The intelligence of a socialist / democratic society

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
Unfortuneatly, before I could join in the conversation about socialism in a different thread it was closed due to idiocy. Hopefully, a sane and serious conversation can take place in this thread without the same idiocy.

I'm sure there are some who wonder how socialism (collectivism) can exist in a democratic society, but look no further than Social Security, which is a form of collectivism, as an example. Social Security serves the socio-ethical responsibilities of an intelligent society and no society can be deemed intelligent without addressing its responsibiliy to all its citizens.

I believe the best society for all citizens is to be found somwhere between a purely capitalist (plutocratic) and a purely socialist (collectivist) society. I believe that mixed ideologies, mixed economies, and mixed societies best serve the interests of all people.

I also believe that philosophical mixture is exactly what Hugo Chavez is attempting in Venezulela. He has proven that his policies work in the best interests of the common people as he has directed the resources of his nation inward to benefit the people, not himself, not the mafia, and not the corporate interest. Castro did much of the same thing in Cuba and was villified for it by the same plutocrats who now control America. The literacy and health of Cubans improved dramatically under Castro, much as under Chavez.

The problem with a purely capitalist society under a democratic government is that ultimately the plutocrats and corporate interests will control the government and the will of the people becomes secondary to the corporate will. Just as what has happened in America today. The giant whole in the concept of democracy is money. It serves the predatory phase of human development and ignores the ethical in service to the god of profit.

There can be a balance of these differing philosophies that benefit the whole, but it requires open minds and new thinking if our nation is to survive. We are being drained dry by the blood-sucking macinations of purely capitalist corporate interests at a time when we've become ever more dependant on the rest of the world.
 
My point was along BAC's train of thought - mixed economies. They're communist/socialist (collectivist) and are also a burgeoning capitalism... and they've usurped our empire. Sorry, it's true.

The demagogues on the Right have held the country back with their scare tactics and driving the country away from anything but the most pure form of capitalism - or toward it rather. "Socialized medicine!" Scary.
 
blackascoal said:
Unfortuneatly, before I could join in the conversation about socialism in a different thread it was closed due to idiocy. Hopefully, a sane and serious conversation can take place in this thread without the same idiocy.

I'm sure there are some who wonder how socialism (collectivism) can exist in a democratic society, but look no further than Social Security, which is a form of collectivism, as an example. Social Security serves the socio-ethical responsibilities of an intelligent society and no society can be deemed intelligent without addressing its responsibiliy to all its citizens.

I believe the best society for all citizens is to be found somwhere between a purely capitalist (plutocratic) and a purely socialist (collectivist) society. I believe that mixed ideologies, mixed economies, and mixed societies best serve the interests of all people.

I also believe that philosophical mixture is exactly what Hugo Chavez is attempting in Venezulela. He has proven that his policies work in the best interests of the common people as he has directed the resources of his nation inward to benefit the people, not himself, not the mafia, and not the corporate interest. Castro did much of the same thing in Cuba and was villified for it by the same plutocrats who now control America. The literacy and health of Cubans improved dramatically under Castro, much as under Chavez.

The problem with a purely capitalist society under a democratic government is that ultimately the plutocrats and corporate interests will control the government and the will of the people becomes secondary to the corporate will. Just as what has happened in America today. The giant whole in the concept of democracy is money. It serves the predatory phase of human development and ignores the ethical in service to the god of profit.

There can be a balance of these differing philosophies that benefit the whole, but it requires open minds and new thinking if our nation is to survive. We are being drained dry by the blood-sucking macinations of purely capitalist corporate interests at a time when we've become ever more dependant on the rest of the world.
Click to expand...


The rightwing tends to blur the distinctions, and redefine words like "collectivism" and "socialism" so that it universally encompasses progressives, liberals, democrats, greens, etc. Why? I suspect because "socialism" is broadly deemed a pejorative term, and using it is thus a method of rapidly dismissing a progressive's ideology, without having to debate it on the merits . Hence, public education, universal healthcare, and social security are dismissed as socialist or collectivist by many rightwingers.

Are social security, public ownership of the interstate highways, public ownership of the national parks and forest lands, a publically financed healthcare system, and publically funded education, really all part of a socialist/communist/collectivist plot? I think not. Private enterprise is neccessary, and they do a great job at the production and distribution of cars, electronics, refrigerators, agricultural products, and many other consumer products. But that is distinct from the public commons. Many rightwingers either refuse to see, or are in intentional denial, of the distinction between consumer products, and the public commons. The public commons is something we ARE collectively responsible for, unless we want to go back to the law of the jungle. I would include education, healthcare, and a functioning public infrastructure as part of our public commons that we are all collectively responsible for maintaining and paying for. Countries like Norway and Venezuela consider their rich mineral and oil resources to be, in good measure, part of their public commons, and they are therefore collectively owned by the nation. More power too them. I don't see that as "communism".
 
It is collectivist. What you have to do is reclaim the term. It's hard to make arguments in the name of the collective though when you're actually elitists fooling the collective into giving you complete power.
 
States suck. Their power is based on fear.
http://libertariannation.org/a/f43j1.html
The Emergence of the State

The concept of the modern family is not just a product of modern economic institutions. It is also a product of thousands of years of interaction with other social institutions, notably the one known as the state. A state is at its core a military institution which claims resources from the individuals in a society in exchange for providing defense from the predatory behavior of competing military institutions. Individual citizens of a statist society will abide by this relationship either because 1) they are afraid to challenge the military power of "their" state, 2) they fear a rival military power more, or 3) some combination of both. The state is not, however, "natural" to human communities.
Click to expand...
 
I don't think I'll ever believe the governmental bureaucracies are more efficient than the private sector, surrendering everything to the government to take care of us is making the government the mafia. Like Chavez who got his 'popular' but handed to him in his power grab for life.
 
"To understand why it is that 'good men' in positions of power will produce evil, while the ordinary man without power but able to engage in voluntary cooperation with his neighbors will produce good, requires analysis and thought, subordinating the emotions to the rational facility. Surly that is one answer to the perennial mystery of why collectivism, with its demonstrated record of producing tyranny and misery, is so widely regarded as superior to individualism, with its demonstrated record of productivity, freedom and plenty"

Milton Friedman

"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false."

Paul Johnson

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. "

Winston Churchill
 
blackascoal said:
We are being drained dry by the blood-sucking macinations of purely capitalist corporate interests at a time when we've become ever more dependant on the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

He wrote on his mass-produced computer while using the corporately-provided Internet access.

Social class is inevitable-- the best the government can do is ensure cooperation among the classes....socialism and communism preach equality but fail to mention that equality achieved is one of poverty.
 
gonzojournals said:
He wrote on his mass-produced computer while using the corporately-provided Internet access.

Social class is inevitable-- the best the government can do is ensure cooperation among the classes....socialism and communism preach equality but fail to mention that equality achieved is one of poverty.
Click to expand...

This would be true if the actual creation of value (fiat currency) wasn't monopolized by elitists who only create it for causes which ensure their continued dominance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top