Cain

Seriously, are all of your posts going to be this pathetic?

Look again at the first definition. Or consult virtually any other dictionary.

Oxford English Dictionary:

Or consult any of the specific Oxford reference books in political philosophy and economics. Or check the word as it's been used in socialist literature since the mid 18th century. You'll find all types of socialists advocating a number of social structures and institutions. anarchist socialism, agrarian socialism, Christian socialism, and so on. The common theme -- the fundamental idea -- is collective control of the means of production.

But fine, you can define it anyway you please. After all, the Soviet Union declared that not only was it socialistic but also democratic. Propagandists will say anything, stubborn facts be damned.

Myself and, um, let's see, almost every other self-proclaimed socialist I've ever known or read. But please, go ahead and tell us what all socialists really believe. This is just mindless mudslinging.

I'm curious, have you ever read anything by Marx? First, most of his life's work is overwhelmingly dedicated to critiquing capitalism. Marx and Engels' proposed alternative was often emphatically opposed by, get this, other socialists. Bakunin anyone?

No, advocating the idea that "what I earn is mine" is an empty truism. Everyone believes this just as she believes in doing things in accordance with rationality, or performing some action when it's necessary. Do you believe in murdering another person when it's necessary? I do. Do you advocate murdering 10 million people when it's necessary? I certainly do. Now when is it "necessary"? What concept of "earn" are we using here?

Funny. You do realize capitalism is the system that builds up a propaganda system implying that everyone goes home in a limo. For example, a TIME poll showed that 19% of people believe they're in the top 1% in terms of income. A further 20% believe that they will be in the top 1% some day.

Socialists advocate the idea that one has a right to shape and fashion the institutions that affect their lives. Certainly there's a recognizable utopian streak in the thought of socialism (see for example, um, the Utopian Socialists. Henri de Saint-Simon is one I can think of).


As opposed to paved with gold. Yeah, I'm not sure where I said anything along these lines in my post. In fact, I did not and you're engaging in more reckless hyperbole.

Calm down. Anyone could offer identical apologia for slave labor in ancient Egypt. Socialism holds the idea that liberty is maximized when people experience truly free and voluntary relationships. A system of primogeniture where certain narrow segments of the population, through no hard work of their own, are born into privilege and status while others arbitrarily starve, is vigorously opposed by socialists.

Another hysterical reply. As I said, there are many different types of socialism including, get this, market socialism. Just because someone takes a chance or gives up resources in an attempt to acquire a bigger pie, does not necessarily mean they're morally entitled to those gains. The lottery is an obvious example.

But many socialists advocate a pay scale directly proportioned to effort and sacrifice. See www.parecon.com/ as one model.


It's funny how you just take for granted that my model system operates on a national scale (2000 years ago political philosophers made precisely the opposite assumption).

JERDOG

The quaility of my responses are in direct contrast to that being responded to.

So they put the government control part in their definition for?????

Oh yes the soviet union fell for any other reason but the fact that it was socialist.

So what you guys say and what has happened in world history are two totaly different things.
Point me to a nation that used such means sucessfully.

Well why don't we stick with websters huh?

What concept of "necessary" are you using?
Give me different circumstances when it is necessary to murder 10 million people.

When they stand in the way of the socialist regimes?

Where do you get that crap? I was never told I would get a limo just by living in a capitalist nation. I don't even know anyone that thought they would just get a limo for living in a capitalist nation.Or any other thing unearned. YOU CAN earn a limo if you do something to earn it.

So what does this prove? It certainly doesn't prove your limo claim.
It just proves that people think that they are richer than what they are. That's assuming that the poll is portraying exactly what they are saying. How were the questions worded? What options for answeres were avalible?

So they can fucking advocate, who cares? Show me real world examples please. Anyone can advocate anything. Geez.

Not the same senerio. Slave labor in egypt is a perfect example of people not working for themself, but for their leaders own personal gain.
The people in egypt died building useles giant structures.
The people in America built structures for their OWN PERSONAL GAIN (High rise buildings). With it came jobs and increased living standards for EVERYONE.

No the lottery is not an example. Tell me why a man who sacrafices his house and works 80 hours a week to get a busnises off the ground is not entitled to everthing he earns?

Who else is entitled to it?

Here we go with advocating again.

Come up with a better system than capitalism if you can and I will be for it.But I will not support a system where people who did not earn anything can stake a claim to my earned property just because they claim they are entitled to it. Or just because a majority says they are entitled to it. Or a government.

What I find funny is that you cannot provide me with real world examples of anything.


So ZMA where do you live?
What do you do for a living?
You got a nice computer I bet?
Probably on a high speed connection too?
You wouldn't by chance be using any MicroSoft programs would you?

Philosoft

ZMA and JERDOG, I feel confident you guys can continue this quite interesting clash of governance ideology without the sniping. Please stick to critiquing arguments only; I would be disappointed if this discussion was ended prematurely.

~Philosoft

Cain

In consistency with my previous remarks, I'll just again point out the red-herring of your ill-informed accusations of socialism. Quoting from a previous post:

Yes, someone certainly needs Webster's dictionary...

Calm down. Deep breaths. I have only pointed out on at least two separate occasions the many varieties of socialism to prove, and I hope you can understand this by now, that your imposed straw man is uninformed nonsense.

Non sequitur. How is this a response to anything? It isn't.

Another non-reply. If you want to call the Soviet Union socialist, that's fine. Again, Stalin called it a democracy. Just understand that those definitions are wholly inconsistent with usage dating back to the mid-18th century.

Anybody can play "dictionary says." It's a dumb game, but go ahead, refer to Webster's. I'm at a loss to see how precisely the defintion for earned here sheds any light on the subject. Look, dictionaries might be helpful if you're writing a paper for Mr. Sanders in high school government that's due tomorrow morning, but it carries little weight in any remotely interesting philosophical investigation.

You must lack any disposition for imaginative, critical thought. I pointed out that "necessary" is a truism. That is to say that it's true by definition. Of course the specific circumstances are what matters in the case of murdering 1 person or ten million. Simply saying that it's necessary is stupid. Now go back above and re-read your comments on earning. Compare. Think about it for just one second. Think about it again. Okay, now try to reply.

Wow, you're just incredible. Incredible. It was an, um, how do I put this, expression. But the comedy of errors continues!

An astute observation, Holmes.

Yes, it just proves that people think they're richer than they are, or that some day they'll be rich. But it doesn't prove everyone rides home in a limo! *ack, places hands over heart* I cited the publication of the poll. Right-wing author and senior editor at the _Weekly Standard_ David Brooks cites the poll multiple times in various columns. A relatively recent editorial in the _Wall Street Journal_ (maybe two months old now) cites a gallop poll reaching similar conclusions. Apologists for capitalisms are euphoric over the results because it proves -- supposedly, allegedly -- how optimistic everyone becomes about their future in a free-market economy. But go ahead and look up the original question for yourself.

What are you babbling about now? And the coal miners in the 19th century worked for themselves, and children in steel mills worked for themselves. Okay, fine. If you say so.

What you've scribbled here is a confused mess. Okay, so living standards increased for "EVERYONE." Well, living standards increased dramatically from the 17th century to the 18th century for slaves in America. Is that a good argument for slavery? Living standards increased in the 20th century after Russia transformed itself into the Soviet Union. It became a super power, industrialized, etc. Is that a good argument for communism? Now Russia's a mess, in truly awful condition. I guess someone needs to resurrect Uncle Joe.

It's funny, I again forgot who first brought up socialism and why... maybe you can find the context, or just try buying a clue. The Spanish anarchists in the late 30s are one example. Mondragon cooperative (also in Spain). On a smaller scale there are publishing presses in N. America (South End Press comes to mind). And so on. I see little point discussing such issues with a clown like yourself.

And what does any of this have to do with anything? If any of my answers contradict your idiotic (mis)-understanding of socialism, then I'm a hypocrite. If they don't, I'm self-righteous.

Try to focus, if you can, on the ideas rather than the person. I know it will be difficult to get off the required personal attacks and mudslinging that way but just try...

__________________________________________

What comments have I made to violate the rules? I think a cursory examination of this thread's history reveals the offending party.

JERDOG

So do you care to answer the question or not?


Yes it's so much easier just to fabricate what ever definition I feel like at the time to avoid any possible contradictions down the road!

And I'm sure you agree with him. But of coarse if the S/U was thriving today I'm sure it would have always been a socialist nation correct?

yes I see.

LOL. That was a joke right?

So tell me. What great advances came from the Spanish anarchist that has made life so much easier for everyone?

Air conditioning?
Hum no.
Any medical advances?
Probably not.

I'm sure they were good marksman thought!


Yes the factories were for tanks at the expense of their people starving for that stuff called... Um ...oh yes, food.

Are you sure you are ready to debate this with me?

Yea people being optimistic is such a terrible thing !

Well they increased for everyone actually. You draw an unequal parallel.



yes.


No it's just funny how you conveniently "leave out" certain parts of a definition to fit your own personal view of what socialism could have been if it wasn't for those pesky capitalist.

Which by the way you have not even described what you particular flavor of socialism is. You have done nothing but point out the various different kinds.
So. What kind of socialism do you like?
I think it is time to get specific here on what it is exactly you think is the best way to go about it. lets start with this question.

What would happen to lazy people in your socialist system that do not want to work or that just want to skate by on the system?

What do you "advocate" that they do?

Oh yes and you never answered my question about who is entitled to what a man earns when he profits from him starting a new company?

Letr me cut and paste it here again for you so you don't hve to scroll back up to the top.






Oh wait!

OHHH OH yes I see now! YOUR RIGHT!
Socialism is the way to go man!!

Hey I was wondering. Since we are all "brothers" here and my earned work is no more my earned work than yours is. I am having a hard time paying my bills this month and could use a little help with my utility bill. If I set up a pay pall account will you send me about 60 U.S. dollars? I really do appreciate it brother.

Philosoft

JERDOG & ZMA,

Last warning, gentlemen. I don't care who started it, but it had better end right now. Your posts are mostly within acceptable bounds, so it shouldn't be too hard to eliminate the personal attacks and continue with the topical discussion. Any further warnings from me will be accompanied by thread closure.

~Philosoft

Cain

"Jerdog," you're a funny guy. I do not see how anyone can take you or your "arguments" seriously. I haven't posted here often in the last year (and now I see why).

But here's a suggestion: read up on the subject next time. Maybe then you'll recognize when you're in over head and try not to publicly make a fool of yourself.


"In my life, I have prayed but one prayer: 'Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." -- Voltaire

That's good stuff. Classic!

JERDOG

You know I was told by someone that there are two similarities between mystics and socialist.

When you ask a mystic to define their god, they dodge the question or use semantics because they know that a defined god can be rebutted.

And likewise a socialist will never get into the specifics of his/her flawed philosophy because they too also know that once it is defined, it is rebutted.

Take notice here people at the evasiveness shown above.

JGL53

Socialism as a political theory, as I see it, is the idea that certain bad people (identified as capitalists) economically exploit the masses, i.e., don't treat others fairly, and instead greedily focus on maximizing profits at the expense of the exploited.

Furthermore, the solution to this exploitation is governmental, i.e., the government acts as the 'people's' agent, as it were, to force the bad business owners (the capitalists) to act ethically and 'share the wealth' as fairness and moral decency would call for.

That about right? Well, maybe all this is true. Maybe it should work this way. Maybe, one day, it WILL work this way.

But I don't think so.

There's an obvious flaw here that utopians just fail to understand. If the workers in a factory pool their money and buy the factory, that's a beautiful thing, even though it's 'socialism'. The key is that it's VOLUNTARY.

But under state socialism, the government either owns - or oversees in some extreme way - the economy. Government officials, if given the power to run the economy, always turn out to be arrogant, egomanical assholes who fuck things up, ultimately, far worse than any greedy business owner (capitalist) ever COULD in his wildest imagination.

Forget ideals like 'fairness' - the whole culture gets fucked under state socialism. The late, not-so-great U.S.S.R. is a good example. This is what state socialism will always produce in the end - an oligarchy of government exploiters - and utter moral corruption of the masses. The problem is that people are people, no matter who the people are. Power corrupts.

(BTW, China is becoming more capitalistic every day, because they are beginning to understand that state socialism, i.e., an over-bearing state run ecomony, is the road to economic Hell.)

Communism is the impossible dream built on an impossible dream. Government will wither away because everyone will work together for the common good - like some ideal nuclear family?

When humans achieve super abundance of desired goods, that will work. When will THAT happen, one wonders? Not for quite a while, I'm thinking.

exnihilo

xoc,
I really agree with some of what you say, and will take your word for Kant as I haven't studied his work, but I still have a few lingering questions.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by xoc


Doesn't history show that practically every form of government is "elitist" if held to this same argument? If so, the term elitist itself seems to lose much of its meaning. Popper pointed out the flaws of Plato's Republic quite well. I think using his distinction of totalitarian would be more appropriate.

I would disagree simply because Nietzsche did not exclude anyone from the possibility of "overcoming", as you seem to do in saying that all aren't up to this, which sounds elitist itself. Obviously, not everyone has the same potentialities, but the real question is why. I certainly don't think this difference is a result of nature, it is a direct result of the corrupt social and political systems that exist to represses the vast majority of people for the benefit of the few--exactly the type of structure miss Rand celebrated. As for Zarathustra, and in the Gay Scince aporism 125, few could argue that the new ideas are not treated with resistance and even violence, as Nietzsche is pointing out. I don't think to call such an observation elitist is fair, otherwise, we as Atheists would seem to be elitist as well.

I don't see why an appeal to the metaphysical is required to eliminate the elitest tendency as you suggest. Anarchism rejects all such metaphysical foundations while putting forth a system in which equality is the essential condition of humanity. Deep ecologists also posit a similar ontology, but also include other life forms as well as a respect for the earth itself. These never appeal to a deluded metaphysical concept, which suggests that such is outside the grasp of human potential, that itself is elitism par excellence. I would also reject your contention that Nietzsche stressed the preference of the masculine, for there are many examples where Nietzsche praised women, but, of course, the negative are alsways siezed upon as if one aporism can dispiute his entire body of work. I would agree that Buddhism to a certain extent aims towards equality, but would hardly call it metaphysical. But is is utterly ridiculous to claim that the judeo-christian ethic, promulgates equality as a basic feature of its doctrine. And you point out Nietzsche's anti-femine words, while christianity is from beginning to end is profuse with anti-femine, anti-environment, anti-humanistic sentiments through and through.

Now you seem to be suggesting that it is because of elitism as oppossed to some standard of philosophical vigor and insight as the reason Rand's totally unoriginal works aren't seriously studies in philosophy. If so, why not read Nora Roberts in American literature, it is a question of quality not some form of conspiratorial elitism that colludes to exclude Rand--as she and her followers would have us believe.

Sorry but saying that "poor writing" is easier to understand sounds elitest to me. Any review of the best seller lists will no doubt support your contention, however. Obviously, the mass of people do not read Balzac or Faulkner before going to bed or watch Kurosawa and Bergman films in their living rooms, or contemplate the art of Bruegal or Kahlo, but that doesn't make those who do elitist. Unfortunately there are those like Ortega y Gasset and Matthew Arnold who had no faith in the average human being and believed such sensitivity was beyond their comprehension. Contray to what you say, I have never known Rand's work to be assigned in any class I attended, or was a TA for either in philosophy or English, which have been many. The fact that Rand's work is universally flawed with shallow characters who are little more than caricatures of opposing views of communism and capitalism and that her heroes were nothing more than mouthpieces through which her own philosophy was expressed, often in interminable speeches that ramble on for 40 pages or more. Her hack work is elitist becuase her philosophy celebrates elitism through and through, Rand never tried to hide that fact, here heroes were robber barons and tyrants who held the attainment of wealth as the supreme symbol of fulfillment.
Nazism, Christianity, Islam all have/had wide popular support, such heinous systems of thought always do. Counting Rand's work in such company does little to deliver it from the abundant faults it has. Propaganda is always more accessible than reasoned arguments, perhaps, that is why so many blindly follow Bush's words, even though he contradicts himself on a daily basis, or that so many people willingly disregard historical fact when convienent. But, then again that is precisely the kind of evasion that Rand's work promotes.
--exnihilo