The Red Rose of Socialism.

[ottohauser1977]

Yes, I use the rose a lot, not only as a gesture of civility, but also as a statement of my socialist affiliations. I am a socialist, but not of the "capitalism must die" kind. I'm a socialist of the "I believe that socialism and capitalism must co-exist in the same civilization" stripe.

I'm a socialist, but not a Marxist. Thus the rose (borrowed from moderate leftists like Neil Kinnock) of Social Democracy and not the raised fist and hammer and sickle of Communism.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm a socialist of the "I believe that socialism and capitalism must co-exist in the same civilization" stripe.

Are you a member of the DSA or the SPUSA?

You're right that socialism does not necessarily mean Marxism or Communism or Stalinism. Democratic socialism, with multiple parties and free and fair elections to a government that to some degree owns/manages the economy, is theoretically possible; but it has never in modern times been tried. (Maybe Venezuela is trending that way; but Cuba ain't.) A heavily social-democratic welfare state like the Scandinavian countries have is still not socialism.

Your statement is the de facto position of most of the self-ID'd "socialist" parties in Europe today -- they no longer think of socialism as something that is to come after capitalism -- but there is debate over whether that leaves them as socialists at all. I would say they are now social democrats, what we call "progressives" here, which is not the same thing (and not a bad thing, either); it is something well to the right of "socialist" and well to the left of "liberal." See the Working Families Party, which is easily distinguishable even from such moderate socialist organizations as the DSA or the SPUSA, and even more easily distinguishable from the Democrats. (The Greens are . . . kinda progressives, but they're really . . . something else.)

Oh, and, .

 

[ottohauser1977]

Are you a member of the DSA or the SPUSA?

You're right that socialism does not necessarily mean Marxism or Communism or Stalinism. Democratic socialism, with multiple parties and free and fair elections to a government that to some degree owns/manages the economy, is theoretically possible; but it has never in modern times been tried. (Maybe Venezuela is trending that way; but Cuba ain't.) A heavily social-democratic welfare state like the Scandinavian countries have is still not socialism.

Your statement is the de facto position of most of the self-ID'd "socialist" parties in Europe today -- they no longer think of socialism as something that is to come after capitalism -- but there is debate over whether that leaves them as socialists at all. I would say they are now social democrats, what we call "progressives" here, which is not the same thing (and not a bad thing, either); it is something well to the right of "socialist" and well to the left of "liberal." See the Working Families Party, which is easily distinguishable even from such moderate socialist organizations as the DSA or the SPUSA, and even more easily distinguishable from the Democrats. (The Greens are . . . kinda progressives, but they're really . . . something else.)

Oh, and, .

I haven't formally joined such an organization, but I identify as a progressive social democrat. Classic Western European democratic socialism. Not so much the public ownership of the means of production, but a mixed economy, welfare state, and regulation. Single payer, strong trade unions (union-bashing in this country is getting a bit silly), and a progressive income tax.

My only heresy? I'm pro-gun. Aside from that, I'm a naturalized German Social Democrat, not a Honecker Communist like my old man (DDR Socialist Unity Party).

 

[KingOrfeo]

My only heresy? I'm pro-gun.

Well, of course. If guns are outlawed, how will we shoot the capitalists?!

 

[ottohauser1977]

Well, of course. If guns are outlawed, how will we shoot the capitalists?!

Ah, a revolutionary....interesting difference between us.

 

[pierrelarue161]

More of a centrist with leftist leanings myself.

 

[hobbit.]

Thus the rose (borrowed from moderate leftists like Neil Kinnock)

er... Kinocchio ... leftist... that arsehole set the left back by years and paved the way for bliar...... who set the working class movement back by generations! he needs a rose ramming up his arse, thorns first.

 

[ottohauser1977]

er... Kinocchio ... leftist... that arsehole set the left back by years and paved the way for bliar...... who set the working class movement back by generations! he needs a rose ramming up his arse, thorns first.

Must be a British thing. Didn't realize that he was so disliked.

 

[ottohauser1977]

More of a centrist with leftist leanings myself.

You're moving in the right (or left) direction.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Ah, a revolutionary....interesting difference between us.

No, no, I know my history. Revolutions are sometimes worth having, but always chancy. Even when the revolutionaries can be sure of winning, they can never be sure what's going to follow. You swear the Tennis Court Oath, and the next thing you know Danton has been guillotined, Robespierre has been guillotined, and the Emperor Napoleon is getting his tail chased back from Moscow . . . You overthrow the Tsar, long-overdue, and then a few months later the Bolsheviks are in power, and not long after that you get the secret police and the gulags and the Ukraine Famine . . . Peaceful and democratic evolution towards social democracy or perhaps even towards democratic socialism is better.

But capitalist assholes do make the thought of violent revolution so tempting sometimes . . . ya just wanna see 'em dangling from the lampposts . . .

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'm no socialist, but I have been tempted by such images, too.....along with those of the politicians. Call it the last vestiges of my Southern rage against the Yankee industrialists (and their incestuous Hamiltonian relationship with the State).

Mostly, though, some wicked corner of me wants to see fashion designers strung up for good measure. Petty tyrants of haute couture piss me off.

And, now my bisexual community membership card is likely to be revoked.

But, fundamentally, I'm an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary anarchist. The rest are just dark fantasies of a Southern misanthrope.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm no socialist, but I have been tempted by such images, too.....along with those of the politicians. Call it the last vestiges of my Southern rage against the Yankee industrialists (and their incestuous Hamiltonian relationship with the State).

Better Hamilton than Jefferson. Hamilton had the right vision for the core path of America's future -- industry -- and Jefferson had the wrong one -- agriculture. We really should knock down the Jefferson Memorial and replace it one to Hamilton.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I refuse to be provoked by this deliberate provocation. I'm far too Southern to approve in any case of the improper connection of business and the State.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I refuse to be provoked by this deliberate provocation. I'm far too Southern to approve in any case of the improper connection of business and the State.

Hamilton was a protectionist but no socialist.

As for economic history North and South, you really need to read this.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Hamilton was a protectionist but no socialist.

As for economic history North and South, you really need to read this.

He was more of a plutocrat-mercantilist. I know. I'm something of a history buff, though staunchly pro-Confederate in my sympathies. Self-determination and all that.

 

[KingOrfeo]

He was more of a plutocrat-mercantilist.

An elitist, certainly. (But they all were, really, including Jefferson.) Not a mercantilist, America in his day was in no position to practice that anyway. Hamilton wanted government "bounties" (subsidies) to encourage development of nascent American industry (mainly for domestic consumption, and economic independence from Britain WRT manufactured goods -- foreign trade, the main concern of mercantilism, was a secondary consideration, and it was decades before America could hope to compete with Britain in that field); a protective tariff reflects the same thinking (and worked very well when America used it).

I'm something of a history buff, though staunchly pro-Confederate in my sympathies. Self-determination and all that.

Always wrong about everything, then; I understand. Really, this might help.

 

[ottohauser1977]

Figures I would come back to a debate between Sev and King.

Sev, you're an otherwise reasonable man, but you have one key blind spot: blind mistrust of all authority figures. It's the most common one among anarchists. Not all "statists" are out to enslave you.

Though I understand your Southern sympathies are deeply rooted, they are based on this same mistrust, which not surprisingly favors the more local authority over the more centralized one.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Figures I would come back to a debate between Sev and King.

Sev, you're an otherwise reasonable man, but you have one key blind spot: blind mistrust of all authority figures. It's the most common one among anarchists. Not all "statists" are out to enslave you.

Though I understand your Southern sympathies are deeply rooted, they are based on this same mistrust, which not surprisingly favors the more local authority over the more centralized one.

I don't think that you personally are out to enslave me, Otto (nor is KO, who also seems sincere). I just don't trust the leadership of the collectivist movement that you follow. That's the difference. I think that you follow politicians and they lie as a matter of principle. Why shouldn't they also lie to their adherents?

And I know enough history to remember that whenever the Reds take over, the first thing they do is shoot the anarchists.

And yes, I favor the less centralized authority....the more accountable and more easily controlled by the populace. States are better than Feds, and localities more than states. City-states wouldn't be so bad, but contractual governments would be the most tolerable of governments, in that they are more voluntary. Still, ultimately, even such contracts are flawed, as Spooner noted. Best of all is no State and no coercion whatsoever. No one should be subject to the bayonet to his throat to make him give up the fruits of his labor.

Period.

That's all for tonight. Y'all come back now, ya hear?

Oh, wait, this is YOUR thread....I'll be back later. Hasta luego. Au revoir. Ciao.

 

[off2bed]

How cute, a thread full of useful idiots.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, I use the rose a lot, not only as a gesture of civility, but also as a statement of my socialist affiliations. I am a socialist, but not of the "capitalism must die" kind. I'm a socialist of the "I believe that socialism and capitalism must co-exist in the same civilization" stripe.

I'm a socialist, but not a Marxist. Thus the rose (borrowed from moderate leftists like Neil Kinnock) of Social Democracy and not the raised fist and hammer and sickle of Communism.

Interventionism, Mises

The two cannot be mixed long-term. Capitalism gets diluted to the point of Mercantilism-Communism as the government must try to manage the unintended consequences of each positive interference (von Humboldt).

Political Realists see the world as it is: ... In this world laws are written for the lofty aim of "the common good" and then acted out in life on the basis of common greed...; a world where we are always moral and our enemies always immoral; a world where "reconciliation" means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation.... In the world as it is, the solution of each problem inevitably creates a new one.
Saul David Alinsky
Rules for Radicals

 

[off2bed]

If it's ok to mix socialism with freedom, then it should be ok to mix a little theocracy with atheism.

No wonder the lefties love sharia law so much.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

I’m sorry but socialism is a genetic disorder and only through human cloning can we fix that condition

 

[off2bed]

Socialism is the pedophilia of politics, and socialists are like NAMBLA trying to force everyone to accept it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Socialism is the pedophilia of politics, and socialists are like NAMBLA trying to force everyone to accept it.

Run along, dear, please, grownups are talking.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If it's ok to mix socialism with freedom, then it should be ok to mix a little theocracy with atheism.

No wonder the lefties love sharia law so much.

I'm not sure if this is stupid intentionally or not