RE: Socialism

RE: Socialism (Full Version)

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

Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 8:02:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama 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. Yer killin' me here...Senorita.[;)]

thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 8:03:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Are you referring to Pearl Harbor? If so, did you think that the US declared war on Japan before it? The only time that the U.S. has been invaded was during the war of 1812. 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. My post was in response to your assertion that the government maintains a military to prevent others from invading us. I pointed out that in our entire history we have only been invaded once and that was because we declared war on them. The history of our military is consistently about invading other countries. 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. Civility and conflict are both inventions of society quote]

ShaktiSama -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 8:13:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama 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. Yer killin' me here...Senorita.[;)] Now, now. I said "American", didn't I? [;)]

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 9:20:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx My post was in response to your assertion that the government maintains a military to prevent others from invading us. I pointed out that in our entire history we have only been invaded once and that was because we declared war on them. The history of our military is consistently about invading other countries. "the government"? I mentioned that governments in general have an interest in maintaining a martial power to defend their citizens. Pearl Habor was an attack in which the armed services were needed to defend the US. I really don't want to have to cite it, but I'm sure we can agree that Japan wanted to occupy the US; that the US's martial power prevented it from being invaded. Further, I'm not interested in politics. Countries constantly needed forces to maintain themselves. Do you honestly think that, if there were no martial reprocutions, that North Korea wouldn't send a boat over and start taking over US cities? Of course they wouldn't delay! But, if they did, the backlash would be horrible because the US and other countries do have martial power. It's utterly amazing how much people here underestimate the need for power in this world. Not that everyone would be entirely paranoid, but this is downright naive!

thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 10:18:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx My post was in response to your assertion that the government maintains a military to prevent others from invading us. I pointed out that in our entire history we have only been invaded once and that was because we declared war on them. The history of our military is consistently about invading other countries. "the government"? I mentioned that governments in general have an interest in maintaining a martial power to defend their citizens. Pearl Habor was an attack in which the armed services were needed to defend the US. I really don't want to have to cite it, but I'm sure we can agree that Japan wanted to occupy the US; that the US's martial power prevented it from being invaded. No we can't agree on that. Yes you are going to have to cite that. First how were they going to get here? Second there were less than two million soldiers in the Japanese Army and they were in China fighting the Chinese. Further, I'm not interested in politics. If you are not interested in politics why are you posting? Countries constantly needed forces to maintain themselves. Do you honestly think that, if there were no martial reprocutions, that North Korea wouldn't send a boat over and start taking over US cities? Perhaps you might explain the logistics of such a maneuver? You may not be aware that we invaded North Korea. We had Japan as a staging point and still got our butts kicked. Of course they wouldn't delay! But, if they did, the backlash would be horrible because the US and other countries do have martial power. It's utterly amazing how much people here underestimate the need for power in this world. Not that everyone would be entirely paranoid, but this is downright naive! We have a military that has a two hundred year history of going around the world thugging people out of their shit and you are claiming that its only function is the protection of our homeland. I think you may be mistaken.

meatcleaver -> RE: Socialism (2/12/2008 11:33:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx My post was in response to your assertion that the government maintains a military to prevent others from invading us. I pointed out that in our entire history we have only been invaded once and that was because we declared war on them. The history of our military is consistently about invading other countries. "the government"? I mentioned that governments in general have an interest in maintaining a martial power to defend their citizens. Pearl Habor was an attack in which the armed services were needed to defend the US. I really don't want to have to cite it, but I'm sure we can agree that Japan wanted to occupy the US; that the US's martial power prevented it from being invaded. Further, I'm not interested in politics. Countries constantly needed forces to maintain themselves. Do you honestly think that, if there were no martial reprocutions, that North Korea wouldn't send a boat over and start taking over US cities? Of course they wouldn't delay! But, if they did, the backlash would be horrible because the US and other countries do have martial power. It's utterly amazing how much people here underestimate the need for power in this world. Not that everyone would be entirely paranoid, but this is downright naive! You say you are not interested in politics. Then you get all paranoid about minnow countries like North Korea occupying the US given the chance. ( I think the real fear should be the other way round) I undertand that from your previous posts you are a college student. All that adds up to something really scary because it means you swallow all the American establishment shit without any critical analysis. I bet you would believe Ibiza is coming to get you if your President said as much.

luckydog1 -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 1:08:02 AM)
You could really parse terms and say the Confederate states invaded and held parts of the United States. I would suppose Indian tribes incuring into the US proper, would technically qualify also. But we have been blessed in our history not have much in terms of rampaging armies

Politesub53 -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 2:24:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord "the government"? I mentioned that governments in general have an interest in maintaining a martial power to defend their citizens. Pearl Habor was an attack in which the armed services were needed to defend the US. I really don't want to have to cite it, but I'm sure we can agree that Japan wanted to occupy the US; that the US's martial power prevented it from being invaded. Further, I'm not interested in politics. Countries constantly needed forces to maintain themselves. Do you honestly think that, if there were no martial reprocutions, that North Korea wouldn't send a boat over and start taking over US cities? Of course they wouldn't delay! But, if they did, the backlash would be horrible because the US and other countries do have martial power. It's utterly amazing how much people here underestimate the need for power in this world. Not that everyone would be entirely paranoid, but this is downright naive! Speaking of naive, do you really think North Korea would invade America. Firstly thats never been their aim, secondly they dont have any capabilities to do so. I disagree that Japan intended to invade America either. The main aim of the attack on Pearl Harbour was to neutralise the US Navy while Japan invaded British and Dutch interests in the area. That said, America did have the right to respond, since the attack on Pearl was an attack on US citizens. As for socialism, its all too often linked with the word communism and the two ideals are not the same. Socialism in a democratic society is a noble idea, and while the welfare system in the UK isnt perfect, its better than going back to the days of the poorhouse, or hanging children for stealing food.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 2:26:06 AM)
Whether you are a Socialist or not at least you have laid bare the "Kommisarial thinking " that is involved. ie Mommy knows best quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSarma 1. stop producing so many surplus human beings Most of which exist in the underdevelped world or in the underpriviliged sectors of more advanced societies. quote: 2. stop allowing them to live so luxuriously Most people in any given society do not live luxuriously. Only when comparing wealthy societies with poor societies is the above true. quote: 3. stop allowing them to consume so inefficiently. It is not obvious to me that inefficient consumption need lead to conflict. If you mean Oil then at the moment it is essential that the West uses any means to protect Oil supplies. If that means war then so be it. important point: Note the "stop". Authoritarian or what.?

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 2:42:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 As for socialism, its all too often linked with the word communism and the two ideals are not the same. Socialism in a democratic society is a noble idea, and while the welfare system in the UK isnt perfect, its better than going back to the days of the poorhouse, or hanging children for stealing food. I think you are confusing Socialism with Social Democracy. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism quote: 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved . Note that "free" societies most closely approach Socialism in times of WAR.

Politesub53 -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 2:57:46 AM)
Seeks, thank you for pointing that out. I do indeed mean Social Democracy. The clue was where i said " Socialism in a democratic society " [;)]

meatcleaver -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 3:25:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 As for socialism, its all too often linked with the word communism and the two ideals are not the same. Socialism in a democratic society is a noble idea, and while the welfare system in the UK isnt perfect, its better than going back to the days of the poorhouse, or hanging children for stealing food. I think you are confusing Socialism with Social Democracy. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism quote: 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved . Note that "free" societies most closely approach Socialism in times of WAR. SOCIALISM HAS AS MUCH TO DO WITH FREEDOM AS CAPITALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY DO PEOPLE FORGET WE HAVE HAD LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM AND REJECTED IT!!!!!!! CAPITALISM DID NOT GIVE PEOPLE THE VOTE, THE THREAT OF REVOLUTION WON PEOPLE THE VOTE. SOCIALISM WAS INVENTED AS A CURE TO CAPITALISTIC PSYCHOPATHY. SOCIALISM IS A MEANS TO PRODUCTION AS CAPITALISM IS. IN THE WEST WE HAVE NEITHER, WE HAVE A SYNTHESIS OF THE TWO. AMERICA AND BRITAIN LEANING MORE TOWARDS CAPITALISM THAN CONTINENTAL EUROPE. CONTINENTAL EUROPE (WEST) BY INCORPORATING MORE SOCIALIST POLICIES HAS BETTER HEALTHCARE, BETTER EDUCATION, MORE SOCIAL MOBILITY AND LESS POVERTY THAN THE US AND UK.

NorthernGent -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 11:42:13 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. Evil? Western thought breached the defences of the good and evil dichotomy a long time ago, CL. The flaw with Socialism is that it's a dictatorship of the proletariat, albeit a temporary one, which is irretrievably bound up in violence. With regard to your point surrounding production, wealth creation is not the be all and end all; in fact, a good argument can be put together to suggest there are grounds for a balanced assessment of well being, e.g. work/life balance, education standards, health etc.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 11:49:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave important point: Note the "stop". Authoritarian or what.? shrug I find it revealing that you automatically assume that a negative and destructive pattern in society cannot be stopped by any means OTHER than some sort of violent and coercive intervention. Are you well-trained, or what? Example: you can make people's consumption of energy a thousand times more efficient simply by changing or modifying the consumer goods that are available to them. Or by instituting incentives to encourage recycling and other efficiency measures. You can make positive behavior beneficial and financially profitable to them. By contrast, in the USA recycling programs are virtually unknown throughout most of the country, energy efficiency is actively discouraged by the government, and major corporations are allowed to monopolize media sources which might otherwise make a scientific analysis of the consequences or a discussion of healthier alternatives available to the public. Woo-hoo! We sure are free! Similar examples of coercion of the population: in general, if you want to produce fewer humans, all you have to do is make every means of birth control easily available. Instead, in the USA, women are being progressively cut off, step by step, from ANY safe and sane measure of birth control. The right to a safe and legal abortion is being denied by law to more and more women, as more and more states (with Federal encouragement) pass laws that restrict access to the procedure: meanwhile the price of birth control pills has been deliberately raised to nearly quadruple the former price, placing a safe and moral means of prevention out of the hands of many working place and impoverished women. The result? An authoritarian, autocratically *forced* increase in population. Why? To make more surplus Americans available to be hurled into the meatgrinder! You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and you can't make war without a surplus population of people without a future. The thinking that needs to be "laid bare", it seems to me, is the mindset which holds that a constant state of mass murder and mass suicide is a morally defensible way of life. That, and the incredibly puerile delusion that Americans don't already live, day by day, in a massively coercive authoritarian system which spends their money on everything BUT their health and welfare. You are already taxed. You are already controlled. You just don't get any social benefits from the taxes and control! And my, how wonderful you seem to find it... ...to be so "free". [:'(]

NorthernGent -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 11:57:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord 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. I'd argue the opposite. History charts human progress in understanding liberty and respecting the liberty of others; the post-Aristotle era, the enlightenment and the romanticism of the 19th century are the three watersheds in this respect, and these periods witnessed ideas of individual liberty being taken to another level. As said in an earlier post, this understanding is interwoven with respecting the rights of others. If, as per one of your earlier posts, you're suggesting our natural state is war; it follows, thus, the role of government can only possibly be to dampen our passions to prevent us from slaughtering one another: in other words, own us. 'Any thoughts here, CL?

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 12:08:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I really don't want to have to cite it, but I'm sure we can agree that Japan wanted to occupy the US; that the US's martial power prevented it from being invaded. CL, for over ten years Japan had been pushing for political/economic domination over Asia, especially China and SE Asia. America was interfering with that plan as part of its assistance to China, which was invaded by Japan. As Japan had no intention of stopping, it hit Pearl solely to knock out the Pacific fleet so as to give the Japanese military a free hand in East Asia for six months, by which time resources being denied by America would be obtained from the captured territories. Meanhwile, British and American fueling stations and air bases would be taken, thus effectively insulating Japan from any serious retaliation (Doolittle's Raid notwithstanding). Invading America was never a goal or a plan. They were already up to their waist in their invasion of China and Manchuria.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 12:48:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama An authoritarian, autocratically *forced* increase in population. Why? To make more surplus Americans available to be hurled into the meatgrinder! You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and you can't make war without a surplus population of people without a future. I made a very similar point on the controversial views thread. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama ...the incredibly puerile delusion that Americans don't already live, day by day, in a massively coercive authoritarian system which spends their money on everything BUT their health and welfare. You are already taxed. You are already controlled. You just don't get any social benefits from the taxes and control! I make these points all the time. And every time I am stunned by the general refusal to acknowledge that which seems quite obvious to me. It seems that people are perfectly willing to erect elaborate fantasies about themselves and the world around them just so that they don't have to acknowledge these truths. It's all over but the hangover...

seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 3:41:57 PM)
quote: ShaktiSama I find it revealing that you automatically assume that a negative and destructive pattern in society cannot be stopped by any means OTHER than some sort of violent and coercive intervention Total misunderstanding of my criticism of your post . quote: Example: you can make people's consumption of energy a thousand times more efficient simply by changing or modifying the consumer goods that are available to them. Or by instituting incentives to encourage recycling and other efficiency measures. You can make positive behavior beneficial and financially profitable to them. By contrast, in the USA recycling programs are virtually unknown throughout most of the country, energy efficiency is actively discouraged by the government, and major corporations are allowed to monopolize media sources which might otherwise make a scientific analysis of the consequences or a discussion of healthier alternatives available to the public. In a free social democratic society all these changes, if considered desirable, could be made. In an established Socialist society that is not true. Do you remember the conditons revealed in East Germany when their govnt collapsed ? Feminist diatribe edited out. Why. 'cos I'm under the influence of alcohol and my attention span is limited. quote: You are already taxed. You are already controlled. You just don't get any social benefits from the taxes and control! Taxes judged by international standards are very low in the US. That is a decision made in the US by your political representatives.It could be changed. If you lived under a Socialist system you would pay high tax which would increase exponentially and you would have very little choice in the matter until the system began to grind to a halt.

LadyEllen -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 3:55:06 PM)
CL - you make a good point about armies deterring invasion - in theory. But they only deter invasion if they are superior to the attacking force, and not necessarily numerically. The Iraqi army didnt deter the US and UK armies much after all. For armies to deter invasion, they must be sufficiently superior to the forces of a possible attacker that the attacker will not risk conflict. And then we get into armament races which really dont help either side. Better surely to seek peaceful relationships with others, though the world doesnt always want to know of course and indeed we in the west have a bit of a track record which inhibits others from reciprocating on peaceful relationship intentions. But more importantly, isnt it specious thinking to reason that the US army fulfils its purpose because the US hasnt been invaded? I have a rock here which prevents tigers coming near - there arent any tigers around, so it must work? E

ShaktiSama -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 4:08:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Total misunderstanding of my criticism of your post. No, just a total refusal to participate in your vomiting forth of cliches that masquerade as thought. quote: In a free social democratic society all these changes, if considered desirable, could be made. In an established Socialist society that is not true. Do you remember the conditons revealed in East Germany when their govnt collapsed ? There are a number of poor definitions used by you and your compadres in this thread which make it impossible to communicate. East Germany was not a "socialist" country. They were a "communist dictatorship". Socialism is practiced in many countries the world over which are NOT communist autocracies a la the Soviet block. Canada, Britain, and most of Europe would be included in the list. There is nothing about socialism which is contradictory in any way to a democratic political process; socialism is just a philosophy of government which recognizes that a certain percentage of the public's tax base should be spent in providing them with the best quality health care, education, and insurance that they can collectively afford. quote: Taxes judged by international standards are very low in the US. That is a decision made in the US by your political representatives.It could be changed. What needs to be changed is not what Americans pay in taxes, but what we GET for our money. Because it is mathematically obvious to me, as it is to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, that this country could provide free health care and free university education for every man woman and child in the nation for far, far less money than we have spent in the last few years murdering 100,000+ Iraqi civilians to the tune of over 440 BILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS. All of you "anti-Socialist" Americans need to wake up. Canada is not a Soviet-style police state; neither is Britain or France. Socialism is not about depriving people of freedom. It's about establishing a minimum standard of living for all citizens and a observing set of fiscal priorities for your tax base which require you to make life bearable for your own people, before you rush off to kill the people in other nations.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875