Understanding Socialism

Mott the Hoople said:
Dixie, you don't even appear to know what socialism is. It appears to me, if you oppose something politically, then it is socialism, well no Dixie that's not socialism that's sophistry.

If you want to have a meaningful conversation about understanding socialism you need to start with an understanding of classical dialectic philosophy including Socratic dialecticism and work up to understanding of modern dialecticism as proposed by Hegel and evolving into the material dialecticism of Marx and Engel. If you understand the fundamental principles in which dialectic philosophy is grounded in, then it becomes quite easy to spot the weaknesses which ultimately undermine socialism.

But no, you seem to espouse a view that any time government provides a service or enforces a policy that is either egalitarian or progressive in nature that it is "Socialism". That's just brain dead right wing propaganda.
Click to expand...

Mott, this is a guy who you can't teach second-grade math to and you're talking about dialecticism?

1/3
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Dixie, you don't even appear to know what socialism is. It appears to me, if you oppose something politically, then it is socialism, well no Dixie that's not socialism that's sophistry.

If you want to have a meaningful conversation about understanding socialism you need to start with an understanding of classical dialectic philosophy including Socratic dialecticism and work up to understanding of modern dialecticism as proposed by Hegel and evolving into the material dialecticism of Marx and Engel. If you understand the fundamental principles in which dialectic philosophy is grounded in, then it becomes quite easy to spot the weaknesses which ultimately undermine socialism.

But no, you seem to espouse a view that any time government provides a service or enforces a policy that is either egalitarian or progressive in nature that it is "Socialism". That's just brain dead right wing propaganda.
Click to expand...

what do you call medicaid, SS, healthcare reform (being debated), welfare....GM....
 
Southern Man said:
Whoa dude- too much with the "dialecticism" there. Socialism is more government control then as envisioned by the Founders. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
No it's not. That's just plain brain dead crap. You can rationalize anything as being socialism that way. The founding fathers didn't envisualize the automobile. Does that make DOT a socialist organization?

If you want to have a meaningful discussion about socialism lets talk about the philosophy it's founded on and not what Rush Limbaugh tells you it is.
 
Watermark said:
Argument from ignorance.

When they taught me about socialism in elementary I found the concept intriguing. In middle school I was a Christian socialist who thought that we needed to return to prohibition. It was only in high school that I recongnized that socialist institutions were, at best, equal to certain capitalist institutions. I never lost faith in the necessity of a welfare state, however.

And your diatribe about "HOW COULD PEOPLE NOT CHOOSE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY!?" just shows an insane amount of ignorance about anthropology, history, and political science.
Click to expand...

And that my friend, is why you are a joke.
 
Marxist socialism is the proletariat taking control of the means of socialism.

Post-marxist socialism is a bunch of a vaguely left-wing parties that don't represent anything.

American liberals are conservatives.
 
Watermark said:
Marxist socialism is the proletariat taking control of the means of socialism.

Post-marxist socialism is a bunch of a vaguely left-wing parties that don't represent anything.

American liberals are conservatives.
Click to expand...

Aw, you're butt hurt. How cute.

For the record, WM decided to honor my comment about his lack of life experience with my very first neg rep!

Thanks pal :)
 
Mott, you should be careful not to strain your brain with all those big words you don't understand. We are discussing Socialism as opposed to Capitalism, and Statism as opposed to Freedom and Liberty. We are not discussing the minute differences in garden varieties of Socialism, or what makes them different from each other. I don't really care why one form of Socialism is more preferable than another, none of them are better than Capitalism. Sorry if it offends you for me to lump all Socialism into one category for sake of this argument, but all Socialism is essentially the same. Some nitwits, like Onzies, want to claim Socialism is something else, but a Rose by any other name....
 
Southern Man said:
That's an example of capitalism built on a single, unstable market. What's your point?
Click to expand...
True, but 2 years ago CNBC was doing spots on how great their economy was in Dubai. How everyone was making money hand over fist and when everyone else was in a slump, Dubai was thriving.
 
Dixie said:
Mott, you should be careful not to strain your brain with all those big words you don't understand. We are discussing Socialism as opposed to Capitalism, and Statism as opposed to Freedom and Liberty. We are not discussing the minute differences in garden varieties of Socialism, or what makes them different from each other. I don't really care why one form of Socialism is more preferable than another, none of them are better than Capitalism. Sorry if it offends you for me to lump all Socialism into one category for sake of this argument, but all Socialism is essentially the same. Some nitwits, like Onzies, want to claim Socialism is something else, but a Rose by any other name....
Click to expand...

You are right, Dixie. Socialism is socialism.
However you could not be more wrong than to consider that your country's present political direction has any bearing at all on socialism. Similarly with liberalism.
If you wish to redefine the meanings of those two terms you will have to accept that agreement on a forum like this is extremely unlikely.
We could redefine what you think of as capitalism (US style) as either 'bushism' or, more accurately, 'inanism'.
Most thinking Americans, according to reports I have heard, decline to join you in your trough of ignorance. But you can stay there and be happy. I doubt that anyone will mind.
 
Lowaicue said:
You are right, Dixie. Socialism is socialism.
However you could not be more wrong than to consider that your country's present political direction has any bearing at all on socialism. Similarly with liberalism.
If you wish to redefine the meanings of those two terms you will have to accept that agreement on a forum like this is extremely unlikely.
We could redefine what you think of as capitalism (US style) as either 'bushism' or, more accurately, 'inanism'.
Most thinking Americans, according to reports I have heard, decline to join you in your trough of ignorance. But you can stay there and be happy. I doubt that anyone will mind.
Click to expand...

Obama said he planned to transform America, and in his first year, he has been successful in allowing "the state" to take control of the financial sector, and our largest manufacturing sector, the automobile industry. Currently at bat, is the health care and insurance systems.

What is truly "ignorant" is to believe this is not a move toward a Socialist government, and away from Capitalism. This president has not done one single thing to promote or encourage Capitalism, and he won't. Left-wing nitwits like yourself, will continue to lie and propagandize what is being done, claiming it is supportive of Capitalism when it's clearly not, and certain stupid people in America will follow along behind you, because they have bought into the myth of Socialism, as described in my opening post.
 
Dixie said:
UNDERSTANDING SOCIALISM

I can remember when I was a young boy in elementary school, studying about the rest of the world in World History class. I guess, up until then, I assumed everyone lived basically the same kind of life as me, and we all had the same kind of democratic government, with liberty and justice for all.

The thing that puzzled me, when we began to study about Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, etc., was........ how did the people ever come to adopt such governments?
Click to expand...


 
Dixie said:
Obama said he planned to transform America, and in his first year, he has been successful in allowing "the state" to take control of the financial sector, and our largest manufacturing sector, the automobile industry. Currently at bat, is the health care and insurance systems.

What is truly "ignorant" is to believe this is not a move toward a Socialist government, and away from Capitalism. This president has not done one single thing to promote or encourage Capitalism, and he won't. Left-wing nitwits like yourself, will continue to lie and propagandize what is being done, claiming it is supportive of Capitalism when it's clearly not, and certain stupid people in America will follow along behind you, because they have bought into the myth of Socialism, as described in my opening post.
Click to expand...

Had your government not stepped in to 'bail out' your car companies, what do you think might have happened? Frankly I, for one, dont give a shit, but had your car industry gone down the tubes it would have shown that uncontrolled capitalism doesn't always work.
As far as your health care thing is concerned good sense suggests that your present system does not deliver to many Americans. Most modern countries have a health care system that works better than yours. It makes sense, surely, to at least look at what they are doing that you are not.
Improving the lot of the majority, or even a significant minority of people, is what good government is for. Not everyone has 100% health nor can everyone make the million that you clearly make to be able to afford what you wish to defend.
I assure you, Dixie, that whatever you may say and whatever you may have been told, the actions of your present government do not constitute socialism.
 
Yurt said:
what do you call medicaid, SS, healthcare reform (being debated), welfare....GM....
Click to expand...

You're very confused. These are not examples of "socialism," any more than unemployment benefits or toll roads are.

Socialism is the complete gov't takeover of industry & the means of production. The idea that anything like that is happening in America is nothing more than extreme paranoia.
 
Yurt said:
it is happening at GM....the government owns 60% of GM and forced out the last CEO....if you don't think that is control of the business and means of production you're cracked...

healthcare is a socialist program, so is medicaid, and SS....how do you believe they are not socialist programs?
Click to expand...

Health care, education, and Social Security are not included in general welfare or the common good?
 
Onceler said:
You're very confused. These are not examples of "socialism," any more than unemployment benefits or toll roads are.

Socialism is the complete gov't takeover of industry & the means of production. The idea that anything like that is happening in America is nothing more than extreme paranoia.
Click to expand...

What do you consider or call the U.S. government's investment in GM, AIG and others on Wall St?
 
Lowaicue said:
Had your government not stepped in to 'bail out' your car companies, what do you think might have happened? Frankly I, for one, dont give a shit, but had your car industry gone down the tubes it would have shown that uncontrolled capitalism doesn't always work.
As far as your health care thing is concerned good sense suggests that your present system does not deliver to many Americans. Most modern countries have a health care system that works better than yours. It makes sense, surely, to at least look at what they are doing that you are not.
Improving the lot of the majority, or even a significant minority of people, is what good government is for. Not everyone has 100% health nor can everyone make the million that you clearly make to be able to afford what you wish to defend.
I assure you, Dixie, that whatever you may say and whatever you may have been told, the actions of your present government do not constitute socialism.
Click to expand...


First of all, the auto industry is a poor example of "uncontrolled capitalism" since it is, and has been, largely controlled by labor unions the past 50 years. If anything, the failure of the American auto industry is a testament to how socialist systems ultimately fail. If we had allowed them to fail, the capitalist free market system would have eventually corrected itself, as it always does. Some car manufacturers would have gone bankrupt, other smaller upstarts would have bought their liquidated assets, and life would have gone on.

On health care, you have not proven to me that our health care system is inferior to any other nation with a socialized system, sorry! I don't buy the statistic showing higher mortality rates, as proof the health system is better, I have explained why I don't buy it, and you haven't refuted that. In terms of medical advancement, technology, innovation, and research, no other country even comes close to us, and it is a direct result of American capitalism and free enterprise, being allowed to work. The areas we struggle in with health care, are largely the result of government intervention and regulation. Even though we are a largely capitalistic society, we did manage to adopt a socialized medical program or two along the way... The VA Hospitals, Medicare, Medicaid... all of them are broke or insolvent, relying on the government subsidies to stay afloat, and offer sub-par results in most cases. Again.... Socialist systems FAIL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top