very bitter towards those that are wealthy, and the population of those people with out wealth are either going to demand entitlements or revolt. To avoid that revolt you would think the rich would be for a more socialist ideology for anyone other than themselves just so keep their goodies safe. Yet here we have the Republicans here in the US so against entitlements, blaming the outcome of the election on the "gift basket" Obama supposedly offered up. With out the government helping those getting very little, wouldn't those people target the rich? The Republicans have drawn a line in the sand about the fiscal cliff, drawn a line in the sand about taxing the rich but refuse to offer up help to those in need. This just seems like a ticking time bomb, and is it all in the name of stopping socialism?

Ferris: Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.

Basically, all social systems work as long as the majority benefits from it, and it is quite irrelevant what you call it. What does not work is that a minority group (for whatever reason) is the sole beneficiary of the system. That ends in revolution, no matter if capitalism. socialism or communism.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#60    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,033 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 December 2012 - 08:32 PM

View PostGromdor, on 01 December 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

Going back to the overall subject of the post-  I feel that you have to use terminology in it's correct context during discussions and debates or it diminishes your argument.
Well, thatís been the point of the op, I have been using the correct context.  Itís not the differences but the similarities.  And itís the similarities that matter.

Quote

  If a car mechanic insists on calling fuel injectors in a diesel engine "spark plugs"  because the fit into the cylinder head and are part of the combustion cycle (making them practically the same thing!).  I would think that he was uneducated about his subject and discount his arguments (and not take my car to him to be fixed, for that matter).
That is certainly an analogy in the genre but it is a poor example.  It is more like Advil and Bayer.  One is ibuprofen and the other is acetylsalicylic acid.  They are two different drugs but people use them for pain relief.  Some canít tolerate one or the other, but they achieve the same goal.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users