Socialism

[Sonny Limatina]

Your stuff was moved by a talking cat?

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

Ask him, but he talks the talk of a tax-protester.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Pere makes being evil endearing.

Don't let his smoove demeanor fool you. He always has an insidious plan up his sleeve, generally involving socialism.

The larval Cthulhu is kind of cuddle worthy.

A little green bat-winged tentacle-lipped hopping socialist menace is what it is.

I've complained to Laurel that it needs to be removed, but all I get is "of course, we'll take care of it" and nothing happens.

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

You ought to realize it's competing with you for your food supply. It's only going to get bigger, and we all know brains don't grow on trees.

 

[philosophygirl]

Cthulhu. The little bastard eats brains.

As a zombie that is a concern.

Don't let his smoove demeanor fool you. He always has an insidious plan up his sleeve, generally involving socialism.

He is pretty social. You may have a point.

A little green bat-winged tentacle-lipped hopping socialist menace is what it is.

If the little green hopping thingy is a socialist, others might think green zombies are socialist too. You know green being green.

I've complained to Laurel that it needs to be removed, but all I get is "of course, we'll take care of it" and nothing happens.

I heard they are Cthulhu sympathizers from way back.

You ought to realize it's competing with you for your food supply. It's only going to get bigger, and we all know brains don't grow on trees.

I'm not sharing my brain supply...the socialist green hopping thingy must be stopped!

 

[Byron In Exile]

He is pretty social. You may have a point.

Exactly! It's how he spreads his unnatural ideology.

If the little green hopping thingy is a socialist, others might think green zombies are socialist too. You know green being green.

They might think that. At least for a few moments until their skulls are empty.

I heard they are Cthulhu sympathizers from way back.

No wonder. Actually that explains a lot of things...

I'm not sharing my brain supply...the socialist green hopping thingy must be stopped!

Yes, and before it gets so large that it regards a bus full of school children as a light snack.

 

[lustatopia]

Cthulhu and all their kind are definitely examples of collectivist hive mind.

 

[Byron In Exile]

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

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n307/byroninexile/et/bnfl.jpg

I knew it.

 

[eyer]

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

Anarchy is not acceptable because it is not possible...

...when two or more individuals are involved - and there is no situation in life when that is not the case - some sort of government of their collective actions naturally will evolve.

And, again...

The prime purpose of government - and the FORCE it naturally entails - is to guarantee and protect the God-given individual liberty of all men.

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 have nothing anyone can take away from me, Sonny; I own nothing but some duds to clothe me. And I've never even imagined the Libertarian political philosophy for my own.

I do not drive, I do not get mail delivery...but, yes: I did go to grade school and high school, but the DoE hadn't even been born yet. I athletic scholarshipped in college.

I've never collected a penny of federal $$ or aid; I've paid into SS and the Ms and all the rest for almost 40 years. I have no savings, no retirement fund, no health insurance, and the money I make to get by on would honestly embarrass 99.5% of the population - working or not.

I trust God in my desire to never collect a cent of SS, nor to ever suffer the spirit-stifling statist bureaucracy of Medicare. And if He won't make sure I stay as far away from a nursing home as He now grants me to be away from government, I believe Mr.'s Smith & Wesson can be counted on as a last resort.

So what's anyone going to take away from me, Sonny? My life? Christ already has that.

My individual liberty? To live my life exactly how I want without violating the individual liberty of anyone else...regardless of what government demands or anyone else has to say?

Who's going to take that away from me, Sonny, when I will never surrender it?

 

[patrick1]

Maybe it's my European eye, but some of this discussion seems passing strange

Here are a couple of thoughts. I don't understand the supposed correlation between 'socialism' and the bloated State. Most modern States are social democracies - a phrase that for some reason doesn't occur much in this debate in the USA. Ideologues like Reagan and Thatcher who affected to want to do something about this 'State' never did, they just adjusted it to suit their allies' purposes, because the State is an ally to capitalists sometimes, to socialists sometimes, to militarists and petty rule-makers other times.

Yes, the possibility of 'force' underlies any government, but so what? That's the way life is. If you have a rule about something, and there are going to be some rules, you have to have an ultimate sanction. The important thing is to find ways of moderating the use of that force to the minimum, and of persuading the government genuinely to seek our consent as much as possible, isn't it? (The socialist thinker Gramsci has a particularly clear-sighted view of this, of the 'mask of consent' sometimes slipping to reveal the force underneath)

I'm not clear what the exponents of 'individual freedom' feel about the freedom of the group, especially the freedom of the 'corporation' (which is a legal sort of transubstantiation, the company made a 'body', a 'corpus'). What status has the freedom of BP, or the maker of the software and laptop on which I write, or my local store? If there isn't regulatory government to represent 'people' as a whole, how will these companies and corporations be restrained in, or held responsible for, their actions? (Why, as an example, from a libertarian point of view, is it ok for companies to have 'limited liability', i.e for the owners not to be responsible for the full extent of the company's debts?)

P

 

[HB1965]

Since eyer finally condescended to tell us his views I'll post mine.

I believe that all the conservatives here are confusing socialism with fascism. Socialism isn't about curtailing people's personal liberties. It's about the group making the decision about how resources will be allocated to ensure that everyone has something. It views resources differently than capitalists do, but the individual opinion about what to do with those resources is still very much there. It also assures that everyone will have a job and be contributing in someway that makes sense for them. Socialism isn't about doing anything for the good of the state, it's about doing every for the good of the community. Two very different things. You can have a democratic political system and have a socialist economy.

Fascism is definitely about curtailing personal liberties. The state decides everything. The state allocates resources based on it's whim and it controls people's ability to make money and access to goods. It definitely attempts to tell people how to think.

Do I want to live in a socialist society? No. I believe that I should be paid and fairly compensated for my labor and I should be able to build up as much credit as I want and own what property I choose and not have to share it with others if I don't want to. Do I think that there are some things in this society that can be managed socially. Yes. I think that there are services that we all use in common that I would be willing to make a contribution to running whether I know for certain I would use them or not just because I know I or my family may use them.

 

[amicus]

Hello, Patrick, been a while, welcome back...

I think one must take in context the state of Europe following world war two and the Soviets occupation of eastern Europe for a generation after that.

Britain was decidely Socialist in the 50's, care to argue that? Even Oggbashan admits it.

An occupied Europe has not and may never recover and as I listen to/read, the commentaries of contemporary Europeans and watch the decline of the PIGS, socialism lite, social democracies, have no where to go but into full socialism.

We have, and will, suffer our Wilsons, FDR's, Kennedy/Johnsons, Clinton's and Obama's, but the heart and soul of America rests in the individual, not the group.

We may have to fight to retain our freedom, but that was always in the cards.

Human individual freedom, the freedom of the market place, was an astoundingly new concept when America was born. Gone were the Kings and Popes and Tribal Dictators and government, of, by and for the people came into being, unheralded by the soothsayers of the intellectual world.

We may have to relearn those basic principles, but there are many like myself who will insist upon being heard and even more importantly, ready, willing and able to take arms if necessary.

Amicus Veritas

 

[David_Clink]

enjoying my coffee while shaking my head...........

Here is what pro socialist people tend to forget. If America was unlucky enough to have fallen then we would never enjoy the benefits of having outstanding people like Steve Jobs, nor would we have enjoyed the benefits of Bill Gates.

Under socialism there is no reward for the risk of working long hours to create something revolutionary.

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.

 

[amicus]

HB1965, have you never read history or even read the tenets of socialism and fascism?

If you advocate the total abolition of the innate rights of the individual in favor of the collective, only then can you embrace socialism of any form.

If you feel compelled to feel compassion for the downtrodden, heh, the lazy ones, then by all means contribute all your enery to sustaining them. But for Christ's sake, keep your fetish to yourself and allow the rest of us to live in freedom.

Thank you.

Amicus Veritas

 

[JenAltArmy]

The government is laden wasteland of government enterprises run amuck.

Would you go to Wal-Mart and pay $25 for a candy bar?

Then why on earth would you support socialism? Same thing


you are allowed to make dumb-ass personal choices

Since eyer finally condescended to tell us his views I'll post mine.

I believe that all the conservatives here are confusing socialism with fascism. Socialism isn't about curtailing people's personal liberties. It's about the group making the decision about how resources will be allocated to ensure that everyone has something. It views resources differently than capitalists do, but the individual opinion about what to do with those resources is still very much there. It also assures that everyone will have a job and be contributing in someway that makes sense for them. Socialism isn't about doing anything for the good of the state, it's about doing every for the good of the community. Two very different things. You can have a democratic political system and have a socialist economy.

Fascism is definitely about curtailing personal liberties. The state decides everything. The state allocates resources based on it's whim and it controls people's ability to make money and access to goods. It definitely attempts to tell people how to think.

Do I want to live in a socialist society? No. I believe that I should be paid and fairly compensated for my labor and I should be able to build up as much credit as I want and own what property I choose and not have to share it with others if I don't want to. Do I think that there are some things in this society that can be managed socially. Yes. I think that there are services that we all use in common that I would be willing to make a contribution to running whether I know for certain I would use them or not just because I know I or my family may use them.

 

[JenAltArmy]

same thing goes for a freaking union. Why on earth would I bust my ass, when in the end we all get the same? Why should I try to make the “zoo” any better? Why on earth would I want to work 60 hours a week?

Oh to enter the collective regime, we go back to 40 hours a week and take a entitlement plan like that of France where workers get 2 months off each and every year.

No thanks, I’m not lazy

HB1965, have you never read history or even read the tenets of socialism and fascism?

If you advocate the total abolition of the innate rights of the individual in favor of the collective, only then can you embrace socialism of any form.

If you feel compelled to feel compassion for the downtrodden, heh, the lazy ones, then by all means contribute all your enery to sustaining them. But for Christ's sake, keep your fetish to yourself and allow the rest of us to live in freedom.

Thank you.

Amicus Veritas

 

[JenAltArmy]

well, good point.

however, under socialsm Steve Jobs would have created Apple for the collective and never wanted to earn any money.

oh wait, there would be no freaking Apple under socialism

not sure why people want to live in 1950

enjoying my coffee while shaking my head...........

Here is what pro socialist people tend to forget. If America was unlucky enough to have fallen then we would never enjoy the benefits of having outstanding people like Steve Jobs, nor would we have enjoyed the benefits of Bill Gates.

Under socialism there is no reward for the risk of working long hours to create something revolutionary.

 

[JenAltArmy]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but under socialism creativity and spark is quashed. The dream is dead.

To continue with the high tech theme:
In Europe has there been anyone along the likes of Steve Jobs or Bill Gates?

Maybe it's my European eye, but some of this discussion seems passing strange

Here are a couple of thoughts. I don't understand the supposed correlation between 'socialism' and the bloated State. Most modern States are social democracies - a phrase that for some reason doesn't occur much in this debate in the USA. Ideologues like Reagan and Thatcher who affected to want to do something about this 'State' never did, they just adjusted it to suit their allies' purposes, because the State is an ally to capitalists sometimes, to socialists sometimes, to militarists and petty rule-makers other times.

Yes, the possibility of 'force' underlies any government, but so what? That's the way life is. If you have a rule about something, and there are going to be some rules, you have to have an ultimate sanction. The important thing is to find ways of moderating the use of that force to the minimum, and of persuading the government genuinely to seek our consent as much as possible, isn't it? (The socialist thinker Gramsci has a particularly clear-sighted view of this, of the 'mask of consent' sometimes slipping to reveal the force underneath)

I'm not clear what the exponents of 'individual freedom' feel about the freedom of the group, especially the freedom of the 'corporation' (which is a legal sort of transubstantiation, the company made a 'body', a 'corpus'). What status has the freedom of BP, or the maker of the software and laptop on which I write, or my local store? If there isn't regulatory government to represent 'people' as a whole, how will these companies and corporations be restrained in, or held responsible for, their actions? (Why, as an example, from a libertarian point of view, is it ok for companies to have 'limited liability', i.e for the owners not to be responsible for the full extent of the company's debts?)

P

 

[HB1965]

HB1965, have you never read history or even read the tenets of socialism and fascism?

If you advocate the total abolition of the innate rights of the individual in favor of the collective, only then can you embrace socialism of any form.

If you feel compelled to feel compassion for the downtrodden, heh, the lazy ones, then by all means contribute all your enery to sustaining them. But for Christ's sake, keep your fetish to yourself and allow the rest of us to live in freedom.

Thank you.

Amicus Veritas

Actually I have read them and I say that you are confusing socialism with Fascism. Marx believed that what he was doing was expanding personal liberty by leveling the playing field of life. I disagree with that notion because I believe that we are all too closely connected with the idea of owning something. I want to own my own space and own as much space as I want. All I want is a fair and equal chance to do that which is different from an equal portion of the space.

The government is laden wasteland of government enterprises run amuck.

Would you go to Wal-Mart and pay $25 for a candy bar?

Then why on earth would you support socialism? Same thing


you are allowed to make dumb-ass personal choices

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[patrick1]

<< Under socialism there is no reward for the risk of working long hours to create something revolutionary.>>

Well, under all sorts of systems there are all sorts of rewards. You seem to mean financial rewards, but I can't say that in the biographies of such people, financial rewards loom large. Mostly the fascination of the subject, the pleasure of discovery and the twin joys of working with and of beating one's colleagues seem to figure much larger. If you take the history of the Soviet Union, for instance, many people worked long hours to create revolutionary things, from all sorts of perspectives on the ruling regime. There are many examples: Shostakovich, Bulgakov, Mikhail Bakhtin, Gorky, Rachmaninov, Sergei Korolev, Yevtushenko might begin a list.

I'm not a Communist, I'm an anti-Communist, but I am interested in evidence and reflecting on it.

I am still interested to know how proponents of individualism feel about the freedom of companies and corporations, and how such bodies are to be restrained or made accountable.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I worked for state agencies many years, and the state doesnt like innovation and deviancy. James Q. Wilson, in his book, BUREAUCRACY, indicates that agencies embrace uniformity.

 

[JenAltArmy]

When you allow government to take over enterprise, the cost for those goods increase, do you enjoy paying more for products and services, in the name of government?

Actually I have read them and I say that you are confusing socialism with Fascism. Marx believed that what he was doing was expanding personal liberty by leveling the playing field of life. I disagree with that notion because I believe that we are all too closely connected with the idea of owning something. I want to own my own space and own as much space as I want. All I want is a fair and equal chance to do that which is different from an equal portion of the space.



I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[JenAltArmy]

Ask him, but he talks the talk of a tax-protester.

are you suggesting that those who pay more in taxes are better collective members?

I just say that they are fools

 

[richard_daily]

As political philosophy...

...of course.

Again...

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

You do realize that's not actually what socialism means, right?

It's nice that you came up with your own personal definition, but the issue with that, is that no one else is going to understand what you mean.

 

[richard_daily]

Cthulhu and all their kind are definitely examples of collectivist hive mind.

And here I thought that you came back to answer my thrice-asked question of how many Insurance companies Obama's socialist government was taking over...

How silly of me.

 

[JenAltArmy]

oh some on little dick, come up with a positive spin on socialism. I need a good laugh

You do realize that's not actually what socialism means, right?

It's nice that you came up with your own personal definition, but the issue with that, is that no one else is going to understand what you mean.

 

[CaptainKirk]

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.

I agree, Zip; I'm enjoying this immensely, and Perg has done an admirable job.

http://www.photorox.com/images/whiteknight64/2eatpopcorn.jpg