Why The Left Loves Socialism

[ding]

Who won the Moon Race; the socialism of Government or capitalists with private property?

Well, since the USSR was the Socialist system and the USA was the free market Capitalist system, I will go with the Capitalist system. You can keep up this falsehood that all governments are socialist but that argument has already been debunked and I won't continue to point it out. All government is not socialist. Sorry.

Nice try, but that Only works in elementary school. Government is socialism. SpaceX needs to go to the Moon and make a profit.

No. Government is not socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

Who won the Moon Race; the socialism of Government or capitalists with private property?

Well, since the USSR was the Socialist system and the USA was the free market Capitalist system, I will go with the Capitalist system. You can keep up this falsehood that all governments are socialist but that argument has already been debunked and I won't continue to point it out. All government is not socialist. Sorry.

Nice try, but that Only works in elementary school. Government is socialism. SpaceX needs to go to the Moon and make a profit.

No. Government is not socialism.

Yes, it is. Government is not capitalism.

 

[Boss]

No. Government is not socialism.

He knows... He admitted it earlier in a round about way but since I pointed out the logical fallacy of his argument he has decided to gaslight because that's all he can do. Best just to ignore his trollery.

 

[sartre play]

nice exchange of ideas. my guess is that what works best is when we try for some balance, not any more interested in supporting corporate welfare than social welfare. but there are times when we must support both. in a perfect world would rather feed a child. CEOs have made massive mistakes in the past and will again. the title CEO, President, owner never means infallible . and yes those with the most money do dictate policy to a large degree .private industries do push policies that aim to benefit them. and there will always be people who game the system. to many rules to many laws to many loop holes. to much anger.

 

[NCC1701]

Mistakenly attributed NASA spinoffs

The following is a list of technologies sometimes mistakenly attributed directly to NASA. In many cases, NASA popularized technology or aided its development, which ultimately resulted in the technology's creation.

If you will go back and re-read what I posted, this is exactly what I argued. Trying to change my argument into something you can defeat is an intellectually dishonest game. I never claimed NASA invented or developed these things, I merely pointed out their development (and/or improvement) was largely the result of knowledge and technology gained through the space program. You simply CONFIRMED my argument... Thank you!

you are the dishonest one, you said I simply would not have the microchip and that is patently false

national socialism got us into computers.

only an idiot would confuse a microchip with a computer

computers are important for trajectory and intercept purposes.

they were not invented for the space program you idiot, and they are not microchips

 

[NCC1701]

Thinking of the greatest inventions in the last 120 years, only nuclear power stands out as something only a government would do.

The airplane, the car, the integrated circuit/solid state electronics, the rocket, smartphone, microwave oven, digital camera, and many others were all private enterprises. It isn't even close when comparing private inventions economic impact with govt.

Just an most excellent form of liberal socialist planning, and merely and simply using capitalism, for all of its worth:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

wtf are you talking about? the airplane was not an example of liberal socialist planning, neither was any of the things I mentioned. my god you are strupid

 

[AntonToo]

Hey I got a really crazy idea - why don't we stop the silly socialism-capitalism pigeonholing and evaluate each program or enterprise on actual MERIT.

If it is a capitalist model and it works and makes sense I'm for it, same for socialist programs, same for any given mix of two.

 

[Boss]

they were not invented for the space program you idiot, and they are not microchips

This WAS invented for the space program:
Apollo Guidance Computer - Wikipedia

And almost everyone acknowledges the contribution of the space program in bringing about research in technology which powered our future. You're making an obtuse argument with little merit and it's a shame because you've made some really good points about capitalism. Indeed, it was capitalism which took the technological developments of the space program and turned them into useful commercial products. Socialism didn't do this because there is no incentive in Socialism to do this.

Now, I am not making the argument that these technologies would have never been realized but for the space program. That seems to be what you would like to make my argument into and then attack it. But that's not what I've said or implied. I simply pointed out the space program was responsible for providing the necessity to develop these technologies.

the microprocessor and chip scale electronics was driven by consumer markets in radios, calculators, and the PC, all of which would be here without the Apollo program.

This isn't true. While capitalism is often driven by consumer demand, that isn't always the case. Very often, capitalism creates the products the public doesn't even realize it wants. The PC is a really good example of this. Various companies tried to produce a viable PC for years before it ever caught on. In the very beginning there was no market demand.

 

[Boss]

Hey I got a really crazy idea - why don't we stop the silly socialism-capitalism pigeonholing and evaluate each program or enterprise on actual MERIT.

If it is a capitalist model and it works and makes sense I'm for it, same for socialist programs, same for any given mix of two.

Well, I've tried to maintain the integrity of this thread by repeating that it's not an argument of what IS or ISN'T Socialism, or the merits of Socialism vs. Capitalism. The problem is, Socialists tend to get very defensive and want to attack Capitalism at every opportunity and visa versa. So these threads tend to devolve quickly into the same old arguments.

THIS thread was intended to discuss WHY some people embrace Socialism. That is, Socialism with a capital "S" and not the more generic context, which seems to often get lost in the minutia.

 

[NCC1701]

they were not invented for the space program you idiot, and they are not microchips

This WAS invented for the space program:
Apollo Guidance Computer - Wikipedia

And almost everyone acknowledges the contribution of the space program in bringing about research in technology which powered our future. You're making an obtuse argument with little merit and it's a shame because you've made some really good points about capitalism. Indeed, it was capitalism which took the technological developments of the space program and turned them into useful commercial products. Socialism didn't do this because there is no incentive in Socialism to do this.

Now, I am not making the argument that these technologies would have never been realized but for the space program. That seems to be what you would like to make my argument into and then attack it. But that's not what I've said or implied. I simply pointed out the space program was responsible for providing the necessity to develop these technologies.

the microprocessor and chip scale electronics was driven by consumer markets in radios, calculators, and the PC, all of which would be here without the Apollo program.

This isn't true. While capitalism is often driven by consumer demand, that isn't always the case. Very often, capitalism creates the products the public doesn't even realize it wants. The PC is a really good example of this. Various companies tried to produce a viable PC for years before it ever caught on. In the very beginning there was no market demand.

no, 'almost everyone' does not acknowledge the contribution of the space program. I spent my whole career in tech and the lunar landing was never acknowledged as some sort of match that lit the fire. The space program leveraged off the existing market and not vice versa, the guidance computer was only an offshoot development of existing technology. The integrated circuit was not developed for the space program, and neither was the microprocessor which came after Apollo. If you go to Intel, they won't even accept government work, I know that all too well.

The story of the PC, as you point out, has nothing to do with the space program, it was all industry just as you said. I am not sure why you would bring that up as it only makes my point. The fact industry tries to stimulate demand is pretty much my point, private inventors like Edison have been the lifeblood and not government driven projects.

Your logic is incredibly tortured. If economics really worked as you are saying then all we have to do is keep going to the moon and we would have never ending prosperity. The fact is we stopped precisely because it isn't an economically viable enterprise. I am even a fan of apollo, but I am not delusional.

 

[NCC1701]

Hey I got a really crazy idea - why don't we stop the silly socialism-capitalism pigeonholing and evaluate each program or enterprise on actual MERIT.

If it is a capitalist model and it works and makes sense I'm for it, same for socialist programs, same for any given mix of two.

Well, I've tried to maintain the integrity of this thread by repeating that it's not an argument of what IS or ISN'T Socialism, or the merits of Socialism vs. Capitalism. The problem is, Socialists tend to get very defensive and want to attack Capitalism at every opportunity and visa versa. So these threads tend to devolve quickly into the same old arguments.

THIS thread was intended to discuss WHY some people embrace Socialism. That is, Socialism with a capital "S" and not the more generic context, which seems to often get lost in the minutia.

All western governments do is take money from one group of people and give it to another. In true socialism there is no such thing as everyone works for the government.

 

[francoHFW]

Hey I got a really crazy idea - why don't we stop the silly socialism-capitalism pigeonholing and evaluate each program or enterprise on actual MERIT.

If it is a capitalist model and it works and makes sense I'm for it, same for socialist programs, same for any given mix of two.

Socialism since WWII is simply well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. Cold War dinosaurs/dupes in the USA continue to confuse it with communism ferchissake...

 

[francoHFW]

Hey I got a really crazy idea - why don't we stop the silly socialism-capitalism pigeonholing and evaluate each program or enterprise on actual MERIT.

If it is a capitalist model and it works and makes sense I'm for it, same for socialist programs, same for any given mix of two.

Well, I've tried to maintain the integrity of this thread by repeating that it's not an argument of what IS or ISN'T Socialism, or the merits of Socialism vs. Capitalism. The problem is, Socialists tend to get very defensive and want to attack Capitalism at every opportunity and visa versa. So these threads tend to devolve quickly into the same old arguments.

THIS thread was intended to discuss WHY some people embrace Socialism. That is, Socialism with a capital "S" and not the more generic context, which seems to often get lost in the minutia.

All western governments do is take money from one group of people and give it to another. In true socialism there is no such thing as everyone works for the government.

THAT'S COMMUNISM!! GDammit...lol

 

[francoHFW]

"We're all socialists now!"- Finland PM when ACA passed. I suppose we're going back to being scammed capitalist dupes again now...

 

[AntonToo]

they were not invented for the space program you idiot, and they are not microchips

This WAS invented for the space program:
Apollo Guidance Computer - Wikipedia

And almost everyone acknowledges the contribution of the space program in bringing about research in technology which powered our future. You're making an obtuse argument with little merit and it's a shame because you've made some really good points about capitalism. Indeed, it was capitalism which took the technological developments of the space program and turned them into useful commercial products. Socialism didn't do this because there is no incentive in Socialism to do this.

Now, I am not making the argument that these technologies would have never been realized but for the space program. That seems to be what you would like to make my argument into and then attack it. But that's not what I've said or implied. I simply pointed out the space program was responsible for providing the necessity to develop these technologies.

the microprocessor and chip scale electronics was driven by consumer markets in radios, calculators, and the PC, all of which would be here without the Apollo program.

This isn't true. While capitalism is often driven by consumer demand, that isn't always the case. Very often, capitalism creates the products the public doesn't even realize it wants. The PC is a really good example of this. Various companies tried to produce a viable PC for years before it ever caught on. In the very beginning there was no market demand.

It's not a question of public wanting it, it's a question of company thinking it can sell it. Various companies weren't trying to build PC just cause, they believed it could be profitable.

 

[AntonToo]

Hey I got a really crazy idea - why don't we stop the silly socialism-capitalism pigeonholing and evaluate each program or enterprise on actual MERIT.

If it is a capitalist model and it works and makes sense I'm for it, same for socialist programs, same for any given mix of two.

Well, I've tried to maintain the integrity of this thread by repeating that it's not an argument of what IS or ISN'T Socialism, or the merits of Socialism vs. Capitalism. The problem is, Socialists tend to get very defensive and want to attack Capitalism at every opportunity and visa versa. So these threads tend to devolve quickly into the same old arguments.

THIS thread was intended to discuss WHY some people embrace Socialism. That is, Socialism with a capital "S" and not the more generic context, which seems to often get lost in the minutia.

American left, maybe with rare exceptions, does not embrace most means of production being publicly owned (definition of socialist economy). Bernie calls himself a socialist - he is NOT though, his policies is what they do in scandinavian countries, which are mostly capitalist last I checked.

 

[Boss]

no, 'almost everyone' does not acknowledge the contribution of the space program. I spent my whole career in tech and the lunar landing was never acknowledged as some sort of match that lit the fire.

I did not say it was the match that lit the fire... that's what you keep trying to do here and it is pissing me off. Why are you attempting to twist and morph my words into an argument you can attack? Is that some kind of personal problem?

Go ask 100 people and you'll find an overwhelming majority will credit the space program with providing useful research that brought us many innovations. That's NOT an argument that we should constantly fund never-ending space programs because they bring us great things!

..the guidance computer was only an offshoot development of existing technology. The integrated circuit was not developed for the space program, and neither was the microprocessor which came after Apollo.

In a sense, everything is an offshoot of existing technology. And again, I didn't claim anything was a new technology or that it couldn't have ever been possible without the space program. These continue to be arguments you are creating so that you can attack me. I just don't understand why because we seem to be on the same page in terms of capitalism vs. socialism.

Maybe the problem is, you think of the space program as socialism? I don't share that opinion. I can see where some people might confuse it with socialism but careful examination reveals it's not. The entire program would have been impossible without private-sector capitalism bidding on and accepting government contracts to provide the various aspects. Without the individual freedom-driven ingenuity and achievement, we would have never made it to the moon. Did the Russians do it? NO! WE did it! Americans!

The story of the PC, as you point out, has nothing to do with the space program, it was all industry just as you said. I am not sure why you would bring that up as it only makes my point. The fact industry tries to stimulate demand is pretty much my point, private inventors like Edison have been the lifeblood and not government driven projects.

Much of what was learned in developing the systems for space travel was instrumental in development of the PC and many other things. You made the argument that "necessity is the mother of invention", which I agree is true, but invention can often precede necessity and the PC is a good example, so are smart phones. Steve Jobs invented things people didn't even know they wanted. Sometimes, VISION is the mother of invention.

And again... My argument is not for never-ending government programs and projects. I was merely pointing out the tremendous technological advances we realized through the space program. Would they have occurred otherwise? Perhaps. We don't know the answer, it's a non sequitur question.

If economics really worked as you are saying then all we have to do is keep going to the moon and we would have never ending prosperity.

Well, if the economy worked the way you wish to morph and distort my comments into so that you can attack me... then yes, you're right. So, I concede! You win the argument that we weren't having! Bravo for you! lol

 

[Boss]

It's not a question of public wanting it, it's a question of company thinking it can sell it. Various companies weren't trying to build PC just cause, they believed it could be profitable.

Well you can't sell the public something it doesn't want. And yes, most companies do create products they believe will be profitable... it's called vision.

With PCs, I love the story of Clive Sinclair. He had the vision of every home having a PC long before everyone else. But the market wasn't there yet. His competitor realized the future was in promoting the PC through education by putting them in every school. Once the schools had them, then consumers wanted them.

 

[danielpalos]

No. Government is not socialism.

He knows... He admitted it earlier in a round about way but since I pointed out the logical fallacy of his argument he has decided to gaslight because that's all he can do. Best just to ignore his trollery.

Appeals to ignorance is not, pointing out a logical fallacy to my arguments.

Government is socialism. Why do you believe it is not?

You are welcome to provide a valid argument. lol.

 

[danielpalos]

If you will go back and re-read what I posted, this is exactly what I argued. Trying to change my argument into something you can defeat is an intellectually dishonest game. I never claimed NASA invented or developed these things, I merely pointed out their development (and/or improvement) was largely the result of knowledge and technology gained through the space program. You simply CONFIRMED my argument... Thank you!

you are the dishonest one, you said I simply would not have the microchip and that is patently false

national socialism got us into computers.

only an idiot would confuse a microchip with a computer

computers are important for trajectory and intercept purposes.

they were not invented for the space program you idiot, and they are not microchips

advances in computers helped aviation and the space program.