Traits of Socialism

[Guest]

this is what the left and socialist leaning people do they pull the Montoya " you keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means" to confuse the issue or flat out avoid it. the whole point of this thread is goverment control call it what ever you want totalitarism, socialism, communism, or the freaking easter bunny is in charge. the point is is this something we want in this country the easy answer is hell yes look at the last 20 yrs. this country is leaning more and more towards goverment control of damn near every aspect of our lives. Is our constitution set up for a goverment that has that much control? No. can that be changed? yes will it? my answer to that is it doesn't need to be hardly anybody reads it and even fewer bother trying to get the goverment to stick to it. so the socialists out there will continue to bog you down in a definition war and try to pass off what they are selling as something else because you don't know what you are trying to say and don't understand what a socialist is.

so in the future don't ask if we want socialism ask if we want more and more goverment control of our lives. let the socialist argue what they want to call themselves and don't get bogged down.

The problem is that RavenHawk has voided the discussion from the start by using the incorrect terms. If he had have described the actual reality of the situation and avoided attributing all the world problems to socialism - we might just have the basis of a discussion. Words convey concepts and using the wrong words prevents us analyzing the underlying concepts. Its important and avoids sloppy conclusions.

This essentially boils down to a discussion of small government is good and big government is bad, which is an entirely different one to the discussion of economic systems. This is a problem which many Americans have, they have all the concepts mixed up in their heads and they have never taken the time to look at the component parts. A product of the right wing "Reds under the bed" propaganda you have been exposed to all your life.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

This discussion started with nothing to do with socialism other than a mis-attribution. Such a discussion of socialism has no place here.

So we have a thread entitled 'Traits of Socialism' and you want it to contain nothing to do with Socialism. Doubtful. If you're here to discuss things why not enlighten us with actual information about actual Socialism? Since you're so interested in defending Socialism, what's wrong with starting a new discussion where you can provide an answer to my question?

[+and-then]

If the day arrives that the US actually becomes Socialist then Europe is screwed. Oh, wait, Europe already is screwed...nevermind

[Guest]

So we have a thread entitled 'Traits of Socialism' and you want it to contain nothing to do with Socialism. Doubtful. If you're here to discuss things why not enlighten us with actual information about actual Socialism? Since you're so interested in defending Socialism, what's wrong with starting a new discussion where you can provide an answer to my question?

The title was using the law in Iceland which restricts choice of names as an example of socialist. The law is not socialist - the starting title and comment were flawed and not the basis for any discussion. i commented to point this flawed logic out - nothing else.

Start a thread on socialism and I may choose to enjoin, but then again they tend to be pointless and boring, so I tend to avoid them as a rule.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

If the day arrives that the US actually becomes Socialist then Europe is screwed. Oh, wait, Europe already is screwed...nevermind

last time I looked the US was more screwed than Europe, but they hold the deeds to the reserve currency so no one wants to push the button yet.

Br Cornelius

[Jinxdom]

Why would it be bad to have a government version of privatize business that is just the basics that employ and train people who can barely make a decision for themselves?

That way they wouldn't need to regulate prices through laws but through competition. You can't price gouge that way. Can't control the market. All you need is enough people to back it. The idea isn't about taking away from the rich but just making more.

People need homes so have the government build basic homes but also have the move in to the market themselves. Have them follow regulations and free up privatized businesses to do what they want. This would actually provide choice to people and regulates companies not through crappy laws but through the actual free market itself. The invisible hand would be the invisible hand. After awhile nobody would have to live outside unless they wanted to. The basic idea works just the implementation would have to be on point and people can't be scared out of their minds about to government.

You could do it with everything that we need. transportation, communication

Since the government would be selling things they would have less reliance on taxes. Since it is a free market prices people can still get what they want.

How exactly would something like that be bad for a country to try if it was implemented correctly? More importantly would be that socialistic?

[Yamato]

The title was using the law in Iceland which restricts choice of names as an example of socialist. The law is not socialist - the starting title and comment were flawed and not the basis for any discussion. i commented to point this flawed logic out - nothing else.

Start a thread on socialism and I may choose to enjoin, but then again they tend to be pointless and boring, so I tend to avoid them as a rule.

Br Cornelius

You've pointed out that flawed logic over and over again. If that's your only purpose you're done here.

If you don't care about socialism enough to discuss it, I hardly see why I should bother starting a new thread. I was happy with this one, you weren't.

[Rlyeh]

You've pointed out that flawed logic over and over again. If that's your only purpose you're done here.

If you don't care about socialism enough to discuss it, I hardly see why I should bother starting a new thread. I was happy with this one, you weren't.

Apparently you aren't if you can't stick to the topic presented by the OP.

[Guest]

Let me put out my position here;

There has never been a socialist state

There has never been a capitalist state

Both are Utopian ideals - unachievable and relatively meaningless in the real world.

Both are limited economic systems which are poor representation of the world we actually live in. The real economic systems we operate with are neither socialist or capitalist.

There have been many imperialist states

There have been many totalitarian states

These are the real states we have to deal with on a day to day basis.

People who couch their arguments in socialist - capitalist critiques show a profound lack of understanding of what reality they actually live in and they really need to learn a little before making statements about government.

Apparently you aren't if you can't stick to the topic presented by the OP.

Exactly

There's a phrase from Beck which seems relevant here "Tell me when the new age gets old enough to drink"

Br Cornelius

Edited January 4, 2013 by Guest

[Yamato]

Apparently you aren't if you can't stick to the topic presented by the OP.

Called 'Traits of Socialism'. How bold of me to discuss socialism here.

[Yamato]

Let me put out my position here;

There has never been a socialist state

There has never been a capitalist state

Both are Utopian ideals - unachievable and relatively meaningless in the real world.

Both are limited economic systems which are poor representation of the world we actually live in. The real economic systems we operate with are neither socialist or capitalist.

There have been many imperialist states

There have been many totalitarian states

These are the real states we have to deal with on a day to day basis.

People who couch their arguments in socialist - capitalist critiques show a progound lack of understanding of what reality they actually live in and they really need to learn a little before making statements about government.

Br Cornelius

Exactly

Br Cornelius

You're discussing socialism here anyway. Wasn't too difficult now was it.

[Guest]

Called 'Traits of Socialism'. How bold of me to discuss socialism here.

A discussion which used an example which had nothing to do with socialism to start with - a WRONG FOOTED start to any discussion.

The Title and comment didn't match

If you start out on a debate with a flawed premise - don't be surprised when you conclusions are flawed. It seems that RavenHawk is a repeat offender.

Br Cornelius

Edited January 4, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

You're discussing socialism here anyway. Wasn't too difficult now was it.

By acknowledging that is doesn't really exist.

"Is the thought of a Unicorn a real thought ?" Philip K Dick

You see your mistake is to attribute what is happening in America to socialism - when in fact it has been on a long slow slide into a fascistic totalitarian state. By mis-diagnosing the cause you make any resistance you might offer ineffective.

Br Cornelius

Edited January 4, 2013 by Guest

[Yamato]

A discussion which used an example which had nothing to do with socialism to start with - a WRONG FOOTED start to any discussion.

The Title and comment didn't match

If you start out on a debate with a flawed premise - don't be surprised when you conclusions are flawed. It seems that RavenHawk is a repeat offender.

Br Cornelius

How many times do you have to repeat yourself? I heard you the first time about how flawed it is. What am I supposed to discuss about that. My discussion is "Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay." Can we move on?

You just can't discuss the cons of socialism, whatever those are. If you won't discuss it you shouldn't have brought it up.

By acknowledging that is doesn't really exist.

"Is the thought of a Unicorn a real thought ?" Philip K Dick

Br Cornelius

So you can't even discuss Socialism theoretically. Let the record show.

[Guest]

So you can't even discuss Socialism theoretically. Let the record show.

I refuse to accept your flawed terms of reference and find it rather pointless discussing Utopian ideals.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

I refuse to accept your flawed terms of reference and find it rather pointless discussing Utopian ideals.

Br Cornelius

Never asked you to accept my terms, whatever those are. Never asked you to discuss "Utopian ideals" either. But if that's all Socialism is, then I'm not interested in it either.

[Guest]

Never asked you to accept my terms, whatever those are. Never asked you to discuss "Utopian ideals" either. But if that's all Socialism is, then I'm not interested in it either.

Then we have agreed

Br Cornelius

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Socialism is a very easily abused high ideal - an ideal so high that we're not ready for it and as such turn it to the neds of whever is powerful enough to do so.

Star Trek's Federation and Banks' Culture are arguably socialistic as noone has to work to pay for tings, if you need something it's provided fo you and there is no real govern,ent beyond a group of people maling sure the lights work and noone invades you.

[Yamato]

Socialism is not having to work to pay for things? That is indeed an abused high ideal then. What do you have to work for? One's inner altruism and personal pride? Is this magic world somehow free from greed too and everyone is going to behave themselves just like the nice man in the uniform instructed?

Now I've been informed above that socialism doesn't exist in reality and isn't worth discussing theoretically or otherwise, but putting that aside and looking for real world examples of it anyway, would a hippie commune qualify? Why or why not?

[questionmark]

Socialism is a very easily abused high ideal - an ideal so high that we're not ready for it and as such turn it to the neds of whever is powerful enough to do so.

Star Trek's Federation and Banks' Culture are arguably socialistic as noone has to work to pay for tings, if you need something it's provided fo you and there is no real govern,ent beyond a group of people maling sure the lights work and noone invades you.

That would be communistic, or the point in which all property belongs to everybody. Socialism just wants to level the playing field but allows asymmetric accumulation of goods.

[Mr Right Wing]

1. Let me put out my position here - There has never been a socialist state, there has never been a capitalist state, both are Utopian ideals - unachievable and relatively meaningless in the real world.

2. Both are limited economic systems which are poor representation of the world we actually live in. The real economic systems we operate with are neither socialist or capitalist.

3. People who couch their arguments in socialist - capitalist critiques show a profound lack of understanding of what reality they actually live in and they really need to learn a little before making statements about government.

1. Most countries today have mixed economies but some lean more towards Communism or Capitalism than others. Capitalism is possible but it means people get paid their worth so the bottom of society would go without.

2. A free market economy accurately reflects supply and demand. It prioritises where resources end up based on wealth and wealth is something given to those who are most beneficial to society.

3. A flawed opinion. Capitalism is minus all social safeguards so it doesnt distort but reflects reality. The most evolved survive and prosper just like in nature while those not up to it go extinct.

Oh dear I seem to be going a bit strange with the last one. Wheres my black marker and armband lol.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Mr Right Wing

[questionmark]

Socialism is not having to work to pay for things? That is indeed an abused high ideal then. What do you have to work for? One's inner altruism and personal pride? Is this magic world somehow free from greed too and everyone is going to behave themselves just like the nice man in the uniform instructed?

Now I've been informed above that socialism doesn't exist in reality and isn't worth discussing theoretically or otherwise, but putting that aside and looking for real world examples of it anyway, would a hippie commune qualify? Why or why not?

No, that is communism. Socialism is when the government is democratic and its aim is that every citizen is insured an minimum level of subsistence. Everybody should still work. The only ones who are exempt are those who would be exempt in any society and they get the minimum any political system confers upon them to avoid that they make a nuisance out of themselves.

[Mr Right Wing]

No, that is communism. Socialism is when the government is democratic and its aim is that every citizen is insured an minimum level of subsistence. Everybody should still work. The only ones who are exempt are those who would be exempt in any society and they get the minimum any political system confers upon them to avoid that they make a nuisance out of themselves.

A country is like a human being -

1. They both take in resources, metabolise them and gives out other resources.

2. They have leadership (brain or government).

3. They have units (citizens or cells).

4. Evolution applies to both (survival of the fittest).

In a human body some cells are more important than others. These make up the brain, blood and internal organs. So lets look at what happens when a human body goes communist -

Communist - Now all cells are equals when it comes to the distribution of resources. What happens when cold weather strikes? The human dies because his blood isnt diverted to the brain and internal organs to keep them warm. Therefore the lesson is that Communism is at odds with nature and evolution.

Capitalism - Cold weather strikes and what do we find? The human survives because resources get priortised to the most important cells. The human might lose a few fingers or toes but he lives. Therefore the lesson is that capitalism is in tune with nature and evolution.

A quick look at the USSR shows Communism was a complete disaster. When you look at all animals their bodies are modelled on capitalism for a reason. They cant respond to their external environments or manage their internal resources properly without it.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Mr Right Wing

[questionmark]

A country is like a human being -

1. They both take in resources, metabolise them and gives out other resources.

2. They have leadership (brain or government).

3. They have units (citizens or cells).

4. Evolution applies to both (survival of the fittest).

In a human body some cells are more important than others. These make up the brain, blood and internal organs. So lets look at what happens when a human body goes communist -

Communist - Now all cells are equals when it comes to the distribution of resources. What happens when cold weather strikes? The human dies because his blood isnt diverted to the brain and internal organs to keep them warm. Therefore the lesson is that Communism is at odds with nature and evolution.

Capitalism - Cold weather strikes and what do we find? The human survives because resources get priortised to the most important cells. The human might lose a few fingers or toes but he lives. Therefore the lesson is that capitalism is in tune with nature and evolution.

A quick look at the USSR shows Communism was a complete disaster. When you look at all animals their bodies are modelled on capitalism for a reason.

The USSR was as communistic as East Germany was democratic (official name: German Democratic Republic). What failed is not communism, what failed is state capitalism, which is not the same. We still have to see a communistic state.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Sort of like the Krell of Altair IV??

I saw an environmental movie (can’t recall the title) that seemed to push for that kind of lifestyle. There was just something eerily wrong with it but I couldn’t put my finger on it. As an example, it showed one little boy in a small jungle pond swimming and how happy he was. But what was wrong with that is that with a 7 billion population and climbing, it wouldn’t be one boy swimming alone in a pond. It would be those over crowed beaches. I don’t think this world can return to that way of life anymore.

Hi-tech agrarianism is only a temporary definition, and it is not fully connected to Kropotkin, or ancient sci-fi films. Though this vision involves us having travelled to the stars. This is not a utopian view, I know human nature is competetive and often cruel. My vision is for a future when we do not have to be slaves to any state. Think of it as similar to the motives that led to the English puritans emigrating to America, or at later date people like the Amish. When we have the technology, then these movements of people will occur again, but this time to the stars. I know any society will eventually collapse, even a utopia, and mostly because of human nature, somebody will eventually seize power for their own purpose, or there will be invasion, even US will collapse one day.