the point of my initial post was not to expound the merits of a socialist state, in that I agree, there are few examples of success.
My point was that “socialism” has become such a dirty word (in The US at least), when so much of what we live with day to day is based on a socialist principle. “The Rights of Man”, a minimum wage, provision for the elderly and infirm, unions etc.
[quote]SDKick wrote:
it’s not all about Marxist rhetoric. Thomas Paine was a socialist. he was quite important in the old American history no?[/quote]
!!! Just because he was in favor of a minimum wage does not mean he was a Socialist. This is factually incorrect. Socialism as a movement did not exist, but more to the point, he was a flaming Deist and was the most vocal advocate of the Rights of Man that lived at the time. Advocating for the poor does not mean he is a Socialist! If that is the case, so was Andrew Carnegie…
Finally and this is the key to the whole debate and OP’s question. The Constitution does not advocate nor does it prohibit having the State take control of everything. It does say you must do so in a lawful fashion, that due process of law is followed, that it passes all checks and balances and finally, if people decided it does not work, it can be removed. The Constitution defines a way to keep mischief at bay and distills the best practices they saw at the time for informed consent.
I doubt seriously if you can get everyone to voluntarily embrace what you want. If the unwashed masses don’t want it – democracy being after all just rule by the ignorant – then forcing them to take it gives us the other most common form of government: Rule by a self-appointed & poorly educated aristocracy.
And as always, I might just be full of shit…
– jj
I am going to assume the answer is no where 
[quote]SDKick wrote:
the point of my initial post was not to expound the merits of a socialist state, in that I agree, there are few examples of success.
My point was that “socialism” has become such a dirty word (in The US at least), when so much of what we live with day to day is based on a socialist principle. “The Rights of Man”, a minimum wage, provision for the elderly and infirm, unions etc.[/quote]
Rights of man? You mean entitlements?
Socialism is nothing more than collective ownership. None of the things you mentioned fall under socialism. If you really wanted to label them you’d have to go with a broader political philosophy.
I also find it incredibly odd that you include unions under socialism. Unions are the free market solution to workers rights. They originated because individuals freely exercised their right to not work or do business with a company. They do not own the means of production (for the large part) they bargain with the one thing they do naturally own in a capitalist society, the sweat of their brow.
Today government interference has royal screwed up the union system, but unions are the definition of free market.
Unions operated (before the government interference) as any corporation does. There was a market demand for workers rights so people got together and organized a business to address those needs. Hell anti-trust (corporate) laws were originally used to break unions that held monopolies on labor.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am going to assume the answer is no where :)[/quote]
So let me get this straight, you are asking a question about the Constitution of the United States in an internet forum.
You will then base your assumptions off of what people tell you?
Please go read the documents for yourself and come to your own conclusions without the reliance on internet based forums, etc.
After reading for yourself, come back here and if you still feel the same way, then let us debate.
[quote]SDKick wrote:
that isnt the fundamental premise of socialism, civil rights and helping out those who are a struggling for one reason or another is nearer to it. not just looking out for yourself.
communism and collectivization are aspects but dead ones nowadays, socialism does not oppose private property.
it’s too easy to generalize. [/quote]
Well it’s clear you consider yourself a socialist…Civil rights is not a socialist tenet.
How is “helping out those who are a struggling for one reason or another” a job of the governement? You will not fix poverty with governement, it never has happened and never will. Socialism doesn’t elevate the poor, it degenerates everyone one else in to equal poverty. Having “just enough” isn’t enough.
The poor unfortunate saps who live in a European social democracy cannot live the life style that most Americans live. When the governement confiscates most of your money for the good of the state, you won’t have much left. Enough for an apartment a compact car and a scooter maybe…That’s about it. And THAT can kiss my American ass.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Where in the constitution does it say Socialism is bad ? [/quote]
You lack even a basic grasp of this nations constitution. Seriously, your post is a fail from the start.
Where in the constitution does it guarantee a secure retirement? Where in the constitution does it guarantee health care?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SDKick wrote:
that isnt the fundamental premise of socialism, civil rights and helping out those who are a struggling for one reason or another is nearer to it. not just looking out for yourself.
communism and collectivization are aspects but dead ones nowadays, socialism does not oppose private property.
it’s too easy to generalize. [/quote]
Well it’s clear you consider yourself a socialist…Civil rights is not a socialist tenet.
How is “helping out those who are a struggling for one reason or another” a job of the governement? You will not fix poverty with governement, it never has happened and never will. Socialism doesn’t elevate the poor, it degenerates everyone one else in to equal poverty. Having “just enough” isn’t enough.
The poor unfortunate saps who live in a European social democracy cannot live the life style that most Americans live. When the governement confiscates most of your money for the good of the state, you won’t have much left. Enough for an apartment a compact car and a scooter maybe…That’s about it. And THAT can kiss my American ass.[/quote]
I do curse the gods daily for my free health care and cars that have the ability to take a corner.
[quote]SDKick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SDKick wrote:
that isnt the fundamental premise of socialism, civil rights and helping out those who are a struggling for one reason or another is nearer to it. not just looking out for yourself.
communism and collectivization are aspects but dead ones nowadays, socialism does not oppose private property.
it’s too easy to generalize. [/quote]
Well it’s clear you consider yourself a socialist…Civil rights is not a socialist tenet.
How is “helping out those who are a struggling for one reason or another” a job of the governement? You will not fix poverty with governement, it never has happened and never will. Socialism doesn’t elevate the poor, it degenerates everyone one else in to equal poverty. Having “just enough” isn’t enough.
The poor unfortunate saps who live in a European social democracy cannot live the life style that most Americans live. When the governement confiscates most of your money for the good of the state, you won’t have much left. Enough for an apartment a compact car and a scooter maybe…That’s about it. And THAT can kiss my American ass.[/quote]
I do curse the gods daily for my free health care and cars that have the ability to take a corner.[/quote]
Nothing is free, even if you don’t personally pay for it and we can buy cars that handle well here too.
haha, yeah I know, just a joke.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Where in the constitution does it say Socialism is bad ? [/quote]
Same place it says central planning is good.
[quote]SDKick wrote:
hey, 1st post. Pat, you appear to have a great misunderstanding of socialism, it’s not all about crazy dictators and Russia. are you employed? because the socialist elements of EVERY government give and protect any rights you have.
I hope this helps a little…[/quote]
Yes, and you are actually inoculated with a very tiny portion of the flu virus in order to keep you from actually getting a full blown sickness.
I hope this helps a little…
[quote]SDKick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SDKick wrote:
that isnt the fundamental premise of socialism, civil rights and helping out those who are a struggling for one reason or another is nearer to it. not just looking out for yourself.
communism and collectivization are aspects but dead ones nowadays, socialism does not oppose private property.
it’s too easy to generalize. [/quote]
Well it’s clear you consider yourself a socialist…Civil rights is not a socialist tenet.
How is “helping out those who are a struggling for one reason or another” a job of the governement? You will not fix poverty with governement, it never has happened and never will. Socialism doesn’t elevate the poor, it degenerates everyone one else in to equal poverty. Having “just enough” isn’t enough.
The poor unfortunate saps who live in a European social democracy cannot live the life style that most Americans live. When the governement confiscates most of your money for the good of the state, you won’t have much left. Enough for an apartment a compact car and a scooter maybe…That’s about it. And THAT can kiss my American ass.[/quote]
I do curse the gods daily for my free health care and cars that have the ability to take a corner.[/quote]
Any car can take a corner when their max speed is 30 kmh…Watch out you don’t pick you nose on the corner of a city street, that is on camera for permanent record.
[quote]pat wrote:
Social democracy is not socialism and what was called “communism” was actually socialism. Pure communism cannot exist, because there would be no ruling class.[/quote]
Huh? I agree with your conclusion, but disagree with every step of logic you have to get there. Communistic society’s have existed with stunning regularity, from small close-knit clans near humanity’s genesis to moderately sophisticated quaker communes in the American northeast. Living without a ruling class can be accomplished. As to what defines ‘socialism’… unless you’re quoting somebody, I have to assume that you’re making up definitions as you go along, because where I learned these concepts, ‘socialism’ meant 'socialism, and ‘communism’ likewise.
[quote]Anybody ever notice that everything Karl Marx ever said was wrong? He may the biggest notable idiot in world history.
[/quote]
Again, disagree. I think he has great criticism, but inaccurate conclusions. He noticed the increasing mechanization of workers, which was indeed a problem, because without the need for skilled labor, it’s hard to seperate from the rest of the proles and enter the middle class. He noticed the great divide between the core and periphery nations, the former are capital-rich, the latter are labor-rich, and that the former are in somewhat of an advanteageous position, and typically exploit their powerful status. He noted that under laissez-faire economics, the rich benefit FAR greater than the poor. And he thought that these were somewhat inappropriate.
His conclusion, of course, was socialist revolution, which was perhaps a bit too much. All of these have found market solutions, from education to currency devaulation to unions.
But to say he was an idiot is to admit to having an eyes/ears/mouth-covered approach to the wealth of nations.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
I’m gonna disagree completely. The issue is not good Socialists vs. Communists, but whether they actually got in total control. In those countries (like Sweden which is still a monarchy, BTW) where they were part of the standard political discourse, they functioned well. It is not the act of disagreement but the checks and balances representational government affords that is the safeguard. This confuses the issue mightily in the US about the Left, since most Lefties want something like Sweden but have fashionably adopted the terminology without much understanding either of their own system or of the ones they hope to emulate.
I have no objection to having a Socialist party with representatives in Congress. None at all. But any attempt to subvert the system (along the lines I outlined in another post on this thread) to conform more to a Socialist form will be fully resisted.
People, we are no where near repealing the Constitution and anyone who talks like that is full of shit.
And as always, I might just be full of shit too…
– jj[/quote]
Okay. To the best of my knowledge, the LDP lead coalition never tried to change the process of laws or government in Sweden, preferring to make steady changes over decades. It seems like what you and Pat are getting at is that Social Democracy is not within the acceptable scope of this discussion.
That strikes me as unfair, because in the modern american dialogue, the people waving anti-socialism signs aren’t protesting an end to the seperation of powers (no one’s suggested that yet), but instead protesting elements of a social-democratic state (free healthcare for all!).
If the argument is defined in that term, sure, it’s over. But it’s also useless. No one (except Ryan McCarter) is arguing for Communism. ‘Socialism’, excuse me. Not even Pitbull.
Something I see from many people here, is how government takes away choice, with so much government mandate. You are lose your voice as well. When you have such a large powerful government, your voice carries much less power, and the country is even more driven by union power and influence. If you think lobbying is bad here, it is MUCH worse in Socialist countries, there is more money to do more damage with.
Just a quick note, during the recess, Obama chose a radical VERY pro-union guy to be the head of the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker. Coincidence? You still think this was accidental?
And a personal story. During my trip back home to visit family, I received 3 camera tickets while driving through Tuscany. I received them in the mail 15 months after they happened. When I called, I asked to see the actual pictures, which I was denied. So, it became a matter of "bec
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Social democracy is not socialism and what was called “communism” was actually socialism. Pure communism cannot exist, because there would be no ruling class.[/quote]
Huh? I agree with your conclusion, but disagree with every step of logic you have to get there. Communistic society’s have existed with stunning regularity, from small close-knit clans near humanity’s genesis to moderately sophisticated quaker communes in the American northeast. Living without a ruling class can be accomplished. As to what defines ‘socialism’… unless you’re quoting somebody, I have to assume that you’re making up definitions as you go along, because where I learned these concepts, ‘socialism’ meant 'socialism, and ‘communism’ likewise.
[quote]Anybody ever notice that everything Karl Marx ever said was wrong? He may the biggest notable idiot in world history.
[/quote]
Again, disagree. I think he has great criticism, but inaccurate conclusions. He noticed the increasing mechanization of workers, which was indeed a problem, because without the need for skilled labor, it’s hard to seperate from the rest of the proles and enter the middle class. He noticed the great divide between the core and periphery nations, the former are capital-rich, the latter are labor-rich, and that the former are in somewhat of an advanteageous position, and typically exploit their powerful status. He noted that under laissez-faire economics, the rich benefit FAR greater than the poor. And he thought that these were somewhat inappropriate.
His conclusion, of course, was socialist revolution, which was perhaps a bit too much. All of these have found market solutions, from education to currency devaulation to foreign currency reserves.
But to say he was an idiot is to admit to having an eyes/ears/mouth-covered approach to the wealth of nations.[/quote]
If I take a math test, and all the numbers on the left side are correct, and all the numbers are the right side are wrong, I fail the math test. In the same way Karl Marx is an epic fail. He was wrong about everything…It doesn’t matter if his criticisms were right, his answers were wrong…All of them. He was wrong about everything. Usually when somebody is wrong about everything, they would hence be regarded an idiot.
Anybody can criticize.
You are right in that very small communities can and do have communal living. A family is a good example. I don’t make money for me, I make it for my family. It doesn’t and cannot work in large numbers and is certainly a failure as a centralized government. If you don’t know whose cutting into your pie, it’s not ok…
Communism / socialism trump the basic models for all human behavior. Opperant conditioning and classical conditioning are the two basic environmental models for human behavior. It is as hard wired in the human being as breathing. It is because of that, communism and socialism doesn’t work and will never work. In Freud speak, our ego sees it as detrimental to our survival as a species. We our survival mechanisms see ourselves first, family second, freinds and loved ones third, and acquaintances forth. Taking care of who knows who, doing who knows what, with who knows who, does not fit this model. Our natural instinct is to rebel. Because if you are taking shit from me that’s beneficial to me, my family, friends or acquaintances to throw in to a communal pool for just anyone, my natural instinct is to fight you for it.
You have to know everybody in the communal pool, if you don’t you cannot share your resources with them. You cannot know millions of people. I would say a really well organized community can tolerate no more than 60 -80. Any larger and factions grow with in the group.
Something I see from many people here, is how government takes away choice, with so much government mandate. You are lose your voice as well. When you have such a large powerful government, your voice carries much less power, and the country is even more driven by union power and influence. If you think lobbying is bad here, it is MUCH worse in Socialist countries, there is more money to do more damage with.
Just a quick note, during the recess, Obama chose a radical VERY pro-union guy to be the head of the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker. Coincidence? You still think this was accidental?
And a personal story. During my trip back home to visit family, I received 3 camera tickets while driving through Tuscany. I received them in the mail 15 months after they happened. When I called, I asked to see the actual pictures, which I was denied. So, it became a matter of “because I said so.” I was not even allowed to challenge or question, just shut up and pay.
This is the problem with Socialism, you as an individual are nothing. You are a rate payer, and nothing else. You have no voice. Forget about not having a choice, you have no voice at all.
hey asshole if socialism is so good, feel free to move to a socialist country.
[quote]pat wrote:
If I take a math test, and all the numbers on the left side are correct, and all the numbers are the right side are wrong, I fail the math test. In the same way Karl Marx is an epic fail. He was wrong about everything…It doesn’t matter if his criticisms were right, his answers were wrong…All of them. He was wrong about everything. Usually when somebody is wrong about everything, they would hence be regarded an idiot.
Anybody can criticize.[/quote]
Well… technically, he suggested his revolution occur only after enough capital had been developed for the proletariat to live comfortably on and after a fundamental change in human nature had occurred. Hope springing eternal, this hasn’t happened yet, and so a 100% refutation of Marx’s ideas have yet to come to light. Arguably, this is because he placed his utopia after a new jerusalem that may or may never happen.
In short, he rested the crux of his conclusions on the existence of an event that’s impossible to prove or disprove, you just have to take it on faith. Which makes for bad science, but it should remind you of some religions.
[quote]You are right in that very small communities can and do have communal living. A family is a good example. I don’t make money for me, I make it for my family. It doesn’t and cannot work in large numbers and is certainly a failure as a centralized government. If you don’t know whose cutting into your pie, it’s not ok…
Communism / socialism trump the basic models for all human behavior. Opperant conditioning and classical conditioning are the two basic environmental models for human behavior. It is as hard wired in the human being as breathing. It is because of that, communism and socialism doesn’t work and will never work. In Freud speak, our ego sees it as detrimental to our survival as a species. We our survival mechanisms see ourselves first, family second, freinds and loved ones third, and acquaintances forth. Taking care of who knows who, doing who knows what, with who knows who, does not fit this model. Our natural instinct is to rebel. Because if you are taking shit from me that’s beneficial to me, my family, friends or acquaintances to throw in to a communal pool for just anyone, my natural instinct is to fight you for it.
You have to know everybody in the communal pool, if you don’t you cannot share your resources with them. You cannot know millions of people. I would say a really well organized community can tolerate no more than 60 -80. Any larger and factions grow with in the group. [/quote]
I think the actual number is around 150, not 60-80. I can’t cite the studies at the moment, but I’m pretty sure 150 is the number of individual relationships an person can have within a given group/identity.
So it works in small groups. And has since the dawn of time. That would negate your blanket statement that ‘it never works’. As to your criticism that it’s lack of property rights makes life difficult in large society, I agree. I’ll even go one further and acknowledge it doesn’t always work in small groups: Jamestown is a good example. But to say that it doesn’t work at all because it betrays the hard-wiring of human beings is patently false.
That’s really all I’ll take umbrage with.