RE: The S word (Full Version)

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



Message

philosophy -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 9:17:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Many consider such things as social security and welfare as socialism. They don’t like the government taking their money for socialistic programs. There are many other examples of socialistic laws and programs in our government.



....and you missed out the obvious example if we take that rationale as being socialist.....the military. Paid for by taxation, ostensibly for the good of all. Odd how, when people point to what they suggest are socialist programs, that one gets missed off the list.



kdsub -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 9:23:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Many consider such things as social security and welfare as socialism. They don’t like the government taking their money for socialistic programs. There are many other examples of socialistic laws and programs in our government.



....and you missed out the obvious example if we take that rationale as being socialist.....the military. Paid for by taxation, ostensibly for the good of all. Odd how, when people point to what they suggest are socialist programs, that one gets missed off the list.


Damn I don't want to be defending conservative views...remember the "provide for the common defense" is mandated in the Constitution...social security is not.



philosophy -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 9:26:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Damn I don't want to be defending conservative views...remember the "provide for the common defense" is mandated in the Constitution...social security is not.


...so what you're saying is that the constitution has a built in support for a socialist institution?




kdsub -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 9:37:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Damn I don't want to be defending conservative views...remember the "provide for the common defense" is mandated in the Constitution...social security is not.


...so what you're saying is that the constitution has a built in support for a socialist institution?




Nope... it has a build in provision for providing the common defense.

The definition I find in the dictionary for socialism is as follows;

"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."

It is not tied to the defense.

Butch



Mercnbeth -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 9:42:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Damn I don't want to be defending conservative views...remember the "provide for the common defense" is mandated in the Constitution...social security is not.


...so what you're saying is that the constitution has a built in support for a socialist institution?


From that perspective I'd say it does. However, it's an institutional philosophy not a economic, or social paradigm for the entity created by the document as a whole.



philosophy -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 9:43:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

The definition I find in the dictionary for socialism is as follows;

"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."




...well, that definition also excludes social security. Yet you gave it as a possible example of a socialist program. Social security doesn't produce or distribute goods....if it does, so does the military to the same extent.



philosophy -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 9:47:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

From that perspective I'd say it does. However, it's an institutional philosophy not a economic, or social paradigm for the entity created by the document as a whole.


....as you know, my perspective on this issue is that i favour a mixed economy. Some things held by the state, most things held privately.
All i'm trying to get Kdsub to see is that the simplistic definitions of socialism they're using can be applied to things that traditional opponents of socialism traditionally support. The issue has some nuances to it that can't be pigeonholed as 'capitalism-good, socialism-bad'.



kdsub -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 9:52:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

The definition I find in the dictionary for socialism is as follows;

"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."




...well, that definition also excludes social security. Yet you gave it as a possible example of a socialist program. Social security doesn't produce or distribute goods....if it does, so does the military to the same extent.


Social Security is controlling goods...money...  mandated ... collected then redistributed.

Butch



Cagey18 -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 9:55:28 AM)

~FR~

So we all agree Obama's a socialist then, right?



And I hear he's a Muslim to boot




philosophy -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 9:55:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Social Security is controlling goods...money...  mandated ... collected then redistributed.



The military is controlling goods....armaments, munitions etc.....mandated......collected (bought using state funds from arms manufacturers).....then redistributed (to military units).

Do you see?



Mercnbeth -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 10:05:52 AM)

quote:

the simplistic definitions of socialism they're using can be applied to things that traditional opponents of socialism traditionally support. The issue has some nuances to it that can't be pigeonholed as 'capitalism-good, socialism-bad'.
Completely on board, no "simplistic definition" is accurate anymore than a simplistic 'label'. No successful corporation exists as a democracy, that requires a dictatorship on the small scale (benevolent if you're lucky), and a ruling class republic empire on a grand scale. Democracy serves as a best case - worst example of ruling; insuring by definition a 'us' versus 'them' dynamic with fluctuating pluralities generating constant change. At the same time it leads to weak coalitions of agenda based 'special interests' rationalized as necessary to obtain a ruling majority. However, it's when power is obtained those coalitions tend to break down and all the 'good intent' is lost in internal struggle; leading to the next plurality fluctuation and new special interest alignments.

There is a place, and situation, for every organizational philosophy. I'd suggest that using any one to the exclusion of all others is a prime reason for ultimate failure.



kittinSol -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 10:09:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

~FR~

So we all agree Obama's a socialist then, right?

And I hear he's a Muslim to boot



He's not even a twue Amewikhan.



Cagey18 -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 10:14:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

~FR~

So we all agree Obama's a socialist then, right?

And I hear he's a Muslim to boot



He's not even a twue Amewikhan.


Well that settles it.  It means he's not patriotic either, since we all know only Americans can be patriotic.




kittinSol -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 10:15:55 AM)

He was raised in the mideast near China that's where he learned how to become a socialist. 



kdsub -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 10:17:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Social Security is controlling goods...money...  mandated ... collected then redistributed.



The military is controlling goods....armaments, munitions etc.....mandated......collected (bought using state funds from arms manufacturers).....then redistributed (to military units).

Do you see?


No those goods are not redistributed to the people… we can go back and forth nitpicking on words.

You don’t have to get me to see anything I understand what you are trying to say but your example with defense is not a good one.

Again I am not defending this viewpoint but pointing it out.



rachel529 -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 10:36:00 AM)

sometimes you have to protect the little guy from the big guy.  call it socialist if you like.  if you want to see what happens in a government without any socialistic values look at what american buisness did to immigrant workers in the 1800s.  no one system works- thats why you see china modifying its communism to accept buisness, and how unions got started in america.  frankly, there are facets of socialism america needs- national health care being foremost.  but you cant shackle the free market and stay competitive- detriot being the easiest example...



slaveboyforyou -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 12:26:13 PM)

quote:

....well, how else do you explain this....


I don't have to explain anything Philosophy.  I'm not responsible for every American citizen's viewpoints.  Suppose I listened to BNP loonies, and assumed that was the majority view of all UK citizens.....not fair is it? 



colouredin -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 12:31:26 PM)

Im sorry, but I really dont think my op was offensive, it is true that I see socialism spat out, its happened on this very thread. I wasnt trying to say that all americans were thick I thought that maybe it really did mean something differant or have differant connotations (this wouldnt be the first word that means something else)

If I am wrong then sorry. But I didnt really want the OP to be slagging specific people off.

It is appropriate though because you cant please all the people all the time.



philosophy -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 12:36:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

....well, how else do you explain this....


I don't have to explain anything Philosophy.  I'm not responsible for every American citizen's viewpoints.  Suppose I listened to BNP loonies, and assumed that was the majority view of all UK citizens.....not fair is it? 


...no, but that isn't exactly the point. Taking your example you'd be perfectly justified in starting a thread examining the fascist movements in the UK. i'm honest enough to wholly admit that such elements exist in UK society. They're far from a majority, but to suggest that such a thread would be redundant would be wrong.
Equally, there are sectors of US society that have a knee-jerk reaction to words like socialism. Thus, this is a valid thread.

i'd hoped i'd made it clear earlier that i didn't think that all Americans don't understand what socialism is....just some.



philosophy -> RE: The S word (2/3/2009 12:39:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

There is a place, and situation, for every organizational philosophy. I'd suggest that using any one to the exclusion of all others is a prime reason for ultimate failure.


.........absolutely fair point. It all depends on the context. Hence my support for the mixed economy. Which includes chunks of capitalism, bits of socialism, even the occasional whiff of fascism and communism. i'm sure there's an 'ism' or two i've missed. Society is a moving target.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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