RE: Socialism (Full Version)

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



Message


seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 4:21:41 PM)

quote:

Shaktisami All of you "anti-Socialist" Americans need to wake up

I'm a Brit....he he he he he he he
The point I am making Madame is that the US could be changed in the direction of more Social Democracy if the will existed. Not easy but it could be done. I say now and have posted before that I think that would be desirable.

Socialism is not the ideal solution that its proponents believe.
Waste , financial profligacy cronyism and governmental privilege become the order of the day.
Trust me I know I am right.
The UK only began to change from the excesses of pseudo Socialism when the country was on the verge of bankruptcy and we had to negotiate a loan from the IMF.. around 1976 or so.




ShaktiSama -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 4:25:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
I'm a Brit....he he he he he he he


You're a Brit, and you manage to sound THAT ignorant?  I'm astounded.

So you actually believe that you're living in East Germany, do you?  Wow.

quote:

The point I am making Madame is that the US could be changed in the direction of more Social Democracy if the will existed.


The USA could be changed into a lot of things other than the 4th Reich if the will existed.

It doesn't.

Nice of y'all to come along though.  Hope you enjoy the whole ride, a la Mussolini. 

quote:

The UK only began to change from the excesses of pseudo Socialism when the country was on the verge of bankruptcy and we had to negotiate a loan from the IMF.. around 1976 or so.


Ah, you're one of those who thought that Thatcher was a big improvement, eh?

The final proof that evil and fascist insanity are not gendered male. She's shacking up with Pinochet these days, no?  What a lovely couple they must make.




seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 4:32:08 PM)

No Pinochet died a year or so ago lol
quote:

So you actually believe that you're living in East Germany, do you?  Wow.

Are you drunk as well lol

The point I am making is that once Socialist apparatchiks get control of the body politic there is one result an one result only, they consolidate it and generate more and more and more government interference and control.
Thats what happens and the economy and your pocket book groans and sags under the weight.




ShaktiSama -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 4:34:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

No Pinochet died a year or so ago lol


Aw, don't underestimate her!  I bet she's had him taxidermically stuffed so that she can keep him as a Norman Bates-style love doll.

Kind of like Annie Coulter did with the mouldering corpse of Joseph McCarthy, her One Twue Wuv.  [:D]




seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 4:46:57 PM)

Both a political romancer and a necromancer at the same time....boom boom.




Zensee -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 6:16:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

The point I am making is that once Socialist apparatchiks get control of the body politic there is one result an one result only, they consolidate it and generate more and more and more government interference and control.
Thats what happens and the economy and your pocket book groans and sags under the weight.


And this differs from capitalism is what way?

No! Let me answer that. Under capitalism the power and control is consolidated privately, behind closed doors and is unregulated. All -isms seeking power will tend to accumulate and consolidate it, regardless. With a Social Democracy at least the citizens have some access to the process and the players.

I'd rather have an elected government than a cleptocracy... I mean a capitalist aristocracy... I mean the old boys club... you know, Them.


Z.




CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 6:40:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

You say you are not interested in politics.


I'm not.  I'm simply OCD.  While I may not actually care what people think in the typical manner, my condition compels me to want to correct falsehoods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

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)


You think it should be the other way around?  Pft.  It's both ways.  How can someone not see that?

And, no, I'm not paranoid.  I acknowledge that a country like NK would take over the US if they could do it easily.  As it's not realistic to think that the US will so completely disband its armed services, that's not something I fear for at all.  Not at this point in history, anyhow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

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.


My Karana!  You're so stuck up as to think that any views contrary to your own as necessarily based on proganda?  You you truly have a disgustingly ignorant view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I bet you would believe Ibiza is coming to get you if your President said as much.


Because any analysis that differs from yours is obviously from the President.  It's the right wing out to get you.  The P.L.A.N. has security cameras watching you right now.  That's right, I know the dirty things you do, and we'll use them to disgrace you in court when the time comes.




CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 6:43:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed

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.


As I have no time to look up history books for sources, let's just look at this reasonably.

Japan was conquering areas to build an empire.  They know America has resources.  Say America was also defenseless.  Keep in mind that they still attacked America despite it's not being defenseless.

Who in the right mind would say that Japan wouldn't have taken over the US if it were in a position to do so with no resistance?




CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 6:59:59 PM)

Armies need not be superior to deter; they simply need to cause the disadvantges outweigh the advantages.  As the world's not made up of two nations, thankfully international backlash is part of the disadvantages; this is a great peace holder, particularly since the advent of nuclear technology (as exemplified by MAD theory in the Cold War).

I'm sure that between Isreal and neighboring countries, one of them has a superior force.  But not superior enough to take the costs of invasion.  But if one of them completely disarmed and there was no threat of military recourse from the international community- don't you think the other would take it over?

I'm not using the lack of invasion on America as evidence for my theory, by the way.  Someone else brought it up.  My point was that it's not evidence against my point.  For justification that I am using, I'm simply relying on basic reasoning.




CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 7:05:11 PM)

Okay, there's more to respond to, but I'm afraid thermodynamic systems will have my attention for the remainder of the evening.  My next free point will likely be late tommorow night, and I'm pretty good at responding.  (It's annoying enough to not have time now.)

As a question I'd be interested in later.. am I misunderstanding others' points, or do people honestly think that a defenseless, resource-rich state would be able to hold its own in this world?  I well understand that people are misrepresenting me as some sort of war hawk, but I'm quite shocked that people seem to think that they're safe without the military.  I mean, I have to be honest: that's plain stupid.




thompsonx -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 7:08:54 PM)

CuriousLord:
What do you think the U.S. would do if North Korea were to put say 100 fighter planes with all the support crews necessary to maintain them in Mexico or Canada?  Do you think we might do a preemptive strike to neutralize a perceived threat?
That that is exactly what we did to Japan.  It was called the AVG (American Volunteer Group)  You might know them as the "Flying Tigers".

thompson




ShaktiSama -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 7:10:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
As I have no time to look up history books for sources...


Always a very, very bad way to start an argument...

quote:

Japan was conquering areas to build an empire.  They know America has resources.  Say America was also defenseless.  Keep in mind that they still attacked America despite it's not being defenseless.


You need to wrap your head around the fact that conquest, like BDSM, is not ideally a long distance relationship.  And America is not just a nation--this nation occupies the entire middle of a vast continent.

Get a map and look at Japan.

Exactly how was Japan ever going to produce enough human beings and arms to seize and hold the United States in toto?  Especially after they had shot their wad trying to seize and hold all the juiciest parts of Asia?

They attacked Pearl Harbor, not because they intended to seize it and hold it, but because they hoped to eliminate most of the Pacific fleet and destroy an important jumping-off point for American naval manuvers in that ocean.  Like the attacks that the Germans made on our shipping in the Atlantic at the beginning of the war, it did partially work and it did eliminate a lot of our older ships of the line.  And it bought the Japanese the time to drive full-bore into Korea, Manchuria, China, the Phillipines, and Burma.

It took a serious assload of work to force them out of all those places--but eventually it was done, because quite frankly, America is such a monstrously huge country with such a monstrously huge population and resource base that Japan really never had a chance.  Which is what their top general told his leaders, in no uncertain terms, when they told him what they expected him to accomplish.

quote:

Who in the right mind would say that Japan wouldn't have taken over the US if it were in a position to do so with no resistance?


Anyone who has enough sense of military science and simple mathematics to know that defeating the conventional armed forces of a country does not mean that you can successfully occupy that country.  Quite frankly, the Japanese military trying to occupy the USA during that period might have been outnumbered by the population of Boy Scouts alone--especially after the expensive campaigns they had fought to seize so much of Asia and the Pacific isles.

In order for a country to be a serious threat to the USA, they need enough people and enough arms to pose a serious threat.  Japan was not a threat to US sovereignty--they were a threat to our imperial ambitions overseas.

We dealt with them accordingly.




CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 8:39:12 PM)

*Sigh.*  Since arguing history is so prone to interpretation, I'm trying to pick history we can all agree on.  And I'm not even sure where to start on the idea that someone who has an idea of Math would disagree with my point.

So.  Humoring that Japan wouldn't be able to hold parts of the US when the US isn't even fighting back (which I can't even believe a sane person would think).. what about the countries that Japan did occupy?  Was China's military unnecessary?  Wouldn't them having had less have been worse for them?  Wouldn't them having had more have been better?

What about Kuwait or however it's spelt; would it have not benefitted from a stronger army?  Do you think Saddam would've invaded if they were able to take out his force, or if they were at least able to cripple him badly enough to outweigh their oil?

PS-  "In order for a country to be a serious threat to the USA, they need enough people and enough arms to pose a serious threat.  Japan was not a threat to US sovereignty--they were a threat to our imperial ambitions overseas.

We dealt with them accordingly."

What did we use to deal with them?  Did we ask them to please stop until they were tired of our nagging?




Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 9:00:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I wanted to write this while I'm good and pissed off, and too tired to give a damn for my inhabitions or reason.


I'll bite, since I'm arrogant, broody, tired, and have a quarter bottle of whisky left that I intend to see gone shortly. [:D]

quote:

I can feel my morality snapping.


I was waiting for that to happen. Take that as a compliment.

It happens to seekers sooner or later, if they value integrity and reject complacency.

quote:

That concern for every human life as holding an intrinsic value is falling away.


Time to get orthogonal. The value of a life is a complex number. One part is what you call intrinsic. The other is subjective- assigned by yourself- and depends on context. The latter is amenable to squaring without changing sign. Like in certain other contexts, both of them should be kept in mind, but the latter of them is more relevant for most situations than the other is. Of course, other adjustments follow from that, in the interest of integrity and growth, but sometimes the working model has to go, right?

quote:

Values can not stand in contradiction, and it seems that my value for life was a contradiction to itself.


Incorrect. Values can stand in contradiction in a multitude of ways. The property you are looking for is integrity and it is not a common one. Many will say that is as it should be, that humans have no need for integrity. That may be the case, generally speaking, but it is not always the case. Some will go so far as to say that humans cannot have integrity. I disagree. And for some of us, it is a quality that we'll respect and/or admire, even when the person possessing it has values otherwise contrary to our own. A universal metric, whose value is perversely embedded in the systems (or instances thereof) that this quality is a property of.

quote:

The existence of lives which burden and demean the efforts of others strikes me as a contradiction to the ideal of all life having value; afterall, how can something with a positive value maintain its positive value if it does more damage to other positive values of equal stature?


Two diifferent axes. Along one axis, every bacteria in your gut has a positive value. Along the R axis, there are humans whose value may be zero or less. If you raise the number of axes, you can get some pretty interesting calculations, and also resolve a lot of things. Realizing that the value of a life is not a scalar quantity is essential to moral and mental health, if one is inclined toward rational inquiry and driven to moral integrity. Otherwise, of course, one can simplify it down to whatever one pleases. Or just say "God said so," as many do. Deferral. Contentment.

quote:

Yet, still, I post this for the sake of the sentiment and not the particular logic behind it.  I'm sure that once I've had seem and the room stops spinning, my sanity would bar me from concern and I'd never say anything about it.  I'd just dismiss it as a fact of life and never rant.


Sometimes, it goes away. Other times, there is tweaking to be done. Sometimes, you need to refactor. Other times, it's back to the drawing board. I purposefully left some spaces blank; you can connect the dots with no difficulty. I did not deal with the subject of your frustrations directly; you can do that when you've slept. But it strikes me as a crossroads you're likely to visit at some junction, sleep or no sleep. Refactoring is the structured mind's approach to these things. Anyway, take it for what it is, and with some levity.

Libations are, of course, optional. [;)]

Health,
al-Aswad.




Hippiekinkster -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 9:38:53 PM)

ShaktiSama: "East Germany was not a "socialist" country.  They were a "communist dictatorship"."

I would use the term "State Capitalist" myself.

The notion the Socialism requires an authoritarian governmental structure is a fallacy.
Look up "Libertarian Socialism" on Wikipedia. That, btw, is the political philosophy with which I most closely identify.




luckydog1 -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 9:48:32 PM)

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include: many varieties of anarchism (including anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism[6] and some forms of individualist anarchism[7]), mutualism, social ecology,[8] and council communism[9] (or even communism itself, as it is described by Karl Marx or Lenin in a further stage of development of socialism). The terms anarchist communism and libertarian communism should not be considered synonyms for libertarian socialism. Some scholars use libertarian socialism synonymously with anarchism.[10]

So Hippie kinkter are you a Communist or an Anarchist?

I suppose in theory it does not require authoritarianism, but it allways does when put into practice. 




Hippiekinkster -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 9:52:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include: many varieties of anarchism (including anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism[6] and some forms of individualist anarchism[7]), mutualism, social ecology,[8] and council communism[9] (or even communism itself, as it is described by Karl Marx or Lenin in a further stage of development of socialism). The terms anarchist communism and libertarian communism should not be considered synonyms for libertarian socialism. Some scholars use libertarian socialism synonymously with anarchism.[10]

So Hippie kinkter are you a Communist or an Anarchist?

I suppose in theory it does not require authoritarianism, but it allways does when put into practice. 
Yes.




CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 9:59:46 PM)

Now there's a post to smile at.




meatcleaver -> RE: Socialism (2/13/2008 11:36:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

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.


My Karana!  You're so stuck up as to think that any views contrary to your own as necessarily based on proganda?  You you truly have a disgustingly ignorant view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I bet you would believe Ibiza is coming to get you if your President said as much.


Because any analysis that differs from yours is obviously from the President.  It's the right wing out to get you.  The P.L.A.N. has security cameras watching you right now.  That's right, I know the dirty things you do, and we'll use them to disgrace you in court when the time comes.


I don't think all views contrary to mine are based on propaganda but when someone who lives in a continental nation with the size power and wealth of the USA and they consider the possibility that a backward minnow country like North Korea might want to invade and occupy them, then I do think that person is paranoid on fed propaganda. It is laughable as when Reagan implied the Sandinistas were capable of invading the US and some people believed him! Those that were happy to be fed such propaganda held similar views as yours without stopping to think, Nicuaragua was a poor banana republic, further away from the American coast than Moscow was from London.

If I think the right wing is out to get me, it will be based on experience. For the best part of 400 years, the capitalist west has invaded, bullied, exploited and destroyed countries and cultures as they have exploited them for wealth. The USA is just the latest western country to do it after Spain, Portugal, Holland, France and Britain. 400 hundred years of history is evidence enough of the cruelty and psychopathy of capitalism. Now capitalism has been exported to China and India so in regard to them, maybe you aren't paranoid.




seeksfemslave -> RE: Socialism (2/14/2008 2:00:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
quote:

ShaktiSama: "East Germany was not a "socialist" country.  They were a "communist dictatorship".

I would use the term "State Capitalist" myself.

The notion the Socialism requires an authoritarian governmental structure is a fallacy.Look up "Libertarian Socialism" on Wikipedia. That, btw, is the political philosophy with which I most closely identify.


The problem here is that Socialism requires the transfer of economic control to the state ( by that I mean the national government.)
That in the ultimate can only be achieved by Law based on force if say a business owner declines to sell on the state's terms.
An extreme example of this was the transfer of control of agriculture  from private to state control in the Soviet Union. Many 1000s were murdered.

With regard to the centralisation of power mentioned by Zensee being no different between   Socialist or Capitalist society.
In a Socialist society all of the economic activity is controlled by one monolithic centralised block, the apparatchicks. In a capitalist society that is not true.

The economic distinction between Communism and Socialism is moot IMO. Rests on such wiffily woffily concepts as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

I am the economics commisar, you will work in the wireless factory in Minsk . The nation will benefit as a result.
No you cannot setup your own wireless business, not in the state's interest. Now go away and let me enjoy the perks of being in the top drawer of the Socialist administration. You cant vote me out 'cos only Socialist parties may stand in the election.
Of course in their wisdom they  all support ME.

A  powerful Social Democratic alternative would do the USA and indirectly everybody else in the world a lot of good IMO For example would help to smooth out the privilige of the wealthy wrt  to the poor in areas like health, education and as consequence employment possibilities.
I say again that is possible to bring about.
Could also do something about the ridiculous quantity of advertising per programme that is permitted.




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875