151 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

Br Cornelius, on 03 January 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

Your premise is entirely wrong - the article has absolutely nothing to do with socialism
Br Cornelius

So let me guess, if I post an article for discussion that actually does have to do with Socialism, you'll be motivated to participate in that discussion in typical fashion, defending socialist traits and characteristics.

[RavenHawk]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 03 January 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:

Perhaps some confusion here between socialism and totalitarianism. These prescriptive laws are on a road to totalitarianism, a road trod by left and right. Socialism does not have to end in totalitarianism. Peter Kropotkin understood that he and Marx wanted a similar outcome to their dreams, but Kropotkin saw that ideas of Marx would lead through a period of totalitarianism and violently disagreed with Marx. Marxism led to Marxism-Leninism and dictatorship. I think Bolsheviks under Lenin knew in their hearts that Kropotkin was correct with his ideas about anarchism, though it was too late as Stalin was now hovering like a black cloud. Socialism is not that simple to define when it includes Marxism-Leninism and many types of anarchy. Some would say that anarchism is real socialism, and what is usually called socialism is actually state capitalism.

Correct – you are on the right track.  Yes, Socialism does not have to end in totalitarianism, but when does it not?  It is very rare.  The US is one example but it is losing ground.  Soon, it will be like the rest of the world.

[questionmark]

Yamato, on 03 January 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

So let me guess, if I post an article for discussion that actually does have to do with Socialism, you'll be motivated to participate in that discussion in typical fashion, defending socialist traits and characteristics.

Totalitarian and unjust laws go against socialism, they are not a trait of it.

[Yamato]

questionmark, on 03 January 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

Totalitarian and unjust laws go against socialism, they are not a trait of it.

True or not, that is completely irrelevant to my question, and thanks but you're not who I was asking.

[Br Cornelius]

Yamato, on 03 January 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

So let me guess, if I post an article for discussion that actually does have to do with Socialism, you'll be motivated to participate in that discussion in typical fashion, defending socialist traits and characteristics.

Don't get hissy just because I pointed out the false premise.
When you really want to discuss the pros and cons of socialism give me a shout

Personally I think state communism has shown itgself to be a failure - but social democracy has a rather better track record.

Br Cornelius

[Mr Right Wing]

RavenHawk, on 03 January 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

I suppose that the following article should go in the Europe forum but I’m not posting it because of what is happening in Iceland.  I’m posting this to “collect” Traits of Socialism and ask: would people here in America be OK with more and more government infringement?  I am appalled with this story and how Icelanders are “OK” with it.

http://news.uk.msn.c...-for-own-name-2

What are some of the other Socialist traits which steal personal Liberty and Freedom, including higher taxes (France), gun control (England) and National Healthcare (England).  Is this what we really really really want here?  What is in place to check the ever growing power of the government over the people?

A nation has got to have an efficient way of managing its resources and rewarding those who benefit society the most. This is why we have currency and why the most valuable members of society earn the most. Socialism undermines this and I perceive it as the negative mans ideology. Those who are on the bottom are they because of either their mentality, their ancestors mentality or because they dont have the intelligence to increase their upward mobility. Socialisms aim is to turn everyone into equals dispute the fact they arent and its all because its followers dont like having dented egos.

I believe in minimum government. One where only the laws and regulations needed to stop people and organisations violating others rights are inacted. I dont believe in a nanny totalitarian state which is the end outcome of socialism -
1. Guns - These should be legal because its not the gun that kills but the mind pulling the trigger. Regulations should apply to stop people with personality disorders buying them.
2. Schools - Psychological screeing should be used to identify those kids with personality disorders and they should be treated.
3. Taxes - Firms need to compete to win contracts. Making the running costs of your nations firms high because of tax increases harms the economy as they are then less competitive. Low taxes booms the economy.
4. Taxs/Rewards - Punishing those in society who are successful instead of punishing the incompetant demotivates those who are most benefical to society. The end result is they emmigrate and the economy loses out.
4. NHS - This is funded by employee and employer NIC contributions. The combined running cost in 2011 of the NHS was £114 billion and it doesnt cost anywhere near that sum to provide healthcare to the UK population. Most of it is paid out in inflated costs for drugs instead of the going market rates and tall management structures. If the government decided to give everyone a private healthcare policy it would come out at about £30 billion per year instead. A huge difference. Reds arent satisfied with being red they keep pushing into they've made wherever they occupy vastly inefficient and unproductive.

No we dont want any of it. They should move to North Korea and stop ruining our economy.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

RavenHawk, on 03 January 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

Yes, Socialism does not have to end in totalitarianism, but when does it not?

And this is the great debate (shouting match) between Kropotkin and Marx that has never been resolved. I see this as a struggle between the individual and the state at a macro level. Clearly we cannot live without any laws or co-operation between individuals and collectives, but it is a matter of balance and scale. For a long time the balance has been tilted to ever bigger states, which I see as wrong. I think the terminology has to change. Left and right are outdated, and who now even knows origins of these terms, both often become inseperable. Socialism has bad name in US in particular, and is mis-used in other countries, for instance various social-democratic parties in Europe that seem less and less democratic and never socialist in the first place. The terms used by anarchists will not be used because anarchists have bad name because of "useful idiots" in west who wear masks and riot and fly black flag that is not theirs to fly. I digress.....  Back to your quote "but when does it not?". It will not lead to totalitarianism if principals of Kropotkin are followed. Though I know the world is not ready, and may never be....

[Br Cornelius]

RavenHawk, on 03 January 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

Well, I had asked that you didn’t pull out a canned definition, but that’s ok.  That’s the definition I was looking for.  In that definition, who decides on what portion of the share each individual gets?  Who decides which members benefit more?


It has nothing to do with Right-wing or Left-wing.  I had made an extensive post earlier that went into explaining that.  The key is how much control does the government have?  Our Constitution was designed to limit government and keep it in its proper place.  Socialist governments and Democracies do everything they can to grab more and more power and infringe on people’s lives even in the least aspects.

Do  not misattribute your boggy man to socialism when it is totalitarianism which you are talking about.

As i pointed out - this article is a facet of social conservatism which is a long way short of been totalitarianism.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 03 January 2013 - 06:57 PM.

[RavenHawk]

questionmark, on 03 January 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

Totalitarian and unjust laws go against socialism, they are not a trait of it.

Buzzzzzzzt!  Wrong.  Thank you for playing.  Socialism enables the environment for Totalitarianism.  They go hand-in-hand.

[Br Cornelius]

Quote

NHS - This is funded by employee and employer NIC contributions. The combined running cost in 2011 of the NHS was £114 billion and it doesnt cost anywhere near that sum to provide healthcare to the UK population. Most of it is paid out in inflated costs for drugs instead of the going market rates and tall management structures. If the government decided to give everyone a private healthcare policy it would come out at about £30 billion per year instead. A huge difference. Reds arent satisfied with being red they keep pushing into they've made wherever they occupy vastly inefficient and unproductive.

You have never actually substantiated this claim and I have shown you that the only truly all private health care systems cost about twice as much per capita for the same outcomes.

You really have to stop peddling this crap.

Br Cornelius

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Mr Right Wing, on 03 January 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

I believe in minimum government. One where only the laws and regulations needed to stop people and organisations violating others rights are inacted. I dont believe in a nanny totalitarian state which is the end outcome of socialism

And here a meeting point between anarchy and the "right", though what is meant by right.....

[AsteroidX]

I support this thread.

[Hilander]

While I have to say that some names should never be bestowed upon a child having a government approved list of names that you have to follow is ridiculous. However I don't see this as socialism just a stupid law.

[questionmark]

Hilander, on 03 January 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

While I have to say that some names should never be bestowed upon a child having a government approved list of names that you have to follow is ridiculous. However I don't see this as socialism just a stupid law.

In fact, the first examples we have of this is in Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain (both authorized only Catholic Saint's names) and Adolf's Germany (where certain names were just authorized to certain ethnic groups).

[RavenHawk]

Br Cornelius, on 03 January 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

Do  not misattribute your boggy man to socialism when it is totalitarianism which you are talking about.

And you didn’t answer the question.  I make no discernment between the two because if you answer the question honestly, that will explain why.  But I don’t think that is possible for you

Quote

As i pointed out - this article is a facet of social conservatism which is a long way short of been totalitarianism.

Br Cornelius

This country is a Republic, yet it is on the same path.  So don’t distract from the issue.  “Social Conservatism” is just a benevolent (for now) form of Totalitarianism.  In time, it will evolve into more restrictive forms.  It always has from the beginning of time.