Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Socialism


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Socialism Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 2:30:43 AM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

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.

I'm really not sure what "Whiffily Whoffily" means. You are trying to argue that, actually I have no idea what you are talking about. Electrical Banana between Perks and top-drawer administartion, and you are the Electronics Commisar in Minsk.

All this sounds like some serious alcoholic binge-bullshit amongst the First Families of Virginia.

You really need some LSD.






(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 141
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 2:34:22 AM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline 		Seeks - all the sins you ascribe to socialism can be laid at the feet of capitalism too.  Same flies, different shit. Collecting and abusing power is in human nature (or at least in that small but fascinating percentage who are really good at manipulating the public), it's not  the result of if the -ism they subscribe to. The symptoms appear distinct from each other but are actually rooted in the psychopathy.

All economies are already directed. (Jerked around on chains these days.) They are not free from overt and covert influences, some criminally minded and some honest. Again - who would you rather have managing this? Unknown, unelected private interests or an elected government?

An economy needs to have a strategy. (The present one is largely driven by laws which grant corporations the same rights (but few of the obligations) as people. Their obligation under the law, to maximise returns to shareholders.) A government with real responsibility towards the people of a nation would make strategic decisions about where to focus economic encouragement to a free market system.

"Let see. Should we continue to offer offer tax incentives, legislation, infrastructure and other inducements - to support an energy source which we have in short supply and which is controlled by foreign and often hostile nations and which carries a huge environmental cost? - or - should we encourage alternate technologies for using rich, renewable and more responsible domestic sources?"

You know, make the wise choice, not the one that will benefit the robber barons.



Z.


*Belatedly spit his coco over his monitor after reading HK response above.*


< Message edited by Zensee -- 2/14/2008 2:37:33 AM >

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 142
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 3:05:35 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ShaktiSami
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.
This from someone who calls me ignorant lol. You dont grasp the difference between Social Democracy and Socialism.
Socialism means centralised economic control ie the means of production and distribution ie what will or will not be produced to be controlled by the state.Thats what it means, OK? 
So only the state approved saucepan will be produced in such quantities to be decided by the Domestic Utilities department of the Ministry of Housepersons Wellbeing.
This dept will require x million dollars to staff and maintain.

adding: for Lawn Mowers liason will be required between the "in House" and "out of House" departments of the Ministry. Consultation will also be required with the Electrical department of the Ministry of Production Electrical Goods. sub division
Can you see the point Shakti ?

If I put myself up for election in the US as the rightest of right wing Republicans I would tell you that the privatised health system you have is the best in the world. If sufficient Yanks dont agree then the possibility exists to advocate a more social democratic health system and ultimately get things changed.  Not easy in the face of the wealth in favour of the status quo but it could be done.

If I were a representative in a Socialist society I would tell you that you have the best heath system in the world and it would not be possible to change anything because NO alternative party exists or would be  allowed to be created. After all  is not Socialism the ideal form of economic management so it follows that opposition is not in the interests of the people.
In theory Socialism permits political opposition. In practice it doesnt.

East Germany is a perfect example. You say Communist I say Socialist. Means about the same economically and in practice politically.

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 2/14/2008 3:35:16 AM >

(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 143
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 3:13:33 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Hippiekinkster: I offered you my feeble attempt at allegory, but it looks as tho' it fell on stony ground. lol
Not only that you cant spell wiffily woffily lol

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 144
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 3:22:19 AM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
There are a number of poor definitions used by you and your compadres in this thread which make it impossible to communicate.


Yeah, this is a problem in this discussion. I think some are using personal and heavily distorted definitions to make their arguments and everyone is just talking passed each other. Babel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
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.


I can't say how many times or in how many places or in how many different ways I have made these exact points. And still people lurch forward in the same political dance as before, like zombies moving to a tune no one else can hear.

Sad.





(in reply to ShaktiSama)
Profile   Post #: 145
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 3:28:23 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Zensee Collecting and abusing power is in human nature


Doesn't this lead to the politics of despair and IMO is contradicted by the improvements in health education and welfare that the masses in the west have enjoyed say over the last 150 years.

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 146
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 3:33:30 AM   
Loveisallyouneed


Posts: 348
Joined: 2/5/2008
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

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?


Well, I would.

The population of Japan compared to the population of America, China and SE Asia would not permit a successful invasion of America (Germany managed a similar feat only through alliances, of which Japan had none that could be used in Asia).

Quite simply there were not enough troops to successfully occupy the continental United States, China, and South-East Asia.

Not to mention that Japan's dominant foreign policy was "Asia for Asians", enacted for over a decade through its invasion of Manchuria and China, and its post-Pearl invasions of European colonies in SE Asia, British and American fueling stations/air bases.

As I recall, Japan didn't even have a viable plan to occupy Australia (which would certainly have been more easily accomplished than an invasion of America). The attack on Port Moresby was to limit the amount of interference they could expect from the Australians.

I would have loved to see the citation. It is well-known that Americans feared an invasion at the time, but the historical facts do not support such a belief. The fact that Japan included troop carriers in their fleets sent against the Dutch East Indies and Hong Kong, but not the one sent against Pearl testifies to the lack of a plan.

After all, if there had been a plan then the invasion would be most successful if conducted in coordination with the attack on Pearl Harbor, for as America was distracted by the air attack the troop carriers could have deployed their troops along the northern shores of the Hawaian Islands.

It makes no sense (strategic or tactical) to destroy Pearl, go back to Japan, leaving America to re-build and reinforce knowing they were at war with Japan, only to come back later and try an invasion.

Indeed, had they done so, it might be argued they would not have been knocked out of the war (as American focus would have been on recapturing Hawaii without the benefit of their Pacific fleet, still lying at the bottom of Pearl).

However, the strategic advantage of holding Pearl was not consistent with the intent or foreign policy of the Imperial government. It was their intent to grab as much land as possible and then hand America a fait accompli where America's embargo would have no teeth.

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 147
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 3:43:01 AM   
Loveisallyouneed


Posts: 348
Joined: 2/5/2008
From: Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

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?



CL, I suggest you review your history.

There were few people more well armed and supplied than the Kuomintang (Chiang Kai-Chek's official Chinese government). Both the British and especially America ensured he was amply supplied.

The problem was he hoarded the war materials for his war against the communists. He adamantly refused to fight the Japanese aside from delaying actions, etc). This was a constant source of complaint amongst the British and Americans.

And despite that, he still lost against a poorly-supplied insurgency, because Mao won the hearts of the people by fighting the Japanese, while Chiang lost their support by refusing to fight.

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 148
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 4:26:52 AM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

In theory Socialism permits political opposition. In practice it doesnt. East Germany is a perfect example. You say Communist I say Socialist. Means about the same economically and in practice politically.


I live in a socialist country. Some would perhaps call it social democracy. Others would perhaps call it poorly done communism.

The lowest common denominator remains in effect, and that is the collective mindset: that it is not only perfectly acceptable, but indeed even desireable, that control over individual lives be in the hands of the centralized representation of the collective. An outgrowth of that is the bit we call socialism: centralized control over the economy (in short). But that bit is only a symptom of the greater disease, which is that people are ready to abandon responsibility, accountability and sovereignty to the state. If our political parties wanted to turn us into East Germany, they would face little opposition. Some of the major parties are well along the way to doing exactly that, in a manner that flawlessly gives substance to the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It is ever the burden of a democracy that the inmates are running the asylum.

Health,
al-Aswad.



_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 149
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 4:28:13 AM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Now there's a post to smile at.


Glad to brighten your day.

Health,
al-Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 150
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 4:42:45 AM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline 		I think at least one term should be defined here so that some parts of this thread can be tried again using terms that means the same thing. Here are three different sources for the word Socialism:

Oxford English Dictionary
1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.
2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common.

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. Procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (In Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Cf. utopian socialism.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
1. A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.
2. The theory or practice of those who support such a social system.
3. The building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninist theory.

I think a lot of people in the thread are allowing too much slippage between the term "social democracy" and what is defined above to occur. Of course, the term "Social Democracy" relies heavily on the above definitions for socialism and what people really mean is a new hybrid model of "social democracy" that is an end in itself and not a mere stepping stone toward full socialism. The new hybrid model definition also includes safeguards like basic civil liberties and greater respect for individual property rights than is normally seen in straight up socialism models.

Of course the idea that the political model in the U.S. is unobtrusive when it comes to things like civil liberties and individual property rights is hugely diminished once you consider - even for a moment - issues like search and seizure or imminent domain. Nothing belongs to you unless the state allows it to be so. If you want to test this out try not paying your property taxes and you shall see that the state will take your home. So who really owns it? BTW, I am specifically ignoring the idea of allodial property rights because most people don't have such property arrangements and also because I am not convinced we have heard the last of that issue in american law. In short, most real estate is owned in fee simple.

There are huge grey areas in all of these systems. None of them really guarantee anything more than lip service to leaving the individual alone. What that means is that in all political models the state ultimately has awesome powers that have been ceded to it by the body politic.

Choose your poison.

(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 151
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 4:48:14 AM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

quote:

Zensee Collecting and abusing power is in human nature


Doesn't this lead to the politics of despair and IMO is contradicted by the improvements in health education and welfare that the masses in the west have enjoyed say over the last 150 years.


No it does not lead anywhere special - it's just a statement of fact, not a political outlook. To some degree many humans will try to get out more than they put in and a very small but influential and some might say, pathological, individuals, take to it extremes.

Countries around the world which, post WW2, courted socialist thinking in their conduct or constitutions were often savagely and covertly attacked by agents of the USA, using the profits from dangerous and addictive drugs sold to US citizens to pay for the murder and mayhem in sovereign nations elsewhere on the globe. Tell me that's a functional, humane, sane capitalist endeavour. Failure of many of the worlds social democracies was due to direct interference to discredit and destabilise them.

Improvements to public health and education came as a result of social (ist) pressure not from the goodness of the stony hearts of the mill owners.  Again every sin you try to pin on socialism is already present in trumps under  the present arrangement. You have said nothing new in several posts, just disconnected and vague and misleading accusations.


Z.


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 152
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 5:20:27 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

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.

Seeks:
I am sure you will correct me if my understanding of the situation is faulty.
Did not these thousands of dead land owners hold title to their land at the pleasure of the Czar?
Did not the Czar hold his title at the pleasure of God?
Did not the clergy (which existed at the sufferance of the Czar)verify that it was "Gods Will" that the Czar should rule?
So what functionally is the difference between one group imposing its will by force as opposed to another group imposing its will by force?  Unless,of course, you still believe that God appoints earthly rulers.
thompson






(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 153
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 5:32:07 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Zensee well I appear to have got Sugar rattled because he now retreats from his usual extreme left wing rhetoric and posts the following...as a consequence of my ineffectual posts lol

quote:

SugarmyChurro
Of course, the term "Social Democracy" relies heavily on the above definitions for socialism and what people really mean is a new hybrid model of "social democracy" that is an end in itself and not a mere stepping stone toward full socialism.


Sugar: if you equate penalties for not paying property tax with a regime that in extremis would not allow ownership of property then I think your outlook is distorted to put it mildly.
I believe all advanced Western nations apply a property tax to help finance local government NO?

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 154
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 5:38:59 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		in extremis we would most probably be looking at communism, not socialism, we have given it a different word, and usually see it as a separate notion.

When castigating another, one should not swing their penis outside it boundaries, alluding that it be far larger than it is. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 155
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 5:40:14 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Zensee
Countries around the world which, post WW2, courted socialist thinking in their conduct or constitutions were often savagely and covertly attacked by agents of the USA,....


Usually only when it was thought the vital economic interests of the US were involved. eg Iran/oil in the 50's The US also forced the withdrawal of the UK/Israel offensive over the Suez affair.

The major exception to legitimate intervention was Vietnam . I hope the leaders responsible for those killing fields rot in hell.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 156
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 5:42:22 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		well, it could be argued that tonkin cane was in americans vital fly fishing industries interests.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 157
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 5:49:42 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

quote:

Zensee
Countries around the world which, post WW2, courted socialist thinking in their conduct or constitutions were often savagely and covertly attacked by agents of the USA,....


Usually only when it was thought the vital economic interests of the US were involved. eg Iran/oil in the 50's The US also forced the withdrawal of the UK/Israel offensive over the Suez affair.

The major exception to legitimate intervention was Vietnam . I hope the leaders responsible for those killing fields rot in hell.

Seeks:
Perhaps things are different in the UK but here in the U.S. the government is not a business.  Consequently it can have no economic interests to uphold or support to the detriment of another sovereign nation.
Do you really believe that private business should rightfully expect the government of the U.S. to support its avaricious and predatory practices either at home or abroad?
While you castigate the U.S. for its adventuresome in Viet Nam do you also deplore its intervention in Kuwait,Chile,Panama,Nicaragua,Cuba,Indonesia,Columbia,Peru and Venezuela?
thompson






< Message edited by thompsonx -- 2/14/2008 5:52:03 AM >

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 158
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 6:28:07 AM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline 		Seeks:

One could own a home in fee simple valued at $250,000 USD. The property taxes go unpaid for whatever reason (unemployment, mismanaged retirement, dementia). The state takes the home.

Can ownership mean anything other than that the state in effect owns the property? It would seem that the state can dictate the terms under which one keeps a piece of real estate. If the state can tax the home 1% can it technically tax the home 100%? Answer: yes.

If it's not held in allodial, you do not own it without whatever other consideration(s) the state requires.

In your country it is my understanding that the vast majority of the land is owned by the Queen.


< Message edited by SugarMyChurro -- 2/14/2008 6:29:29 AM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 159
RE: Socialism - 2/14/2008 6:45:27 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		'Ow'd you like to be the poor bitch what 'as to repo the Queen then, guv?

Lord Asquith

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to SugarMyChurro)
Profile   Post #: 160
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Socialism Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109