Socialism is about money

[JerrySeinfeld]

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.

Also, the whole climate change thing is perfect disguise for socialism. Essentially, if you look behind the curtain of green thinking, it's just a bunch of granola do-nothings who want everyone to drive small cars or even ride their bikes and give up life's pleasures to live s simply, crap life....just like in Cuba.

Think about it. It's so obvious. If it looks like s duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

[Michael Hardner]

Your arguments are too simplistic for this board. You are like those individuals who always equate capitalism to greed.

Simple name calling is all it is, but thankfully these types of threads aren't the mainstay of MLW.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Charles Anthony
deleted quotation of re-copied entire Opening Post

[JerrySeinfeld]

Your arguments are too simplistic for this board. You are like those individuals who always equate capitalism to greed.

Simple name calling is all it is, but thankfully these types of threads aren't the mainstay of MLW.

I disagree.

Just because a concept is simple doesn't make it incorrect and in fact often makes it eloquent.

But you touched on a big parrt of my point: cotrary to what the common wisdom is, in fact it appears it is socialism, not capitalism, that is really about greed. Because it is those who espouse it that end up benefitting.

It's always about #1. But it's the spocialists who are insidious because they hide their greed under the guise of "good intentions", when really it's about taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who don't.

Simple? Sure. But so was E=MC2.

Doesn't mean it isn't completely and utterly true.

[Michael Hardner]

It does boil down to one person's opinion, though, and not much that can be discussed... therefore not so useful for a *discussion* board.

[tango]

But you touched on a big parrt of my point: cotrary to what the common wisdom is, in fact it appears it is socialism, not capitalism, that is really about greed. Because it is those who espouse it that end up benefitting.

And capitalists don't?

And can we call a halt to the dichotomization? categorizing and labelling people?

We are some of both, and the constant tension maintains the necessary balance.

[Sir Bandelot]

I figured it out.

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

Socialism can also involve transactions without money. But keep thinking,

If it looks like s duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

In your case it's probably a platypus.

[charter.rights]

First of all let's clarify some terms.

Capitalism is not corporatism, nor are they inherently the same.

Capitalists believe in the distribution of wealth with the understanding that wealth creates consumers, who in tern support the capitalist's business. Therefore to a capitalist, social programs - those which maintain worker and consumer health, and security - are beneficial.

Corporatists on the other hand believe in greed and hoarding. They build wealth to the exclusions of others. The less they have to share the more they can keep for themselves. Plus they exploit people and resources for their own profits. They could care less about the consumers or their employees. If someone gets sick they replace them with the lowest price they can to get someone else to fill the position. Conservatives tend to be corporatists, trying to get a piece of the wealth to the exclusion of all others.

Socialists believe in the distribution of wealth to the exclusion of class systems. They prefer to take from the rich and distribute it to the poor. They desire level playing fields without having to put in the extra work to obtain it. They believe in taking care of not only the individual, but also the environment and the resources for the benefit of all.

Perhaps the discussion can be directed in this way.

[August1991]

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.

IOW, in your mind, socialism is about envy.

IMV, there is some truth to this. I once had a long conversation with a Russian about the nature of Russian society and it ultimately came down to him explaining that Russians are envious. A Russian would prefer to have no hut rather than keep his hut but see his neighbour in a large house. And I must admit that envy is a common impulse or driving force, particularly outside North America.

In England, kids will throw stones at a big car. In America, the kids will wonder how the guy got the big car.

-----

After long reflection, I have come to the unoriginal conclusion that socialism is about control. Socialists want to control people.

Socialists believe in the distribution of wealth to the exclusion of class systems. They prefer to take from the rich and distribute it to the poor. They desire level playing fields without having to put in the extra work to obtain it. They believe in taking care of not only the individual, but also the environment and the resources for the benefit of all.

That's utopic, and your method to achieve this utopia is through controlling people.

Socialism can also involve transactions without money. But keep thinking,

Uh, socialism is about barter? Who would want to return to the neanderthal world without money? Edited August 11, 2009 by August1991

[tango]

QUOTE (JerrySeinfeld @ Aug 9 2009, 07:19 PM) *

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.

IOW, in your mind, socialism is about envy.

After long reflection, I have come to the unoriginal conclusion that socialism is about control. Socialists want to control people.

So August and Jerry ... interested in giving up your socialist health card and your socialist CPP are you?

Socialism is about curbing greed. It's good for you.

[Bonam]

interested in giving up your socialist health card and your socialist CPP are you?

Absolutely. Of course, I'd also expect not to pay the tax/contributions associated with those programs.

[OddSox]

Socialism is about curbing greed. It's good for you.

Curbing greed? Socialists are the most generous people I know - with other people's money!

[capricorn]

Socialism is about curbing greed. It's good for you.

As soon as I read this, one thing came to mind....castor oil.

In Fascist Italy under the regime of Benito Mussolini, castor oil was one of the tools of the blackshirts.[41][42][43] Political dissidents were force-fed large quantities of castor oil by Fascist paramilitary groups. This technique was said to have been originated by Gabriele D'Annunzio. Victims of this treatment rarely died, though often had to bear the humiliation of the laxative effects resulting from excessive consumption of the oil.[44]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_oil#Us...n_Fascist_Italy

Castor oil, it's good for you.

Edited August 11, 2009 by capricorn

[tango]

Absolutely. Of course, I'd also expect not to pay the tax/contributions associated with those programs.

move south.

[g_bambino]

So August and Jerry ... interested in giving up your socialist health card and your socialist CPP are you?

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. On the other hand, there is a truth to the oft paraphrased words of Winston Churchill: communism works; until it runs out of other people's money. It would seem, then, that socialism is acceptable, even necessary for a civilised society. But, it can go too far and end up creating a bloated, unsustainable state. In a happy balance seems, as usual, the best place to be.

_[copyed.]

Edited August 11, 2009 by g_bambino

[tango]

Curbing greed? Socialists are the most generous people I know - with other people's money!

Corporatists are the greediest people I know ... with other people's money.

Corporate welfare for the rich sucks more public money than health care, welfare, disability, CPP, EI and all other 'social' programs combined.

And still they complain.

[Bonam]

move south.

I will.

[tango]

I will.

Bon voyage!

[Pliny]

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. On the other hand, there is a truth to the oft paraphrased words of Winston Churchill: communism works; until it runs out of other people's money. It would seem, then, that socialism is acceptable, even necessary for a civilised society. But, it can go too far and end up creating a bloated, unsustainable state. In a happy balance seems, as usual, the best place to be.

_[copyed.]

It is hard to keep a balance under democratic socialism unless people understand what socialism is.

It is a progression, an evolutionary process, toward the state. When one group gets favour from government, another group demands equality, when they get their privilege, another group demands something for themselves....once gained those privileges are not easily given up and government is reluctant to curb it's powers or mandate. Once it funds something it controls it which becomes more and more evident with time and the development of regulation. Pretty soon the economy is choked by taxation and change is demanded in whatever form the citizens deem necessary.

The only way to curb this progression is to outline exactly the mandate of the government which is not to be overridden. The US Constitution is perhaps the single document that attempts to curb the powers of the State while keeping power in the hands of the citizenry. The Magna Carta did but did not empower the people. It was designed more to protect them from monarchical abuses and recognize human rights.

Societies themselves are not socialist in that there is no organism directing or engineering it of course government is the organism that evolves to do so. Society is a collection of socialistically structured organisms, businesses, families, groups, etc. and I think government evolves out of the danger of overwhelm by these groups to the individual. So it is to the individual that government owes it's service of protection but shouldn't be expected to provide for him any right that must be coerced from society. Society must provide for him. Choosing government to be that provider is the initiation of socialism, that is - the progressive growth of the State.

[eyeball]

The state grows just as well under any ism. Lefties want the state to impose equality, righties want the state to impose morality. As both sides try their mightiest to bend the state to their way of thinking it seems we all end up with the same thing, mutual assured dictatorship.

Obviously we're missing something and I've long come to believe its another polarity that is far more important. The government and society. In this context it seems approriate to think of these two things as being distinct from one another.

[Oleg Bach]

Socialist - communists etc..by their very nature - Just don't have any money! So along comes a very clever high ranking capitalist who sees opportunity - and funds such movements - socialism...is the great friend of capitialism...those at the high end of the food chain just LOVE socialism - it makes all equally poor - except for the select few who look at the rise of socialism as the expansion of a cheap labour force - that enhances their wealth and power...You can not have a revolution unless the rich guy sells you the guns...

[Pliny]

The state grows just as well under any ism. Lefties want the state to impose equality, righties want the state to impose morality. As both sides try their mightiest to bend the state to their way of thinking it seems we all end up with the same thing, mutual assured dictatorship.

Obviously we're missing something and I've long come to believe its another polarity that is far more important. The government and society. In this context it seems approriate to think of these two things as being distinct from one another.

Entirely why the political spectrum should go from no government to total government. Not total government on both sides and who knows what squeezed in the centre - if you can find the centre.

Of course government and society are distinct from one another. Government is an organization. Society is the conglomeration of organizations. Government is the organization in society that is granted authority by the people to use force. The rest are supposed to respect the sanctity of person and property and not doing so is defined as criminal and it is the charge of government to remove those elements from society not provide a living for everyone - providing a living for every one is what society is all about.

[Pliny]

move south. []

I will.

This is what is called the brain drain.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Pliny

[eyeball]

Government is the organization in society that is granted authority by the people to use force.

In our imaginations maybe. I think its more accurate to say the government forces people to accept the rights and freedoms its chosen to grant. Its authority to do so is only slighty influenced by real human beings. I think corporations have far more influence.

[Wild Bill]

It is a progression, an evolutionary process, toward the state. When one group gets favour from government, another group demands equality, when they get their privilege, another group demands something for themselves....once gained those privileges are not easily given up and government is reluctant to curb it's powers or mandate. Once it funds something it controls it which becomes more and more evident with time and the development of regulation. Pretty soon the economy is choked by taxation and change is demanded in whatever form the citizens deem necessary.

Societies themselves are not socialist in that there is no organism directing or engineering it of course government is the organism that evolves to do so. Society is a collection of socialistically structured organisms, businesses, families, groups, etc. and I think government evolves out of the danger of overwhelm by these groups to the individual. So it is to the individual that government owes it's service of protection but shouldn't be expected to provide for him any right that must be coerced from society. Society must provide for him. Choosing government to be that provider is the initiation of socialism, that is - the progressive growth of the State.

Or more simply, Ten Years After sang it succinctly about 40 years ago:

"Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more!"

[Pliny]

In our imaginations maybe. I think its more accurate to say the government forces people to accept the rights and freedoms its chosen to grant. Its authority to do so is only slighty influenced by real human beings. I think corporations have far more influence.

In our imaginations? Of course it always more accurate to say something else, anything else.

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."

How do corporations gain influence, how do they retain it and why do they remain in business WHEN THEY'RE SERVING CONSUMER INTERESTS? What is wrong with consumers that they continue to support self-serving corporations?

Here's the story, Eyeball (put your glasses on for this).

They get privilege from government in the form of contracts, or monopolistic rights, competition dies and the consumer is left with little or no choice.