American bewilderment

[Refugee]

Dedicated to @Redrose (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1123) (in sympathy) and to people who aren’t quite sure what they are, or what they support.

All our ideologies come from the classical theorists. There is nothing new, but plenty of offshoots and terms requiring complex definitions. It’s why people like Chris and Kilgram go around in circles, each coming out with old terminology, dressed up as original thought, to try and outdo each other in interpretations. Those who aren’t up to that level of theory can simply do the “lol” and “RWNJ” comments.

You can call yourselves social democrats or democratic socialists. You can pretend that socialism isn’t wealth distribution and throw around definitions of existentialism without realizing it’s not an ideology, but a philosophical theory. You pretend you’ve just discovered Anarchy and have changed its definition to individuality, whilst the rest of the world already knows it’s a state of disorder, rebellion, riot, mutiny. Those of you who support individuality are nearer Reaganism and light years away from Anarchy.

You can throw the phrases about like, “Kill the rich” and not understand it translates to “Murder people and families who have more than you”, or “Equality for all” which means in modern terms, a huge welfare system and an elite running it, or ‘progressivism’, which some of you take to mean moving forward in its literal sense, but fail to understand it’s another branch of Marxism, which changed the term from economic Marxism because of its repeated failures and hoped you wouldn’t catch on. “Change you can believe in”? Did you interpret that to mean things would get better? I bet they’re still laughing at you down in Obamaville central party HQ for that one.

You can vote in a Muslim communist political activist and wonder why, along with people like Pelosi and Reid, the whole place is falling apart and jump up and down at all the evil rich millionaires, whilst forgetting that Obama alone has more wealth than the whole of this forum put together.

Let me explain something to you and it won’t then leave you scratching your heads. Socialism is the distribution of private wealth by the State. No more, no less. It can be done in many ways, through welfare, or the minimum wage, or through high taxation or rules and regulations . . . . The end result is a transfer of private wealth to the State. All States have some form of taxation, but it becomes socialism when the State takes on the role of provider.

Communism is more of the same, except that the State, through nationalization, now owns the wealth production it distributes. Socialism is simply the transient stage between capitalism and communism and it can go both ways when it collapses; back to capitalism as it did in the UK 1980’s, or on to communism, (an Obama wish), as in places like N. Korea, Zimbabwe or the old Cambodia.

More than a few of you and by no means all still believe a welfare check is economic production, (Pelosi does). You’re still using terms like socialism, gradualism and mumbling about the First International and using a hundred year old Marxist ideology to explain a post-modernist society. No disrespect guys, but I doubt whether there are a dozen of you here that would get through a bog standard UK University sociology degree. That’s not disrespect, I think it’s because you’ve suddenly come up against European socialist style progressivism and you haven’t yet got a clue what’s hit you. You’re starting to though aren’t you? Nearly a third of America unemployed, huge disparities of wealth, a collapsing middle class, high taxation, economically collapsing cities, food kitchens . . . . . Capitalism hasn’t produced that, socialism has.

[Ivan88]

(PRESS TV)
http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20140604/365512_Bowe-Bergdahl-war.jpg
A bewildered American: Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl: Prisoner of the War Party

“The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting.”

. ‘I am sorry for everythinghere,’ Bowe told his parents. ‘These people need help, yet what they get is themost conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and thatthey are stupid, that they have no idea how to live.’ He then referred to whathis parents believe may have been a formative, possibly traumatic event: seeingan Afghan child run over by an MRAP. ‘We don’t even care when we hear eachother talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with ourarmored trucks… We make fun of them in front of their faces, and laugh at themfor not understanding we are insulting them.’"

"I am sorry foreverything, The horror that is America is disgusting."



http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/06/04/365512/bergdahl-prisoner-of-the-war-party/
Wed Jun 4, 2014 8:49AM GMT

[Green Arrow]

I've explained this already, but what America is going through right now is crony capitalism, Keynesian capitalism on steroids. It is not socialism. I'm probably going to be wasting my time typing up this long post explaining this to you, because you'll probably ignore it and keep repeating yourself, but I am going to do it anyway for the benefit of the third party.

Crony capitalism (or corporatism) is to capitalism what communism is to socialism. It is an extension of the parent philosophy (capitalism) that seeks to modify that philosophy. Crony capitalism can be summed up in the Corporatist Trinity: Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor. Crony Capitalism happens when those three entities build close relationships and work for mutual benefit. It's why you notice that our government is full of rich individuals who had some sort of legal or corporate background and particularly close relationships with big businesses, big unions, or big banks. Even Hillary Clinton worked on Monsanto's counsel while with the Rose Law Firm. These people become Congressmen, Senators, advisers to Presidents, and a litany of other important posts in the federal government. Obama as President has been no different than his predecessors in that regard. Every single policy he has pushed down the pike has been to the benefit of the big businesses that surround him and influence him. The increase in drone strikes, further interventionism across the world, all enrich the defense contractors that have lucrative contracts with the government. Obamacare enriched big insurance companies. Even the Keystone Pipeline will be eventually approved, and by Obama himself, once the midterms are over, because that enriches his oil buddies and globalist designs. Minimum wage hikes? Yep, those enrich big businesses too, because they kill off the competition.

Socialism is very, very different. For starters, the idea that socialism is all about transferring wealth from private entities to the state is complete bollocks. The first known socialist thinkers were all anarchists (and I'll get to your misconception of anarchism, too), they HATED the idea of the state and constantly railed against it. It was through debates with those early anarcho-socialists such as Bakunin and Proudhon that Karl Marx decided statism was actually good and split off from them to form Marxist communism, which is very authoritarian. Why would he split from the early socialists and form his own ideology of authoritarianism if they were also authoritarian?

Read their writings, it's quite clear that they opposed the state in all its forms. So no, socialism is not the transference of wealth from private to state. That would only happen in state socialism, which is a form of socialism but it is not the sum of socialism. Socialism is really quite simple: in a socialist system, goods and services will be produced for human need rather than profit, and the means of production rest in the hands of every member of the community, not just a set of privileged elite. You can argue that this is a stupid idea all you want, that's fine, but to argue that socialism is more than that is not fine, it's wrong. Those two ideas are the pillars of socialist thought. If your system does not observe those two ideas, then it is not socialist, and the U.S. is nowhere close to observing those ideas, nor is anyone in the U.S. government except maybe Sen. Bernie Sanders suggesting we do move to that sort of system. So, the U.S. is not socialist, moving toward socialism, almost at socialism, or even casting peripheral glances at socialism.

Further, I am a socialist, and you have never heard me say that socialism is not wealth distribution, so that is bollocks too. What I have said is that wealth distribution is inherent in ALL economic systems, which is a fact. "Distribution of wealth" has been given a naughty-sounding reputation by right-wing talk shows, but the distribution of wealth is really just the transfer of wealth from one person to another. When you buy or sell something, you are distributing wealth. If you borrow or loan money, you are distributing wealth. What socialists talk about is not distribution of wealth itself, but making sure that distribution is equitable, which brings us to the theories of distribution:

Socialist Theory of Distribution:
- To each according to his contribution.

Communist Theory of Distribution:
- From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

As you can see, in my opinion, socialism is the more equitable of the two. In socialism, you receive what you contribute. Period, end of story. It's not some evil scheme where jackboots with guns take rich people's money and give it to poor people. No, it's simple and peaceful: you work, you are productive, you contribute to the community, and you receive a portion of the wealth according to your contribution. In other words: you earned it.

Communism is the opposite. That, I believe, is where people confuse the two. It is communism that essentially says those with ability are paying for those with need regardless of contribution.

Now, moving right along to your misrepresentation of anarchism. Anarchism, like all philosophy (capitalism included - hence the much-reviled-but-barely-understood-by-most-revilers crony capitalism/corporatism), has many different models and methods. There are your violent, chaotic, nihilist anarchists, and there are your peaceful, agrarian, orderly anarchists. For some reason, opponents of anarchism want to ignore the latter and pretend the former are all there is to it, but that is false. Truthfully, the chaotic anarchists are nihilists, not anarchists. Nihilists, to quote Alfred in The Dark Knight, just want to watch the world burn. I do not consider them anarchists, because they violate the central pillar of anarchism: the Non-Aggression Principle. The Non-Aggression Principle (hereafter referred to as NAP) is simple:

Non-Aggression Principle:
- The initiation of force is immoral.

It can also be summed up in three words: Do no harm. What is the initiation of force? If I punch you without provocation, I have initiated force. If I rape you, I have initiated force. If I kill you, I have initiated force. If I steal from you, I have initiated force. Involuntary taxation, when you take my money without giving me the choice to give it to you or not, is an initiation of force. Conscription is an initiation of force. Any action you take upon another person that harms them in any way, physically or otherwise, without provocation, is the initiation of force. Thus, chaos is by definition abhorrent to anarchism, because chaos would violate the NAP.

No, anarchism is really a higher evolution of what we are as humans. We replace the violent, chaotic, false order of the state with social order. It's just that simple.

Now, my speech is done. You all are free to completely ignore everything I posted in favor of soundbites and insults. It is par for the course here anymore. Obviously, I would prefer real substantive discussion on these issues, but I'm just a dreamer.

[Libhater]

I've explained this already, but what America is going through right now is crony capitalism, Keynesian capitalism on steroids. It is not socialism. I'm probably going to be wasting my time typing up this long post explaining this to you, because you'll probably ignore it and keep repeating yourself, but I am going to do it anyway for the benefit of the third party.

Crony capitalism (or corporatism) is to capitalism what communism is to socialism. It is an extension of the parent philosophy (capitalism) that seeks to modify that philosophy. Crony capitalism can be summed up in the Corporatist Trinity: Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor. Crony Capitalism happens when those three entities build close relationships and work for mutual benefit. It's why you notice that our government is full of rich individuals who had some sort of legal or corporate background and particularly close relationships with big businesses, big unions, or big banks. Even Hillary Clinton worked on Monsanto's counsel while with the Rose Law Firm. These people become Congressmen, Senators, advisers to Presidents, and a litany of other important posts in the federal government. Obama as President has been no different than his predecessors in that regard. Every single policy he has pushed down the pike has been to the benefit of the big businesses that surround him and influence him. The increase in drone strikes, further interventionism across the world, all enrich the defense contractors that have lucrative contracts with the government. Obamacare enriched big insurance companies. Even the Keystone Pipeline will be eventually approved, and by Obama himself, once the midterms are over, because that enriches his oil buddies and globalist designs. Minimum wage hikes? Yep, those enrich big businesses too, because they kill off the competition.

Socialism is very, very different. For starters, the idea that socialism is all about transferring wealth from private entities to the state is complete bollocks. The first known socialist thinkers were all anarchists (and I'll get to your misconception of anarchism, too), they HATED the idea of the state and constantly railed against it. It was through debates with those early anarcho-socialists such as Bakunin and Proudhon that Karl Marx decided statism was actually good and split off from them to form Marxist communism, which is very authoritarian. Why would he split from the early socialists and form his own ideology of authoritarianism if they were also authoritarian?

Read their writings, it's quite clear that they opposed the state in all its forms. So no, socialism is not the transference of wealth from private to state. That would only happen in state socialism, which is a form of socialism but it is not the sum of socialism. Socialism is really quite simple: in a socialist system, goods and services will be produced for human need rather than profit, and the means of production rest in the hands of every member of the community, not just a set of privileged elite. You can argue that this is a stupid idea all you want, that's fine, but to argue that socialism is more than that is not fine, it's wrong. Those two ideas are the pillars of socialist thought. If your system does not observe those two ideas, then it is not socialist, and the U.S. is nowhere close to observing those ideas, nor is anyone in the U.S. government except maybe Sen. Bernie Sanders suggesting we do move to that sort of system. So, the U.S. is not socialist, moving toward socialism, almost at socialism, or even casting peripheral glances at socialism.

Further, I am a socialist, and you have never heard me say that socialism is not wealth distribution, so that is bollocks too. What I have said is that wealth distribution is inherent in ALL economic systems, which is a fact. "Distribution of wealth" has been given a naughty-sounding reputation by right-wing talk shows, but the distribution of wealth is really just the transfer of wealth from one person to another. When you buy or sell something, you are distributing wealth. If you borrow or loan money, you are distributing wealth. What socialists talk about is not distribution of wealth itself, but making sure that distribution is equitable, which brings us to the theories of distribution:

Socialist Theory of Distribution:
- To each according to his contribution.

Communist Theory of Distribution:
- From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

As you can see, in my opinion, socialism is the more equitable of the two. In socialism, you receive what you contribute. Period, end of story. It's not some evil scheme where jackboots with guns take rich people's money and give it to poor people. No, it's simple and peaceful: you work, you are productive, you contribute to the community, and you receive a portion of the wealth according to your contribution. In other words: you earned it.

Communism is the opposite. That, I believe, is where people confuse the two. It is communism that essentially says those with ability are paying for those with need regardless of contribution.

Now, moving right along to your misrepresentation of anarchism. Anarchism, like all philosophy (capitalism included - hence the much-reviled-but-barely-understood-by-most-revilers crony capitalism/corporatism), has many different models and methods. There are your violent, chaotic, nihilist anarchists, and there are your peaceful, agrarian, orderly anarchists. For some reason, opponents of anarchism want to ignore the latter and pretend the former are all there is to it, but that is false. Truthfully, the chaotic anarchists are nihilists, not anarchists. Nihilists, to quote Alfred in The Dark Knight, just want to watch the world burn. I do not consider them anarchists, because they violate the central pillar of anarchism: the Non-Aggression Principle. The Non-Aggression Principle (hereafter referred to as NAP) is simple:

Non-Aggression Principle:
- The initiation of force is immoral.

It can also be summed up in three words: Do no harm. What is the initiation of force? If I punch you without provocation, I have initiated force. If I rape you, I have initiated force. If I kill you, I have initiated force. If I steal from you, I have initiated force. Involuntary taxation, when you take my money without giving me the choice to give it to you or not, is an initiation of force. Conscription is an initiation of force. Any action you take upon another person that harms them in any way, physically or otherwise, without provocation, is the initiation of force. Thus, chaos is by definition abhorrent to anarchism, because chaos would violate the NAP.

No, anarchism is really a higher evolution of what we are as humans. We replace the violent, chaotic, false order of the state with social order. It's just that simple.

Now, my speech is done. You all are free to completely ignore everything I posted in favor of soundbites and insults. It is par for the course here anymore. Obviously, I would prefer real substantive discussion on these issues, but I'm just a dreamer.


You are totally wrong once again. Capitalism is Capitalism. While like with anything there will always be a small portion of the business world that uses unions and government to further their goal. But that is the exception not the rule. We do see Obama practicing crony capitalism on a daily basis i.e. government motors for GM, but again, Obama's socialism is the exception not the rule. Nothing ever satisfies you leftists. You need to knock Capitalism, Conservatism, the free market, free trade, small businesses, individual success and corporations every chance you get by tying them in with that catch word (crony) so as to soothe your leftist (socialist) take on the business cycle. If it weren't for the undue and unnecessary taxes and regulations the Sherman Act gave these businesses and or corporations perhaps they wouldn't have had to deal with the government in the first place, at least to business strangling level they now suffer through.

[Green Arrow]

You are totally wrong once again. Capitalism is Capitalism. While like with anything there will always be a small portion of the business world that uses unions and government to further their goal. But that is the exception not the rule. We do see Obama practicing crony capitalism on a daily basis i.e. government motors for GM, but again, Obama's socialism is the exception not the rule. Nothing ever satisfies you leftists. You need to knock Capitalism, Conservatism, the free market, free trade, small businesses, individual success and corporations every chance you get by tying them in with that catch word (crony) so as to soothe your leftist (socialist) take on the business cycle. If it weren't for the undue and unnecessary taxes and regulations the Sherman Act gave these businesses and or corporations perhaps they wouldn't have had to deal with the government in the first place, at least to business strangling level they now suffer through.

If you read the post (haha, I know, reading posts is crazy, right?), you'll notice that I was very adamant that crony capitalism is BAD capitalism, and is not in any way typical of capitalism.

[Refugee]

GA. Oh, I did read it.

Another word for it is progressivism. What you are now in is the stages of achieving that progressivism. That is being done by destroying what you have by socialism. I completely agree that what is waiting for you is a rule by the elite, but you’re never going to agree to that rule, so dumb you down, destroy your identity, make you a melting pot and make whole sections of the population dependent on the State.

Socialism has nothing to do with Marx and communism. It has nothing to do with anarchism. Socialism isn’t as complicated as you’re making out. The UK introduced the first modern welfare State only as early as nearly 70 years ago. Socialized medical care, socialized education, a socialized pension scheme . . . it has nothing to do with Marx and two hundred year old ideologists. Why do you think the uproar is about Obamacare? It’s socialized health care, run by the State and you’ll (privately) pay for it, that’s socialism. You’ve just brought Anarchism and Communism into something that it doesn’t concern and that’s why I said in the op, many of you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about; you’re still rambling on about centuries old theorists and trying to relate what they said to a modern era. Socialism is run by the State, who else do you think runs it, the Red Cross?

Read the op, I said socialism starts when the State becomes a provider. GA, I don’t need to read quotes or use Wiki, this is all off the top of my head. If I read all the quotes given on forums, I’d be as confused as you are. You are not a socialist, because you have no idea of what socialism is. You’re still at the stage of blaming capitalism for a massive welfare State brought to you by left wing socialists such as Obama, Pelosi and Reid. That’s how far removed you are.

“Socialist Theory of Distribution:
- To each according to his contribution.
Communist Theory of Distribution:
- From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Is that what it says in the book? Is that what happens under communism? Why do they all turn into dictatorships and it never happens then? You’re talking theory, I’m talking facts.

The rest about anarchy is pure nonsense, textbook stuff and yes to be honest, if you believe the nonsense you get from ideology’s it does sound as if you’re a dreamer. I don’t insult, but you’re a perfect example of my op and that's what I meant; most of you don't even have a clue what's hit you and wouldn't know what happened if you went into full blown communism.

[Green Arrow]

Well, I wish you the best of luck, then.

[Refugee]

Well, I wish you the best of luck, then.

Likewise. :wink: But please, don't try to do a degree in anything approaching the social sciences. Promise? :smiley:

[midcan5]

The OP opening the thread could be one of the smartest dumb pieces of writing I have ever read. Nah, that can't be true. The author starts by criticizing, with minor analysis, others he disagrees with and then proceeds to engage in the same sort of thinking and writing. None of it made much sense. It's weird how people online can so easily, through language, confuse everything and anything and think there is clarity present. People see the world not as it is but as they are - how do we broaden that to be just a bit about reality?

For the interested reader I'll link a piece that I say with reluctance could broadly be our life and my beliefs about politics, and another writer who sometimes offers great insight. Both are Marxists which is ironic in an interesting way.

"I am going to start, not with abstract principles or world-historical ideological analysis but with my own personal life situation, because that really shapes the way in which I view politics. I retired two years ago, after a fifty year career in which I enjoyed ever-rising salaries, life tenure after the first six years, first-rate medical insurance and a secure pension. These facts alone place me in a distinct minority in American society -- a privileged minority. I and my wife are supported now by money from four sources: My University of Massachusetts pension, provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and quite secure, if for no other reason because it is part of the same pension system that provides for politicians and the state police; a small TIAA-CREF pension from my thirteen years in the private higher education sector; my Social Security payments; and Susie's Social Security payments. Our medical needs, which of course grow more urgent with advancing age, are met by a combination of Medicare and a supplementary plan associated with my Massachusetts pension. Our annual income is significantly smaller than it was when I was working full-time at UMass, but it is more than adequate to support a comfortable, secure life style. Despite the fact that Susie has suffered from Multiple Sclerosis for twenty years, we have never had to worry that her disease would, as a "pre-existing condition," threaten our medical insurance, and thanks to our supplementary insurance, the sometimes very expensive medications that have been prescribed for her are always available for a nominal co-pay. In short, we are living exactly the life that seventy-five years of progressive state and federal legislation was designed to ensure." Robert Paul Wolff http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2014/06/i-said-it-once-i-will-say-it-again.html



"Do I have to spell this out? Today Timothy Egan accuses Americans of lacking exactly what he does—-historical consciousness, a sense of the past and its weight. “One doesn’t expect Palin to know that the Eighth Amendment prohibits ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ or that torture is banned by international treaties signed by the United States. But is it too much to ask for her to realize that Imperial Japan, our enemy in World War II, was prosecuted for waterboarding?"" James Livingston


http://politicsandletters.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/heir-apparent-to-thomas-friedman/


History standards: http://politicsandletters.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/history-standards/

[Refugee]

The OP opening the thread could be one of the smartest dumb pieces of writing I have ever read. Nah, that can't be true. The author starts by criticizing, with minor analysis, others he disagrees with and then proceeds to engage in the same sort of thinking and writing. None of it made much sense. It's weird how people online can so easily, through language, confuse everything and anything and think there is clarity present. People see the world not as it is but as they are - how do we broaden that to be just a bit about reality?

For the interested reader I'll link a piece that I say with reluctance could broadly be our life and my beliefs about politics, and another writer who sometimes offers great insight. Both are Marxists which is ironic in an interesting way.

"I am going to start, not with abstract principles or world-historical ideological analysis but with my own personal life situation, because that really shapes the way in which I view politics. I retired two years ago, after a fifty year career in which I enjoyed ever-rising salaries, life tenure after the first six years, first-rate medical insurance and a secure pension. These facts alone place me in a distinct minority in American society -- a privileged minority. I and my wife are supported now by money from four sources: My University of Massachusetts pension, provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and quite secure, if for no other reason because it is part of the same pension system that provides for politicians and the state police; a small TIAA-CREF pension from my thirteen years in the private higher education sector; my Social Security payments; and Susie's Social Security payments. Our medical needs, which of course grow more urgent with advancing age, are met by a combination of Medicare and a supplementary plan associated with my Massachusetts pension. Our annual income is significantly smaller than it was when I was working full-time at UMass, but it is more than adequate to support a comfortable, secure life style. Despite the fact that Susie has suffered from Multiple Sclerosis for twenty years, we have never had to worry that her disease would, as a "pre-existing condition," threaten our medical insurance, and thanks to our supplementary insurance, the sometimes very expensive medications that have been prescribed for her are always available for a nominal co-pay. In short, we are living exactly the life that seventy-five years of progressive state and federal legislation was designed to ensure." Robert Paul Wolff http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2014/06/i-said-it-once-i-will-say-it-again.html



"Do I have to spell this out? Today Timothy Egan accuses Americans of lacking exactly what he does—-historical consciousness, a sense of the past and its weight. “One doesn’t expect Palin to know that the Eighth Amendment prohibits ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ or that torture is banned by international treaties signed by the United States. But is it too much to ask for her to realize that Imperial Japan, our enemy in World War II, was prosecuted for waterboarding?"" James Livingston


http://politicsandletters.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/heir-apparent-to-thomas-friedman/


History standards: http://politicsandletters.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/history-standards/

? :rollseyes:

[zelmo1234]

Both Midcan's and Green's vision of socialism in in theory correct!

So why is it that they can point NO nations that actually practices a socialism that is free from the oppression of a state!

Because people will not willing give up freedom and submit to the socialist ideals OH! sure in small like minded groups it works but not on a national scale it has never come about without force and unfortunately, that puts people in a position of power and they will not give that up!

That is what made America different, and why we should not give up on the experiment.


Sure we have made a lot of mistakes, but the system has built the wealthiest nation in the world, a nations were the people on welfare are among the richest on the planet!

Why give this u for a chance at equality, just above the poverty line.

The answer lies in an older book "If my people who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray, I will heal their land"

[Green Arrow]

Both Midcan's and Green's vision of socialism in in theory correct!

So why is it that they can point NO nations that actually practices a socialism that is free from the oppression of a state!

Because the socialism I advocate cannot exist in a nation because it is anarchist.

But it does exist in a city - Marinaleda, Spain.

[zelmo1234]

Because the socialism I advocate cannot exist in a nation because it is anarchist.

But it does exist in a city - Marinaleda, Spain.

Yes under the control of a country in which it does not work? Hmmm

You have to play the odds in my book!

So because of that I will not willingly submit to socialism? Now what?

[Green Arrow]

Yes under the control of a country in which it does not work? Hmmm

According to kilgram, socialism is not practiced in Spain. But if it works in the city, who cares if it works in the country?


You have to play the odds in my book!

So because of that I will not willingly submit to socialism? Now what?

*shrug* Now nothing. You don't have to. Should I do something about it?

[Green Arrow]

I tried to let it go, but I just can't.
Refugee, it is the height of arrogance to make crap up off the top of your head and call it fact.

[zelmo1234]

According to @kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867), socialism is not practiced in Spain. But if it works in the city, who cares if it works in the country?



*shrug* Now nothing. You don't have to. Should I do something about it?

We it is just every attempt to institute socialism other that this city in Spain, has decided that they needed to murder people like me!

You see it will not work unless all are involved?

[Green Arrow]

We it is just every attempt to institute socialism other that this city in Spain, has decided that they needed to murder people like me!

You see it will not work unless all are involved?

I agree with that.

[lynn]

The OP opening the thread could be one of the smartest dumb pieces of writing I have ever read. Nah, that can't be true. The author starts by criticizing, with minor analysis, others he disagrees with and then proceeds to engage in the same sort of thinking and writing. None of it made much sense. It's weird how people online can so easily, through language, confuse everything and anything and think there is clarity present. People see the world not as it is but as they are - how do we broaden that to be just a bit about reality?

For the interested reader I'll link a piece that I say with reluctance could broadly be our life and my beliefs about politics, and another writer who sometimes offers great insight. Both are Marxists which is ironic in an interesting way.

"I am going to start, not with abstract principles or world-historical ideological analysis but with my own personal life situation, because that really shapes the way in which I view politics. I retired two years ago, after a fifty year career in which I enjoyed ever-rising salaries, life tenure after the first six years, first-rate medical insurance and a secure pension. These facts alone place me in a distinct minority in American society -- a privileged minority. I and my wife are supported now by money from four sources: My University of Massachusetts pension, provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and quite secure, if for no other reason because it is part of the same pension system that provides for politicians and the state police; a small TIAA-CREF pension from my thirteen years in the private higher education sector; my Social Security payments; and Susie's Social Security payments. Our medical needs, which of course grow more urgent with advancing age, are met by a combination of Medicare and a supplementary plan associated with my Massachusetts pension. Our annual income is significantly smaller than it was when I was working full-time at UMass, but it is more than adequate to support a comfortable, secure life style. Despite the fact that Susie has suffered from Multiple Sclerosis for twenty years, we have never had to worry that her disease would, as a "pre-existing condition," threaten our medical insurance, and thanks to our supplementary insurance, the sometimes very expensive medications that have been prescribed for her are always available for a nominal co-pay. In short, we are living exactly the life that seventy-five years of progressive state and federal legislation was designed to ensure." Robert Paul Wolff http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2014/06/i-said-it-once-i-will-say-it-again.html



"Do I have to spell this out? Today Timothy Egan accuses Americans of lacking exactly what he does—-historical consciousness, a sense of the past and its weight. “One doesn’t expect Palin to know that the Eighth Amendment prohibits ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ or that torture is banned by international treaties signed by the United States. But is it too much to ask for her to realize that Imperial Japan, our enemy in World War II, was prosecuted for waterboarding?"" James Livingston


http://politicsandletters.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/heir-apparent-to-thomas-friedman/


History standards: http://politicsandletters.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/history-standards/


You did state you are a distinct minority in society and that says it all.

[Refugee]

I tried to let it go, but I just can't.
@Refugee (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1060), it is the height of arrogance to make crap up off the top of your head and call it fact.

@GreenArrow


The “crap off the top of your head” I spent ten years at Uni learning, a couple of years teaching to first year sociologists and criminologists and what I occasionally still do now. I don’t need Wiki, I don’t need quotes and I don’t need to adapt theory to my own opinion or tell people that, ‘In my system I would . . .’ That’s the difference. Opinion is when people use Wiki as a third party opinion because they’re still searching for answers. It's why the op was entitled, 'American bewilderment'.

[Green Arrow]

@GreenArrow

The “crap off the top of my head” I spent ten years at Uni learning, a couple of years teaching to first year sociologists and criminologists and what I occasionally still do now. I don’t need Wiki, I don’t need quotes and I don’t need to adapt theory to my own opinion or tell people that, ‘In my system I would . . .’ That’s the difference. Opinion is when people use Wiki as a third party opinion because they’re still searching for answers. It's why the op was entitled, 'American bewilderment'.


Therein lies the problem. I rarely look at Wiki, rarely. I only use it as a quick reference on the fly, and when I do that I check the source at the bottom to verify. Everything I know I learned by my own effort and merit. I picked up books and I read them. I didn't Google, or Wiki, I read books.

Further, I also think for myself and rather than sit with my thumbs up my ass letting someone else tell me how things work, I try to find different ways to make those things work myself and try them out. This is also called thinking for oneself.

For some inexplicable reason, you think these things are bad.

[Refugee]

Therein lies the problem. I rarely look at Wiki, rarely. I only use it as a quick reference on the fly, and when I do that I check the source at the bottom to verify. Everything I know I learned by my own effort and merit. I picked up books and I read them. I didn't Google, or Wiki, I read books.

Further, I also think for myself and rather than sit with my thumbs up my ass letting someone else tell me how things work, I try to find different ways to make those things work myself and try them out. This is also called thinking for oneself.

For some inexplicable reason, you think these things are bad.

Thinking for oneself is wonderful; however, if the basics aren’t learned then the outcome will reflect that. It’s why some think that socialism is communism and anarchy is some kind of individuality; a left wing President is really a crony capitalist and socialized medical care isn’t socialist. It’s why many don’t know yet progressivism is cultural Marxism and nearly a third of the population relying on government dependency isn’t socialism.

“For some inexplicable reason, you think these things are bad.” Where did I say that?

[lynn]

I've explained this already, but what America is going through right now is crony capitalism, Keynesian capitalism on steroids. It is not socialism. I'm probably going to be wasting my time typing up this long post explaining this to you, because you'll probably ignore it and keep repeating yourself, but I am going to do it anyway for the benefit of the third party.

Crony capitalism (or corporatism) is to capitalism what communism is to socialism. It is an extension of the parent philosophy (capitalism) that seeks to modify that philosophy. Crony capitalism can be summed up in the Corporatist Trinity: Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor. Crony Capitalism happens when those three entities build close relationships and work for mutual benefit. It's why you notice that our government is full of rich individuals who had some sort of legal or corporate background and particularly close relationships with big businesses, big unions, or big banks. Even Hillary Clinton worked on Monsanto's counsel while with the Rose Law Firm. These people become Congressmen, Senators, advisers to Presidents, and a litany of other important posts in the federal government. Obama as President has been no different than his predecessors in that regard. Every single policy he has pushed down the pike has been to the benefit of the big businesses that surround him and influence him. The increase in drone strikes, further interventionism across the world, all enrich the defense contractors that have lucrative contracts with the government. Obamacare enriched big insurance companies. Even the Keystone Pipeline will be eventually approved, and by Obama himself, once the midterms are over, because that enriches his oil buddies and globalist designs. Minimum wage hikes? Yep, those enrich big businesses too, because they kill off the competition.

Socialism is very, very different. For starters, the idea that socialism is all about transferring wealth from private entities to the state is complete bollocks. The first known socialist thinkers were all anarchists (and I'll get to your misconception of anarchism, too), they HATED the idea of the state and constantly railed against it. It was through debates with those early anarcho-socialists such as Bakunin and Proudhon that Karl Marx decided statism was actually good and split off from them to form Marxist communism, which is very authoritarian. Why would he split from the early socialists and form his own ideology of authoritarianism if they were also authoritarian?

Read their writings, it's quite clear that they opposed the state in all its forms. So no, socialism is not the transference of wealth from private to state. That would only happen in state socialism, which is a form of socialism but it is not the sum of socialism. Socialism is really quite simple: in a socialist system, goods and services will be produced for human need rather than profit, and the means of production rest in the hands of every member of the community, not just a set of privileged elite. You can argue that this is a stupid idea all you want, that's fine, but to argue that socialism is more than that is not fine, it's wrong. Those two ideas are the pillars of socialist thought. If your system does not observe those two ideas, then it is not socialist, and the U.S. is nowhere close to observing those ideas, nor is anyone in the U.S. government except maybe Sen. Bernie Sanders suggesting we do move to that sort of system. So, the U.S. is not socialist, moving toward socialism, almost at socialism, or even casting peripheral glances at socialism.

Further, I am a socialist, and you have never heard me say that socialism is not wealth distribution, so that is bollocks too. What I have said is that wealth distribution is inherent in ALL economic systems, which is a fact. "Distribution of wealth" has been given a naughty-sounding reputation by right-wing talk shows, but the distribution of wealth is really just the transfer of wealth from one person to another. When you buy or sell something, you are distributing wealth. If you borrow or loan money, you are distributing wealth. What socialists talk about is not distribution of wealth itself, but making sure that distribution is equitable, which brings us to the theories of distribution:

Socialist Theory of Distribution:
- To each according to his contribution.

Communist Theory of Distribution:
- From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

As you can see, in my opinion, socialism is the more equitable of the two. In socialism, you receive what you contribute. Period, end of story. It's not some evil scheme where jackboots with guns take rich people's money and give it to poor people. No, it's simple and peaceful: you work, you are productive, you contribute to the community, and you receive a portion of the wealth according to your contribution. In other words: you earned it.

Communism is the opposite. That, I believe, is where people confuse the two. It is communism that essentially says those with ability are paying for those with need regardless of contribution.

Now, moving right along to your misrepresentation of anarchism. Anarchism, like all philosophy (capitalism included - hence the much-reviled-but-barely-understood-by-most-revilers crony capitalism/corporatism), has many different models and methods. There are your violent, chaotic, nihilist anarchists, and there are your peaceful, agrarian, orderly anarchists. For some reason, opponents of anarchism want to ignore the latter and pretend the former are all there is to it, but that is false. Truthfully, the chaotic anarchists are nihilists, not anarchists. Nihilists, to quote Alfred in The Dark Knight, just want to watch the world burn. I do not consider them anarchists, because they violate the central pillar of anarchism: the Non-Aggression Principle. The Non-Aggression Principle (hereafter referred to as NAP) is simple:

Non-Aggression Principle:
- The initiation of force is immoral.

It can also be summed up in three words: Do no harm. What is the initiation of force? If I punch you without provocation, I have initiated force. If I rape you, I have initiated force. If I kill you, I have initiated force. If I steal from you, I have initiated force. Involuntary taxation, when you take my money without giving me the choice to give it to you or not, is an initiation of force. Conscription is an initiation of force. Any action you take upon another person that harms them in any way, physically or otherwise, without provocation, is the initiation of force. Thus, chaos is by definition abhorrent to anarchism, because chaos would violate the NAP.

No, anarchism is really a higher evolution of what we are as humans. We replace the violent, chaotic, false order of the state with social order. It's just that simple.

Now, my speech is done. You all are free to completely ignore everything I posted in favor of soundbites and insults. It is par for the course here anymore. Obviously, I would prefer real substantive discussion on these issues, but I'm just a dreamer.

Communism is the opposite. That, I believe, is where people confuse the two. It is communism that essentially says those with ability are paying for those with need regardless of contribution. You quoted!

We are currently moving in that direction since our government provides welfare and health coverage for illegal immigrants who have contributed nothing. We have a number of people who have worked very little that managed to get on social security. We provided foreign immigrants to move here and start a business with tax exempt status for at least 10 years.

The government has allowed 40 million foreign immigrants since 1995 to live here while at the same time allowed big corporations to move overseas which has created a severe shortage of jobs. This alone creates an increase percentage of the population that will take from those that contribute and transfer to those that did not.

America is no longer what it was as a land of opportunity for those wanting the simple American dream. We no longer have the freedoms that made us great. Advances in computer technology has allowed complete control of the masses and if we had this technology 200 years ago, America would have started as a dictatorship.

[Ivan88]

We have a unique form of Communism. We call it Capitalism. It is just another racket run by the super rich to bomb nations and rob nations as the USA has been doing since before 1900.
CEO's are just over paid commissars.
America has adopted all 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto as local, national and international policy. And we go to great lengths to make sure that other countries are forced to become communist too.

[Green Arrow]

Communism is the opposite. That, I believe, is where people confuse the two. It is communism that essentially says those with ability are paying for those with need regardless of contribution. You quoted!

We are currently moving in that direction since our government provides welfare and health coverage for illegal immigrants who have contributed nothing. We have a number of people who have worked very little that managed to get on social security. We provided foreign immigrants to move here and start a business with tax exempt status for at least 10 years.

The government has allowed 40 million foreign immigrants since 1995 to live here while at the same time allowed big corporations to move overseas which has created a severe shortage of jobs. This alone creates an increase percentage of the population that will take from those that contribute and transfer to those that did not.

America is no longer what it was as a land of opportunity for those wanting the simple American dream. We no longer have the freedoms that made us great. Advances in computer technology has allowed complete control of the masses and if we had this technology 200 years ago, America would have started as a dictatorship.

I don't necessarily disagree. We seem to be creating a hybrid state with some communist ideals and capitalist methods.

[The Sage of Main Street]

We have a unique form of Communism. We call it Capitalism. It is just another racket run by the super rich to bomb nations and rob nations as the USA has been doing since before 1900.
CEO's are just over paid commissars.
America has adopted all 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto as local, national and international policy. And we go to great lengths to make sure that other countries are forced to become communist too. No talent brown-noses who graduate from college and get a diploma are no different from Communists getting a party-membership card in the former Soviet Union. Selfish careerist ambitious imbeciles.

The corporation is a collective entity where everybody slaves for the management commisars, who take orders from the party headquarters comprising major stockholders. All these Netwit Right Wing bootlickers here would have written for Pravda if they had been born in the Soviet Union. Even more descriptive of their opportunism, they'd all join the Communist Party immediately if the United States government suddenly became a self-declared Communist dictatorship.

[Refugee]

No talent brown-noses who graduate from college and get a diploma are no different from Communists getting a party-membership card in the former Soviet Union. Selfish careerist ambitious imbeciles.

The corporation is a collective entity where everybody slaves for the management commisars, who take orders from the party headquarters comprising major stockholders. All these Netwit Right Wing bootlickers here would have written for Pravda if they had been born in the Soviet Union. Even more descriptive of their opportunism, they'd all join the Communist Party immediately if the United States government suddenly became a self-declared Communist dictatorship.

You work for a degree; you get a communist party membership card for talking crap. Yet you’re right, those who learn how to use a system invariably do well. Those who fight it and think they’re smart get welfare, or in other parts, a good re- education in a labour camp. I’m a wage slave to whoever pays me the most, at the moment that means the communists here, who are really capitalists. They’re adaptable too, just like me.

[bladimz]

You are totally wrong once again. Capitalism is Capitalism. While like with anything there will always be a small portion of the business world that uses unions and government to further their goal. But that is the exception not the rule. We do see Obama practicing crony capitalism on a daily basis i.e. government motors for GM, but again, Obama's socialism is the exception not the rule. Nothing ever satisfies you leftists. You need to knock Capitalism, Conservatism, the free market, free trade, small businesses, individual success and corporations every chance you get by tying them in with that catch word (crony) so as to soothe your leftist (socialist) take on the business cycle. If it weren't for the undue and unnecessary taxes and regulations the Sherman Act gave these businesses and or corporations perhaps they wouldn't have had to deal with the government in the first place, at least to business strangling level they now suffer through.And yet, we have the very wealthy capitalists using their money to purchase congressmen they use to write legislation that serves their purposes. We have our huge banks on Wall Street that have made money hand over fist raping Joe America via selling them mortgages they knew from the start these people couldn't afford. These banks have been sued and found guilty of lying to investors. They simply receive a fine; no one of any import does any jail time.

The simple truth is that no one single system works very well over a long period of time. If capitalism were free to run unfettered, we'd be in a bigger mess than we are now. Big business needs to be regulated for the good and safety of the middle class. Remember that without government sticking their nose in, monopolies would have crushed the middle class long ago.

[Dr. Who]

GA. Oh, I did read it.

Another word for it is progressivism. What you are now in is the stages of achieving that progressivism. That is being done by destroying what you have by socialism. I completely agree that what is waiting for you is a rule by the elite, but you’re never going to agree to that rule, so dumb you down, destroy your identity, make you a melting pot and make whole sections of the population dependent on the State.

Socialism has nothing to do with Marx and communism. It has nothing to do with anarchism. Socialism isn’t as complicated as you’re making out. The UK introduced the first modern welfare State only as early as nearly 70 years ago. Socialized medical care, socialized education, a socialized pension scheme . . . it has nothing to do with Marx and two hundred year old ideologists. Why do you think the uproar is about Obamacare? It’s socialized health care, run by the State and you’ll (privately) pay for it, that’s socialism. You’ve just brought Anarchism and Communism into something that it doesn’t concern and that’s why I said in the op, many of you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about; you’re still rambling on about centuries old theorists and trying to relate what they said to a modern era. Socialism is run by the State, who else do you think runs it, the Red Cross?

Read the op, I said socialism starts when the State becomes a provider. GA, I don’t need to read quotes or use Wiki, this is all off the top of my head. If I read all the quotes given on forums, I’d be as confused as you are. You are not a socialist, because you have no idea of what socialism is. You’re still at the stage of blaming capitalism for a massive welfare State brought to you by left wing socialists such as Obama, Pelosi and Reid. That’s how far removed you are.

“Socialist Theory of Distribution:
- To each according to his contribution.
Communist Theory of Distribution:
- From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Is that what it says in the book? Is that what happens under communism? Why do they all turn into dictatorships and it never happens then? You’re talking theory, I’m talking facts.

The rest about anarchy is pure nonsense, textbook stuff and yes to be honest, if you believe the nonsense you get from ideology’s it does sound as if you’re a dreamer. I don’t insult, but you’re a perfect example of my op and that's what I meant; most of you don't even have a clue what's hit you and wouldn't know what happened if you went into full blown communism.
GA's concept of socialism is rather different than your own. In GA's paradigm there is no overarching state, there is a familial concept where everyone pulls together, but also pulls their own weight, and ultimately everyone is better off, not just the few. Socialistic responses within a capitalist construction has as it's primary motivation to both disincentivize crime and to make people feel less personally responsible for the welfare their fellow man. Abject poverty on the streets is offensive to western populations.

[Refugee]

GA's concept of socialism is rather different than your own. In GA's paradigm there is no overarching state, there is a familial concept where everyone pulls together, but also pulls their own weight, and ultimately everyone is better off, not just the few. Socialistic responses within a capitalist construction has as it's primary motivation to both disincentivize crime and to make people feel less personally responsible for the welfare their fellow man. Abject poverty on the streets is offensive to western populations.

That’s the problem with individual concepts; they veer off and eventually become something unknown to the rest of the world. It’s like re-writing classical ideology using your imagination of what it should be. It’s like an American version of Anarchy, which re-defines chaos to mean individualism, which is an American value and then wonders why America is run by corporations and not Anarchists? It takes a theory like Anarchism, changes it to mean socialism, pretends that socialism isn’t State run and capitalism doesn’t fund it. It gives me a headache trying to interpret American concepts and it boggles the minds of the rest of the world.

Previously to the mass welfare State, an example is the 1930’s depression, people were expected to pull together with minimal State interference, but left to their own devices it didn’t work out very well, which is why a welfare system was introduced. In the UK it was referred to as ‘from the cradle to the grave’ – lifetime State dependency.

I don’t think anyone is arguing against welfare, it’s the amount in numbers and policies which encourage it that are wrong. The American government now own 1/6th of the economy through Obamacare and nearly a third of its population are dependent on the State. That isn’t individualism, or Anarchy or any other descriptive interpretation of an alternative ideology, that’s real socialism in its classical sense.

This time the government aren’t nationalizing businesses in the old classical sense, (people already know that is communism), they’re nationalizing whole chunks of the economy using socialist State dependency. You’ve already got State dependent socialism and cultural Marxism; you’re now getting an attempt at communism (State ownership) by the back door.

[Dr. Who]

That’s the problem with individual concepts; they veer off and eventually become something unknown to the rest of the world. It’s like re-writing classical ideology using your imagination of what it should be. It’s like an American version of Anarchy, which re-defines chaos to mean individualism, which is an American value and then wonders why America is run by corporations and not Anarchists? It takes a theory like Anarchism, changes it to mean socialism, pretends that socialism isn’t State run and capitalism doesn’t fund it. It gives me a headache trying to interpret American concepts and it boggles the minds of the rest of the world.

Previously to the mass welfare State, an example is the 1930’s depression, people were expected to pull together with minimal State interference, but left to their own devices it didn’t work out very well, which is why a welfare system was introduced. In the UK it was referred to as ‘from the cradle to the grave’ – lifetime State dependency.

I don’t think anyone is arguing against welfare, it’s the amount in numbers and policies which encourage it that are wrong. The American government now own 1/6th of the economy through Obamacare and nearly a third of its population are dependent on the State. That isn’t individualism, or Anarchy or any other descriptive interpretation of an alternative ideology, that’s real socialism in its classical sense.

This time the government aren’t nationalizing businesses in the old classical sense, (people already know that is communism), they’re nationalizing whole chunks of the economy using socialist State dependency. You’ve already got State dependent socialism and cultural Marxism; you’re now getting an attempt at communism (State ownership) by the back door.
You might not wish to live in the state that you theoretically prefer, or at least most westerners would find it appalling. Think third world crime and poverty. That's what the first world has sought to eliminate. Westerners are not as hard boiled as third worlders. We don't have caste systems that persuade people that your parentage determines your future. You cannot reconcile a world where everyone starts from a position of equitability and is unfortunately not born to affluent parents and then acquiesce to the fact that everyone will not, but for state intervention, have the basic necessities of life. While the methodology of state welfare, embroiled as it is in a bureaucratic morass, is less than efficient, the alternative would be even more offensive. Consider children with swollen bellies and dead bodies on the street. We now have so much more ability to directly influence government through the internet. It only requires organization to push the message that the people will not tolerate bureaucratic inefficiency. It is perfectly possible to avoid fraudulent welfare through software investments, but ultimately if there is insufficient employment, you are left with the spectre of choosing government support of the indigent or dealing with the visible consequences of poverty.

[Refugee]

You might not wish to live in the state that you theoretically prefer, or at least most westerners would find it appalling. Think third world crime and poverty. That's what the first world has sought to eliminate. Westerners are not as hard boiled as third worlders. We don't have caste systems that persuade people that your parentage determines your future. You cannot reconcile a world where everyone starts from a position of equitability and is unfortunately not born to affluent parents and then acquiesce to the fact that everyone will not, but for state intervention, have the basic necessities of life. While the methodology of state welfare, embroiled as it is in a bureaucratic morass, is less than efficient, the alternative would be even more offensive. Consider children with swollen bellies and dead bodies on the street. We now have so much more ability to directly influence government through the internet. It only requires organization to push the message that the people will not tolerate bureaucratic inefficiency. It is perfectly possible to avoid fraudulent welfare through software investments, but ultimately if there is insufficient employment, you are left with the spectre of choosing government support of the indigent or dealing with the visible consequences of poverty.

The west doesn’t have a caste system, it has an economic class system. America has the highest imprisoned population in the world and the highest crime rate. Poverty and wealth disparity is increasing in the west at alarming rates . . . . . Mass welfare entitlement has not reduced any of that. What it has done is stop absolute poverty which is a good thing, but replaced it with an emphasis on relative poverty and equality instead of a safety net. When a society begins to be judged on what the State provides and not what it produces, that’s when you’ll see it collapsing.

As I don’t buy into an equality concept, I also don’t see a problem with some being more successful than others, whether through a fact of birth or inheritance. I call that the luck of the draw and were I extremely wealthy, I too would be worrying about promoting my child’s future, rather than those of others.

I don’t think it’s so much as people influencing governments, but government policies influencing people. People were weeping in the streets and attending mass political rallies long before Obama put them on welfare. So it’s not that there is welfare, I think it’s the way it’s seen as a long term lifestyle entitlement that is now the problem.

Welfare was never meant to be ‘free’; it was originally designed as a UK social insurance paid scheme run by the government. Along the way it got corrupted into what it has become today. You simply can’t have a society where those on welfare get more than a minimum wage, or compare those who don’t produce as needing economic equality in relative terms to those who do.

[Dr. Who]

The west doesn’t have a caste system, it has an economic class system. America has the highest imprisoned population in the world and the highest crime rate. Poverty and wealth disparity is increasing in the west at alarming rates . . . . . Mass welfare entitlement has not reduced any of that. What it has done is stop absolute poverty which is a good thing, but replaced it with an emphasis on relative poverty and equality instead of a safety net. When a society begins to be judged on what the State provides and not what it produces, that’s when you’ll see it collapsing.

As I don’t buy into an equality concept, I also don’t see a problem with some being more successful than others, whether through a fact of birth or inheritance. I call that the luck of the draw and were I extremely wealthy, I too would be worrying about promoting my child’s future, rather than those of others.

I don’t think it’s so much as people influencing governments, but government policies influencing people. People were weeping in the streets and attending mass political rallies long before Obama put them on welfare. So it’s not that there is welfare, I think it’s the way it’s seen as a long term lifestyle entitlement that is now the problem.

Welfare was never meant to be ‘free’; it was originally designed as a UK social insurance paid scheme run by the government. Along the way it got corrupted into what it has become today. You simply can’t have a society where those on welfare get more than a minimum wage, or compare those who don’t produce as needing economic equality in relative terms to those who do.

I agree, but that is part of the bureaucratic morass that bears more resemblance to Microsoft's policy of backward compatibility than to anything sensible. Governments never start over again with respect to their various departments or ministries, they simply add more protocol and rules to the existing structure. Eventually it becomes an unworkable mess that no longer serves its mandate.

[Refugee]

I agree, but that is part of the bureaucratic morass that bears more resemblance to Microsoft's policy of backward compatibility than to anything sensible. Governments never start over again with respect to their various departments or ministries, they simply add more protocol and rules to the existing structure. Eventually it becomes an unworkable mess that no longer serves its mandate.

Agreed, the power of governments never decrease. The problem now is how big and how much more influence will it have over lives if and when the welfare numbers reach 100 million or 150 million?

In the UK an estimated one in five people already work directly or indirectly for the government. Translate that to America and if there are 200 million of working age, and 300 million total, that would equate to 40 million government employees. If you were at the stage the UK is at now, (92m on welfare, 100m elderly, young, disabled non producers + 40m government employees), you’d have a productive population of around 68 million taxpayers paying for an unproductive 232 million. Your economy will have collapsed long before that stage, just like the UK one.

[Bob]

Dedicated to @Redrose (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1123) (in sympathy) and to people who aren’t quite sure what they are, or what they support.

All our ideologies come from the classical theorists. There is nothing new, but plenty of offshoots and terms requiring complex definitions. It’s why people like Chris and Kilgram go around in circles, each coming out with old terminology, dressed up as original thought, to try and outdo each other in interpretations. Those who aren’t up to that level of theory can simply do the “lol” and “RWNJ” comments.

You can call yourselves social democrats or democratic socialists. You can pretend that socialism isn’t wealth distribution and throw around definitions of existentialism without realizing it’s not an ideology, but a philosophical theory. You pretend you’ve just discovered Anarchy and have changed its definition to individuality, whilst the rest of the world already knows it’s a state of disorder, rebellion, riot, mutiny. Those of you who support individuality are nearer Reaganism and light years away from Anarchy.

You can throw the phrases about like, “Kill the rich” and not understand it translates to “Murder people and families who have more than you”, or “Equality for all” which means in modern terms, a huge welfare system and an elite running it, or ‘progressivism’, which some of you take to mean moving forward in its literal sense, but fail to understand it’s another branch of Marxism, which changed the term from economic Marxism because of its repeated failures and hoped you wouldn’t catch on. “Change you can believe in”? Did you interpret that to mean things would get better? I bet they’re still laughing at you down in Obamaville central party HQ for that one.

You can vote in a Muslim communist political activist and wonder why, along with people like Pelosi and Reid, the whole place is falling apart and jump up and down at all the evil rich millionaires, whilst forgetting that Obama alone has more wealth than the whole of this forum put together.

Let me explain something to you and it won’t then leave you scratching your heads. Socialism is the distribution of private wealth by the State. No more, no less. It can be done in many ways, through welfare, or the minimum wage, or through high taxation or rules and regulations . . . . The end result is a transfer of private wealth to the State. All States have some form of taxation, but it becomes socialism when the State takes on the role of provider.

Communism is more of the same, except that the State, through nationalization, now owns the wealth production it distributes. Socialism is simply the transient stage between capitalism and communism and it can go both ways when it collapses; back to capitalism as it did in the UK 1980’s, or on to communism, (an Obama wish), as in places like N. Korea, Zimbabwe or the old Cambodia.

More than a few of you and by no means all still believe a welfare check is economic production, (Pelosi does). You’re still using terms like socialism, gradualism and mumbling about the First International and using a hundred year old Marxist ideology to explain a post-modernist society. No disrespect guys, but I doubt whether there are a dozen of you here that would get through a bog standard UK University sociology degree. That’s not disrespect, I think it’s because you’ve suddenly come up against European socialist style progressivism and you haven’t yet got a clue what’s hit you. You’re starting to though aren’t you? Nearly a third of America unemployed, huge disparities of wealth, a collapsing middle class, high taxation, economically collapsing cities, food kitchens . . . . . Capitalism hasn’t produced that, socialism has.





I 100 percent agree with you.

They used to tell me it was not socialism since the Government had not taken the production or means of it.

I told them, you just don't see them doing it.

They control the type of car you drive. Yes, the FEDS are in charge of that auto. They established rules at your job. They rule you at work. It is a fast way to hell.

Very well said Refugee.

My god, that is powerful. The best I ever read in so few words.

[Bob]

I've explained this already, but what America is going through right now is crony capitalism, Keynesian capitalism on steroids. It is not socialism. I'm probably going to be wasting my time typing up this long post explaining this to you, because you'll probably ignore it and keep repeating yourself, but I am going to do it anyway for the benefit of the third party.

Crony capitalism (or corporatism) is to capitalism what communism is to socialism. It is an extension of the parent philosophy (capitalism) that seeks to modify that philosophy. Crony capitalism can be summed up in the Corporatist Trinity: Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor. Crony Capitalism happens when those three entities build close relationships and work for mutual benefit. It's why you notice that our government is full of rich individuals who had some sort of legal or corporate background and particularly close relationships with big businesses, big unions, or big banks. Even Hillary Clinton worked on Monsanto's counsel while with the Rose Law Firm. These people become Congressmen, Senators, advisers to Presidents, and a litany of other important posts in the federal government. Obama as President has been no different than his predecessors in that regard. Every single policy he has pushed down the pike has been to the benefit of the big businesses that surround him and influence him. The increase in drone strikes, further interventionism across the world, all enrich the defense contractors that have lucrative contracts with the government. Obamacare enriched big insurance companies. Even the Keystone Pipeline will be eventually approved, and by Obama himself, once the midterms are over, because that enriches his oil buddies and globalist designs. Minimum wage hikes? Yep, those enrich big businesses too, because they kill off the competition.

Socialism is very, very different. For starters, the idea that socialism is all about transferring wealth from private entities to the state is complete bollocks. The first known socialist thinkers were all anarchists (and I'll get to your misconception of anarchism, too), they HATED the idea of the state and constantly railed against it. It was through debates with those early anarcho-socialists such as Bakunin and Proudhon that Karl Marx decided statism was actually good and split off from them to form Marxist communism, which is very authoritarian. Why would he split from the early socialists and form his own ideology of authoritarianism if they were also authoritarian?

Read their writings, it's quite clear that they opposed the state in all its forms. So no, socialism is not the transference of wealth from private to state. That would only happen in state socialism, which is a form of socialism but it is not the sum of socialism. Socialism is really quite simple: in a socialist system, goods and services will be produced for human need rather than profit, and the means of production rest in the hands of every member of the community, not just a set of privileged elite. You can argue that this is a stupid idea all you want, that's fine, but to argue that socialism is more than that is not fine, it's wrong. Those two ideas are the pillars of socialist thought. If your system does not observe those two ideas, then it is not socialist, and the U.S. is nowhere close to observing those ideas, nor is anyone in the U.S. government except maybe Sen. Bernie Sanders suggesting we do move to that sort of system. So, the U.S. is not socialist, moving toward socialism, almost at socialism, or even casting peripheral glances at socialism.

Further, I am a socialist, and you have never heard me say that socialism is not wealth distribution, so that is bollocks too. What I have said is that wealth distribution is inherent in ALL economic systems, which is a fact. "Distribution of wealth" has been given a naughty-sounding reputation by right-wing talk shows, but the distribution of wealth is really just the transfer of wealth from one person to another. When you buy or sell something, you are distributing wealth. If you borrow or loan money, you are distributing wealth. What socialists talk about is not distribution of wealth itself, but making sure that distribution is equitable, which brings us to the theories of distribution:

Socialist Theory of Distribution:
- To each according to his contribution.

Communist Theory of Distribution:
- From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

As you can see, in my opinion, socialism is the more equitable of the two. In socialism, you receive what you contribute. Period, end of story. It's not some evil scheme where jackboots with guns take rich people's money and give it to poor people. No, it's simple and peaceful: you work, you are productive, you contribute to the community, and you receive a portion of the wealth according to your contribution. In other words: you earned it.

Communism is the opposite. That, I believe, is where people confuse the two. It is communism that essentially says those with ability are paying for those with need regardless of contribution.

Now, moving right along to your misrepresentation of anarchism. Anarchism, like all philosophy (capitalism included - hence the much-reviled-but-barely-understood-by-most-revilers crony capitalism/corporatism), has many different models and methods. There are your violent, chaotic, nihilist anarchists, and there are your peaceful, agrarian, orderly anarchists. For some reason, opponents of anarchism want to ignore the latter and pretend the former are all there is to it, but that is false. Truthfully, the chaotic anarchists are nihilists, not anarchists. Nihilists, to quote Alfred in The Dark Knight, just want to watch the world burn. I do not consider them anarchists, because they violate the central pillar of anarchism: the Non-Aggression Principle. The Non-Aggression Principle (hereafter referred to as NAP) is simple:

Non-Aggression Principle:
- The initiation of force is immoral.

It can also be summed up in three words: Do no harm. What is the initiation of force? If I punch you without provocation, I have initiated force. If I rape you, I have initiated force. If I kill you, I have initiated force. If I steal from you, I have initiated force. Involuntary taxation, when you take my money without giving me the choice to give it to you or not, is an initiation of force. Conscription is an initiation of force. Any action you take upon another person that harms them in any way, physically or otherwise, without provocation, is the initiation of force. Thus, chaos is by definition abhorrent to anarchism, because chaos would violate the NAP.

No, anarchism is really a higher evolution of what we are as humans. We replace the violent, chaotic, false order of the state with social order. It's just that simple.

Now, my speech is done. You all are free to completely ignore everything I posted in favor of soundbites and insults. It is par for the course here anymore. Obviously, I would prefer real substantive discussion on these issues, but I'm just a dreamer.

I congratulate you for putting a lot of thought into that screed.

Refugee is not wrong.

There are parts of your claims I can sympathize with.

Why not read America's 30 years war by Balint Vazsonyi.

Do yourself a favor. I will not read to see who insulted or offered a discussion. I believe Refugee is able to explain it so I will hold off for today.

[Bob]

Well, I wish you the best of luck, then.

You showed up with a flame thrower and that is it then?

[Bob]

@GreenArrow


The “crap off the top of your head” I spent ten years at Uni learning, a couple of years teaching to first year sociologists and criminologists and what I occasionally still do now. I don’t need Wiki, I don’t need quotes and I don’t need to adapt theory to my own opinion or tell people that, ‘In my system I would . . .’ That’s the difference. Opinion is when people use Wiki as a third party opinion because they’re still searching for answers. It's why the op was entitled, 'American bewilderment'.

I said so and still say so. That OP is flat brilliant. You may call it just learned, but it hits on all cylinders.

Bear in mind Arrow is a very young person.

Had you argued with me at his age, I no doubt would entirely side with Green Arrow. It is how I used to believe. Habits learned by age 25 take time to relearn and kick into the trash bin.

It seems to me that when one reads material, they let some of it seep deep into their minds. If they read enough of Marx and Engels, that creeps in. If they read Mein Kamf, that seeps in.

Soon they have a philosophy that is pure bull shit. They think it is right.

They don't mention the pamphlets by Thomas Paine. They have not studied the marvelous book by Balint Vassonyi. The man lived with the Socialist and the Nazis. He died but when he was living, he warned this country. The founders knew of those systems. Why would they not put the country into Socialism or even Communism. The ideas by Marx were not his inventions. He gathered them and put them into a book.

I have many books on various philosophy.

Refugee, you are a patient man. I sure am happy you are posting.

Even what Green Arrow says at least has plenty of thought behind it.

[Bob]

Communism is the opposite. That, I believe, is where people confuse the two. It is communism that essentially says those with ability are paying for those with need regardless of contribution. You quoted!

We are currently moving in that direction since our government provides welfare and health coverage for illegal immigrants who have contributed nothing. We have a number of people who have worked very little that managed to get on social security. We provided foreign immigrants to move here and start a business with tax exempt status for at least 10 years.

The government has allowed 40 million foreign immigrants since 1995 to live here while at the same time allowed big corporations to move overseas which has created a severe shortage of jobs. This alone creates an increase percentage of the population that will take from those that contribute and transfer to those that did not.

America is no longer what it was as a land of opportunity for those wanting the simple American dream. We no longer have the freedoms that made us great. Advances in computer technology has allowed complete control of the masses and if we had this technology 200 years ago, America would have started as a dictatorship.

Refugee can correct me if he pleases but in simple words, this to me is how it works.

Socialism is Communism 1.

Communism is Communism 2. Fully developed as a natural off shoot of socialism.

[Bob]

I don't necessarily disagree. We seem to be creating a hybrid state with some communist ideals and capitalist methods.

Capitalism never operates by using force of law. This is why I hate how this government operates. It is pure force. When you take a taxi, that is capitalism. When you purchase milk, that is capitalism. Capitalism is FREE market forces.

Much of what we declare is not FREE market is because the Government seized the power. It took it from the people all in the name of saving us.

[Green Arrow]

You showed up with a flame thrower and that is it then?

I said my peace, and my time was wasted. So be it. You and Refugee are free to run off with what's "off the top of your heads" and redefine as many words as you want. You have that right. I have the right to call bullshit and choose not to ride your crazy train.

Now, belittle my age again. That's always fun.

[Bob]

That’s the problem with individual concepts; they veer off and eventually become something unknown to the rest of the world. It’s like re-writing classical ideology using your imagination of what it should be. It’s like an American version of Anarchy, which re-defines chaos to mean individualism, which is an American value and then wonders why America is run by corporations and not Anarchists? It takes a theory like Anarchism, changes it to mean socialism, pretends that socialism isn’t State run and capitalism doesn’t fund it. It gives me a headache trying to interpret American concepts and it boggles the minds of the rest of the world.

Previously to the mass welfare State, an example is the 1930’s depression, people were expected to pull together with minimal State interference, but left to their own devices it didn’t work out very well, which is why a welfare system was introduced. In the UK it was referred to as ‘from the cradle to the grave’ – lifetime State dependency.

I don’t think anyone is arguing against welfare, it’s the amount in numbers and policies which encourage it that are wrong. The American government now own 1/6th of the economy through Obamacare and nearly a third of its population are dependent on the State. That isn’t individualism, or Anarchy or any other descriptive interpretation of an alternative ideology, that’s real socialism in its classical sense.

This time the government aren’t nationalizing businesses in the old classical sense, (people already know that is communism), they’re nationalizing whole chunks of the economy using socialist State dependency. You’ve already got State dependent socialism and cultural Marxism; you’re now getting an attempt at communism (State ownership) by the back door.

I scanned this but I believe I totally agree. We might tweak it a bit but essentially, perfect.

[Bob]

I said my peace, and my time was wasted. So be it. You and Refugee are free to run off with what's "off the top of your heads" and redefine as many words as you want. You have that right. I have the right to call bullshit and choose not to ride your crazy train.

Now, belittle my age again. That's always fun.


Hey, your age is a problem.

And you blew off the top of your head.

Crap, you think you invented your form of thought????

[Green Arrow]

Hey, your age is a problem.

And you blew off the top of your head.

Crap, you think you invented your form of thought????

Where the hell did I say I invented it, Bob?

[Refugee]

Refugee can correct me if he pleases but in simple words, this to me is how it works.

Socialism is Communism 1.

Communism is Communism 2. Fully developed as a natural off shoot of socialism.

Socialism can lead to communism and in Marxism it's the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Communism always leads to a dictatorship, which was never intended but always happens.

[Refugee]

Hey GA

I’m not knocking you or your age, feel free to have your say. :smiley: As I said, it’s something that I do for a living; it’s off the top of my head and I too get bits wrong now and again because I’m not putting much thought into it, simply repeating what I do. The problem I have is that all this can’t be explained in one paragraph and I’m beginning to find out that people sort of lose it if it goes beyond a quick three line read.

Moving on.

Another big mistake often made here are those unable to distinguish a philosophy from a political ideology. A philosophy is simply a thought. An ideology goes beyond that to develop that thought into workable sets of ideas related to that particular era and society. You then need to add an economic system to fund it and finally present it as a political manifesto.

Philosophy > ideology > economics > manifesto

It’s why economic Marxism keeps failing; it takes a philosophical concept, but gets lost at the ideological stage because it can’t relate materialism and ownership to wealth distribution and like anarchism, it just supposes it will happen of its own accord. Realistically then, you can’t be a Marxist, you can only think it through philosophically. Communism can’t stand a reality test and so people say it has never worked because there has never been a truly communist Society. That’s because it can’t exist ideologically or economically outside of philosophical thought, but always produces a never intended dictatorship.

Socialism is also not communism because the State does not own the means or modes of production, it lets capitalism pay for it. Socialism then passes the ideology test but then loses it at the economics stage when the State begins to distribute more than it is able to raise to achieve an unobtainable standard of equality with income to finance it. It’s therefore dependent on that it wishes and tries so hard to destroy and eventually the State has to revert to communism, (the ownership of wealth), to fund an ideology, which as shown, produces a dictatorship. So when people say they’re this or they’re that, it often simply means a wish and like the classical ideologists, often fails the reality test.

Meanwhile, much of America hasn’t even begun to grasp these basics and the whole point of my op was to say to people that if you’re going to start playing with European isms, it’s best to learn what they are and the differences between philosophies and ideologies. The American government now own 1/6th of the economy through Obamacare and has 92 million reliant on it for their existence. That’s an awful lot of government wealth ownership beginning to creep in through the back door and many are saying Obama and the government are beginning to act as (communist) dictators?

[Bob]

Now, belittle my age again. That's always fun.

I failed to comment on that statement previously Green Arrow however you may feel, you have done this to several posters even this very week. I was not belittling you but pointing out that it takes time and hard study to arrive at the point you will by the time you reach retirement age. I believe when you are 75, god willing, you will look back and wonder why you believe what you believe today. I predict you will change a lot.

I think with your mind, it will perhaps happen to you sooner rather than later. I don't mean to belittle you nor any poster.

[Bob]

Hey GA

I’m not knocking you or your age, feel free to have your say. :smiley: As I said, it’s something that I do for a living; it’s off the top of my head and I too get bits wrong now and again because I’m not putting much thought into it, simply repeating what I do. The problem I have is that all this can’t be explained in one paragraph and I’m beginning to find out that people sort of lose it if it goes beyond a quick three line read.

Moving on.

Another big mistake often made here are those unable to distinguish a philosophy from a political ideology. A philosophy is simply a thought. An ideology goes beyond that to develop that thought into workable sets of ideas related to that particular era and society. You then need to add an economic system to fund it and finally present it as a political manifesto.

Philosophy > ideology > economics > manifesto

It’s why economic Marxism keeps failing; it takes a philosophical concept, but gets lost at the ideological stage because it can’t relate materialism and ownership to wealth distribution and like anarchism, it just supposes it will happen of its own accord. Realistically then, you can’t be a Marxist, you can only think it through philosophically. Communism can’t stand a reality test and so people say it has never worked because there has never been a truly communist Society. That’s because it can’t exist ideologically or economically outside of philosophical thought, but always produces a never intended dictatorship.

Socialism is also not communism because the State does not own the means or modes of production, it lets capitalism pay for it. Socialism then passes the ideology test but then loses it at the economics stage when the State begins to distribute more than it is able to raise to achieve an unobtainable standard of equality with income to finance it. It’s therefore dependent on that it wishes and tries so hard to destroy and eventually the State has to revert to communism, (the ownership of wealth), to fund an ideology, which as shown, produces a dictatorship. So when people say they’re this or they’re that, it often simply means a wish and like the classical ideologists, often fails the reality test.

Meanwhile, much of America hasn’t even begun to grasp these basics and the whole point of my op was to say to people that if you’re going to start playing with European isms, it’s best to learn what they are and the differences between philosophies and ideologies. The American government now own 1/6th of the economy through Obamacare and has 92 million reliant on it for their existence. That’s an awful lot of government wealth ownership beginning to creep in through the back door and many are saying Obama and the government are beginning to act as (communist) dictators?


:icon_study: :applause:

Folks, I implore you to learn from Refugee. He artfully explains the so called complex.

I have said numerous times that I learned how communism/ socialism works by visiting it in operation. Seeing is believing. I became a student of history as well as philosophy and ideology because of that experience.

I am telling you, they lived with machine guns pointed at them. We don't. We have cop problems, but they don't mass murder us.

Those that think they love either communism or socialism better remember they enforce that with arms. Hungary was rolled over with tanks

Think Tianamen square and you may reel in horror you wanted socialism or communism.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=639657#post639657)

Refugee can correct me if he pleases but in simple words, this to me is how it works.

Socialism is Communism 1.

Communism is Communism 2. Fully developed as a natural off shoot of socialism.


Socialism can lead to communism and in Marxism it's the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Communism always leads to a dictatorship, which was never intended but always happens.

But for the public resistance, socialism is intended to become communism. (Dictatorship)

Thanks for your agreement.

I might add, this is why I resist so hard, so much, so often.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=639665#post639665)
Hey, your age is a problem.

And you blew off the top of your head.

Crap, you think you invented your form of thought????


Where the hell did I say I invented it, Bob?
Green Arrow when you make statements, read carefully, they have implications. You informed us you read some books. I realize you did not invent your line of thought. But I only asked if in your mind, you figured you invented it.

I have not invented my line of thinking. Refugee has not either. Some is by personal observation. I have been blessed to spend part of my life seeing systems Americans can't actually imagine very well.

I used to think along your train of thought. It is you developing. Refugee should be carefully listened to.

I recognize wisdom when I see it. Refugee has plenty to spare.

[Dr. Who]

Agreed, the power of governments never decrease. The problem now is how big and how much more influence will it have over lives if and when the welfare numbers reach 100 million or 150 million?

In the UK an estimated one in five people already work directly or indirectly for the government. Translate that to America and if there are 200 million of working age, and 300 million total, that would equate to 40 million government employees. If you were at the stage the UK is at now, (92m on welfare, 100m elderly, young, disabled non producers + 40m government employees), you’d have a productive population of around 68 million taxpayers paying for an unproductive 232 million. Your economy will have collapsed long before that stage, just like the UK one.

There are already slightly more than 100M receiving some form of means-tested government benefits, though not all full-blown welfare. Some 40M+ are recipients of food stamps of which 23M or so are actually employed, so are not necessarily receiving any other form of benefits. Of the 238.9M eligible workers, approximately 138M people are employed full-time in non-institutional civilian jobs. There are also appx 27M in part-time employment. Another 108.6M people in America are either unemployed, underemployed or not in the labor force. Approximately 22M working people are employed by various branches of the federal, state and local government in both full and part-time capacities of which 1.37M are military, so not part of the 138M statistic.

While overall employment has been declining in the US, it still has far more arable land than most places on the planet and still has some 900M+ acres of farm land, (though that is steadily being eroded by development) which continues to provide employment. There is also a significant resource industry which also continues to provide jobs, at least until it all becomes automated, which I view as an even greater threat to employment in the long run. Additionally the entrepreneurial spirit that has traditionally characterized America is not yet dead, but has taken a beating in recent times.

There are some significant differences between the US and the UK, most of which stem from the division of power in the US - state vs federal. Whilst the UK has far more centralized power which allows the unchecked growth of government ministries that exclusively control things like welfare, in the US the individual States are, for the most part the primary administrators of welfare benefits, which to a degree mitigates its wholesale growth depending on the political and philosophical inclination of the voters.

[Refugee]

There are already slightly more than 100M receiving some form of means-tested government benefits, though not all full-blown welfare. Some 40M+ are recipients of food stamps of which 23M or so are actually employed, so are not necessarily receiving any other form of benefits. Of the 238.9M eligible workers, approximately 138M people are employed full-time in non-institutional civilian jobs. There are also appx 27M in part-time employment. Another 108.6M people in America are either unemployed, underemployed or not in the labor force. Approximately 22M working people are employed by various branches of the federal, state and local government in both full and part-time capacities of which 1.37M are military, so not part of the 138M statistic.

While overall employment has been declining in the US, it still has far more arable land than most places on the planet and still has some 900M+ acres of farm land, (though that is steadily being eroded by development) which continues to provide employment. There is also a significant resource industry which also continues to provide jobs, at least until it all becomes automated, which I view as an even greater threat to employment in the long run. Additionally the entrepreneurial spirit that has traditionally characterized America is not yet dead, but has taken a beating in recent times.

There are some significant differences between the US and the UK, most of which stem from the division of power in the US - state vs federal. Whilst the UK has far more centralized power which allows the unchecked growth of government ministries that exclusively control things like welfare, in the US the individual States are, for the most part the primary administrators of welfare benefits, which to a degree mitigates its wholesale growth depending on the political and philosophical inclination of the voters.




My comparisons with the UK were intended as a warning of what happens as government power increases. America is nowhere near that position yet. You have yet to control gun ownership and promote government power over your States. You might say that can’t happen because of the constitution and State autonomous power and I’d remind you that if I’d proposed Obamacare ten years ago, you’d have said that couldn’t happen either?

It comes in bits and pieces, gradually, just like the UK. Tens and hundreds of millions become statistics and the phrases, ‘for the good of the people’ and ‘it doesn’t affect you, why worry’ become more and more commonplace. Your two party system starts to merge into one with the same policies . . . . That’s when people will actually begin to see it what’s happening, but by then so many people will be dependent on the State that they’ll actually begin to welcome it. Hopefully it will be stopped before it gets to that stage, but look to the UK and Europe for examples if it isn’t stopped.

[Dr. Who]

My comparisons with the UK were intended as a warning of what happens as government power increases. America is nowhere near that position yet. You have yet to control gun ownership and promote government power over your States. You might say that can’t happen because of the constitution and State autonomous power and I’d remind you that if I’d proposed Obamacare ten years ago, you’d have said that couldn’t happen either?

It comes in bits and pieces, gradually, just like the UK. Tens and hundreds of millions become statistics and the phrases, ‘for the good of the people’ and ‘it doesn’t affect you, why worry’ become more and more commonplace. Your two party system starts to merge into one with the same policies . . . . That’s when people will actually begin to see it what’s happening, but by then so many people will be dependent on the State that they’ll actually begin to welcome it. Hopefully it will be stopped before it gets to that stage, but look to the UK and Europe for examples if it isn’t stopped.
There is no question that the two party system robs the voters of any real choices and the two parties are essentially being controlled by the same entities, with outwardly different agendas, but inwardly the same agenda, but let's pretend to offer a choice. While it may take much longer for America to fall into the same traps as the UK, I don't doubt it will ultimately happen, but for perhaps different reasons. While the UK has been the "victim" of massive immigration, and to a degree so has the US, what has been the undoing of the American economy is the outsourcing of business and what will exacerbate the employment issues is technology. The handwriting is on the wall.

[Refugee]

There is no question that the two party system robs the voters of any real choices and the two parties are essentially being controlled by the same entities, with outwardly different agendas, but inwardly the same agenda, but let's pretend to offer a choice. While it may take much longer for America to fall into the same traps as the UK, I don't doubt it will ultimately happen, but for perhaps different reasons. While the UK has been the "victim" of massive immigration, and to a degree so has the US, what has been the undoing of the American economy is the outsourcing of business and what will exacerbate the employment issues is technology. The handwriting is on the wall.

Yes, I mostly agree with that. Yet there is a reason that businesses outsource and that’s because taxes are so high. It’s not simply the old question of more profit, it’s to stop them going bankrupt. Companies are like people; when they can no longer maintain a standard of lifestyle they emigrate, (outsource). Yes, technology isn’t going to help either. Technology, high taxation, a huge welfare society based on relative equality = (sooner or later) economic bankruptcy.

[Dr. Who]

Yes, I mostly agree with that. Yet there is a reason that businesses outsource and that’s because taxes are so high. It’s not simply the old question of more profit, it’s to stop them going bankrupt. Companies are like people; when they can no longer maintain a standard of lifestyle they emigrate, (outsource). Yes, technology isn’t going to help either. Technology, high taxation, a huge welfare society based on relative equality = (sooner or later) economic bankruptcy.

Yes but part of the problem is the relatively recent expectations of shareholders. At one time anything in the neighborhood of between 5 and 10 percent was acceptable. Now there is great hew and cry if the ROI doesn't exceed 20%. You can make the case that corporate tax is too high, but it has been higher in the past and business didn't move off shore. I think that the change factor is shareholder expectation.

[Refugee]

Yes but part of the problem is the relatively recent expectations of shareholders. At one time anything in the neighborhood of between 5 and 10 percent was acceptable. Now there is great hew and cry if the ROI doesn't exceed 20%. You can make the case that corporate tax is too high, but it has been higher in the past and business didn't move off shore. I think that the change factor is shareholder expectation.

As taxation rises, so will an expectation of comparable profit through tax loss. When regulations and taxes rise people and companies move, they’re now jumping around from State to State to escape it. Its always been so. The workers demand a minimum wage to keep up with it, professionals start to emigrate and companies go offshore. You can’t have high unemployment, a welfare System and low taxation.

A prediction of socialist government spending and high taxation is you should soon see inflation rising, as people demand more to keep up with cost. I’d be very surprised if that doesn’t come soon, it’s part of socialist economics.

[Spectre]

This subject makes me uneasy, and I've racked my brains trying to come up with an acceptable policy that would greatly reduce the reach and scope of central government without causing undue hardship on those who have no other recourse.

I think I might have come up with a good idea here:


Immediately end the concept of universality for EVERY government social program. Universality is the cancer that eats up treasure and renders vast number of people dependent for no legitimate reason. It's the principal policy that makes big government BIG. What this means is that those who have no means of their own will continue to receive essential social services, because it's the civilized thing to do--we don't want to turn the world into some kind of Dickensian nightmare.

BUT...those who rise above a certain income level will, in the initial, transitional years of the program at least, get the amount of tax money that would have gone to medicare, social security etc. transferred into a personal medical and social security savings account, and they will get a chance to shop for their own plans and investments with their own money.

This way you will eliminate the idea of universal social programs on the one hand and encourage free market, non-governmental habits of thought and count on it eventually results in a newly rediscovered sense of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility.

You can starve the tentacular and bloated government and inculcate newly discovered old virtues i the people without causing the helpless to suffer.

I think it could work, and I think it could be sold to an electorate!

[Green Arrow]

Hey GA

I’m not knocking you or your age, feel free to have your say. :smiley: As I said, it’s something that I do for a living; it’s off the top of my head and I too get bits wrong now and again because I’m not putting much thought into it, simply repeating what I do. The problem I have is that all this can’t be explained in one paragraph and I’m beginning to find out that people sort of lose it if it goes beyond a quick three line read.

Bob, Refugee -

This is the problem I have. All of this is one giant double standard. You guys have no problem whatsoever labeling anybody that claims the conservative/Republican label BUT DOES NOT FOLLOW CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY as "RINOs," but then I make the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT for my own ideology, socialism, and suddenly the people who call themselves socialists but don't adhere to socialist ideology are the true socialists.

It's intellectually dishonest, is what it is.

[Bob]

@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), @Refugee (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1060) -

This is the problem I have. All of this is one giant double standard. You guys have no problem whatsoever labeling anybody that claims the conservative/Republican label BUT DOES NOT FOLLOW CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY as "RINOs," but then I make the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT for my own ideology, socialism, and suddenly the people who call themselves socialists but don't adhere to socialist ideology are the true socialists.

It's intellectually dishonest, is what it is.

Okay, you young man are entirely correct. Every word you said all during this debate is 100 percent True. No matter what I know or Refugee knows, we are full of shit.

We thank you for your able lesson.

[Green Arrow]

Okay, you young man are entirely correct. Every word you said all during this debate is 100 percent True. No matter what I know or Refugee knows, we are full of shit.

We thank you for your able lesson.

Tell you what, Bob. Put me on ignore. I'm sick and damn tired of trying to engage you in discussion only to have you act like a brat.

You ignore me, I'll ignore you. Deal?

[Refugee]

@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), @Refugee (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1060) -

This is the problem I have. All of this is one giant double standard. You guys have no problem whatsoever labeling anybody that claims the conservative/Republican label BUT DOES NOT FOLLOW CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY as "RINOs," but then I make the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT for my own ideology, socialism, and suddenly the people who call themselves socialists but don't adhere to socialist ideology are the true socialists.

It's intellectually dishonest, is what it is.



GA, I don’t even know what a RINO is, it’s probably an Americanism . . . goes searching. Found it, Republican In Name Only.

It’s why I called the thread, American Bewilderment. If you call yourself a socialist and you don’t really know what the term means, but believe it be one you think it means, but don’t adhere to it, the term ‘American bewilderment’ is for you. It will tell you what these political terms mean and tell you the difference between a philosophy and an ideology. That’s not only for you, it’s for people who think Anarchy is some kind of American individualism and the difference between socialism and communism, or a philosophy and an ideology . . . . People like Obama, Reid and Pelosi are running rings around American’s because an awful lot of you don’t even know what they represent; be very sure that they know exactly who and what they are. Now you know too.

There is no intellectual dishonesty in telling you what ‘Change you can believe in’ really meant; the dishonesty would be mine for not telling you. If you look through the forum, apart from the diehard welfare recipients and socialists themselves, you’ll see yourself that many are beginning to waken up and wonder what’s going on around them.

[Refugee]

The difference between a welfare system and a welfare State.

Entitlement was never designed to happen and that’s why it’s failing. It was originally meant to be a social insurance scheme, paid for by forced contributions by all. It started as a flat rate for everyone and the same benefits for all. In that respect it wasn’t socialist at all, it was a service provided for payment, just like the police or the fire brigade.

Gradually the term ‘welfare State’ replaced that of a ‘welfare system’. It was never meant to be a State enterprise in the form of a business, or the more you earned the more you paid, or welfare dependent on a relative income to those that produced and paid for it. That’s where the socialism came into it and it’s what you have now; State entitlement dependency, not a State welfare system.

What Europe has now are austerity measures specifically to cut back the welfare programs. This is deeply unpopular amongst welfare recipients, but not surprisingly, those who have to pay for it aren’t unduly worried. There is political consensus talk in the UK of giving welfare amounts in proportion to contributions paid, a sort of tiered system and limiting visits to doctors; so many per year.

State pensions for instance are paid out according to contributions paid during a lifetime of work, but if you haven’t contributed anything you get State social security instead. Drug addicts and alcoholics get more than the unemployed, because they’re seen to have ‘special needs’. If you’ve paid in contributions all your life, you stand behind others in a queue for medical care with those who haven’t paid anything. Presently in the UK you can have up to £16,000 ($ U.S. 26,895) in savings and own your own home, (welfare will also pay the interest on your mortgage) and still be entitled for others to pay for your welfare. What kind of a welfare system is that? Not only is it grossly unfair to those who pay, it’s why it’s collapsing through sheer weight of entitlement numbers and cost.

What the U.S. needs to learn from the UK model is to ditch the word ‘entitlement’ and bring in something that preceded that called, ‘Means testing’. That means that for every benefit received you are financially assessed. If you own an iphone you sell that to pay towards your medical care and if you own a music stereo center you sell that before you get unemployment welfare. In other words, you get enough to sustain you and no luxuries.

[Green Arrow]

GA, I don’t even know what a RINO is, it’s probably an Americanism . . . goes searching. Found it, Republican In Name Only.

It’s why I called the thread, American Bewilderment. If you call yourself a socialist and you don’t really know what the term means, but believe it be one you think it means, but don’t adhere to it, the term ‘American bewilderment’ is for you. It will tell you what these political terms mean and tell you the difference between a philosophy and an ideology. That’s not only for you, it’s for people who think Anarchy is some kind of American individualism and the difference between socialism and communism, or a philosophy and an ideology . . . . People like Obama, Reid and Pelosi are running rings around American’s because an awful lot of you don’t even know what they represent; be very sure that they know exactly who and what they are. Now you know too.

There is no intellectual dishonesty in telling you what ‘Change you can believe in’ really meant; the dishonesty would be mine for not telling you. If you look through the forum, apart from the diehard welfare recipients and socialists themselves, you’ll see yourself that many are beginning to waken up and wonder what’s going on around them.


Certainly not. The intellectual dishonesty is in saying that it doesn't matter what policies an ideology would support, it's who calls themselves a member of that ideology that matters. You would destroy everything with that logic, which is why I often bring up Orwell's "Newspeak" with you. That is exactly what it is: Newspeak. I could conceivably call myself anything under the sun, and by your logic, that thing is now defined by what I do.

If that is the way you wish to live your life, constantly (and illogically) changing your terms and meanings based on the whims of every generation, so be it. But it is not the way I wish to live my life. I want life to still have meaning in it when I leave it.

[Refugee]

Certainly not. The intellectual dishonesty is in saying that it doesn't matter what policies an ideology would support, it's who calls themselves a member of that ideology that matters. You would destroy everything with that logic, which is why I often bring up Orwell's "Newspeak" with you. That is exactly what it is: Newspeak. I could conceivably call myself anything under the sun, and by your logic, that thing is now defined by what I do.

If that is the way you wish to live your life, constantly (and illogically) changing your terms and meanings based on the whims of every generation, so be it. But it is not the way I wish to live my life. I want life to still have meaning in it when I leave it.

What you think usually represents who you are and who you are tells people what you think? If you’re unclear about what you think and are unsure of definitions, you’re going to have a hard time trying to explain anything to others apart from you want to change the world, which is a philosophy and which also isn’t going to happen.

If you align yourself with an ideology be prepared to be judged by that. If you think National Socialism is the way forward be prepared for a comment of, Nazi. If you think the government owning wealth will do it, be prepared for the term, Communist. If however you just want a better world then be a philosopher, but if you say you’re a Socialist, then be seen as one and understood as one and not try to change an ideological definition into one you’d like to be thought of as instead. Say what you mean and mean what you say and if you choose to align yourself with an ideology as opposed to a philosophy, be prepared to accept its definition as your political leaning.

Newspeak is Obama telling you he’s going to fundamentally change America, millions of gullible people believing and voting for it and now saying they’re not Obama supporters because they don’t agree with what they all voted for. That’s Orwellian. My terms and meanings never change, they're definitions and I don't swop from philosophy to ideology when it suits; remember, Bewildered Americans?

[Green Arrow]

What you think usually represents who you are and who you are tells people what you think? If you’re unclear about what you think and are unsure of definitions, you’re going to have a hard time trying to explain anything to others apart from you want to change the world, which is a philosophy and which also isn’t going to happen.

If you align yourself with an ideology be prepared to be judged by that. If you think National Socialism is the way forward be prepared for a comment of, Nazi. If you think the government owning wealth will do it, be prepared for the term, Communist. If however you just want a better world then be a philosopher, but if you say you’re a Socialist, then be seen as one and understood as one and not try to change an ideological definition into one you’d like to be thought of as instead. Say what you mean and mean what you say and if you choose to align yourself with an ideology as opposed to a philosophy, be prepared to accept its definition as your political leaning.

Newspeak is Obama telling you he’s going to fundamentally change America, millions of gullible people believing and voting for it and now saying they’re not Obama supporters because they don’t agree with what they all voted for. That’s Orwellian. My terms and meanings never change, they're definitions and I don't swop from philosophy to ideology when it suits; remember, Bewildered Americans?


Philosophy and ideology mean the same things, Refugee. They are synonyms. You can try to separate them, but the English language says you are wrong.

And further, my definition of "socialism" goes back to the 1800s, when the philosophy was INVENTED and it was the definition of those who created it. I know that you think that is unimportant, but it is not. It is all that matters when it comes to what is and is not socialism. I do not have to accept your constant redefintions. I will stand on the truth, period. Levy whatever insults you have to against me, I stand firm. Your way is one of cultural and linguistic destruction. I'll have none of it.

[Refugee]

Philosophy and ideology mean the same things, Refugee. They are synonyms. You can try to separate them, but the English language says you are wrong.

And further, my definition of "socialism" goes back to the 1800s, when the philosophy was INVENTED and it was the definition of those who created it. I know that you think that is unimportant, but it is not. It is all that matters when it comes to what is and is not socialism. I do not have to accept your constant redefintions. I will stand on the truth, period. Levy whatever insults you have to against me, I stand firm. Your way is one of cultural and linguistic destruction. I'll have none of it.

We’re not talking semantics, we’re talking about philosophical thought and ideological construction and your definitions are not what classical theorists were writing about. Yes, Socialism is historically a new construct and before that you couldn’t very well have Socialism under absolute Monarchs. There was the French revolution before the 1800’s however, but that could only occur as France went from a Monarchy to a Republic and it’s where the idea of socialist equality came from. Yet we digress, the op is about American bewilderment of political definitions.

I don’t insult and you are quite entitled to stand firm and believe whatever you like, I don’t get paid for this and I have no papers to mark on your beliefs and so I couldn’t care less. By the way, I think you’ll find that “cultural and linguistic destruction” comes under Cultural Marxism, (progressivism), something I am definitely not, but Obama, Pelosi and Reid the socialist/Marxists, most certainly are.

Anyway, how about stopping the teen angst about how misunderstood you are and how you want to change the world? If you can’t accept the basic tenets of an ideology, then don’t pretend to be something you’re not? Read up on the various theoretical perspectives, choose one and if you can’t, remain an independent with ‘leanings’ instead of a label. That label will define you and then you’ll have to accept responsibility and take criticism for your own labelling.

Does that sound like a lecture? It’s what I do for a living and not an insult in sight. I get paid next week for talking crap by the way and to you it’s free. How’s that for equality based Socialism?

7810

Refugeeism; Relax: You either love it or you hate it. :smiley20:

[Green Arrow]

I've told you exactly what socialist philosophy is, and that is what I believe. Regardless, this discussion is going nowhere. You refuse to hear anything that isn't the sound of your own voice, and I'm done wasting my time.

[Refugee]

I've told you exactly what socialist philosophy is, and that is what I believe. Regardless, this discussion is going nowhere. You refuse to hear anything that isn't the sound of your own voice, and I'm done wasting my time.

Yes GA, you’ve told me what you believe socialist philosophy is (and there are a thousand variations) and I’ve told you what Socialism ideology is. That’s why your beliefs will stay philosophical and Socialism ideology will be the reality. Some people believe in God, some still believe the earth is flat . . . . . If I believed Reagan was really a Communist, then it would come as no surprise that my views of politics would be distorted and would remain separate from reality. We're discussing politics, not your beliefs. Again, American Bewilderment. :smiley:

[Bob]

Yes GA, you’ve told me what you believe socialist philosophy is (and there are a thousand variations) and I’ve told you what Socialism ideology is. That’s why your beliefs will stay philosophical and Socialism ideology will be the reality. Some people believe in God, some still believe the earth is flat . . . . . If I believed Reagan was really a Communist, then it would come as no surprise that my views of politics would be distorted and would remain separate from reality. We're discussing politics, not your beliefs. Again, American Bewilderment. :smiley:

This is perhaps the BEST thread. Let's not allow it to die.

When discussing politics, it seems that one must try to explain one's views realizing the reader will not get it. The reader will act as if different words were used. An explanation becomes an insult to the reader. Not to the writer, but the reader.

Naturally when discussing politics, one encounters a lot of problems.

Patience ought to work. With Americans, it seems to not work that way.

I am blessed to having once been where the systems some here say they like and saw them in operation in Europe. That woke me up fast.

Let me show them some images of those who guarded socialism and one that tried to be free from socialism.

785078517852

[Green Arrow]

Yes GA, you’ve told me what you believe socialist philosophy is (and there are a thousand variations) and I’ve told you what Socialism ideology is. That’s why your beliefs will stay philosophical and Socialism ideology will be the reality. Some people believe in God, some still believe the earth is flat . . . . . If I believed Reagan was really a Communist, then it would come as no surprise that my views of politics would be distorted and would remain separate from reality. We're discussing politics, not your beliefs. Again, American Bewilderment. :smiley:

As I've already shown you, "ideology" and "philosophy" are synonyms in the English language. A synonym is a word that has the same meaning as another word. You keep trying to establish a difference between the two words, but there is no difference in the English language.

[Bob]

As I've already shown you, "ideology" and "philosophy" are synonyms in the English language. A synonym is a word that has the same meaning as another word. You keep trying to establish a difference between the two words, but there is no difference in the English language.

Really????

phi·los·o·phy
fəˈläsəfē/
noun


the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

a particular system of philosophical thought.
!important]plural noun: philosophies
important]"Schopenhauer’s philosophy"
the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.



synonyms:
thinking (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&biw=1024&bih=634&q=define+thinking&sa=X&ei=BuKUU_XnDI2cyAT3noDADg&ved=0CCEQ_SowAA), thought (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&biw=1024&bih=634&q=define+thought&sa=X&ei=BuKUU_XnDI2cyAT3noDADg&ved=0CCIQ_SowAA), reasoning (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&biw=1024&bih=634&q=define+reasoning&sa=X&ei=BuKUU_XnDI2cyAT3noDADg&ved=0CCMQ_SowAA) More






Next

i·de·ol·o·gy
ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidē-/
noun

1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of republicanism"


synonyms:
beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, ethics (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&biw=1024&bih=634&q=define+ethics&sa=X&ei=WOKUU5KkIMqTyATr54CoBA&ved=0CCEQ_SowAA), morals; More













2.
archaic
the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.

[Green Arrow]

Really????

phi·los·o·phy
fəˈläsəfē/
noun


the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

a particular system of philosophical thought.
plural noun: philosophies
"Schopenhauer’s philosophy"
the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.
"the philosophy of science"


synonyms:
thinking (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&biw=1024&bih=634&q=define+thinking&sa=X&ei=BuKUU_XnDI2cyAT3noDADg&ved=0CCEQ_SowAA), thought (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&biw=1024&bih=634&q=define+thought&sa=X&ei=BuKUU_XnDI2cyAT3noDADg&ved=0CCIQ_SowAA), reasoning (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&biw=1024&bih=634&q=define+reasoning&sa=X&ei=BuKUU_XnDI2cyAT3noDADg&ved=0CCMQ_SowAA) More






Next

i·de·ol·o·gy
ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidē-/
noun


1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of republicanism"


synonyms:
beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, ethics (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&biw=1024&bih=634&q=define+ethics&sa=X&ei=WOKUU5KkIMqTyATr54CoBA&ved=0CCEQ_SowAA), morals; More














2.
archaic
the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.








What, no link?

Merriam-Webster. Read it.

[lynn]

There are already slightly more than 100M receiving some form of means-tested government benefits, though not all full-blown welfare. Some 40M+ are recipients of food stamps of which 23M or so are actually employed, so are not necessarily receiving any other form of benefits. Of the 238.9M eligible workers, approximately 138M people are employed full-time in non-institutional civilian jobs. There are also appx 27M in part-time employment. Another 108.6M people in America are either unemployed, underemployed or not in the labor force. Approximately 22M working people are employed by various branches of the federal, state and local government in both full and part-time capacities of which 1.37M are military, so not part of the 138M statistic.

While overall employment has been declining in the US, it still has far more arable land than most places on the planet and still has some 900M+ acres of farm land, (though that is steadily being eroded by development) which continues to provide employment. There is also a significant resource industry which also continues to provide jobs, at least until it all becomes automated, which I view as an even greater threat to employment in the long run. Additionally the entrepreneurial spirit that has traditionally characterized America is not yet dead, but has taken a beating in recent times.

There are some significant differences between the US and the UK, most of which stem from the division of power in the US - state vs federal. Whilst the UK has far more centralized power which allows the unchecked growth of government ministries that exclusively control things like welfare, in the US the individual States are, for the most part the primary administrators of welfare benefits, which to a degree mitigates its wholesale growth depending on the political and philosophical inclination of the voters.





We are now at 119 million people that are on one or two of the three government programs: Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran's insurance or Tri-Care. The employment numbers from the labor statistics are only relevant when you compare it to the IRS statistical tables. We have never had exceeded 120 million wage and salary workers. If they include government workers in the wage and salary workers then you would have to deduct 22 million from the 120 million wage and salary which leaves 98 million workers.

We have never had 138 million full time workers, at least not when you review the IRS tables. Anyway, I don't see the number that the IRS reports is sufficient to support the number on government benefits.

[lynn]

What you think usually represents who you are and who you are tells people what you think? If you’re unclear about what you think and are unsure of definitions, you’re going to have a hard time trying to explain anything to others apart from you want to change the world, which is a philosophy and which also isn’t going to happen.

If you align yourself with an ideology be prepared to be judged by that. If you think National Socialism is the way forward be prepared for a comment of, Nazi. If you think the government owning wealth will do it, be prepared for the term, Communist. If however you just want a better world then be a philosopher, but if you say you’re a Socialist, then be seen as one and understood as one and not try to change an ideological definition into one you’d like to be thought of as instead. Say what you mean and mean what you say and if you choose to align yourself with an ideology as opposed to a philosophy, be prepared to accept its definition as your political leaning.

Newspeak is Obama telling you he’s going to fundamentally change America, millions of gullible people believing and voting for it and now saying they’re not Obama supporters because they don’t agree with what they all voted for. That’s Orwellian. My terms and meanings never change, they're definitions and I don't swop from philosophy to ideology when it suits; remember, Bewildered Americans?


Based on what you state, I would be labeled a socialist, a communist, etc. depending on my response to any of the topics of discussion. This is why I do not like labels, it is actually a defense mechanism that people use to dismiss the response as not important because it does't agree with the ideology of the reader.

[Bob]

We are now at 119 million people that are on one or two of the three government programs: Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran's insurance or Tri-Care. The employment numbers from the labor statistics are only relevant when you compare it to the IRS statistical tables. We have never had exceeded 120 million wage and salary workers. If they include government workers in the wage and salary workers then you would have to deduct 22 million from the 120 million wage and salary which leaves 98 million workers.

We have never had 138 million full time workers, at least not when you review the IRS tables. Anyway, I don't see the number that the IRS reports is sufficient to support the number on government benefits.

Would you please lynn explain your comments as to content and purpose? Thanks.

[Dr. Who]

We are now at 119 million people that are on one or two of the three government programs: Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran's insurance or Tri-Care. The employment numbers from the labor statistics are only relevant when you compare it to the IRS statistical tables. We have never had exceeded 120 million wage and salary workers. If they include government workers in the wage and salary workers then you would have to deduct 22 million from the 120 million wage and salary which leaves 98 million workers.

We have never had 138 million full time workers, at least not when you review the IRS tables. Anyway, I don't see the number that the IRS reports is sufficient to support the number on government benefits.
The reported numbers of full-time workers does not generally include people employed by the military, but only civilian jobs.

[Bob]

Based on what you state, I would be labeled a socialist, a communist, etc. depending on my response to any of the topics of discussion. This is why I do not like labels, it is actually a defense mechanism that people use to dismiss the response as not important because it does't agree with the ideology of the reader.

Bear in mind the words of a very wise man.

No person can make ME feel inferior without MY permission.

Labels are how things are classified. With no labels, there would be no conversation.

For instance were I to say I like fruit, you must think one of several things.
1. Bob likes all fruit
2. Bob likes fruit I like
3. Bob likes fruit my family likes
4. Bob likes fruit found in America
5. Bob likes fruit found in Africa

And so forth.

But the label explains what I am talking of.

Bob likes fruit that is grown in warmer climes and are called berries.

The label clears up the matter.

Socialism and communism are forms applied to government. Though not always in pure form nor perfected.

Some in America, not having personally experienced either, believe the systems are hot stuff and clearly for them. They don't care that the rest of the nation wants no part of said systems. To them, them craving it is all they care about. Rather than seek to move to said systems, they want to impose it on this nation.

My personal aims are for the maximum freedom for each person. The more freedom they have, the freer we all are.

How free were Americans in 1924 for instance?

We have at least two times more laws.

Laws are there to do what?

Control

You lose freedom with each law.

Socialism and communism are the root causes of the massive law system we have in the USA. Capitalism craves fewer laws. As do free people.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=importance%20of%20freedom&safe=off

Year 1984, United Nations proclaimed Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Rights carried out in this declaration are rights of all human beings which must be respected in all circumstances. 30 Articles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights are written in a simple and clear language, carrying out rights which belong equally to every man in this world.
The importance which freedom has in human rights, the best can be illustrated with the first Article of this declaration; it is an Article about a freedom which says: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#_ftn1) This declaration presents rights of every individual in the world, regardless who he is and where he comes from. And in my opinion these articles are the best example to explain the importance and a role freedom has in human rights. It could be said that rights carried out with this declaration are necessary, nevertheless, without a freedom all other rights could not be fulfilled completely. Only free individual can be satisfied, happy and rationally act and make decisions, only as a free man he can fight for his other rights and respect freedom and rights of other people. Out of 30 Articles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom is mentioned in 11 of them. Freedom is one of the basic principles from which all other human rights arise. Beside freedom in this group of principles, equality, tolerance, solidarity, universality, inalienability can be included, but again all these principles can be interpreted from the aspect of freedom. Equality can be understood in a sense of equal freedom for all people, inalienability that everybody’s freedom is inalienable etcetera. Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that all human beings are born free, that freedoms are available to everybody, that everybody has a right to freedom, that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude, everybody has the right to free movement, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, rest and leisure and taking part in the cultural life of the community. All these freedoms are necessary for a normal development of every human being, all these rights to freedom carried out in this declaration are rights which mark a man, enable him life worthy of a man.
All rights can be classified into three categories:1. Civil and political rights, directed towards freedom, including a right to life, freedom and security of person2. Economic and social rights3. A right to a healthy environment, cultural rights and a right to a development.A right to freedom is the most important one. And without rights to life, freedom, security of person, society and state and a man could not exist. In interpersonal relations, freedom is being established as well as all other rights of a man, but, in the first place, a man must be free, not enslaved in order to establish relations with others, and that relationship is necessary because a man is not isolated from the world, a man lives in that world, together with other people.
[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#_ftnref1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1 Article, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.

[lynn]

The reported numbers of full-time workers does not generally include people employed by the military, but only civilian jobs.


I did not include military workers , only civilian. When I stated government workers, I meant those working clerical positions of that nature. Would politicians and their staff not be considered civilian employees?

[lynn]

Bear in mind the words of a very wise man.

No person can make ME feel inferior without MY permission.

Labels are how things are classified. With no labels, there would be no conversation.

For instance were I to say I like fruit, you must think one of several things.
1. Bob likes all fruit
2. Bob likes fruit I like
3. Bob likes fruit my family likes
4. Bob likes fruit found in America
5. Bob likes fruit found in Africa

And so forth.

But the label explains what I am talking of.

Bob likes fruit that is grown in warmer climes and are called berries.

The label clears up the matter.

Socialism and communism are forms applied to government. Though not always in pure form nor perfected.

Some in America, not having personally experienced either, believe the systems are hot stuff and clearly for them. They don't care that the rest of the nation wants no part of said systems. To them, them craving it is all they care about. Rather than seek to move to said systems, they want to impose it on this nation.

My personal aims are for the maximum freedom for each person. The more freedom they have, the freer we all are.

How free were Americans in 1924 for instance?

We have at least two times more laws.

Laws are there to do what?

Control

You lose freedom with each law.

Socialism and communism are the root causes of the massive law system we have in the USA. Capitalism craves fewer laws. As do free people.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=importance of freedom&safe=off

Year 1984, United Nations proclaimed Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Rights carried out in this declaration are rights of all human beings which must be respected in all circumstances. 30 Articles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights are written in a simple and clear language, carrying out rights which belong equally to every man in this world.
The importance which freedom has in human rights, the best can be illustrated with the first Article of this declaration; it is an Article about a freedom which says: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#_ftn1) This declaration presents rights of every individual in the world, regardless who he is and where he comes from. And in my opinion these articles are the best example to explain the importance and a role freedom has in human rights. It could be said that rights carried out with this declaration are necessary, nevertheless, without a freedom all other rights could not be fulfilled completely. Only free individual can be satisfied, happy and rationally act and make decisions, only as a free man he can fight for his other rights and respect freedom and rights of other people. Out of 30 Articles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom is mentioned in 11 of them. Freedom is one of the basic principles from which all other human rights arise. Beside freedom in this group of principles, equality, tolerance, solidarity, universality, inalienability can be included, but again all these principles can be interpreted from the aspect of freedom. Equality can be understood in a sense of equal freedom for all people, inalienability that everybody’s freedom is inalienable etcetera. Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that all human beings are born free, that freedoms are available to everybody, that everybody has a right to freedom, that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude, everybody has the right to free movement, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, rest and leisure and taking part in the cultural life of the community. All these freedoms are necessary for a normal development of every human being, all these rights to freedom carried out in this declaration are rights which mark a man, enable him life worthy of a man.
All rights can be classified into three categories:

1. Civil and political rights, directed towards freedom, including a right to life, freedom and security of person

2. Economic and social rights

3. A right to a healthy environment, cultural rights and a right to a development.

A right to freedom is the most important one. And without rights to life, freedom, security of person, society and state and a man could not exist. In interpersonal relations, freedom is being established as well as all other rights of a man, but, in the first place, a man must be free, not enslaved in order to establish relations with others, and that relationship is necessary because a man is not isolated from the world, a man lives in that world, together with other people.


[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#_ftnref1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1 Article, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.


I agree with you, however every society must have a set of common rules that keeps those freedoms in check so it doesn't inadvertently take the freedom away from another.

[Dr. Who]

I did not include military workers , only civilian. When I stated government workers, I meant those working clerical positions of that nature. Would politicians and their staff not be considered civilian employees?
To be honest I don't know. I produced the most recent stats I could find, but I qualified them as best I could. There are always different stats depending on source. Eight million would seem like a lot, but in the context of 300M+, not overly significant. My point was essentially that America is still in a better place than the UK. It may not last forever, but it has more potential to succeed.

[lynn]

Bear in mind the words of a very wise man.

No person can make ME feel inferior without MY permission.

Labels are how things are classified. With no labels, there would be no conversation.

For instance were I to say I like fruit, you must think one of several things.
1. Bob likes all fruit
2. Bob likes fruit I like
3. Bob likes fruit my family likes
4. Bob likes fruit found in America
5. Bob likes fruit found in Africa

And so forth.

But the label explains what I am talking of.

Bob likes fruit that is grown in warmer climes and are called berries.

The label clears up the matter.

Socialism and communism are forms applied to government. Though not always in pure form nor perfected.

Some in America, not having personally experienced either, believe the systems are hot stuff and clearly for them. They don't care that the rest of the nation wants no part of said systems. To them, them craving it is all they care about. Rather than seek to move to said systems, they want to impose it on this nation.

My personal aims are for the maximum freedom for each person. The more freedom they have, the freer we all are.

How free were Americans in 1924 for instance?

We have at least two times more laws.

Laws are there to do what?

Control

You lose freedom with each law.

Socialism and communism are the root causes of the massive law system we have in the USA. Capitalism craves fewer laws. As do free people.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GPEA_enUS319&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=importance of freedom&safe=off

Year 1984, United Nations proclaimed Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Rights carried out in this declaration are rights of all human beings which must be respected in all circumstances. 30 Articles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights are written in a simple and clear language, carrying out rights which belong equally to every man in this world.
The importance which freedom has in human rights, the best can be illustrated with the first Article of this declaration; it is an Article about a freedom which says: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#_ftn1) This declaration presents rights of every individual in the world, regardless who he is and where he comes from. And in my opinion these articles are the best example to explain the importance and a role freedom has in human rights. It could be said that rights carried out with this declaration are necessary, nevertheless, without a freedom all other rights could not be fulfilled completely. Only free individual can be satisfied, happy and rationally act and make decisions, only as a free man he can fight for his other rights and respect freedom and rights of other people. Out of 30 Articles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, freedom is mentioned in 11 of them. Freedom is one of the basic principles from which all other human rights arise. Beside freedom in this group of principles, equality, tolerance, solidarity, universality, inalienability can be included, but again all these principles can be interpreted from the aspect of freedom. Equality can be understood in a sense of equal freedom for all people, inalienability that everybody’s freedom is inalienable etcetera. Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that all human beings are born free, that freedoms are available to everybody, that everybody has a right to freedom, that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude, everybody has the right to free movement, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, rest and leisure and taking part in the cultural life of the community. All these freedoms are necessary for a normal development of every human being, all these rights to freedom carried out in this declaration are rights which mark a man, enable him life worthy of a man.
All rights can be classified into three categories:

1. Civil and political rights, directed towards freedom, including a right to life, freedom and security of person

2. Economic and social rights

3. A right to a healthy environment, cultural rights and a right to a development.

A right to freedom is the most important one. And without rights to life, freedom, security of person, society and state and a man could not exist. In interpersonal relations, freedom is being established as well as all other rights of a man, but, in the first place, a man must be free, not enslaved in order to establish relations with others, and that relationship is necessary because a man is not isolated from the world, a man lives in that world, together with other people.


[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#_ftnref1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1 Article, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.


It was capitalism that took our right to live in an health environment as we live in a polluted environment due to industries.

[donttread]

Dedicated to @Redrose (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1123) (in sympathy) and to people who aren’t quite sure what they are, or what they support.

All our ideologies come from the classical theorists. There is nothing new, but plenty of offshoots and terms requiring complex definitions. It’s why people like Chris and Kilgram go around in circles, each coming out with old terminology, dressed up as original thought, to try and outdo each other in interpretations. Those who aren’t up to that level of theory can simply do the “lol” and “RWNJ” comments.

You can call yourselves social democrats or democratic socialists. You can pretend that socialism isn’t wealth distribution and throw around definitions of existentialism without realizing it’s not an ideology, but a philosophical theory. You pretend you’ve just discovered Anarchy and have changed its definition to individuality, whilst the rest of the world already knows it’s a state of disorder, rebellion, riot, mutiny. Those of you who support individuality are nearer Reaganism and light years away from Anarchy.

You can throw the phrases about like, “Kill the rich” and not understand it translates to “Murder people and families who have more than you”, or “Equality for all” which means in modern terms, a huge welfare system and an elite running it, or ‘progressivism’, which some of you take to mean moving forward in its literal sense, but fail to understand it’s another branch of Marxism, which changed the term from economic Marxism because of its repeated failures and hoped you wouldn’t catch on. “Change you can believe in”? Did you interpret that to mean things would get better? I bet they’re still laughing at you down in Obamaville central party HQ for that one.

You can vote in a Muslim communist political activist and wonder why, along with people like Pelosi and Reid, the whole place is falling apart and jump up and down at all the evil rich millionaires, whilst forgetting that Obama alone has more wealth than the whole of this forum put together.

Let me explain something to you and it won’t then leave you scratching your heads. Socialism is the distribution of private wealth by the State. No more, no less. It can be done in many ways, through welfare, or the minimum wage, or through high taxation or rules and regulations . . . . The end result is a transfer of private wealth to the State. All States have some form of taxation, but it becomes socialism when the State takes on the role of provider.

Communism is more of the same, except that the State, through nationalization, now owns the wealth production it distributes. Socialism is simply the transient stage between capitalism and communism and it can go both ways when it collapses; back to capitalism as it did in the UK 1980’s, or on to communism, (an Obama wish), as in places like N. Korea, Zimbabwe or the old Cambodia.

More than a few of you and by no means all still believe a welfare check is economic production, (Pelosi does). You’re still using terms like socialism, gradualism and mumbling about the First International and using a hundred year old Marxist ideology to explain a post-modernist society. No disrespect guys, but I doubt whether there are a dozen of you here that would get through a bog standard UK University sociology degree. That’s not disrespect, I think it’s because you’ve suddenly come up against European socialist style progressivism and you haven’t yet got a clue what’s hit you. You’re starting to though aren’t you? Nearly a third of America unemployed, huge disparities of wealth, a collapsing middle class, high taxation, economically collapsing cities, food kitchens . . . . . Capitalism hasn’t produced that, socialism has.





We are not socialist we are corporatist

[Green Arrow]

In light of Bob and Refugee's opinion that words mean whatever anyone says they mean, I hereby declare myself a conservative. I support mass immigration, cradle-to-grave government dependency, enormously high taxes, and, what the hell, just for good measure, I want to have Obama's babies.

Under the Newspeak rules of Refugee and Bob, those are all now conservative positions.

[donttread]

GA. Oh, I did read it.

Another word for it is progressivism. What you are now in is the stages of achieving that progressivism. That is being done by destroying what you have by socialism. I completely agree that what is waiting for you is a rule by the elite, but you’re never going to agree to that rule, so dumb you down, destroy your identity, make you a melting pot and make whole sections of the population dependent on the State.

Socialism has nothing to do with Marx and communism. It has nothing to do with anarchism. Socialism isn’t as complicated as you’re making out. The UK introduced the first modern welfare State only as early as nearly 70 years ago. Socialized medical care, socialized education, a socialized pension scheme . . . it has nothing to do with Marx and two hundred year old ideologists. Why do you think the uproar is about Obamacare? It’s socialized health care, run by the State and you’ll (privately) pay for it, that’s socialism. You’ve just brought Anarchism and Communism into something that it doesn’t concern and that’s why I said in the op, many of you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about; you’re still rambling on about centuries old theorists and trying to relate what they said to a modern era. Socialism is run by the State, who else do you think runs it, the Red Cross?

Read the op, I said socialism starts when the State becomes a provider. GA, I don’t need to read quotes or use Wiki, this is all off the top of my head. If I read all the quotes given on forums, I’d be as confused as you are. You are not a socialist, because you have no idea of what socialism is. You’re still at the stage of blaming capitalism for a massive welfare State brought to you by left wing socialists such as Obama, Pelosi and Reid. That’s how far removed you are.

“Socialist Theory of Distribution:
- To each according to his contribution.
Communist Theory of Distribution:
- From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Is that what it says in the book? Is that what happens under communism? Why do they all turn into dictatorships and it never happens then? You’re talking theory, I’m talking facts.

The rest about anarchy is pure nonsense, textbook stuff and yes to be honest, if you believe the nonsense you get from ideology’s it does sound as if you’re a dreamer. I don’t insult, but you’re a perfect example of my op and that's what I meant; most of you don't even have a clue what's hit you and wouldn't know what happened if you went into full blown communism.

Under capitalism business competes for your patronage via price competition and other ways. Under corporatism ( modern day America) corporations don't compete in markets , they manipulate them with help from their bitch the Donekephant

[Bob]

In light of @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) and @Refugee (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1060)'s opinion that words mean whatever anyone says they mean, I hereby declare myself a conservative. I support mass immigration, cradle-to-grave government dependency, enormously high taxes, and, what the hell, just for good measure, I want to have Obama's babies.

Under the Newspeak rules of Refugee and Bob, those are all now conservative positions.
Green Arrow, show us where we told you that.

Call yourself a fly, a flower an elephant or human. But why can't you attempt learning?

Who do you respect enough to learn from?
Immigration should be legal, not illegal.
I object to cradle to grave dependency.
I support FAIR Taxes. I define them this way.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks

[Green Arrow]

@Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), show us where we told you that.

I don't need to. It's all over this thread. Your argument against the actual definition of socialism is that people who call themselves socialists don't follow that definition, therefore THEIR definition is socialism. I'm just turning that around on you.

[Refugee]

In light of @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) and @Refugee (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1060)'s opinion that words mean whatever anyone says they mean, I hereby declare myself a conservative. I support mass immigration, cradle-to-grave government dependency, enormously high taxes, and, what the hell, just for good measure, I want to have Obama's babies.

Under the Newspeak rules of Refugee and Bob, those are all now conservative positions.

I think you need to get a grip on yourself. If you support the above you’re a socialist. It’s what your President is. Is it happening? Yes, they’re socialist policies from a Marxist President, did you expect anything different? Where have I said these are conservative policies? Can I give you a tip? If you can’t distinguish between Socialism and Conservatism, get yourself some education. This is like flogging a dead horse and I'm not paid to waste my time on continuous explanations.

A philosophy is a thought and an ideology using goals and more importantly methods adds to that. It’s like saying you’re a Utilitarian, it means nothing unless you can introduce a workable framework around it. If you said the world is unequal that’s simply a thought, an opinion. You would then need to develop an ideology around that and invent a system to erase inequality. Other than that, it’s just words.

Marx had a thought, (equality), he then develops it into a workable plan, (Communism) and publishes his ideas, (Political Manifesto). Someone picks up on that, (a politician) and tries to convince people, (the electorate), it’s a good ideology to accept. Marx didn’t write his Manifesto to be tweaked, people and politicians do that.
Take it or leave it, it matters not to me how you personally see the world as you’ve got a hundred people on the forum who also see the world differently to both of us. The difference is people like Hitler, Marx, Mao and all the rest of them made their opinions a reality by explanation, as opposed to thoughts and tweaking.

[Refugee]

I don't need to. It's all over this thread. Your argument against the actual definition of socialism is that people who call themselves socialists don't follow that definition, therefore THEIR definition is socialism. I'm just turning that around on you.

If you don't follow the definitions of socialism, you're not a socialist? It sort of makes sense? Good God!

[Refugee]

Under capitalism business competes for your patronage via price competition and other ways. Under corporatism ( modern day America) corporations don't compete in markets , they manipulate them with help from their bitch the Donekephant

Agreed, but we're talking about Socialism, not economics. Capitalism is simply a means of funding Socialism.

[Bob]

I agree with you, however every society must have a set of common rules that keeps those freedoms in check so it doesn't inadvertently take the freedom away from another.

Freedom does not mean freedom to harm others or their property. Were that freedom, one would not see laws banning such acts.

They are to punish the guilty.

[Bob]

I don't need to. It's all over this thread. Your argument against the actual definition of socialism is that people who call themselves socialists don't follow that definition, therefore THEIR definition is socialism. I'm just turning that around on you.

What the hell are you talking about. Show me.

[kilgram]

Agreed, but we're talking about Socialism, not economics. Capitalism is simply a means of funding Socialism.
Socialism is an economic system itself.

[Bob]

Under capitalism business competes for your patronage via price competition and other ways. Under corporatism ( modern day America) corporations don't compete in markets , they manipulate them with help from their bitch the Donekephant
You are assuming the market has no choice but to deal with your corporation.

Can you give examples where it works as you claim?

[Bob]

Socialism is an economic system itself.

Okay, so go on.

[Bob]

I think you need to get a grip on yourself. If you support the above you’re a socialist. It’s what your President is. Is it happening? Yes, they’re socialist policies from a Marxist President, did you expect anything different? Where have I said these are conservative policies? Can I give you a tip? If you can’t distinguish between Socialism and Conservatism, get yourself some education. This is like flogging a dead horse and I'm not paid to waste my time on continuous explanations.

A philosophy is a thought and an ideology using goals and more importantly methods adds to that. It’s like saying you’re a Utilitarian, it means nothing unless you can introduce a workable framework around it. If you said the world is unequal that’s simply a thought, an opinion. You would then need to develop an ideology around that and invent a system to erase inequality. Other than that, it’s just words.

Marx had a thought, (equality), he then develops it into a workable plan, (Communism) and publishes his ideas, (Political Manifesto). Someone picks up on that, (a politician) and tries to convince people, (the electorate), it’s a good ideology to accept. Marx didn’t write his Manifesto to be tweaked, people and politicians do that.
Take it or leave it, it matters not to me how you personally see the world as you’ve got a hundred people on the forum who also see the world differently to both of us. The difference is people like Hitler, Marx, Mao and all the rest of them made their opinions a reality by explanation, as opposed to thoughts and tweaking.


Brilliant. I wish I could say it that well. (Actually I can but choose to speak as the masses speak. LOL)

[Green Arrow]

Okay, so go on.

What would be the point, Bob? I spent two hours explaining the basics of the economic system of socialism and you ignored it.

[Green Arrow]

If you don't follow the definitions of socialism, you're not a socialist? It sort of makes sense? Good God!

It makes perfect sense. If you don't follow the Christian Bible, are you a Christian? The same for the Jewish Torah or the Islamic Qu'ran/Shari'a?

[Bob]

It makes perfect sense. If you don't follow the Christian Bible, are you a Christian? The same for the Jewish Torah or the Islamic Qu'ran/Shari'a?

You are taking a lot of this far too personally Green Arrow. I nor Refugee mean you harm.

[Spectre]

You are taking a lot of this far too personally @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868). I nor Refugee mean you harm.

Neither do I. I actually like the excitable green dude!:laugh:

[Bob]

What would be the point, Bob? I spent two hours explaining the basics of the economic system of socialism and you ignored it.


What? I am 75. I have been at this from an early age. You explained it to me? I ignored it?

When was that? Maybe I simply missed it due to a project I am immersed in. I am trying to both read this crap as well as finish a course I am studying. I have to waste 240 minutes on the course since it is timed so I blow the time here. I finished the course far too early since I know most of the material.

[Bob]

Neither do I. I actually like the excitable green dude!:laugh:

I can only imagine how he talks to a person his junior. The way he talks to his seniors leaves a lot to be desired.

[Spectre]

I can only imagine how he talks to a person his junior. The way he talks to his seniors leaves a lot to be desired.

Meh! I cut him some slack because he's very young. You're allowed to be stupid about certain things at that age without judgment. He'll snap out of it eventually.

[Green Arrow]

You are taking a lot of this far too personally @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868). I nor Refugee mean you harm.

What's personal about my response? I'm making a point. Address it or not, I don't care.

[Refugee]

It makes perfect sense. If you don't follow the Christian Bible, are you a Christian? The same for the Jewish Torah or the Islamic Qu'ran/Shari'a?

Mind your own business, my religion has nothing to do with you or my posts. :smiley:

[Refugee]

Socialism is an ideology that has both methods and goals. Its aims are equality. It uses economics to both provide for and try to distribute privately owned wealth to promote that equality. Once that wealth becomes State owned and distributed, its Communism. Socialism doesn’t care where the money comes from, but will eventually try to destroy capitalism on its way towards Communism. Socialism is the transitional stage between Capitalism and Communism and so tries to destroy one to produce the other.

The term Union of Socialist Soviet Republics is a fallacy as the State owned the wealth and so although it has the term ‘Socialist’ in its title, as the State owned the wealth, it was known as Communist, not Socialist. The term ‘Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’ is also a fallacy as there is nothing ‘democratic’, (voting) about it. The term ‘Communist’ when applied to either is also a fallacy, as both were/are dictatorships and didn’t distribute the wealth equally.

In the U.S. what you have is Socialism, (Corporatism doesn’t come into it) and it’s not yet Communism because you’re allowed to own wealth. That wealth is increasingly being taxed by the State, but it’s still not Communism until the State finally owns both the means and modes of production. Feel free to add your own interpretations, Wiki quotes and argue amongst yourselves with your fifty different interpretations; it is what it is.

[Green Arrow]

I can only imagine how he talks to a person his junior. The way he talks to his seniors leaves a lot to be desired.

I talk to you as an equal.

[Refugee]

I talk to you as an equal.

An equal in what? Life experience? Education? Or one of these, 'were all equal Bro, in a big happy melting pot Dude'? :smiley: Hey, isn't this getting all a bit personal GA? Stick to the topic? Just a suggestion.

[Green Arrow]

An equal in what? Life experience? Education? Or one of these, 'were all equal Bro, in a big happy melting pot Dude'? :smiley:

The same blood flows through our veins and the same imperfection locks us out of knowing everything the universe has to offer. In that sense, we are equals.

[Refugee]

The same blood flows through our veins and the same imperfection locks us out of knowing everything the universe has to offer. In that sense, we are equals.

In that case, so are monkeys.

[Green Arrow]

In that case, so are monkeys.

If you want to be unreasonable, which won't be a first for you...sure, so are monkeys.

[Refugee]

If you want to be unreasonable, which won't be a first for you...sure, so are monkeys.

Why would you agree with my assumption and then say it's "unreasonable"? Sorry, just playing with you. :smiley:

[pjohns]

No, anarchism is really a higher evolution of what we are as humans. We replace the violent, chaotic, false order of the state with social order. It's just that simple.

In theory, that sounds, well, downright appealing.

But in actual practice, how might it work? How, for instance, might those who violate the norms of this new social order--the thieves, the rapists, the murderers--be punished? Or even sequestered from the rest of society?

[Green Arrow]

In theory, that sounds, well, downright appealing.

But in actual practice, how might it work? How, for instance, might those who violate the norms of this new social order--the thieves, the rapists, the murderers--be punished? Or even sequestered from the rest of society?

It really wouldn't need to be all that different from how it is now. The community in which the offense took place would bring the offender before whatever court system they have developed and adjudicate the dispute. Only difference would be in the anarchist system, compensation would go to the victims, not the state, as it is now.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=643551#post643551)
I can only imagine how he talks to a person his junior. The way he talks to his seniors leaves a lot to be desired.


Meh! I cut him some slack because he's very young. You're allowed to be stupid about certain things at that age without judgment. He'll snap out of it eventually. Green Arrow

He claims he talks to me as an equal. When he is not saying I am childish I suppose.

I tried to cut him slack. I don't believe he appreciates it.

[Refugee]

It really wouldn't need to be all that different from how it is now. The community in which the offense took place would bring the offender before whatever court system they have developed and adjudicate the dispute. Only difference would be in the anarchist system, compensation would go to the victims, not the state, as it is now.

What a load of fantasy based drivel!

[Refugee]

Let’s simplify it with a story of Refugee and Bob’s world famous baseball business. :smiley:

Once upon a time Refugee and Bob decided they’d start up a baseball team that would be the best in America. It would win every match, beat every previous score and be constantly at the top of the league. Yet when we told everyone, the only response was, “yeah, big deal, so what”! (Philosophy).

So then we sat down and worked out how we were going to achieve that. We’d borrow lots of money, we’d buy the best players, the best coaches and trainers, the top nutrition experts . . . money would be no object. (ideology). Those we told said it sounded like, “a good idea”.

Yet how would we pay back for all this? We hit on this great idea; we’d charge the people who came to watch and they would pay for it and we’d make a profit. (Capitalism). Not only that, but true to our socialist principles, we’d divide the tickets up, half at normal price and half at a reduced price or free. To watch our baseball game would now depend on how much you could afford. (Socialism). “The People cheered and said they’d come from miles around as it was free”. The people who could pay saw it as a status symbol and sat in the best seats, a bit like Starbucks where they could watch everybody else watching them.

It took off, in fact so much that Bob and I became rich and bought the stadium as well, the ground it stood on and the hot dog stands and we even made T. Shirts so you could pay to wear them and advertise our brand for free. We even installed giant screens outside the stadium for the people that couldn’t get in to watch and we became so wealthy we did a deal with the government, but we won’t tell you about that. (Corporatism).

Yet there was always a niggling doubt in our minds that we were giving half our profits away for free with our reduced price tickets. Things were getting expensive and the problem was that the government also caught on and in the name of the same equality, started to tax us so much that we were forced to abandon our free tickets offers. They even threatened to nationalize us if we didn’t pay up and distribute the tickets they would then own themselves. (Communism).

Remaining true to socialism, we informed our unwanted cut price guests that in the name of equality, all would now pay the same price and that would now become the definition of our socialism. After all, you could always watch it on TV, so it’s not as though we were getting rid of equality. The problem now was that not enough people could afford to pay our prices because of our increased tax costs and eventually we went bankrupt.

Down the road from our trailer site where we live on benefits, live two other men and they’ve got this great idea of staring up a socialist basketball team . . . . . . .

:smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Green Arrow]

What a load of fantasy based drivel!

And once again, you are found incapable of rousing an actual counter.

[kilgram]

In that case, so are monkeys.
LOL. I ask escuses in advance, beause it can be a personal attack, but also it is linguistic curiosity.

In your previous comment you've shown some kind of classism, therefore are you a sir talking in RP?

[Refugee]

And once again, you are found incapable of rousing an actual counter.

How can you counter a fairy tale? “It wouldn’t be all that different from how it is now”. “Whatever court system they have developed” (My highlight). “Compensation would go to the victims . . . “

All you’d do is change the name from a jury to a ‘people’s tribunal’ or whatever. You do realize that crime comes from the same ‘community’ that would judge it? That’s why you have judicial independence and impartiality in trials.

Compensation, where it’s awarded, does go to the victim. It’s both enforced and distributed by the State because otherwise there would be no one to make sure it’s paid.

You want to release the six million plus people now in custody in American prisons and see how ‘the community’ deals with it? They’re in prison because the community couldn’t deal with it.
“There are now more Americans in jail -- 6 million -- than there were in Stalin's Gulag, reports Fareed Zakaria, in a column called "Incarceration Nation." (Businessinsider.com)

Well, it would just happen because we’re all one big happy family, right? You advocate an assumed fantasy and expect reasonable debate? That’s what I mean about opinionated definitions being drivel. This is all getting a bit far fetched for me. I think I'll be off and read a bit of Alice in Wonderland. :laugh:

[Refugee]

LOL. I ask escuses in advance, beause it can be a personal attack, but also it is linguistic curiosity.

In your previous comment you've shown some kind of classism, therefore are you a sir talking in RP?

I'm sorry. I haven't a clue what you're talking about. There's obviously both a question and statement in there somewhere, but I don't know what.

[Green Arrow]

How can you counter a fairy tale? “It wouldn’t be all that different from how it is now”. “Whatever court system they have developed” (My highlight). “Compensation would go to the victims . . . “

All you’d do is change the name from a jury to a ‘people’s tribunal’ or whatever. You do realize that crime comes from the same ‘community’ that would judge it? That’s why you have judicial independence and impartiality in trials.

Compensation, where it’s awarded, does go to the victim. It’s both enforced and distributed by the State because otherwise there would be no one to make sure it’s paid.

You want to release the six million plus people now in custody in American prisons and see how ‘the community’ deals with it? They’re in prison because the community couldn’t deal with it.
“There are now more Americans in jail -- 6 million -- than there were in Stalin's Gulag, reports Fareed Zakaria, in a column called "Incarceration Nation." (Businessinsider.com)

Well, it would just happen because we’re all one big happy family, right? You advocate an assumed fantasy and expect reasonable debate? That’s what I mean about opinionated definitions being drivel. This is all getting a bit far fetched for me. I think I'll be off and read a bit of Alice in Wonderland. :laugh:


It's history, actually. For around a thousand years, Ireland operated on this very system. Victims of a crime would bring the offender before the court, the court would adjudicate the dispute, and rather than compensation going to the state, the compensation for the crime would go directly to the victims.

[Refugee]

It's history, actually. For around a thousand years, Ireland operated on this very system. Victims of a crime would bring the offender before the court, the court would adjudicate the dispute, and rather than compensation going to the state, the compensation for the crime would go directly to the victims.

It still happens and yes, its history because it's no longer possible. The police bring the accused before an independent court, they now represent the people because the people can’t do it in populations of hundreds of millions. Previous to that the people brought the accused before the landowner. Monarch, landowner, court . . . there’s always a higher authority. What compensation did the victim receive for terrorism or serial killings? How did the ‘community’ catch the offender? How would the ‘community’ catch large scale city fraudsters? Who in a community itself riddled with crime catches the criminals? Take your time, think about it.

[Green Arrow]

It still happens and yes, its history because it's no longer possible. The police bring the accused before an independent court, they now represent the people because the people can’t do it in populations of hundreds of millions. Previous to that the people brought the accused before the landowner. Monarch, landowner, court . . . there’s always a higher authority. What compensation did the victim receive for terrorism or serial killings? How did the ‘community’ catch the offender? How would the ‘community’ catch large scale city fraudsters? Who in a community itself riddled with crime catches the criminals? Take your time, think about it.

Of course it's still possible. It only seems that it is not because of the tyrannical system that you and your kind have created.

[Refugee]

Of course it's still possible. It only seems that it is not because of the tyrannical system that you and your kind have created.

The questions, you forgot to answer instead of fobbing me off with a non explanatory diversion?

What compensation did the victim receive for terrorism or serial killings?

How did the ‘community’ catch the offender?

How would the ‘community’ catch large scale city fraudsters?

Who in a community itself riddled with crime catch the criminals?

[Green Arrow]

The questions, you forgot to answer instead of fobbing me off with a non explanatory diversion?

Oh, you mean like your non-response to my lengthy post earlier in the thread?


What compensation did the victim receive for terrorism or serial killings?

How did the ‘community’ catch the offender?

How would the ‘community’ catch large scale city fraudsters?

Who in a community itself riddled with crime catch the criminals?

Not sure that either such things occurred back then, but it would not be too difficult to decide on one. Terrorists cause damage, so they would owe compensation equal to the amount of damage done, and a serial killer would owe compensation for one life added on for each life he/she took.

They caught the offender the same way offenders have been caught from the dawn of man. Really, how is this a serious question?

"Large scale city fraudsters" are what, exactly?

Private security.

[Refugee]

Oh, you mean like your non-response to my lengthy post earlier in the thread?



Not sure that either such things occurred back then, but it would not be too difficult to decide on one. Terrorists cause damage, so they would owe compensation equal to the amount of damage done, and a serial killer would owe compensation for one life added on for each life he/she took.

They caught the offender the same way offenders have been caught from the dawn of man. Really, how is this a serious question?

"Large scale city fraudsters" are what, exactly?

Private security.

What questions didn’t I answer and why have you waited until now to bring that up? If they were as daft as the ones above I probably didn't think they merited my time.

That’s right, these things didn’t occur back then. We now live in a globalized world with populations of multi millions.

How much do you think the dead terrorists of 9/11 should pay back to their victims then? Any ideas on how we should bring them back to life to pay?

How much do you think a serial killer should pay for each victim then? Assuming it’s a rich serial killer?

Offenders weren’t often caught many years ago. Its why a police force, or in the U.S. your Sherriff’s and Marshalls were introduced? The wild west; who tamed it, the ‘community’? Who stopped Bonnie and Clyde, the ‘community’? Who tracks down serial killers, Private security guards?

Private security guards are going to regulate and discover the complex frauds of Bernie Madoff and Exxon (large scale city fraudsters)that span continents and even modern Nation States with all the available resources they have at their disposable find difficulty in unravelling?

Do you realize now how ridiculous your new age explanations sound when you try to give them meanings?