A Case for Socialism

[HisSelf]

Two hurricanes. Which country will get aid first?

Sad. Really sad.

This is what happens when you shwing right, I guess.

[August1991]

Two hurricanes. Which country will get aid first?

Sad. Really sad.

This is what happens when you shwing right, I guess.

Huh?

If I build a house for myself, what gives you the right to take it away from me and give it to Person C or Person D? You seem to find it unjust my house was given to Person C while Person D got no house at all. You have a curious notion of justice.

Before you start anlayzing the justice of who should get my house, you might first want to consider what will happen if someone keeps taking my house away from me. A true injustice is an able-bodied person sitting around not building a house since it just gets taken away.

[bush_cheney2004]

Two hurricanes. Which country will get aid first?

Who cares? It is a race to win?

[Guest American Woman]

Two hurricanes. Which country will get aid first?

Sad. Really sad.

This is what happens when you shwing right, I guess.

I'm not sure I get it. Are you now applauding the junta douche-bags in "Myanmar"?

[M.Dancer]

Socialsm? On one hand you have the Soviet Ubion, on the other, NAZI Germany....

go ahead, make your case...

[AngusThermopyle]

go ahead, make your case...

I don't think he has one.

Unless he's pleading the "my heart bleads for everyone" case. in that case it is inconsequential, have we all not cried about perceived injustices when we were young and stupid?

[Brain Candy]

Im not sure I understand how this is a case for socialism...

also

Socialsm? On one hand you have the Soviet Ubion, on the other, NAZI Germany....

Socialism as a transition to communism and NATIONAL Socialism as ethnocentrism are completely different animals and hardly two sides of the same coin. If you're talking just about the idea of the government having heavy control on the means of production and distribution of goods then where does that leave the many other possibilities for that idea?

Edited May 24, 2008 by Brain Candy

[charter.rights]

Socialsm? On one hand you have the Soviet Ubion, on the other, NAZI Germany....

go ahead, make your case...

Nazi Germany was facist - which stems from extreme conservatism. Socialism is the opposite end of the political spectrum.

[M.Dancer]

Nazi Germany was facist - which stems from extreme conservatism. Socialism is the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Try again. Fascism is socialist as well. socialism is the antithesis of individual freedom which allows varying degree of authoritarianism. It can be extremely mild watered down like in Canada, or soul killing communism of the USSR. It can also take the national socialist direction of the state.

No matter how yoiu slice it on one end of the socialist spectrum is Fascism, on the other communism.

[charter.rights]

Try again. Fascism is socialist as well. socialism is the antithesis of individual freedom which allows varying degree of authoritarianism. It can be extremely mild watered down like in Canada, or soul killing communism of the USSR. It can also take the national socialist direction of the state.

No matter how yoiu slice it on one end of the socialist spectrum is Fascism, on the other communism.

Go back to school. Fascism is no where near socialism.

[eyeball]

Fascism is socialist as well.

Capitalism is certainly socialist, just ask any Bear Sterns employee.

No matter how you slice it capitalism requires a collective act of social goodwill.

Edited May 25, 2008 by eyeball

[Brain Candy]

I think there is bad use and understanding of terms here.

[WIP]

Go back to school. Fascism is no where near socialism.

You're the one who needs to go to school if you're going to argue political terminology! Look up the origins of the German slang term "Nazi" and maybe you'll get the picture.

The identifying traits of fascism are the promotion of extreme nationalist and racist doctrines of superiority, governed by an autocratic state. The economic policies of fascist governments would fall in the category of socialist economics since they nationalized many industries, set up planned economies and opposed laissez-faire capitalism. They opposed the banking and finance industries, calling them "finance capitalism."

The only differences in economic policy between the fascists and the communists was that the fascists allowed private property and private business interests, although both were under severe restrictions, and had to be put in service of the state if and when it was needed.

If it wasn't for the fact that the fascist parties in Germany, Italy and Spain, were all racial and ethnic supremacists, it would have been virtually impossible to distinguish them from the communists, who claimed egalitarianism as one of their prized virtues.

[M.Dancer]

Go back to school. Fascism is no where near socialism.

They are on the same street, 2 doors down.

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. ... What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.

Adolf Hitler, spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930.

[HisSelf]

[HisSelf]

I don't think he has one.

Unless he's pleading the "my heart bleads for everyone" case. in that case it is inconsequential, have we all not cried about perceived injustices when we were young and stupid?

The point, and yes it was not well made, is that you have two governments - one right and the other way, way right, and both have failed at one of the most fundamental requirements of good government, particularly in a time of disaster - the welfare of its people.

[Pliny]

The point, and yes it was not well made, is that you have two governments - one right and the other way, way right, and both have failed at one of the most fundamental requirements of good government, particularly in a time of disaster - the welfare of its people.

On the contemporary political spectrum you are saying the totalitarian government is considered at the extreme right and the other government at the centre-right. I would say that on the contemporary political spectrum one was left-centre and the other was on the extreme left.

If I understand what you are saying, it is that socialism can only be found on the contemporary political spectrum to the left of centre. The US has medicare, medicaid, old age security, welfare, public education, public housing, all of which are socialist programs which places them obviously on the left, according to your interpretation. The totalitarian state exists on the extreme left and on the extreme right. What exists between centre and the extreme right? Well, it is increasing levels of state control. That is rather confusing because from the centre to the extreme left are increasing levels of state control. Both the right and the left grow the totalitarian state - it is called creeping socialism. But it is socialism's goal to attain the totalitarian state, some ideologies, such as communism, attain the state through revolutionary means some such as social democracy through evolutionary means.

A more understandable spectrum would go from no government to total government, anarchy on one side and totalitarian government on the other. Totalitarian governments on the extreme would include Communism, Fascism and Nazism with the State completely in control of the economy and totally engineering society. The differences between the types of totalitarian state is basically who is wielding the power. The ideological differences in practice, although interesting to debate, mean little to the man on the street except whose orders he follows.

The growth of the State, the concentration of power to a central authority, is what is occurring in the world. I don't think that is arguable. There is only the struggle over who should wield the power of the State. Once it has reached a certain level it is not a government of the people, for the people. It is a system that has become more important to the structure of society than society itself.

[HisSelf]

I see your point, and I think there is a terminological confusion. A government can be Leftist while being Totalitarian, which is iconically Rightist. I think we need a new vocabulary.

[M.Dancer]

I see your point, and I think there is a terminological confusion. A government can be Leftist while being Totalitarian, which is iconically Rightist. I think we need a new vocabulary.

A simple understanding of political science will suffice.

Socialism: Nation trumps individual, individual subservient to national good

Non Socialism: Individual rights trumps collectivism

[Pliny]

A simple understanding of political science will suffice.

Socialism: Nation trumps individual, individual subservient to national good

Non Socialism: Individual rights trumps collectivism

With my simple understanding of political science can I now claim title to political scientist?

[Pliny]

I see your point, and I think there is a terminological confusion. A government can be Leftist while being Totalitarian, which is iconically Rightist. I think we need a new vocabulary.

Terminological confusion is nowhere more convenient than in politics. The majority throw up their hands and ride the wind, it doesn't seem to matter to them too much which way it blows anyway.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Pliny

[M.Dancer]

With my simple understanding of political science can I now claim title to political scientist?

Political Science technician....

[Pliny]

Political Science technician....

[M.Dancer]

I was once at a party years ago where two fellows met for the first time. One fellow was going on about the environement and some bad thing or another. The other fellow asks him what his background or authority was on the subject. The first fellow says he is completing his BA in environmental studies ( and therefore knew what he was talking about). The second fellow asks what scientific research was there to back his opinion. The first fellow says something or other about an op-ed article and asks what the second fellows background was. The second fellow says he has phd in environemental sciences and is a practicing environmental engineer with some sort of large company....

oddly, the first fellow discounted the others degrees saying that if he was making money from it, he was a sell out etc etc.....

envrionmental science degree = sell out

environmental studies degree = expert

It was a fun party....sorry for the tangent

[Pliny]

I was once at a party years ago where two fellows met for the first time. One fellow was going on about the environement and some bad thing or another. The other fellow asks him what his background or authority was on the subject. The first fellow says he is completing his BA in environmental studies ( and therefore knew what he was talking about). The second fellow asks what scientific research was there to back his opinion. The first fellow says something or other about an op-ed article and asks what the second fellows background was. The second fellow says he has phd in environemental sciences and is a practicing environmental engineer with some sort of large company....

oddly, the first fellow discounted the others degrees saying that if he was making money from it, he was a sell out etc etc.....

envrionmental science degree = sell out

environmental studies degree = expert

It was a fun party....sorry for the tangent

What does the environmental studies expert expect to do with his degree?