Socialism is about money

[Bonam]

This is what is called the brain drain.

Pretty much. There are many more exciting job prospects in my field down in the US than there are in Canada.

[Remiel]

Government doesn't grant rights and freedoms until it is already heavily into engineering society. The State has already reached a high degree of socialism by the time it is "forcing people to accept the rights and freedoms its chosen to grant."

Pliny, society is engineered. There is no mystical natural condition that serves as the perfect justification for even the basic " life & property " sort of affair that I am guessing you are espousing. The closest thing to a " natural condition " is " do whatever the hell you can get away with " . By your definition then, there is no system but socialism; and that robs it of any meaning whatsoever.

[bush_cheney2004]

Pretty much. There are many more exciting job prospects in my field down in the US than there are in Canada.

That's right...plenty of Canadians working on our IT development and infrastructure teams.

[August1991]

The state grows just as well under any ism. Lefties want the state to impose equality, righties want the state to impose morality.

Where do you get this idea that people on the right want to impose morality?

I consider myself to be on the right and I have no desire to impose my ethical values (morality) on anyone, and I certainly do not want to use the State to impose solely my personal preferences.

OTOH, I would prefer to live in a society in which individuals face the consequences of their choices.

Edited August 20, 2009 by August1991

[Bonam]

Where do you get this idea that people on the right want to impose morality?

I consider myself to be on the right and I have no desire to impose my ethical values (morality) on anyone, and I certainly do not want to use the State to impose solely my personal preferences.

OTOH, I would prefer to live in a society in which individuals face the consequences of their choices.

Your views then would be more "libertarian", which is unfortunately quite different from what today's right wing parties generally espouse. Neither the republicans in the US nor the conservatives here have "personal responsibility" as part of their election platform. The republicans, on the other hand, do certainly preach notions of religion-based morality quite extensively these days. Oh for the lost days of a secular republican party.

[Pliny]

Pliny, society is engineered.

Undeniably. I just don't think a central authority where a single man or board of directors should rape the economy to do so.

There is no mystical natural condition that serves as the perfect justification for even the basic " life & property " sort of affair that I am guessing you are espousing. The closest thing to a " natural condition " is " do whatever the hell you can get away with " . By your definition then, there is no system but socialism; and that robs it of any meaning whatsoever.

Do whatever the hell you can get away with? What kind of an attitude is that? How about, Do whatever you can to contribute to the welfare of others? You know as well as I do that your statement could only be applied to the criminal mind. Someone void of respect for himself and/or a deep-seated dislike of others.

What I am saying is that government by taking more responsibility leaves less responsibility to society and individuals for their own lives and that is the source of the breakdown of the responsibility to others and the self-serving attitude you suggest is a "natural condition". It is not.

People will sacrifice their lives for their children. They will do whatever necessary for those they love. They are charitable and compassionate. If they understand anything they know that there is no purpose in living alone, an island unto one's self. And that his fellow man is the only reason for living.

I am not saying there are no men like you describe, there are. They are like moths to a light and are attracted to power to live off it. A centralized government is the brightest light and will attract, along with a few good men perhaps, the most moths. Power must lie with each individual in society and reason must prevail. Balance between government and society is a balance between force and reason. The role of government is to supply the force and it must be contained as any fire is contained or it will rage out of control consuming all in it's path.

All I try to do is explain that government should always be understood to be the servant and not the master. Fueling it from the economy and increasing it's mandate and responsibility while abrogating individual and personal responsibility and demanding more and more entitlement from it leaves society in the State you describe - do whatever you can get away with.

[Pliny]

Pretty much. There are many more exciting job prospects in my field down in the US than there are in Canada.

Go ahead. Leave us with our mediocrity then. Sniff! Sniff!

[Oleg Bach]

Go ahead. Leave us with our mediocrity then. Sniff! Sniff!

Bail outs, is socialism..big time - our so called high class astro rollers have their buisness collapse due to lack of diligence and greed..and then the average person sends them trillions of dollars to float this supposed superiour class - THEN in the form of banking - they are going to lend us back our own money at a very high interest...is it me or is there something illogical and crimminal about this picture? Socialism is not just some poor down trodden person taking a welfare payment that amounts to just enough rope to hang them and not save them from the swirling waters of establishment fraud..

.Socialism is about convincing the mass that they are inferiour and that one tenth of one percent of the supposed elite are superiour...that declaration of superiority is enough and the use of fiat currencey to run the fraud is just fine.. We have always lived in the grandest socialistic society - our slaves have the finest slave quarters on the planet - we live in a feudal system. I truel believe that the Nazis did not lose the war - their agenda was met almost internatinally...and Nazis now run North America - but of course ...we are free - yes - we are free..but only if you stay within the confnes of the feudal estate and don't piss off the master..If you do you will be cruxified on a heating grate - setting an example of what will be if you are "non-compliant".

[eyeball]

Your views then would be more "libertarian", which is unfortunately quite different from what today's right wing parties generally espouse. Neither the republicans in the US nor the conservatives here have "personal responsibility" as part of their election platform. The republicans, on the other hand, do certainly preach notions of religion-based morality quite extensively these days. Oh for the lost days of a secular republican party.

What's really unfortunate is that "libertarians" like August usually throw their weight behind conservatives when the election push comes to the voter's shove.

Its like I said we live in a world of mutual assured dictatorship.

Edited August 20, 2009 by eyeball

[Leafless]

All societies are socialist in some form or another; hence, it always amazes me how the libertarians rant about taxes and social spending (on the CBC or health care) yet never make a peep about public schools, public libraries, roads, courts, parliament, and the like, which are all paid for by the citizenry.

Nonsense!

In a democratic capitalistic society all money is sourced from buisness and one way or the other paid to the government and the citizens of that country.

[Moonlight Graham]

I figured it out.

Socialists are the most money-centered people on the planet.

Theier entire existence is based around the principal that someone else has more than they do. They are jealous and elect governments who will steal from others and give to them so that they too can have something. But mostly, it's about bringing down the successful.

Essentially, a socialist would rather see everyone poor, because it wrenches their gut to see people actually work hard and get ahead of them.

You speak as if all socialists are the poor and they all benefit from the redistribution of wealth. That's incorrect.

What about when rich countries like ours gives money & aid to poor third world countries to help them develop? Are we "jealous" of the poor countries? Do they have more than we do?

Socialism is about trying to fix income inequality between the rich and the poor.

[OddSox]

You speak as if all socialists are the poor and they all benefit from the redistribution of wealth. That's incorrect.

What about when rich countries like ours gives money & aid to poor third world countries to help them develop? Are we "jealous" of the poor countries? Do they have more than we do?

Socialism is about trying to fix income inequality between the rich and the poor.

I'm not sure you get it. Giving money and aid to those who need it is not a problem. Having someone else (who usually isn't the entity actually putting up the cash) determine how much has to be given, who has to give it, and who gets it - that's the problem.

In fact, 'non-socialists' have been shown to be more generous to those who need it - http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

There are ways to fix 'income inequality' without resorting to social engineering by government.

[Pliny]

You speak as if all socialists are the poor and they all benefit from the redistribution of wealth. That's incorrect.

What about when rich countries like ours gives money & aid to poor third world countries to help them develop? Are we "jealous" of the poor countries? Do they have more than we do?

Socialism is about trying to fix income inequality between the rich and the poor.

Actually, socialism is about meddling busybodies who believe they know best about determining who doesn't need their property and who should have it, after they take an administrative fee, of course.

Basically, I have just said what Oddsox has said is the problem with socialism in governing society.

Socialism, in it's concept, is the ideal way to run a single organization which is always run from the helm by a central authority, be that central authority a Board of Directors or an individual. It is not a good idea that one organization runs all other organizations - which is state socialism. The State has no means of judging the objectives of other organizations and to regulate them for the purposes and objectives of the State or sectors of society is to invite their failure.

Before some here start condemning the existence of organizations with their own purposes and objectives let's establish that they exist because society found them essential to it's welfare and was willing to contribute to the organization's welfare in exchange. No one, or no agency (which basically boils down to some individual), determined that it should be good for the welfare of society, the people did by supporting it. Wrong or right, the people made the choice and not some regulating body. Ultimately, the citizenry's future depends upon them being right more often than wrong in such case. Placing their fate in the hands of the socialist state is allowing a few individuals to engineer society as they feel it should be. It is a powerful position to be granted anyone and invites corruption, not only from those holding the power but also from those seeking to gain it.

[myata]

What is money, though, other than an epitome, synonim of shortage and limitation. What if there's enough food for everybody, enough clothing and cars can be made to suit all (OK, other than most outrageous) demands? What would then be the purpose of capitalism, government and such things in that society?

Can we imagine a possibility when one's live (OK, average individual's life) wouldn't have to be reduced to counting beans?

[Pliny]

What is money, though, other than an epitome, synonim of shortage and limitation. What if there's enough food for everybody, enough clothing and cars can be made to suit all (OK, other than most outrageous) demands? What would then be the purpose of capitalism, government and such things in that society?

Can we imagine a possibility when one's live (OK, average individual's life) wouldn't have to be reduced to counting beans?

Primarily, money is a facilitator of trade. How you have contrived it to be a "synonym of shortage and limitation" places it on a higher plain of importance than it deserves to be. Your post provides an excellent example of the premise of the thread - that being, "socialism is all about money".

Assuming you are an average individual, has your life been reduced to bean counting? Is "money" what your attention is on?

Perhaps the thread could be amended to - "socialism is all about other people's money".

[Oleg Bach]

What Marx or Mao have done without funding? NOTHING....socialism has always been funded by strange capitalists who just love to generate slaves through the destruction of the family - the male... the female..etc...It's a power trip...There are very clever men who lust to rule the world and it's not about money - It's about power and the abuse of it.

[Pliny]

What Marx or Mao have done without funding? NOTHING....socialism has always been funded by strange capitalists who just love to generate slaves through the destruction of the family - the male... the female..etc...It's a power trip...There are very clever men who lust to rule the world and it's not about money - It's about power and the abuse of it.

It used to be about money when money was something other than a paper fiat currency but I have to agree it is about power, not so much the consolidation of power today but the maintaining of the hierarchical structure.

Capitalists indeed like to "help" the masses with government programs and aid which explains why so many of the rich feel socialism does play an important role. I am not of the opinion that they intend to generate slaves and destroy the family. It just makes them feel better.

Now, those that have real power enlist the State to impose socialism upon the masses because it tends to prevent any concentration of wealth and power in those that are not the privileged elite and reduces the threat of destabilization in that balance of power.

Is it a conspiracy? No. There is no conspiracy. There is only a plan for the world and it is available to view on any socialist lib-left website or blog. Environmentalist's are excellent sources to view the global plan and predict the future actions of government. The UN has a whole list of organizations and bodies that are developing policy and programs for us.

An interesting thought occurred here in that needy "individuals" are always presented as a demonstration of the necessity for socialism. However, socialism is not about individuals but about the "collective good". Individuals find out later about the inadequacies of socialist programs.

[myata]

Primarily, money is a facilitator of trade.

Trade itself is of course the prime epitome of shortage and limitation, that came even before money. I write a cool song / record video / cool software app and post it on my site. Everybody in the world can get it, instantly and for free. Why and how would money, trade, government, police etc need to be involved?

Somebody who really likes it, runs an automated farm, and have automated delivery system get the produce to anybody who subscribes over Web interface. Where's money, trade and shortage in that?

Understand, we're still so deep down, at the bottom, counting crumbles and beans.

Assuming you are an average individual, has your life been reduced to bean counting? Is "money" what your attention is on?

To a very large extent. And no, I'm not complaining, it's just the order of things, as a pig cannot fly.

Only pointing out other possibilities.

Perhaps the thread could be amended to - "socialism is all about other people's money".

Can't care less about terms and definitions. They're all worth one another.

[Oleg Bach]

Socialism should be defined as what you earn you get to keep and use for yourself...and be charitible though your own free will without state interference. Capitalism should be defined as - what you steal you get to keep...and get also to form governments that force the common guy to pay off the bill for the theft.

[Pliny]

Can't care less about terms and definitions. They're all worth one another.

Anyone that couldn't care less about terms and definitions shouldn't bother saying anything then. I know they aren't worth talking to because they have no idea what they are saying. Bye.

[myata]

Pliny:

Very thoughtful (though still doesn't answer any of the questions.. even with second hand stamp formulas). Bye also & happy phylosophising.

Edited October 7, 2009 by myata

[Pliny]

Pliny:

Very thoughtful (though still doesn't answer any of the questions.. even with second hand stamp formulas). Bye also & happy phylosophising.

What does that mean? What are all those little squiggles? How come you put them in that order?

When you are talking are you just making sounds with your mouth or is there some reason you choose to make those particular sounds?

[myata]

They are called "letters", in what is known as "English alphabet". Enjoy! And further advances in the studies of Phylosophy!

[Pliny]

They are called "letters", in what is known as "English alphabet". Enjoy! And further advances in the studies of Phylosophy!

"Letters" "English alphabet" "Phylosophy" What does it all mean?