Socialism

[IrezumiKiss]

Idiot.

Ishmael

Limp-dick.

IrezumiKiss

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

I bet the last time he went to give his Valentine's Day date the bouquet of roses she was expecting, he gave her some cheapo petunias instead and said, "Hey, don't complain, bitch! Not only are they similar to roses, they have the exact same purpose and function, so they're the same."

 

[Peregrinator]

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

Then how is it that he also posted a bunch of differences? See below for another one.

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.

If there are differences, then how exactly is Ish correct in saying they're the same? By that logic, libertarians and anarchists are the same. I still don't see the goals as the same, either. The only evidence in the thread that they are is Ish's unsupported assertion.

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.

There you go. That seems to me to be a major difference.

 

[Ishmael]

Limp-dick.

IrezumiKiss



I bet the last time he went to give his Valentine's Day date the bouquet of roses she was expecting, he gave her some cheapo petunias instead and said, "Hey, don't complain, bitch! Not only are they similar to roses, they have the exact same purpose and function, so they're the same."

A fine exposition of your thought power. I need not explain to ANYONE the reason for my label for you.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Then how is it that he also posted a bunch of differences? See below for another one.

If there are differences, then how exactly is Ish correct in saying they're the same? By that logic, libertarians and anarchists are the same. I still don't see the goals as the same, either. The only evidence in the thread that they are is Ish's unsupported assertion.


There you go. That seems to me to be a major difference.

Read it Perg. The differences are what? I see no differences in goals.

Libertarians v . Anarchists? Limited government vs. none at all? What's your preference Perg?

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[Peregrinator]

Read it Perg. The differences are what? I see no differences in goals.

Libertarians v . Anarchists? Limited government vs. none at all? What's your preference Perg?

Ishmael

I think if either of us needs to read something, you should re-read your own post in which you cite methods and behavior as identifying factors. Then take another look at Pannie's quote.

Socialists v. communists? As many people in control of the economy as possible v. a small group? Exactly the same.

Limited government v. no government? As similar as the above.

What if a libertarian uses communist methods? By your argument, that makes them the same.

My preference is irrelevant to the thread, but because you asked, I don't see government as the pernicious evil you seem to.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

A fine exposition of your thought power. I need not explain to ANYONE the reason for my label for you.

Ishmael

You got punked, bitch. Can't actually answer the question posited directly, then you just yap yap yap a bunch of nothing you think says something. So don't try to play your fail off on me.

Wait...on second thought, keep on trying to play it off. I'm having a barrel of laffs watching you dance your same tired self-inflated two-step with the scuffed-up patent leather shoes. Crosby would be proud o' you, bebé.

Bishmeal

It's usually preceded by a rumbling gaseous build-up.

Leave your gastric canal & scat fantasies out of this, please!

 

[eyer]

My preference is irrelevant to the thread, but because you asked, I don't see government as the pernicious evil you seem to.

So...

...do you prefer to be addressed communist or socialist?

 

[Peregrinator]

So...

...do you prefer to be addressed communist or socialist?

Define them with credible sources and I'll tell you if either of them is at all accurate.

 

[Ishmael]

I think if either of us needs to read something, you should re-read your own post in which you cite methods and behavior as identifying factors. Then take another look at Pannie's quote.

Socialists v. communists? As many people in control of the economy as possible v. a small group? Exactly the same.

Limited government v. no government? As similar as the above.

What if a libertarian uses communist methods? By your argument, that makes them the same.

My preference is irrelevant to the thread, but because you asked, I don't see government as the pernicious evil you seem to.

No, you should re-read mine, but you won't.

Ishmael

 

[Devil'sChild]

So...

...do you prefer to be addressed communist or socialist?

So...

...do you prefer to be addressed as being slow, or just below average?

 

[eyer]

So...

...do you prefer to be addressed as being slow, or just below average?

Just call me magnet...

 

[IrezumiKiss]

So...

...do you prefer to be addressed as being slow, or just below average?

I think...

...whatever helps him get placed at the front of the queue for the shortbus is perfectly fine with him!

 

[Peregrinator]

No, you should re-read mine, but you won't.

Ishmael

Which one?

 

[Ishmael]

Which one?

Perg, let me tell you something from my point of view. You, as vette would say, are trying to pick fly turds out of the pepper. The way the 'i' is dotted, or the 't' crossed is paramount to you. Like the PhD that knew so much about one subject that he knew absolutely nothing about anything else.

You are quibbling in the desperate attempt to be 'right'.

You can NEVER be 'right' unless you take a stand. Else you're just some 'community agitator'. And you are NOT taking a stand Perg. Consequently it's not a far stretch to assume that you stand of nothing beyond a 'Mr. Popularity' award. Good luck on that.

I'm pretty much excoriated by the greater board. Then again those I told to buy gold, and other commodities are prospering. Fuck those that didn't, maybe Obama will buy their gold for them, it would be the 'fair' thing to do.

Ishmael

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, he's got a very specific stance. His stance is that we've got almost half the country using a word that none of them can define because at some point in history (the Cold War) some word became synomous with evil and pure and simple that's it's only functional definition by any modern use. We all know there are no socialists (by which we mean what Ms. Rand would call a socialist) in America. Nobody wants to punish the rich and there is no argument you can make that effectively gets around the fact that the rich get more out of the infrastructure than than the rest of us. I tell you what the only benefit I got from one hundred thousand driving the roads and flying the country (and world) to see Wrestlemania is that such a thing exists at all. So on and so forth, etcetera etcetera. So a fair tax is a little like asking a casheir to pay pitch in for the rent. If schools, police, roads et all that we generally agree are things the government should do were to be taken away and the taxes returned to the people the same people by and large would pay for them. . .actually it's worse the people we kinda want paying for them (the "useless" rich. I'm much more comfortable with taking Britney Spears and Tom Cruises money than I am Bill Gates and I doubt Britney would build schools but Mr. Gates doesn't have a choice. Kids who can't read, write or do basic math can listen to bad music just fine but they'll have a helluva time making a computer program) So oh well. We know good and goddamn well where we want to be.

Then you list a bunch of shit that isn't even remotely close to happening. The government has centralized communications and travel? I suppose you could make some kind of argument over communications if you bent the word to its breaking point but travel? Does anybody who's not poor (or a New Yorker) us public transportation at all?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

No, he's got a very specific stance. His stance is that we've got almost half the country using a word that none of them can define because at some point in history (the Cold War) some word became synomous with evil and pure and simple that's it's only functional definition by any modern use. We all know there are no socialists (by which we mean what Ms. Rand would call a socialist) in America. Nobody wants to punish the rich and there is no argument you can make that effectively gets around the fact that the rich get more out of the infrastructure than than the rest of us. I tell you what the only benefit I got from one hundred thousand driving the roads and flying the country (and world) to see Wrestlemania is that such a thing exists at all. So on and so forth, etcetera etcetera. So a fair tax is a little like asking a casheir to pay pitch in for the rent. If schools, police, roads et all that we generally agree are things the government should do were to be taken away and the taxes returned to the people the same people by and large would pay for them. . .actually it's worse the people we kinda want paying for them (the "useless" rich. I'm much more comfortable with taking Britney Spears and Tom Cruises money than I am Bill Gates and I doubt Britney would build schools but Mr. Gates doesn't have a choice. Kids who can't read, write or do basic math can listen to bad music just fine but they'll have a helluva time making a computer program) So oh well. We know good and goddamn well where we want to be.

Then you list a bunch of shit that isn't even remotely close to happening. The government has centralized communications and travel? I suppose you could make some kind of argument over communications if you bent the word to its breaking point but travel? Does anybody who's not poor (or a New Yorker) us public transportation at all?

Horse shit.

Ishmael

 

[amicus]

Peregrinator...late to your thread and having read all six pages in one sitting, I vacillated between, 'nice thread, interesting thread', to a final conclusion and that is to politely accuse you of playing 'Salome' and the Seven Veils', a bit of a tease and a provocateur par excellance....and all without dispensing of the final veil...

As you most likely have not followed my Posts over the past several years, let me attempt to extablish a background or a foundation for my following repertoire; all subject to your acceptance of my veritas, of course, anyone can say anything on the internet....

I have a formal education at four different universities with graduate level work in philosophy, economics, history and psychology. I have read everything that Ayn Rand wrote and even lectured on 'Objectivism', in the early days. I have also perhaps a hundred thousand hours arguing and debating all the subjects covered in this thread and am cognizant of all the literal references to historical sources concerning the meaning and defintion of Socialism, Communism, Fabian Socialism, Classical Liberalism, Progressivism, modern Liberalism and social democracies, just off the top of my head. The thousands of hours of debate was mainly as a Host on various talk radio programs across the western States and Hawaii for a period of twenty years....enough of my bonafides'?

I once thought, perhaps as you currently do, that there is a 'silver bullet' definition or a crystal clear statement or argument that would once and for all settle all debate and establish a fundamental platform from which to speak.

In all six pages of this thread, there was not a single mention of philosophy or the moral content of any political or economics system mentioned or offered. There-in lies the rub...one cannot effectively discuss or debate the actions of man, be they economic or political, without a moral fundamental absolute to begin with.

I suppose it would be considered 'limiting' the discussion to confine it to the legal authority of the US Constitution which provides a guideline for the function of government in this country. I sense that you, and others, prefer a metaphysical discussion of all that is possible under the sun in terms of the function of government in any and all systems. I can do either, or both and even more, I can take either side and present a logical argument to defend both extremes; and do, at times, just to hone my skills.

Using my 'Gibbs Gut' (NCIS) feeling, and taking a risk, I infer from a comment you made concerning government, that you might support Public Education as a 'right', all people should have...further, I would include Universal Health care and perhaps Abortion as issues you might support to be the proper function of government...you will no doubt correct me should I be in error.

In the bare minimalist terms of interpreting the letter, the law and the spirit of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the government is authorized to use force, the police power of government, to raise an army to defend the sovreignty of the nation, a police force to protect the unalienable rights of the individual, and a Court system to adjudicate differences. Beyond those minimum powers of government, all other actions are subject to debate and criticism.

The moral and ethical, (philosophical) paucity of this thread begs the question of when the use of 'force' the police power of the State to enforce laws, is justified, under the Constitution, in the limited discussion, or, universally, in the metaphysical one.

The definitions you insist upon don't exist as each form of government mentioned inculcates a different degree of the use of 'force' to impose its goals or ideals, again, terms that are subjective definitions at best and fuzzy and ambiguous at worst.

It is my conclusion and has been for many years, that one cannot conduct any discussion without a continual referral to the basic, axiomatic, self evident rights of man to life, liberty and property.

Without life, human life, there is no discussion of rights as the right to life for each individual is either acknowledged and underdstood as fundamental or it is not.

Withouth Liberty, the freedom to choose, there are no following rights of any kind, as they apply to human existence.

The ownership of property, one's own body and the concrete necessities of life, food, water, shelter, et cetera, is also a fundamental but corollary 'right' that must be protected for an individual human to survive.

This thread addresses none of those subjects and thus is but a trivial pursuit over how these innate rights can be ignored in search of a 'greater good', for the community at large.

Forget your quest for defintions and concentrate on the fundamental issues of how human beings can co-exist, mutually and freely associate and exchange goods and services and you will arrive at the answers that all seek.

If you, like most dreamers, have deep in your heart and soul, the hope that a 'perfect' utopian system exists, that will guide all human actions in a fair and just manner, then take the last veil from your eyes and acknowledge that human existence is, has always been, and will always be, a, 'work in progress', where we who think, attempt to better the human condition and still maintain those basic, self evident and unalienable rights to existence.

The last half century, with the failure of most of the conventional and traditional values of western society, has placed a terrible burden on those few who have the audacity to think and challenge and re-assert what the totality of human history has discovered; the primacy of the individual.

For those who have not taken the time to read Ayn Rand, and more importantly, follow the reference works included in most of her non fiction essays, I seriously recommend that you make an effort to read her and all those she offers as seminal sources of knowledge in all fields and disciplines.

It is a rewarding journey; trust me.

Amicus Veritas

 

[unregistered]

 

[philosophygirl]

Here how is this...for one simple definer of true communist state?

(Marx)Dictatorship of the proletariat (Engels) defined as rule by a democratically elected popular majority.

Lenin changed just a couple of points from the communist manifesto so it shouldn't matter right? Hell it's still all the same...right?

USSR was a shining example how socialism doesn't work, right? But it was state capitolism with a fluffy one party dictatorship...but really...no more than a one man dictatorship called socialism under the communist party?

too be honest at this point...my head hurts. Did mention I hate labels?

An acorn is not a tree. A chicken is not an egg. I can call myself the queen of Siam but it don't make it so.

Please continue...don't mind me.

 

[Ishmael]

Here how is this...for one simple definer of true communist state?

(Marx)Dictatorship of the proletariat (Engels) defined as rule by a democratically elected popular majority.

Lenin changed just a couple of points from the communist manifesto so it shouldn't matter right? Hell it's still all the same...right?

USSR was a shining example how socialism doesn't work, right? But it was state capitolism with a fluffy one party dictatorship...but really...no more than a one man dictatorship called socialism under the communist party?

An acorn is not a tree. A chicken is not an egg. I can call myself the queen of Siam but it don't make it so.

Please continue...don't mind me.

Not to worry, we won't.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

*chuckle*

More "parsing" games.

There are so many flavors of interventionalism that one can engage in any aspect of, for the good of others, for the protection of others, and the betterment of others that one can say, here are my lines in the sand, therefore, I am not a progressive/socialist/communist/Fascist/..., well you get my drift.

All interventionalists such as yourself Perg, are not Liberals or Capitalists, but mixed economy types who are deluded by one aspect of their belief system, that there is a handle on the defining condition of the limits of State Actions once doing good becomes your moral code. Once government is directed to good works, who is to/can/will stop it?

Can you not see in this country, New Age Liberalism descending into Socialism (No, it's not SOCIALISM A_J, you dumbass, it's a Social Democracy, just like all the other vibrant expanding countries of the world that went down this path before us and we so admire...) and not a step of the way (up until now, I sometimes feel) was done maliciously, but with nothing other than the altruistic best intentions of educated "people who care."

__________________
"The more communal enterprise extends, the more attention is drawn to the bad business results of nationalized and municipalized undertakings. It is impossible to miss the cause of the difficulty: a child could see where something was lacking. So that it cannot be said that this problem has not been tackled. But the way in which it has been tackled has been deplorably inadequate. Its organic connection with the essential nature of socialist enterprise has been regarded as merely a question of better selection of persons. It has not been realized that even exceptionally gifted men of high character cannot solve the problems created by socialist control of industry."
Ludwig Heinrich Elder von Mises

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."
Frederic Bastiat

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Very well said.

I concur.

 

[unregistered]