A New and Better Understanding of Socialism

[Guy Threepwood]

Not in the slightest am I advocating this.

BTW, the NAZI's were fascists, not philosophically socialists. One simply cannot state and mean that they want an economic system that benefits all, and then go about exterminating people they don't want. The same holds true with the Soviets and Chinese "communists" as well.

they were explicitly socialists, that's the platform they ran and rose to power on- of course they didn't sell the idea on murdering millions and collapsing Europe's economy- but once again the 'fair utopia' did not pan out as advertised

They exterminated the wealthy - Jews largely in this case, to redistribute their wealth more 'fairly' that's the problem with the word 'fair'. it's in practically every sentence of Mein Kampf, Mao's little red book, and any socialist manifesto. It says this idea is 'fair' so anybody who doesn't agree is 'unfair' and can be destroyed one way or another for the 'greater good'

 

[metis]

they were explicitly socialists, that's the platform they ran and rose to power on- of course they didn't sell the idea on murdering millions and collapsing Europe's economy- but once again the 'fair utopia' did not pan out as advertised

They exterminated the wealthy - Jews largely in this case, to redistribute their wealth more 'fairly' that's the problem with the word 'fair'. it's in practically every sentence of Mein Kampf, Mao's little red book, and any socialist manifesto. It says this idea is 'fair' so anybody who doesn't agree is 'unfair' and can be destroyed one way or another for the 'greater good'

You don't understand that saying one is a socialist and acting on the philosophical basis of socialism is not necessarily one and the same. How many people over the years claimed to be Christian but didn't act like one would expect a Christian to act?

So, you're really confusing both fascism and totalitarianism for socialism, and it simply ain't a match.

 

[Tarheeler]

What are the overarching ideals in your opinion?

... What has changed recently is how I view the term "socialism". I am no longer viewing it in the narrow terms of a particular economic system but more broadly as any move to place social concerns over those stemming from purely individual interests.

This is where the disconnect is; socialism is, by definition, both a social and an economic system. It's overarching ideals include cooperative management of resources and the economy.

What you're describing is already found in sociology as collectivism, and, while some schools of socialism do incorporate collectivism as part of their ideology, it is absent from many others.

 

[nazz]

This is where the disconnect is; socialism is, by definition, both a social and an economic system. It's overarching ideals include cooperative management of resources and the economy.

What you're describing is already found in sociology as collectivism, and, while some schools of socialism do incorporate collectivism as part of their ideology, it is absent from many others.

what exactly do you mean by "cooperative management"?

 

[Tarheeler]

what exactly do you mean by "cooperative management"?

Just that.

The form it takes and how it is implemented depends on the school one is looking at.

 

[nazz]

Just that.

The form it takes and how it is implemented depends on the school one is looking at.

It seems a nebulous and vague term then

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You don't understand that saying one is a socialist and acting on the philosophical basis of socialism is not necessarily one and the same. How many people over the years claimed to be Christian but didn't act like one would expect a Christian to act?

So, you're really confusing both fascism and totalitarianism for socialism, and it simply ain't a match.

Nazi was short for National Socialist, it doesn't get much more straightforward than that, likewise with Stalin, Mao, IL Sung, totalitarianism is a inevitable logical extension of centralized control, you can't just ask people nicely to surrender their wealth and freedoms to government.

 

[metis]

Nazi was short for National Socialist, it doesn't get much more straightforward than that, likewise with Stalin, Mao, IL Sung, totalitarianism is a inevitable logical extension of centralized control, you can't just ask people nicely to surrender their wealth and freedoms to government.

It's not really possible to discuss this with you as you simply have stereotyped "socialism". To better enable you, this might be a good starting point: Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, what I have proposed, and let me say it again, is the antithesis of what you are saying above. If you can't understand that, then our discussion on this must come to an end.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's not really possible to discuss this with you as you simply have stereotyped "socialism". To better enable you, this might be a good starting point: Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, what I have proposed, and let me say it again, is the antithesis of what you are saying above. If you can't understand that, then our discussion on this must come to an end.

I understand that you are proposing something different-

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Il Sung, did not 'propose' mass murder and economic collapse either. They proposed various versions of a more 'fair system' than freedom, all relatively similar to the wiki definition- how does yours differ fundamentally from that definition?

Again I think the opposite of socialism works better academically, artificially increase the gap between rich and poor, use the market as a guide to exaggerate it's selective distribution of wealth. I think that would create even more wealth, efficiency, productivity all round than the free market. But proposing it is madness, because... nice reasonable people like you would hate it, and trying to impose it on you would be a terrible idea

 

[Tarheeler]

It seems a nebulous and vague term then

Yes, general principals and overarching ideals typically are. They have to broad enough to encompass all of the schools that fall under them.

 

[metis]

I understand that you are proposing something different-

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Il Sung, did not 'propose' mass murder and economic collapse either. They proposed various versions of a more 'fair system' than freedom, all relatively similar to the wiki definition- how does yours differ fundamentally from that definition?

Again I think the opposite of socialism works better academically, artificially increase the gap between rich and poor, use the market as a guide to exaggerate it's selective distribution of wealth. I think that would create even more wealth, efficiency, productivity all round than the free market. But proposing it is madness, because... nice reasonable people like you would hate it, and trying to impose it on you would be a terrible idea

Again, there's a problem. The likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were known cutthroats before they even took power. Politicians and revolutionaries propose all sorts of propaganda and pandering to gain support, so claiming to be "for the people" is a common mantra with them, and pretty much all other politicians as well.

The unequal distribution of wealth is a serious problem that even conservative economists admit, so letting everything settle on the "free market", not only hasn't worked to lessen this gap, it shows no signs of working. Keynesian economics and the formation of unions did close the gap for quite a while, but now the gap is growing again over recent decades as the unions are extremely weak and the tax structure has been severely altered over recent decades to allow many of the wealthy people and corporations to skip out of paying the anywhere close to what the net rates were decades ago.

Meanwhile, the middle class has somewhat declined and the poor are losing ground. This is very unhealthy for our country. If one wants to avoid serious turmoil here in the future, these conditions very much are a danger sign.

Desmond Morris was correct when he predicted 40 years ago that the U.S. is going to have very serious problems if we keep too much competition internally, as no world power has been able to sustain itself in the long-haul with this much inner-turmoil. And all indications is that it is going to get worse.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again, there's a problem. The likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were known cutthroats before they even took power. Politicians and revolutionaries propose all sorts of propaganda and pandering to gain support, so claiming to be "for the people" is a common mantra with them, and pretty much all other politicians as well.

The unequal distribution of wealth is a serious problem that even conservative economists admit, so letting everything settle on the "free market", not only hasn't worked to lessen this gap, it shows no signs of working. Keynesian economics and the formation of unions did close the gap for quite a while, but now the gap is growing again over recent decades as the unions are extremely weak and the tax structure has been severely altered over recent decades to allow many of the wealthy people and corporations to skip out of paying the anywhere close to what the net rates were decades ago.

Meanwhile, the middle class has somewhat declined and the poor are losing ground. This is very unhealthy for our country. If one wants to avoid serious turmoil here in the future, these conditions very much are a danger sign.

Desmond Morris was correct when he predicted 40 years ago that the U.S. is going to have very serious problems if we keep too much competition internally, as no world power has been able to sustain itself in the long-haul with this much inner-turmoil. And all indications is that it is going to get worse.

Was Lenin a cutthroat? it didn't matter, once you create an all powerful state there are plenty people like Stalin eager to abuse that power. Socialism creates the biggest gaps of all, the 'men of the people' watched ballet in the kremlin while tens of millions starved, North Korean officials own private water parks while citizens eat tree bark, unions closed the gap?! have you ever been to Detroit?!

 

[metis]

Was Lenin a cutthroat? it didn't matter, once you create an all powerful state there are plenty people like Stalin eager to abuse that power. Socialism creates the biggest gaps of all, the 'men of the people' watched ballet in the kremlin while tens of millions starved, North Korean officials own private water parks while citizens eat tree bark, unions closed the gap?! have you ever been to Detroit?!

Again, you're confusing socialism, which is a series of at least somewhat related economic systems, with totalitarian political systems. I would have hoped you would have actually read the link I provided for you, but it's obvious you didn't. Socialism can be matched with various political systems, and what I'm proposing certainly is not having it matched with any kind of totalitarian political system.

I live near Detroit for roughly 2/3 of the year, and what's happened here has far more to do with capitalism run berserk that with unions or socialism. BTW, it was the power of unions that helped to make the Detroit metropolitan area the single wealthiest major city per capita in the U.S. during the 1950-70's.

Again, you keep resorting to fabricating parallels that simply don't exist and seem hell-bent on believing in stereotypes. Therefore, there's really nothing more to discuss since you seem to be only interested in operating out of these false paradigms.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again, you're confusing socialism, which is a series of at least somewhat related economic systems, with totalitarian political systems. I would have hoped you would have actually read the link I provided for you, but it's obvious you didn't. Socialism can be matched with various political systems, and what I'm proposing certainly is not having it matched with any kind of totalitarian political system.

I live near Detroit for roughly 2/3 of the year, and what's happened here has far more to do with capitalism run berserk that with unions or socialism. BTW, it was the power of unions that helped to make the Detroit metropolitan area the single wealthiest major city per capita in the U.S. during the 1950-70's.

Again, you keep resorting to fabricating parallels that simply don't exist and seem hell-bent on believing in stereotypes. Therefore, there's really nothing more to discuss since you seem to be only interested in operating out of these false paradigms.

Go Blue...!

Detroit became the most heavily unionized city in the US, the biggest experiment in socialism- but the disastrous result was all capitalisms fault? That's the same excuse every socialist dictator uses for the abject failure of the exact same experiment, whatever 'new improved' label slapped on it

conversely I guess that means Toyota's great success in the US is thanks to unions?!

You can understand my difficultly with that paradigm..

you can't get much more totalitarian than the unions, including the overt threats and violence towards those advocating freedom. Forced economic systems do not exist without force, you can't separate the two- that's the point, the trouble all along

 

[Guy Threepwood]

cooperative management

It seems a nebulous and vague term then

Yes, general principals and overarching ideals typically are. They have to broad enough to encompass all of the schools that fall under them.

like goose-stepping firing squads...

 

[Tarheeler]

like goose-stepping firing squads...

Right.....

 

[metis]

Go Blue...!

Detroit became the most heavily unionized city in the US, the biggest experiment in socialism- but the disastrous result was all capitalisms fault? That's the same excuse every socialist dictator uses for the abject failure of the exact same experiment, whatever 'new improved' label slapped on it

conversely I guess that means Toyota's great success in the US is thanks to unions?!

You can understand my difficultly with that paradigm..

you can't get much more totalitarian than the unions, including the overt threats and violence towards those advocating freedom. Forced economic systems do not exist without force, you can't separate the two- that's the point, the trouble all along

Complete unadulterated nonsense.

First of all, by law, all union elections are monitored federally, and are also an exercise in something called "democracy". Nor do unions have any kind of dictatorial power over companies or corporations.

Secondly, it was not unions that moved jobs out of Detroit but capitalism that had it that cars and many other manufactured items could be produced at less expense in some other countries, thus costing millions of jobs all over the country, and these were some of the better paying jobs unskilled and semi-skilled jobs btw.

Finally, you simply cannot get it through your head that I am in no way advocating some sort of revolutionary take-over but a hopeful transition through something again called "democracy". How many times do I have to write this before you understand?

Since you are so unwilling to actually pay attention to what I have written, thus creating these straw-men, and since you have no intention of doing any "homework" on socialism, my conversation with you here is simply over. I have no tolerance for such juvenile nonsense.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Complete unadulterated nonsense.

First of all, by law, all union elections are monitored federally, and are also an exercise in something called "democracy". Nor do unions have any kind of dictatorial power over companies or corporations.

Secondly, it was not unions that moved jobs out of Detroit but capitalism that had it that cars and many other manufactured items could be produced at less expense in some other countries, thus costing millions of jobs all over the country, and these were some of the better paying jobs unskilled and semi-skilled jobs btw.

Finally, you simply cannot get it through your head that I am in no way advocating some sort of revolutionary take-over but a hopeful transition through something again called "democracy". How many times do I have to write this before you understand?

Since you are so unwilling to actually pay attention to what I have written, thus creating these straw-men, and since you have no intention of doing any "homework" on socialism, my conversation with you here is simply over. I have no tolerance for such juvenile nonsense.

Toyota makes lots of great cars in lots of factories in the US, creating lots of great jobs, making profits.. without needing bailouts or destroying entire cites and people lives... and with NON UNION employees.- complete coincidence?!

GM meanwhile couldn't make a single car, and you couldn't work there, without directly paying the Democratic party a large cut in union dues, that's the furthest thing from democracy, that's a protection racket.

As I've repeated many times, I am well aware you are not 'advocating' totalitarian disaster, neither did Hitler when he was democratically elected

I don't think you are juvenile, stupid, full of nonsense, I just respectfully disagree with you and I'm telling you why, your intolerance is where socialism always derives it's power from.

I did the homework, I had to in school, but I also travelled the world and saw the reality with my own eyes, freedom wins

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Go anarcho-communist, nazz! We're a very diverse bunch. It's a very interesting ideology where you can be greedy as hell but also the archetypal bleeding heart at the same time.

 

[VargDrakon]

I think your basic philosophical premise of "the good of society" vs "the good of individuals" is wrong. A society is made out of individuals, thus the good of society is the good of the individuals. If the good of individuals in jeopardy, then so is the good of the society. A society with suffering individuals is a suffering society.

The closest logical viewpoint I see is "the maximum possible good and/or freedom attainable by any given individual" vs "the overall good and/or freedom of all the individuals as a whole", which ultimately boils down to "the good of the few" vs "the good of the many", because if one individual is to maximize their good and freedom he must do so at the cost of the good and freedom of other individuals. Take for example the freedom of owning slaves or the freedom to dictate the choices of others with your own economic or political power. Following this line of reasoning a totalitarian autocracy is the ultimate libertarian form of state, because one individual have unchecked freedom and access to the goods of their society.