Socialism
- Thread starter aelf
- Start date
That seems to be a view John Galbraith had about about private monopoly and why he strongly embraced public monopolies in his book "The New Industrialist State". Interesting that the private monopoly companies he felt would be dangerous when he wrote to book in the late 60's were AT&T, U.S. Steel and General Motors. Less than a decade later Microsoft was founded.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
Too bad Americans don't have as much vacation time to do so. Perhaps if you had more organized labour?
Huayna Capac357
Deity
I am not proposing that you can't fish or enjoy life, I'm proposing that everyone be able to enjoy life.
Without reading the whole thread, and with knowing that a lot of people disagree with me, I think that socialism doesn't refer to a very narrow situation of government controlling all means of production. I think you can refer to something a socialist before it gets to that absolute stage. It is not an all or nothing definition, IMO. To me, socialism is akin to a control of all means of production by a government as a liberal free market economy is akin to anarchy. I would even call government influence of an economy as, to a degree, socialist. HOWEVER. A government using some of what I would regard to be socialist policies does not make that government socialist. Just as me eating breakfast does not make me a professional restaurant critic.
Now, there seem to be too ways in which defenders of world leaders accused of instituting socialist policies argue:
Now, there seem to be too ways in which defenders of world leaders accused of instituting socialist policies argue:
- 'You don't know the definition of socialism. That policy is not socialist.'
- 'But socialism is a good thing.'
I'm heartened that the other side is making the occasional mistake (or isn't a mistake) as well, up until this point it wasn't happening! 
No, that's a gross simplification. Its about as un-logical and intellectual dangerous as the whole Socialism = Communism = Evil tripe. If I wanted to artificially divide 'Marxism' into two and only two camps like you did. I could choose 'European Marxism' and 'Eastern Marxis', the first would allow me to group Social Democrats with Stalin whilst the second would allow me to group the Pol Pot and Mao with Sukarno. I could tar all 'European Marxists' with the 'Stalinist' brush and blame the crimes of Mao and Pol Pot on all 'Eastern Marxists'.
Something like that would have sufficed.
Huayna Capac357 said:
No, that's a gross simplification. Its about as un-logical and intellectual dangerous as the whole Socialism = Communism = Evil tripe. If I wanted to artificially divide 'Marxism' into two and only two camps like you did. I could choose 'European Marxism' and 'Eastern Marxis', the first would allow me to group Social Democrats with Stalin whilst the second would allow me to group the Pol Pot and Mao with Sukarno. I could tar all 'European Marxists' with the 'Stalinist' brush and blame the crimes of Mao and Pol Pot on all 'Eastern Marxists'.
Huayna Capac357 said:
Something like that would have sufficed.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Yaaaaay! Gross over-simplification! I said broadly, though I see how that remark was stupid.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Repeated.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Well they're essentially the same. In that the broadly is stupid.
If there are, then I am thankful that they do not vote en masse. And continue to do so out of protest or w/e.
Every weekend is good enough for me.Too bad Americans don't have as much vacation time to do so. Perhaps if you had more organized labour?
Why not you are right
Because it debases common freedom granted by the Constitution of the United States, read the post. What ever you call Obama, this healthcare plan is his brainchild, I am not going to be told what healthcare physician I get to see. That choice is mine, every choice is mine to make. You stand behind him like an automaton I will not. He is not Jesus and he is not a messiah. He cannot and will not even prove that he is even truly an American. I cannot trust him and I am not nearly the only one. I read posts that have the same views as I every day. People are surely less fooled than during the Presidential race. And what promises has he kept, none that I have read about. And furthermore he is a Socialist, thats no secret. So do not pretend he is not something that he surely is. And whether this healthcare plan is Socialist or not, it takes freedom of choice out of the citizens hands. Some people have much more terrible things to say about him. Frankly I am being cordial.
Don't fall into it so fast, talk is cheap if you know what I mean.
Obama is hoping for a change to Socialism. How many believe he should have it. I vote Nay!
We are forced to vote between a lesser of two likely evils than a vote lost on an unlikely party.
I heard that news from the man in the street.
Which of my questions are you answering?
And what post?
I don't know the specifics of Obama's health care plan, but I do know that this has nothing to do with socialism. Government health care is a basic socialistic policy, but minor details may vary from system to system. That does not mean that one small clause in one system denotes a failure of all systems of the kind everywhere, or even the failure of the individual system it is within. Nor does one clause effect the socialistic aspects of the health plan.
You're coming up with bad syllogisms.
- Government health care is inherently socialistic.
- Obama's government health care plan has a few flaws.
- Therefore, socialism is bad.
It's comparable to saying:
- Tom Cruise is a Scientologist.
- Tom Cruise is American.
- Therefore, all Americans are Scientologists.
Or, more appropriately:
- Stalin was a communist.
- Stalin was evil.
- Therefore, communism is evil.
Oh, please don't start that nonsense.
Did you read my post at all? I'll quote myself:
Allowing a much greater segment of the population to have access to health care is far from limiting freedom of choice.
But even assuming that no more people got access to health care through this, governmental health care systems do not by constrict freedom. Just because the NSW government runs my health care doesn't mean I have no choice in what doctor's I see, and what treatment I get. It just means that I don't have to pay too much for something that should be a right.
I'll be honest Cheezy - if I could be perfectly comfortable working an easy, entry level job for my whole life, and get paid the same as if I spent years in school training to be an upper level management person - I'd take the easy, entry level thing. If I can live just as happily with less effort, why in the world shouldn't I take the easy route, and devote the rest of my time to pursuits that I enjoy?
I'm willing to grant that you all may be morally superior beings to myself, who would willingly sacrifice their lives working for the same amount, just because the socialist system needs you to. But what do you do with people like me? Just carry us along forever? Or force us to contribute more substantively?
Because the first seems impractical to me, and the second seems to make a mockery of the goals of socialism. And really, I think a lot more people would be like me, and take the easy route, than would take the hard route.
I'm not trying to troll or flame you here, I'm genuinely curious as to what you have to say. I haven't read the whole thread, but I've read some of it, and I think I have a fair grasp of what you're saying. (If I don't, feel free to enlighten me)
I'm willing to grant that you all may be morally superior beings to myself, who would willingly sacrifice their lives working for the same amount, just because the socialist system needs you to. But what do you do with people like me? Just carry us along forever? Or force us to contribute more substantively?
Because the first seems impractical to me, and the second seems to make a mockery of the goals of socialism. And really, I think a lot more people would be like me, and take the easy route, than would take the hard route.
I'm not trying to troll or flame you here, I'm genuinely curious as to what you have to say. I haven't read the whole thread, but I've read some of it, and I think I have a fair grasp of what you're saying. (If I don't, feel free to enlighten me)
Similar threads
