I HATE Communists. They are a bunch of stupid authoritarians, who ruined their countries. Totalitarianism is evil, and communists are totalitarian. Don't call me a Communist! joey, you're Libertarian, which makes you far from Fascist. I don't accuse you of being fascist, so don't accuse me of being communist. Marx is not my hero. I admire the fact that he was the first person to make empirical observations and base his views of sociology on them, and like his idea of "To each his need, from each his ability" on paper. Of course it's not that simple in reality, and most of his ideas are bad (dictatorship of the proletariat and the like). All dictatorships are bad. According to my sociology textbook (Social Problems, D. stanley Eitzen & Maxine Baca Zinn), socialism is defined as having five principles. I don't remember the last two, but they fit wel with the other three: democracy, egalitarianism, and public ownership of the means of production. I think a sociology text is a better source of information than a partisan writer. If you've read any critique of her writing you'd know Ayn Rand did not fully understand socialism. Only complete socialism means no private property. Most socialists, myself included, do want to retain some form of private property. I can show you plenty of non-totalitarian socialist governments that never went bankrupt: Chile, Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Nicaragua, South Africa, Denmark... Accordin to Trivial Pursuit 20th anniversary edition, France has both the world's most productive workers and the shortest work week. Socialist policies there have resulted in increased productivity. Now show me a working government based on the libertarian model.
You quote Ayn Rand for you opinion? And what point it is suppose to prove? That there are people who disagree with socialism? I concede, these people exist.
You're so aghast that people would voluntarily live in socialism, but exchanging freedom for security and harmony is the basis for our governmetn and most governments today. The social contracts of Hobbes and Locke.
Socalism was not what was in place in Nazi Germany. Hitler adopted the preexisting party. He was actually about a 'free market' as Britan or the US. No where in the definiton will you find 'racism', but you will find 'equality'.
What I told you was in the topic 'Facism', after I poster hoever you seemed to disappear. I figured you'd actualy started reading about it instead of criticizing it.
Where do these "human rights" come from and why can't they exist without property righs? What is your justification for them?
I am not socialist. This should be clear enough. But it is not simply out of prejudice. It is simply becasuse I believe in choice and freedom and not force. Socialism is just another form of government which is no substitute for personal autonomy. The end goal is one of no government but to achieve that more government is not necessary. That doesn't mean I like to see socialism trashed for just any reason. When people wrongly criticize it I don't let my bias against it an issue.
"Socialism: doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." - Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual
Rand goes on further to say "the essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights."
Who would voluntarily give up their rights? Oh, hmm, a majority of Americans, including you I suppose.
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."
Dante, you had the gall to call me a fascist, yet, if I remember correctly, it was Hitler who was a fascist and it was Hitler who controlled the National Socialist Party.
And if I'm correct in reading this Rand Lexicon, then the USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (socialism by force).
Russia obtained their socialist stature by vote - and I'm sure you're well aware of this.
So please give me this "working model" again that you posted.
No human rights can exist without property rights.
1. You think that socialism has to exist in a national form but that is one of the reasons it fails. When it's voluntary or without borders it suceeds more often, as I said, I already showed you a working model which you can ignore at your leisure.
2. Why does empirical failure in a limited number of situations mean anything about what might or might not work in the future? What can rash gerenalizations tell us about a complex theory or an intricate history of a certain country?
3. Explicate our "private propertyy rights". where do they come from? What is their basis? why do tehy extend to businesses? What is "private property"? How does one obtain it?
4 It's rather redundant to say, "our private property rights extend to private property"
5. thank you for acknowledging my mental superiority. I wasn't goign to mention it but...oh wait, you're joking...riiiight.
6. Compulsary sevices and half-assed management are faulty. The profit motive is still involved and it doesn't work when you're not really being socialist. Naturally.
Dante, you're obviously entrenched in your liberal mindset to not know our private property rights extend to private property;
Businesses are private property. Hence, businesses and corporations consist of many people. Homes are private property. Cars are private property.
You seem to know everything, so explain to me why the government can't provide basic services if they're getting so much money.
You really know everything. Let's all just listen to Dante, because he's so educated.
Name me one Socialist country that hasn't gone to either a totalitarian state or completely bankrupt...because I can't think of any Socialist countries that work.
1. Already responded to the bulk of this elsewhere.
2. Corporations aren't people.
3. Corporations don't have "right's". (Find that sentence in the Constitution.)
4. There is a difference between the rigths of the individual and the alleged 'rights' of the corporation.
5. You'd like to say it doesn't work, but you don't have proof. We've had a disussion on this before where I gave you some information on working socialism. Look there before you start shaking your lip.
6. Sharing ideas with another group does not make you even similar to that group, let alone an exact match.
It's funny how liberals will say that Democrats fight for "individual rights and freedom" yet they take away a corporation's right to private property rights by forcing them to hire a certain percentage of minorities, etc. I mean, if the business owner(s) were smart to begin with, they'd voluntarily hire all kinds of people.
But it's just real funny hearing about how liberals "fight" for the rights of everyone and then they do that crap.
It's also real funny that the Democrats' platform resembles the Socialist Party platform, but somehow, in some way, many Dems aren't hard-line SOCIALISTS - haha, I mean, geez, how flipping assinine does this sound?
Socrates, I do imply socialism is bad, you're right; it looks real good on paper, no doubt at all.
But it doesn't work. You yourself say you're a socialist - what you really meant to say is that you're a mini-Communist, because, hello, your "fearless leader" Karl Marx is the "father of modern Communism."
It's time for you, most Democrats and other liberals to just wake up and smell the manifesto.
This argument isn't even worth conducting anymore.
Ok Joey and the others of the same opinion, listen up: Democrats are not Socialists! They are Neoliberals! That is, they believe in personal freedom and economic deregulation. I'd like to say two things now:
1) By saying Democrats are socialists, in an accusatory way, you imply socialism is inherently bad. Maybe you're right, but your tone makes me think you're just ignorant. You need to read up on the subject. I'd suggest a sociology textbook as the least biased source available; I'm currently using Social Problems, by D. Stanley Eitzen and Maxine Baca Zinn. Some study of history would be good as well, since it was the Socialist Party which really made African Americans' rights, Women's rights, and workers' rights heard. Without the SP, there would be no 19th amendment, and no Civil Rights Movements. Workers going on strike for higher wages could be shot by the government, as they often were in the 1890's. 2) Democrats are not Socialists. A few on the Party's far left may be, but most are not. I think I'd know this a little better than you, since I AM a socialist. Democrats are by far NOT socialists. Any socialistic policies they happen to adapt are just a response to the left wing of the Party threatening to join the Greens or the Socialist Party.
All I know is I don't want Canadian-style medical system, and anyone trying to implement it in America should move to canada and leave the rest of us alone.
You're throwing around all these three-syllable words like you know what they mean, but really, the way you're using and referring to them makes me think you're using them to look educated, which Republicans are not...(big joke there...SMILE EVERYBODY ) Aaaaaanyway...
Democracy...what is it? It is a voice for all the people. It gives every person the right to speak up for his or her own rights. Excuse me, but isn't part of the Republican platform that of individual rights over the greater common good? That's democracy...HELLO! We don't have a democracy in America right now; we have a republic. People make decisions for us based on the polls and elections that we hold (however rigged they might be). That's a friggin' republic, not a friggin' democracy.
And on your Democrats are Socialists comment...OK. What the he11 is it with you and Democrats? Are we that evil and vile of a group of people that Republicans can no longer stand to live with us in peace and harmony (not like the warlike Reppies would ever let peace and harmony be in this world, a world riddled with war after war after friggin' war)? Oh...I forgot, you're Libertarian. But you sound so d@mn right-wing, I get confused.
Now, I'm not going to say anything about abortion (ooh, taboo topic...go see the other sixty million threads on it, though) and your caustic comment about that, but to say that Democrats are Socialists is immature and a prime example of stereotyping. Ever heard of 'moderates'? Some of us are (not me, I am 'liberal', and have known 'very liberals' in my lifetime as well). There are all degrees of Democrats, just as there are in the Republican and the Libertarian parties (or so I believe...I've never heard of your particular party until recently). The truth is, Communism would work...
(dramatic pause for effect)
IF all people were Christ-like. But, since they certainly aren't, human greed and malice enter the picture, and the government becomes too controlling and too invasive into people's lives. (Feel free to tell me CALMLY if my ideas of Communist philosophy are off...it's been a while since I studied it.)
Socialism isn't even the end of the world. You act like it's a cardinal sin, but maybe it isn't, and maybe you should be a bit more open-minded. We could all stand to be more so, including me. I know I haven't been the kindest towards your ideas, but you have a way of putting things that is both irritating and angering to me. If you took the time to put your ideas forth in a way that is respectful of all the sides of an issue instead of being unilateral all the time, we might could make things work a bit more smoothly 'round here. (A little Redneck talk for ya there... )
Now, just take a deep breath, sit back, and objectively analyze your beliefs. Do the same for everyone's if you can; really see the points of view themselves, instead of the hatred you have for those viewpoints. It's really difficult to do, especially if you're as passionate about your beliefs as I am, but with work, it can be accomplished. And please, no more of this Democrat-bashing. We've got enough party-poopers as it is. (Party-poopers...get it? I thought it was funny. )
quote: However, the Democrats you see in any office only advocate bigger government and/or government control.
Nope, the bill to end the selective service is sponsored by democrats. They also favor less military involvemnt overseas and thus less expenditures and less control over the rest of the world. Many support an end to the war on some drugs.
quote: Name me one Democrat who currently does not advocate smaller government.
i'm not sure that's what you meant to write. If you, however want a democrat who does want a smaller government I have a lot in my family.
quote: Hmmm... Ninja, you are correct when you say that communism doesn't work, yet it's also democracies that don't work. This country, originally founded as a republic, is a democracy, and as you can see, it doesn't work.
1. How is this country a democracy? 2. Why is democracy a bad thing? 3. Why is a republic better? 4. WHat democracies emperically faled?
quote: I stand by my statements; You're all communists.
And you're a facist, however, we can both refute these statements.
Okay, there are some things that the Libertarian platform stands for that I don't (they won't take a stance on abortion, though many LPers are pro-life).
However, the Democrats you see in any office only advocate bigger government and/or government control.
Name me one Democrat who currently does not advocate smaller government.
Hmmm...
Ninja, you are correct when you say that communism doesn't work, yet it's also democracies that don't work.
This country, originally founded as a republic, is a democracy, and as you can see, it doesn't work.
As everyone has seen, no instance of communism has worked for long. The russians failed, the chinese failed even worse than the russians. Communism is no good.
If it is true, as you say, that we're going to have to give up freedom for a democratic party lead... well... i dunno, but you're simply either crazy or heavily republican.
You're making it sound like Al Gore is Mao-Tse-Tung.
i dont tihnk he would mind that, however, if he wants to debate that there are already several topics on that open for discussion. The democrats now are also for more personal liberty, not government control. Socialism advocates a more extremem view of this. You whole analysis rests on faulty assumptions: that if you agree on one thing (i.e. socialized medicine) you agree on all things (i.e. the end to private property). Seeing the mansions and such that many of the democrats own that is clearly false. That would be like saying that because you and Noam Chomsky agree on freedom of speech and that the press has become too corporate you agree on everything, We know this to not be true because compared to Chomsky you look like a facist. All you need to do is look at my dissection of your article supposedly on 'democracy vs. republic' where I mention the multiplicity of views which you disregard. Also, I didn't say the article was too long, I said it was over-tagged, as in the headline you gave was a much stronger assertion than the article made, and then I went on to list why what you said it meant really had nothing to do with the purpose of the article.
Topics 
) Aaaaaanyway...
)
