Unfair voting restrictions in Indiana. Wait! What?

[oldpink]

All I can say is that it's a depressing state of affairs when we have ostensibly intelligent Americans actually extolling the "virtues" of socialism.
Betcha never thought that bringing the Cold War to a successful (for us) conclusion would ever lead to this.

 

[Hohn]

It never fails. Regardless how many times socialism fails, the explanation is always that someone didn't do it right-- never that there are inherent flaws within Socialism.

 

[jamil]

All I can say is that it's a depressing state of affairs when we have ostensibly intelligent Americans actually extolling the "virtues" of socialism.
Betcha never thought that bringing the Cold War to a successful (for us) conclusion would ever lead to this.

I imagine that colleges might tend to teach about socialism in a more positive way than ever before in the US. And it doesn't just affect college graduates. Students graduate and then become k-12, college teachers, professors, and then they teach what they were taught to teach.

As an individualist, to me socialism is immoral. But academic elites seem to prefer collectivism. So they push progression towards that.

 

[phylodog]

All I can say is that it's a depressing state of affairs when we have ostensibly intelligent Americans actually extolling the "virtues" of socialism.
Betcha never thought that bringing the Cold War to a successful (for us) conclusion would ever lead to this.

Fixed it for ya

 

[Cerberus]

Ok, perhaps there's some things that need to be understood:
-Socialism does not need govt to exist
Not true
-Socialism does not need to eliminate private property
Not true
-Socialists societies can be democratic
Yes this is true. Too bad democracy is tyranny of the masses
-Communism has never existed, as the process to achieving it always stalls with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yes, this is technically true.
-Capitalism, has proven itself to be as equally (equally to what) a threat to liberty as pure capitalism has never existed due to[STRIKE] similar faults[/STRIKE] assumed faults.
Ok, now to completely call horse **** on this. How in hades can an economic system that has never been allowed to exist, have proven itself to be a threat to liberty? And since it's never existed how can it's faults be judged? Pure Capitalism has only existed in books and therefore any perceived fault is only theory.

Mine in Bold and color and FIFY

 

[GREEN607]

It never fails. Regardless how many times socialism fails, the explanation is always that someone didn't do it right-- never that there are inherent flaws within Socialism.

Exactly. Look how well it worked out for Charlie Manson....

 

[Kutnupe14]

Mine in Bold and color and FIFY

Ok, perhaps there's some things that need to be understood:
-Socialism does not need govt to exist
Not true

Completely true. While the word commune is the root of the word communist (and community I might add), communist implies government control. Socialist does not. A commune is a type of socialist society. There have been, and are numerous examples of communes, most notably cooperatives, in which members voluntarily participate in sharing their goods, income, and work. Such places are often devoid of govt, because govt must compel citizens to participate (via threat), rather than allow them to make the decision themselves.

-Socialism does not need to eliminate private property
Not true

Again, yes this is true. Socialism, as previously stated, does not need to compel members, under threat of force, to participate. Depending on the form, members freely enter into a contract with others and share their work and possessions.

-Socialists societies can be democratic
Yes this is true. Too bad democracy is tyranny of the masses
-Communism has never existed, as the process to achieving it always stalls with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yes, this is technically true.
-Capitalism, has proven itself to be as equally (equally to what) a threat to liberty as pure capitalism has never existed due to similar faults assumed faults.
Ok, now to completely call horse **** on this. How in hades can an economic system that has never been allowed to exist, have proven itself to be a threat to liberty? And since it's never existed how can it's faults be judged? Pure Capitalism has only existed in books and therefore any perceived fault is only theory.

Ok, see, now I know your not following. I think it's clear that I am referencing the steps to reach Pure Capitalism. By simply using "Capitalism," and following up with "pure," the intent was to show the early transitional steps from the capitalism, we have now, to the ultimate goal (as I did with communism). When I spoke of Communism never reaching it zenith, it was because it was stalled by the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is power in the hands of a small few. And is the great flaw of Communism, as it ignores human nature, by believing that those in power would freely give it up. That fault is shared by Capitalism. The most successful of capitalist society share the same flaws. Surely you are well versed enough in American history to know of some examples.... but if not, check out the American 19th and 20th Centuries.... or better yet, look into the creation of the Fed.

Responded in green

 

[Kutnupe14]

I always thought of communism (in a Marxist sense) as more a form of Feudalism than Socialism...Almost a cross between Japanese feudalism and European feudalism...

To be a smart a$$ in 7th grade we were allowed to write to the country of our choice to learn about their culture..My social studies teacher (we are now both on the town Historical Preservation Board together) let me send a letter to the USSR asking for information on their missile programs...She said I could send it but if they didn't send a package back I would get an F for that project...One month later I got a huge box from the USSR full of information about their space program, their version of "scouting", Karl Marx's red book, Mao's book, a comic book about the first dog in space, another comic book explaining to me how we kids are actually starving in the US, etc....About 30 books overall It was during the Carter years and I am sure that put me on some list somewhere...

Communism, under the Marx plan would indeed be a feudal state

 

[Cerberus]

Kut, don't try that PoliSci mumbo jumbo on me. This is exactly how socialist twist everything to their advantage. Yes, I do know my US history of the 19th and 20th centuries quite well, well enough to know that we have not had real Capitalism. And just as you try to say that socialism does not require government, when the very definition of socialism does indeed involve government proves that you are trying to soft shoe the issue and muddy the waters. Socialism has to involve force, either through the state or through the masses. It is reliant upon such. Capitalism OTOH can not exist with force, as it is purely dependent upon choice.

Yes, there have long been communal societies, most are usually shot lived. I've got a lots of such in my ancestral heritage.

 

[jamil]

Responded in green

Oh jeez I hate when people do this. Makes it hard to respond. Whatevs. Let's just undo the green nonsense. It makes me crabby.

-Socialism does not need govt to exist
Completely true. While the word commune is the root of the word communist (and community I might add), communist implies government control. Socialist does not. A commune is a type of socialist society. There have been, and are numerous examples of communes, most notably cooperatives, in which members voluntarily participate in sharing their goods, income, and work. Such places are often devoid of govt, because govt must compel citizens to participate (via threat), rather than allow them to make the decision themselves.

I'll ignore the self-refuting argument and give you the benefit of the doubt that you just used awkward wording. A commune is not a society the the context we were discussing. While in theory socialism doesn't require a formal government, practically speaking, a society can't maintain without eventually evolving some form of government as it scales. This is essentially the argument I have with the anarcho-capitalists. It's not practicable at a large scale. And that's no less true for social anarchists.

-Socialism does not need to eliminate private property
Again, yes this is true. Socialism, as previously stated, does not need to compel members, under threat of force, to participate. Depending on the form, members freely enter into a contract with others and share their work and possessions.

As I said before, it depends how you define "property". It also depends how "socialist" is the society. Property ownership is a very individualistic component of a society, which goes against the goals of socialism. The social democracies in Europe, for example, also have a capitalistic-ish market. They are a mixture of enough capitalism to make the socialism not collapse upon itself in short order.

Property rights are an individual right. In a fully socialist society there are collective rights, not individual rights. In full-on socialism, "the people" own the big stuff even though people do get to own personal possessions. Your kids dolls don't belong to the state. Point is, you don't get to use the property rights that you see in some social democracies as an example of that being a legitimate component of socialism, because those are in place as the mixture of the individualist/capitalist concepts that those systems still have. And no worries, progressivism must progress to the left. Eventually, if the people are mostly progressive, they'll erode whatever capitalism remains.

And, as far as compelling members under threat of force, how practical do you believe that is? For example, the US is becoming a more socialist nation. A large chunk of our society doesn't want that. But as big education churns out more communists what real choice will the people with a lick of sense have when the moon beams reach 50% + 1? Leave? Really? Where would we go where individual liberty hasn't been systematically stamped out? And if we refuse to participate, eventually someone dressed in a government uniform, probably with a badge, and a gun, will show up and make sure we understand the available choices, where the freest choice left is conformity.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kut, don't try that PoliSci mumbo jumbo on me. This is exactly how socialist twist everything to their advantage. Yes, I do know my US history of the 19th and 20th centuries quite well, well enough to know that we have not had real Capitalism. And just as you try to say that socialism does not require government, when the very definition of socialism does indeed involve government proves that you are trying to soft shoe the issue and muddy the waters. Socialism has to involve force, either through the state or through the masses. It is reliant upon such. Capitalism OTOH can not exist with force, as it is purely dependent upon choice.

Yes, there have long been communal societies, most are usually shot lived. I've got a lots of such in my ancestral heritage.

Lol, what? Ok, perhaps the pinnacle of Capitalism.... but then again, that would also apply to Communism. History has made clear, the most successful in each school, have been tyrants. The weak capitalist will always extol the virtues of market competition. The strong capitalist will see to eliminate it. Socialized govt is the desired endgame of any smart capitalist. It allows them to play in a preverted market, and then socialize their losses (ie banking crisis). The most reasonable check to this is for govt to place restrictions prior to attainment of such power, which as Jamil will be happy that I'm acknowledging, would be a kind of control on means of production. Perhaps I'm talking over your head, if you do not see the connection between capitalism, the creation of the Fed, banking bailouts, and a number of other instances littered throughout American History.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh jeez I hate when people do this. Makes it hard to respond. Whatevs. Let's just undo the green nonsense. It makes me crabby.



I'll ignore the self-refuting argument and give you the benefit of the doubt that you just used awkward wording. A commune is not a society the the context we were discussing. While in theory socialism doesn't require a formal government, practically speaking, a society can't maintain without eventually evolving some form of government as it scales. This is essentially the argument I have with the anarcho-capitalists. It's not practicable at a large scale. And that's no less true for social anarchists.



As I said before, it depends how you define "property". It also depends how "socialist" is the society. Property ownership is a very individualistic component of a society, which goes against the goals of socialism. The social democracies in Europe, for example, also have a capitalistic-ish market. They are a mixture of enough capitalism to make the socialism not collapse upon itself in short order.

Property rights are an individual right. In a fully socialist society there are collective rights, not individual rights. In full-on socialism, "the people" own the big stuff even though people do get to own personal possessions. Your kids dolls don't belong to the state. Point is, you don't get to use the property rights that you see in some social democracies as an example of that being a legitimate component of socialism, because those are in place as the mixture of the individualist/capitalist concepts that those systems still have. And no worries, progressivism must progress to the left. Eventually, if the people are mostly progressive, they'll erode whatever capitalism remains.

And, as far as compelling members under threat of force, how practical do you believe that is? For example, the US is becoming a more socialist nation. A large chunk of our society doesn't want that. But as big education churns out more communists what real choice will the people with a lick of sense have when the moon beams reach 50% + 1? Leave? Really? Where would we go where individual liberty hasn't been systematically stamped out? And if we refuse to participate, eventually someone dressed in a government uniform, probably with a badge, and a gun, will show up and make sure we understand the available choices, where the freest choice left is conformity.

I'm not ignoring you "j"amil. You're responses present a better understanding of the issues, and require a more in-depth response. I'm being lazy and picking off the easy ones right now.

 

[oldpink]

Whose horse was that?

 

[chipbennett]

Wait: is a voter ID requirement socialist or communist?

 

[Lowe0]

Socialism has to involve force, either through the state or through the masses. It is reliant upon such. Capitalism OTOH can not exist with force, as it is purely dependent upon choice.

The Pinkertons would disagree.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Pinkertons would disagree.

So would the mafia.

 

[Hohn]

The Pinkertons would disagree.

This is a red herring. The basic statement that capitalism is based on freedom of choice is a valid statement. Lawless activity, intimidation, threats of force, they aren't essential elements of Capitalism, and actually run counter to it.

The key difference is that in a capitalistic society, the government is supposed to protect you from unlawful intimidation and threats of violence.

In a socialist system, the government IS the one making the threats of violence to compel certain behaviors.

 

[jamil]

The Pinkertons would disagree.

Others have aptly addressed the fallacy of that. So can you address the actual argument, that socialism requires force while capitalism does not? The more elements of socialism you have, the more systemic reasons there are for uniformed, armed agents of the government to visit you. Under capitalism the only circumstances under which uniformed, armed agents of the government might visit you is because you harmed someone else.

If you're advocating that America votes to adopt more socialist policies, you're advocating force against me. I place more value on individual autonomy than I do on "equality" or sharing other people's wealth.

I don't consent to participate in such a system. But I'm given no choice. It should not be possible for 50% of the people + 1 to vote away the individual autonomy I have now. Other people shouldn't have a vote on what happens with what I earn. That is immoral.

But people like Sanders believe that theirs is the moral position, that trying to create a system of equal outcomes is moral. Well, I'll tell you what. If you think you'd ("you" means proponents of socialism) like to help someone equal out their outcome, how about YOU help them out, instead of voting to relieve your conscience with someone else's resources. As a non-religious person, I don't throw the word "evil" around often, but it fits socialism. Rather than having a morally superior position, Sanders and the socialists are immoral and their goals are evil.

 

[jamil]

Wait: is a voter ID requirement socialist or communist?

INGO loves the Socialism vs Capitalism discussions. I think there is a 1 in 15 chance that any given thread in the political sub-forum could go full tilt SvC at any time.

 

[Lowe0]

This is a red herring. The basic statement that capitalism is based on freedom of choice is a valid statement. Lawless activity, intimidation, threats of force, they aren't essential elements of Capitalism, and actually run counter to it.

The key difference is that in a capitalistic society, the government is supposed to protect you from unlawful intimidation and threats of violence.

In a socialist system, the government IS the one making the threats of violence to compel certain behaviors.

It's absolutely true that socialism relies on force, whereas in capitalism it's optional. But capitalism without force is merely an ideal implementation, not a realistic one. Just because money now buys political influence instead of thugs doesn't mean force isn't still applied, it just means the people who can buy force are smarter about how they go about it.

If we're going to make fun of communists for idealizing communism instead of looking at how it's actually turned out in practice, then shouldn't we also look at capitalism in practice instead of an ideal implementation that never existed?