I have come to embrace Socialism!

reply to post by Skyfloating


Thank you!
You're a great person and a great friend to me. I appericet that.

reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet


You could not even bear to read it could you? Text You had to immediately flame!!!! Please read this quote and tell me specifically with which point you oppose. Otherwise you are like a small child who given the opportunity stomps his foot and screams..."But I Don't like the Popes". Do you like your hospitals? your Universities? Books? You can thank the Popes and all their corruptness for bringing you the good things in life...a little like GE (General Electric) you don't have to like them to admit they do provide usefulness to our world

Text“Continuing our reflections, … we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property.” (Ibid, n. 13) BENEDICT XVI (2005 – present): “We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything” Pope_Benedict_XVI_WDC.jpg Benedict XVI “The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person − every person − needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) − a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)
BENEDICT XVI (2005 – present):

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person − every person − needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) − a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Put differently:

Imagine I have ten edible seeds. I can either give those ten seeds away or I can plant them to create a plant that will give off ten times the seeds I have right now.

Are you really suggesting I give people all ten seeds and plant none?

The plants that you gave away will in turn produce more seeds which will given back to you at an exponential level (more production), each person making more seeds than the next thanks to their different planting techniques (different working techniques to produce).

I just find it difficult to accept that everything is about money in capitalism, which always leads to wanting more, and there is always something else to want, whereas in socialism, you get everything you need and have extra money to get more things you need, or want...

I guess I understand myself...

What's Wrong With Socialism?
By Joe Herring
I recall a conversation I had with a young coworker in the latter weeks of Obama's campaign for president. Joe the plumber had just exposed the redistributionist bent of the candidate, and I expressed my assessment of Mr. Obama as a not-so-closeted socialist. My coworker then quite earnestly asked, "What's so wrong with socialism?"

I initially assumed he must be joking, although his face gave no indication. I stared at him dumbfounded, only later realizing I must have looked like a palsied old man -- my mouth working wordlessly, the incomprehension as evident on my face as the sincerity on his. It eventually dawned on me that he really didn't know what was wrong with socialism. I began reciting the litany of horrors: the crimes of the Holocaust, the purges of the Soviets, the thuggery and inhuman brutality of the statist regimes of the last century. The Nazis, for crissake! How could he not know about the evil of the Nazis? He listened to all of this, nodding his understanding as he recognized some of the events I described, but I could still see a question behind his eyes. While he had been taught of the existence of these atrocities, he had not been clued into the one commonality they shared. They were all perpetrated by the adherents of various forms of socialism. Indeed, such crimes were the only outcome possible.

In the late 1930s, the noted economist Friedrich Von Hayek wrote his landmark pamphlet "Road to Serfdom," laying bare the diseased skeleton of socialist/utopian thought that had permeated academia and the salons of his day. With an economy of words that showcased the significance of his conclusion, he pointed out the Achilles heel of collectivist dogma: for a planned economy to succeed, there must be central planners, who by necessity will insist on universal commitment to their plan.

How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don't. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone. When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to our discussion, how those decisions will be enforced. A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This fatal flaw in the collectivist design cannot be reengineered. It is an error so critical that the entire ideology must be scrapped.

Von Hayek accurately foretold the fate that would befall dissenters from the plan. They simply could not be allowed to get in the way. Opposition would soon be treated as subversion, with debate shriveling to non-existence under the glare of the state. Those who refused compliance would first be marginalized, then dehumanized, and finally (failing re-education) eliminated. Collectivism and individualism cannot long share the same bed. They are political oil and water, and neither can compromise its position without eventually succumbing to the other. The history of the twentieth century is littered with the remains of those who became "enemies of the state" for merely drawing attention to this flaw. As Von Hayek predicted, the socialist vision would not be achieved without bloodshed.

So this is the challenge we face. My young coworker had no frame of reference by which to judge the events unfolding around him. He had been presented with only the intentions of socialism, not the inevitable results. He had been given the whitewashed fantasy of the Left, who never saw a failure that couldn't be rationalized -- or better yet, blamed on others. Our job, then, is to teach the lessons of history to those who fail to see the danger. We have to provide that all-important perspective to a generation that has been denied it. We have to do this one at a time, conversation by conversation. Tell your friends the truth; don't assume they know it. Become the person your friends and family consult when the subject turns to politics.

I successfully informed my coworker of the irreparable crack in the foundation of socialist thinking, and he is now aware of the need to burrow beneath the surface of politics to find the roots from which the tree springs. We can't wait until the tree bears fruit to determine its worth. Fruit bears seeds, and seeds scatter. Better to tear it out as a single sapling now than to hew down an entire forest of diseased wood after it has poisoned the ground.

T

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

When do you consider the most pure time frame of capitalism in America?

Industrial Revolution

Ah yes the industrial revolution. When adults worked 70hr weeks for peanuts and children were the favorite factory worker. What a grand time this was for....the factory owner and super wealthy.

The industrial revolution was not a time of great prosperity for a larger number of people. It was a great time for a few people at the top. The industrial revolution led to the unionization of Americas workers, who demanded better hours, worker conditions and a bigger piece of the pie that they slaved for.

Your "perfect" time frame for capitalism, pushed the population to the limit and resulted in a push towards socialism.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
You say you are a capitalist who no longer really cares about money because you have plenty. Why dont you give all your workers a raise? Forget "investing" in the community. Pay the people who helped you get to where you are now.

You see...thats precisely where we differ massively. I believe that by investing and thereby making even more, more people can be ultimately helped than if I dont invest it and instead give it away.

I know that if I just give it away to them they will go and buy a bigger TV instead of invet it. Its OK for them to buy a bigger TV, but if I had invested it I could make enough for two people to buy a bigger TV.

You arent just "giving" money away. You are investing in the worker that produced your wealth. An investment in the worker is the best investment you can make.

This whole idea of trickle down and that the rich business man will "invest" in the common man with another business that they can make money from is silly.

Your personal investment, ensures that YOU will see more profits. Giving more money back to the workers that allowed you to be successful will do more for the economy than you could ever hope to accomplish from personal investment.

reply to post by Missing Blue Sky


Honestly, I stopped reading as soon as he said that the Nazi Party were socialist. They certainly weren't, at least not whilst they were actually in power.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Skyfloating, are you ignoring my request to debate the post I made? From what I've read of your other posts, I'm starting to agree with you on some of your points, however, I'm curiuos to know what you think of the allocation of natural resources as described below. This is the last time I'll ask so no worries if you don't want to respond, I've quoted what I orginally said below:

When the majority of people decide they want to give freely and vote as such, should the world continue to be held back by the minority of those who still seek selfish ends?

What if 99% of the world converts to a humanitarian utopia. Should they all bow down to the 1% who don't want to help others?

Are you not forced to wear clothes in public, not kill people, pay your bills, etc? These are all forced with the leverage of their specific consequences, do you feel raped? These policies FORCED on you are in place for the good of all.

Let's say you have a group of kids at the babysitters. One kid gets there before the rest and hoards all the toys from the other later arriving children. Does the babysitter not say to the child "please share with the rest of the children?" Do we pity the child when he's forced to share? Do you equate his being forced to share to that of being raped?

By the logic of capitalism, that child worked hard to gather the resources and no one else deserves any of them. We could easily say the same thing about the natural resources which capitalist proclaim as their own on a daily basis. Ever hear that song "This land is your land, this land is my land, from the.....?"

This world needs to grow up and recognize that the land and resources really do belong to ALL of us and we need to share them, not allow a very small percentage of the population control them while the majority of those on the planet toil in filth, starvation, and poverty.

But this is all common sense, isn't it? Does this really need to be explained?

Please remember that this is a response to your post, so much of it is in that context.

It makes me laugh every time I see the Tea Partiers saying that they are a "concerned Christian group", and then in the same breath berate Obama for being a socialist.

I totally agree - I'm not religious in anyway, but strongly believe that if Jesus were alive today, he'd be a socialist.

reply to post by Missing Blue Sky


Thanks for stopping by because compared to Catholics I no longer look as far-right as socialists make me out to be

Originally posted by Magnum007
The plants that you gave away will in turn produce more seeds which will given back to you at an exponential level (more production), each person making more seeds than the next thanks to their different planting techniques (different working techniques to produce).

Assuming they dont eat the edible seeds instead of planting them. Which they will. As History has shown time and time and time again.

I just find it difficult to accept that everything is about money in capitalism,

Its not. Its about productivity, creativity and contribution to the community. Unless your diet consists mainly of far-left literature which makes you belive its "all about money".

The difference between us is that I dont mind people practicing Socialism. But they mind me practicing Capitalism. For me its "live and let live" and for the socialist its "we have to bring that greedy person down".
If socialists could practice their system while just leaving others alone and letting them be, everything would be fine.

Any societal issue arises the moment an individual is forced to conform to the collective.

Originally posted by brianmg5

Skyfloating, are you ignoring my request to debate the post I made? From what I've read of your other posts, I'm starting to agree with you on some of your points, however, I'm curiuos to know what you think of the allocation of natural resources as described below. This is the last time I'll ask so no worries if you don't want to respond, I've quoted what I orginally said below:

Im sorry man, Ive made dozens of posts here but I also missed some. There are just too many.

As for natural resources: You're right, demanding land be free is significantly more reasonable than demanding stuff I produce be free.

But on our current evolutionary level of intelligence, declaring all land free will result in chaos and tribal wars. This is something we can talk about in 2000 years.

____________________________________________________________________________________

I think we should be terraforming other planets in order to have so much space that socialists can get their own planet and see how their stuff works out. And Libertarians get their planet. And conservatives get their Planet. And Catholics get their Planet. Id be so very CURIOUS to see how that goes.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

Ah yes the industrial revolution. When adults worked 70hr weeks for peanuts and children were the favorite factory worker. What a grand time this was for....the factory owner and super wealthy.

90% of the items you used today, including the Internet, are thanks to the hard work of those people. So it did not only benefit the wealthy, it also beneftied you.

And its also benefiting all the whiners who only complain about "TPTB".

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
You arent just "giving" money away. You are investing in the worker that produced your wealth. An investment in the worker is the best investment you can make.

people who work for me I pay VERY generously. Why? Because it makes me feel good. Because I know they will do a great job that way. Exploiting people doesnt pay off.

No good Capitalist exploits people. The idea is a marxist myth.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Assuming they dont eat the edible seeds instead of planting them. Which they will. As History has shown time and time and time again.

History has shown again and again... What is it with the lose unverifiable claims?

Common sense prevails when thinking about collective good and not oneself. Eating the seeds that would make more seeds for other people would not be something a socialist would do as it goes against the idea that you need to cultivate for later and make sure everyone gets some.

Capitalist will take the seeds, put it in an offshore seed bank, steal the other company's way of growing the seeds, expropriate people gain more land to grow more seeds, and then pay an illegal immigrant to collect the seeds at low cost... That is capitalism at its best...

Magnum

Originally posted by Magnum007

Capitalist will take the seeds, put it in an offshore seed bank, steal the other company's way of growing the seeds, expropriate people gain more land to grow more seeds, and then pay an illegal immigrant to collect the seeds at low cost... That is capitalism at its best...

Magnum

As much as I disagree with it, its well-written and made me laugh.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I'm glad we can laugh a little even if we disagree!

Magnum

reply to post by Skyfloating

No good Capitalist exploits people. The idea is a marxist myth.

But this is what is confusing. You say that "No good capitalist exploits people". Yet you list the industrial revolution as the pinnacle of the capitalist economy. And there was TONS of exploitation that happened during this time. You didnt even address the exploitation that I listed in my post. You only attempted to change the subject. Also many of the companies that operated during the industrial revolution were HUGE monopolies, there was no competition and there were a lot of barriers to entry.

Are you sure that the industrial revolution is accurate portrayal of the capitalist system?

90% of the items you used today, including the Internet,

P.S. The US govt originally developed the internet. And the original infrastructure was built by AT&T(American Bell) and they were operating a monopoly, which goes against your capitalist ideals.



Wiki AT&T

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
And there was TONS of exploitation that happened during this time.

Tough conditions for sure, by todays standards. Thanks to the work of those Generations we live more comfortably. Times are less tough.

The socialist idea of "Exploitation" is fuzzy. Its my choice for who I work, for how much I work and for how long I work. If I agree to tough terms I cant later call it "exploitation".

Originally posted by amari
My own definition of socialism- Hand over your money to the government first and let the government decide how much of their money now you can keep and how you may spend their money. ^Y^

Again that is not socialism. Socialism requires no government!

Anarchism (no government) has traditionally supported socialism as it's economic system.

Anarchism is an alternative to government, socialism is an alternative to capitalism.

If it requires government Anarchists would be the last to support it.

The second question arising before the people - that of leisure after work - is the indispensable condition of humanity. But bread and leisure can never be obtained apart from a radical transformation of existing society, and that explains why the Revolution, impelled by the implications of its own principles, gave birth to Socialism...
...Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality;...

flag.blackened.net...

In modern Anarchism we have the confluence of the two great currents which before and since the French Revolution have found such characteristic expression in the intellectual life of Europe: Socialism and Liberalism. Modern Socialism developed when profound observers of social life came to see more and more dearly that political constitutions and changes in the form of government could never get to the root of the great problem that we call the social question. Its supporters recognised that an equalising of social and economic conditions for the benefit of all, despite the loveliest of theoretical assumptions is not possible as long as people are separated into classes on the basis of their owning or not owning property, classes whose mere existence excludes in advance any thought of a genuine community...

www.anarchosyndicalism.net...

Anarcho-Syndicalism is a system based on socialism using trade unions.

Modern Anarcho-Syndicalism is a direct continuation of those social aspirations which took shape in the bosom of the First International and which were best understood and most strongly held by the libertarian wing of the great workers' alliance. Its development was a direct reaction against the concepts and methods of political Socialism, a reaction which in the decade before the first world war had already manifested itself in the strong upsurge of the Anarcho-Syndicalist movement in France, Italy and especially Spain, where the great majority of the organised workers had always remained faithful to the doctrines of the libertarian wing of the International.

www.anarchosyndicalism.net...

Libertarian Socialism...

Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists....

flag.blackened.net...

State socialism is Marxism. Marxism is not true socialism. Marx wanted to use his idea of a 'state socialist' system in order to offer a stepping stone towards communism. Not all socialists want communism. Socialists are not Marxists.

The capitalist state is lying to you about what socialism is and how it could benefit us.

A bit for the 'Anarcho-Capitalists' among us...

The Libertarian or sometimes-called "anarcho-" capitalist movement was a reaction from the political right-wing against US president FDR's sweeping social democratic laws passed as a response to a powerful labor movement in the 1930's. The libertarian left had little interest in nationalizations or state-social-programs, arguing that they placed power into the hands of elite managers and not the workers themselves(pls note). The destruction of the original libertarian movement in the United States, (by mass deportations and imprisonment), as well as in Europe (The Fascist victories in Spain, Italy and Germany) left a vacuum in which was possible for one Dean Russell of the capitalist "Foundation for Economic Education" to write an article in the FEE publication, "Ideas on Liberty" of May, 1955 entitled "Who is a Libertarian?" which advocated that the right should "trademark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word 'libertarian.'" In other cases, conservative Science Fiction writers such as Robert Heinlein and Poul Anderson used the term in their writing to depict fictionally virtuous forms of capitalism. It should be noted that these writers and others like them (Ann MaCaffrey, Daniel F. Galouye, Keith Laumer, etc.) supported the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. For more information see the article "Starship Stormtroopers" by Micheal Moorcock.

What these people did not know or chose to ignore was that at least two US libertarian socialist organisations already existed, one formed in July 1954 called the Libertarian League, started by Russell Blackwell, and the other formed in 1949 and called the Libertarian Book Club, an idea initiated by Gregory P. Maximoff, and formerly established by a number of anarchists, including: Bill & Sarah Taback, Joseph & Hannah Spivack, Joseph Aaronstam, Ida Pilot (a professional translator) and her companion Valerio Isca, and Esther and Sam Dolgoff. The Libertarian League of the 1920' was a simmilarly socialistic organization, but no longer existed. The Libertarian Book Club is based in New York City, and is still active today.
(This information is from the book "Fragments: A Memoir", by Sam Dolgoff, Pub. 1986 Refract Publications, Cambridge, England)

flag.blackened.net...


The term 'libertarian' belongs to the left, specifically Anarchists, always has. The real right (those in power generally) are manipulating your thoughts.