CDZ The Siren Song of Socialism

[Tehon]

This is how labor makes a shovel--

--it can only be done w/ a massive capital investment. A hundred years ago the process was much more labor intensive---

--but even then the capital investment represented years of effort.

No one denies the role capital plays in facilitating the development of technology.

What we are saying is that our technology has developed and the system of capital development is in conflict with our future social development.

 

[expat_panama]

...tools are being used in a way that cedes social power to the possessor of the tools....

Please share with me how you see the nature in general of tool use. Is your experiance that more often than not tool use represents oppression by the tool maker or do you see this as just an incidental occasional risk?

Also, if the tools were being owned and issued by in a cooperative, would you see a danger that members would be forced to cede their individual power to the collective? What come to mind here is the successful socialist cooperative in Amana Iowa that evolved into the profit sharing Amana Corporation --still in production even today as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Whirlpool Corp.

 

[expat_panama]

...I don't think the socialist is using a different definition for capital. I think he has a deeper understanding of it.... ...The socialist sees in capital an alien power to command. We recognize the social power inherent in it....

This is that "sinister image" that I mentioned having heard from socialists. The irony I'm getting is that while socialists see tools as evil they turn right around and display these same capital assets on their flag--

--the hammer of the factory with the sickle of the farm.

The socialist doesn't see the tools as being evil. The socialist simply understands that the tools are being used in a way that cedes social power to the possessor of the tools.

It's not that difficult.

Do you really think the workers have any social power in a socialist state? Or any other kind of power? Obviously, the tools aren't evil, and neither are the workers. But the people who control them are, IMHO. Do you think people like Stalin, Mao, Maduro, and Castro were nice guys? Do you think their elections are fair and honest?

You know the old saying about socialism, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"? What they don't tell you is that somebody else decides what your abilities are and also what your needs are, and guess what? Your needs don't measure up to theirs, or those who are connected to them.

What is a socialist state? The use of the term state implies coercion. So of course we don't think the citizenry has any real power in a state. Present one included.

The question then becomes, what gives rise to the state? What are the similarities between a socialist state and a capitalist state?

This is why we're asking you what you mean.

Let's all understand together that this thread began refering to socialist groups in current U.S. national political news. Historically the most popular and famous socialist groups were the Soviet Socialists and the National Socialists --both of which left notorious murderous tyranical track records.

At the same time there've been some very good people who've called themselves socialists and their groups have enormously benefited both themselves and the greater community (re Amana Corp. here and here). Just the same, given the fact that most people are right to be wary of folks calling themselves 'socialists', we still want to hear why your brand is the good kind and not like the rest.

 

[expat_panama]

...No one denies the role capital plays in facilitating the development of technology.

What we are saying is that our technology has developed and the system of capital development is in conflict with our future social development.

So we can agree that capital may be used both for good and for bad, and it's the choice of good use v. bad use that we care about.

At the same time this also can be said about any necessary thing --food can cause obesity, excessive breathing can cause hyperventilation, water can drown. Bottom line: we need to see the creation and use of capital as something that's good and necessary as food, water, and air to breathe.

 

[Tehon]

...I don't think the socialist is using a different definition for capital. I think he has a deeper understanding of it.... ...The socialist sees in capital an alien power to command. We recognize the social power inherent in it....

This is that "sinister image" that I mentioned having heard from socialists. The irony I'm getting is that while socialists see tools as evil they turn right around and display these same capital assets on their flag--

--the hammer of the factory with the sickle of the farm.

The socialist doesn't see the tools as being evil. The socialist simply understands that the tools are being used in a way that cedes social power to the possessor of the tools.

It's not that difficult.

Do you really think the workers have any social power in a socialist state? Or any other kind of power? Obviously, the tools aren't evil, and neither are the workers. But the people who control them are, IMHO. Do you think people like Stalin, Mao, Maduro, and Castro were nice guys? Do you think their elections are fair and honest?

You know the old saying about socialism, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"? What they don't tell you is that somebody else decides what your abilities are and also what your needs are, and guess what? Your needs don't measure up to theirs, or those who are connected to them.

What is a socialist state? The use of the term state implies coercion. So of course we don't think the citizenry has any real power in a state. Present one included.

The question then becomes, what gives rise to the state? What are the similarities between a socialist state and a capitalist state?

This is why we're asking you what you mean.

Let's all understand together that this thread began refering to socialist groups in current U.S. national political news. Historically the most popular and famous socialist groups were the Soviet Socialists and the National Socialists --both of which left notorious murderous tyranical track records.

At the same time there've been some very good people who've called themselves socialists and their groups have enormously benefited both themselves and the greater community (re Amana Corp. here and here). Just the same, given the fact that most people are right to be wary of folks calling themselves 'socialists', we still want to hear why your brand is the good kind and not like the rest.

Let's be honest enough to admit that this thread was never intended as a means of understanding. It is simply a means of confirming the OP's bias.

There is no such thing as a capitalist state, or a socialist state. There is simply a state.

The terms capitalism and socialism describe a social system of production.

As has already been explained, the state is polity. The way it develops is a consequence of the social organization of production.

Assuming we are given accurate information, we should be able to look at any society and determine what conditions led to its development into its particular form of the state.

I understand that folks are leery about socialism as a system of production. That stems from earlier attempts to organize socially, it also stems from people not having a full understanding of the capitalist system of production and how their society is built upon that foundation.

It something that I had to come to on my own. I imagine it will be the same for everyone. Eventually everyone will have to confront it. In due time.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is about equality unlike capitalism.

This is a load of crap. Socialism has nothing to do with equality. Do you think everyone in Venezuela lives the same lifestyle? Or any other socialist country? You think their rights and freedoms and choices are all equal? Do they all have the same opportunities? Not hardly. Would you want your kids to have that kind of equality?

At least under capitalism you have choices; you can voluntarily trade something to somebody else for whatever you think is fair value, that's equality for you. You can decide whether or not to take a specific job, or quit whenever you want to, same as everyone else. Under socialism, NOTHING is voluntary, somebody else decides what fair value is, or what your choices are. Which are usually limited to doing what you're told or get shot or imprisoned.

Equal protection of the law is a social concept not a capital concept. That is why we have a mixed market economy.

 

[expat_panama]

...folks are leery about socialism as a system of production. That stems from earlier attempts to organize socially, it also stems from people not having a full understanding of the capitalist system of production and how their society is built upon that foundation.

It something that I had to come to on my own. I imagine it will be the same for everyone. Eventually everyone will have to confront it. In due time.

We can imagine all day long about what other people's motivations are, and while it's possible that socialists truly have a superior grasp of reality and their opponents are foolish, it's also possible that it's today's socialists who're wrong. None of that matters with regard to what will happen in the future --it's not so much as what we think, but what we do.

Earlier you said that you're a socialist; please share with us what that means with your upcoming voting choices or what it can mean in terms of your actions to feed your family.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a mixed market economy; some on the left are for learning how to merely use Capitalism for all of its capital worth in modern economic times.

 

[Tehon]

...folks are leery about socialism as a system of production. That stems from earlier attempts to organize socially, it also stems from people not having a full understanding of the capitalist system of production and how their society is built upon that foundation.

It something that I had to come to on my own. I imagine it will be the same for everyone. Eventually everyone will have to confront it. In due time.

We can imagine all day long about what other people's motivations are, and while it's possible that socialists truly have a superior grasp of reality and their opponents are foolish, it's also possible that it's today's socialists who're wrong. None of that matters with regard to what will happen in the future --it's not so much as what we think, but what we do.

Earlier you said that you're a socialist; please share with us what that means with your upcoming voting choices or what it can mean in terms of your actions to feed your family.

I say I'm a socialist because I view the world around me thru a Marxist lens.

It means nothing in practical terms. I live in a capitalist society. That doesn't look like it will change in my lifetime.

I can't so how, or even if, I will vote in the upcoming elections without understanding what my options are.

 

[Tehon]

We can imagine all day long about what other people's motivations are, and while it's possible that socialists truly have a superior grasp of reality and their opponents are foolish, it's also possible that it's today's socialists who're wrong. None of that matters with regard to what will happen in the future --it's not so much as what we think, but what we do.

In regards to the future, it naturally follows that we do what we think.

If we say that the Bernie Sanders and AOCs are representative of modern socialists, then we can state with confidence that they're wrong.

Neither represents my beliefs as it relates to socialism.

 

[regent]

It was that damn Declaration of Independence that started all this; All men are created equal; are there not superior men, and easily identified as to their wealth? And what of happiness, should we not earn the money that brings us happiness?
Jefferson's contribution to our independence must make conservatives furious, and rightly so.

 

[MacTheKnife]

It was that damn Declaration of Independence that started all this; All men are created equal; are there not superior men, and easily identified as to their wealth? And what of happiness, should we not earn the money that brings us happiness?
Jefferson's contribution to our independence must make conservatives furious, and rightly so.

What nonsense you post.....obviously not understanding what was meant by that phrase in The Declaration of Independence...I am sure someone will help you out if you beg. Personally, I have little time to educate anyone.

Thomas Jefferson was a man who owned 200 slaves and never freed any of them. Next??????

 

[MacTheKnife]

Socialism is about equality unlike capitalism.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a pipe dream.

Equality is a myth


Many have a fallacious pc belief that all human beings are born equal, which means that everyone has equal qualities and equal attributes and gets equal opportunities to excel in life. Yet we see people who are a genius in doing some things and not even mediocre in doing other things. It is argued that every human being has a different set of qualities and his success depends on identifying and utilizing those qualities. But it is my belief that equality is a man made term used only to satisfy the pseudo intellectuals. It is said that there are three general types of equalities; religious and spiritual, mental and physical and economic equality. When practically analyzed, the term “types of equalities” becomes ironic as equality at any level is nonexistent.

Equality is a myth

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is about equality unlike capitalism.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a pipe dream.

Equality is a myth


Many have a fallacious pc belief that all human beings are born equal, which means that everyone has equal qualities and equal attributes and gets equal opportunities to excel in life. Yet we see people who are a genius in doing some things and not even mediocre in doing other things. It is argued that every human being has a different set of qualities and his success depends on identifying and utilizing those qualities. But it is my belief that equality is a man made term used only to satisfy the pseudo intellectuals. It is said that there are three general types of equalities; religious and spiritual, mental and physical and economic equality. When practically analyzed, the term “types of equalities” becomes ironic as equality at any level is nonexistent.

Equality is a myth

equal protection of the law is about equality.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Socialism is about equality unlike capitalism.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a pipe dream.

Equality is a myth


Many have a fallacious pc belief that all human beings are born equal, which means that everyone has equal qualities and equal attributes and gets equal opportunities to excel in life. Yet we see people who are a genius in doing some things and not even mediocre in doing other things. It is argued that every human being has a different set of qualities and his success depends on identifying and utilizing those qualities. But it is my belief that equality is a man made term used only to satisfy the pseudo intellectuals. It is said that there are three general types of equalities; religious and spiritual, mental and physical and economic equality. When practically analyzed, the term “types of equalities” becomes ironic as equality at any level is nonexistent.

Equality is a myth

equal protection of the law is about equality.

It is not about what the pc liberals believe.....their concept is totally different.

Anyhow....even that is a myth....as most know......even the stoopids know....the more money you got the more justice you get.

Now...do not get me wrong....I believe 'equality before the law' is a worthy standard or goal to pursue and even as it stands our system of justice is far superior to most in the world if not all.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is about equality unlike capitalism.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a pipe dream.

Equality is a myth


Many have a fallacious pc belief that all human beings are born equal, which means that everyone has equal qualities and equal attributes and gets equal opportunities to excel in life. Yet we see people who are a genius in doing some things and not even mediocre in doing other things. It is argued that every human being has a different set of qualities and his success depends on identifying and utilizing those qualities. But it is my belief that equality is a man made term used only to satisfy the pseudo intellectuals. It is said that there are three general types of equalities; religious and spiritual, mental and physical and economic equality. When practically analyzed, the term “types of equalities” becomes ironic as equality at any level is nonexistent.

Equality is a myth

equal protection of the law is about equality.

It is not about what the pc liberals believe.....their concept is totally different.

Anyhow....even that is a myth....as most know......even the stoopids know....the more money you got the more justice you get.

Now...do not get me wrong....I believe 'equality before the law' is a worthy standard or goal to pursue and even as it stands our system of justice is far superior to most in the world if not all.

natural rights is about that form of equality.

 

[expat_panama]

...If we say that the Bernie Sanders and AOCs are representative of modern socialists, then we can state with confidence that they're wrong.

Neither represents my beliefs...

Sounds like we have many points of agreement here; tx for your thoughts.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Socialism is about equality unlike capitalism.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a pipe dream.

Equality is a myth


Many have a fallacious pc belief that all human beings are born equal, which means that everyone has equal qualities and equal attributes and gets equal opportunities to excel in life. Yet we see people who are a genius in doing some things and not even mediocre in doing other things. It is argued that every human being has a different set of qualities and his success depends on identifying and utilizing those qualities. But it is my belief that equality is a man made term used only to satisfy the pseudo intellectuals. It is said that there are three general types of equalities; religious and spiritual, mental and physical and economic equality. When practically analyzed, the term “types of equalities” becomes ironic as equality at any level is nonexistent.

Equality is a myth

equal protection of the law is about equality.

It is not about what the pc liberals believe.....their concept is totally different.

Anyhow....even that is a myth....as most know......even the stoopids know....the more money you got the more justice you get.

Now...do not get me wrong....I believe 'equality before the law' is a worthy standard or goal to pursue and even as it stands our system of justice is far superior to most in the world if not all.

natural rights is about that form of equality.

I think you place too much emphasis on something that does not exist....'equality.' Also....most likely you fail to appreciate the differences between law and justice.

Let us remember the Charles Dicken's character............'.Mr. Bumble'

When Mr. Bumble, the unhappy spouse of a domineering wife, is told in court that "...the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction", replies:

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass - a idiot"

This exposes a great truth.....just because we are a nation under law does not mean we can always expect 'justice' under the law.

A fundamental weakness of the law is that it cannot adequately dispense justice because of the great differences in people....people are not equal...but the law strives to treat everyone the same....that is a fundamental flaw in the law which often results in a conflict with common sense.

For example......a unemployed man who has a family and is unable to support them goes out and steals some bread to feed his hungry and starving children.

Should the law on theft apply to him in the same manner as it does to someone who steals because he is just too lazy to work and wants some money to buy drugs?

Now the above may be a over-simplification of the point I am trying to make but I think it steers us in the right direction.....and that direction can get exceedingly complex.

Fortunately, some judges do understand this and in their wisdom some do try to use some common sense in a effort to secure 'justice' despite the harshness and inflexibility of the law which is unable to understand and make allowances for the fact that all people are different and should not be treated as if they were not.

As in so many cases 'one size does not fit all' so to speak as there are extenuating circumstances in many cases before the law.

Still yet with all it's flaws we are of course better off having laws than not having them.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is about equality unlike capitalism.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a pipe dream.

Equality is a myth


Many have a fallacious pc belief that all human beings are born equal, which means that everyone has equal qualities and equal attributes and gets equal opportunities to excel in life. Yet we see people who are a genius in doing some things and not even mediocre in doing other things. It is argued that every human being has a different set of qualities and his success depends on identifying and utilizing those qualities. But it is my belief that equality is a man made term used only to satisfy the pseudo intellectuals. It is said that there are three general types of equalities; religious and spiritual, mental and physical and economic equality. When practically analyzed, the term “types of equalities” becomes ironic as equality at any level is nonexistent.

Equality is a myth

equal protection of the law is about equality.

It is not about what the pc liberals believe.....their concept is totally different.

Anyhow....even that is a myth....as most know......even the stoopids know....the more money you got the more justice you get.

Now...do not get me wrong....I believe 'equality before the law' is a worthy standard or goal to pursue and even as it stands our system of justice is far superior to most in the world if not all.

natural rights is about that form of equality.

I think you place too much emphasis on something that does not exist....'equality.' Also....most likely you fail to appreciate the differences between law and justice.

Let us remember the Charles Dicken's character............'.Mr. Bumble'

When Mr. Bumble, the unhappy spouse of a domineering wife, is told in court that "...the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction", replies:

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass - a idiot"

This exposes a great truth.....just because we are a nation under law does not mean we can always expect 'justice' under the law.

A fundamental weakness of the law is that it cannot adequately dispense justice because of the great differences in people....people are not equal...but the law strives to treat everyone the same....that is a fundamental flaw in the law which often results in a conflict with common sense.

For example......a unemployed man who has a family and is unable to support them goes out and steals some bread to feed his hungry and starving children.

Should the law on theft apply to him in the same manner as it does to someone who steals because he is just too lazy to work and wants some money to buy drugs?

Now the above may be a over-simplification of the point I am trying to make but I think it steers us in the right direction.....and that direction can get exceedingly complex.

Fortunately, some judges do understand this and in their wisdom some do try to use some common sense in a effort to secure 'justice' despite the harshness and inflexibility of the law which is unable to understand and make allowances for the fact that all people are different and should not be treated as if they were not.

As in so many cases 'one size does not fit all' so to speak as there are extenuating circumstances in many cases before the law.

Still yet with all it's flaws we are of course better off having laws than not having them.

You may be missing the point. Words have specific meaning.

Here is a simpler dilemma. The law in our republic is employment at will. There is no work or die law.

Why are the Poor, denied and disparaged in equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

 

[MacTheKnife]

How are the poor denied unemployment compensation?