dre Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) Economically, they differ. Politically the State is supreme. Agreed, but there are a few missing points. It is an international revolutionary movement seizing the means of production to establish the classless society. It is, according to theorists such as Bakunin, supposed to evolve into a stateless society. It never has and never will. Someone, it seems, must always ensure it will remain classless which defeats the definition of classless and makes it an impossible state to achieve. It is usually the State that becomes God. Correct. The aggrandizement of the State is the prime objective, however. Here you are pointing only to the economic diffrences. Politically, if you quoted from the NSDAP Manifesto you would see quite a few similarities to socialism. I do not claim the economic structure to be similar I have stated that the concepts could perhaps be made to work on a small scale with like minded people with a strong common bond., such as the communes of the Amish, the Hutterites and Mennonites or Jewish kibbutzes. On a large scale they fail because of the diversity of a population and the different priorities mores principles, customs, food etc. What isn't to dislike about proven failures of political oppresion. And you still haven't been able to explain why Sweden is deemed socialist when, by your definition, it fits all criteria you mention above to being the "fascist" state of Sweden!!!! And you still haven't been able to explain why Sweden is deemed socialist when, by your definition, it fits all criteria you mention above to being the "fascist" state of Sweden!!!! Why should I have to answer that? I never deemed sweden a socialist country. Its not my mistake, so why should I have to explain it. This is the same thing you tried to do to me when you mentioned that leftists accused George Bush of being a fascist. You tried to get me to defend this assertion... I wont do it! Its not mine, nor is it even remotely associated with me. Sweden is not a socialist country its a social democracy. When I tried to explain this to you before you tried to claim that one was a degree of the other but thats objectively and patently false. Those are two completely different words with very distict meanings. Ill explain the difference one last time, but NEVER AGAIN Pliny. The goal in a socialist country is the common ownership of the means of production. The goal in a social democracy like Sweden has been since 1935 is to harness a private capitalist economy as the engine to power a social welfare system. This is really no different than what any other western country does except that the Scandinavian model just does a slightly better job of it. They have managed to provide more social welfare, while still maintaining a very business friendly environment. Edited January 31, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Pliny Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Posted January 31, 2011 Why should I have to answer that? I never deemed sweden a socialist country. Its not my mistake, so why should I have to explain it. This is the same thing you tried to do to me when you mentioned that leftists accused George Bush of being a fascist. You tried to get me to defend this assertion... I wont do it! Its not mine, nor is it even remotely associated with me. So, Sweden is not a socialist country its a social democracy. The squirmy socialist today tries to confuse the and put another mask on socialism by calling it socializing or making things social. So let's tell the world that Sweden is not a socialist country. It does fits your fascist defintion so well. When I tried to explain this to you before you tried to claim that one was a degree of the other but thats objectively and patently false. Those are two completely different words with very distict meanings. Ill explain the difference one last time, but NEVER AGAIN Pliny. The goal in a socialist country is the common ownership of the means of production. The goal in a social democracy like Sweden has been since 1935 is to harness a private capitalist economy as the engine to power a social welfare system. This is really no different than what any other western country does except that the Scandinavian model just does a slightly better job of it. They have managed to provide more social welfare, while still maintaining a very business friendly environment. You needn't have bothered this time. It is the old school, keep them in a state of confusion, when Sweden has been called socialist all along, by mistake apparently, and you can't seem to explain how it fits so well in your definition of fascism. "Harness a private capitalist economy" LOL - more slick, slimy doublespeak. What else does a socialist country do but that. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
GWiz Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 Since when is George Bush the Prime Minister of Canada. Hell, PM Chretien didn't even allow for a vote or debate (Kosovo or Afghanistan). What kind of Micky Mouse circus are you guys running in Ottawa anyway? At least the U.S.ians got to vote in Congress. Read the NATO Charter....DUH! OK...you can watch them too, just like all the other U.S. media you have been gulping down since you were in diapers. 1. I told you I won't answer your posts unless you have my whole post you moron... BUT! I'll make an exception this one time because it's become obvious that you are "mentally challenged" and I feel sorry for people with mental disabilities, even Americans calling themselves "Bush-Cheney", which is an obvious sign of mental problems itself... You wrote: Nope...Harper was not PM when Canada cheaped out on defense spending, sending your troops to certain death in Iltis jeeps for convoy transport instead of keeping the CH-47's that were sold to another nation, only to desperately want them back. But at least you got more "free" health care, eh? I answered: Lies, lies, lies... Under Bush that was the way it was... "NATO infighting aided the insurgency, specifically in 2005 and 2006, as a host of member countries felt blindsided, alleging that the U.S. sold a role confined to reconstruction and peace-keeping. They did not expect to take over counter-insurgency operations of large swaths of territory. Many of these nations – chief among them the French - were also appalled when they realized the U.S. was simply using NATO troops to fill the gap left by shifting troops to Iraq – a war most of the NATO countries strongly opposed. Alliance members were especially upset upon learning the insurgency had been growing in spring 2006 after being told by U.S. officials that an intensification of such a nature was highly unlikely. American military leaders understood full well the resilient militants had been turning the tide and that the Taliban would see ISAF's expansion and U.S. contraction as an opportune moment to rekindle the war - yet, despite this knowledge, Eikenberry characterized the insurgency as “weakening” during a press conference on December 8, 2005. http://www.examiner.com/afghanistan-headlines-in-national/nato-is-a-decompsing-corpse-afghanistan#ixzz1CY8KCNdt You can however "blame Canada" for listening to Bush... Our Government should have known better that to listen to anything the Bush administration said... God bless our Canadian Troops... You answered: Since when is George Bush the Prime Minister of Canada. Hell, PM Chretien didn't even allow for a vote or debate (Kosovo or Afghanistan). What kind of Micky Mouse circus are you guys running in Ottawa anyway? At least the U.S.ians got to vote in Congress. Read the NATO Charter....DUH! Full concensus from Parliament after a long debate and approval for the AFGHAN PEACEKEEPING MISSION backed by a majority of the Canadian public (because of 9/11 and the BS we were fed by Bush) ain't having "no debate" or vote last time I checked... It happens that way it is in a Democracy... But YOU wouldn't know that being that you have a Republic and NOT a Democracy... BTW, same thing happened when it was decided NOT to join the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq, that's Democracy too... If we in NATO had refused to do the mission or pulled out when we found out what would you have done? I've read the NATO charter (want the link?) and NOTHING in it forces any member nation into a war based on lies... Bottom line: NATO, in particular Great Britain and Canada, saved your sorry US BUTTS (unfortunately Bush's too) in Afghanistan... AGAIN! Just as Canada saved US BUTTS on 9/11... You wrote: The US did not "go down" when Canada was on its fiscal ass back in the 90's. The US economy doesn't owe you a goddamn thing. I answered: You OWE quite a bit to Canada actually... Read it and weep... Moody’s Downgrades U.S. Debt Rating; Canada Offers Bailout Loan With the U.S. government devastated by this news, and financial collapse looming, America is now scrambling to see if it can restructure its debt. Canada, the U.S.’s neighbor to the north, has offered a bailout loan. The loan, in the amount of $500 billion, will be used to help the U.S. meet its obligations to China, since that is the approximate amount of U.S. assets that Chinese officials plan to liquidate. China has around $1 trillion in U.S. bonds, and plans to cash in about half of that in order to fund its plans for asset diversification. http://financialhighway.com/moodys-downgrades-u-s-debt-rating-canada-offers-bailout-loan/ Seems I hit a nerve since you failed to give a response... very ! You wrote: Okay...wouldn't want to speed that up...I prefer a long, agonizing decline into a lower but quite acceptable standard of living, like most of the world lives today. I answered: Ain't gonna be slow, but it will be agonizing... You may want to watch some movies about the Dirty 30s in anticipation of your future "standard of living", or you could just move to India to experience it now... You replied: OK...you can watch them too, just like all the other U.S. media you have been gulping down since you were in diapers. No U.S, media in Germany where I was when I was in diapers... What I'll be watching is is YOU, we're fine, China isn't gonna call in our debt, just yours... You're sooo wrong all the time, have your (have one?) doctor check into that... You do have HEALTH CARE, don't you? I hope it's nothing serious, I'd like you to stick around and suffer... Try to learn... Next time you'll just get the 1. --- Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
dre Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 The squirmy socialist today tries to confuse the and put another mask on socialism by calling it socializing or making things social. So let's tell the world that Sweden is not a socialist country. It does fits your fascist defintion so well. You needn't have bothered this time. It is the old school, keep them in a state of confusion, when Sweden has been called socialist all along, by mistake apparently, and you can't seem to explain how it fits so well in your definition of fascism. "Harness a private capitalist economy" LOL - more slick, slimy doublespeak. What else does a socialist country do but that. So let's tell the world that Sweden is not a socialist country. It does fits your fascist defintion so well. I didnt define fascism in this thread. I defined communism and pointed out that fascism is diametrically in opposition to every single defining characteristic of communism. Sweden isnt facist or socialist. It is the old school, keep them in a state of confusion, when Sweden has been called socialist all along Not by me! Anybody that referred to Sweden as a socialist country doesnt understand what theyre talking about. Why do you keep expecting me to defend this assertion when you know I didnt make it. "Harness a private capitalist economy" LOL - more slick, slimy doublespeak. What else does a socialist country do but that. A socialist country doesnt try to harness a private capitalist economy AT ALL. There IS no private and capitalist economy in a socialist country. PERIOD. If theres a private capitalist economy then it ISNT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) 1. I told you I won't answer your posts unless you have my whole post you moron... You're too old and slow to notice anyway. What takes you so long? I'll make an exception this one time because it's become obvious that you are "mentally challenged" and I feel sorry for people with mental disabilities, even Americans calling themselves "Bush-Cheney", which is an obvious sign of mental problems itself... It is very effective even out of the orignal 2004 USian campaign context....this is the fourth Canuck board to be so honored (the others have all failed, including the CBC Forum, eh jbg?) Full concensus from Parliament after a long debate and approval for the AFGHAN PEACEKEEPING MISSION backed by a majority of the Canadian public (because of 9/11 and the BS we were fed by Bush) ain't having "no debate" or vote last time I checked... It happens that way it is in a Democracy... But YOU wouldn't know that being that you have a Republic and NOT a Democracy... BTW, same thing happened when it was decided NOT to join the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq, that's Democracy too... You conspicuously left out Operation Allied Force (Kosovo - 1999)....sorry, you lose. If we in NATO had refused to do the mission or pulled out when we found out what would you have done? The same thing we did in Iraq....it's not like Canada was the bulk of the order of battle. Hell, Canada had to hitch rides from the Americans because it lacked heavy airlift and the Ukraine Antonov rental counter had long lines. I've read the NATO charter (want the link?) and NOTHING in it forces any member nation into a war based on lies... Nothing forces them at all, so what's your excuse for being there? Chretien wanted to save face for the run up to the war in Iraq, and shot off his mouth about the "moral war". Next time be careful what you wish for. Bottom line: NATO, in particular Great Britain and Canada, saved your sorry US BUTTS (unfortunately Bush's too) in Afghanistan... AGAIN! Just as Canada saved US BUTTS on 9/11... Gee...about 800,000 dead Rwandans wish you were so brave back in 1993-1994. General Dallaire is still whining about that, eh? So instead of having the 50 APC's and a means to get them to Rwanda, you got "free" health care instead. Marvelous. Edited January 31, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Jack Weber Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 we do not acknowledge your sham political system.... We do not acknowledge your sham state of mental lucidity... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Pliny Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) I didnt define fascism in this thread. I defined communism and pointed out that fascism is diametrically in opposition to every single defining characteristic of communism. Sweden isnt facist or socialist. This is what you said defined it. Facism on the other hand is statist, it isnt classless, theres no common ownership of the means of production, theres wage labor, theres private property, and no free access to articles of consumption. Not by me! Anybody that referred to Sweden as a socialist country doesnt understand what theyre talking about. Why do you keep expecting me to defend this assertion when you know I didnt make it. Must admit it's a new angle. Sweden is a socialist state. It has been called a socialist state since the thirties because the State has implemented the Marxist socialist concept of wealth redistribution, "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need". A socialist country doesnt try to harness a private capitalist economy AT ALL. There IS no private and capitalist economy in a socialist country. PERIOD. You are thinking that a socialist state must have implemented totalitarianism before it can be called socialist. It only has to implement socialist ideas to start on the road to totalitarianism. Socialism is a progression of State intervention that ends in the total State. Communism is a form of socialism that achieves the total state through revolution. Communists are just socialists in a hurry. The State in Sweden and any socialist country has rights to the ownership of property first, which makes Canada socialistic and even the US. They have yet to achieve the objective of the total State. If there's a private capitalist economy then it ISNT A SOCIALIST COUNTRY. That makes China and Cuba no longer socialist countries. I know they never were socialist they were communist. Big difference there. You will tell me that the communists weren't socialists. What are you saying, that North Korea is the only socialist country in the world? The people who try to make social democracies seem void of socialist concepts or claim them instead to be "social" or "socialized" are really just the same old tired face perpetually redefining things to make themselves sound innocuous. It is the same warn out grab for power by the State. Honestly, how long are we going to be suckered by that. Edited January 31, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
dre Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 Must admit it's a new angle. Sweden is a socialist state. It has been called a socialist state since the thirties because the State has implemented the Marxist socialist concept of wealth redistribution, "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need". You are thinking that a socialist state must have implemented totalitarianism before it can be called socialist. It only has to implement socialist ideas to start on the road to totalitarianism. Socialism is a progression of State intervention that ends in the total State. Communism is a form of socialism that achieves the total state through revolution. Communists are just socialists in a hurry. The State in Sweden and any socialist country has rights to the ownership of property first, which makes Canada socialistic and even the US. They have yet to achieve the objective of the total State. That makes China and Cuba no longer socialist countries. I know they never were socialist they were communist. Big difference there. You will tell me that the communists weren't socialists. What are you saying, that North Korea is the only socialist country in the world? The people who try to make social democracies seem void of socialist concepts or claim them instead to be "social" or "socialized" are really just the same old tired face perpetually redefining things to make themselves sound innocuous. It is the same warn out grab for power by the State. Honestly, how long are we going to be suckered by that. It has been called a socialist state since the thirties Not by anyone that knows what socialism is. Sweden is a socialist state. Nope sorry. Sweden is a market economy. The people who try to make social democracies seem void of socialist concepts or claim them instead to be "social" or "socialized" are really just the same old tired face perpetually redefining things to make themselves sound innocuous. It is the same warn out grab for power by the State. Honestly, how long are we going to be suckered by that. Nope you couldnt be more wrong. The people behind modern social democracies are not socialists AT ALL. They are capitalists that felt society would more stable, and therefore provide a better framework for market economies if you didnt have a large, desperate, and politically active underclass. These programs are actually a FIREWALL against pure socialism. They are not steps toward it, they are steps taken to prevent it, and to strengthen capitalism. And its worked! Modern social democracies are not only relatively stable, they have also grown into the biggest market economies in the history of the human race. What are you saying, that North Korea is the only socialist country in the world? Theres very few socialist countries in the world today... The only ones that really fit are Vietnaam and Laos. China used to fall into that category but the government has started to experiment with things like selling land to developers, etc. Cuba is a maybe... Bolivia is any maybe... Cuba... Calling North Korea Korea socialist is a pretty big stretch. The root of socialism is that the community/workers own and control the means of production but in NK the workers own and control nothing. Some people call that "Stalinism", which is different from socialism in that its a counter- revolutionary ideology that uses vague Marxist themes to achieve and hold onto power. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
GostHacked Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 Posting links without comment is a violation of forum rules. I don't think you should be one complaining about violations of other posters. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 I don't think you should be one complaining about violations of other posters. Why not? Are you without sin as well? Do tell.... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted January 31, 2011 Report Posted January 31, 2011 Why not? Are you without sin as well? Do tell.... Never claimed to be. But anyways ...... Quote
Pliny Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) We'll have to leave you with your idea that Sweden is not a socialist state. Most people I talk to about it hold it up as a shining example of how successful socialism is. I will keep in mind you believe it to be something else. Of course, in keeping with your concept of socialism China is not a socialist state either. I will leave you to argue with your left wing brethern. Somehow, I suspect some latent neo-conservative tendencies in your position. Nope you couldnt be more wrong. The people behind modern social democracies are not socialists AT ALL. They are capitalists that felt society would more stable, Funny you should say that, it isn't untrue. But it is really irrelevant who is behind initiating socialist concepts in government. JD Rockefeller was one of the foremost proponents of socialist ideas and actually fostered the Swedish experiment in the thirties. He stated "Competition is the greatest sin" So I suspect while he was a greatly successful capitalist he committed many sins to get there. ....and therefore provide a better framework for market economies if you didn't have a large, desperate, and politically active underclass. As a growth in the lament that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...they are failing at "creating a better framework". Mostly those influential capitalists are shoring up their positions. Any, with a left wing bent, are certain to condemn capitalism and corporatism for only being concerned about greedy profits. I guess that's all a part of the big manipulative game to "keep society more stable". These programs are actually a FIREWALL against pure socialism. They are not steps toward it, they are steps taken to prevent it, and to strengthen capitalism. And its worked! Modern social democracies are not only relatively stable, What's "pure" socialism? Are you admitting there are degrees of socialism? It's worked???? You haven't looked at rioting in France or Greece or Sweden lately have you? The cracks are visible. They may appear to have been beneficial for a few decades until printing money no longer improves people's lives. ....they have also grown into the biggest market economies in the history of the human race. The US did which was the least socialist of the social democracies and still has the largest economy. The Chinese government will, if it continues on it's current course, which I don't see happening, collapse because some of the wealth of the country will be in the hands of the people. The US will recover unless it continues to initiate more government intervention in it's economy. Edited February 1, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
GWiz Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Words You will have to define all your words since they have no meaning. No, you should, that's the READER's role... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Pliny Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Posted February 1, 2011 No, you should, that's the READER's role... The reader is attempting to understand the writer's concept and/or intent, I would think? Perhaps drawing would be a better medium for you? Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
GWiz Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 The reader is attempting to understand the writer's concept and/or intent, I would think? Perhaps drawing would be a better medium for you? It ain't complicated... WORDS Words, whether writen or spoken, in and of themselves have no meaning, it is only when the reader or listener applies meaning to them that words become meaningful... Unfortunately quite often applying meaning to words quite different than what the writer or speaker intended... - GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Pliny Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) It ain't complicated... WORDS Words, whether writen or spoken, in and of themselves have no meaning, it is only when the reader or listener applies meaning to them that words become meaningful... Unfortunately quite often applying meaning to words quite different than what the writer or speaker intended... - GWiz They have a meaning that you expect others to apply or you would not have chosen those particular ones to write whether anyone reads them or not. That the reader does not attach correct or intended significances is a problem of communication and not an absence of meaning. What a person does not understand has no meaning. If I wrote this in Italian, and you do not understand Italian, for you the grouped symbols would have no meaning. We use words because they have meaning that is common to us all as contained in a dictionary or through common usage. Because someone attaches incorrect meanings, the wrong one of several definitions, or emotional significances or misses context that is necessary to understanding is simply the result of a lack of the use of a good dictionary or a simple unfamiliarity. This little theory that words have no meaning until the reader assigns a meaning stems from the fact that someone noticed some of his words were being twisted or misunderstood. It was a cognitive moment and he decided there was no misunderstanding or twisting of words they just had no meaning at all. Similar to the scientist who trained a frog to jump when he uttered the word and then severed all his limbs. When he said the word jump the frog of course couldn't jump so he concluded that the frog was deaf. Basically, when you say there is no meaning to words until someone reads them, you are saying there is no possiblity of conveying an idea or concept as there is no common understanding. The existence of dictionaries alone disproves that idea. Edited February 1, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
dre Posted February 2, 2011 Report Posted February 2, 2011 For the "debt doesnt matter!" folks. http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/02/news/economy/interest_national_debt/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin Interest payments over the next decade will be at least 5.5 TRILLION and could be more like 8 TRILLION. This is interest on all the money borrowed for war, bailouts, trillions in gifts for the wealthy, and cost of government programs. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted February 2, 2011 Report Posted February 2, 2011 We'll have to leave you with your idea that Sweden is not a socialist state. Most people I talk to about it hold it up as a shining example of how successful socialism is. I will keep in mind you believe it to be something else. Of course, in keeping with your concept of socialism China is not a socialist state either. I will leave you to argue with your left wing brethern. Somehow, I suspect some latent neo-conservative tendencies in your position. Funny you should say that, it isn't untrue. But it is really irrelevant who is behind initiating socialist concepts in government. JD Rockefeller was one of the foremost proponents of socialist ideas and actually fostered the Swedish experiment in the thirties. He stated "Competition is the greatest sin" So I suspect while he was a greatly successful capitalist he committed many sins to get there. As a growth in the lament that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...they are failing at "creating a better framework". Mostly those influential capitalists are shoring up their positions. Any, with a left wing bent, are certain to condemn capitalism and corporatism for only being concerned about greedy profits. I guess that's all a part of the big manipulative game to "keep society more stable". What's "pure" socialism? Are you admitting there are degrees of socialism? It's worked???? You haven't looked at rioting in France or Greece or Sweden lately have you? The cracks are visible. They may appear to have been beneficial for a few decades until printing money no longer improves people's lives. The US did which was the least socialist of the social democracies and still has the largest economy. The Chinese government will, if it continues on it's current course, which I don't see happening, collapse because some of the wealth of the country will be in the hands of the people. The US will recover unless it continues to initiate more government intervention in it's economy. We'll have to leave you with your idea that Sweden is not a socialist state. Most people I talk to about it hold it up as a shining example of how successful socialism is. Its not my idea, its the objective meaning of that word.... its what youll find in the dictionary, or learn in a political science class. Your welcome to invent your own definition and use that, like you have.... but its gonna make it hard for you discuss things without being misunderstood. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
GWiz Posted February 2, 2011 Report Posted February 2, 2011 They have a meaning that you expect others to apply or you would not have chosen those particular ones to write whether anyone reads them or not. That the reader does not attach correct or intended significances is a problem of communication and not an absence of meaning. What a person does not understand has no meaning. If I wrote this in Italian, and you do not understand Italian, for you the grouped symbols would have no meaning. We use words because they have meaning that is common to us all as contained in a dictionary or through common usage. Because someone attaches incorrect meanings, the wrong one of several definitions, or emotional significances or misses context that is necessary to understanding is simply the result of a lack of the use of a good dictionary or a simple unfamiliarity. This little theory that words have no meaning until the reader assigns a meaning stems from the fact that someone noticed some of his words were being twisted or misunderstood. It was a cognitive moment and he decided there was no misunderstanding or twisting of words they just had no meaning at all. Similar to the scientist who trained a frog to jump when he uttered the word and then severed all his limbs. When he said the word jump the frog of course couldn't jump so he concluded that the frog was deaf. Basically, when you say there is no meaning to words until someone reads them, you are saying there is no possiblity of conveying an idea or concept as there is no common understanding. The existence of dictionaries alone disproves that idea. Where do I mention the writer not having an INTENT in what he writes? Where do I say there is no meaning to words? You yourself said that if I couldn't read Italian, words in Italian would have no meaning to me, but they certainly would to an Italian reader who can interprete them, no? Why do we need translators? The speaker is ALWAYS speaking words, or not? Think about it... It ain't that complicated, and the long argument you're making simply confirms my point... - so - Get my meaning? If not, look it up in that dictionary... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 2, 2011 Report Posted February 2, 2011 The US did which was the least socialist of the social democracies and still has the largest economy. The Chinese government will, if it continues on it's current course, which I don't see happening, collapse because some of the wealth of the country will be in the hands of the people. The US will recover unless it continues to initiate more government intervention in it's economy. Remember that well known SOCIALIST Abraham Lincoln? "that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth" IS socialism in it's purest form, it's never been better described, before or since... "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." - A. Lincoln "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - A. Lincoln Hmmm, come to think about it, I guess so were the founding fathers, now where did I put that copy of the United States Constitution I had? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Pliny Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Remember that well known SOCIALIST Abraham Lincoln? "that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth" IS socialism in it's purest form, it's never been better described, before or since... "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." - A. Lincoln "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - A. Lincoln Hmmm, come to think about it, I guess so were the founding fathers, now where did I put that copy of the United States Constitution I had? I remember him well. He's the one that decided to take the country to war. A great socialist. It's a government by, of and for the people as individuals not as a group of people that gets to engineer the lives of the rest of the people. Socialism, of the leftist variety, to which I beleive you are referring, only allows public ownership of property and there is no private property which, you will find in your copy of the Constitution once you locate it. Edited February 3, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Where do I mention the writer not having an INTENT in what he writes? Where do I say there is no meaning to words? Gwiz: Words, whether writen or spoken, in and of themselves have no meaning,.... It's similar to saying there is nothing there unless someone is looking at it. You yourself said that if I couldn't read Italian, words in Italian would have no meaning to me, but they certainly would to an Italian reader who can interprete them, no? You are claiming that they have no meaning until the reader reads them. Why do we need translators? The speaker is ALWAYS speaking words, or not? The speaker is indeed always speaking words because they hold meaning. He doesn't speak words with no meaning and no writer writes words without meaning. Think about it... It ain't that complicated, and the long argument you're making simply confirms my point... - so - Get my meaning? If not, look it up in that dictionary... It certainly isn't complicated. A dictionary is important. It holds the meaning to words that speakers haven't spoken or readers haven't read for our common understanding. Since you as a reader attach significances to words as you read them you should be able to read Italian, or any language for that matter. It seems it is okay for you to do that in English and guess your way around comprehension, try it in some other language. According to your concept it should work amazingly well. I myself prefer, to have some certainty of my comprehension. You could have saved yourself a lot of posts if you had just said that you had taken the word "American" to mean something other than what those Americans using the term intended. Their definition and your definition are both in the dictionary and their usage was correct. You were using a different definition and implying your definition had more validity than theirs. Talk to you later. Edited February 3, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Posted February 3, 2011 Its not my idea, its the objective meaning of that word.... its what youll find in the dictionary, or learn in a political science class. Your welcome to invent your own definition and use that, like you have.... but its gonna make it hard for you discuss things without being misunderstood. In my Oxford concise ditionary of Politics under "socialism" it states: "Marx and Engels considered themselves as 'scientific socialists' (as opposed to earlier Utopian socialists) but saw socialism in the strict sense of the term to be a transitional phase between capitalism and full economic communism." I have stated socialism to be an evolutionary process with the objective of establishing the totalitarian state. It also says that various kinds of socialism developed and not all socialists agree upon it's nature. Continuing on it states: "The most basic disputes among socialists have concerned the role of the State in the ownership, control and organization of the economy, the relationship between gradualist and revolutionary strategies for change. By the 1930s two quite different systems of socialism could be seen to represent polar extremes of doctrinal interpretation: the socialism of the Soviet Union under Stalinism and the National Socialism of Hitler in Germany." Recently, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the failure of many Third world socialist regimes socialism has led to: "Efforts to modernize, revise and adapt socialism to (these) new historical circumstances have led to a range of New Left ideas and theories over the past twenty five years, some of them contained in existing socialist movements and parties, others achieiving mobilization and support to the arenas of 'new politics', post materialism, feminism and environmentalism." I expect to be misunderstood in my discussions about socialism because so many people have only read the first paragraph of any explanation of it, if that, and feel they know all about it. The way to escape the constant shifting and chameleon-like nature of socialism is to place it in the realm of big government with varying levels of State control of the economy and social engineering. Because of the failure of Marxist and other forms of socialism, totalitarian objectives are less sought but the idea of state control is a strong part of it. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
dre Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 In my Oxford concise ditionary of Politics under "socialism" it states: "Marx and Engels considered themselves as 'scientific socialists' (as opposed to earlier Utopian socialists) but saw socialism in the strict sense of the term to be a transitional phase between capitalism and full economic communism." I have stated socialism to be an evolutionary process with the objective of establishing the totalitarian state. It also says that various kinds of socialism developed and not all socialists agree upon it's nature. Continuing on it states: "The most basic disputes among socialists have concerned the role of the State in the ownership, control and organization of the economy, the relationship between gradualist and revolutionary strategies for change. By the 1930s two quite different systems of socialism could be seen to represent polar extremes of doctrinal interpretation: the socialism of the Soviet Union under Stalinism and the National Socialism of Hitler in Germany." Recently, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the failure of many Third world socialist regimes socialism has led to: "Efforts to modernize, revise and adapt socialism to (these) new historical circumstances have led to a range of New Left ideas and theories over the past twenty five years, some of them contained in existing socialist movements and parties, others achieiving mobilization and support to the arenas of 'new politics', post materialism, feminism and environmentalism." I expect to be misunderstood in my discussions about socialism because so many people have only read the first paragraph of any explanation of it, if that, and feel they know all about it. The way to escape the constant shifting and chameleon-like nature of socialism is to place it in the realm of big government with varying levels of State control of the economy and social engineering. Because of the failure of Marxist and other forms of socialism, totalitarian objectives are less sought but the idea of state control is a strong part of it. Funny in my oxford dictionary youd be cherry picking the very last footnote. The principle definition is... a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned by the community as a whole. In any case... Sweden is a market economy. You can claim that it isnt 10 000 times if you want but that wont make it true. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
GWiz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 You are claiming that they have no meaning until the reader reads them. That''s correct... "in and of themselves" being the operative part of the sentence... The speaker is indeed always speaking words because they hold meaning. He doesn't speak words with no meaning and no writer writes words without meaning. Correct, kinda... That's why vocabulary, punctuation, sentence structure, etc. are equally as important as the words themselves in conveying a coherant message... "in and of themselves" being the operative part of the sentence... It certainly isn't complicated. A dictionary is important. It holds the meaning to words that speakers haven't spoken or readers haven't read for our common understanding. so --- How would you know that if you hadn't read or heard it and applied that meaning to them? Since you as a reader attach significances to words as you read them you should be able to read Italian, or any language for that matter. It seems it is okay for you to do that in English and guess your way around comprehension, try it in some other language. According to your concept it should work amazingly well. I myself prefer, to have some certainty of my comprehension. Didn't understand a word you wrote... Pick ONE and tell me what it meant... You could have saved yourself a lot of posts if you had just said that you had taken the word "American" to mean something other than what those Americans using the term intended. Their definition and your definition are both in the dictionary and their usage was correct. You were using a different definition and implying your definition had more validity than theirs. Not at all... Words, like beauty, is all in the eye of the beholder... Talk to you later. Impossible since you have no means to verbally communicate with me not knowing who I am... OR did you mean you are the "talk" of this forum and I will read about you which is possible? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.