Brands Of Socialism.

whats even more scary is this potent computers make our life less and less private by the seconds not month or years . soon with a click of a mouse they know were we have been ,what we hate, what we spent, what we buy, what we lisent to radio ot tv wise, what road we used in the morning ,mid day, or late at night, your hang out spot . they allready know a bunch from other system like your .visa card. debit card. driver license.

 

**

“There is no such thing as a socialist free society.”

So are you saying that there can be no such thing as society without socialism? That socialism is fundamental to the concept and establishment of any civil society? Which would mean that a rejection of all socialism would mean a rejection of all concept of society.

**

I think you really need to work out what you mean by ‘socialism’ since there are many varieties, and then work out what you think are the alternatives.

**

Try and imagine your utopia you idea o an ideal society then set it out for us here? This is a great thought experiment and might make your thoughts on society clearer to s and yourself.

 

I think a lot of Swedish politicians would be insulted if they were compared to the Soviet Union. There's really not a big difference between Sweden and the United States. Sweden just have a little more social security. But that doesn't make Sweden socialist. There's just as much market in Sweden, as there is in the US.

There is, although often confused, a huge difference between (real) socialism, and social democracy. Social democracy is a political solution in a capitalist society. Socialism, however, is an independent system, just like feudalism, capitalism, and communism.

So basically, socialism is a system. Social democracy is a political solution in a capitalist society.

The US? A socialist nation?

And elitism, mega-quasi-governmental corporation and thirst for expansion.. Socialist characteristics? The US has a capitalist mode of production. Everything is private.


A socialist society would be characterized by, yes, socialist mode of production. The means of production (factories, shops, etc.) would be either controlled collectively, or by the state, and production would be solely aimed for use, not profit. The workers would be in control of society, and my personal opinion is that that is the most important trait of a socialist society. The capitalist class would be eradicated. Exploitation of man by man, would also no longer exist. The only class that would exist, would be the workers.

 

Yes, the US is a socialist nation, and it becomes more socialist with each passing day

The problem with some of you people is that you see socialism only how you want to see socialism, which is in a very idealistic, utopian, naive light. This is because that is the way in which the lie called socialism is sold to the masses.

AGAIN, socialism is nothing more than monopoly capitalism controlled by the banks and administered by the state. Then it is sold to the gullible masses as being for the good of everyone, where people share the wealth and everyone is made "equal."

Socialism is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from the working and middle class to the all-powerful state.

Either the state is in control of society or the people are in control. Make up your mind! You can't have both.

Libertarianism would place more power in the hands of the common man.

Socialism would place more power in the hands of the state.

With libertarianism, people are free to do with their hard-earned money what they want.

With socialism, a person is told what they must do with their money. This is the antithesis of a free society.

You say you want a society without capitalism, but little do you know that idea is completely bogus. Sure, capitalism would be abolished from the underclass, but that's because the state would take full-control over people's wealth. This would make people dependent on the government for every aspect of their lives, which would also be controlled by the state. This is exactly what the elite want. The elite want full control, and what better way to do this than selling them the lie called socialism.

That's why the real goal of socialism is nothing more that PURE FASCISM and TOTAL CONTROL. It seeks to take the rights and power away from everyday people and place it into the hands of the all-powerful government. The socialist goal of equality is to make everyone a peasant and a slave.

 

This may sound ignorant but aren't true socialism/communism an economic theory?


I can see how politics can twist it into something evil, but how can you say the theory itself evil?

Whats so wrong about the theory that keeps it from being a viable alternative to capitalism?

 

I don't think socialism in itself is evil at all, Shane. I am sure socialism (or something resembling socialism) worked perfectly well at one point in history -- most likely on a tribal, community level.

But to think pure socialism (as the idealists and the bleeding hearts see it) would work, let alone be to the benefit of mankind, is just ludicrous.

I personally do not see socialism as an alternative to capitalism. That's simply how socialism is sold to the masses. Socialism is sold as being an alternative to capitalism, when it's really nothing more than the idea that giving up all your rights and all your wealth to an all-powerful government brings about more freedom and equality. Sure, it brings about equality by abolishing the middle class and making everyone a peasant.

To me, that is not freedom. To have your life dictated by a powerful government is not freedom -- it's tyranny.

 

That's the twisted political version.

I'm asking about the theory itself which has nothing to do with giving your rights up and creating tyrannies.

The theory itself deals with mutually protected economic security for workers in an industrialized world w/o government or corporate control and is totally in line with democracy.

How can a person fighting against global corporate tyranny not see the benefits of a unified work force?

Have you actually read Marx?

More freedom, not less.

 

As for socialism being an unrealistic and utopian concept...


social security
pensions
safer working conditions
minimum wage

And the struggle continues today. From meat packing plants with unsafe working conditions and illegal immigrants working on factory farms in North America to the child filled sweatshops and Aids infected prostitutes of Asia today...

The workers are the ones being exploited for the material gains of the few, so it makes perfect sence that its the workers who should be standing up against such calculated dehumanization.

 

It's quite simple. Socialist societies are inherently not free. I don't care what variety. It's all centralized state control. Period. Socialist free and socialist-free are two different things. Maybe if you spent less time trying to defend a failed system and more time trying to comprehend what you read you would understand that. My idea of an ideal society--for the US at least, because I really don't care what the rest of the world does--is rule within the bounds of the US Conststution. It's all laid out quite clearly. As Scalia said, the Constitution is not a living document, subject to interpretation. The framers were very specific about the rule of law within this country and what they intended. They were very specific about how to amend it as well. I have not seen any attempt at strict adherence to the principles within the document. I see politicians and judges taking it upon themselves to consolidate federal power and transition this nation into a socialist hell-hole. By disregarding these Constitutional principles, the US is drfting closer to socialism, all varieties of which are wrong and contrary to the principles upon which the US was founded. Clear enough for you?

 

Rob

So when you say - “There is no such thing as a socialist free society” are you saying that there cannot be a free society if it contains socialist elements?

So I ask once again “please describe your ‘socialist’ free government?”

**

You tell us that you ideal society is – “for the US at least, because I really don't care what the rest of the world does--is rule within the bounds of the US Conststution.”

But you don’t set out what that would mean can you give us a bit more explanation or if you find it difficult to articulate maybe a website that you might give me more details.

I know of in the US the Constitution Party and the Constitutionalist Party both of which have libertarian type policies are you saying you’re promoting a libertarian type society?

**

Who is "Scalia"?

 

You assume that a socialist economic system would not be able to function within the bounds of the u.s. constitution.

Please study the theories of socialism. True socialism/communism are NOT pro big government.

Of course it is!, why do you think they call them AMENDMENTS!. The U.S. constitution was always meant to evolve with the nation. Google: american revolution, Thomas Paine, and the enlightenment please.

 

I did a google on scalia and so presume you mean Antonin Scalia who (if I’ve got this right) seems to believe that the Constitution of the US should be interpreted only in the way that it would have been by the Founding Fathers at the time they drafted it.

I find that view very restrictive and rather impossible.

Restrictive in that it limits peoples ideas to those of the 18th century and impossible because human thought has moved on since the 18th century and it would seem impossible to eradicate those from many peoples minds.

For example take slavery

"Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were disallowed. Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories."

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/constitutiononslavery.html


Although there were those that disapproved of even abhorred slavery in the 18th century others accepted or believed it completely all right.
The founding father Thomas Jefferson who wrote that –

"We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Was a slave owner, so his interpretation of the Constitution would presumably have been that slavery was OK.

**

Can we (even Scalia) forget all that has happened in US history since the drafting of the Constitution to this day regarding racial slavery and segregation within American society?

 

How is it restrictive? THe US existed and evolved for nearly a century and a half in accordance with the principles set forth in the Constitution. Only in the 20th century was the process subverted. The authors of the document clearly described the process for amending the Constitution. The "Living Document" fallacy renders the Constitution meaningless in that it can be altered through extra-Constitutional methods (such as judicial methods not specifically described in the document). These methods are dangerous, and serve to eradicate freedoms specifically granted. The "Patriot" Act, for one is a good example. The usurping of State power by the federal government is another. The list goes on and on. Slavery was made illegal through the process of Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage was granted in the same way. Amending the Constitution is in accordance with the Framer's original intentions, and therefore whatever examples you may wish to cite to discredit the value of this document are moot.

 

I have studied the theories of socialism and have found them in opposition to the US Constitution. THe Constitution is also NOT "pro big government" as you put it. The Constitution itself descibes the process for amending it, and therefore it is possible to strictly adhere to its principles, while addressing emerging issues. Is your argument that the American Revolution and "Common Sense" supported socialism? I have read "Common Sense", "The Crisis", and The Federalist Papers and again, see nothing which would support socialism of any type, or communism. Maybe your problem is you get your information from the internet, instead of from the source itself. The "Living Document" concept allows for modification of the Constitution and National Law though means not described in the Constitution, such as activist judges creating legislation instead of ruling on cases, and modification or elimination of rights or freedoms specifically delineated in the Constitution.

 

The type of goverment on the Island of Cuba is exelimplified by

the term Fudalism. Its a fudalistic society.There has been no change of leadership for over 40 years.
Everything is owned or controlled by The Leader.

Why anyone would aspire to this system is a mystery.

 

Castro went to the finest school in Havana "from well off parents" he learn how the Nazis system work, in early 1960s he rounded up the small quantity of privately own firearms in cuba . Now he owns the island viva el Fuhrer!

 

Rob you are not answering the questions raised earlier.


Maybe you just missed them –

So when you say - "There is no such thing as a socialist free society" are you saying that there cannot be a free society if it contains socialist elements?

So I ask once again "please describe your ‘socialist’ free government?"

**

You tell us that you ideal society is – "for the US at least, because I really don't care what the rest of the world does--is rule within the bounds of the US Conststution."

But you don’t set out what that would mean can you give us a bit more explanation or if you find it difficult to articulate maybe a website that you might give me more details.

I know of in the US the Constitution Party and the Constitutionalist Party both of which have libertarian type policies are you saying you’re promoting a libertarian type society?

 

**

As to Scalia’ views

I explained how it could be restrictive -

Restrictive in that it limits peoples ideas to those of the 18th century and impossible because human thought has moved on since the 18th century and it would seem impossible to eradicate those from many peoples minds.

Your reply does nor refute this in fact you back up my viewpoint by saying that by the 20th century may though it was in need of change.

To go back to slavery, segregation and racial discrimination in the US.

You say that “These methods are dangerous, and serve to eradicate freedoms specifically granted” but those methods of interpretation were used to support slavery and segregation. If memory serves wasn’t the 13 amendment enacted only some 80 years after the acceptance of the Constitution? That is nearly half the length of time that it has been in operation?

You then have to ask where was the Constitution during the time of suppression and segregation of Black American citizens was it protecting the “freedoms specifically granted”?

As to the “usurping of State power by the federal government” wasn’t it only through federal power and imposition over States power that brought that segregation to an end?

Today most right minded people would find that treatment of fellow human beings deplorable because our views of what is acceptable have changed. (Although it must always be remembered that there are those that would like to have segregation because they still fear and distrust black people and see white people as superior)

My own view is that the political system of the US is in need of a general overhaul and a good place to start would be the US constitution, it needs to be brought into the 21st century.

(I should say that others as well as I are still trying to drag the British system into the 20th, although Scotland is an example of a step forward)

**

 

I never stated that "Common Sense" supported communism, only that it was one example of 18th century thinking clearly supporting an evolving government that was for and by the people of not only the 18th century but of those to follow.

btw, i'm on the net 1-2 times a week at most. I spend about 40 hours a week reading b-o-o-k-s.

READ Marx and Engles, they were clearly democratic in their thinking and right on the same wavelength as the enlightenment movement.

The reason why The Vatican, The White House, Stalin, and the elite have feared socialist theory so much is that it clearly gives the majority the power that has always been hoarded by the few. Democracy and economic equalilty go hand in hand.

Cuba, U.S.S.R., and China are as much examples of socialist theory as the U.S.A. is to true democracy or Saudi Arabia is to true Islamic Law.

Castro calls himself communist.
Castro is an evil tyrant.
So communism must be evil as well, right?
Wrong.

The Christian Church has done tremendously evil deeds in the name of Jesus of Nazereth. Do their actions mean that Jesus's teachings were evil or unrealistic?

I don't believe so...

 

But can you name 1 communist country that did not have a evil goverment?.