Socialism

[Peregrinator]

Could be, I wasn’t on the GB during the Bush years. All I can say is that under obama the whiners have grown in number. Obama courted that group to get elected. Now that obama has mad many mistakes in office, he will being to court that group again. Sad.


Its hard to say 100% what the founders of the country had in mind, or if they even knew what socialism is/was. Other than bronze and luke, who else was there? Now, I have not read nor do I plan to read any books that past presidents might have published.

My stance on socialism but what most governments turn out to be is a communist system, is morally wrong and fails (as with USSR)

its interesting to see how USSR has morphed, and how China is walking their fine line

basically countries that were purly socilist are moving away to a capitalist system, while many of the fucktards here want America to move to a stronger socialist system.

why?

what is the reason?

how can they support more socialist programs?

how can they support increasing socialist in our government?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. You posted: "Some how under Bush an underbelly of socialism started..."

You think that "underbelly of socialism" began during the Bush presidency? Which Bush?

You don't need to read Bronze or Luke's posts, nor any book by a president to know about, oh, say, welfare or the New Deal. Neither of which started under either Bush.

I agree that what's happening in China is interesting. The USSR didn't "morph," it imploded.

Which countries do you think were "purely socialist?"

As to your questions, I think you need to ask them that. You probably stand a much better chance of getting a straight answer if you ask under your regular nick, as opposed to this alt.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/04/atlas-shrugged-movie-2011-images-best-movies-ever-ayn-rand.jpg

Comments of the Day: What’s So Bad About Atlas Shrugged Anyway?

Richard Lawson —

Today we heard that the producer of the new Atlas Shrugged Part 1 movie might not make parts two and three because the first one has been such a flop. Good, many of you said, because that book stinks. Or does it? One commenter wanted to know what's actually wrong with Ayn Rand's paean to individualism.

From SaraRueful:

I'm going to expose my ignorance here, I guess. I read "Atlas Shrugged" a couple of years ago and besides the fact that Rand badly needed a good editor (I hate 70-page radio addresses more than I hate 15-minute drum solos), I liked it. What *I* took away from it, knowing nothing about Rand, was that if you work hard, are smart, and put out the best product, you will reap the rewards. If the smart, hardworking people have their money taken away to give to lazy incompetent fucks, then that's when society goes to shit. As a smart person and hard worker I like this message. I'm also a liberal.

Bear with me, I'm trying to articulate this....

Why do right-wingers embrace it so much? Bush was the one who gave billions to bank chiefs who were too stupid and incompetent to keep their businesses going. Right-wingers support all manner of tax breaks and gov't incentives to corporations that wouldn't need them if they were truly the best on the market.

If you break it down just to basic welfare/state aid, yeah, I absolutely oppose giving money to able people who are just lazy. I have stopped talking to a relative and a "friend" from college who fought to the death for disability because they're too lazy to work (and found a doctor to pay off). However, I do not begrudge my blind uncle or cousin with Down syndrome the support they receive to live normal lives. I don't think Dagny or John Galt or Hank Reardon would either. Would they?

I also have a real issue with modern-day right-wingers embracing this book because the vast majority of them are so fucking stupid John Galt would never, ever let them in his magical valley. (Ooh, I'm going to start using that to describe my hoo-hah.) Dagny and Hank and Francesco (etc.) weren't greedy assholes, they were the best in the business. Today's Rand lovers are greedy, stupid and usually legacy babies who would have never gotten where they are if not for their parents.

Sorry to ramble on so. I don't really get the liberal hatred of this book, or the wingnut love of it, and if anyone can set me straight I'd really appreciate it.

Fair enough. Commenter tewkesbury responded:

there are several reasons to hate it, but just to address some of what you're saying:
First of all—and it really bears mentioning every time—the prose is terrible. It really doesn't function well as a novel, forget any underlying messages. The characters sound like automatons, the adjectives are too numerous by a factor of 20, the tone is insanely shrill, and there's not a whisper of dramatic ambiguity.

But that aside, the book doesn't actually advocate hard work, it advocates exceptionalism. Dagny and Hank, et al, DO work hard, but we're never allowed to forget that the work is both a result of and in service to their profound Greatness. And though they do have "enemies," you'll note that present around the edges of the narrative are all these nameless faceless workers who have to accomplish these grand and glorious projects that our heroes want to have done. (And you'll note also that part of the heroes' Essential Greatness is that they're never tempted to exploit the workers to increase their own wealth or status.) And not one of these workers seems to have any ambition for him or herself beyond doing a good day's work in service of the dreams of these Awesomely Exceptional People. Everyone who is good behaves nobly and everyone who is bad behaves shamefully, and there are no humans acting like humans.

So in order to love and believe in the book and get excited about the whole Objectivist line of crap, you pretty much have to believe that you are yourself one of these exceptional people—your ideas are the best, you're the best, and you were born to lead and stand out. It's like a massive dose of ego steroids for those who have always secretly suspected they were awesome. And the other side of this is why corporate welfare recipients are so comfortable letting the government bail them out whenever they do something bone-stupid like ruining the economy—they're not lazy bums taking a handout! They're Exceptional Awesomes who've just hit a little bump in the road on their way to fulfilling their Exceptional Destiny! And frankly, it's the government's RESPONSIBILITY to make their endeavors easier for them, because they're chosen!

Believing in these ideas—and believing that if we're just allowed to implement them in an completely unencumbered fashion, everything would be perfect—also makes it easier to swallow the sight of people struggling and suffering, because you can just tell yourself that it's their own fault, that you would never fall into that trap because you do work hard, and also you're super-special.

I think it's an evil book, I really do.

Well? Who's right here?

lethalpaine promoted by EasttoMidwest Thu 28 Apr 2011 12:04 PM

My family is living proof as to why Objectivism fails.

My father was a self-made man. He literally went from living in a pick up truck to owning multiple real estate properties in the span of 20 years. He was a simple plumber that started his own plumbing company with a few friends and a trusted investor. He single handedly brought us from lower class to upper middle class, and he worked his ass off for it. He was, and still is, the most honest and ethical bussinessman I have ever known.

Then the economy bottomed out and the bank called in a loan five years early. His investor left him hanging. He had to file for bankruptcy and sell his plumbing company to someone who didn't mind taking the "burden". Did he ever make a shady deal or try to screw someone over? Never. Circumstance and someone else's greed screwed him over, and certainly not because he didn't try hard enough. So yes, in a perfect world free of other people's greed, objectivism sounds wonderful. But just like Communism, pure Capitalism fails just as hard in the real world. Someone will always be trying to screw you over.

http://gawker.com/#!5796397/comments-of-the-day-whats-so-bad-about-atlas-shrugged-anyway

 

[badbabysitter]

that is great. you have 1 person. awesome. where did his family wealth come from?

psst.. no


that was simply off the top of my head


and considering our country is one tenth the size of yours.. the following list aint bad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_billionaires

 

[JenAltArmy]

That's about right.

weak, but thank you for trying. basiclly, because you failed you want to take my money. I get it.

 

[JenAltArmy]

what I was making ref to was that I didn't hear the "S" word brought up till the collapse of the bubbles. even with Clinton, we all know that he loved the free market and still does today. how many million has he earned on his speaking tour and books?

funny story about Clinton, when he was Gov in AR, he loved to go out in the limo after work, enjoy a hottie, and then go to Taco Bell. guess after the girl rung his bell, he had to run to the Bell. just a thought.

Anyway, now with obama there are a lot more people who have simply given up. what % of american's are living off welfare? what % of families are now getting government aide (how much has this shot up since Obama has been in office)?

welfare was started out for farmers, then quickly the democrats used it as a career opportunity to secure votes.

there use to be shame, when one had to live on welfare.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. You posted: "Some how under Bush an underbelly of socialism started..."

You think that "underbelly of socialism" began during the Bush presidency? Which Bush?

You don't need to read Bronze or Luke's posts, nor any book by a president to know about, oh, say, welfare or the New Deal. Neither of which started under either Bush.

I agree that what's happening in China is interesting. The USSR didn't "morph," it imploded.

Which countries do you think were "purely socialist?"

As to your questions, I think you need to ask them that. You probably stand a much better chance of getting a straight answer if you ask under your regular nick, as opposed to this alt.

 

[JenAltArmy]

there is far more opportunies in a capitalist socity than that of a sociliast one.

however, one has to get off his or her fat ass

psst.. no


that was simply off the top of my head


and considering our country is one tenth the size of yours.. the following list aint bad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_billionaires

 

[badbabysitter]

there is far more opportunies in a capitalist socity than that of a sociliast one.

however, one has to get off his or her fat ass

are you physically incapable of answering or acknowledging anything directly?

 

[JenAltArmy]

psst.. no


that was simply off the top of my head


and considering our country is one tenth the size of yours.. the following list aint bad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Canadian_billionaires

I see more than a few on that list started off in the family business. so, its easy to be a billionair when you start off with at least one billion dollars.

 

[badbabysitter]

I see more than a few on that list started off in the family business. so, its easy to be a billionair when you start off with at least one billion dollars.

kinda like Donald Trump?

 

[JenAltArmy]

kinda like Donald Trump?

so true

 

[richard_daily]

kinda like Donald Trump?

Or most billionaires.

 

[JenAltArmy]

Or most billionaires.

but, who has the best chance to start with nothing and end up a billionair? in the states, canada, france, or you name the place.

oh never mind, only in the capitalist society of America

 

[badbabysitter]

but, who has the best chance to start with nothing and end up a billionair? in the states, canada, france, or you name the place.

oh never mind, only in the capitalist society of America

based off the hard imperical data and research brought to you by " I-Have-No-Way-Of-Verifying-This-With-Anything-Resembling-Fact. com"

 

[cjh]

but, who has the best chance to start with nothing and end up a billionair? in the states, canada, france, or you name the place.

oh never mind, only in the capitalist society of America

right now?

russia, china and india are good bets, too.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_US_dollar_billionaires

 

[JenAltArmy]

right now?

russia, china and india are good bets, too.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_US_dollar_billionaires

russia is run by the mob

india is corrupt amost as bad as russia

point is, you can't get rich in socialism. only with capitalism.

I can led you to water, but I can't make you drink


Don’t you think its ironic, that with your choice of Russia. Where socialism, okay communism failed and now they are adopting more capitalism into their society?

 

[badbabysitter]

russia is run by the mob

india is corrupt amost as bad as russia

point is, you can't get rich in socialism. only with capitalism.

I can led you to water, but I can't make you drink


Don’t you think its ironic, that with your choice of Russia. Where socialism, okay communism failed and now they are adopting more capitalism into their society?

or he can lead you to a post that dispels your arguement.. but he can't make you think

 

[cjh]

russia is run by the mob

india is corrupt amost as bad as russia

point is, you can't get rich in socialism. only with capitalism.

I can led you to water, but I can't make you drink


Don’t you think its ironic, that with your choice of Russia. Where socialism, okay communism failed and now they are adopting more capitalism into their society?

i am not choosing diddly.

most all of those countries have regulations, though, that evidently are "socialist." germany, for example, exercises much control over indistry.

no one doubts the importance of the free market.

but that does not mean that opportunity is unreasonably throttled by reasonable regulation.

 

[JenAltArmy]

i am not choosing diddly.

most all of those countries have regulations, though, that evidently are "socialist." germany, for example, exercises much control over indistry.

no one doubts the importance of the free market.

but that does not mean that opportunity is unreasonably throttled by reasonable regulation.

regulation, this is interesting as many in government have never lived in the real world.

General statement: historically attorneys and doctors make some of the worse business people.

and you enjoy having them regulate?

 

[JenAltArmy]

or he can lead you to a post that dispels your arguement.. but he can't make you think

I forgot, you have no comon sense. but, since you don't work I can give you that one

 

[cjh]

regulation, this is interesting as many in government have never lived in the real world.

General statement: historically attorneys and doctors make some of the worse business people.

and you enjoy having them regulate?

if that means that we don't wind up with another standard oil, if we can minimize the likelihood of another enron, if i don't have to worry about living next to a toxic waste dump, if drugs like fen-phen don't make it to market, etc. -- then, yes.

 

[JenAltArmy]

or he can lead you to a post that dispels your arguement.. but he can't make you think

There is no way that I could ever see your point in that socialism is a good thing.


In fact, I think the way America is set up (with what you call socialist ideologies) are nothing more than brilliant capitalism at work (i.e. police, fire, school k-12, this and that)


the only part of socialism we have are the entitlments. and if you were a pure socilist you and the other nuts jobbers would be screaming that those on entilements must contribute something to the collective. and drinking budwiser while producing more babies is not adding value to society (just creating a new generation that's a slave to government)

 

[richard_daily]

russia is run by the mob

india is corrupt amost as bad as russia

point is, you can't get rich in socialism. only with capitalism.

I can led you to water, but I can't make you drink


Don’t you think its ironic, that with your choice of Russia. Where socialism, okay communism failed and now they are adopting more capitalism into their society?

Isn't that; "I can lead you to kool aid"?

 

[JenAltArmy]

if that means that we don't wind up with another standard oil, if we can minimize the likelihood of another enron, if i don't have to worry about living next to a toxic waste dump, if drugs like fen-phen don't make it to market, etc. -- then, yes.

enron is the perfect example, all the government wing nuts were sucked into the hype. Enron started to fail on its own. those in government were not smart enough to catch it

 

[JenAltArmy]

Isn't that; "I can lead you to kool aid"?

that's Jen's comment, but I should borrow that.

 

[cjh]

enron is the perfect example, all the government wing nuts were sucked into the hype. Enron started to fail on its own. those in government were not smart enough to catch it

well, that, and electricity was deregulated.