Why The Left Loves Socialism

[bripat9643]

the USSR had ranks

Their military wasn't a socialist organization.

BS .. USSR was Communist.

Yes, their government was. Their military wasn't. No military is communist or socialist ...or democratic. You will learn this the instant you step off the bus at boot camp.

Now, can we get back to the thread topic?

I disagree. The military is the very essence of socialism.

 

[Boss]

I liked being in a socialist organization, the military...

Except the military is not a socialist organization.

Sorry... it's just NOT.

Of course it is.

No.. the military is never Socialist.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim to establish them.

A military is a system controlled exclusively by a top-down ranking of authority, not social ownership. There is nothing "democratic" about the military. The purpose of the military is not to serve it's collective. The very nature of a military is to serve the interest of it's country. The country may be Socialist, the military is not.

 

[bripat9643]

I liked being in a socialist organization, the military...

Except the military is not a socialist organization.

Sorry... it's just NOT.

Of course it is.

No.. the military is never Socialist.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim to establish them.

A military is a system controlled exclusively by a top-down ranking of authority, not social ownership. There is nothing "democratic" about the military. The purpose of the military is not to serve it's collective. The very nature of a military is to serve the interest of it's country. The country may be Socialist, the military is not.

Sorry, but socialism is an economic system, and "democratic control" is not required from the standpoint of economics. In economic terms, socialism is government control of productive enterprises. The military qualifies according to that definition. Everything the government does is socialist by its very nature.

 

[Boss]

I disagree. The military is the very essence of socialism.

It may be the "essence" of it, but it's not Socialist. Look, this is a nonsense argument that doesn't pertain to the OP question. I think we're having a breakdown of communication over semantics. The military does not work as a cooperative for it's own self-interest. It is not democratic. The members of the military do not have a say in policy or ideology.

The minute you step off your bus at boot camp you will come to understand the military is not Socialism or Democracy... it's very much a Fascist Dictatorship ruled by your Drill Sgt.

 

[Boss]

Sorry, but socialism is an economic system, and "democratic control" is not required from the standpoint of economics. In economic terms, socialism is government control of productive enterprises. The military qualifies according to that definition. Everything the government does is socialist by its very nature.

Well then it doesn't fit the definition for Socialism if it's not an economic or social system. (you're right, it's not.)

 

[boedicca]

I liked being in a socialist organization, the military...

Except the military is not a socialist organization.

Sorry... it's just NOT.

What a bullshit comment. The military is not a socialist organization. Individuals have roles and individual responsibility in order to fulfill a mission. It isn't about buttsliders feeding off of the productivity of others.

 

[bripat9643]

I disagree. The military is the very essence of socialism.

It may be the "essence" of it, but it's not Socialist. Look, this is a nonsense argument that doesn't pertain to the OP question. I think we're having a breakdown of communication over semantics. The military does not work as a cooperative for it's own self-interest. It is not democratic. The members of the military do not have a say in policy or ideology.

The minute you step off your bus at boot camp you will come to understand the military is not Socialism or Democracy... it's very much a Fascist Dictatorship ruled by your Drill Sgt.

It doesn't matter what the military's motive is. It also doesn't matter how it's governed. Socialism is an economic term, and if you look at it from the standpoint of economics, it's socialist. All the rest is just political propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, but socialism is an economic system, and "democratic control" is not required from the standpoint of economics. In economic terms, socialism is government control of productive enterprises. The military qualifies according to that definition. Everything the government does is socialist by its very nature.

Well then it doesn't fit the definition for Socialism if it's not an economic or social system. (you're right, it's not.)

What part of "socialism is an economic system" didn't you understand?

 

[danielpalos]

dear, Government is Socialism. Only the right wing, never gets it.

So you're NOT going to address the OP topic?

that is why the left loves socialism. all the right has to offer, is anarchy, by comparison.

Is that the epithet you use to refer to freedom? We can't allow people to go around making their own decisions. That's anarchy!

Hooverville did not solve any problems. Be realistic; capitalism died in 1929, and socialism has been bailing it out, ever since.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, Government is Socialism. Only the right wing, never gets it.

So you're NOT going to address the OP topic?

that is why the left loves socialism. all the right has to offer, is anarchy, by comparison.

Is that the epithet you use to refer to freedom? We can't allow people to go around making their own decisions. That's anarchy!

How well did that work in 1929?

And, only the cognitively dissonant, right wing, believes in micromanaging the poor through means testing, while claiming (with all talk and no action) to be for Individual Liberty.

 

[danielpalos]

I liked being in a socialist organization, the military...

Except the military is not a socialist organization.

Sorry... it's just NOT.

Of course it is.

No.. the military is never Socialist.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim to establish them.

A military is a system controlled exclusively by a top-down ranking of authority, not social ownership. There is nothing "democratic" about the military. The purpose of the military is not to serve it's collective. The very nature of a military is to serve the interest of it's country. The country may be Socialist, the military is not.

General Issue, is socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

Sorry, but socialism is an economic system, and "democratic control" is not required from the standpoint of economics. In economic terms, socialism is government control of productive enterprises. The military qualifies according to that definition. Everything the government does is socialist by its very nature.

Well then it doesn't fit the definition for Socialism if it's not an economic or social system. (you're right, it's not.)

Government is Socialism. Command economics is one form of socialism through government.

 

[JoeNormal]

I've always given the authors of posts like yours the benefit of the doubt as to what they do and don't understand about the point that was being explained to them. Therefore, I'll chalk this one up to you being disingenuous rather than dim witted.

'Knowing how to do things' implies specialized knowledge (as if you didn't know). Many (most?) managers come up way short on ANY kind of remotely specialized knowledge or skill. It could be anything from basic plumbing to creating a deep knowledge system. They make up for it, or at least try to by exerting pressure, using threats or denying privileges. I've personally experienced the gamut of these types throughout my career.

In their minds, the ability to negotiate trumps all others when in reality, in a highly technological and specialized society, we need all types of experts, not just those skilled in negotiation. It's your choice if you want to be dependent upon others to do the simplest of specialized tasks but it makes me uncomfortable.

I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. I've never been much good at knowing what people mean when they don't clarify what they mean. I'm neither disingenuous or dim witted, I'm just not very clairvoyant. When I read "people who know how to do things" I have to assume, as opposed to people who don't know how to do things, and I don't know of any people in productive society who fit that bill. Everyone knows how to do things.

Now that you've kind of explained what you meant, I understand you're talking about incompetent management. But here's the thing, that's precisely why free market capitalism is so great. If my company has managers who do know "how to do things" comes across your company full of incompetent managers, guess who's lunch is going to get eaten and who is going to walk away with the market share? That is, unless your company is being protected by it's corporatist allies in the government who can step in and proclaim it "too big to fail."

If free market capitalism is allowed to function, your company of incompetent managers is going to fail. Not some of the time but every time. My company might even absorb some of that companies more competent employees who "know how to do things" and they may one day become managers for me. Because, you see, I don't promote managers who don't "know how to do things."

But what is ironic is, you support Socialism, which is basically a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats running businesses they know nothing about. Making business decisions based on emotionalism and populism rather than knowledge of the function and objectives of the industry itself.

Whether management is competent or not, the common denominator is that they feel entitled to vastly more of the profit than the workers.

Our discussion has reminded me of a feature of capitalism that enrages most people. Record companies have always been considered sanctuaries for douchebags. This was never more the case than in the 60's and 70's. The record companies had more money than God, armies of weasels and apparently the attitude that there was no limit to the amount of creativity their artist could generate. It produced quite a few rock and roll casualties, the most notable being Jimi Hendrix.

So let me ask you this, who do you most admire - Martin Shkrelli or Jimi Hendrix?

 

[Boss]

I disagree. The military is the very essence of socialism.

It may be the "essence" of it, but it's not Socialist. Look, this is a nonsense argument that doesn't pertain to the OP question. I think we're having a breakdown of communication over semantics. The military does not work as a cooperative for it's own self-interest. It is not democratic. The members of the military do not have a say in policy or ideology.

The minute you step off your bus at boot camp you will come to understand the military is not Socialism or Democracy... it's very much a Fascist Dictatorship ruled by your Drill Sgt.

It doesn't matter what the military's motive is. It also doesn't matter how it's governed. Socialism is an economic term, and if you look at it from the standpoint of economics, it's socialist. All the rest is just political propaganda.

Well, socialism, like just about any other word in the dictionary, has several meanings depending on context. I guess, if you applied a generic context, you could conceive of a military as being 'socialistic' in nature. I still disagree with this because a military doesn't function to serve it's own social or economic agenda. But whatever! It has nothing to do with the OP... Would you like to make a comment on the OP? Or do you want to continue trying to argue with someone you are in agreement with 99% of the time over an inane point made by a liberal who wanted to derail the thread topic?

 

[Boss]

Whether management is competent or not, the common denominator is that they feel entitled to vastly more of the profit than the workers.

Well I don't understand that because profit is something realized AFTER they are paid. Salaries and commissions are part of the expenses.

And again, it sounds like you don't really understand how business works. Managers and bosses aren't paid less than their employees. It just doesn't work out that way in our universe... sorry. If we paid managers and bosses less than their employees, no one would want to be the manager or boss, would they? I mean, why would you take a pay cut? So... in OUR universe, where us normal people live... that's called a reality.

The record companies had more money than God, armies of weasels and apparently the attitude that there was no limit to the amount of creativity their artist could generate. It produced quite a few rock and roll casualties, the most notable being Jimi Hendrix.

Well no... Jimi Hendrix died of a drug overdose.

When a record company signs an artist to a contract, it is very specific on the amount of "creativity" to be generated by the artist, it is never "unlimited." Again, this is a free market voluntary transaction... the record company didn't go out there and hold a gun to Jimi Hendrix's head and make him sign a contract to produce "unlimited" creativity... that didn't happen in our universe.

What you are going to need to do before we can have any kind of a rational conversation is come back to our universe.

 

[bripat9643]

I disagree. The military is the very essence of socialism.

It may be the "essence" of it, but it's not Socialist. Look, this is a nonsense argument that doesn't pertain to the OP question. I think we're having a breakdown of communication over semantics. The military does not work as a cooperative for it's own self-interest. It is not democratic. The members of the military do not have a say in policy or ideology.

The minute you step off your bus at boot camp you will come to understand the military is not Socialism or Democracy... it's very much a Fascist Dictatorship ruled by your Drill Sgt.

It doesn't matter what the military's motive is. It also doesn't matter how it's governed. Socialism is an economic term, and if you look at it from the standpoint of economics, it's socialist. All the rest is just political propaganda.

Well, socialism, like just about any other word in the dictionary, has several meanings depending on context. I guess, if you applied a generic context, you could conceive of a military as being 'socialistic' in nature. I still disagree with this because a military doesn't function to serve it's own social or economic agenda. But whatever! It has nothing to do with the OP... Would you like to make a comment on the OP? Or do you want to continue trying to argue with someone you are in agreement with 99% of the time over an inane point made by a liberal who wanted to derail the thread topic?

I didn't mean to derail your thread, but I always have to step in when people are misusing the term "socialism," by claiming it has to be democratic or other such folderol.

 

[Boss]

I didn't mean to derail your thread, but I always have to step in when people are misusing the term "socialism," by claiming it has to be democratic or other such folderol.

Well it doesn't have to be democratic but in my opinion it does have to deal with societal and/or economic ideologies. You claim it on an economic basis but I disagree that this applies because the soldiers and officers don't pay for the military. You can argue the government is implementing a socialist system with the military but that doesn't make the military a socialist entity. I also have a problem with that logic in a country like ours because the military is a constitutionally enumerated power and responsibility of government. If we apply this logic, all countries are socialist if they have a military. So do you accept the leftist's argument that all countries are socialist? I don't.

Again... this whole little "side argument" arose in this thread from a lefty who didn't want to discuss the thread OP and made a smart ass comment to derail it.

 

[Slyhunter]

why do we have a first world economy, that is mixed, part socialism and part capitalism, if capitalism is so wonderful?

capitalism died in 1929 and socialism has been, bailing it out, ever since.

Well, what has happened is, a lot of people have been propagandized into thinking that we have some sort of "mixed" system when we don't. Yes, many socialist type policies have been enacted since 1929, mostly through a gross misinterpretation of the "general welfare" clause and the commerce clause. That does not make us part Socialist.

Furthermore, there are certain things our founders forged into the Constitution as enumerated powers of government because they realized free market capitalism couldn't provide them effectively because the incentives were all wrong. So this goes back to the non sequitur argument made earlier, there is no such thing as a "pure" system of any kind.

Now.... this thread is not intended to be a pom-pom session for Capitalism OR Socialism. There are probably a thousand such threads already on the various boards at USMB, where the merits of Socialism and Capitalism is being argued. So there is really no point in repeating those same arguments here in yet another thread. But we keep ending up having those types of posts for some reason and no one can stick with the OP. The intention and purpose of the thread is to discuss WHY certain people like or embrace Socialism as opposed to those who don't. What is it about Socialism that appeals to certain people?

In the OP, I make the argument that I believe it is because those people simply lack confidence in their ability to compete with others. There have been over 100 replies and the only counter-arguments presented seem to reinforce the OP conclusions. Naturally, people try to justify their beliefs and phrase it differently, but when all is said and done, it boils down to an underlying lack of confidence in ability to compete.

It' isn't just a lack of confidence it's also a lack of ability to compete. I was born with bi-polar disorder. I went from job to job because of my temper and anxiety problems. I made poor choices in life because of my mental disorder. Should I lie in the street and slowly starve to death because I can't compete and get a high tech job vs having to compete with illegal immigrants for pennies?

 

[Boss]

It' isn't just a lack of confidence it's also a lack of ability to compete. I was born with bi-polar disorder. I went from job to job because of my temper and anxiety problems. I made poor choices in life because of my mental disorder. Should I lie in the street and slowly starve to death because I can't compete and get a high tech job vs having to compete with illegal immigrants for pennies?

"Lack of confidence" is literally.... saying things like "I can't compete, because..."

The above video is of a man who clearly has a more legitimate excuse for not being able to compete than you or many others. Yet, he is the president of two companies and employs over a dozen people. He simply has never known the meaning of "I can't..."

As for choices, I could go out and try to rob a bank... when I am caught, I could say... well, I wasn't intending on being a criminal or crook, I only did it because I'm poor and needed money. You see, that wouldn't justify or excuse my choice. We all have to live with the consequences of the choices we make in life. It's not my responsibility to pay for your mistakes. You finding a way to excuse and justify your mistakes doesn't change that fact.

 

[Slyhunter]

It' isn't just a lack of confidence it's also a lack of ability to compete. I was born with bi-polar disorder. I went from job to job because of my temper and anxiety problems. I made poor choices in life because of my mental disorder. Should I lie in the street and slowly starve to death because I can't compete and get a high tech job vs having to compete with illegal immigrants for pennies?

"Lack of confidence" is literally.... saying things like "I can't compete, because..."

The above video is of a man who clearly has a more legitimate excuse for not being able to compete than you or many others. Yet, he is the president of two companies and employs over a dozen people. He simply has never known the meaning of "I can't..."

As for choices, I could go out and try to rob a bank... when I am caught, I could say... well, I wasn't intending on being a criminal or crook, I only did it because I'm poor and needed money. You see, that wouldn't justify or excuse my choice. We all have to live with the consequences of the choices we make in life. It's not my responsibility to pay for your mistakes. You finding a way to excuse and justify your mistakes doesn't change that fact.

God cursed me.
If I hadn't of hooked up with the VA and got on these drugs I would've ended up killing someone. I had a really violent temper. Thus, you don't know what the **** you're talking about. I wonder how many people in jail are in jail because of chemical imbalances controlling their actions through no fault of their own but a so called loving God made them that way.