Socialism Forum!

The criticisms of left wing ideas here so far have already been shown to be flawed or are rather silly (such as the fake college story).

It seems to me that many Americans are unable to approach the subject of ‘socialism’ without a display of emotional revulsion that has nothing to do with the rational or reasonable.

I fear this is due to the long history of wealth sponsored anti-left wing propaganda that has been prevalent in the US from its founding.

It means there are people that have been taught all their lives to see any left wing idea as ‘un-American’ and accept that viewpoint without question.

Given the strangle hold wealth has on the system in the US I don’t think that sorry state of affairs is going to change any time soon.

 

You spend too much time trying to twist things to appear flawed in reality to recognize the flaws in your leftist fantasy ideas.

Perhaps it's a result of having easy access to news from around the world which informs us of the failures of socialism.

You would have to look long and hard to find more than a middling of what could be called "right wing" propaganda among all the "left wing" propaganda that has been imposed upon us at an ever growing rate as far back as I can remember.

If something isn't broke, don't try and fix it. In the case of U.S. government, what is broke is a result of tampering from the left, and that does require fixing.

Wealth inequality is going to remain no matter what form of government is being exercised. Ask George Soros if he is willing to allow his wealth to be redistributed equally, or any of the other billionaire and millionaire socialist promoters.

 

I have stated it before as it needs to be recognized that no government produces what the people need or want, and when it tries to provide for the needs or wants of everyone equally it eventually results in failing to be able to provide much of anything except by force, and necessitates criminal like activities to acquire many, if not most needs and wants.

My understanding of the Constitution is based upon the viewpoints of those who created it, not those who have interpreted it as a living document without need to change it to accomplish goals that it was meant to prevent.
Your views of the U.S. Constitution are quite flawed and based upon accomplishing a Marxist Socialist agenda through redefining some words in order to be able to achieve those goals.

The U.S. Constitution, not the Communist Manifesto is the law of the land in the U.S. and until that is changed or politicians begin to take the oath of office by saying "to hell with the Constitution" I and many others are going to continue to demand that they abide by it.

While you continue to try and evade the law, the Constitution, in achieving your goal of spreading Marxist Socialism where it is not wanted, except by a small number of persons who are mostly to ignorant to understand what it is.

 

Become responsible, not die.

Few of us are 100% anything, I may have some views that could be considered Socialist, Marxist, Conservative, Liberal, etc. As an atheist, I do accept evolution to be the process by which we have become quite unique among the other animals.

Forget the deserving and undeserving, which address emotions, and look at achievement, and promote achievers to be charitable by choice, not force.

I think what I wrote says all that should be needed. As an example, where I live charity is given by choice not a government mandate, and everyone in our community is taken care of. If someone begins to appear to become lazy and expect to be taken care of we usually continue to provide the care but also begin to request some labor to be done first. We don't allow someone to become a free-loader, but at the same time base our decision upon their ability to do something self supportive. As an option they can move to another community and try to free-load, but most every community will eventually cease to provide aid to any who refuse to help themselves perpetually who can.

Yes, it may be called a slogan, and Socialist based. I have friends who were born and schooled in Viet Nam, Cambodia, or Hmong villages who immigrated (legally) to the U.S. and have become quite successful, acquired property and many of life's luxuries, so your argument of where and to whom someone is born doesn't hold much water in my opinion. It's simply become promoted as an excuse for failure.

 

Jellies do not have teeth.

Repetition sometimes succeeds and is used in both religion and politics. Perhaps it would be more rewarding to society as a whole to inundate people with "You can succeed in life if you try" instead of "You can't succeed because of where and/or to whom you were born".

I've addressed everything in a way acceptable to me, and am quite sorry if you can't accept my explanations, but in return you've presented nothing that leads me to change my views.

I've answered. You wish to mix politics with emotions, and I keep them separated.

Political criticisms or emotional criticisms?

 

Life is not long enough to read all the regulations produced during just my lifetime much less the last century.

I was asking for an example of how you would prevent all things undesirable through a law or regulation before they occur.

An ex-military friend sent the pic, and I thought it was quite cute. So were some pics of Bush when he was in office. I'm not easily offended by such displays, and consider them a form of "free speech" just as others consider "burning the U.S. flag".

 

The world we live in is real not imaginary. Humans as a species have evolved and continue to do so, but they are not becoming more identical as a result, and I don't think that will change over time.

 

actually people are becoming more identical, where they live in proximity to one another and can mix their genes

 

Indie

Yes we’ve been through this many times now – to repeat if you have any rational, logical and reasonable criticisms of may views please present them in the meantime could you please stop evading and address those criticisms already levelled at your views that remain outstanding.

The rest of the replies are statements are unsubstantiated claims that need to be backed up (although you’ve been unable to do so in the past).

*

 

Indie

Oh dear this reply makes it plain you didn’t read the posts or understand the arguments about that and also the discussion about viewing things from outcome rather than potential.

Here is the start of the DandD debate “This is the idea that the deserving are those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any and the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.
So it was plain - the argument went – that there was little or no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these disadvantaged people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

It is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make the right choices they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make bad choices they’re feckless and don’t deserve assistance.”

The problem is that the greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

You want to view things from outcome (achievement) the problem is that a lot of that achievement or lack of it will be down to forces beyond the individual’s control.

So it just changes it to the deserving being those that achieve on their own and don’t ask for help and so don’t need any help and the undeserving are those that haven’t achieved and ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve help.

 

Indie

Trying to have an honest debate with you often seems a bit like trying to extract teeth from a jellyfish

My point exactly - having an honest debate with you seems impossible because you clearly don’t want to debate honestly.
For example -

We’ll saying the moon is made out of cheese might be acceptable to you but that doesn’t mean it’s an acceptably honest answer.
I mean this (and you other refusals) are just more fancy ways of saying you are not going to address the criticisms of your views.

 

Indie

Well this is what you claim but (a) you are refusing to say which communist country you live in and (b) you don’t seem to be the most honest of debtors.
This makes the validity of your example problematic at best and of course completely unverifiable.

Having said that I’d need to know more –

What kind of economy do you have?
What kind of environment do you have? (e.g. urban or agricultural)
When is someone deemed to be in need?
Who decides and by what criteria?
What is deemed as being ‘lazy’ or who is a ‘free-loader’?
Who decides and by what criteria?
Who decides someone should leave and how is it enforced.

 

Indie

The problem is you seem to be indoctrinated into believing that any view to the left of your own extreme right wing viewpoint is socialist.

And you interpret everything from that far right position and that colours your view of everything from how you see the US constitution to the supposed extreme socialism of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.

The problem is that every time your views are examined flaws quickly appear that you seem unable to address.

And been unable to address them you fall back on the same old slogans and unsubstantiated statements that again you are unable to back up or which fall flat when examined.

And that’s what I’ve been trying to explain, it seems to me that a lot of Americans views of left wing views are just not rational, they’re based on doctrinal lies and emotion.

 

If anything at all is being debated, it is what we each find acceptable as a form of government. For me it is as little as possible, while it appears to be as much as possible from your point.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." That pretty well expresses my view of any form of government.

 

what i should have asked in response to this was:

how is this any different from your notion that people should evolve into identically successful beings?

but of course you don't want everyone to be successful - if everyone is, then really no one is, since success is relative

 

(a) Why should the country I live in make a difference, I have and can still live acceptably in several if the need were to arise. Just pick one if you need to use the name of a country in a reply, it wouldn't make much difference, if any at all, in how I would respond.

(b) I've never allowed myself to become a debtor, so how would that reflect on my honesty as a debtor?

Travel around in Asia to out of the way villages and you can verify what I have written in many locations.

It's a free market, totally unregulated by government, cash or trade for goods and/or services.

Agricultural of course.

That's difficult to define clearly, there can be many different needs, primarily food or employment, sickness in the family, and on down to needing the weeds cut around the house.

Everyone knows everyone else so word of mouth allows us to know about everyones problems, and decisions are made by individuals, one or in some cases several together.

A healthy person who refuses offers of work, but shows up for a meal consistently or seeks help often but refuses or finds excuses when asked for help would become ignored by some individuals and eventually maybe even all individuals in the village. Word of mouth spreads information quickly.

Each individual is left to make their own decisions, based upon their own criteria.

That choice is left to the individual who has shown him/her self to be nothing more than a burden in the community, and they are left with a choice of working to rebuild their reputation and assume some personal and community responsibility or leave of their own accord as they would no longer receive any assistance.

To a lesser degree we have a similar involvement with nearby adjacent communities, but while nothing is imposed most persons feel that by being seen to be charitable a greater response will occur should they find themselves in need.

 

Indie

I’d say we are discussion what we would like our societies to be like –

I want to make societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

You seem to want an unfair society, in fact you seem to want to make it even more unfair, and you seem to want to limit opportunity by stifling the potential of those born (through no fault of their own) into disadvantage.

 

I guess it just shows that I went to school prior to the indoctrination becoming socialist, and I could only be described as "extreme" right wing in comparison to how far to the left your views are.

I am opposed to socialism as a form of government, but at the same time I am opposed to big government from either the left or the right wings. What happened to George Soros in your response, Buffet and Gates are the milder supporters of socialism.

In your view they are flaws, and I address them although maybe nbot to your satisfaction. The point is not necessarily to change your views but to let you know that I am unable to accept your views either. Everyone is free to give as they see fit, it is not a function of the U.S. government to make that type of decision for the citizens.

Like pulling teeth from Jellies?

Maybe because Americans long ago declared their independence from Great Britain, and formed a government just right of center, recognizing that only a very limited form of Federal government would allow the people and the States uniting to remain free and retain their sovereignty.
Who has been presenting the emotional pleas?

 

I've never said such, I look at each person as a unique individual, some become Doctors, others store clerks, and still others become something else. Success is relative to ones abilities, and desires.

It has nothing at all to do with what I want, it is for the individual to set their own goals and produce the effort in achieving them.

 

success is equally as relative to ones social connections, and ones pure luck

bullshit - if you went to a trailer park and saw a bugatti in front of each, would you still want one?

you'd much prefer it if it were not possible, and in fact it cannot be under capitalism

here's an interesting quote, from alvaro bardon, a conservative ["free market"] economicist:

isn't that a problem for those who support competitive capitalism, the fear that no one will be able to gauge their success if everyone has nice things?