Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
RavenHawk

Traits of Socialism

152 posts in this topic

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support this thread.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Its impossible to discuss an issue with a person who doesn't understand the correct meaning of words and has an extremist libertarian perspective to boot.

All forms of government are somewhere on a continuum between anarchy and totalitarianism so whats your point exactly.

This is the problem with debates like this - unless you can learn to recognize and acknowledge basic facts there can be no progress, no exchange and no resolution.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Yes, as much freedom as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

I have to say that all I know about Kropotkin is that he proposed that evolution is through cooperation and not competition. It doesn’t take much to extrapolate this to apply to social, economic, and government. To tell the truth, I always thought evolution was a combination as in yin & yang (masculine/feminine). But I consider competition (masculine) as the driving force. Evolution is an Innate Intelligence (as DD Palmer put it). Nature knows what to do. Not all mutations occur just to occur. Chaos is not so random. Mutations cooperate to form viable entities but the different entities compete with each other. This is why Neanderthal died out (for example).

Kropotkin wanted to do away with money, but that will never happen. Money represents human time and effort spent. Not everyone puts out the same time and effort so you need to represent that variation. Inequality is inherent to the system because people are not equal. The solution that Kropotkin was looking for was Adam Smith’s “The Invisible Hand” which in short is that everyone competes against everyone else, looking after their self interest and in by doing so, a cooperation occurs to better society. If all government was out of the Free Market picture, the ‘fallacies of economic systems’ would disappear, provided that business and consumer were equal. Then mutual cooperation would exist. So the question becomes, how do you make business and consumer equal? Since people are not? It would take a well educated consumer. The government could take a role in helping the people become aware and Promote the General Welfare.

I agree with you in that bigger states are wrong. That is what is unique about the Constitution. It didn’t usurp the power of the state. As far as terminology having to change, that’s why I stick with Socialism as the boogeyman. In today’s world, it just seems appropriate to represent Socialism and any form of government that leans toward more and more control over the people. Oligarchy just doesn’t seem to cut it. People only see Left or Right and can’t get beyond that to see that it’s Anarchy at one end and Totalitarianism at the other. The Constitution was designed to prevent “spectrum creep”, a term I created to indentify the path a government takes as it approaches one end of the spectrum or the other. But it’s the Left in this country that has found a way to go around the Constitution and drag it toward the Totalitarian end, just as most of the world is going. I guess that makes it all ok.

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....

In essence I agree, but I don’t think that Kropotkin has the complete answer. But this is the direction I think a debate should go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :tu:

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

Br Cornelius

Social democracy has a better track record than what? Communism? That's not saying much since communism's track record is disastrous.

Why don't you discuss what you think the cons of Socialism are here (I've heard you speaking to no end about the pros already), and provide real examples of those cons in the world past or present, so I'm not getting a lot of fluffy rhetoric on political/economic theory.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Briefly, as it is very late for me. Dreams of Kropotkin need much higher technology than we have now. We need to be freed from industrial work. There is a vision of an agrarian world of small communities, but under the surface very hitech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its impossible to discuss an issue with a person who doesn't understand the correct meaning of words and has an extremist libertarian perspective to boot.

Just start with the excuses. I love it! The fact is that you are too hung up on definitions. Ok, fine. Try looking beyond the academic definitions and try understanding what is being talked about. And answer the question.

All forms of government are somewhere on a continuum between anarchy and totalitarianism so whats your point exactly.

Yes, they are and you haven’t been following the gist of the conversation. Every form of government starts on this spectrum somewhere but the tendency is to lean toward the Totalitarian end. Our Constitution established a point somewhere at the opposite end from Totalitarianism but our current leadership is dragging the government toward Totalitarianism.

This is the problem with debates like this - unless you can learn to recognize and acknowledge basic facts there can be no progress, no exchange and no resolution.

Br Cornelius

It doesn’t matter that you can’t recognize and acknowledge the facts. I’m still willing to educate and correct you. If you want no resolution, you’re free not to peruse this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I don't know who tells you that crap.... but keep on making a spectacle out of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely!!! I am trying to scare the Hell out of the sheeple and make them wake up.

Ah yes, the core of your argument that anyone who doesn't believe in your own personal view of the world is a mindless slave. I'm sure that holding this view as well as inventing your own definitions of political theories and practices will surely create open debate and bring everyone around...or they'll just roll their eyes and laugh at how you're freaking yourself out over nothing.

Bu hey what do I know, I'm not American so that means I don't know what freedom is right? :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Briefly, as it is very late for me. Dreams of Kropotkin need much higher technology than we have now. We need to be freed from industrial work.

Sort of like the Krell of Altair IV?? :alien:

There is a vision of an agrarian world of small communities, but under the surface very hitech.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social democracy has a better track record than what? Communism? That's not saying much since communism's track record is disastrous.

Why don't you discuss what you think the cons of Socialism are here (I've heard you speaking to no end about the pros already), and provide real examples of those cons in the world past or present, so I'm not getting a lot of fluffy rhetoric on political/economic theory.

Socialism is based on a lie which is that all people are equals.

People are not all clones of each other they come in a wide range of ability and characteristics. When you pay them as equals (communism) those who are gifted become demotivated. The reason for that is they gain no advantage from working hard or going to university because they get paid exactly the same no matter what they do. Pretty soon the state becomes unproductive, uncompetitive, lacks innovations and folds like the USSR. A quick look at North Korea also shows they dont have two pennies to rub together.

In our country socialists invent crazy morally flawed programs where they tax the rich and spend the revenues on socialist projects for the poor. Why should our business owners, innovators and entreprenuers be penalised because lazy, dumb, incompetant fools are only good for shelf stacking and licking stamps?

Lets have a capitalist Utopia. Let the reds emmigrate and the state thats left behind will quickly rise to become the economic superpower of the world.

Edited by Mr Right Wing
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't it a truth that all men are created equal?

Isn't that in the Constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that in the Constitution?

Not exactly but you are close. It is part of the Declaration of Independence which is within the same kind of thought. ” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

But isn't it a truth that all men are created equal?

Yes, but ‘created equal’ is in the context of unalienable Rights. Meaning that no other man can grant or rescind these rights. Even a slave is entitled to these Rights. But where it stops is that one does not have the Right to his neighbor’s pocket book. We are all created equal but how one utilizes his talents is up to him and that determines outcome which will not be the same for all. How you live your life, how you use your liberty, and how you pursue happiness is up to you and that will be different than everyone else.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't it a truth that all men are created equal?

Isn't that in the Constitution?

The constitution is ideological not based on truths.

Men are not created equal by God because each person has there own unique dna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, Socialism isn't "we are all paid the same because we're allthe same" it's meant to e "from each according to their skill, to each according to their need". The ideal is more Star Trek then Starsi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

except .. Communism is the oppoaite of Government controlling everything.

Or at least, that's the idea.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism is based on a lie which is that all people are equals.

People are not all clones of each other they come in a wide range of ability and characteristics. When you pay them as equals (communism) those who are gifted become demotivated. The reason for that is they gain no advantage from working hard or going to university because they get paid exactly the same no matter what they do. Pretty soon the state becomes unproductive, uncompetitive, lacks innovations and folds like the USSR. A quick look at North Korea also shows they dont have two pennies to rub together.

In our country socialists invent crazy morally flawed programs where they tax the rich and spend the revenues on socialist projects for the poor. Why should our business owners, innovators and entreprenuers be penalised because lazy, dumb, incompetant fools are only good for shelf stacking and licking stamps?

Lets have a capitalist Utopia. Let the reds emmigrate and the state thats left behind will quickly rise to become the economic superpower of the world.

I'm very aware of the benefits of profit incentive. Having no intellectual capital in a country would likely encourage immigration to one that does, so then Stalin has to kill you if you try to leave. Communism is pathetic in practice, as well padded by theory as it is.

Utopia is just a myth people love to associate with to prop-up their political opinions. Talk of a dream-society where everyone agrees with you economically and politically as well as these strange references to genetics stinks of fascism not a free market. The reds already can emigrate so I don't know what "letting them" is suggesting.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arguing what political theory is best really doesn't amount to a hill of beans because they all have one big glaring problem that can't change: people. you can make any form of goverment work on paper. make it all neat and tidy everybodies needs met, everyone happy but when it comes to pratical application the flaws appear. people are different they have different views, needs, values, thoughts, abilities, and sometimes they change. one minute your little utopian communist society is running great everybody pulling their weight the next minute half the tribe gets sick with some disease and your appointing a leader to guide the survivors to safer ground and he turns into some sort of dictator that wants to declare war on every tribe you encounter. so picking one political thought to run country ain't easy and maybe impossible. even anarchy( or lack of goverment as i understand it) is hard to accomplish when people are involved.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've learned not to debate with Raven-Hawk since he claimed that the majority of people on Earth are 'soulless', except for him of course.

There is nothing socialist about this law. It's a socially conservative way to enforce homogenity onto the people. It does absolutely nothing to redistribute the wealth, in fact it has nothing to do with economics at all.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social democracy has a better track record than what? Communism? That's not saying much since communism's track record is disastrous.

Why don't you discuss what you think the cons of Socialism are here (I've heard you speaking to no end about the pros already), and provide real examples of those cons in the world past or present, so I'm not getting a lot of fluffy rhetoric on political/economic theory.

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

The only thing I will add is that Germany is a social democratic country and it does rather well last time I looked.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.