Socialism

[amicus]

AMICUS

I have 4 kids and 10 grandkids.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Chuckles, slowpoke, I have eight children and over twenty grandkids and a great grandkid in the offing...but the questions remains the same....how can we tell them what we have learned?

It used to be, but is no more, that we 'elders' of paternal familial portent, were near and helping...that is no more, we are all distant and disconnected, both generational wise and genetically, as our daughters seem to have become promiscuous and paternity is often a mystery...sighs...



ami

 

[KingOrfeo]

Well technically, he wasn't a communist. No one ever was just as today you'd be hard-pressed to find a Socialist.




Pretty much like unicorns and leprechauns...

Pretty much as Orwell would have prophesied.

No, Orwell (a self-ID'd Socialist all his life) never imagined the word "socialism" would be marginalized.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I can't believe that Perg took it so personally just because we point out the obvious, that a little Socialism (a rose by any other name) leads eventually to a lot of Socialism . . .

But, it doesn't. Look at Europe today. It's certainly not getting more socialistic.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Wow amicus. Do you cut yourself? I would if I was half the sad litttle cunt you apparently are thinking that we really can't figure it out and get things to maybe not perfect cus life isn't perfect and we'll never learn to account for earthquake but that we won't ever get close.

The rest who wrote was drivel drivel. Now that I know you don't think what you type it makes me less frustrated. I not that Ishmael who can normally make a solid argument out of the sky is magenta responded to me horseshit so. . . yeah that's like me getting a round one KO on Mike Tyson.

 

[Peregrinator]

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

It's not nitpicking to level legitimate criticism at an argument, Ish. I asked you to define socialism and you said "it's communism," and then avoided at all costs any attempt to demonstrate that your definition is accurate. Jesus, if you think that's nitpicking, I shudder to think what your blood pressure must have done when you read some of the stuff you claim you've read.

I'm not "attempting to be right." I'm attempting to understand why anyone calls current politicians in the USA--or me, as a sort of amusing sidebar--a socialist.

So far, your answer is that those people are socialists because they have the same goals as and act like communists. I don't find that to be helpful or even particularly coherent.

 

[Peregrinator]

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.

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?

As far as I can see, you're right here. There's no coherent definition in use. The right screams "socialist!" when they see something they don't like. Ishmael takes it a step further and screams "communist!" when he sees it. How did Rand define it?

You'd think, if someone was going to use a word like that, it would be easy enough to say, "When I call Obama a socialist, I mean his goals are government ownership and control of the means of production and transportation of goods," but instead what you get is answers like "What do you mean he's not a socialist? He bailed out GM!" To which the only sensible response is "Socialism means government bailouts?"

I didn't address Ish's list, because I still don't buy his argument that socialism is communism, so a list of communist manifesto principles and how they're already upon us is as irrelevant as a list of the abuses of power committed by Idi Amin would be. I will note in passing that it amused me to see this:

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.)

...knowing that he's been a staunch defender of the factory-farming industry in discussions about its environmental degradation.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Carrot and stick does it every time.

 

[koalabear]

I have a friend who is paid by the government to study socialism.......oh never mind.

 

[Luk]

I have a friend...

I highly doubt that.

 

[Peregrinator]

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

Amicus...

While this is a thoughtful and interesting post, and I appreciate very much the time and energy you put into it, as well as the civil tone and your sharing of your experience, I think you may have misread the purpose of the thread. However, because you spent such effort on this post, I'll address a few of the points:

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.

I think public education is a very high value, as I think an educated citizenry is liable to make better decisions. I do not think it is a right. I think the same about universal healthcare. I don't think the government should have any part at all in what happens inside a woman's uterus. That decision is properly made by her, the father, and their chosen healthcare provider and no one else (barring obvious exceptions like moral authorities the parents choose to consult, etc.). You say it here:

The ownership of...one's own body...

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.

Thank you for this, with all the weight and authority of your education and experience. I wondered if the thread would eventually lead to the conclusion that the word "socialist" has become synonymous with "witch" in the mouths of those who so carelessly fling it about. It certainly seems to be the case.

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.

This thread is an attempt to get those who scream the word constantly to define it. That's it.

That tends to be my stance generally; I look at issues with an eye toward the practical. I don't care much for labels; that said, as one who studies the language, when a word is used more or less constantly as a weapon, I want to know what the wielders mean by it.

 

[Peregrinator]

*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."

I'm very, very, almost painfully familiar with your slippery slope argument. If you put on your crampons and go uphill, where do you stop? Where's the top of that slope?

Me? Interventionalist? But you're the one who wants uteruses to be state-controlled real estate. I want 'em free of any government intervention.

What your whole post fails completely to address is that there's the same amount of parsing available to you; where's the line between "good" and "bad" government intervention? Once we start eliminating government, how do we know where to stop?

"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

Curious, this. When I read it, the first thing that came to mind was "Exxon." Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Peregrinator]

I can't believe that Perg took it so personally just because we point out the obvious, that a little Socialism (a rose by any other name) leads eventually to a lot of Socialism, and boy are we awash in it today with every splinter branch satisfied at their desired results but somewhat ironically aghast at the results of the other "little" Socialist's results...
__________________
Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as COMMIES!!!!!!!, then an organized people is on the move.
Saul David Alinsky
Rules for Radicals

I'm not taking it personally. When someone--you were one of them--called me a socialist, I thought, "That doesn't jive at all with my idea of what socialism is." Then I started thinking about all the hysteria from the right about Obamacare, and I got to wondering just what the hell you meant by it.

Why don't you ever look at the other end of the spectrum? Getting rid of some government agencies, as you and your sycophantic "Yuh! Yuh! Me too!" sidekicks in this thread have advocated numerous times...well, where does it end? Seems to me a little anarchy leads to a lot of anarchy. A little pollution leads to a lot of pollution. A little exploitation leads to a lot of exploitation.

I fixed your Alinsky for you.

 

[Peregrinator]

Here's something I have noticed with the I'm not a Socialist crowd here.

They hate big business, they think it rips people off (A_J, you know business will not pass on the savings from the FairTax.org to the consumer, they're "greedy."), and then they turn around and point out how well they are doing in stocks...

Are they then making profit off the rip-off artists?

Unindicted co-conspirators?
__________________
A_J's corollary #3, “The New Age Liberal maintains contradictory positions comfortably compartmentalized.”

I assume you're not talking about me here, because I neither hate big business nor am doing well in stocks.

 

[Sean]

Lol@ Perg's thread turning into a RWCJ.

SeanH, proud Socialist.

 

[Peregrinator]

Lol@ Perg's thread turning into a RWCJ.

SeanH, proud Socialist.

Amazing isn't it?

I wish I were still tutoring logic, so I could assign someone to work up Ish's argument(s) in symbolic. It would be a riot to see the algebra. Take three modus tollens turns and at the bottom of the ramp go ponens.

 

[Sean]

Amazing isn't it?

I wish I were still tutoring logic, so I could assign someone to work up Ish's argument(s) in symbolic. It would be a riot to see the algebra. Take three modus tollens turns and at the bottom of the ramp go ponens.

I find it both funny and sad that so many, especially in the US, believe the bullshit fed to them by billionaires and global multinationals about what's in their own best interest. Keep voting for the money men and believing in the American Dream, boys!

 

[Peregrinator]

I find it both funny and sad that so many, especially in the US, believe the bullshit fed to them by billionaires and global multinationals about what's in their own best interest. Keep voting for the money men and believing in the American Dream, boys!

AJ's two quotes are pretty telling, I think. The colored ones that I quoted up there^^^. This one in particular:

"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

Why doesn't the right ever apply such thinking to laissez-faire capitalism? "Greed is good," anyone?

 

[richard_daily]

It's not nitpicking to level legitimate criticism at an argument, Ish. I asked you to define socialism and you said "it's communism," and then avoided at all costs any attempt to demonstrate that your definition is accurate. Jesus, if you think that's nitpicking, I shudder to think what your blood pressure must have done when you read some of the stuff you claim you've read.

I'm not "attempting to be right." I'm attempting to understand why anyone calls current politicians in the USA--or me, as a sort of amusing sidebar--a socialist.

So far, your answer is that those people are socialists because they have the same goals as and act like communists. I don't find that to be helpful or even particularly coherent.

Don't pay attention to the old crank/s... You're a middle-ground kind of guy... You're the demographic that wins elections... Unfortunately, being slightly left of wingnut will get you labeled a socialist this days, but in your case, I don't think anything could be further from the truth.

 

[Peregrinator]

Don't pay attention to the old crank/s... You're a middle-ground kind of guy... You're the demographic that wins elections... Unfortunately, being slightly left of wingnut will get you labeled a socialist this days, but in your case, I don't think anything could be further from the truth.

Well, thanks. I'm not especially worried about being called one; I was more curious as to how calling me that could possibly square with what I actually believe and advocate. I came to the conclusion that the word had lost all meaning aside from "left of wingnut" as you point out.

It was funny when I asked my dad about this. He HATES Obama...and when I said, "How does anyone justify calling him a socialist?" all my dad could come up with is "they're either exaggerating or they're fringe lunatics." This from a guy who can't stand Democrats, thinks Ike was the best president ever, big fan of Reagan...etc.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Did you scour the internet day and night for months to find the most idiotic AV possible?

 

[Peregrinator]

Did you scour the internet day and night for months to find the most idiotic AV possible?

Are you asking me? No...that pic showed up in my email or on Facebook or something. It's hideous, innit? But you remind me...time to change it again.

LIMPSDICK!

 

[Sean Renaud]

It really is. It's like someone made an endeavor to make the most annoying AV possible and then that was what came out and while they may not have set the land speed record it is way way up there.

 

[Peregrinator]

This better, Sean?

 

[Peregrinator]

It really is. It's like someone made an endeavor to make the most annoying AV possible and then that was what came out and while they may not have set the land speed record it is way way up there.

It made me laugh...it's a mashup of Sarah Palin and Justin Bieber, of all things.

 

[Wok]

Perg, I just finished a book called The Rise and Fall of Communism by Archie Brown. This guy made an interesting argument in saying anarchists and communists had the same goal, but disagreed on getting there.