Socialism is just not intelligent.

[Tambourine]

Too bad it couldn't be that simple.

All the same, I would say Marxist would indeed be more fitting than Socialist at this stage when it comes to the modern Democratic party and people like AOC.

That's a joke, right?

Maybe the word Republic needs to be redefined as well.

A Republic is just the opposite of a Monarchy.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's a joke, right?



A Republic is just the opposite of a Monarchy.

No joke and when you come across terms like the People's Republic of.... (Insert country here) ...

It makes you wonder where the truth lays and the yarn begins.

 

[Tambourine]

No joke and when you come across terms like the People's Republic of.... (Insert country here) ...

They should all call themselves "the United States of (Insert continent here)", it would be so much more sensible.

It makes you wonder where the truth lays and the yarn begins.

Can you name even one political official from the US Democrat party who has openly argued in favor of Marxist ideas or Marxist policies? Or does "Marxist" just mean "thing is bad" for you personally?

 

[Twilight Hue]

They should all call themselves "the United States of (Insert continent here)", it would be so much more sensible.


Can you name even one political official from the US Democrat party who has openly argued in favor of Marxist ideas or Marxist policies? Or does "Marxist" just mean "thing is bad" for you personally?

AOC and Bernie Sanders for that matter.

Just look at the CPUSA and more recently BLM being exposed as a Marxist organization through the very words of one of its founders.

 

[Tambourine]

AOC and Bernie Sanders for that matter.

Can you give concrete examples of them argueing for Marxist ideas?
Have you read anything written by Marx or Engels, or do you at least recognize what ideas are Marxist or part of Marxist theories?

Just look at the CPUSA and more recently BLM being exposed as a Marxist organization through the very words of one of its founders.

The Communist Party of the USA, a Marxist organization?!

 

[SomeRandom]

The Communist Party of the USA, a Marxist organization?!

A communist political party favouring Marxism? Why, whoever heard of such a
notion??

 

[Father Heathen]

And I suppose it applies conversely with the fascist tripe? Or is the latter too inconvenient?

Of course it goes both ways.

 

[exchemist]

I do agree that the competitive free market is a clever device that has utilized self-interest to advantage. But I see no future for it because:

You write in praise of the wish for individuals to get ahead, by their own effort. I don't see this as praiseworthy since "get ahead" will amount to more than making a decent living. And your claim that it benefits everyone isn't true. In any competition, there are losers.

The winners are fairly predictable at birth. If a child is born highly intelligent and infected with greed to highly intelligent parents who were infected with greed, that child is, almost surely, a winner who will own far more wealth and property than needed.

The losers are equally predictable at birth. If a child is born with below average intelligence and wants only to live a decent life, that child is a loser who will struggle to survive and is unlikely to own property.

Capitalism won't survive because it's unfair and it promotes inequality..and our world had been trending toward fairness and equality.

I'm afraid I think this is utopian and not realistic. Nobody will ever stop me from wanting to do the best I can for my child. It is not a question of wanting to do down the others, but of giving him the best chances of fulfilment that I can. That will mean he will do better than some others, inevitably.

Similarly, market competition will remain a feature of human society forever, because it is a natural state of affairs. So long as people have things to offer in exchange for other things, you have a market and then people will shop around. This was true even in Mao's China. There is no way to stop it and no virtue or value in trying.

Yes, people drone on about "the lottery of life" and all that, and it is undeniable. But it will always be there. Some parents will always be more assiduous than others, even if the advantages of wealth were somehow magically removed - which they can't be, short of a totalitarian state in which everyone is miserable. The best we can do is take off what rough edges we can to give everyone a chance - hence (in Europe at least ) we have a welfare state, social housing, a national health service for all and state-sponsored education, funded by taxation of those (like me) that can afford it.

Capitalism will survive, in my opinion, because I can see no process by which it will be ever be replaced by anything else, short of mass coercion by an oppressive state. But I'm intrigued by your point of view: if you think it will be replaced, how do you see that coming about?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Can you give concrete examples of them argueing for Marxist ideas?
Have you read anything written by Marx or Engels, or do you at least recognize what ideas are Marxist or part of Marxist theories?

The Communist Party of the USA, a Marxist organization?!

Debating schematics is not going to change what those organizations are.

I'm not giving it any sanction whatsoever because it's not what they're saying openly in public, because they won't argue for Marxist ideologies out in the open, but what they're doing behind the scenes I suspect is a vastly different story.

We all know what these organizations wind up being given the history of Marxist/Stalinist political Ideologies.

It'd be like asking if Trump/Republicans are openly arguing for Fascist ideas and have you read Mein Kampf?

See? Two Can play that game.

 

[Valjean]

AOC and Bernie Sanders for that matter.

Just look at the CPUSA and more recently BLM being exposed as a Marxist organization through the very words of one of its founders.

How are you defining "Marxist," and what are your objections to these Marxist ideas? Are you against fairness and freedom from exploitation?

Have you forgotten recent history so quickly? Do you remember the propaganda painting Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, The labor movement, the anti war movement and pretty much anyone to the left of Mussolini as Communists or agents of the KGB? Do you remember the blacklists? Don't you think this might be happening again?

The rich and powerful have always suppressed movements and ideas that threaten their dominant positions. They've always generated propaganda.
Don't swallow the Kool Aid.

 

[Valjean]

We all know what these organizations wind up being given the history of Marxist/Stalinist political Ideologies.

Free? Fair? socially beneficial?
Marxist/Stalinist ideologies? Pick one, they're not compatible.

 

[joe1776]

I'm afraid I think this is utopian and not realistic. Nobody will ever stop me from wanting to do the best I can for my child. It is not a question of wanting to do down the others, but of giving him the best chances of fulfilment that I can. That will mean he will do better than some others, inevitably.

How do you describe fulfillment? Does it require wealth or material excess? The world I expect will provide all cooperative citizens with their basic needs and plenty of time to pursue personal growth.

Similarly, market competition will remain a feature of human society forever, because it is a natural state of affairs. So long as people have things to offer in exchange for other things, you have a market and then people will shop around. This was true even in Mao's China. There is no way to stop it and no virtue or value in trying.

I think it will be a "natural state of affairs" until it isn't needed anymore. It will no longer be needed when we humans invent an effective method of governing, one free of corruption that consistently makes the right decisions.

Yes, people drone on about "the lottery of life" and all that, and it is undeniable. But it will always be there. Some parents will always be more assiduous than others, even if the advantages of wealth were somehow magically removed - which they can't be, short of a totalitarian state in which everyone is miserable. The best we can do is take off what rough edges we can to give everyone a chance - hence (in Europe at least ) we have a welfare state, social housing, a national health service for all and state-sponsored education, funded by taxation of those (like me) that can afford it.

If the advantages of wealth are removed, why would we care how assiduous the parents are? It's their economic advantage that causes the problem.

Capitalism will survive, in my opinion, because I can see no process by which it will be ever be replaced by anything else, short of mass coercion by an oppressive state. But I'm intrigued by your point of view: if you think it will be replaced, how do you see that coming about?

I think future public decision-making will be done by online, leaderless, expert panels (Let's guess that they have 33 members). Initially, they will act only as advisors. For example, a group of qualified climate scientists, chosen randomly by computer, would make decisions by majority rule relative to global warming. Then, another panel of economic experts would advise on how the decisions might be implemented. The debate-discussion on the issue will be online.

The leaders of individual nations could follow the advice or not. However, individual citizens might also follow the online discussion-debate and would want a persuasive explanation if the advice was ignored.

 

[SA Huguenot]

And you really believe this story to be actually true, right?

BTW, Jesus' apostles operated out of a "socialistic" paradigm according to the Book of Acts.

Thats not true at all.
The difference with Christian charity and socialist ideology is that Christians give what they have, and the sociliasts take what you have.
And that is the crux of the whole problem of socialism.

 

[Stevicus]

Thats not true at all.
The difference with Christian charity and socialist ideology is that Christians give what they have, and the sociliasts take what you have.
And that is the crux of the whole problem of socialism.

Any government takes what you have when they impose taxes, fees, or fines. Businesses also take what you have in exchange for goods and services (including the sales tax for which they act as agents for the government). Nothing in life is free. Even Christian churches take what you have - because God said so.

I honestly don't believe the objection to socialism has anything to do with the idea that "socialists take," because everybody takes. So that can't possibly be the problem.

The capitalists object to socialism because of what they give to the lower classes. Based on the past few thousand years of history, it seems evident that those at the elite levels in any society believe that workers and peasants should suffer and languish in deprivation, squalor, and misery. Every sweatshop, every mine, every plantation, etc. - these are testaments to the idea that capitalists have a philosophical belief that those at the lower end of society must suffer (not because there's any particular logical reason, it's more like a religious belief).

To them, the idea of peasants having a nice home, a few luxuries, and leisure is so highly offensive. They view it like putting lipstick on a pig, and that's why capitalists hate socialism so much. Not because of "reason" or "intelligence." Capitalist opposition to socialism is purely emotional and religious-based.

 

[Tambourine]

Debating schematics is not going to change what those organizations are.

I'm not giving it any sanction whatsoever because it's not what they're saying openly in public, because they won't argue for Marxist ideologies out in the open, but what they're doing behind the scenes I suspect is a vastly different story.

So they're secret Marxists who are in fact, so secret that there is no evidence of them advocating for anything Marxist.

We all know what these organizations wind up being given the history of Marxist/Stalinist political Ideologies.

I know, after 30 years of Social Democratic administration literally every Austrian with money has been brutally murdered after being sent to our Alpine Gulags.

You should just take a look around here, it's a total wasteland here, everything's broken, people eat one another because our Stalinist regime refuses to give anybody food, and roaming squads of Antifa kill everyone who questions our Dear Stalinist Leader.

Don't trust our state-run television channels or the channels that are forced to pretend they are privately owned, who will claim that our country is one of the wealthiest in the world, they're just broadcasting fake news to cover up the Marxist conspiracy that has torn our country apart!


That was sarcasm, by the way.

It'd be like asking if Trump/Republicans are openly arguing for Fascist ideas and have you read Mein Kampf?
See?

Two Can play that game.

I have in fact read Mein Kampf. Before I went in a different career, I was training to be a history teacher, and a good chunk of my studies consisted of research into Nazism and Nazi crimes.

I could point out several fascist ideas that Trump has been openly argueing for, from overt attacks against Hispanics, Black people and migrants (the classic racial scapegoating tactic that the Nazis had used on Jews), to putting non-White immigrants into "detention camps" (this is how the KZ started out as), all the way up to threatening to unleash the military against BLM protesters.

If you give me a few days, I could supply you with plenty of evidence for these if you don't already know what I'm talking about.


Let us also stop for a moment and reflect that you seem to think that
a) calling Trump or the modern Republican Party "white supremacist" is unwarranted (and that you are apparently unaware of any evidence in support for these claims), and
b) that it is excessively onerous to require someone to back up their arguments with facts, and only something to ask of a political enemy.

 

[Tambourine]

Thats not true at all.
The difference with Christian charity and socialist ideology is that Christians give what they have, and the sociliasts take what you have.
And that is the crux of the whole problem of socialism.

When you talk about "socialists" here, are you talking about actual Marxists, or are you simply talking about everyone who is not a hardline religious conservative? Because there are plenty of liberal-leaning, and even a few outright leftist, Christian organizations.

 

[metis]

Thats not true at all.

It very much is true:
Acts 4[32]Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common.

The difference with Christian charity and socialist ideology is that Christians give what they have, and the sociliasts take what you have.

Not if it's in a direct or representative democracy.

And that is the crux of the whole problem of socialism

No, the biggest problems are not doing the homework and then believing in stereotypes. So: Socialism - Wikipedia

 

[Mock Turtle]

Could someone explain the difference between socialism and democracy?

I believe one is who you work for and the other who you vote for, but they are a bit mixed up since if you work for yourself then this might dictate who you vote for, whilst who you vote for might dictate if you have any work at all. Voting for any kind of fair system (which apparently is an aim of democracy) is usually regarded with disdain such that we tend to vote for systems whereby we have a chance of being better than the next worker, but usually all it profits is the bosses - who tend to take the largest share in any system anyway. I hope this clears up any misconceptions, and it is detailed here:

Difference Between Socialism and Democracy | Difference Between

 

[exchemist]

How do you describe fulfillment? Does it require wealth or material excess? The world I expect will provide all cooperative citizens with their basic needs and plenty of time to pursue personal growth.



I think it will be a "natural state of affairs" until it isn't needed anymore. It will no longer be needed when we humans invent an effective method of governing, one free of corruption that consistently makes the right decisions.



If the advantages of wealth are removed, why would we care how assiduous the parents are? It's their economic advantage that causes the problem.



I think future public decision-making will be done by online, leaderless, expert panels (Let's guess that they have 33 members). Initially, they will act only as advisors. For example, a group of qualified climate scientists, chosen randomly by computer, would make decisions by majority rule relative to global warming. Then, another panel of economic experts would advise on how the decisions might be implemented. The debate-discussion on the issue will be online.

The leaders of individual nations could follow the advice or not. However, individual citizens might also follow the online discussion-debate and would want a persuasive explanation if the advice was ignored.

Fulfilment is not wealth. It is a sense of having led a satisfying life and, I hope, in large measure, a happy one. A big part of that, I believe, is a liberal education in the old sense, that gives him access to enjoying the life of the mind and an appreciation of human knowledge. With that under his belt he can find some satisfaction in life with a book in his pocket or at least ideas in his head, whether he is working in a bank or a warehouse (I hope he works in neither).

I mentioned market competition existing even in Mao's China to make the point that it will not just disappear if some alternative system of government comes into being. There is no system of government that will take care of providing a good, reliable, varied and cheap source of fresh vegetables, for example.

As for your panels of advisers, that will be problematic in itself. For a start nobody will agree who is expert: just look at all the anti-vaxxers there are around! Disagreement is part of human society - and it is a good thing that it is, as groupthink can be catastrophic. Politics in a free society will always have a strong adversarial component. We may attend debates on-line and vote on-line in future, though, I agree.

But this is a bit beside the point. No panel of experts is going to decide where I can get my vegetables or the price for aubergines. That will be up to the market.

 

[Stevicus]

I know, after 30 years of Social Democratic administration literally every Austrian with money has been brutally murdered after being sent to our Alpine Gulags.

It sounds ghastly. I'll bet they punish prisoners by putting them in a box and forcing them to listen to The Sound of Music soundtrack over and over.