GWiz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 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. Sorry, you missed it by a mile... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
GWiz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 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. Found it! We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) Funny in my oxford dictionary youd be cherry picking the very last footnote. The principle definition is... It says that in my political dictionary as well in the first paragraph. You didn't seem to get past that. You have to admit with every failure of the state that "advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned by the community as a whole" (meaning no private property)it morphs into a different means of mobility to control the economy and institute it's means of production, distribution and exchange. 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. When the State manipulates the economy it is not a market economy and when it extracts half of the profits for it's own purposes and the engineering of society it is not a market economy. You can ignore the facts as long as you like but a market economy hasn't existed in any first world nation for at least eighty years. On the one hand you claim the State must have a hand in the redistribution of wealth, in order to keep the masses quelled and the rich fat and on the other deny that it is a manipulation of the economy at all. I am increasingly convinced you hold and advocate a neo-conservative concept of the State's role as regards the economy. A kind of left-wing elitist statism that has moved over to the right. I know it must be frustrating to break through one's force fed concepts that become fixed ideas but one must be "progressive" enough to envision the objective that is being pursued. What is being forwarded is the importance of the State in managing the globe, it's resources, human development, economies, demographics, etc., and a firming up of the tools necessary to arrogate and maintain that management. It has nothing to do with the protection and security of the life of individuals, as much as it may claim it is, but it is about, as you astutely recognize, redistributing wealth in the right proportion to keep the masses from revolting and upsetting the elitist apple cart. You say this is happening but deny it is in any way "socialistic". Well, I can see if you do not think that national socialism is in any way socialistic that you would be right. It seems the many faceted forms of socialism have, when socialism fails, denies it is in any way linked to socialism but if, as it was in the twenties and thirties, socialism is popular, then they deny that other socialists, not of their particular brand, are even related to socialism at all. For example the communist today will say Stalin was not really a communist and many deny that the national socialist party of Germany was socialist in any way, even reading their manifesto as drawn up by Hitler and Drexel themselves isn't a convincing enough argument. No - socialism just doesn't "advocate" that 'the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned by the community' it must be doing it otherwise it is not socialism. Edited February 3, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
GWiz 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. Hmmm, removing all doubt, are you? "The Difference between Communism and Socialism" Read it and weep... - A good example that explains the exact relationship between "communism" and "socialism" would be to examine the two terms "Catholic" and "Christian". Obviously, though they share a relationship, they are not interchangeable. You could for example, say that the Pope is a "Christian". But you could not say that Billy Graham is a "Catholic". Why? The two share certain basic beliefs, but differ upon certain specific issues. Fundamentally, Christians and Catholics believe in things like an all-powerful God, the authenticity of the Bible, and the divine resurrection of Jesus Christ. But many Christians would disagree with infant baptisms, the authority of priests to absolve sins, and the direct praying to saints - all things that are part of Catholicism. So while all Catholics are Christians, not all Christians are Catholics. Just as "Catholic" is a narrower and more specific definition of "Christian", "communism" is a narrower and more specific definition of "socialism". - Hitler a "socialist"! Communism vs Fascism - Communism stands for a stateless society where all are equal. No one is rich or poor in a communist system. In Communism, it is the community that holds the production and the major resources. On the other hand, Fascism pertains to state and it considers state on top of everything. In fascism the state is all embracing. For the fascists, no human values exist outside the state. Fascism believes that everything is within the State and nothing is above the State or outside the State or against the State. Fascism believes in nationalism (includes economic nationalism), corporatism (includes economic planning), militarism and totalitarianism (dictatorship and social interventionism). The Communists think globally where as the Fascists think only in a national level. - So! As any intelligent person can clearly see the United States, being a Republic, is 100 X closer to becoming (read "Tea Party Conservatives") a Fascist State than they ever were to becoming a Communist State... Canada and many other nations like Sweden and the United States, are limited Social Democracies and as such far removed from ever becoming either because their peoples, their "society", controls the state... Incidently, I DO know all about it, and now, depending on your ability and willingness to READ, do you... Oh, and thank you for PROVING what I say about WORDS as well.... 2-4-1, nice... 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 Found it! We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Right. And how does it state it will accomplish that? Mainly by keeping the hands of government out of the affairs of the people. Only that course of action forms a more perfect union, establishes justice, i(e)nsures domestic tranquility, provides for the common defence and promotes the general welfare and secures the blessings of liberty. They go on to describe how the limiting of government shall be accomplished. Some of those things have already been trampled on and it's government has managed to shuck it's shackles to a great degree. Lincoln did much to contribute to that cause although many of his overriding policies, such as the suspension of habeus corpus and the establishiment of a money press were later reversed. 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 That''s correct... "in and of themselves" being the operative part of the sentence... Simply a reiteration of there being nothing there unless one looks at it. 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... When words are "all in the eye of the beholder". Sorry. That means no one knows what anyone is reading. --- How would you know that if you hadn't read or heard it and applied that meaning to them? I don't make it up as I go along. Didn't understand a word you wrote... Pick ONE and tell me what it meant... go ahead and do as usual, apply whatever meaning you choose. Not at all... Words, like beauty, is all in the eye of the beholder... Just make it up as you go along, kinda thing? 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? You obviously have only one defintion for each of your words. There is a defintion in the dictionary that covers my usage of the word in the context intended. Talk: to express one's thoughts in writing. Talk to you later. 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 Hmmm, removing all doubt, are you? "The Difference between Communism and Socialism" Read it and weep... - A good example that explains the exact relationship between "communism" and "socialism" would be to examine the two terms "Catholic" and "Christian". Obviously, though they share a relationship, they are not interchangeable. You could for example, say that the Pope is a "Christian". But you could not say that Billy Graham is a "Catholic". Why? The two share certain basic beliefs, but differ upon certain specific issues. Fundamentally, Christians and Catholics believe in things like an all-powerful God, the authenticity of the Bible, and the divine resurrection of Jesus Christ. But many Christians would disagree with infant baptisms, the authority of priests to absolve sins, and the direct praying to saints - all things that are part of Catholicism. So while all Catholics are Christians, not all Christians are Catholics. Just as "Catholic" is a narrower and more specific definition of "Christian", "communism" is a narrower and more specific definition of "socialism". - Hitler a "socialist"! "Catholic is a narrower and more specific definition of Christian." Obviously, it falls under the broader term "Christian". Perhaps even Protestant is a narrower and more specific form of "Christian". Communism is a narrower and more specific definition of socialism. Obviously there are other forms that fall under the broader term "socialism". Perhaps even "national socialism" is a narrower and more specific defintion of socialism. Communism vs Fascism - Communism stands for a stateless society where all are equal. No one is rich or poor in a communist system. In Communism, it is the community that holds the production and the major resources. Yes. A narrower more specific definition of socialism. On the other hand, Fascism pertains to state and it considers state on top of everything. In fascism the state is all embracing. For the fascists, no human values exist outside the state. Fascism believes that everything is within the State and nothing is above the State or outside the State or against the State. Fascism believes in nationalism (includes economic nationalism), corporatism (includes economic planning), militarism and totalitarianism (dictatorship and social interventionism). Yes. A narrower more specific definition of socialism. The Communists think globally where as the Fascists think only in a national level. - Yes. A narrower more specific difference in the broader definition of socialism. Just as the trilogy is a narrower more specific difference between Protestantism and Catholicism in the broader definition of Christianity. So! As any intelligent person can clearly see the United States, being a Republic, is 100 X closer to becoming (read "Tea Party Conservatives") a Fascist State than they ever were to becoming a Communist State.. Sorry, the tea party doesn't fit your description of Fascism at all. They stand for limited government and less intrusion by the state than currently exists. Is that more communist? Actually Communism achieves the goal of the totalitarian state through revolution. The revolution proposed by the Tea Party Conservatives is a restoral to limited government. Canada and many other nations like Sweden and the United States, are limited Social Democracies and as such far removed from ever becoming either because their peoples, their "society", controls the state... Incidently, I DO know all about it, and now, depending on your ability and willingness to READ, do you... Yes. You do know all about it. With nothing to learn, where do you go from here? I guess you wind up being a teacher spreading the truth. But, as you say, words are all in the eye of the beholder so truth doesn't spread so easily. You might not want to even bother. Oh, and thank you for PROVING what I say about WORDS as well.... 2-4-1, nice... Good for you being consistent and making things up as you go along. Talk to you later. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
bloodyminded Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 Sorry, the tea party doesn't fit your description of Fascism at all. They stand for limited government and less intrusion by the state than currently exists. Is that more communist? Actually Communism achieves the goal of the totalitarian state through revolution. The revolution proposed by the Tea Party Conservatives is a restoral to limited government. Limited government? Do you mean their outrage at the very notion of getting rid of medicare and medicaid? Or their support of secretive government, colluding with their hatred of Wikileaks? Or their support for warrantless eavesdropping, by government, via private corporations (a la fascism) of private citizens? Or their support for Big Government policies such as the Death Penalty? Or their "patriotic" support of foreign wars which they don't even understand? Oh, none of these...it's about taxes! The only part of "big government" that fazes these bow-to-authority sycophants at all. Limited government! They oppose limiting government, with angry tantrums, in the ways I just mentioned. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Pliny Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Limited government? Do you mean their outrage at the very notion of getting rid of medicare and medicaid? Or their support of secretive government, colluding with their hatred of Wikileaks? Or their support for warrantless eavesdropping, by government, via private corporations (a la fascism) of private citizens? Or their support for Big Government policies such as the Death Penalty? Or their "patriotic" support of foreign wars which they don't even understand? Oh, none of these...it's about taxes! The only part of "big government" that fazes these bow-to-authority sycophants at all. Limited government! They oppose limiting government, with angry tantrums, in the ways I just mentioned. I believe you are talking, for the most part, about Republican conservatives here. They seem to fit that description. Some conservative Republicans are members of the tea party but most adhere to the establishment Republican party who's policies you aptly describe. Government run healthcare in the form of medicare and medicaid, how fascist. Healthcare and public education was in the NSDAP manifesto as a function of the state. Or is public education and healthcare more socialist? Doesn't it get confusing for you? How about we just lump all those different state ideologies under the broader term "socialism". Edited February 3, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
bloodyminded Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) I believe you are talking, for the most part, about Republican conservatives here. They seem to fit that description. Some conservative Republicans are members of the tea party but most adhere to the establishment Republican party who's policies you aptly describe. The Tea Party movement, not least thanks to its incoherence and contradictions as I've described, has been co-opted by the Republican Party. Edited February 3, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
GWiz Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 "Catholic is a narrower and more specific definition of Christian." Obviously, it falls under the broader term "Christian". Perhaps even Protestant is a narrower and more specific form of "Christian". Communism is a narrower and more specific definition of socialism. Obviously there are other forms that fall under the broader term "socialism". Perhaps even "national socialism" is a narrower and more specific defintion of socialism. Communism vs Fascism - Communism stands for a stateless society where all are equal. No one is rich or poor in a communist system. In Communism, it is the community that holds the production and the major resources. Yes. A narrower more specific definition of socialism. Yes. A narrower more specific definition of socialism. Yes. A narrower more specific difference in the broader definition of socialism. Just as the trilogy is a narrower more specific difference between Protestantism and Catholicism in the broader definition of Christianity. Sorry, the tea party doesn't fit your description of Fascism at all. They stand for limited government and less intrusion by the state than currently exists. Is that more communist? Actually Communism achieves the goal of the totalitarian state through revolution. The revolution proposed by the Tea Party Conservatives is a restoral to limited government. Yes. You do know all about it. With nothing to learn, where do you go from here? I guess you wind up being a teacher spreading the truth. But, as you say, words are all in the eye of the beholder so truth doesn't spread so easily. You might not want to even bother. Good for you being consistent and making things up as you go along. Talk to you later. Rule # 1. If you EVER again want me too respond to any of your posts, respond to ALL of my post and don't "cut out" the things you have no answer for... ------------------------------- You Sir, or kid, whichever the case may be, have successfully removed all doubt... I have little to no interest in playing your childish games... Morons and fools don't interest me at all... See you around... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
dre Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 I believe you are talking, for the most part, about Republican conservatives here. They seem to fit that description. Some conservative Republicans are members of the tea party but most adhere to the establishment Republican party who's policies you aptly describe. Government run healthcare in the form of medicare and medicaid, how fascist. Healthcare and public education was in the NSDAP manifesto as a function of the state. Or is public education and healthcare more socialist? Doesn't it get confusing for you? How about we just lump all those different state ideologies under the broader term "socialism". How about we just lump all those different state ideologies under the broader term "socialism". Thats clearly what youre trying to do, but it makes no sense what-so-ever. You would be using the same word to describe the US, or Canada as you would the USSR. Theres already an accepted lexicon for this, that the entire world uses. You just choose to ignore it. A socialist state is one where the means of production are commonly owned and controlled by the community. A social democracy is a state where a market economy is taxed to fund a welfare state (Canada, the US, Sweden, Norway, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and every other successful modern country. If you want to have special "Pliny definitions" for things, than every single thread you participate in is going to turn into a debate over semantics and the definitions of words, instead of the topic at hand. And thats exactly whats happened here. Instead of talking about the debt cieling we now have a thread devoted almost entirely to the difference betweeh "Pliny Words", and words in the english language and political lexicon. What the fuck is the point of this? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bloodyminded Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Thats clearly what youre trying to do, but it makes no sense what-so-ever. You would be using the same word to describe the US, or Canada as you would the USSR. Theres already an accepted lexicon for this, that the entire world uses. You just choose to ignore it. A socialist state is one where the means of production are commonly owned and controlled by the community. A social democracy is a state where a market economy is taxed to fund a welfare state (Canada, the US, Sweden, Norway, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and every other successful modern country. If you want to have special "Pliny definitions" for things, than every single thread you participate in is going to turn into a debate over semantics and the definitions of words, instead of the topic at hand. And thats exactly whats happened here. Instead of talking about the debt cieling we now have a thread devoted almost entirely to the difference betweeh "Pliny Words", and words in the english language and political lexicon. What the fuck is the point of this? In my opinion--though hopefully Pliny will correct me if he perceives I've misread him--it is a slightly more benign version of the "liberal fascist" thesis; both, at bottom, wish to utterly obliterate the Left, in any way, from having credibility. That is, it's really just a hatred of leftism, profoundly influenced by manipulative, right-wing intellectuals, with a pretence to historical grandiosity. That historians generally don't buy it only proves the radical Leftism of the universities, particularly the humanities. Pure tautology, this sort of argument. On another forum I used to visit, there was a fellow who used to argue, cooly and rationally, than conservatices were by nature "good"; and the inevitable result of this premise is that anything bad cannot be conservative. So, he argued, since the radical Islamists do not generally appear to be free marketers, they have to be delineated as leftists, not as conservatives. Of course that's nonsense; they are as conservative as you can get. Literally. They are arch-conservatives. The "fascism is leftist" trope follows the same "logic." The trouble with such a thesis is that no serious scholars of fascism agree with it. They contend it is largely a right-wing phenomenon, with a few leftist bits cribbed and mixed in. Oh...but they are university intellectuals...so must be biased lefties! It's quite beautiful, actually, the sheer audacity of such reasoning. Edited February 3, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
dre Posted February 3, 2011 Report Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) In my opinion--though hopefully Pliny will correct me if he perceives I've misread him--it is a slightly more benign version of the "liberal fascist" thesis; both, at bottom, wish to utterly obliterate the Left, in any way, from having credibility. That is, it's really just a hatred of leftism, profoundly influenced by manipulative, right-wing intellectuals, with a pretence to historical grandiosity. That historians generally don't buy it only proves the radical Leftism of the universities, particularly the humanities. Pure tautology, this sort of argument. On another forum I used to visit, there was a fellow who used to argue, cooly and rationally, than conservatices were by nature "good"; and the inevitable result of this premise is that anything bad cannot be conservative. So, he argued, since the radical Islamists do not generally appear to be free marketers, they have to be delineated as leftists, not as conservatives. Of course that's nonsense; they are as conservative as you can get. Literally. They are arch-conservatives. The "fascism is leftist" trope follows the same "logic." The trouble with such a thesis is that no serious scholars of fascism agree with it. They contend it is largely a right-wing phenomenon, with a few leftist bits cribbed and mixed in. Oh...but they are university intellectuals...so must be biased lefties! It's quite beautiful, actually, the sheer audacity of such reasoning. Yup, youre exactly right. Iv explained in depth a few times how those words have become a euphamism for all that is bad and evil. By taking the words "socialism" and "facism" and using them as blanket terms to describe ALL policies that are further to the left than he would like to see, he effectively links to historical boogeymen (USSR and Nazi Germany) with his modern day political opponents. Its really the same thing as when war protesters were calling the US under Bush a fascist, or making pictures of him with hitler mustaches etc. With the difference being that Pliny wants to paint hitler mustaches on EVERYONE that doesnt support a minarchist libertarian free market society. I guess attaching those sort of symbols to things is just powerfull and effective. You cant really blame Pliny for it because hes just reading from his junior conservatives handbook and those are clearly the talking points listed. Healthcare - Socialism! Social Security - Stalin! Social Democracy - Hitler! Islamic Groups - Fascism! Edited February 4, 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 February 4, 2011 Author Report Posted February 4, 2011 I have little to no interest in playing your childish games... Morons and fools don't interest me at all... See you around... See you around. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 Yup, youre exactly right. Iv explained in depth a few times how those words have become a euphamism for all that is bad and evil. By taking the words "socialism" and "facism" and using them as blanket terms to describe ALL policies that are further to the left than he would like to see, he effectively links to historical boogeymen (USSR and Nazi Germany) with his modern day political opponents. Its really the same thing as when war protesters were calling the US under Bush a fascist, or making pictures of him with hitler mustaches etc. With the difference being that Pliny wants to paint hitler mustaches on EVERYONE that doesnt support a minarchist libertarian free market society. I guess attaching those sort of symbols to things is just powerfull and effective. You cant really blame Pliny for it because hes just reading from his junior conservatives handbook and those are clearly the talking points listed. Healthcare - Socialism! Social Security - Stalin! Social Democracy - Hitler! Islamic Groups - Fascism! Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Pliny Posted February 4, 2011 Author Report Posted February 4, 2011 Thats clearly what youre trying to do, but it makes no sense what-so-ever. You agree with dre then, Sweden is not a socialist state. You would be using the same word to describe the US, or Canada as you would the USSR. Theres already an accepted lexicon for this, that the entire world uses. You just choose to ignore it. Socialism is an evolutionary process. Communism is a revolutionary process. The US and Canada are in varying degrees socialistic. They are in an evolutionary process toward becoming a totalitarian state. A socialist state is one where the means of production are commonly owned and controlled by the community. Does that describe the Soviet Union? Does it describe Cuba? Does it describe North Korea? China? Where does this socialist state exist? On an Amish farm, perhaps. As long as the State exists nothing will be commonly owned and controlled by the community. It will be owned and controlled by the State. Is the State a proxy for the community? A social democracy is a state where a market economy is taxed to fund a welfare state (Canada, the US, Sweden, Norway, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and every other successful modern country. I see nothing wrong with that as a description of a social democracy. It does not mean that it is absent of all socialist concepts. Socialists advocate the implementation of socialist ideology. They have managed to implement health care and education under the State as socialist programs. Or are they fasicst programs since Hitler also implemented national education and health care programs. Actually though, what you are callng "successful modern" countries are countries that started a downward spiral about 80 years ago. If you are looking at your lifespan in comparison to the lifespan of a nation then you could say they were modern and successful. But your generation never built it. What you are building now is what the next generation will experience. If you want to have special "Pliny definitions" for things, than every single thread you participate in is going to turn into a debate over semantics and the definitions of words, instead of the topic at hand. And thats exactly whats happened here. Instead of talking about the debt cieling we now have a thread devoted almost entirely to the difference betweeh "Pliny Words", and words in the english language and political lexicon. They are not "Pliny words". I have quoted the Oxford concise dictionary of Politics for my definitions. Because you prefer to ignore the complete description as a convenince to your argument is the simplicity of the disagreement. What the fuck is the point of this? Clarity. You might begin to tolerate and appreciate other people more if you understand them. Imstead of thinking of them as the idiotic masses you so like to prefer calling them. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
dre Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) You agree with dre then, Sweden is not a socialist state. Socialism is an evolutionary process. Communism is a revolutionary process. The US and Canada are in varying degrees socialistic. They are in an evolutionary process toward becoming a totalitarian state. Does that describe the Soviet Union? Does it describe Cuba? Does it describe North Korea? China? Where does this socialist state exist? On an Amish farm, perhaps. As long as the State exists nothing will be commonly owned and controlled by the community. It will be owned and controlled by the State. Is the State a proxy for the community? I see nothing wrong with that as a description of a social democracy. It does not mean that it is absent of all socialist concepts. Socialists advocate the implementation of socialist ideology. They have managed to implement health care and education under the State as socialist programs. Or are they fasicst programs since Hitler also implemented national education and health care programs. Actually though, what you are callng "successful modern" countries are countries that started a downward spiral about 80 years ago. If you are looking at your lifespan in comparison to the lifespan of a nation then you could say they were modern and successful. But your generation never built it. What you are building now is what the next generation will experience. They are not "Pliny words". I have quoted the Oxford concise dictionary of Politics for my definitions. Because you prefer to ignore the complete description as a convenince to your argument is the simplicity of the disagreement. Clarity. You might begin to tolerate and appreciate other people more if you understand them. Imstead of thinking of them as the idiotic masses you so like to prefer calling them. You agree with dre then, Sweden is not a socialist state. Yeah I guess thats pretty safe to say Socialism is an evolutionary process. Communism is a revolutionary process. The US and Canada are in varying degrees socialistic. They are in an evolutionary process toward becoming a totalitarian state. No. They guard against becoming a totalitarian with a social safety net. Does that describe the Soviet Union? Does it describe Cuba? Does it describe North Korea? China?Where does this socialist state exist? On an Amish farm, perhaps. As long as the State exists nothing will be commonly owned and controlled by the community. It will be owned and controlled by the State. Is the State a proxy for the community? I already told you which states today would qualify. It does not mean that it is absent of all socialist concepts. Socialists advocate the implementation of socialist ideology. They have managed to implement health care and education under the State as socialist programs. No thats completely wrong. Weve been over all that. The reason for those programs isnt part of any scheme to move towards a totalitarian society. Those programs are there to create political stability with the GOAL being a healthy market economy. Its NOT having those programs that puts a country at risk of moving closer to a socialist system, not having them. They are not "Pliny words". I have quoted the Oxford concise dictionary of Politics for my definitions. Because you prefer to ignore the complete description as a convenince to your argument is the simplicity of the disagreement. Yes they ARE Pliny words. Which is why virtually every thread you participate in spirals downhill into this same argument over semantics. Socialism and social democracies are not the same thing! They are distinct political/economic systems, with identifiable characteristics. If you can come to terms with this then you might actually be able to discuss a topic one day instead of just the meanings of words. Actually though, what you are callng "successful modern" countries are countries that started a downward spiral about 80 years ago. Clarity.You might begin to tolerate and appreciate other people more if you understand them. Imstead of thinking of them as the idiotic masses you so like to prefer calling them. Ah yes. Attaching the same label to Canada or the US that you would to the USSR provides "clarity". The only way youll get any Clarity is to realize that Social Democracies are distinctly different political/economic systems with well defined and identifiable characteristics. Edited February 4, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 The Tea Party movement, not least thanks to its incoherence and contradictions as I've described, has been co-opted by the Republican Party. Gotta give Pliny some credit for being the "butt" of some good laughs... You guys know Pliny better than me, is he some mentally challenged 10 y.o. kid or something? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Pliny Posted February 4, 2011 Author Report Posted February 4, 2011 Yes they ARE Pliny words. Which is why virtually every thread you participate in spirals downhill into this same argument over semantics. Marx and Engels:...saw socialism in the strict sense of the term as a transitional phase between capitalism and full economic and social communism." - The Oxford concise dictionary of politics. Socialism and social democracies are not the same thing! They are distinct political/economic systems, with identifiable characteristics. If you can come to terms with this then you might actually be able to discuss a topic one day instead of just the meanings of words. Who said they were the same thing? Social democracies are a transitional phase from capitalism to the complete socialist state. Due to it's failure on several fronts it hasn't fared well but keeps returning in different forms. Anyway, you can find this all out by just waiting a few more years or you can read about it now. The threatened economic stability of several European countries today is a sign of the decay as well as the US debt ceiling. We will shortly embrace or throw off the State. Embracing it you won't notice too much different, right wing fascism, left wing socialism it won't matter much, as long as you just follow orders. Throwing it off is for braver souls than yourselves - perhaps your kids. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
dre Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Who said they were the same thing? Social democracies are a transitional phase from capitalism to the complete socialist state. Due to it's failure on several fronts it hasn't fared well but keeps returning in different forms. Anyway, you can find this all out by just waiting a few more years or you can read about it now. The threatened economic stability of several European countries today is a sign of the decay as well as the US debt ceiling. We will shortly embrace or throw off the State. Embracing it you won't notice too much different, right wing fascism, left wing socialism it won't matter much, as long as you just follow orders. Throwing it off is for braver souls than yourselves - perhaps your kids. Who said they were the same thing? Social democracies are a transitional phase from capitalism to the complete socialist state. Nope sorry. They just arent. Like I said social democracy is a system designed to PREVENT socialism. You have it exactly backwards. Its pure capitalism that would lead to a socialist state. And youre wrong about the direction as well. Most social democracies arent moving towards socialism theyre moving away from it. Theres less common ownership all the time, more and more powerfull private industry and less and less redistributive policy. We will shortly embrace or throw off the State. Embracing it you won't notice too much different, right wing fascism, left wing socialism it won't matter much, as long as you just follow orders. Yeah weve been hearing about this impending collapse for hundreds of years Edited February 4, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 In my opinion--though hopefully Pliny will correct me if he perceives I've misread him--it is a slightly more benign version of the "liberal fascist" thesis; both, at bottom, wish to utterly obliterate the Left, in any way, from having credibility. That is, it's really just a hatred of leftism, profoundly influenced by manipulative, right-wing intellectuals, with a pretence to historical grandiosity. That historians generally don't buy it only proves the radical Leftism of the universities, particularly the humanities. Pure tautology, this sort of argument. On another forum I used to visit, there was a fellow who used to argue, cooly and rationally, than conservatices were by nature "good"; and the inevitable result of this premise is that anything bad cannot be conservative. So, he argued, since the radical Islamists do not generally appear to be free marketers, they have to be delineated as leftists, not as conservatives. Of course that's nonsense; they are as conservative as you can get. Literally. They are arch-conservatives. The "fascism is leftist" trope follows the same "logic." The trouble with such a thesis is that no serious scholars of fascism agree with it. They contend it is largely a right-wing phenomenon, with a few leftist bits cribbed and mixed in. Oh...but they are university intellectuals...so must be biased lefties! It's quite beautiful, actually, the sheer audacity of such reasoning. <bold by me> Sorry, gotta disagree... Reasoning requires at least a modicum of intelligence... In the case of Pliny I see no evidence of that requirement... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17890&view=findpost&p=622184 Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Pliny Posted February 4, 2011 Author Report Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Nope sorry. They just arent. Like I said social democracy is a system designed to PREVENT socialism. You have it exactly backwards. Its pure capitalism that would lead to a socialist state. It is the centralization of power, the cost of government and the weight of entitlements in a social democracy that will eventually kill it's economy and bring about a struggle for power. Marx and Engels defined it quite well I think. You can try and describe your vision of how capitalism leads to a socialist state but it would probably only happen if criminality were unhampered. Remember power has to be concentrated and the capacity to enforce law would be necessary. I have not known of any capitalist enterprises that have the power to enforce law or collect a tax in any form as an entitlement to itself. And youre wrong about the direction as well. Most social democracies arent moving towards socialism theyre moving away from it. Theres less common ownership all the time, more and more powerfull private industry and less and less redistributive policy. It's merely a matter of accounting and moving numbers around now isn't it? The forms of taxation are changing indeed but take a look around. The future unfunded liabilities that our social democracies have incurred in the form of entitlements and bureaucracy means they must sell some of their common ownership of property to fund themselves although they lke to maintian a hand in the management in the form of PPP's, kind of a fascist corporate partnership concept. They cannot police as much as they like so the security guard industry supplies some of that service. They cannot, as promised, provide water to homes out of taxes and are busy installing water meters and three flush toilets. The lineups for health care are getting longer. Public education is more concerned with behavioral development than developing learning skills. As though without the intervention of the State everyone will turn into a criminal or not learn interpersonal skills. Electrical Power is increasingly expensive and they even regulate the types of light bulbs we use to save power while promoting electric cars that will require huge amounts of power to recharge on a daily basis if they are produced en masse. We have a few years to go perhaps but as they make life more and more expensive the poor get poorer and the rich... well....some with good government connections may remain so and others will, like the poor, be subject to the whims and vagaries of government. Yeah weve been hearing about this impending collapse for hundreds of years We have? There are always doomsayers, such as our current climate change fanatics, but history tells us, if we bother to look, that we are just about at the end of this civilization's cycle. The same signs appeared at the collapse of the Roman Empire, the French Revolution, the American revolution, and the Communist revolution. As you know most of their problems were about their economies and oppressive government manipulation of them for the benefit of the heirarchic structure or some misguided attempt to help the poor that devastated the economy and wound up helping no one. The Roman empire lasted over half a millenium and finally crumbled because of economic policies, although designed to lower the cost of living, wound up with shortages of food in Rome itself but the Empire could no longer be economically viable and support itself or counter growing resentment of paying increasing taxes to Rome, fomenting cultural and nationalistic sentiments. The French revolution was, economic in nature as well, with the final straw being the inflation of the new paper currency the "assignat" which made bread too expensive for the masses. The American revolution was of course about unrepresentative taxation, another government economic mess. The communist revolution in Russia, although somewhat of a socialist experiment, was possible because of the economic conditions of a corrupt government and incompetent, seemingly uncaring, self-centred Tsar. You can point to Britain as being an Empire that lasted quite awhile and to this day is a large commonwealth of nations. It's adherence to sound economic prinicples and learning from their mistakes, contributed to their longevity. They have now abandoned sound economic principles for fascist Keynesian macro-economic theory, as has most of the world. Well, today the lament is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Where have we heard that before? Don't worry though. It isn't doomsday. It is just the end of an era and depending upon how we come through it will determine whether we choose to chain ourselves, nullifying individuality, or enable ourselves. It always is our choice and with today's availability of information to the individual we don't have to rely so much on authority to run our lives. It's the internet that provides this vehicle of freedom. We can learn and find out things for ourselves. When government starts to shut it down we will be in trouble. See any signs of that happening? Edited February 4, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
GWiz Posted February 4, 2011 Report Posted February 4, 2011 It is the centralization of power, the cost of government and the weight of entitlements in a social democracy that will eventually kill it's economy and bring about a struggle for power. Marx and Engels defined it quite well I think. You can try and describe your vision of how capitalism leads to a socialist state but it would probably only happen if criminality were unhampered. Remember power has to be concentrated and the capacity to enforce law would be necessary. I have not known of any capitalist enterprises that have the power to enforce law or collect a tax in any form as an entitlement to itself. It's merely a matter of accounting and moving numbers around now isn't it? The forms of taxation are changing indeed but take a look around. The future unfunded liabilities that our social democracies have incurred in the form of entitlements and bureaucracy means they must sell some of their common ownership of property to fund themselves although they lke to maintian a hand in the management in the form of PPP's, kind of a fascist corporate partnership concept. They cannot police as much as they like so the security guard industry supplies some of that service. They cannot, as promised, provide water to homes out of taxes and are busy installing water meters and three flush toilets. The lineups for health care are getting longer. Public education is more concerned with behavioral development than developing learning skills. As though without the intervention of the State everyone will turn into a criminal or not learn interpersonal skills. Electrical Power is increasingly expensive and they even regulate the types of light bulbs we use to save power while promoting electric cars that will require huge amounts of power to recharge on a daily basis if they are produced en masse. We have a few years to go perhaps but as they make life more and more expensive the poor get poorer and the rich... well....some with good government connections may remain so and others will, like the poor, be subject to the whims and vagaries of government. We have? There are always doomsayers, such as our current climate change fanatics, but history tells us, if we bother to look, that we are just about at the end of this civilization's cycle. The same signs appeared at the collapse of the Roman Empire, the French Revolution, the American revolution, and the Communist revolution. As you know most of their problems were about their economies and oppressive government manipulation of them for the benefit of the heirarchic structure or some misguided attempt to help the poor that devastated the economy and wound up helping no one. The Roman empire lasted over half a millenium and finally crumbled because of economic policies, although designed to lower the cost of living, wound up with shortages of food in Rome itself but the Empire could no longer be economically viable and support itself or counter growing resentment of paying increasing taxes to Rome, fomenting cultural and nationalistic sentiments. The French revolution was, economic in nature as well, with the final straw being the inflation of the new paper currency the "assignat" which made bread too expensive for the masses. The American revolution was of course about unrepresentative taxation, another government economic mess. The communist revolution in Russia, although somewhat of a socialist experiment, was possible because of the economic conditions of a corrupt government and incompetent, seemingly uncaring, self-centred Tsar. You can point to Britain as being an Empire that lasted quite awhile and to this day is a large commonwealth of nations. It's adherence to sound economic prinicples and learning from their mistakes, contributed to their longevity. They have now abandoned sound economic principles for fascist Keynesian macro-economic theory, as has most of the world. Well, today the lament is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Where have we heard that before? Don't worry though. It isn't doomsday. It is just the end of an era and depending upon how we come through it will determine whether we choose to chain ourselves, nullifying individuality, or enable ourselves. It always is our choice and with today's availability of information to the individual we don't have to rely so much on authority to run our lives. It's the internet that provides this vehicle of freedom. We can learn and find out things for ourselves. When government starts to shut it down we will be in trouble. See any signs of that happening? I'd laugh at the fact that "surrey boy" is now calling Canada a Fascist state and the United States a Communist state (boy is that a tough sell to BOTH countries) if it wasn't for the fact that Canada has good Health Care... Even with our rather length wait times for non-emegency treatment I'm sure the men in white lab coats will find and help this lad fairly shortly... Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Pliny Posted February 5, 2011 Author Report Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Well, I have made my case and I think pretty well. If I do say so myself. Defining a market economy as existing in a country where the government's fiscal policies and control over such fctors as the money supply and the interest rate in order to manipulate the national economy, and where it can run up debt and deficits at it's discretion, and regulates through policy, taxation levels, subsidies, monopoly privilege, entitlements to some at the expense of others, and I could go on and on is a little bit in error. My view is continually misinterpreted by a few here and statement's like I said that Canada is a fascist state or the US is a communist country after explaining my position demonstrates that rather than being based in critical thought the position furthered by a few here is merely a parroting of current liberal academia that does nothing to improve the understandiong of ordinary citizens politically and economically. Edited February 6, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
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.