Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

a reply to: xuenchen

Well of course, capitalism should be part of the mix.

originally posted by: Azureblue
So what do you suggest to make a referendum run society work?

The answer is simple, a constitution.

It is supposed to be that answer to elitist rule so why not mob rule?

It most certainly is a 4 letter word. That word is EVIL.

a reply to: Isurrender73

this adds up to a whooooooooooooole lot of idealism. you can say "we dont need another civil war" but make people behave in a way they do not want to behave, and war will happen, because they will fight, and you will either fight back for what you believe, or your ideas will fall to the wayside. you dont get to just say "there will be no civil war," during essential and fundamental political changes.

there is no equality. totally agreed.
there is no answer that will satisfy all. also agree
then i must ask, why are we trying to create political systems that covers everyone, and more often than not, in the name of "equality." if it cant work for everyone what do we do with those to whom it does not fit? passport out of the country? and for those who will not leave?

if we eliminate the representative's right to vote and enact laws, what are they needed for? what would your elected officials do? do you mean write the laws and then put them up for a vote by us? how often would we vote? too often and it looses its meaning, too little and the laws become outdated. and how is it morally right to take total privacy from anyone for any reason, politician or not. we dont even do that to prisoners, not even death row inmates.

if the majority decides they do not want socialism, or do want wars of aggression, or hedonism, or whatever, would this be okay? if its majority rule, and there is no representatives to temper public opinion, then what is there to stop them from voting down, or finding ways to limit what you consider civil liberties and civil rights? on paper it sounds good, but in practice people will do what they want, and if they want a minority to have less power/rights, they will take it. so far you have totally left out an incredibly important factor: human randomness. sometimes people do things that do not make any kind of sense. sometimes they do these things en masse. the majority will never have the ability to reason and make moral decisions like an individual can. majorities will behave in ways that protect their majority. individuals will behave in ways that protect their conscious.

"Civil laws will be determined by a non bias court of laws to prevent a theocracy from taking away civil liberties based on religious philosophy." like the nonbias supreme court that we already have? im sure you will say "its not unbiased," but please, tell me who is not? show me one human being on the planet who holds no bias.

gay marriage is a right? marriage itself is a right? i need the state to condone and protect my ability to love? i tend to think of marriage as a religious construct i want nothing to do with. at best, its a legal loophole to avoid paying too much in taxes (not very socialist...) or to path to make legal medical decisions for a loved one, but certainly not on the level of freedom of movement, speech, thoughts, expression, privacy, self-defense, etc. marriage a fundamental human right? wouldn't the right to love be more fundamental than the right to have the state recognize that love?

and this bill of rights, how long does a right stay a right? forever? what about changing cultural tides? what about new traditions that create new understandings? a fundamental human right to us, may be absolutely offensive to future man.

however, even after all of this, you only stated more ideas, you have yet to get to the implementation. the real on-the-ground problems, the unforeseen issues, the dissent, the chaos of changing political systems, etc etc. how will you convince people to suffer for their neighbor? how will you hold the country together during the transition? how do you expect to change fundamental founding principles of this country, and succeed in your implementation of socialism, ESPECIALLY without using force? how would you keep this from devolving into authoritarianism or mob rule? how long would the transition take? too slowly and it becomes the bureaucratic enemy, to quickly and it becomes the authoritarian enemy. i know what socialism is, i want to know how you hope to bring it about...

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: xuenchen

Well of course, capitalism should be part of the mix.

Honestly, I don't think they can grasp the concept of socialism and capitalism working together because they have been conditioned to believe that socialism equals the very worst of any extreme. But they fail to realize that socialism is already at work in our society, always has been and there is no way around it.

Socialism, in it's most simple form, is what drives community and self-governance along with the rule of law and constitutional freedoms.

a reply to: introvert

I don't know why this point has trouble getting traction but, isn't that we fail to realize that socialism is at work in our society.

We are specifically drawing attention to that fact as the explanation and are expressly accusing socialist policies for being responsible for the current state of affairs.

a reply to: greencmp

Then there is more than "one" of you.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

I don't know why this point has trouble getting traction but, isn't that we fail to realize that socialism is at work in our society.

We are specifically drawing attention to that fact as the explanation and are expressly accusing socialist policies for the current state of affairs.

I understand that. But that falls on deaf ears when you have explicitly indicated that you know very little about socialism. You try to blame socialism for societies woes because that fits your political ideology and agenda, not because it is truth.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

Then there is more than "one" of you.

Actually, there are most likely more of us than you, the rest of us wisely keep our mouths shut.

"The honest man might observe... that no one gets something for nothing; that politicians go in poor and go out rich; that the Government screws up everything it touches; and that the Will to Believe is best confined to the Religious Venue, as to practice it elsewhere is just too damned expensive."

-David Mamet

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: xuenchen

Well of course, capitalism should be part of the mix.

Honestly, I don't think they can grasp the concept of socialism and capitalism working together because they have been conditioned to believe that socialism equals the very worst of any extreme. But they fail to realize that socialism is already at work in our society, always has been and there is no way around it.

Socialism, in it's most simple form, is what drives community and self-governance along with the rule of law and constitutional freedoms.

I think you fail to understand just exactly what it is we understand.

Yes, there is socialism in our society. I've cited examples of it in several of my posts. And I have taken a hard look at one of those examples expressly and asked hard questions about it. If you have failed to read what I've written and can't grasp what I do comprehend in favor of falling back on the roads, bridges, police, etc., argument because it's much easier and doesn't force you to think, that's not my problem.

Also, most of our most cherished constitutional freedoms rely on the fundamental understanding of the basic right to one's property. Most of the Bill of Rights in fact begin with the underlying premise. Socialism's base premise is that property is commonly held for the common good and thus antithetical to many of the assumptions of the Bill of Rights. We see that with the so called Second Bill of Rights which guarantees things to people, things that would force others to service you in order for you to have those things.

In another day and age, we called that slavery and it was the impetus for all progressives favorite Amendment which remains one not passed by the usual amendment process - the 14th.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

I don't know why this point has trouble getting traction but, isn't that we fail to realize that socialism is at work in our society.

We are specifically drawing attention to that fact as the explanation and are expressly accusing socialist policies for the current state of affairs.

I understand that. But that falls on deaf ears when you have explicitly indicated that you know very little about socialism. You try to blame socialism for societies woes because that fits your political ideology and agenda, not because it is truth.

Have you ever truly lived in a fully socialist society? If not, then you understand as much as any of the rest of us which is to say you understand the theory and not the practice as it applies fully to your day to day life.

a reply to: ketsuko

Also, most of our most cherished constitutional freedoms rely on the fundamental understanding of the basic right to one's property. Most of the Bill of Rights in fact begin with the underlying premise.

Agreed.

Socialism's base premise is that property is commonly held for the common good and thus antithetical to many of the assumptions of the Bill of Rights.

Yes some property but not all. Have you seen how well rural water works projects have done in America when the small communities and towns collectively own and operate water operations?

You are basing you approach on the idea that the system we describe means that ALL property must be owned by the state and that no private property is allowed. The only property that would need to be owned by the state is that in which public works are being conducted.

Again, another common misconception about socialism.

a reply to: introvert

Every socialist system implemented begins with the basic premise that it has the right to the property of the people in order to sustain itself and sets about confiscatory practices in order to operate.

There is no respect for the individual's wishes or voluntary opt-in for most of these. If I don't want to participate in Obamacare, for example, that's to damn bad. I am automatically opted in via confiscatory measures of my property.

There are a few systems in rural areas where the fire dept. might be run on an annual fee basis and if you don't pay, they won't come if your house burns down. Of course, people got upset when one of these areas had a fire on the property of someone who did not pay and the house was let burn, but he knew the rules and chose to opt out. Of course, he also sued. But that would be an example of voluntary socialism.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

I don't know why this point has trouble getting traction but, isn't that we fail to realize that socialism is at work in our society.

We are specifically drawing attention to that fact as the explanation and are expressly accusing socialist policies for the current state of affairs.

I understand that. But that falls on deaf ears when you have explicitly indicated that you know very little about socialism. You try to blame socialism for societies woes because that fits your political ideology and agenda, not because it is truth.

Have you ever truly lived in a fully socialist society? If not, then you understand as much as any of the rest of us which is to say you understand the theory and not the practice as it applies fully to your day to day life.

That is a logical fallacy. People have been looking in to history to tell us how the practice has been applied. Have you lived in a fully socialist society? If not, who are you to determine anything other than theory?

See how that works?

Besides, no one is advocating for a full-blown socialist state. That's something people seem to completely gloss over.

a reply to: ketsuko

See, you're proving that you don't know what you're talking about.

Socialism is about state owning the means of production and industry for the benefit of the people. That in no way means that the state has a right to one's personal property. It all depends on how the system is structured.

If you want to go full-on commie, your argument might hold weight, but no one is advocating for that. Most socialists only want the state to oversee specific areas needed to benefit all people.

That system would be highly regulated and defendant upon a vigilant population to squash any attempt to control the people.

a reply to: greencmp

I see that went over your head.

The word one was in quotes to imply that I was speaking about groups (since you used "we") and that these groups have a different level of antagonism towards socialism.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes, we individuals.

a reply to: introvert

Oh, like the public school system which I have gone on and on about ...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ketsuko

See, you're proving that you don't know what you're talking about.

Socialism is about state owning the means of production and industry for the benefit of the people. That in no way means that the state has a right to one's personal property. It all depends on how the system is structured.

If you want to go full-on commie, your argument might hold weight, but no one is advocating for that. Most socialists only want the state to oversee specific areas needed to benefit all people.

That system would be highly regulated and defendant upon a vigilant population to squash any attempt to control the people.

Who doesn't know what they're talking about?

a reply to: greencmp

Still not getting it?

You don't speak for everyone so when you said "we" you could only be speaking for those who agree with you.