RE: Socialism

RE: Socialism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FangsNfeet -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 3:36:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee How is you are able to clearly link all those behaviours to "socialists". No socialists I know of sound like that. You must have had an encounter with some fauxcialists. You sound pretty wound up. Maybe get an early night and resist the urge to post under the influence. Z. To begin with, I was not describing socialisim. I was only pointing out to Curious Lord that Human Nature is the main reason as to why ideas such as Socialism, Facisim, and Comunisim are failed experiements. Few believe that everyone should be equal in stature and wealth. It's human nature to want to be better than everyone else or atleast your average person.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 3:46:20 PM)
Socialism isn't wicked its mistaken I know that is true because when I was young and thought I knew a lot I concluded Socialism was answer. Now I am old and know I know lots I realise my error. Pointing out the failings of capitalism or so called free enterprise doesn't gainsay those facts because Socialism produces worse failings.

Nats -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 3:58:50 PM)
A friend gave me that link. I have collected quite a few good ones (especially on the world bank). There would be a few extra things I would have added to it, but in a 'dumbing down' fashion it's pretty good.

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 4:47:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Next time, just call them "lazy pot smokers" instead of words you have made up definitions to besides the ones in the dictionary and then get annoyed when your misunderstood. Referring to people who want social programs as "socialists" isn't a made up definition. Still, I get the point about expecting less. quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee CL, If you are getting tired this thread maybe think twice next time, before striding into the fire pit with a bucket of gasoline. Thanks for the opportunity to sound off on one of my fave topics though. I'm fine with the flames to the extent that they're flames. It's just the spirit behind them that's depressing. quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Capitalism (as it is now practiced, not in its idealised form) is just Socialism for the ultra rich. I'd rather trust a government of elected officials with the business of running my country than a tiny, secretive cabal of country clubbers. Would you really want Bush setting the rules of the land for you? ;) quote: ORIGINAL: NorthenGent That's a very pessimistic view of human nature, CL. I'm sure you'll appreciate that some of us are more optimistic, and view the history of man as progress towards greater civilisation, improving our understanding of what it means to be free, and, consequently, respecting the freedom and rights of others. Ah, I love your implication that this isn't how I see it. The fact that I believe people can also be aggressive obviously means I'm all about angst. Still, I'm also not stuck on some sort of fantascy that this world is a peaceful, civil one. If you're not willing and able to fight- and if no one's going to do it on your behalf- why on God's green Earth would someone not enslave you?

Zensee -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 4:55:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee How is you are able to clearly link all those behaviours to "socialists". No socialists I know of sound like that. You must have had an encounter with some fauxcialists. You sound pretty wound up. Maybe get an early night and resist the urge to post under the influence. Z. To begin with, I was not describing socialisim. I was only pointing out to Curious Lord that Human Nature is the main reason as to why ideas such as Socialism, Facisim, and Comunisim are failed experiements. Few believe that everyone should be equal in stature and wealth. It's human nature to want to be better than everyone else or atleast your average person. My original response was addressed to CL, not yourself. The little "in reply to" thingy in the bottom right lied, as usual. I agree with you and would add Capitalism to the list of -isms and -anities that failed due to the frailty of human nature. Z.

MadRabbit -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 6:23:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Next time, just call them "lazy pot smokers" instead of words you have made up definitions to besides the ones in the dictionary and then get annoyed when your misunderstood. Referring to people who want social programs as "socialists" isn't a made up definition. Still, I get the point about expecting less. I'm really not trying to be a dick about this one. I won't call it "expecting less". Whether or not this fits the textbook definition of "socialist" is really moot, because common language associates that word with a political philosophy. Just like the word "slut" is associated heavily with a negative and deragotry slander of woman and is an emotional trigger word. Or the word "slave" when used to communicate with a group of people who have absolutely no education about BDSM or M/S. I can mean to refer to African Americans in a non-disrespectful and non-offensive way, but I doubt the choice of the word "nigger" will accomplish that. If the point is clear communication, then carefully choosing what words to refer to which object is important. You can't expect everyone to whip out their Lord-In-The-Box ring to decipher what it is your trying to say.

Owner59 -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 6:35:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit Next time, just call them "lazy pot smokers" instead of words you have made up definitions to besides the ones in the dictionary and then get annoyed when your misunderstood. Referring to people who want social programs as "socialists" isn't a made up definition. Still, I get the point about expecting less. I'm really not trying to be a dick about this one. I won't call it "expecting less". Whether or not this fits the textbook definition of "socialist" is really moot, because common language associates that word with a political philosophy. Just like the word "slut" is associated heavily with a negative and deragotry slander of woman and is an emotional trigger word. Or the word "slave" when used to communicate with a group of people who have absolutely no education about BDSM or M/S. I can mean to refer to African Americans in a non-disrespectful and non-offensive way, but I doubt the choice of the word "nigger" will accomplish that. If the point is clear communication, then carefully choosing what words to refer to which object is important. You can't expect everyone to whip out their Lord-In-The-Box ring to decipher what it is your trying to say. I love sluts......

meatcleaver -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:35:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Socialism isn't wicked its mistaken I know that is true because when I was young and thought I knew a lot I concluded Socialism was answer. Now I am old and know I know lots I realise my error. Pointing out the failings of capitalism or so called free enterprise doesn't gainsay those facts because Socialism produces worse failings. I suppose this is why countries run on social democratic models like the bunch in Scandinavia and Germany which has a lot of socialist policies in place, HAVE BETTER education and health systems than more capitalist countries like Britain and the US and HAVE LESS poverty and MORE social mobility! Look at the failings of capitalism, it requires poverty as a motivation to make people exploit other people in order to survive. You have the most powerful and richest country in the world imposing its will on weak countries in order to exploit their resources, creating corruption and poverty around the world. Yet with all these exploited resources and all its wealth there is still poverty in America, a lack of social mobility when compared to other developed countries and it still has an inability to give health cover to all its citizens. Of course capitalists that are winners don't recognize any of the above because they are more interested in themselves than the state of the world and their fellow man. The whole capitalist fight for freedom has absolutely nothing to do with freedom it has to do with freeing up resources and cheap labour. The irony now is that poorer countries such as China and India are getting on the capitalist band wagon and beating the big boys at their own game so all these free marketeers are suddenly crying foul and want protectionism. That really shows what capitalists are, they aren't for freedom, they are for THEIR OWN freedom and GREED at the expense of everyone elses.

thornhappy -> RE: Socialism (2/11/2008 3:07:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Just look at the federal govt, 30 years ago they employed mostly secretaries. Now all those positions have "titles" and "require" degrees,....to shuffle papers! And, they make twice as much money for doing the same job! Most "secretaries" have been laid off, and they railed out along time ago along the GS-6 to GS-7 scales. Not exactly a screaming amount of money. thornhappy

NorthernGent -> RE: Socialism (2/11/2008 3:39:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord If you're not willing and able to fight- and if no one's going to do it on your behalf- why on God's green Earth would someone not enslave you? As per my previous post, many of us don't subscribe to the theory that war is man's natural state. Out of interest, what style of government do you recommend in order to ensure we don't enslave one another?

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/11/2008 5:26:12 PM)
I don't have a recommendation. Haven't really thought about it. Honestly, anything I'd think of would be more of an ideal by definition than obtainable. (Because, unless I'm able to enact it, it's just an ideal.) I mean no insult, but I must say I am shocked that someone can actually have such a view of humanity in light of everything we know from evolution to crime to history to current world events. Not that it wouldn't be lovely to be able to believe it.

domiguy -> RE: Socialism (2/11/2008 5:43:46 PM)
Actually I can kind of dig a certain socialistic view...It takes a huge fucking stretch...It takes one to believe that we are meant to be who were were meant to be. That are occupations would mirror our personalities, abilities and desires and that we would be fulfilling our destiny. I kind of believe that we are who we are once we slide out of that dirty and dank canal...All things being perfect and that you are given a decent education an opportunity to understand your options and not fucked over or to hard along the way that you will find "your special purpose"...lol. I don't think anyone desires to be lazy...I think people get a sense of fulfillment from doing a job they feel suited for one that is valued and where they receive recognition for their work and input. This is where socialistic programs fail. It can't be the gov't who decides what you are going to do ...It must come from the inspiration of the workers, themselves, and the inspiration must be real and honest. It could work in this scenario. Maybe. I would like to get a blow job now. It's my special purpose.

kittinSol -> RE: Socialism (2/11/2008 5:52:52 PM)
Ooooooooooopss... thread slippage (won't be long). Although the suspense that preceded your appearances recently had a charming 'je ne sais quoi', domiguy, welcome back, man.

meatcleaver -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 1:20:21 AM)
Some American senator said on the News yesterday that criticism of America torturing terrorists, setting up a military kangaroo court and calling for the death penalty (before the verdict!) was socialist propaganda. He then went on to say, the men being put on trial deserved to die! heh heh heh. You don't have to be a socialist to see what 'freedom and civilisation' is supposed to mean. It is what capitalists want it to mean.

philosophy -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 9:07:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The evil of socialism is that it doesn't drive people to the same ends to produce that a capitalist system does. ..haven't read the whole thread yet, but this line just screamed at me as i went past...... .......firstly, let's table the use of the word 'evil', just for a bit...... .......replace it with 'characteristic' and then i agree with the whole sentence, as far as it goes. Numerous examples from history show that if central planning gets too involved with the details of micromanagement then productivity and innovation goes down. Not to zero, but it is lessened. .......thirdly, is there a corollary? If something is lost under socialism does that logically mean that nothing is lost under capitalism? .......lets say that what is lost under capitalism is the sense of society that is fostered under socialism. One reason that the UK clings on to socialism in its milder forms is that, in living history, we have experienced as a nation what advantages a strong sense of social cohesion brings. The so called 'Blitz Spirit' is one example. ......so, in conclusion......socialism has the disadvantage of reducing efficiency.......capitalism has the disadvantage of reducing the ability of a people to work for a common goal. ......no single right answer, but which is the worst disadvantage?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 11:32:22 AM)
I think it's a shame that MeatCleaver is so heavily moderated at this time. I think he very intelligently contributes to these discussions, whatever else his "sins" may be...

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 3:54:05 PM)
Meatcleaver: welcome back because your posts are always interesting and provocative. quote: seeksfemslave Socialism isn't wicked its mistaken Pointing out the failings of capitalism etc etc etc quote: Meatcleaver I suppose this is why countries run on social democratic models like the bunch in Scandinavia and Germany which has a lot of socialist policies in place, HAVE BETTER education and health systems than more capitalist countries like Britain and the US and HAVE LESS poverty and MORE social mobility! Look at the failings of capitalism ..... NO because its not a defense of Socialism as I pointed out OK? Socialism is a theoretical construct based on the idea that there exists common interest,focus and outlook and that "special" people know what those interests are. In the West we live in a high tech. environment, on the skids I agree, but nevertheless technically based. In general Socialists, who wish to impose what amounts to really no more than their views on society are technically illiterate. It follows that when faced with industrial difficulties they wont have a clue what to do and will flail around trying to be "nice" to communities and waste millions doing so. Perfect example. The recent Leyland debacle in the UK If the govnt. had indulged that venture capitalist when Rover collapsed it is almost certain that we would still have a viable sports car manufacturer in the Midlands. Instead the left wingers wanted to be "nice" and save communities. The result....its all gone to China lol http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/may/27/theobserver.observerbusiness3 quote: Nanjing has spent the past year and a half transporting production lines from Longbridge to China in preparation for a relaunch of some models, including the MG TF sports car and the 75 saloon. The bulk of production will be for the Chinese market. But while car parts are to be made in China, taking advantage of lower labour costs, some 'kits' will be shipped to Longbridge for final assembly and sale into the UK and Europe. Over the years millions were poured into the car industry the steel industry ship building and its all gone wrong. Computor systems developed by the govnt. neither "work" nor "come in" any where close to budget. We in the UK have a corrupt state education system, a massive financial burden imposed by non productive state employeee pay and pension entitlements. We have enormous expenditure directed towards the undeserving. For example even the loony lefters are beginning to admit that at least 60/70% of those claiming incapacity benefit are perfectly fit for work but just dont "feel" like it. These are the "benefits" of Socialism. I could go on and on and on but the post would be just too long. One important point, Social democracy is not Socialism which you do actually realise.

thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 5:40:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The establishment has a vested interest in defending the rights of its citizens from those who would violate them. This includes invading armies who would violate citizens' rights to life among other things. CuriousLord: The only time this country was ever invaded was when we declared war on a country that was capable of it. Since then we have only attacked those countries that were incapable of it. thompson

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 7:46:39 PM)
Are you referring to Pearl Harbor? If so, did you think that the US declared war on Japan before it? Leave your house unlocked with a sign that says you won't call the police, you don't have any weapons, and you won't fight back. If it's actually believed- if there's no threat of force- the robbers will take your things. I'll spare other examples of what other sorts of criminals would do only for the sake of decency. Defenseless people are taken advantage of. Conquered, controlled, raped, killed- whatever happens to suit the more powerful party. People have to remember that civility- not conflict- is the invention of society.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 7:58:24 PM)
I believe that it might be more of a reference to Britain, since only the British and Canadians have ever succeeded in spending any real length of time strolling around on American soil making a nuisance of themselves. Pearl Harbor wasn't an invasion, merely an attack. Invasion is what you do when you mean to stay a spell. Both civility and conflict, at least among humans, are the inventions of society. And the best way to avoid conflict with your neighbors is: 1. stop producing so many surplus human beings 2. stop allowing them to live so luxuriously 3. stop allowing them to consume so inefficiently. If you can't do those three things, you really have no choice but to ravage other nations to supply them with the standard of living they've become accustomed to. [;)] It's a simple matter of mathematics. Too many people + too much consumption = reduced standard of living or invasion. In the USA we choose the latter. That's why we voted for Reagan.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875