Socialism

[eyer]

List the founders. List the framers. Create a Venn diagram.

Since it's all relative to you...

...you're much more qualified.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I hope Byron's last post was sarcasm. If not, that's just too rich.

You really are lost, aren't you?

 

[Peregrinator]

Since it's all relative to you...

...you're much more qualified.

Right, you have nothing. As usual.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Since it's all relative to you...

...you're much more qualified.

Right, you have nothing. As usual.

Yup.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgihmv8SoG1qzr2th.gif

 

[zipman]

Great job!

Whew!

I just finished reading this thread and have a few observations on it.

First off, kudos to Perg. for starting what I consider to be the best thread I have read on Lit in many years.

It's somewhat amazing that such a simple request to define a term and provide evidence has proven to throw so many who use the term into babbling idiots using pretzel logic to try and deflect the issue, or move the goal posts.

I think my favorite part of the thread was the exchange with Ish which in my opinion, is simply classic. You really hit the nail on the head when you stated he actually had to prove his points and that you weren't going to just take him on his word.

And while Ish is usually the most arrogant one in any thread, I think Amicus comes damn close to taking the cake. It is hard to believe that anyone, let alone someone to have as many degrees as he professes, would think definitions are absolute. It's actually shocking. It is pretty inexcusable for anyone to not understand that language is contextual and that definitions change over time. I have to say that amicus thinking you couldn't follow his dumbed down multisyllabic words was pretty damn funny!

For all the posters who throw the term socialist around as an insult, it is truly a sight to watch all of them flounder when put to your simple test for the basis of a discussion.

Again, kudos perg, you totally earned it.

 

[Peregrinator]

Whew!

I just finished reading this thread and have a few observations on it.

First off, kudos to Perg. for starting what I consider to be the best thread I have read on Lit in many years.

It's somewhat amazing that such a simple request to define a term and provide evidence has proven to throw so many who use the term into babbling idiots using pretzel logic to try and deflect the issue, or move the goal posts.

I think my favorite part of the thread was the exchange with Ish which in my opinion, is simply classic. You really hit the nail on the head when you stated he actually had to prove his points and that you weren't going to just take him on his word.

And while Ish is usually the most arrogant one in any thread, I think Amicus comes damn close to taking the cake. It is hard to believe that anyone, let alone someone to have as many degrees as he professes, would think definitions are absolute. It's actually shocking. It is pretty inexcusable for anyone to not understand that language is contextual and that definitions change over time. I have to say that amicus thinking you couldn't follow his dumbed down multisyllabic words was pretty damn funny!

For all the posters who throw the term socialist around as an insult, it is truly a sight to watch all of them flounder when put to your simple test for the basis of a discussion.

Again, kudos perg, you totally earned it.

Well, thanks, Zip. It's been fun so far. I went into it with my usual naivete, expecting at least a few of the ones who throw the term around to say "A socialist is a person who believes in doing these things...according to this credible and accepted source. These people are socialists, because they did these things." Needless to say, while I wasn't exactly disappointed, I'm still waiting for a simple answer along those lines. What's even funnier to me is the number of times it's been assumed that 1) I am a socialist and 2) I'm defending socialism.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Peregrinator]

.....Jesus...*shakes head*

Vette, what is your definition of socialism, and where did you get that definition?

Btw, I want to commend you for your post early on listing pols who are associated with socialists. At least you tried to answer in the spirit of the thread, though with what I thought was unnecessary calumny.

 

[zipman]

Well, thanks, Zip. It's been fun so far. I went into it with my usual naivete, expecting at least a few of the ones who throw the term around to say "A socialist is a person who believes in doing these things...according to this credible and accepted source. These people are socialists, because they did these things." Needless to say, while I wasn't exactly disappointed, I'm still waiting for a simple answer along those lines. What's even funnier to me is the number of times it's been assumed that 1) I am a socialist and 2) I'm defending socialism.

The beauty is that none of them have. It was a relatively simple challenge and I can't recall one person who uses it as an insult actually defining it and taking up a legitimate discussion on the issue.

And it has been rather hysterical watching you get called a socialist and accused of defending socialism without ever backing it up. I also enjoyed the accusations of your evil intent.

You know, this is the kind of thread that LT dreams of creating but always fails so miserably at coming close to pulling it off.

 

[zipman]

.....Jesus...*shakes head*

I believe the shaking of the head was one of the earliest forms of communication between men, sometimes accompanied by grunting. Later, man moved on to language and evolved into the written word.

Letters led to words and then sentenceswhich conveyed complete thoughts.. Eventually, sentences were combined to form paragraphs which futrher improved the ability to communicate.

Clearly, you still have a ways to go.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I believe the shaking of the head was one of the earliest forms of communication between men, sometimes accompanied by grunting. Later, man moved on to language and evolved into the written word.

Letters led to words and then sentenceswhich conveyed complete thoughts.. Eventually, sentences were combined to form paragraphs which futrher improved the ability to communicate.

Clearly, you still have a ways to go.

I started reading this and immediately jumped to pedantic mode. I was all set to respond with a corrective to the first paragraph.

Halfway in, I decided to shut the fuck up and see where you were headed.

Paragraph three made me glad I did.

A very funny post.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I also enjoyed the accusations of your evil intent.

Nobody disputes Perg's evil intent.

How many years has that larval Cthulhu been jumping and flapping in his sigline, now?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

.....Jesus...*shakes head*

He was a socialist.

http://www.christiansocialistpartyusa.org/jesus-socialist.jpg

 

[philosophygirl]

Nobody disputes Perg's evil intent.

How many years has that larval Cthulhu been jumping and flapping in his sigline, now?

Pere makes being evil endearing.

The larval Cthulhu is kind of cuddle worthy.

But I'm a zombie so...my view might be a bit off.

 

[eyer]

Right, you have nothing. As usual.

And just as usual...

...you are entirely subjective.

Any collectives' primary threat is the individual...

...that's why "the common good" is so essential to socialists.

The upholding of "the common good" at the expense of the individual.

"the common good" is purely subjective, as no true definition of it is available politically except by force of government (whether that rule is by majority or tyrant).

The only way a "common good" can be striven for objectively is through the sincere reverence of individual liberty.

The right to life...

The right to liberty...

The right to one's own labor...

...unless you believe that individual men are better off controlled by others.

Then...

...by forcefully limiting individual liberty, you can devise whatever the collective will accept as "the common good", at whatever time.

There is no finer "common good" than individuals freely living their lives violating no individual rights of others, and forcefully not compelled to live "the common good" others envision by violating the individual rights of their fellow citizens.

Government's business re: "the common good" is to defend and protect the individual liberty of each citizen...

...that is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

Any government/people that/who doesn't/don't revere individual liberty above all else - especially the subjective "common good" - is/are simply socialist.

A true capitalist medium would not even be doing business in the USSA today...

...its owner would have long ago refused to even deal with such statist control and bureaucracy.

A capitalist will not "play" in a socialist market just to grab whatever crumbs are available by dictate of the government...

...he'll go away and live his capitalist philosophy - sans socialist government-allowed "capitalism" - via totally different venues.

Money, itself, is not the foundational pillar of true capitalism...

...to do honest business with other individuals who treasure the philosophy of individual liberty is.

The "capitalism" you speak of is the bastard creation of the collective. It is currently most noticeably exemplified by Communist China...which is a good thing: as their socialist monetary philosophy saturates more into the - comparative - minor league socialist financial system of the USSA, the greedy media whoremongers you mention above will more and more feel the tyrannical whip of control, read, total state control (see GM).

The true capitalists of the United States of America today are either packing up or already on their individual ways to Galt's Gulch...

You speak of "capitalism" from a socialist point of view...

...just as the "American" and "British" individuals you cite practice(d).

And just as Communist China excels at today.

What you're truly speaking of is simply "business", not capitalism.

I hate to pop the socialist bubble you obviously have such a dire and insecure need for...

...but capitalism is a philosophy of economics that naturally twins with the political philosophy of individual liberty. As those two philosophical branches meld, a nation's culture is naturally formed.

An individual who reverences individual liberty as her/his political philosophy is an individualist.

An individual who reverences capitalism as his/her economic philosophy is a capitalist.

And, as much as those two natural branches are separated, the resulting vacuum is naturally filled by whatever 57 varieties of socialism is popular at the time...

And btw:

Citing Marx as reference for capitalism is like citing an atheist as a biblical source...

...both don't believe in what they preach.

Needless to say...

...one should choose very wisely whom to do "business" with.



"all those companies that foam at the mouth to sell their products" are simply doing "business" with Communist China.

If one chooses to do "business" with another party that practices such tyrannical socialist means as the Communist Chinese do on their own people (right neci?), that one - at very best - can be simply tagged a "business" person.

"Business" is "business", right?

Reverence of individual liberty - of his/her own and every other individual's God-given right to it - is primary in the literal definition of both capitalism and capitalist.

If that reverence isn't primary, the definition does not apply.

Socialism has nothing to do with opinion...

...it has everything to do with government control and regulation.

The economy of this nation is totally controlled, managed and regulated by the government.

As you stated above...

...you favor more government control and regulation over less government control and deregulation.

Thus, you are a socialist.

Why the seemingly belligerent denial of the economic philosophy you hold?

No...

I have never thought that, nor have I posted anything that should lead a responsible observer to even think it, either.

America's founders introduced to the political world of their time the novel concept of both individual liberty and individual religious freedom - and their guarantee and protection - as the primary anchors of government.

Religious freedom dictates that every person has the God-given right to worship - or not - as they see fit, and without any FORCEFUL interference from anyone else...

...unless, while exercising their right, they violate that same right owned by every other individual.

Individual liberty dictates the every person has the God-given right to life, liberty, and PROPERTY: the individual's fruits of his OWN labor...

...unless they violate that same right of others.

The prime purpose of government - and the FORCE is naturally entails - is to guarantee and protect the equal individual rights of all men.

No...

...America's founders declared to the world its first true shot at individual political and religious freedom.

But...

...as I've long surmised, and have posted before on this board so even irresponsible observers should comprehend: the framers were the socialists.

When an individual constitutionally supports denying another individual his God-given right to his life, his liberty, and his PROPERTY...

...s/he is a socialist.

And an enemy of individual liberty.

When a government is constituted with the COMPROMISE that some individuals are not only not entitled to their own PROPERTY, but they are in fact legislated themselves - as individual human beings - to be not only PROPERTY, but the PROPERTY of another individual...

...that government - and thus the nation it rules - is socialist in primal form.

And...

...that nation - and thus its government which rules it - remains socialist as long as it continues to FORCEFULLY dictate that an individual's God-given right to her life, her liberty, and her own labor is specifically contingent on only what it constitutes.


Welcome back to the old world...

...everybody.

 

[Peregrinator]

The beauty is that none of them have. It was a relatively simple challenge and I can't recall one person who uses it as an insult actually defining it and taking up a legitimate discussion on the issue.

And it has been rather hysterical watching you get called a socialist and accused of defending socialism without ever backing it up. I also enjoyed the accusations of your evil intent.

You know, this is the kind of thread that LT dreams of creating but always fails so miserably at coming close to pulling it off.

I just went back and re-read a few pages from the beginning. I posted a bunch of definitions...and Jeninflorida was the only one I noticed who actually used any of them.

I am evil. Completely. Like Obama, I want to destroy the US and hand over ur economy to...um...someone really bad.

Nobody disputes Perg's evil intent.

How many years has that larval Cthulhu been jumping and flapping in his sigline, now?

I keep waiting for the little fucker to fly the coop already. The food is expensive.

He was a socialist.

http://www.christiansocialistpartyusa.org/jesus-socialist.jpg

"The most human thing we can do is comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

~Clarence Darrow

 

[Peregrinator]

Pere makes being evil endearing.

The larval Cthulhu is kind of cuddle worthy.

But I'm a zombie so...my view might be a bit off.

You probably have the same diet.

 

[Peregrinator]

Okay, Eyer, you're right; in aggregate the posts of yours you quoted do seem to be leading to something like a cohesive notion. Correct me if I'm wrong here: You see "socialism" as any and all infringement on individual liberty. Is that the underpinning?

 

[philosophygirl]

You probably have the same diet.

me and you or me and Cthulhu?

 

[eyer]

You see "socialism" as any and all infringement on individual liberty. Is that the underpinning?

As political philosophy...

...of course.

Again...

...socialism is the natural enemy of individual liberty.

 

[Peregrinator]

me and you or me and Cthulhu?

Cthulhu. The little bastard eats brains.

 

[Peregrinator]

As political philosophy...

...of course.

Again...

...socialism is the natural enemy of individual liberty.

Where do you draw the line between anarchy and acceptable? What is the proper function of government in your view?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

As political philosophy...

...of course.

Again...

...socialism is the natural enemy of individual liberty.

Another parable:

Our moving truck parked in front of our house to move us in. Moving trucks are big. Parking in front of our house also meant parking in front of the next door neighbor's house.

Next door neighbor complained. I say, "That must happen all day long." Cat says, "Yup. Right up until it's their house. Then they don't care whose house we block as long as we get their stuff loaded up as fast as possible."

I'm guessing Eyer drives on public streets, went to grade school, gets mail delivery. They're all Libertarians until someone wants to take something they want away from them...

 

[Byron In Exile]

Another parable:

Our moving truck parked in front of our house to move us in. Moving trucks are big. Parking in front of our house also meant parking in front of the next door neighbor's house.

Next door neighbor complained. I say, "That must happen all day long." Cat says, "Yup. Right up until it's their house. Then they don't care whose house we block as long as we get their stuff loaded up as fast as possible."

Your stuff was moved by a talking cat?

I'm guessing Eyer drives on public streets, went to grade school, gets mail delivery. They're all Libertarians until someone wants to take something they want away from them...

I'm guessing he paid taxes that created and maintain all that stuff, too.

 

[amicus]

Zipman.....this is a bit over your head, maybe if you read it slowly and use the dictionary...?

Definitions

A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept.

It is often said that definitions state the meaning of words. This is true, but it is not exact. A word is merely a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept; a word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept consists of its units. It is not words, but concepts that man defines—by specifying their referents.

The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus to keep its units differentiated from all other existents.

Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence.

With certain significant exceptions, every concept can be defined and communicated in terms of other concepts. The exceptions are concepts referring to sensations, and metaphysical axioms.

~~~

Now I could tell you the source of that, but I won't. Is Epistemology too big a word for you?

Before you jump off a cliff, scan your own mind and come up with a meaning for the term, definition...or do you even have one?

Amicus Veritas