Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A strong America will have no issues with such labels and beliefs.
But in times of willful restlessness, judgement, racism, discrimination, and pettiness, these labels take on Pavlovian effect. Emotions will reign supreme, instead of rationality and reason. A quick easy look around shows the approach being pushed these days.
Manipulating the emotions of America is now child's play, and the biggest child of all is at the helm and controls.
A strong America will have no issues with such labels and beliefs. But in times of willful restlessness, judgement, racism, discrimination, and pettiness, these labels take on Pavlovian effect. Emotion will reign supreme, instead of rationality and reason.
One more thing. The minute you adopt a label for yourself, either Socialist, Capitalist, Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or Democrat, you pretty much sacrifice a pursuit of truth in favor of parroting facts that bolster your side--All while ignoring the facts that are inconvenient to your own ideology. On both sides of the political divide. I am amazed by the willful blindness, viciousness, and short-sightedness one finds.
I mean, if you go back and read the intellectual history of America during the 20s, 30s, and 40s, it is astonishing how many on the left swooned over the propaganda of the Soviet Union and how it was creating a worker's paradise. Yet the evidence was abundant that the Communist regime was, in fact, murderous. Untold millions died in either in front of firing squads, in deliberately-inflicted famine as was the case in the Ukraine, or in the masses shipped off to labor and die in the gulags. But there were useful idiots on the American left who ignored the facts, many of them repeating the same mistakes with Mao, Castro, or Chavez. There's no better litmus test to identify a mindless nitwit than someone who has a Che t-shirt or poster, chiefly because he is essentially idolizing a mass murder. Just for fun, next time you see someone wearing a Che t-shirt, ask him if he's in favor of mass executions of political prisoners, the imprisoning of homosexuals, and an host of other outrages. Then watch that person's head explode. For they are in love with the romantic icon of Che while ignoring the atrocities the man committed. They have chosen style over truth when it comes to their ideology.
But the right is equally guilty of ignoring inconvenient facts. I mean, just last decade, we invaded Iraq on non-existent evidence of WMDs. And I do mean non-existent. Saddam was not building nukes. Saddam was not manufacturing nerve gas. And, as a bonus, Saddam was not providing moral, material, or intelligence support to Al Queda. Yet we shot our way into Iraq without a plan for occupation. Even after no WMDs were found and the entire pretext for invasion was exposed as a gigantic sham, a lot of people on the Right simply could not abandon the narrative. As a result, a few thousand of our military died, a few hundred thousand Iraqis died, a few trillion were added to our metastasizing national debt, and an enormous power vacuum was created in the world's most volatile region. Yet there still are the diehards who maintain that we should have gone in.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 01-25-2019 at 11:04 AM..
Reading thru of few of these posts, it's apparent that many confuse issues/definitions:
Socialism/capitalism/communism, are economic systems. The liberal/conservative dichotomy is relative-- it pertains to the philosophies of "free (liberal) to change things" vs "saving (conservate)) the stats quo."
Don't conflate increasing nanny-state social programs with socialism necessarily. Economic systems that favor central planning tend to require that dissent be suppressed, so they tend towards a totalitarianistic political system. In order to appease the proletariat and remain in power, they then tend to rely heavily on providing paternalistic social services.
Libertarianism stands for individual freedom vs totalitarianism, govt control of all aspects of life.
Because the US supposedly stands for individual freedom & capitalism, conservatives should want to preserve that, while liberals would want to change that, ie- move towards socialism/communism and totalitarianism.
I always wondered why more of the genius talking heads on TV didn't make more of BO's promise "to fundamentally change America." What, after all are America's fundamentals?-- individual and economic freedom. How do you move away from that and claim to support America?
Re: intelligence and liberalism-- you gotta be pretty stupid to want to change the formula for success. New Coke, anyone?
The US also supposedly stands for (or used to stand for until a couple of years ago...) egalitarianism and equal opportunity. Libertarians advocate for an end to federal guarantees of equality before the law, and equal access to the ballot box *ahem*. Not to mention: federal safety standards and environmental standards. Libertarianism is code for state's rights.
RE: the underlined; thank you! I posted the same, earlier. Isn't it nice that we see eye to eye on something?
Social Democracy is just a new name for the same old socialism that has been tried over and over. It is just an incremental way of selling the same old failing methods.
Social democracy is a very far cry from the "same old socialism" that tried and failed. A very far cry. Social democracy is capitalism with a heart. The basic economic model at work in social democracy is capitalism. The economic model in Marxist socialism is socialism; a centrally-planned economy. Ideologically, as well, the two are opposites, in some respects. Under the old socialism, everyone had their arms twisted to forge working-class solidarity, irrespective of ethnicity or gender. Indigenous peoples had no rights. Furthermore, professionals were paid close to the same as factory workers--more equalizing going on, there. That is not the case in social democracies.
Some of you need to learn more about actual socialism, before attempting to equate Marxist socialism with capitalist social democracies.
Many authors, labor leaders and/or politicians claimed to have been a "socialist" or "liberal" during the early 1900's or even as late as the 1960's but that must be understood in context. The struggles likely had clearer "bad guys" and "good guys." The "bad guys" were the owners of coal mining or other mining or manufacturing "company towns." Or factories where the workers were locked in, or even tied to their machines so they couldn't take breaks. The consequences, in the case of the Triangle Shirt Waste Factory were gruesome and fatal.
In the early 1900's, when authors such as Jack London wrote or singers such as Joe Hill performed, the industrialists were a pretty raw lot, and that's being kind. Heartless owners paid workers peanuts, and often robbed their meager earnings in charges to live in company towns. Goons enforced the rules. And that was not optional. Thus, books that railed against the power and cruelty of bullies were often written by "socialists" but few could disagree with their message.
One of my favorites, Jack London, wrote a novel White Fang. The protagonist is a dog/wolf hybrid named, appropriately, White Fang. White Fang was bought from Native Americans (called First Nations in Canada) by a person who used the dog as a fighter, "Beauty" Smith. White Fang was "deputized" to fight with just about every dog or wolf that could be found. The dog put in to fight him was invariably ripped to piece, to the wild cheering of drunken crowds. Finally a bulldog was launched into the pen, who grabbed White Fang's throat. When White Fang was almost throttled and near death, a pair of decent people burst in, kicked the offending fight artist and sent the fight promoter sprawling, and then separated the animals and nursed White Fang back to health.While it was a childhood or young adult novel it illustrates what people should do. This is universal.
Appropos of Jack London, I do not think the fact that being relatively conservative makes a difference. No conservative in his right mind would advocate the kind of working conditions and deprivations of rights that were typical during that era.
So, while Jack London presented himself as a "socialist" in this days it was hard for any decent person to be "pro-capitalist"; that meant supporting the Rockefellers, Andrew Carnegie and some almost indescribable brutes.Even in the days of the "I Have a Dream" speech, being "against" what Martin Luther King was advocating was almost unconscionable.
It was far easier to support those "left-wing causes" than transgender bathrooms. The debates are so much harder now.
I'm guessing you haven't read "The Iron Heel" London was a real deal Marxist.
Social democracy is a very far cry from the "same old socialism" that tried and failed. A very far cry. Social democracy is capitalism with a heart. The basic economic model at work in social democracy is capitalism. The economic model in Marxist socialism is socialism; a centrally-planned economy. Ideologically, as well, the two are opposites, in some respects. Under the old socialism, everyone had their arms twisted to forge working-class solidarity, irrespective of ethnicity or gender. Indigenous peoples had no rights. Furthermore, professionals were paid close to the same as factory workers--more equalizing going on, there. That is not the case in social democracies.
Some of you need to learn more about actual socialism, before attempting to equate Marxist socialism with capitalist social democracies.
Exactly.
Under a socialism the state takes away your cow and forces you to work on the collective farm. But under democratic socialism - there is none of that. You are free to keep your cow, but the state will take 70% of the milk and give it to others.
What you socialists fail to understand, is what will happen to the farmer or any other business when majority is depend on his milk and demand more and more to be taken from the farmer. Will he want to get up at 3 am and work 18 hours so in the end of the day he is not better off than someone working 9-5 or not working at all? If there is no profit to be made because democratic majority demands more and more handouts - what ill happen to the business? Have you ever thought of what happens next? I guess, not.
Because the next step for a businessman will be to walk away from his business and go work 9-5 job.
And suddenly there is not enough milk in the country. What do you think happen next? Either government forces the farmer to keep running the farm or nationalize it.
So, how is it different when the outcome will be the same? I know, because under socialism majority just take your cow and that is bad, but under democratic socialism the majority votes to take away your milk so it must be good. It is democratic and with a heart. What can go wrong?
So, while Jack London presented himself as a "socialist" in this days it was hard for any decent person to be "pro-capitalist"; that meant supporting the Rockefellers, Andrew Carnegie and some almost indescribable brutes.Even in the days of the "I Have a Dream" speech, being "against" what Martin Luther King was advocating was almost unconscionable.
Are you sure? Seems like he inspired a lot of unrest, everywhere he went. He was outspoken in opposition to the war in Vietnam. There were skeptics.
“Equality” was & still is, seemingly; a no-brainer. Rockefeller (David) was really big on equality. Huge, actually. Not that he wanted any of us to be considered his equal. Instead, he wanted countries to be equal. Like globalization. Which also sounds noble, for a minute, until:
Quote:
The plan is not to bring the standard of living in less developed countries up to our level, but to bring ours down to meet theirs coming up... It is your standard of living which must be sacrificed on the altar of the New World Order."David Rockefeller-Gary Allen in his book "The Rockefeller File"
So; exactly whose standard of equality were being advocated for, during those decades when it was easy? It’s worth noting that:
-MLK was awarded the Margaret Sanger Award in 1966.
Exactly.
Under a socialism the state takes away your cow and forces you to work on the collective farm. But under democratic socialism - there is none of that. You are free to keep your cow, but the state will take 70% of the milk and give it to others.
What you socialists fail to understand, is what will happen to the farmer or any other business when majority is depend on his milk and demand more and more to be taken from the farmer. Will he want to get up at 3 am and work 18 hours so in the end of the day he is not better off than someone working 9-5 or not working at all? If there is no profit to be made because democratic majority demands more and more handouts - what ill happen to the business? Have you ever thought of what happens next? I guess, not.
Because the next step for a businessman will be to walk away from his business and go work 9-5 job.
And suddenly there is not enough milk in the country. What do you think happen next? Either government forces the farmer to keep running the farm or nationalize it.
So, how is it different when the outcome will be the same? I know, because under socialism majority just take your cow and that is bad, but under democratic socialism the majority votes to take away your milk so it must be good. It is democratic and with a heart. What can go wrong?
This is exactly it. This is why Russia had (and still has) "internal passports", passbooks like in South Africa, that indicated whether someone had a right to live in a city or not. They had to force the farmers to stay on the farm to produce the milk and other agricultural products.
The one concession they made to the farmers, was that they could grow their own food (that they were allowed to keep for themselves or to sell) in a kitchen garden. They were allowed to sell their products in the public markets; in this way, a little bit of capitalism was allowed. These private plots turned out to be the most productive of all. In fact, when China decided to abandon the socialist/communist model, they used these private gardens as the economic model for the country's new capitalism.
A balance needs to be struck, so that people's motive for working won't be eliminated. Still, in the US in the 40's, 50's and 60's, upper-middle class professionals were taxed 65%, but they still were able to live well. They complained about the tax burden, but they were able to live well enough to be happy. Probably 65% is the upper limit of what's tolerable.
This is exactly it. This is why Russia had (and still has) "internal passports", passbooks like in South Africa, that indicated whether someone had a right to live in a city or not. They had to force the farmers to stay on the farm to produce the milk and other agricultural products.
The one concession they made to the farmers, was that they could grow their own food (that they were allowed to keep for themselves or to sell) in a kitchen garden. They were allowed to sell their products in the public markets; in this way, a little bit of capitalism was allowed. These private plots turned out to be the most productive of all. In fact, when China decided to abandon the socialist/communist model, they used these private gardens as the economic model for the country's new capitalism.
A balance needs to be struck, so that people's motive for working won't be eliminated. Still, in the US in the 40's, 50's and 60's, upper-middle class professionals were taxed 65%, but they still were able to live well. They complained about the tax burden, but they were able to live well enough to be happy. Probably 65% is the upper limit of what's tolerable.
The highlighted portion above makes me think of some scenes in Dr Zhivago. The one where he came back and found that his house was turned over to the government for housing people. He was still allowed to live there himself, so it wasn't all bad. So, was he a conservative or liberal? Then there was the scene where he was arrested for tearing slats off of a fence! Was he a liberal or conservative at that point?
This is exactly it. This is why Russia had (and still has) "internal passports", passbooks like in South Africa, that indicated whether someone had a right to live in a city or not. They had to force the farmers to stay on the farm to produce the milk and other agricultural products.
The one concession they made to the farmers, was that they could grow their own food (that they were allowed to keep for themselves or to sell) in a kitchen garden. They were allowed to sell their products in the public markets; in this way, a little bit of capitalism was allowed. These private plots turned out to be the most productive of all. In fact, when China decided to abandon the socialist/communist model, they used these private gardens as the economic model for the country's new capitalism.
A balance needs to be struck, so that people's motive for working won't be eliminated. Still, in the US in the 40's, 50's and 60's, upper-middle class professionals were taxed 65%, but they still were able to live well. They complained about the tax burden, but they were able to live well enough to be happy. Probably 65% is the upper limit of what's tolerable.
Looks like you missed my sarcasm.
You claim that democratic socialism (with a heart) is somehow different from 'real socialism' because you let people to keep 35% of their money. But my point was, that when you declare that wealthy are supposed to share their wealth with less fortunate - it is impossible to stop this from going the slippery slope to the reals socialism. It doesn't matter that you start with a sweet spot of 65% which might bring the most revenues the next year. I am not even going to argue that 65% might work for salary workers, but will never work with investments (since there is a risk to lose capital - there should be an great potential reward to compensate for this risk and most democrats propose even higher taxes on capital gains).
I am not even going to tell you that we are approaching this 65% right now for upper middle class (37% federal taxes + 13% state, plus several % of your income go to sales and property taxes and the total is pushing 60%).
My point is that when you give 65% to your neighbor to provide him/her/they with free housing, free medicine, free food (plus whatever other rights democrats can think up) - that person might not quit his high paying job right away. But some small percentage will. And this will keep going on every year and the process will accelerate with the new generation. When children grow up seeing that there is no need to study hard for 15 years to become an engineer or an architect or a doctor only to pay 65% taxes to support those who don't study or work hard and that you can barely read and work a much simpler job and have pretty similar quality of life - what would be an incentive for them to work hard?
So every year you will have more and more people who decide to quit being productive and more and more people who are slacking. And what happens when there taxes you collect are not enough?
What are the safeguards that won't allow politicians to raise taxes to 75%? 85%?
There is no safeguards. You have a majority of people who got used to the idea that wealthy are responsible for their well being and they will demand them to cough up more and more (to pay their fair share). So eventually you have business closing and less and less tax revenues and less goods produced.
What will the government do next when the milk farmer decides to walk away from his farm?
That was my point. There is no difference between your beloved democratic socialism and 'real socialism'. Because the moment you step on this slippery slope of letting the majority to take away other people's property for their own benefit - there is no going back you end up with Venezuela.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
