Discussion in 'Socialism' started by Aristartle, Jan 16, 2009.
Is new and open!
Oh, was that your hair I cut stalk? I'm sorry. Hippies are over-sensitive about their hair anyway.
My pubes are longer than the hair on my head, but c'mon, that's OT.
53 billion=Iraq construction projects. 343 million=health care for Kurds in Northern Iraq.
14 to 29 % hike Blue Cross Blue shield. No or very little regulation on Insurance companies because of political donations to your legislators so they can stay in office seemingly forever. 41 cents of every dollar the government spends is borrowed. No---we sure can't afford socialized medicine for the citizens of the United States of America. Tip of the iceburg here. Gutless Democrats--Chickenshit Republicans. Gawd bless ameriky.
socialism has nothing to do with the current socio-economic system in place at this time. because the vast proportion of people have no idea what socialism really is. they look at the russia post ww1 as their only example. inpoint of fact,there are no nations on earth today calling themselves socialist who really are pure socialist. but, in my opinion, a socialist system is still possible. it will,however, require much work and dedication. it will be worth the effort. diggy. ps, obama is not a socialist!!!
Might someone who is a supporter of Socialism provide us all with a clear and concise definition of Socialism which we all can accept to be correct? Without knowing for certain what we are arguing for, or against, we are just wasting our time.
The primary question I have is, just how much government are people willing to accept being forced upon them?
Haven't you assumed with this comment that a socialist form of government entails more government intervention than any non-socialist form of government, pre-empting any definition of socialism we might have made according to your (perfectly reasonable) first request that we define it before we discuss it?
The problem with definitions is that it is often subjective - been dependent on the person giving the definition.
A fundamentalist tea bagger is going to have a completely different take on the subject than say a hard-line Stalinist. Just as they would do if asked to define capitalism or free market principles.
Also left wing ideas changed (just as do those on the right) and there are competing viewpoint, so even on the left there is debate as to how socialism should be defined.
This is the introduction to Types of Socialism at Wikipedia
Here is the main Socialism page at wikipedia
He is a one of a series of books I’ve recommended before this one of course is on…
Socialism: A very short introduction.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Socialism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192804316"]Socialism: A Very Short Introduction Very Short Introductions: Amazon.co.uk: Michael Newman: Books
I simply questioned how much "government" people are willing to accept. I'm still open to viewing the definition of Socialism that would motivate 300+ million persons to accept it consensually.
Shouldn’t it be about good governance not about how much or how little it governs?
It comes down to what aims you have for society, as discussed elsewhere you wish for one where all those people you consider of having no value, die. Other, like me are more interested in having a society where everyone is given an opportunity to live healthy and fulfilled lives.
You are an advocate of a type of ‘small’ government because you seem to believe that type of government would be the best at achieving your goal because you think it would more likely allow (maybe even assist) in the killing off of those you consider of no value.
You seem opposed to left-wing or socialist ideas because to you they seem aimed at – “keeping people alive regardless of the cost or their value to society”
I am opposed to left-wing or socialist ideas or even right wing or conservative ideas which are imposed by a government as a means of producing some form of equality through the use of force or redistribution.
Well I’d rather we kept to socialism but I would say that from your extreme position (and wanting to kill those people you consider as having no value, seems extreme) any viewpoint - be it of the left or right - that doesn’t seem likely to produce your desired result will be rejected.
I mean your rejection of any move to improve the lot of the disadvantaged would seem to works against your aim - the death of those you consider as having no value - so it will of course be rejected. And of course since the lot of the disadvantaged has been improved in no small way through the redistribution of advantages and resources it is not surprising that you are opposed to that.
What I’m saying is that it seems to me that you have a core idea - the death of those you consider as having no value – and have then built up a political viewpoint and support political policies that you think would achieve that goal.
And so since you see socialism and other left wing ideas as the greatest threat to you aim - the death of those you consider as having no value – then they are the ones you attack most often.
I mean the only group you say that you would be happy to persecute are those of the left.
Can we maybe take a step back to defining socialism? I think we are jumping in the deep end here. In the absence of a definition I personally don't know if I would be prepared to accept a socialist government.
But as I’ve tried to explain often socialism is whatever socialism is in the eye of the beholder.
In its simplest terms I’d say ‘socialism’ is about forming a system that is run for the benefit of the whole community rather than one section of it. Where advantages and resources are spread more evenly rather than been concentrated or clumped. It’s about quality of life rather than standard of living.
However - how far that is taken and by what means is where the problem of definition can come into play.
There's little point in my responding to you when you continually twist my words into something other than what I have written.
Although I oppose Socialist government, I live by choice in a socialist environment.
We obviously differ greatly in our definition of what a community is.
Separate names with a comma.