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.
I am just wondering how you all would define socialism, and is this something we want and desire in our country? I like Bastiat's definition the best. It is taken out of "The Law", written in the year he died, 1850,giving us a glimpse of how great this country was. It should make a person who lives here today, shudder, at the thought of what free men could be if given the full faculty of his abilities without restraint, and without plunder.
Quote:
The Seductive Lure of Socialism
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.
Socialism is bad for innovation. Why work hard when you have to share it with someone who doesn't ?
You cannot get ahead with socialism because you'd have to drag everyone else with you. Who wants to do that ?
With socialism you have two classes..the wealthy who are above it and everyone else who is put on equal footing.
People need to realize that labels do not make an idea, and that people will do what benefits them the most.
Socialism is a failed Utopian idea from when there were massive inequalities in income, no social services and robber barons colluding to without regulation. It bears very little resemblance to Communism in action, even though it's the closest relative. Ask most people to name a Socialist country and they spout off Communist countries (I did the experiment when I was an undergrad, people were trying to get signatures for the ballet), because there are none (Norway and Sweden come the closest).
People like to claim any redistribution of wealth as socialism, because it has a negative connotation rather then it being actually that idea. It's easier to hate a something if people have a name for it. People who have money don't want it to go to anyone else, people who don't have money want it...it's pretty much the end idea. Some of it could be considered social compassion, such as not letting your grandma live her final years on the street dying of an easily treated medical condition.
The devil is in the details though, everyone has a script for what they think is actually happening on large programs. From bums who just want to shirk to people who could do wonders with a little hand up because of greedy capitalists. Reality is not that cut and dry, nothing human is that easy. I find the people who scream the loudest about labeling things some hated term without consideration are the ones who will loose something, and motivated by self interest and greed (from both extremes). Labeling lets people jump to the conclusion without the hard parts of thinking about it. If some one can stir the masses against it then it's less likely they will look at the instigators motivations.
Socialism in and of itself has been deamonized in this country when much of what we pride ourselves on being is "socialist" in nature. Sharing, having a common bond in loving our country, helping our fellow citizen, pooling our resources in times of crisis etc.. but greed has the biggest voice in America. We're a me, me, me society . We pretend that taxes/sharing/donating prevent the gaining of wealth. The relative small amounts of money that it would take to insure that people we're able to obtain healthcare/good education/shelter and the like wouldn't prevent any ambitious person from acheiving anything. Wealth in America is an institution/fraternity that only accepts a few people per year. The vast majority of folks scrimp and scape to acheive what they perceive to be success in wealth only to find it unattainable. That's not becuase of socialism but because the game is rigged. Some get lucky but most of us will live modest fruitful lives. I really don't understand how having people that are less fortunate than me be healthy and educated is detrimental to our country. They aren't taking anything away from me, I'm gaining. I'm probably not going to get sick or get robbed by a healthy educated person. Thing is, the government will never give anybody wealth but they/we can at least afford everybody an opportunity to be healthy and educated.
People need to realize that labels do not make an idea, and that people will do what benefits them the most.
Socialism is a failed Utopian idea from when there were massive inequalities in income, no social services and robber barons colluding to without regulation. It bears very little resemblance to Communism in action, even though it's the closest relative. Ask most people to name a Socialist country and they spout off Communist countries (I did the experiment when I was an undergrad, people were trying to get signatures for the ballet), because there are none (Norway and Sweden come the closest).
People like to claim any redistribution of wealth as socialism, because it has a negative connotation rather then it being actually that idea. It's easier to hate a something if people have a name for it. People who have money don't want it to go to anyone else, people who don't have money want it...it's pretty much the end idea. Some of it could be considered social compassion, such as not letting your grandma live her final years on the street dying of an easily treated medical condition.
The devil is in the details though, everyone has a script for what they think is actually happening on large programs. From bums who just want to shirk to people who could do wonders with a little hand up because of greedy capitalists. Reality is not that cut and dry, nothing human is that easy. I find the people who scream the loudest about labeling things some hated term without consideration are the ones who will loose something, and motivated by self interest and greed (from both extremes). Labeling lets people jump to the conclusion without the hard parts of thinking about it. If some one can stir the masses against it then it's less likely they will look at the instigators motivations.
You are right about your post here. But free people would not put grandma on the streets, and if they did, they lack moralities. People would come together and build a complex that the grandmas could go and have shelter and food the rest of the days of their lives.
But we have forgotten human compassion. Since she is a grandma, where is her family? I understand the person who has no family, and the need to care for them. I also understand that many, many doctors would give their time freely in caring for them. I personally know people who would "candystripe" in places to help the poor.
But see, this is charity. This is not plunder. Plunder of the masses, for the few always leads to socialism. Why? Because the causes never end. There is always something that needs fixing, according to the elected.
Think about it. Why was Social Security started? Could it be because the lands and production of the people were taken over by the banks? They were left with no way to produce an income, and with no jobs available, they in turn resorted to the "New Deal"? They did not see it was the laws that gave the banks this power. They did not see it was laws that stripped them of their rights. They were left hungry, and powerless.
If socialism was to be the truest form of government, then no man or woman should be allowed to be rich. No man or woman should be allowed any more than the rest, and all should have equal footing. But what of laziness? But what of greed? But what of power? Plunder takes legally from one class to give to another. This is where we are as a country, though since we are in the third generation of living in this society, we are blind to it.
The first generation was hungry. They lost their property, albeit through ignorance, but they still lost it. They had 2 world wars, fighting despotism abroad, while their country they were fighting for was being stripped from under their feet.
The second generation was prosperous. They had the industrial complex churning out the goods that the world needed. Their money was somewhat sound, and they considered paying taxes to be patriotic. The were living the american dream, while the wife raised the kids, dad worked to provide. They owned houses, bought cars, and thought life was good.
But they failed to see what was lost in the happiness of their own domains. They did not see that their fathers had sacrificed their inheritance for a bowl of stew. They were blinded by war, and blinded by hunger. They were the generation, not unlike the Egyptians, who were left working for their new masters after Joseph had taken everything to feed the people. They had a new pharoah, and the president was his name.
The third generation is lost. They are lost in TV. They are lost in games. They are lost in divorce. They are lost in morals. They are lost in education. The dreams of their fathers are not their dreams. The dreams of the founders of this country seem but a lost memory, because they never knew the freedom once shared by all, except the slave.
We need to go back in time to learn the lessons. ALL the way back. If we cannot do this, we remain blind. Go to the bible, even if you do not believe in God. Read the story of how hunger and famine was used by Joseph to enslave a prosperous people. Read how the children of Jacob who were free, were enslaved because their numbers grew too much. Read how freedom was restored to them, but also how they used this freedom to trample over the freedoms of indiginous people of ancient cannan.
We are repeating history, and this time it is much worse. People cannot rise above their masters any more. Why? Because the weapons are too great. They are held in the hands of the few, to rule over those who do not have them. Look at the world today. Why are we after Iran? Because they "might" possess a weapon. What happened to North Korea? We were trying to take them out too, right? To keep them from having the bomb?
Can't now, as they have it. For them, it is stalemate. For us, it is too. When Iran has it, for them it will be too. Then there will be a new enemy. Pick a area, and we will find one. Why? Because we NEED one. This is what the world sees and how they see us. Sadly for sure.
But we must get to the root of the problem, and it is the legal plunder of the masses, by the few. Socialism must go. Property mustt be restored. Even if it means a new revolution. Hopefully peaceful, as peace always has a blessing. But the threat of war should never be removed. It was what our founders said, believed, and died for. They sacrificed everything for this grand experiement. Sadly, they left 2 things on the table,,slavery and tarriffs, and by these two sins, we have lost our republic. The laws that were formed around them, fill volumes. Wake up people! Please.
How about another question- do we love fascism? Cause we are bordering on that now with the republican party.
And which is worse?
And what is Fascism? Neo-fascism is a post-World War IIideology that includes significant elements of fascism. The term neo-fascist may apply to groups that express a specific admiration for Benito Mussolini and Italian fascism or any other fascist leader/state. Neo-fascism usually includes nationalism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism (see definition), anti-communism, and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy. Allegations that a group is neo-fascist may be hotly contested, especially if the term is used as a politic epithet. Some post-World War II regimes have been described as neo-fascist due to their authoritarian nature, and sometimes due to their fascination with fascist ideology and rituals. Neo-fascist movements are more straight-forwardly right-wing than the pre-WWII movements, and have become intertwined with the radical right
and Socialism
In western Europe, particularly in the period after World War II, many socialist parties in government implemented what became known as mixed economies. In the biography of the 1945 UK Labour Party Prime Minister Clement Attlee, Francis Beckett states: "the government... wanted what would become known as a mixed economy".[60] Beckett also states that "Everyone called the 1945 government 'socialist'." These governments nationalised major and economically vital industries while permitting a free market to continue in the rest. These were most often monopolistic or infrastructural industries like mail, railways, power and other utilities. In some instances a number of small, competing and often relatively poorly financed companies in the same sector were nationalised to form one government monopoly for the purpose of competent management, of economic rescue.
Last edited by xyz affair; 10-17-2009 at 10:32 AM..
Being a little socialist is equivalent to being a little pregnant.
Then America has been pregnant since before it was even a country.
Any society of people is a social endeavor. Are we as socialist as the Netherlands or even Canada, no, but it is also impossible to live every man for himself.
Every time we call a cop, the ambulance, drive on a highway, form a military, buy or sell products are all forms of socialized behavior.
Now what I expect the response to this to be is that the above examples are not really socialism in action but products of _______ (insert own rationalization)
The issue here is more about absolutism as you pointed out, "You can't be a little bit preggers". It is as though there is some line in the sand that is socialism on one side and whatever on the other. It doesn't exist, there is no line in the sand, we are socialist and have been since the first colony was started in the Americas.
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.
