Creeping Socialism

[Diuretic]

Only a Marxist would proclaim that greater government control and the centralization of power in DC indicates "maturation of society".

.

Oh? I see. Okay, well I still think it indicates a maturation of society even though I'm not a Marxist.

When you get a chance read world history.

You will find out that the reason the Founding Fathers adopted a Constitutional Republic was because when society "matures' people get fucked. There is NOTHING new under the sun.

Statism has been tried , under different names, through out the ages. The result has always been disastrous. So forget about re-inventing the wheel.

.

I would have thought the Founding Fathers rejected the notion of monarchy and in particular absolute monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings and all that. They were classically educated. They knew about ancient Greece (the city-states) and the Roman Republic. They were aware of the abuses inherent in a system of absolute monarchy. They crafted a particular framework for government which was very radical at the time. But they didn't abolish slavery or servitude. Nor did they allow women the vote. Those things happened later, as American society matured.

 

[Diuretic]

Only a Marxist would proclaim that greater government control and the centralization of power in DC indicates "maturation of society".

.

Oh? I see. Okay, well I still think it indicates a maturation of society even though I'm not a Marxist.

So you see Marx as a prophet?

He was correctly able to see how all modern states must evolve to become "mature" nation-states?

Me thinks Marx would disagree with your premise. I might suggest that all states do not, in fact need these things to be modern or mature. You may feel free to indicate one you think is indispensable.

I don't see Marx as any form of prophet. What I do see is a really interesting method of interpreting history. He didn't want nation-states, he wanted no states at all so the current state of the world wouldn't impress him one bit.

As I have already pointed out, a maturation of society sees a better standard of living for people and a reduction of misery. Selecting bits and pieces and arguing about them isn't the point. The point is if the next generation should have a better life than the previous generation then that indicates social progress and a maturation of society.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Oh? I see. Okay, well I still think it indicates a maturation of society even though I'm not a Marxist.

So you see Marx as a prophet?

He was correctly able to see how all modern states must evolve to become "mature" nation-states?

Me thinks Marx would disagree with your premise. I might suggest that all states do not, in fact need these things to be modern or mature. You may feel free to indicate one you think is indispensable.

I don't see Marx as any form of prophet. What I do see is a really interesting method of interpreting history. He didn't want nation-states, he wanted no states at all so the current state of the world wouldn't impress him one bit.

As I have already pointed out, a maturation of society sees a better standard of living for people and a reduction of misery. Selecting bits and pieces and arguing about them isn't the point. The point is if the next generation should have a better life than the previous generation then that indicates social progress and a maturation of society.

I would agree both on the point that Marx, as a Utopian, did want a one world state, a worker's paradise and the idea that the next generation have a better life than the previous generation.

As to Marx, I'll apologize for the obvious baiting.

As to the generational issue, I would propose to you that if the next generation finds itself less free, with less liberty because of the constraints we allowed to grow under the guise of safety and benefit (soft soap), they will be less well off not more.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Oh? I see. Okay, well I still think it indicates a maturation of society even though I'm not a Marxist.

When you get a chance read world history.

You will find out that the reason the Founding Fathers adopted a Constitutional Republic was because when society "matures' people get fucked. There is NOTHING new under the sun.

Statism has been tried , under different names, through out the ages. The result has always been disastrous. So forget about re-inventing the wheel.

.

I would have thought the Founding Fathers rejected the notion of monarchy and in particular absolute monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings and all that. They were classically educated. They knew about ancient Greece (the city-states) and the Roman Republic. They were aware of the abuses inherent in a system of absolute monarchy. They crafted a particular framework for government which was very radical at the time. But they didn't abolish slavery or servitude. Nor did they allow women the vote. Those things happened later, as American society matured.

But, the founder's razor would have been, "does this change make the American people less free or more?"

To the extent that the change propose contained limits to freedom rather than improvements, I would suggest you would find limited support amongst the founders.

 

[ihopehefails]

Can you see, in the United States, any time soon, where the means of production will be in the hands of society and not corporations? No, it's not going to happen. No, Obama is not a socialist.

Government as leader of society is a fact wherever government exists. In a democracy government is representative and governs at the will of the electorate. In authoritarian and totalitarian states, government is the instrument of the party in maintaining power for itself against domestic opposition.

When did corporations become illegal aliens in this country or not become members of society? I'm interested if you think that CEOs should be rounded up in an illegal alien campaign somewhere if they are not members of society. The way I see it the means of production are already in the hands of society because individuals that composes it actually make the stuff we want.

The only time government has been a leader is when there was a monarch or a shaman of a tribal society that tells the tribe when to dance for rain. In these societies people had no will because they were being "led" in directions that the leader felt they should go but in our society where the concept of self-governance exists government is an instrument to create the laws that people want and live by. Our politicians are not "leaders" but rather pegs that enact the legislation we want. Our leaders are private citizens that go out there and shape our ideas and thinking about what our nation is to do and our politicians simply do the shit we want after that.

Corporations are just mechanisms for economic activity. Where does wealth originate from? Natural resources. Who “owns” those natural resources? The government of the political entity in which they are located (eg a state). Who is permitted to exploit those natural resources? If it's corporations then you have capitalism, where the means of production in the economy are held in private hands. If government organises the explotation of these natural resources through the creation of state-owned enteprises then it's not capitalism and roughly equates to socialism. I know that's a bit rough but that's my point.

Its not possible to exploit something that you already own like land, gold, cars, etc, etc, and etc. The government never owns anything it only arbitrates who owns what through the legal process established by laws the government creates because I never buy anything from the government (or the national community) unless its from the post office or some other government owned business. When I buy things from another person or from some government owned business then it becomes my possession where I decide what happens to it after that.

Whatever I do with it after that is not exploitation unless you think its possible for someone to exploit their own person for their own advantage.

Sorry my property is not community property where my use of it is exploitation of humanity.

 

[Diuretic]

Only a Marxist would proclaim that greater government control and the centralization of power in DC indicates "maturation of society".

.

Oh? I see. Okay, well I still think it indicates a maturation of society even though I'm not a Marxist.

When you get a chance read world history.

You will find out that the reason the Founding Fathers adopted a Constitutional Republic was because when society "matures' people get fucked. There is NOTHING new under the sun.

Statism has been tried , under different names, through out the ages. The result has always been disastrous. So forget about re-inventing the wheel.

.

I had a couple of hours free today so I went and read world history. Interesting isn't it?

 

[Diuretic]

So you see Marx as a prophet?

He was correctly able to see how all modern states must evolve to become "mature" nation-states?

Me thinks Marx would disagree with your premise. I might suggest that all states do not, in fact need these things to be modern or mature. You may feel free to indicate one you think is indispensable.

I don't see Marx as any form of prophet. What I do see is a really interesting method of interpreting history. He didn't want nation-states, he wanted no states at all so the current state of the world wouldn't impress him one bit.

As I have already pointed out, a maturation of society sees a better standard of living for people and a reduction of misery. Selecting bits and pieces and arguing about them isn't the point. The point is if the next generation should have a better life than the previous generation then that indicates social progress and a maturation of society.

I would agree both on the point that Marx, as a Utopian, did want a one world state, a worker's paradise and the idea that the next generation have a better life than the previous generation.

As to Marx, I'll apologize for the obvious baiting.

As to the generational issue, I would propose to you that if the next generation finds itself less free, with less liberty because of the constraints we allowed to grow under the guise of safety and benefit (soft soap), they will be less well off not more.

I didn't take it as baiting, just the usual thrust and riposte of discussion, no problem there. I don't see "Marxist" as an insult though

I don't think Marx was a utopian, I think he was a bit more pragmatic. But if you mean that he was a dreamer then I'd have to disagree with that. He once wrote that the point of philosophy was to change the world, so it seems he wasn't simply a theorist.

On your final point though, I agree. Again a reference back to Mani's "safety net" thread.

Marx was a great defender of the nature of humanity. Both he and Engels focused on humanity but not in a sooky, la-la way. Take “work” for example. Marx argued that creative work was part of being a human, that sitting around on your arse wasn't. He made a very insightful comment about the nature of work from the human perspective as opposed to the animal perspective. He said something like bees can build a hive but they do so out of instinct, whereas a human architect can sit down and envisage a building in his or her mind and then make it happen (with help from bricklayers and other trades of course).

Socialism has a strong work ethic built into it. It's not about handouts. It's just that whereas capitalism requires profits to go into private hands, socialism puts those profits back into social ownership and invests them in much the same was in capitalism but without funnelling off a lot of money into the hands of people who are essentially sitting on their arses and taking handouts, handouts in the form of dividend payments.

By "maturation" I meant that a state leaves behind the dog-eat-dog mentality and instead moves towards a realisation that humans are cooperative by nature and while individuality shouldn't be stifled or repressed, its variations should be acknowledged and the necessary safeguards put in place to alleviate misery as much as possible. Those that can't help themselves should be helped to learn to be able to help themselves.

 

[California Girl]

Oh? I see. Okay, well I still think it indicates a maturation of society even though I'm not a Marxist.

So you see Marx as a prophet?

He was correctly able to see how all modern states must evolve to become "mature" nation-states?

Me thinks Marx would disagree with your premise. I might suggest that all states do not, in fact need these things to be modern or mature. You may feel free to indicate one you think is indispensable.

I don't see Marx as any form of prophet. What I do see is a really interesting method of interpreting history. He didn't want nation-states, he wanted no states at all so the current state of the world wouldn't impress him one bit.

As I have already pointed out, a maturation of society sees a better standard of living for people and a reduction of misery. Selecting bits and pieces and arguing about them isn't the point. The point is if the next generation should have a better life than the previous generation then that indicates social progress and a maturation of society.

If, instead of cherry picking and painting a rosy picture of a world governed by 'social justice', why do we never talk about how we get there.

Currently, the US, Europe, Australia, etc enjoy fairly decent standards of living - granted, there is far too much waste and irresponsibility in our nations but.... and it is a huge but.... how do we obtain this glorious new world where everything is fair?

In order to obtain it, it is impossible to raise the standard of living in all countries to equal our own. To pay workers around the world the same rates as are 'enjoyed' in our countries is not achievable. Therefore, (and this is where I have a somewhat huge issue with Obama)..... you need to redistribute the wealth. Not within our country but across the world. Instead of raising all nations up to the standard of ours, we would need to lower our standard and raise theirs. And we wouldn't even be able to afford to meet in the middle, it would undoubtedly require Americans to lower their standard of living to almost that of third world countries.

I guess that's maybe something that liberals are ok with, but there are millions of us who are absolutely not going to be ok with it.

 

[Diuretic]

CG - I don't see the point of anyone lowering their living standards simply to try and achieve a form of artificial equality. Granted we all might need to change the way we live to avoid terminal environmental damage but that's another issue.

I think people in developing nations would much prefer to have their standards of living raised than simply see the standards of living that we in the conceptual "West" enjoy. I abhor the politics of envy. The question is, how do we improve everyone's lot? And in a way - this might seem a bit weird - but perhaps globalisation is the method. If it is then capitalism will have to change. Perhaps it will have to be transformed into something approaching a hybrid between soft capitalism and market socialism.

 

[California Girl]

CG - I don't see the point of anyone lowering their living standards simply to try and achieve a form of artificial equality. Granted we all might need to change the way we live to avoid terminal environmental damage but that's another issue.

I think people in developing nations would much prefer to have their standards of living raised than simply see the standards of living that we in the conceptual "West" enjoy. I abhor the politics of envy. The question is, how do we improve everyone's lot? And in a way - this might seem a bit weird - but perhaps globalisation is the method. If it is then capitalism will have to change. Perhaps it will have to be transformed into something approaching a hybrid between soft capitalism and market socialism.

It is not my responsibility to improve the standard of living for other people. I know that sounds harsh but that's what Marxism will do. All well and good - as a concept - but destroying the 'wealth' of a few nations in order to raise the standards of living in others is just fucking ridiculous. I am, personally - as an individual - a charitable person. But, it is for each to make their own decision - not to have their national wealth given to other countries to achieve some unachievable utopian world.

 

[Emma]

I really do believe that the left is trying to forment a communist revolution in this country but they are doing it in an almost invisible way because they have been able to obfuscate what has been happening in this country for over the past hundred years.

Ok. Who spilled the beans

 

[Diuretic]

CG - I don't see the point of anyone lowering their living standards simply to try and achieve a form of artificial equality. Granted we all might need to change the way we live to avoid terminal environmental damage but that's another issue.

I think people in developing nations would much prefer to have their standards of living raised than simply see the standards of living that we in the conceptual "West" enjoy. I abhor the politics of envy. The question is, how do we improve everyone's lot? And in a way - this might seem a bit weird - but perhaps globalisation is the method. If it is then capitalism will have to change. Perhaps it will have to be transformed into something approaching a hybrid between soft capitalism and market socialism.

It is not my responsibility to improve the standard of living for other people. I know that sounds harsh but that's what Marxism will do. All well and good - as a concept - but destroying the 'wealth' of a few nations in order to raise the standards of living in others is just fucking ridiculous. I am, personally - as an individual - a charitable person. But, it is for each to make their own decision - not to have their national wealth given to other countries to achieve some unachievable utopian world.

Marxism is a form of analysis. Socialism is the economic theory. I'm pretty sure that neither the form of analysis nor the economic theory calls for the destruction of the wealth of any nations. Both the analytical method (Marxism) and the economic theory (socialism) look at the betterment of people, not condemning them to misery. And I don't know if it's important but the concept we call "socialism" as an economic theory preceded Marx. Marx produced a form of analysis and came to certain conclusions but the basic concept of socialism as an economic theory preceded him, that's even allowing for the existence of primitive socialism.

 

[Diuretic]

I really do believe that the left is trying to forment a communist revolution in this country but they are doing it in an almost invisible way because they have been able to obfuscate what has been happening in this country for over the past hundred years.

Ok. Who spilled the beans

Bloody splitters!!!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE[/ame]

 

[California Girl]

CG - I don't see the point of anyone lowering their living standards simply to try and achieve a form of artificial equality. Granted we all might need to change the way we live to avoid terminal environmental damage but that's another issue.

I think people in developing nations would much prefer to have their standards of living raised than simply see the standards of living that we in the conceptual "West" enjoy. I abhor the politics of envy. The question is, how do we improve everyone's lot? And in a way - this might seem a bit weird - but perhaps globalisation is the method. If it is then capitalism will have to change. Perhaps it will have to be transformed into something approaching a hybrid between soft capitalism and market socialism.

It is not my responsibility to improve the standard of living for other people. I know that sounds harsh but that's what Marxism will do. All well and good - as a concept - but destroying the 'wealth' of a few nations in order to raise the standards of living in others is just fucking ridiculous. I am, personally - as an individual - a charitable person. But, it is for each to make their own decision - not to have their national wealth given to other countries to achieve some unachievable utopian world.

Marxism is a form of analysis. Socialism is the economic theory. I'm pretty sure that neither the form of analysis nor the economic theory calls for the destruction of the wealth of any nations. Both the analytical method (Marxism) and the economic theory (socialism) look at the betterment of people, not condemning them to misery. And I don't know if it's important but the concept we call "socialism" as an economic theory preceded Marx. Marx produced a form of analysis and came to certain conclusions but the basic concept of socialism as an economic theory preceded him, that's even allowing for the existence of primitive socialism.

I dislike word-play. Personally, I think it dilutes and trivializes debate. My mistake, I thought you wanted an honest discussion on the topic. Apparently not.

 

[Emma]

I really do believe that the left is trying to forment a communist revolution in this country but they are doing it in an almost invisible way because they have been able to obfuscate what has been happening in this country for over the past hundred years.

Ok. Who spilled the beans

Bloody splitters!!!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE[/ame]

I assume that video is clever and related to what I posted. I can't say for certain, as (for whatever reason) my computer is no longer allowing me to watch youtube videos posted here.

 

[Diuretic]

It is not my responsibility to improve the standard of living for other people. I know that sounds harsh but that's what Marxism will do. All well and good - as a concept - but destroying the 'wealth' of a few nations in order to raise the standards of living in others is just fucking ridiculous. I am, personally - as an individual - a charitable person. But, it is for each to make their own decision - not to have their national wealth given to other countries to achieve some unachievable utopian world.

Marxism is a form of analysis. Socialism is the economic theory. I'm pretty sure that neither the form of analysis nor the economic theory calls for the destruction of the wealth of any nations. Both the analytical method (Marxism) and the economic theory (socialism) look at the betterment of people, not condemning them to misery. And I don't know if it's important but the concept we call "socialism" as an economic theory preceded Marx. Marx produced a form of analysis and came to certain conclusions but the basic concept of socialism as an economic theory preceded him, that's even allowing for the existence of primitive socialism.

I dislike word-play. Personally, I think it dilutes and trivializes debate. My mistake, I thought you wanted an honest discussion on the topic. Apparently not.

Not word play I assure you. I'm not too fond of the analyticals myself. But if you use a word you either have to know what accepted concept it represents or you need to explain the concept in your own words. If you want to refer to something as "Marxism" then be prepared to stand up and say why.

I'm not trying to be a prick but when you put this out there:

It is not my responsibility to improve the standard of living for other people. I know that sounds harsh but that's what Marxism will do

then you have to be ready to defend it. My point was that's not what Marxism "will do." If that's me being a nitpicking analytical then ignore me.

 

[Emma]

It is not my responsibility to improve the standard of living for other people. I know that sounds harsh but that's what Marxism will do. All well and good - as a concept - but destroying the 'wealth' of a few nations in order to raise the standards of living in others is just fucking ridiculous. I am, personally - as an individual - a charitable person. But, it is for each to make their own decision - not to have their national wealth given to other countries to achieve some unachievable utopian world.

Marxism is a form of analysis. Socialism is the economic theory. I'm pretty sure that neither the form of analysis nor the economic theory calls for the destruction of the wealth of any nations. Both the analytical method (Marxism) and the economic theory (socialism) look at the betterment of people, not condemning them to misery. And I don't know if it's important but the concept we call "socialism" as an economic theory preceded Marx. Marx produced a form of analysis and came to certain conclusions but the basic concept of socialism as an economic theory preceded him, that's even allowing for the existence of primitive socialism.

I dislike word-play. Personally, I think it dilutes and trivializes debate. My mistake, I thought you wanted an honest discussion on the topic. Apparently not.

That's not "word play". He obviously understands the subject, which can be quite overwhelming and confusing.

 

[California Girl]

Marxism is a form of analysis. Socialism is the economic theory. I'm pretty sure that neither the form of analysis nor the economic theory calls for the destruction of the wealth of any nations. Both the analytical method (Marxism) and the economic theory (socialism) look at the betterment of people, not condemning them to misery. And I don't know if it's important but the concept we call "socialism" as an economic theory preceded Marx. Marx produced a form of analysis and came to certain conclusions but the basic concept of socialism as an economic theory preceded him, that's even allowing for the existence of primitive socialism.

I dislike word-play. Personally, I think it dilutes and trivializes debate. My mistake, I thought you wanted an honest discussion on the topic. Apparently not.

That's not "word play". He obviously understands the subject, which can be quite overwhelming and confusing.

Which is considerably more than we can say for you.

 

[Diuretic]

I dislike word-play. Personally, I think it dilutes and trivializes debate. My mistake, I thought you wanted an honest discussion on the topic. Apparently not.

That's not "word play". He obviously understands the subject, which can be quite overwhelming and confusing.

Which is considerably more than we can say for you.

CG - I'm not well educated in Marxist theory but I appreciate Emma's comments but let me be clear - this isn't personal. If I missed the point then please - and this is not me being snarky - explain where I missed it, trust me I am quite able to miss the point. I'm not trying to be a prick here, discussion for me is an exchange of ideas and learning from others. I reserve my real venom for football discussions

 

[California Girl]

Marxism is a form of analysis. Socialism is the economic theory. I'm pretty sure that neither the form of analysis nor the economic theory calls for the destruction of the wealth of any nations. Both the analytical method (Marxism) and the economic theory (socialism) look at the betterment of people, not condemning them to misery. And I don't know if it's important but the concept we call "socialism" as an economic theory preceded Marx. Marx produced a form of analysis and came to certain conclusions but the basic concept of socialism as an economic theory preceded him, that's even allowing for the existence of primitive socialism.

I dislike word-play. Personally, I think it dilutes and trivializes debate. My mistake, I thought you wanted an honest discussion on the topic. Apparently not.

Not word play I assure you. I'm not too fond of the analyticals myself. But if you use a word you either have to know what accepted concept it represents or you need to explain the concept in your own words. If you want to refer to something as "Marxism" then be prepared to stand up and say why.

I'm not trying to be a prick but when you put this out there:

It is not my responsibility to improve the standard of living for other people. I know that sounds harsh but that's what Marxism will do

then you have to be ready to defend it. My point was that's not what Marxism "will do." If that's me being a nitpicking analytical then ignore me.

Actually, I don't have to defend anything. It is my personal opinion - which I am entitled to. I need not defend it to you, or anyone else.

What I don't do - on a board like this one - is to get overly pedantic about words, unless the meaning is tainted or unclear by how someone words their post. There is no such thing as a 'debate' here - too many idiots wade in with silly video clips and 'strawman's.

Sure you're not 'trying to be a prick', you're just behaving like one because you don't like being challenged.

Conversation ends.