Socialism

[Peregrinator]

Never confuse 'ideals' with goals. Often they are mutually exclusive when you think them through.

Ishmael

Never confuse a semicolon with a question mark.


Now that we've got the giving each other advice bit out of the way, do you think you could get around to actually reading and maybe even answering what I posted?

 

[Ishmael]

Never confuse a semicolon with a question mark.


Now that we've got the giving each other advice bit out of the way, do you think you could get around to actually reading and maybe even answering what I posted?

I did.

Here are the goals.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
(A work in progress. Today's Socialist leans heavily Fascist in this regard.)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
(Done deal, just bickering over the rates and thresholds.)

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
(Another work in progress. Taxation to the extent of forced liquidation works just as well.)

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
(Also in progress. In the instance of emigrants the tax code is being used, in the instance of 'rebels' (anyone who doesn't do what the government wants them to do) out and our confiscation.)

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
(Do I have to explain this one?)

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
(Damn near a done deal here as well.)

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
(Pretty much a done deal here as well. However the modern socialist is using the Fascist path to achieve the goal.)

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
(This one is archaic, the focus of these 'Industrial Armies' is big biz and the government itself. Agribiz doesn't need armies anymore.)

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
(OK, this one is far-fetched and would damn near be an impossibility to achieve short of a tyranny (think Cuba here). This one is just not practical.)

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
(Done deal.)

Those are the goals. The Socialist/Communist spout them everyday. Oh, not in the form of this is what we want to do, more in the form of this is what we're going to do for you to make your life easier/safer/more fun/fill in the blank.

We've come a long way baby.

Ishmael

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Have no idea why you even think that's any of your business...

...but evidently it really gets to you.

Enough that you continue to be so inspired that you post to yourself...

...and tag my un to it.

So...

...that's beginning to be a very entertaining reason.

Keep it up...

...coach.


MOMMY!

They're calling me a socialist again!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcwwvebhR31qzr2th.gif

 

[KingOrfeo]

I did.

Here are the goals.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
(A work in progress. Today's Socialist leans heavily Fascist in this regard.)

How so? What was the Fascist policy on property in land?

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
(Do I have to explain this one?)

You might explain how what you are talking about differs from what we have had since 1913 and why it is a bad thing.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
(Damn near a done deal here as well.)

Not in the America on the planet with the blue sky, it ain't. I know you often get confused about that.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
(Pretty much a done deal here as well. However the modern socialist is using the Fascist path to achieve the goal.)

Once again . . .

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
(OK, this one is far-fetched and would damn near be an impossibility to achieve short of a tyranny (think Cuba here). This one is just not practical.)

No, actually, that -- all of that -- is exactly what has been happening in America by gradual stages since the 1950s, and not because of socialism or socialists.

 

[Peregrinator]

Ish, you need to make a stronger argument that the goals of socialism are the same as the goals of communism. I'm not fiating that, not for a second. Merely making the claim and then acting as if it were a given isn't sufficient to make your case.

You also haven't defended your choice of measuring stick yet. When challenged it, you got all haywire and ended up posting advice not to confuse goals with ideals, which no one is doing.

 

[Ishmael]

Ish, you need to make a stronger argument that the goals of socialism are the same as the goals of communism. I'm not fiating that, not for a second. Merely making the claim and then acting as if it were a given isn't sufficient to make your case.

You also haven't defended your choice of measuring stick yet. When challenged it, you got all haywire and ended up posting advice not to confuse goals with ideals, which no one is doing.

OK, what ARE the goals of the Socialist, and more importantly the means by which they intend to achieve these goals?

Ishmael

 

[Peregrinator]

OK, what ARE the goals of the Socialist, and more importantly the means by which they intend to achieve these goals?

Ishmael

That's what I'm asking.

 

[Ishmael]

That's what I'm asking.

I told you, you're the one that's quibbling. If you disagree, specify what you think the differences are. Socialists are, and always have been, Communists taking the non-violent revolutionary path. There is NO difference in their goals.

Ishmael

 

[Peregrinator]

I told you, you're the one that's quibbling. If you disagree, specify what you think the differences are. Socialists are, and always have been, Communists taking the non-violent revolutionary path. There is NO difference in their goals.

Ishmael

Repeating it doesn't give it any additional authority, Ish.

First, show me that assessing the goals of a doctrine--or if you want to accept your own softening, the goals and the methods--is the best way to judge that doctrine.

Second, show me that the goals and methods of socialism are the same as the goals and methods of communism.

Then you will have something like a convincing argument. It will certainly be carry more weight than you just claiming it over and over.

I'm not quibbling. I'm just not accepting every statement you make as gospel.

 

[Ishmael]

Repeating it doesn't give it any additional authority, Ish.

First, show me that assessing the goals of a doctrine--or if you want to accept your own softening, the goals and the methods--is the best way to judge that doctrine.

Second, show me that the goals and methods of socialism are the same as the goals and methods of communism.

Then you will have something like a convincing argument. It will certainly be carry more weight than you just claiming it over and over.

I'm not quibbling. I'm just not accepting every statement you make as gospel.

I don't have to Perg., the proof is in the doing, not in the saying. I gave you the root of the plan, yet you seem to want to ignore the plan, and the results. Each and everyone of those steps were taken by Socialists, both Republican and Democrat. And that is precisely why you are seeing the Conservative revolution taking place today.

Listen to the Obama's, the Maxine Waters, the Tip O'Neils, the McKinley's, the Teddy Roosevelts, the union leaders. What are they saying Perg? What are they professing?

I hear them talking about wage slavery. Very well, is it better to be a slave to the government wage than the private sector wage? I would think that slavery is slavery and that there is little difference between the good 'massa' and the bad. However when it comes to the private sector at least a person can choose the 'massa', not so much so with regard to the government. Or are they trying to imply that you just get what you need without any effort being put forth at all? For more than a few that is the case today. But that can't continue, can it? The government needs it's 'wage slaves' too. There are just more than a few politicians that would like to paint a far different picture.

Tell me what you hear them saying Perg. Make this a two way conversation or I'm hanging the phone up.

Ishmael

 

[Peregrinator]

I don't have to Perg., the proof is in the doing, not in the saying. I gave you the root of the plan, yet you seem to want to ignore the plan, and the results. Each and everyone of those steps were taken by Socialists, both Republican and Democrat. And that is precisely why you are seeing the Conservative revolution taking place today.

Listen to the Obama's, the Maxine Waters, the Tip O'Neils, the McKinley's, the Teddy Roosevelts, the union leaders. What are they saying Perg? What are they professing?

I hear them talking about wage slavery. Very well, is it better to be a slave to the government wage than the private sector wage? I would think that slavery is slavery and that there is little difference between the good 'massa' and the bad. However when it comes to the private sector at least a person can choose the 'massa', not so much so with regard to the government. Or are they trying to imply that you just get what you need without any effort being put forth at all? For more than a few that is the case today. But that can't continue, can it? The government needs it's 'wage slaves' too. There are just more than a few politicians that would like to paint a far different picture.

Tell me what you hear them saying Perg. Make this a two way conversation or I'm hanging the phone up.

Ishmael

Ish...you have it backwards.

First, we have to agree on a definition of socialism. Then we can talk about whether specific people or acts are socialist in nature. Until we define it, it's just you saying it.

You took a stab at defining it with your post saying it's the same as communism, but when challenged on that, you circle instead of citing. I know it gets up your nose, but I just don't accept everything you say as if it were fact. What you gave me wasn't the root of anything to do with socialism, it was a restatement of the communist manifesto. That's communism, not socialism, at least until you show me they're the same. This you have steadfastly refused to do.

Hang up whatever you want; my questions stand.

 

[eyer]

Ish...you have it backwards.

First, we have to agree on a definition of socialism. Then we can talk about whether specific people or acts are socialist in nature. Until we define it, it's just you saying it.

You took a stab at defining it with your post saying it's the same as communism, but when challenged on that, you circle instead of citing. I know it gets up your nose, but I just don't accept everything you say as if it were fact. What you gave me wasn't the root of anything to do with socialism, it was a restatement of the communist manifesto. That's communism, not socialism, at least until you show me they're the same. This you have steadfastly refused to do.

Hang up whatever you want; my questions stand.

I have a question...

...are refunds being offered for this thread?

 

[Ishmael]

Ish...you have it backwards.

First, we have to agree on a definition of socialism. Then we can talk about whether specific people or acts are socialist in nature. Until we define it, it's just you saying it.

You took a stab at defining it with your post saying it's the same as communism, but when challenged on that, you circle instead of citing. I know it gets up your nose, but I just don't accept everything you say as if it were fact. What you gave me wasn't the root of anything to do with socialism, it was a restatement of the communist manifesto. That's communism, not socialism, at least until you show me they're the same. This you have steadfastly refused to do.

Hang up whatever you want; my questions stand.

No we don't. If you have a differing view, express it.

Of course it's the same. What something is is defined by it's behavior, not its disguise. Even Lenin remarked, and laughed, about that.

The root of Socialism IS Communism. There is no dispute over that. But then you'd have to read, and understand, Hegel. The "Socialists" were annoyed over the path that required violent revolution. They saw that as a threat to their supremacy. The Communists took the revolutionary path and arrived at the same point. Privilege for the political elite and the big contributors, screw the rest.

Tell me Perg, how can a nation profess itself to be a nation of equality when it taxes one class of citizen differently than another?

Ishmael

 

[Peregrinator]

No we don't. If you have a differing view, express it.

Of course it's the same. What something is is defined by it's behavior, not its disguise. Even Lenin remarked, and laughed, about that.

The root of Socialism IS Communism. There is no dispute over that. But then you'd have to read, and understand, Hegel. The "Socialists" were annoyed over the path that required violent revolution. They saw that as a threat to their supremacy. The Communists took the revolutionary path and arrived at the same point. Privilege for the political elite and the big contributors, screw the rest.

Tell me Perg, how can a nation profess itself to be a nation of equality when it taxes one class of citizen differently than another?

Ishmael

The thread isn't me arguing with you about the definition. You have yet to provide one.

So now it's the behavior and not the goals? No wonder I can't agree with your yardstick; you change it in every post. Your position now is "socialist behavior defines a doctrine or person as socialist?" No longer matters what the goal or the underlying values are?

I've read Hegel.

Your question: It can't. I'm no fan of a progressive tax. Never have been.

 

[PannieMonster]

The thread isn't me arguing with you about the definition. You have yet to provide one.

So now it's the behavior and not the goals? No wonder I can't agree with your yardstick; you change it in every post. Your position now is "socialist behavior defines a doctrine or person as socialist?" No longer matters what the goal or the underlying values are?

I've read Hegel.

Your question: It can't. I'm no fan of a progressive tax. Never have been.

Here you go Perg:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-socialism-and-communism.htm

Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. It is difficult to discern the true differences between socialism and communism, as various societies have tried different types of both systems in myriad forms, and many ideologues with different agendas have defined both systems in biased terms. Some general points distinguishing the two concepts, however, can still be identified.

One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively, and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent the ill effects that are sometimes produced by capitalism.

 

[Ishmael]

The thread isn't me arguing with you about the definition. You have yet to provide one.

So now it's the behavior and not the goals? No wonder I can't agree with your yardstick; you change it in every post. Your position now is "socialist behavior defines a doctrine or person as socialist?" No longer matters what the goal or the underlying values are?

I've read Hegel.

Your question: It can't. I'm no fan of a progressive tax. Never have been.

I did, it's 'The Communist Manifesto." All springs from that document.

Ishmael

 

[Peregrinator]

Here you go Perg:

Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. It is difficult to discern the true differences between socialism and communism, as various societies have tried different types of both systems in myriad forms, and many ideologues with different agendas have defined both systems in biased terms. Some general points distinguishing the two concepts, however, can still be identified.

One point that is frequently raised to distinguish socialism from communism is that socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism generally refers to both an economic and a political system. As an economic system, socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control. Communism, however, seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively, and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness. Both socialism and communism are similar in that they seek to prevent the ill effects that are sometimes produced by capitalism.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-socialism-and-communism.htm

Thanks, Pannie.

I did, it's 'The Communist Manifesto." All springs from that document.

Ishmael

That's an unsubstantiated claim you made, yes. Please post something that backs it up. Also, see above. Pannie's quote shows your error.

 

[PannieMonster]

Thanks, Pannie.


That's an unsubstantiated claim you made, yes. Please post something that backs it up. Also, see above. Pannie's quote shows your error.

The second statement of the first paragraph substantiates Ish's claim, I believe.

 

[Peregrinator]

The second statement of the first paragraph substantiates Ish's claim, I believe.

The entire second paragraph disagrees with him.

 

[Ishmael]

Thanks, Pannie.


That's an unsubstantiated claim you made, yes. Please post something that backs it up. Also, see above. Pannie's quote shows your error.

Pannie did it for me. You can't have one without the other. No error on my part.

Explain to me how you can exert economic control without exerting social and political control?

Ishmael

 

[IrezumiKiss]

The second statement of the first paragraph substantiates Ish's claim, I believe.

The entire second paragraph disagrees with him.

Hell, the first statement in the first paragraph totally blows Ish's rubber duck out the bathtub.

If it's the same shit, then there should be no differences whatsoever.

 

[PannieMonster]

The entire second paragraph disagrees with him.

Well, not really. Certainly there are some differences, yet at the same time, there are a lot of similarities. I think this just boils down to how they go about achieving the same goals, but, I don't claim to be an expert on the subject either.

 

[Ishmael]

Hell, the first statement in the first paragraph totally blows Ish's rubber duck out the bathtub.

If it's the same shit, then there should be no differences whatsoever.

Idiot.

Ishmael

 

[PannieMonster]

Hell, the first statement in the first paragraph totally blows Ish's rubber duck out the bathtub.

If it's the same shit, then there should be no differences whatsoever.

Oh come on. You know the saying, "Same shit, different day"

 

[PannieMonster]

The last statement of that last link that I didn't post was:

Another difference between socialism and communism is centered on who controls the structure of economy. Where socialism generally aims to have as many people as possible influence how the economy works, communism seeks to limit that number to a smaller group.