Socialism is Coming to America

reply to post by ANOK


To add, Social programs are not entitlements as they are insurance programs. Would you cal your insurance payout an entitlement cheque no!

reply to post by ANOK


You can lead a horse to water my friend.

There is much truth in what you say, unfortunately far too many people are unable to view things free from political / cultural / religious bias and dogma.
In fact I suspect that such things limits all of our impartiality to varying degrees.

Granted there are more socialist elements in the European society and people don't run for cover when you you say socialism.... but there is no true socialism in Europe.


Just more liberal and socialist ideals at work.


I still find it funny that only in America is socialism a dirty word... I just can't get my head around it.

:shk:

reply to post by blupblup


Exactly blup.

They are obsessed with the 'reds under the beds' lie and that all leftist thought is 'unamerican'.
And this in the land of the free!
And they just don't see it and get it.

If it wasn't so restrictive and repressive it would be both pityful and laughable.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

 

Democracy originated in Europe but you allegedly prescribe to a democratic system.

Lots of things which are an integral part of American culture and society originated in Europe.

Your reasoning makes no sense at all.

I find it quite worrying that the population of the bastion and leader of the 'free world' has such a brain washed, uneducated and innacurate opinion of Europe and Socialism etc.

Amen. You hit it on the head Sir!
Second Line

reply to post by Freeborn




I know mate.

It's pathetic but actually truly sad.

Also it's infuriating to see people dismiss anything because it "sounds like" socialism.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


I have not.

reply to post by flexy123


I appreciate your thread and your ideas but there are a couple of points that need to be looked at in this situation.
#1 The Govt. of The US has already got their hands in too much of the peoples spending decisions, without the people having a say so.
#2 There is no Fiscal Resosnsibility being demonstrated by our elected officials already. This is obvious because they continue to borrow everytime money is needed for the country.
My point is simple. There was/is enough money if the money was/had not been extorted from the coffers in the first place. Plus another Govt program means anoother loan request from The Govt. We don't need more money , we need more of the money they are wasting.

(In other words: If the gvt takes your tax money and spends it on Afghanistan...it's "ok" and you are happy...but if the gvt would take your tax money and spends it on education programs for integration of unemployed - then it's socialism and something "bad"

In regards to your above statement, Who says The American people are happy about Afghanistan or any war for that matter? In resonse to the tax money being used for educational programs for intergrating the unemployed? They are being tax dollar subsidised already and show little if any help..

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

The state controls far more of the economy than is the case in the US. In that sense Europe is much more collectivist. State socialism is about the only kind that has been tried....but you seriously think radical socialism is coming to the US???

Socialism is not state control.

Yes it is. The socialism you are describing is Anarcho-Socialism. Which makes about as much sense is the Libertarian socialist party.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Democracy originated in Europe but you allegedly prescribe to a democratic system.

I don't "prescribe" anything. I'm not a pharmacist.

Lots of things which are an integral part of American culture and society originated in Europe.
Your reasoning makes no sense at all.

What does it matter where they originated? Other than as a historical footnote. Why are Europeans so desperate to preserve their fragile sense of superiority?

The Greeks and Romans invented democracy 2500 years ago. for about a hundred years. Right before they developed despotism, which they stuck with for a thousand years after that. So yes, lots of important and thrilling ideas developed in Europe. Congratulations. Now, go back to sleep.

I find it quite worrying that the population of the bastion and leader of the 'free world' has such a brain washed, uneducated and innacurate opinion of Europe and Socialism etc.

Why? You assume we don't know, because it's easier than dealing with the truth that many Americans have summered in Europe or studied there in college; Americans just don't want to copy what liberal western Europe has to offer.

I noticed that you had absolutely nothing to say about the rigid social stratification in Europe, or about the fact that a lot of "big state" solutions might not work as well in non-European countries. You never really addressed those remarks, just started ranting about the "ignorant Americans"

Almost like I'd touched a nerve....

Originally posted by Mcupobob
Yes it is. The socialism you are describing is Anarcho-Socialism. Which makes about as much sense is the Libertarian socialist party.

First off Libertarian Socialism IS Anarcho-Socialism, the same thing. Secondly, the reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you have been lied to about what libertarianism and socialism actually is, once you know it makes perfect sense. These terms were created long before the 'right' twisted the meaning of those terms.

Libertarianism was also coined as an alternative term for Anarchism, by the French Anarchist, Joseph Déjacque.

theanarchistlibrary.org...

No, socialism is not government control. Once again socialism is the workers ownership and control of the means of production. It is an economic system that does not need government to work, and is why Anarchists are socialists.

Anarchists were always socialist, the term Anarchism, and later Anarcho-Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Collectivism etc., all socialist in principle but differ in their approach to implementing it, came about in opposition to Marxist socialism that is state socialism. It was that split in the left, and the confusion it caused, that the governments took advantage of in order to implement fascism world wide after WWII.

So I ask you, how can socialism be anything to do with government when it is accepted by Anarchists as a moral way to organize labour?

Socialism can be either state controlled as in Marxism, or it can be libertarian as in Anarchism. I prefer the later, but I believe either is a better choice than capitalism.

Originally posted by ANOK

Socialism can be either state controlled as in Marxism, or it can be libertarian as in Anarchism. I prefer the later, but I believe either is a better choice than capitalism.

edit on 10/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Better How? Seriously, in what way is state socialism better than capitalism?

Does it allow the worker to reap more of the benefits of his toil?
Does it make the people safer from crime?
Does it involve less coercion?
Does it somehow avoid the emergence of a ruling elite?

Seriously. How is either better?

I quit being an anarchist because I realized that while it is an excellent critique of the world we live in, I don't believe it offers any truly viable solutions.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Better How? Seriously, in what way is state socialism better than capitalism?

I already explained this but just for you, at least when it is state ran the people have some say in what goes on, with private entities we have no say at all.

Does it allow the worker to reap more of the benefits of his toil

Does it make the people safer from crime?
Does it involve less coercion?
Does it somehow avoid the emergence of a ruling elite?

The state is whatever we make it, or whoever has the power makes it.

Seriously. How is either better?

If everything was privately owned who are you going to go to when you're not happy with something, anything?
The complaints department?

I quit being an anarchist because I realized that while it is an excellent critique of the world we live in, I don't believe it offers any truly viable solutions.

Great. You obvioulsy didn't really look into that hard. Socialism, the workers ownership of the means of production is the answer, it always has been, that is why it is demonized so hard by those who benefit from exploiting others.

The control of the majority by a minority is not a good thing imo.

Originally posted by babybunnies
Democracy may be an integral part of the American system, but the USA is NOT a Democracy.

As per my signature, what most people seem to forget is that the USA is a REPUBLIC. A democratic republic for sure, but not a pure democracy.

I wish I knew of a 'pure democracy' as for socialism, it died out in around 1500 BC, and nobody really knows why. As for today, as in the 'here and now' it is fascism, or if you like Fascism. America is not a either, a republic or a democracy, it may use the words but is not in any of the various definitions of democracy, or in todays values a republic. in an election all you get is to choose is a very limited number of candidates in a very limited number of areas, that takes care of both republican and democratica fallacy.

Originally posted by ANOK
If everything was privately owned who are you going to go to when you're not happy with something, anything?
The complaints department?

So who do you complain to in an anarchist commune? Will the people's Kommisar for production be a better listener than his corporate counterpart? The same elites emerge, regardless of the system.

I quit being an anarchist because I realized that while it is an excellent critique of the world we live in, I don't believe it offers any truly viable solutions.

Great. You obvioulsy didn't really look into that hard.

You guessed wrong. I was Karen Eliot.

Socialism, the workers ownership of the means of production is the answer, it always has been, that is why it is demonized so hard by those who benefit from exploiting others.

The control of the majority by a minority is not a good thing imo.

But that's exactly what's wrong with every attempt at collectivism. There is simply no way that a significantly large number of individuals can engage in meaningful collective action. So some "leaders" step forward to serve as proxies for the mass of workers. And then you have an elite controlling things---functionally owning things---"in the name of" the people. Which is exactly the state of affairs with the American political system, or even corporations themselves.

Anarchy, like a truly free market, is a utopian ideal, a hot-house violet, that cannot exist for long without a organized defense corps. And that requires all the apparatus of a state, which is the exact opposite of Anarchy itself.

That's what happens with every revolution. It happened in the French Revolution, and with the Commune of Paris in 1870. And the Russian revolution originally had the aim of stateless socialism as well; but the bolsheviks assassinated enough of the menshiviks, and eventually Trotsky himself, until they achieved the statist monstrosity of the Soviet Union.

True anarchy would be a refusal to organize the types of coercive organs that are need to preserve itself. And that's why anarchy is a pipe-dream, unless you're using some other species than humans.

reply to post by ANOK


You don't speak for all anarchist buddy. Anarcho-Capitalism is also a accepted form and really the only type of anarchism that makes remote sense, because its a system that doesn't require a government to run it. If you instill socialism theres going to be a government. Someone has to disrepute the "public" own goods correct? Therefor a government will be put forth. Then that government will become corrupt(as all governments do). All you have to do is look to the Soviets. The socialist experiment has failed, and the archaic system of collectivisms will be soon come to and end.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft

I don't "prescribe" anything. I'm not a pharmacist.

The 'you' was a generic term signifying the USA as a whole.
I suspect you knew that but were just trying to be pedantic.

What does it matter where they originated?

Part of my post was in reply to your statement that socialism works well in Europe because that is where it originated but it wouldn't work in the USA as American society and Americans are so different.

Well that is clearly nonsense as so many parts and aspects of American society originated in Europe.
It wasn't any 'sense of superiority' that made me say it, just plain, honest fact.

Other than as a historical footnote. Why are Europeans so desperate to preserve their fragile sense of superiority?

That's quite rich coming from someone who displays the level of smugness and arrogance that you have done.

I certainly don't think that all things British or European were or are good and superior, but at the same time I don't think they are all bad and I recognise the part 'we' have played in human history.

The Greeks and Romans invented democracy 2500 years ago. for about a hundred years.

The Athenians of Ancient Greece did well before the rise of Rome.

Right before they developed despotism,

What, you believe that despots never existed before the advent of democracy?

which they stuck with for a thousand years after that.

Probably for far longer than that.

So yes, lots of important and thrilling ideas developed in Europe.

Err...well actually they did.
You never heard of The Rennaisance or The Industrial Revolution etc.
Even your beloved Constitution has it's roots in Europe and was heavily influenced by several Europeans thinkers and philosophers etc.
If you can't accept or agree on that then I suspect you must be incredibly ill educated and ignorant or just plain stupid....I don't think it's the latter.

Congratulations.

Cheers

Now, go back to sleep.

You crack me up.

Why? You assume we don't know, because it's easier than dealing with the truth that many Americans have summered in Europe or studied there in college; Americans just don't want to copy what liberal western Europe has to offer.

The vast majority of Americans have never even left their home state let alone travelled to foreign countries.

And they still have this 1950's fear of 'reds under the bed' and a pathological hatred of 'pinko liberals' and 'damned commie bastards' without even knowing what they are in the first place.

As for copying us - you already have.

And I certainly don't think that the UK government can hardly be described as 'liberal'.

I noticed that you had absolutely nothing to say about the rigid social stratification in Europe, or about the fact that a lot of "big state" solutions might not work as well in non-European countries. You never really addressed those remarks,

Social advancement was surprisingly common in the UK and many 'Great' Brits achieved significant success coming from humble beginnings.
That it is harder today for those not born into the ruling elite to rise into positions of power and inluence is directly due to the policies of those diametrically opposed to leftist and libertarian values.

just started ranting about the "ignorant Americans"

I don't think my post hardly qualifies as a 'rant'.

Almost like I'd touched a nerve....

I don't think so my friend...I just find it perplexing and amusing that Americans should have this unreasoned hatred for anything left of centre.

Please don't get me wrong; I am as anti supporting everything leftist or socialist as I am anti opposing everything leftist or socialist.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by dr_strangecraft

The Greeks and Romans invented democracy 2500 years ago. for about a hundred years.

The Athenians of Ancient Greece did well before the rise of Rome.

Not true. The Roman Republic was founded the same year that Cleisthenes deposed the last tyrant of the Peisistratid dynasty ---- 508 BC.

Your pendantic and superior tone is unwarranted. Not everyone is as ignorant as you.

Originally posted by Mcupobob
reply to post by ANOK

 

You don't speak for all anarchist buddy. Anarcho-Capitalism is also a accepted form and really the only type of anarchism that makes remote sense, because its a system that doesn't require a government to run it. If you instill socialism theres going to be a government. Someone has to disrepute the "public" own goods correct? Therefor a government will be put forth. Then that government will become corrupt(as all governments do). All you have to do is look to the Soviets. The socialist experiment has failed, and the archaic system of collectivisms will be soon come to and end.

Anarcho-capitalism is a modern right wing system it has nothing to do with traditional anarchism.

Capitalism simply can not be anarchist/libertarian as it is a hierarchical system in and of itself. It creates divisions in labour, which is what socialism and anarchism were fighting against.

Most people who claim to be anarcho-capitalists use the term capitalism to mean free-markets which it isn't, it is private ownership of the means of production. A system that benefits only those who own capital, and allows them to rule over and exploit those who have only their labour to sell. That can not be considered Anarchist by a long shot. Anarchism is not just no government, it is an answer to the problem of labour organization, and socialism is that answer. Capitalism does not address the problem of labour organization. Capitalism creates a state system by its very nature, private individuals will want to protect there capital just like they do now. No real capitalist would want to be rid of the state as it protects them from us, and us from them.

Again socialism requires no state or government to become corrupted, it creates no hierarchical system, no have and have nots, that is why it is favored by anarchists.

As far as I'm concerned, you are NOT an anarchist.

Bakunin would be rolling in his grave.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

So who do you complain to in an anarchist commune?

What commune?

See, this is a good example of how people are so completely conditioned by the capitalist state.

Communism and socialism are not the same thing. The former is the free exchange of good and services, communally owned and controlled by the community. The later is a form of worker organization whereby workplaces are owned, and controlled by those who work them, it has markets and uses money as a form of exchange.

It's a waste of my time debating this when I have to continually explain everything in such detail in order for what I say to make sense.