Socialism

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Monday, August 26, 2024 16:07
VIEWED: 8502
PAGE 11 of 12

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:31 AM

Quote:

Yet I think that one of those three conspiracies is what has happened. And I find that scary as all hell. All hail the Fascist Corporate United States of America.

Maybe we should call it the Fascist United Corporate Kleptocracy of America.

OUT2THEBLACK

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Yet I think that one of those three conspiracies is what has happened. And I find that scary as all hell. All hail the Fascist Corporate United States of America.

Maybe we should call it the Fascist United Corporate Kleptocracy of America.

Those initials are apropos...

Here's another fellow who seems to think so :

A Snake Eating Its Own Tail

By James Howard Kunstler
on June 22, 2009 7:59 AM

'...I'd like to know what Barack Obama thinks he's doing with the fiasco we call the US economy. He can't pump it back into the credit-fueled freak show it used to be, of course, but he could steer it in a practical new direction. Even people who have lost a lot, and stand to lose more, can be motivated to behave more self-beneficially. The president doesn't have very long before his economic problems become really awful political problems.
The current mass delusion that will go down in history as the "green shoots fugue" can't possibly bring the credit freak show back because the credit -- i.e. money borrowed from the American future -- was swindled away. Something like $14 trillion worth of nominal dollars is being sucked into a cosmic vortex never to be seen again. It was last seen in the spectral forms of so many collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, so-called structured investment vehicles and other now-obvious frauds. That giant sucking sound we hear means the process is still underway, and the "money" disappearing into yawning oblivion will out-pace any effort orchestrated by the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury to replace it with new "money" (or credit). Therefore there is no chance between heaven and hell that the pre-2008 suburban homesteading and shopping fiesta can ever come back. The American polity is tapped out in all sectors, personal, corporate, and public.
Notice the two words largely absent from whatever public discussion exists around these matters -- "swindle" and "fraud." The reason they're missing is because if they happened to enter the conversation, something would have to be done about them, namely investigations and prosecutions. The president is the person in the best position to set the terms of this public discussion, and by avoiding these two words he's blowing the chance to begin the process of correcting the tragic course we're on.
These swindles and frauds range from malfeasance at the highest levels to indecency in the lowliest cubicles -- i.e. the collusion of a revolving cast of cabinet-level officials with Wall Street executives to loot the US Treasury, the probable criminal dereliction at the mid-level of agencies like the Federal Reserve's oversight office and the SEC, to certain and outright street grifting in the traffic of securities known to be worthless at their creation. The current fiction that the public seems to be swallowing (for the moment) is along the lines of the old "mistakes were made" locution, which is an easy way to avoid holding individuals responsible for misdeeds. '

There is more at the url of the article :

http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/06/a-snake-eating-its-own-tail.html

I just finished a fiction book by this author...By which I was struck by how much the lifestyle of the folk resembled the 'raggedy-edge' , rustic atavism we know from Firefly ,
( minus spaceships , though ) which caused me to wonder if the author drew any inspiration from the series :

" World Made By Hand "

http://www.amazon.com/World-Made-James-Howard-Kunstler/dp/0802144012/r
ef=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246409304&sr=8-1

Now I want to read his nonfiction title ," The Long Emergency ".

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Oh, of course. If the Socialists didn't do it, it can't be social welfare.

Oh, of course. If you can't argue against it, you have to strawman it.

Quote:

So this is not social welfare how, exactly?

How is a law that was about putting the poor in prison or the work house Social Welfare. Oh, of course, if Geezer posts it, it must be a debate winning example of social welfare.

Quote:
Just wanted to establish that no European country currently has a Socialist economy. If you grant that is true, I'm not sure why you've been arguing about it for so long (unless you just enjoy the argument ).

Well, really, I have told you three or four times. I can't help it if you ignore things said to you that can't fit in your comfortable strawman. You really can't blame me for your inability to argue a case honestly.

Now, really I don't see the allure of acting the way you have done, but then maybe your charge is true of yourself, you've not been arguing a case so much as just arguing whatever you can.

Quote:

Nope. You have given evidence that State Social Welfare programs can originate from Socialism (as with NHS), but nothing to show that they can't originate from other political or economic systems.

Actually you've made no case whatsoever, I've provided plenty of evidence and all you've managed to do is ignore it, or lie about what I said. You can't blame me for your inability to attack my argument.

You've shown no evidence that State Social Welfare can come from other political or economic systems. All you've done is demand we take it as a given.

Quote:
Your responses seem to be that: 1) If Socialists didn't create them, they aren't actually State Social Welfare programs, although they have the same purpose and meet the same needs, or: 2) if non-Socialist governments do create State Social Welfare programs, the programs instantly become Socialist.

Erm, nope. There's nothing in my arguments that are even remotely like that.

I find it interesting that your only responses seem to be:
1) Making stuff up and assigning it to me.
2) Denying that I've posted stuff I clearly have.

I also find it interesting that you have to tie yourself in knots and pull charges of circular argument right out of your arse, while being the only person actually making a circular argument. Not to mention claiming things that are entirely unlike Social Welfare are exactly like what we're talking about. Hell, now that I've told you exactly what I'm talking about and you no longer have any wiggle room to distort the definition, you've taken to flat out lying about what I've been saying.

Quote:
]But I did, by providing cites supporting my interpretation of what socialism is. Why waste time paraphrasing definitions with which I totally agree?

No Geezer, you didn't answer the question in any way shape or form. The question was for you to provide a definition that fits within your argument and logic. Since other systems have state ownership of the means of production, your logic says that it can't be Socialist, and it can't be used as a definition of Socialism. Either your logic is wrong, or your definition is wrong. The fact you can't and won't answer the question speaks volumes. The fact you'll claim you've answered it when you clearly haven't, speaks even louder.

In fact it's your logic that doesn't agree with the Socialists. Can't help it if the logic you use to argue on the one hand, dismisses your case on the other. I just think it's funny you think you've made a good case, and don't see how you've basically dismissed your own argument.

Quote:
Nope, I'll just point out once again that Socialists don't have a corner on caring for the people, just like they don't have a corner on providing State Social Welfare.

Neither is state ownership of production, which is what you hang as the definition of Socialism. I can't help it if your logic is just plain wrong, and you're just plain

GEEZER

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
How is a law that was about putting the poor in prison or the work house Social Welfare.

If putting the poor in prison was all there was to the law, you might have a point. However, as noted above, it also provided food and clothing to the poor; surely a good thing. As for work houses:

"The Elizabethan legislation was intended to help the 'settled' poor who found themselves out of work (for example) because of illness, or during a hard winter or a trade depression. It was assumed that these people would accept whatever work or relief the parish offered, whether that was indoor or outdoor relief. Neither method of assistance was seen as punitive or harsh...The first adaptation of the 1601 Act came in 1607 and provided for the setting up of Houses of Correction in each county. Here, work was provided for the unemployed at local rates of pay; work could be forced on the idle and on vagabonds." http://www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/elizpl.html

Giving people work at good pay sounds pretty advanced for the early 17th century.

Quote:
You've shown no evidence that State Social Welfare can come from other political or economic systems.

As noted before, there's Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, AFDC, etc. in the U.S. If you look beyond your Dickensian prejudice, the 1601 Poor Law was advanced for it's day, providing food, clothing, work and wages for the poor. Here's a nice monograph on the German Poor Law system of the 1870's.
http://books.google.com/books?id=bBqn2PAeVlwC&dq=poor+law+german&print
sec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=UqNhd-M4gE&sig=p8KJwlHXX-DO_96JSlrKJ2LUH2Q&hl=en&ei=DWVLSrnQGoamNramzK8O&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

How many do you need?

Perhaps if you'd define what you consider Socialism and State Social Welfare to be...

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 3:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If putting the poor in prison was all there was to the law, you might have a point. However, as noted above, it also provided food and clothing to the poor; surely a good thing. As for work houses:
Giving people work at good pay sounds pretty advanced for the early 17th century.

The Workhouse wasn't good work for good pay, it was slavery. And the law didn't provide anything, it stipulated that local Parishes had to do so. There was no state authority, centralised or otherwise, providing anything, completely unlike Social Welfare.

Quote:
As noted before, there's Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, AFDC, etc. in the U.S. If you look beyond your Dickensian prejudice, the 1601 Poor Law was advanced for it's day, providing food, clothing, work and wages for the poor.

As noted before, it doesn't prove anything.

It's not prejudice to say slavery and incarceration aren't social welfare, regardless of how advanced they might be for the time. Well, there might be some prejudice inherent in trying to say that it is Social Welfare.

Gustave Whitehead's Number 22 was advanced for it's time, doesn't make it a stealth bomber.

Quote:
Here's a nice monograph on the German Poor Law system of the 1870's.

Oh, you mean part of what Bismark eventually called his "State Socialism"?

Quote:
Perhaps if you'd define what you consider Socialism and State Social Welfare to be...

Maybe if you go back and read my posts, and not just ignore vast sections of them, you'd find out...

Still no answer to my question I see.

GEEZER

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The Workhouse wasn't good work for good pay, it was slavery.

Neither Wiki or the cite above make any mention of slavery relating to the Poor Act of 1601, so that's just your opinion, absent cites.

They do include this statement, "Here, work was provided for the unemployed at local rates of pay..." So folk were getting paid the going wage.

And you still ignore the food and clothing aid distribution.

Quote:
And the law didn't provide anything, it stipulated that local Parishes had to do so. There was no state authority, centralised or otherwise, providing anything, completely unlike Social Welfare.

So now State Social Welfare only exists if the National government pays for it and administers it entirely? Another clue in the puzzle.

Quote:
As noted before, it doesn't prove anything.

So you're back to "If it's Social Welfare it instantly becomes Socialist" again.

Quote:
It's not prejudice to say slavery and incarceration aren't social welfare, regardless of how advanced they might be for the time.

Absent proof, it prejudice to call the Poor Law nothing but slavery and incarceration.

You also ignore Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, AFDC, etc. in the U.S.

Quote:
Oh, you mean part of what Bismark eventually called his "State Socialism"?

Yep, except he wasn't the first one to call it that. His progressive and liberal opponents coined it to mock his social programs, but Bismark, a canny politician, claimed it as his own and used it as a counter to the programs or Marx and Engels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism

Quote:
Maybe if you go back and read my posts, and not just ignore vast sections of them, you'd find out...

I have. It's difficult because I have to first winnow out the insults and the whining about being so insulted. In the remaining 10% I have mostly negative data to work with. Social Welfare can't (in your view) be provided by private organizations. It can't be provided, funded, and administered by anything smaller than a national government. It can't involve any coercion of the recipients, even for their own good. Oh, and it only originates from Socialism.

In light of this, I modify my original statement.

"None of these states have a Socialist economy. In none of these countries does the state own the means of production. Not even a majority of the means of production. They're all predominately capitalist economies with a heavy welfare component supported by the taxes levied on the capitalists and their employees."

There. No Social Welfare to be sullied by non-Socialist governments. Just plain old Welfare. And to clarify, I note that their economies are just predominately Capitalist.

Quote:
Still no answer to my question I see.

What do I think Socialism is? Socialism as a political movement, not an economic theory? What I think it actually is, not the "everyone will have everything they need and the freedom to enjoy it" retoric every political movement spews?

I think it's a con game, just like most every other political movement.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And you still ignore the food and clothing aid distribution.

Nope, you've just ignored my response.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So now State Social Welfare only exists if the National government pays for it and administers it entirely? Another clue in the puzzle.

Ahh, another piece to puzzle as to how you get to where you are. You clearly ignored what I said earlier, scroll up, you'll get it.

Quote:

So you're back to "If it's Social Welfare it instantly becomes Socialist" again.

So you're back to "If I misrepresent what someone says, I won't have to deal with it" again.

Quote:
Absent proof, it prejudice to call the Poor Law nothing but slavery and incarceration.

Actually the proof is within your own cites. If you'd bothered to read them you'd have seen it.

Quote:

You also ignore Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, AFDC, etc. in the U.S.

Actually I've dealt with them directly. You just ignore that.

Quote:
Yep, except he wasn't the first one to call it that. His progressive and liberal opponents coined it to mock his social programs, but Bismark, a canny politician, claimed it as his own and used it as a counter to the programs or Marx and Engels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism

Oh, I forgot, it's not socialist, because it doesn't come from socialism, so it can't be socialist...

Anyway where does it say they were mocking his policies? Oh that's right it doesn't. More opinion sans facts

.

It's hard to see why they'd be mocking the policies, since Bismark was borrowing the policies from them in the first place. The fact is that he enacted those policies to take the wind out of the Socialist sails...

From your own cite, that perhaps you should have read:

Quote:
The Prussian welfare state was developed by the German academic Sozialpolitiker (socialists of the chair)
...
Bismarck’s idea was to implement the minimum aspects of these programs that were acceptable to the German government without any of the overtly Socialistic aspects.

Please feel free to continue to support my argument for me.

Quote:
I have. It's difficult because I have to first winnow out the insults and the whining about being so insulted.

You clearly haven't. I've also not insulted you, nor have I claimed you insulted me. I've said you misrepresented or flat out lied about what I've said, a charge this quote here rather helps confirm...

Quote:
In the remaining 10% I have mostly negative data to work with. Social Welfare can't (in your view) be provided by private organizations.

I've already said I'm happy to use your supplied definition, and adjusted what I'm saying. Perhaps you missed it? Perhaps you have a selective memory? Perhaps you're being dishonest trying to score personal points in lieu of constructing an argument.

Quote:
Oh, and it only originates from Socialism.

As opposed to your argument that says it isn't socialist, because it doesn't come from socialism, which proves where ever it comes from isn't socialism, proving it's not socialist, proving where ever it comes from isn't socialist...

Quote:
In light of this, I modify my original statement.

"None of these states have a Socialist economy. In none of these countries does the state own the means of production. Not even a majority of the means of production. They're all predominately capitalist economies with a heavy welfare component supported by the taxes levied on the capitalists and their employees."

There. No Social Welfare to be sullied by non-Socialist governments. Just plain old Welfare. And to clarify, I note that their economies are just predominately Capitalist.

With lines like that you should be a politician.

But by you own logic, since private ownership of the means of production isn't capitalist because other systems show it, they aren't predominately Capitalist economies. So you disprove your own

GEEZER

Thursday, July 2, 2009 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Nope, you've just ignored my response.

Your resposne was that it was irrelevent, backed by your own opinion of what social welfare is. Your unsupported opinion carries no weight.

Quote:
So you're back to "If I misrepresent what someone says, I won't have to deal with it" again.

If you say that Social Welfare must be Socialist, then, per your statement, any Social Welfare program created by any government must be Socalist. Poof, it's Socialist.

Quote:
Actually the proof is within your own cites. If you'd bothered to read them you'd have seen it.

So if there are any faults in NHS, It obviously isn't Social Welfare either?

Quote:
Actually I've dealt with them (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, AFDC, etc.) directly. You just ignore that.

Yeah, Any Social Welfare system is magically socialist. Poof.

Quote:
Oh, I forgot, it's not socialist, because it doesn't come from socialism, so it can't be socialist...

Sounds reasonable to me.

Quote:
I've already said I'm happy to use your supplied definition, and adjusted what I'm saying.

Hardly. You hang your concept of Social Welfare about with all sorts of conditions. It can't be private. It can't be administered by local or regional authority, only by the national government. It can't have any whiff of less than sterling ideals, execution, or results

Quote:
As opposed to your argument that says it isn't socialist, because it doesn't come from socialism...

Ah, now you're mis-stating. I have said that Social Welfare, or at least what most of the world considers Social Welfare, does not have to come from Socialism. I've never said it couldn't.

Quote:
But by you own logic, since private ownership of the means of production isn't capitalist because other systems show it, they aren't predominately Capitalist economies. So you disprove your own statement.

First, I'd dispute your claim that private ownership of TMOP isn't capitalist, since it obviously can be. It doesn't have to be, but you can't seem to grasp the concept that the world is not all either/or. I could cite references that the economies of Europe are Capitalist, but what's the point?

Quote:
But using your own logic, since every political movement is a con game, Socialism can't be defined thus.

Well, I did say "Most" every, but you seem to have that either/or binary view of the world.

O.K. Let's define the Socialist Con Game, then.

"You are being downtrodden by the Capitalist (in other cons it would be the Nobility, or the Church, or the Bankers, or the Jews, etc.). You don't recieve what is rightfully yours due to the machinations of the powerful. If you put us in power, we will seize the means of production (or in other cons the land, the money, the food, etc.) from the grasping capitalists (etc.), give you all jobs to fit your desires, and provide for all your needs. We will all work together, to each according to his need and from each according to his ability, until we are all equal." (for the Communist con game, add "and the state withers away".)

This works up until the point when the Socialists (or whoever's running the con) gets in power. Then they keep it until someone else chases them out.

That's pretty much how I see Socialism working in the real world.

How do you see Socialism working in the real world?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Your resposne was that it was irrelevent, backed by your own opinion of what social welfare is. Your unsupported opinion carries no weight.

No actually. But your argument, that's based on just ignoring anything that runs counter to it certainly carries no weight.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If you say that Social Welfare must be Socialist, then, per your statement, any Social Welfare program created by any government must be Socalist. Poof, it's Socialist.

Lucky I'm not making my argument in those terms then. Though you are desperate to make it seem that way, largely because you are making a circular argument of course...

Quote:
So if there are any faults in NHS, It obviously isn't Social Welfare either?

That wasn't my argument. So anything you want to call State Social Welfare is State Social Welfare just because you want to call it that. Poof indeed.

Quote:
Yeah, Any Social Welfare system is magically socialist. Poof.

Yeah, anything geezer finds himself unable to argue against, Poof, it's magically gone...

Quote:
Sounds reasonable to me.

I'm sure it does, it is after all the nonsense circular argument you've relied on throughout.

Quote:
Hardly. You hang your concept of Social Welfare about with all sorts of conditions. It can't be private. It can't be administered by local or regional authority, only by the national government. It can't have any whiff of less than sterling ideals, execution, or results

Actually I did. Quite clearly in fact. And reset what I was talking about and made that clear. I can't help it if you can't argue against that and so now seek to magically erase it from history.

Quote:
Ah, now you're mis-stating. I have said that Social Welfare, or at least what most of the world considers Social Welfare, does not have to come from Socialism. I've never said it couldn't.

Nope. It's not Socialist, because it doesn't come from socialism, it not coming from socialism proves it isn't socialist, that's been your argument all through.

Quote:
First, I'd dispute your claim that private ownership of TMOP isn't capitalist, since it obviously can be.

It's your logic that says it can't be capitalist if it's employed by other systems, not mine. Your the one making the big thing about Social Welfare can't have come from Socialism because according to your opinion it can come from other social systems, though typically you haven't provided evidence of this. Your logic employed to the economy means quite clearly that if an economy has private ownership, it still doesn't have to pay Capitalism for the privilege. I'd agree it's nonsense logic, and the fact your so damn set against employing your logic to your side of the argument, proves you know it's crappy logic too.

I've provided more evidence to say private ownership comes from other sources rather than Capitalism than you have that Social Welfare comes from sources other than Socialist thought. Your case against Capitalism is stronger than your case against Socialism. Hell I've provided a cite that says mixed economies are a mixture of Socialist and Capitalist thinking, and your response has been to irrationally ignore any mention of Socialism, and play up any mention of Capitalism until that's all there is.

So what, you're very anti-Socialism, and very pro-Capitalism? So ideologically driven perhaps that you find the very idea of accepting some good ideas may have come out of the Socialist movement abhorrent and insulting. So pro-Capitalist you can't accept that anything that works even a little hasn't come from Capitalism? Because I don't share your ideologically aversion to anything that isn't Capitalist, and I certainly don't have your aversion of Socialism, directed at Capitalism, I'm happy to admit the successes and failures of both systems. It's just that all the time you're using one sided irrational logic, that you can't stand applied evenly, I'm going to

PLAINJAYNE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:42 AM

Just for the record: I aint touchin this with a ten foot goram pole....

Move on, nothin to see here, folks. Yay Alliance! I'm all about it...

Day late an'a dollar short...Story of my ruttin' life!

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE