PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Socialist or not a Socialist?


jAZ
08-23-2009, 07:02 PM
Are you a "socialist"?

Jenson71
08-23-2009, 07:12 PM
No, but I read the Daily Worker. I'm just well, red. Er, I mean, well read.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2009, 07:14 PM
Yes, and I read the Daily Worker. I'm just well, red. Er, I mean, well read.
fyp

Reaper16
08-23-2009, 07:17 PM
I'm too close for comfort, that's for sure.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2009, 07:28 PM
The poll is flawed since it mixes local taxes and issues with national ones. I can support some of those things locally but not nationally. Like libraries. So it's unclear what is going on here. And they don't ask questions based on what Marx and other socialists wanted exactly. Some do however.

Look at all the things a self described socialist supports that banyon also supports for a match but denies he's a socialist.

banyon
08-23-2009, 07:31 PM
The poll is flawed since it mixes local taxes and issues with national ones. I can support some of those things locally but not nationally. Like libraries. So it's unclear what is going on here. And they don't ask questions based on what Marx and other socialists wanted.

Federalism has nothing to do with socialism.

Having 50 socialist states would be functionally equivalent to having 1 federal socialist country.

jAZ
08-23-2009, 07:32 PM
The poll is flawed since it mixes local taxes and issues with national ones. I can support some of those things locally but not nationally. Like libraries. So it's unclear what is going on here. And they don't ask questions based on what Marx and other socialists wanted.

You want to use *my* tax dollars to build *your* libraries?

Wow.

Jenson71
08-23-2009, 07:35 PM
I guess according to the poll, I am a socialist.

AndChiefs
08-23-2009, 07:40 PM
I guess according to the poll, I am a socialist.

I guess according to the poll 99.99% repeating of everyone in the world is a socialist...

BucEyedPea
08-23-2009, 07:40 PM
I'd also like to clarify that I support a PO but not supported by tax dollars. It should be self supporting since it charges a fee for service.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2009, 07:41 PM
I guess according to the poll 99.99% repeating of everyone in the world is a socialist...

That's a perfect example of the era we live in then.

Pioli Zombie
08-23-2009, 07:43 PM
Fucked up poll. If you answer yes to one thing you're a socialist.
Posted via Mobile Device

BucEyedPea
08-23-2009, 07:45 PM
****ed up poll. If you answer yes to one thing you're a socialist.
Posted via Mobile Device

I don't think so. I think it depends on which ones and how many of them. My thread questions were right from Marx himself but too much to read.

jAZ
08-23-2009, 07:57 PM
I guess according to the poll 99.99% repeating of everyone in the world is a socialist...

****ed up poll. If you answer yes to one thing you're a socialist.
Posted via Mobile Device

That's because a representative democracy is by it's very nature a socalist institution.

Calcountry
08-23-2009, 08:02 PM
Are you a "socialist"?I support tort reform.

How about you jaz?

I support making attorneys do public service if they lose a frivoulous lawsuit, I mean, they shouldn't bring frivolous lawsuits, now should they?

banyon
08-23-2009, 08:07 PM
I'd also like to clarify that I support a PO but not supported by tax dollars. It should be self supporting since it charges a fee for service.

Is that in the Constitution?

Jenson71
08-23-2009, 08:13 PM
Would you say most of these are things that the Congress has done to provide for the general Welfare? I would.

KC Dan
08-23-2009, 08:38 PM
Would you say most of these are things that the Congress has done to provide for the general Welfare? I would.PROMOTE - read it again. You fail

banyon
08-23-2009, 08:51 PM
PROMOTE - read it again. You fail

I don't think that was supposed to be a direct quote, what with the paraphrasing and lack of quotation marks. Just a guess though.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2009, 09:03 PM
PROMOTE - read it again. You fail

He's talking about tax and spend clause that does use the word "provide" not the Preamble. He's still wrong, though, because he has a Hamiltonian interpretation of that being a grant of power to spend on whatever the govt wants....when the Madisonian/Jeffersonian claim is that it's governed by the "specific and enumerated powers" clause instead. So what they can spend on for those reasons is limited. That and the word "general" meant for the good of the nation as a whole not special interests or groups that wants something.

Yet, Jenson claims to be a Jeffersonian at heart. I figure the Father of the Constitution, the man who wrote it, Madison, was correct....that and the fact that Hamilton's ideas were rejected at the original con-con.

banyon
08-23-2009, 09:11 PM
He's talking about tax and spend clause that does use the word "provide" not the Preamble. He's still wrong, though, because he has a Hamiltonian interpretation of that it's a grant of power to spend on whatever the govt wants....when the Madisonian/Jeffersonian claim is that it's governed by the "specific and enumerated powers" clause instead. So what they can spend on for those reasons is limited. That and the word "general" meant for the good of the nation as a whole not special interests or groups that wants something.

What does the fact that people who were at the same convention 200 years ago cannot agree on the meaning of the terms tell you about the certainty of your interpretation?

Yet, Jenson claims to be a Jeffersonian at heart. I figure the Father of the Constitution, the man who wrote it, Madison, was correct....that and the fact that Hamilton's ideas were rejected at the original con-con.

No, another distortion. A few ideas weren't incorporated, which was true for many of the delegates there. Others, particularly those he was instrumental in advocating for later in the Federalist Papers which helped persuade States to support the Constitution were in fact adopted.

Pants
08-23-2009, 09:12 PM
The poll is flawed since it mixes local taxes and issues with national ones. I can support some of those things locally but not nationally. Like libraries. So it's unclear what is going on here. And they don't ask questions based on what Marx and other socialists wanted exactly. Some do however.

Look at all the things a self described socialist supports that banyon also supports for a match but denies he's a socialist.

Do you support agencies like the FDA?

BucEyedPea
08-23-2009, 09:13 PM
Do you support agencies like the FDA?

Read the poll.

banyon
08-23-2009, 09:14 PM
Do you support agencies like the FDA?

it's pretty hilarious that she doesn't support 911 emergency operations either.

Pants
08-23-2009, 09:17 PM
Read the poll.
Oh, sorry.

lol

KILLER_CLOWN
08-23-2009, 09:54 PM
Do you support agencies like the FDA?

Absolutely not in the current form of corruption and chemical company revolving doors.

Pants
08-23-2009, 09:58 PM
Absolutely not in the current form of corruption and chemical company revolving doors.

Still better than nothing.

headsnap
08-23-2009, 10:16 PM
****ed up poll. If you answer yes to one thing you're a socialist.
Posted via Mobile Device
prolly the only time I will agree with PZ...

you could click a whole bunch of those and not come close to reaching the definition of socialist(izm)..

AndChiefs
08-23-2009, 10:26 PM
That's because a representative democracy is by it's very nature a socalist institution.

And here I thought we were a federal constitutional republic....maybe that's just me though.

Velvet_Jones
08-23-2009, 10:29 PM
jAZ - re-defining stupid since 2000. But, at least Jenson is around to make jAZ look smart.

***SPRAYER
08-23-2009, 10:30 PM
I think all communists should be shot.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2009, 10:31 PM
And here I thought we were a federal constitutional republic....maybe that's just me though.

You're right we are. jAZ is wrong but most socialists think we're a democracy.
Afterall Marx said "Democracy is the road to socialism." And sure it enough it's a true statement. If the majority wants something that belongs to others then they can take it.

Taco John
08-23-2009, 10:36 PM
I guess according to the poll, I am a socialist.


You're actually a Marxist.

Velvet_Jones
08-23-2009, 10:36 PM
That's because a representative democracy is by it's very nature a socalist institution.

You are making a big jump here dude. How is confiscating almost 20% of my income for SS and Medicare have anything to do with being a representative democracy? WTF - allow be to have that 20 percent and let me take care of my family. Is that so hard to understand?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-23-2009, 10:40 PM
Democracy Is Not Freedom

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD



“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

~ Ronald Reagan

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena.* Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive – and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state – but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

Reaper16
08-23-2009, 11:08 PM
Democracy Is Not Freedom

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD



“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

~ Ronald Reagan
/stops reading

Taco John
08-23-2009, 11:09 PM
One thing that I like about this thread is seeing socialist embrace their theology. It's about time.

Jenson71
08-23-2009, 11:17 PM
PROMOTE - read it again. You fail

LMAO

You've never read past the Preamble have you, you fucking stooge?

I mean shit, man, if you're going to go with Size 4 fucking font, you better know what the fuck you are talking about, right? Holy fucking hell.

You're actually a Marxist.

You're actually a rapist!

Taco John
08-23-2009, 11:23 PM
You're actually a rapist!

That's amusing to me because you equate your own views, which is forcible socialism, with rape, which is forcible sex.

jAZ
08-23-2009, 11:33 PM
One thing that I like about this thread is seeing socialist embrace their theology. It's about time.

We await your votes.

Jenson71
08-23-2009, 11:36 PM
That's amusing to me because you equate your own views, which is forcible socialism, with rape, which is forcible sex.

I'm equating? No.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about sex. I was talking about something else. You could be 'raping' co-workers in fantasy football. A vulgar term, and one I'm sure anyone who has been raped wouldn't appreciate me using, but my meaning is clear. You can call me anything you want, Marxist, Fascist, Anarchist. It doesn't really matter, because it's not true. Remember, just because you say it's true doesn't mean it is. A lot of times, you're wrong about things, and this is just another example.

How are the shackles today, by the way? Do you make a lot of excuses in life, or is 'the government is keeping me down! I'm only richer than 80% of the country and 99% of the world!' just a bunch of crap you play around with?

stevieray
08-23-2009, 11:48 PM
look at the lines being drawn in the sand...

banyon
08-23-2009, 11:54 PM
You are making a big jump here dude. How is confiscating almost 20% of my income for SS and Medicare have anything to do with being a representative democracy? WTF - allow be to have that 20 percent and let me take care of my family. Is that so hard to understand?

I don't believe he's using the standard definition of socialism. Rather, I think he is attempting to use the half-a**ed vague "I don't agree with them and they are left of center" type of "socialism" that sems to get thrown around in this forum a lot lately.

Taco John
08-24-2009, 12:30 AM
I'm equating? No.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about sex. I was talking about something else. You could be 'raping' co-workers in fantasy football. A vulgar term, and one I'm sure anyone who has been raped wouldn't appreciate me using, but my meaning is clear. You can call me anything you want, Marxist, Fascist, Anarchist. It doesn't really matter, because it's not true. Remember, just because you say it's true doesn't mean it is. A lot of times, you're wrong about things, and this is just another example.


I wouldn't want to call you anything except that which you are. If you read Marx, you'd recognize yourself in his teachings.

Taco John
08-24-2009, 12:35 AM
We await your votes.


You've conflated the issue between federal, states, and localities. Thus, I cannot vote.

But nearly all of the things you mention could be provided privately giving better service at cheaper costs, so I voted for the first one to be a sport.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 12:42 AM
I don't believe he's using the standard definition of socialism. Rather, I think he is attempting to use the half-a**ed vague "I don't agree with them and they are left of center" type of "socialism" that sems to get thrown around in this forum a lot lately.

Technically there is no single standard defenition. There have been a range from my preference (a rationally-organized economy based on science and a reward system based on equal opportunity, individual capacity to perform and results based on your work) to straight-out communism.

One common theme that is a little outdated, but gives you a sense based on the period is "state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production".

Which has an interesting implication on the policy debate around healthcare.

If the state doesn't actually employ the Dr's, even single-payer, medicare for all, universal healthcare system (ie, the one thing that Dems refused to even allow at the table for discussion because it was too radical to be considered)... even that in a key sense, doesn't qualify as "socialism".

Of course, in another sense, ESOP (employee owned stock options plan) companies are in fact socialism.

It's crazy how meaningless that word is in a modern context.

But it's a particularly useful slur by the right... as indicated at how widely used it as a pejorative and how far TJ will go to avoid the realization that he's a socialist as well.

Taco John
08-24-2009, 12:49 AM
But it's a particularly useful slur by the right... as indicated at how widely used it as a pejorative and how far TJ will go to avoid the realization that he's a socialist as well.


This is the big misunderstanding. I am fine with socialism where I get to choose. Insurance companies are a great example. I am happy to participate in these socialist programs where I can cancel if I choose. I'm just against the federal government acting outside of its boundaries to force an entire nation into socialism. Nationalized socialism is destined for failure as has been witness throughout history, despite the modern example in progress where socialist countries have managed to thrive by outsourcing their military protection to the US, and we deflate our dollar to make it happen. It, too, is unsustainable, and is destined to fail.

If a locality wants to install socialism, I'm ok with it. I'm moving, but do what you will. If the federal government wants to do it, I'm voting for congress people who will either reverse it or take back our state power and resist it.

The term "socialism" isn't meaningless at all. It is, I suppose, if you're a socialist and would like to escape that reality.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2009, 07:41 AM
You've conflated the issue between federal, states, and localities. Thus, I cannot vote.

Yup! Question should be how some of that stuff is financed and by which govt. Also questions should be stated using the Ten Planks:


Example:

Do you support a progressive income tax using witholding?
( each according to his ability)

Or even what we're headed for under Obama?
Do you support a heavy progressive income tax using witholding?

Do you support the national govt using taxes to control behavior?
( each according to his ability and needs)
Do you support a minimum wage?
Do you support a living wage?
( each according to their needs,more like communism)
Do you support controls on executive pay?
( each according to his ability)

The three above are price and wage controls.

Do you support creeping nationalization of public schools?
( each according to his ability and needs)

Do you support nationalization of major industries that may go under to save jobs ?
( each according to his ability and needs)

Do you support nationalization of major industries that may go under to save the environment or make environmental friendly cars?
Do you support nationalization of health insurance?
( each according to his ability and needs)
All the questions on medicaid and medicare apply as well as all other welfare including loans for small business paid for by national taxes.

Do you believe in welfare transfer payments paid for by federal income taxes?
Do you support large tracts of land being owned by the Federal govt for any reason including to allegedly save the environment?
Do you support Fanny and Freddie Mae?
Do you support the Community Re-Investment Act?
Do you support govt social engineering in family affairs, gender or race?
1) grants for single mothers or minorities
2) programs designed to remove the mother or one parent from the home
like national day care ( it's coming folks)
3) affirmative action or quotas

....and on and on


JAZ tried to frame the argument so he could win his case before anyone answered. Not unlike many polls on the public at large. In this case base it on a flawed definition that doesn't distinguish between local funding and funding by the national govt.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2009, 07:45 AM
Originally Posted by jAZ View Post
But it's a particularly useful slur by the right... as indicated at how widely used it as a pejorative and how far TJ will go to avoid the realization that he's a socialist as well.
It's not a slur—at all!

It's represents a set of views about govt. The fact that many people in this country don't like it bothers those who adhere to it is all that is happening when they call it a slur. It defines the enemy as far as I am concerned in this country because it flies in the face of the US Constitution which cites not just foreign enemies but domestic as well. That is an oath all the president of the US takes to defend us from as well as the US military.

You've admitted before you're socialist more or less which I respected because it was honest. I know some that also admit it but there are too many here who are in denial. There's a reason most socialists won't admit it, because they're Fabian socialists. Some are just under the spell of Fabianism and don't know it. That's a way of introducing full socialism into a country by doing it on an an incremental basis. Even some Republicans. "Oh, we're only a little bit socialist!" Yeah right, but guess where it ends up? In the same place other socialisms did, only it's not as noticed so it's more effective. Eventually the people like their chains. It's just a covert tactic to cover the truth for a control ideology. Mags like the Nation are in this camp.

JHC libertarians don't mind being called libertarians. Conservatives, which is used as a slur by some on the left, don't mind being called conservatives. But socialists mind being called socialists and that's a slur? Gimme a break! Be honest about it. If those ideas are so good then embrace it openly. Plenty of socialists do. Some won't. They're afraid of opposition is all.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2009, 07:56 AM
This is the big misunderstanding. I am fine with socialism where I get to choose. Insurance companies are a great example. I am happy to participate in these socialist programs where I can cancel if I choose. I'm just against the federal government acting outside of its boundaries to force an entire nation into socialism. Nationalized socialism is destined for failure as has been witness throughout history, despite the modern example in progress where socialist countries have managed to thrive by outsourcing their military protection to the US, and we deflate our dollar to make it happen. It, too, is unsustainable, and is destined to fail.

If a locality wants to install socialism, I'm ok with it. I'm moving, but do what you will. If the federal government wants to do it, I'm voting for congress people who will either reverse it or take back our state power and resist it.

The term "socialism" isn't meaningless at all. It is, I suppose, if you're a socialist and would like to escape that reality.

Yes and I've seen you post pretty much this sentiment before....even if by states in America have used it. ( California)

jAZ
08-24-2009, 08:00 AM
This is the big misunderstanding. I am fine with socialism where I get to choose. Insurance companies are a great example. I am happy to participate in these socialist programs where I can cancel if I choose. I'm just against the federal government acting outside of its boundaries to force an entire nation into socialism. Nationalized socialism is destined for failure as has been witness throughout history, despite the modern example in progress where socialist countries have managed to thrive by outsourcing their military protection to the US, and we deflate our dollar to make it happen. It, too, is unsustainable, and is destined to fail.

If a locality wants to install socialism, I'm ok with it. I'm moving, but do what you will. If the federal government wants to do it, I'm voting for congress people who will either reverse it or take back our state power and resist it.

The term "socialism" isn't meaningless at all. It is, I suppose, if you're a socialist and would like to escape that reality.

Yes, the collectivist tyranny of our military, the interstate highway system, public schools, etc.

I'll give you credit for playing along and being the only person who rejects tax payer funding for everything. While you and I both know that when it comes down to it, that's not reality, and that in truth, you wished you weren't modestly socialist... you are, just like anyone who isn't an anarchist.

Of course, you'd prefer to game the system and gain the systemic benefits of a collectivist tyranny like a nation with a healthy water supply, an invented internet and satalite system, a non-chaotic TV and radio system, a well regulated and high performance banking system like we had for nearly 50 years after the Great Depression and the rest that make for a well oiled and highly profitable economic system that allows you to fit in and profit handsomely while angling to arbitrage away any YOUR costs for such things.

And what's great is that in America, you can call an anti-taxation arbitrage move an idological opposition to tyranny and if you say it loudly enough on a clean enough RF signal or bounded between enough satalites... you might be able to convince a lot of people that its true.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 08:05 AM
I should have included a middle ground poll option between #1 and #2 that read: "I'm a tax arbitraging socialist who welcomes the personal gain of a nation who's 'general welfare' is provided for out of someone else's pocket".

jAZ
08-24-2009, 08:13 AM
It's not a slur—at all!

It's represents a set of views about govt. The fact that many people in this country don't like it bothers those who adhere to it is all that is happening when they call it a slur. It defines the enemy as far as I am concerned in this country because it flies in the face of the US Constitution which cites not just foreign enemies but domestic as well. That is an oath all the president of the US takes to defend us from as well as the US military.

You've admitted before you're socialist more or less which I respected because it was honest. I know some that also admit it but there are too many here who are in denial. There's a reason most socialists won't admit it, because they're Fabian socialists. Some are just under the spell of Fabianism and don't know it. That's a way of introducing full socialism into a country by doing it on an an incremental basis. Even some Republicans. "Oh, we're only a little bit socialist!" Yeah right, but guess where it ends up? In the same place other socialisms did, only it's not as noticed so it's more effective. Eventually the people like their chains. It's just a covert tactic to cover the truth for a control ideology. Mags like the Nation are in this camp.

JHC libertarians don't mind being called libertarians. Conservatives, which is used as a slur by some on the left, don't mind being called conservatives. But socialists mind being called socialists and that's a slur? Gimme a break! Be honest about it. If those ideas are so good then embrace it openly. Plenty of socialists do. Some won't. They're afraid of opposition is all.

You'd have a hard time escaping the notion that this nation is far more socialist than you like it to be. Largely for all of the programs I listed above.

I'm pointing out that there is a disconnect between what we are as a nation (we are nearly all socialists of one degree or another) and what the label is.

Most who use "socialist" as a slur are taking advantage of the wide interpretation of the phrase and using it to brand their target as a "communist". They can have a powerful impact in doing this because the word has no single defenition. So the context provides it.

You don't like it when I label you a socialist, but I absolutely can. Hell you want to use my tax dollars to pay for your library. You are just a socialist as long as it is to your benefit.

BigRedChief
08-24-2009, 08:15 AM
I don't believe he's using the standard definition of socialism. Rather, I think he is attempting to use the half-a**ed vague "I don't agree with them and they are left of center" type of "socialism" that sems to get thrown around in this forum a lot lately.
Same thing as the "liberal" label use to be. I've lived in a socialist enviornment. I know the difference.

In their minds its like....Those people are "socialists" and are out on the extreme so we don't have to listen to them or even consider thir opinions. and btw, keep your damn government hands off my social security and medicare.

Jenson71
08-24-2009, 08:20 AM
I wouldn't want to call you anything except that which you are. If you read Marx, you'd recognize yourself in his teachings.

I have read Marx, and I'm not a Marxist. Your argumentation is pristine.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2009, 08:21 AM
Same thing as the "liberal" label use to be. Those people are "socialists" and are out on the extreme so we don't have to listen to them or even consider thir opinions. and btw, keep your damn government hands off my social security and medicare.

Oh I disagree. Go back and look at where some of these guys who deny they are socialist have placed on some of those political tests done on this board. ( I recall jenson, banyon, jaz's placements clearly) Just on the Nolan Chart they were all pretty much dropping off the left side of the graph in the lower quadrant. That's where you'd place a socialist or where one would end up. It makes perfect sense.

The other thing is, there are others who take these tests ( not just here) who place in that same quadrant who admit they're socialist. I've actually come right out and asked some if they were just by their stands. Two admitted they were communists but felt America wasn't ready for the full thing yet. That's not uncommon to hear from some of them.

You may diss this as anectdotal but those guys were far more intellectually honest than some folks here, the chief culprits being: banyon and jenson.

What you also fail to understand is that there's different kinds. Don't forget one of the first American socialists was actually a successful businessman. There's the Utopians, the syndicalists, the social democrat, Marxist-Lenininists ( what came to be known as communism but was really socialist economics too; they use violent revolution to implement),the Third Way socialist ( Bill Clinton), mixed with some market forces to make it work because it doesn't and on and on. And there's degrees of each kind too.

And don't think Republicans don't embrace some aspects of it just from looking at the poll.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2009, 08:23 AM
I have read Marx, and I'm not a Marxist. Your argumentation is pristine.

You embrace his economic theories just not his social ones. His economics were just a means to an end though. That end was a social one. So beware the consequences of ideas.

Jenson71
08-24-2009, 08:23 AM
I've never taken the Nolan Chart test. More great honesty.

Jenson71
08-24-2009, 08:26 AM
You embrace his economic theories just not his social ones. His economics were just a means to an end though. That end was a social one. So beware the consequences of ideas.

I embrace some of his ideas like a progressive tax. That doesn't make me Marxist. I don't embrace the idea to abolish private property. I'd never want America to be Marxist. I'd never join a Communist party. Etc.

BigRedChief
08-24-2009, 08:27 AM
Oh I disagree. Go back and look at where some of these guys who deny they are socialist have placed on some of those political tests done on this board. ( I recall jenson, banyon, jaz's placements clearly) Just on the Nolan Chart they were all pretty much dropping off the left side of the graph in the lower quadrant. That's where you'd place a socialist or where one would end up. It makes perfect sense.

The other thing is, there are others who take these tests ( not just here) who place in that same quadrant who admit they're socialist. I've actually come right out and asked some if they were just by their stands. Two admitted they were communists but felt America wasn't ready for the full thing yet. That's not uncommon to hear from some of them.

You may diss this as anectdotal but those guys were far more intellectually honest than some folks here, the chief culprits being: banyon and jenson.
as probably the only person here who has actually lived in a true socialist enviornment I can tell you that the system does work with one major caveat, the people in the system have to totally believe in the system and willing to sacrifice thier personal goals for the good of the community.

I can also say with 100% certainity that true socialism will never, ever work in the U.S.A.. We are way too selfish and would never give up our personal liberty's for the sake of our fellow countrymen on a level that would be needed to succeed.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2009, 08:31 AM
as probably the only person here who has actually lived in a true socialist enviornment I can tell you that the system does work with one major caveat, the people in the system have to totally believe in the system and willing to sacrifice thier personal goals for the good of the community.
Yes, but that's also on a small scale and as I understand it's voluntary. I studied psychological angle in Child Psychology in college. It has other bad effects particularly on children due to institutional child rearing. It was found they were less secure. That doesn't surprise me.

It works in religious orders like Jesuits because they take a vow of poverty too. How many people are willing to do that on a large scale? Not many. It's too austere.

BTW it was practiced under Miles Standish too. He had to get rid of it because they nearly starved to death. Again human nature makes it unworkable in practice.

I can also say with 100% certainity that true socialism will never, ever work in the U.S.A.. We are way too selfish and would never give up our personal liberty's for the sake of our fellow countrymen on a level that would be needed to succeed.
Doesn't work anywhere because of the nature of man. It's just propagandized as working. Of course, that depends on how one defines what "works." If it has the social outcome a socialist prefers then it works of course. That would be equal results for all. But it definitely restricts liberty. It's a "control" ideology.

Even Lenin, after a while, had to liberalize his markets due to the failure of socialism. Once it helped though, he closed them thinking it was only a temporary necessary fix but he was wrong. Further, he slaughtered all those that became the entrerpreners or small businessmen. So here's the thing that socialists don't get: once you concentrate so much power in a central govt to do good for the people, you open the door at some point for a mad man to use it destructively. You never know when one will come along. That is why limits on power are essential to liberty. The left loses sight of this.

Nothing wrong with being selfish about one's liberty imo.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 08:35 AM
Same thing as the "liberal" label use to be. I've lived in a socialist enviornment. I know the difference.

In their minds its like....Those people are "socialists" and are out on the extreme so we don't have to listen to them or even consider thir opinions. and btw, keep your damn government hands off my social security and medicare.

And keep those farm and other subsides coming so my rural community doesn't disappear and I can keep away from those communist big cities.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 08:37 AM
( I recall jenson, banyon, jaz's placements clearly) Just on the Nolan Chart they were all pretty much dropping off the left side of the graph in the lower quadrant.

This should be good.

Please bump the thread where you'll find my "Nolan Chart" test that you remember so clearly.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 08:38 AM
I've never taken the Nolan Chart test. More great honesty.

Quiet. She remembers it clearly.

ClevelandBronco
08-24-2009, 08:39 AM
banyon and UP support all of that mess. Huge surprise.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2009, 08:40 AM
Oh and Big Red, even Sweden has had to liberalize her markets due to debt, capital flight, laziness and hi absenteeism of it's workers. I think Norway is another Scandinavian country that has done the same but it could be another. I'd have to look it up. The European countries are floating in high debt and deficits too.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2009, 08:47 AM
I embrace some of his ideas like a progressive tax. That doesn't make me Marxist. I don't embrace the idea to abolish private property. I'd never want America to be Marxist. I'd never join a Communist party. Etc.

That's one of Marx's Ten Planks in his Communist Manifesto.
And it erodes private property.

BigRedChief
08-24-2009, 08:55 AM
Yes, but that's also on a small scale and as I understand it's voluntary.
Yes, the small size is a major compenant to its success. You have 60K to spend. Does everyone get new flat screen TV's or do we replace the ageing tractor? You get everyone in a room and have a public vote. It's easier to compromise with hundreds or maybe a few thousand but get up into millions and our human self indulgence takes over.

You know your friend, you work and live togther, you are social with the other family. You eat dinner together. But if the person lives hundreds or thosands of miles away and they got as much rights/power as you do and they want the new tractor and you wanted that new TV, thats where the system falls apart.

BigRedChief
08-24-2009, 08:57 AM
I studied psychological angle in Child Psychology in college. It has other bad effects particularly on children due to institutional child rearing. It was found they were less secure. That doesn't surprise me.
There have been many studies done on the children raised on the Kibbutz's and most children are much more well adjusted and successful in life after they leave the Kibbutz than the ones raised in the cities.

Bearcat2005
08-24-2009, 08:57 AM
That's because a representative democracy is by it's very nature a socalist institution.

HA! Representative democracy is a vary broad term, Russia has a "representative democracy", Venezula has a "representative democracy" however a liberal democracy in no way shape or form is socialist by nature.

When the state assumes control of production, economic and later political liberalism erodes.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2009, 09:00 AM
Here's Nightfrye's. ( who I consider a libertarian but not per this poll) Yet he's a socialist in jAz's poll?


I win the libertarian extremist award, evidently.

Economic score: +9.1
Social score: -7.04

Your score pegs you as economically extremely capitalist and socially far-leftist.

Extreme capitalists generally believe that the free market should be unregulated and laissez-faire in nature, with government either only intervening in extreme cases or never intervening at all. They also believe in significant reductions of government services. Many extreme capitalists believe that it is not the government's responsibility to assure welfare for the poor, but rather that the poor should fend for themselves or receive welfare through some form of private charity.

Now I'm off to work. Later...

Bearcat2005
08-24-2009, 09:00 AM
BTW, this may have already been addressed earlier in this thread but supporting basic functions of the state such as a military for self defense does not make one a socialist. The defintion of socialist in this "poll" has much to be desired.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 09:15 AM
This should be good.

Please bump the thread where you'll find my "Nolan Chart" test that you remember so clearly.

I've never taken the Nolan Chart test. More great honesty.

I have no idea what the Nolan Chart is, but here's my results from TJ's favorite political test...

Economic score: -2.06
Social score: -6.43

Your score pegs you as economically centre-leftist and socially libertarian.

Economic centre-leftists typically support above average controls on free trade, raising or maintaining the current tax levels, but still support free trade.

Social libertarians generally believe that the government should not judge morality, and are generally against the illegalization of things that do not directly affect other people in a negative way. Many strong social libertarians may also be social progressives, favouring legislation to correct what they see as socially backwards governmental regulation, although some simply wish for the government to make little judgment on social matters.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 09:16 AM
And Political Compass:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77


http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-2.50&soc=-4.77

BigRedChief
08-24-2009, 09:35 AM
And Political Compass:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77


http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-2.50&soc=-4.77
Took the nolan chart. Results are centrist but I think its not a valid way to measure political leanings. There was only 10 questions and because I'm with the right wing on gun control and the use of the military overseas it slanted me towards the right.

Your answers suggest that you are a centrist. The yellow star shows more precisely where you fall within the centrist region of the Nolan chart.
Scores that fall on the centrist border of the chart are considered to be centrist.

stevieray
08-24-2009, 09:40 AM
look! here's what a chart says I am!

lol

jAZ
08-24-2009, 09:50 AM
look! here's what a chart says I am!

lol

You should have the decency to use Buc's name with ridiculing her.

stevieray
08-24-2009, 09:55 AM
You should

ROFL

Taco John
08-24-2009, 10:19 AM
Yes, the collectivist tyranny of our military, the interstate highway system, public schools, etc.

I'll give you credit for playing along and being the only person who rejects tax payer funding for everything. While you and I both know that when it comes down to it, that's not reality, and that in truth, you wished you weren't modestly socialist... you are, just like anyone who isn't an anarchist.

Hahaha! In truth I wished I weren't modestly socialist? Leave it to a liberal to tell me what I want in truth.

In truth, I just want your sticky fingers out of my pocket book forcing me to pay for your guilt when you're not willing to do anything meaningful in your own life to affect the change that you're desperate for. You want to make this discussion about local public services to wash away your guilt over being a socialist now - when we both know that Emergency Services and stop signs are not at all what the "socialist" discussion in this country is about. Nationalizing industries such as the auto-industry and health care is what the discussion is about, and you're pathetically dishonest when you try to pretend that "socialism is a word that doesn't mean anything."

Taco John
08-24-2009, 10:21 AM
I embrace some of his ideas like a progressive tax. That doesn't make me Marxist. I don't embrace the idea to abolish private property. I'd never want America to be Marxist. I'd never join a Communist party. Etc.



You say that you don't embrace the idea to abolish private property. But when you make arguments, they reflect a point of view in which private property may as well be abolished. It would be like me saying that I don't like to eat meat, while munching on a slice of balogna. Yeah, it might not *technically* be meat, but there's meat in there.

ClevelandBronco
08-24-2009, 10:26 AM
"Your answers suggest that you are a libertarian."

But I'm just a hair away from conservative.

Maybe it was my support for gay marriage.

Taco John
08-24-2009, 10:34 AM
"Your answers suggest that you are a libertarian."

But I'm just a hair away from conservative.

Maybe it was my support for gay marriage.



You use a stop sign when you drive. Clearly you're a socialist. See? Socialism doesn't mean anything anymore. Now pay for my guilt!

ClevelandBronco
08-24-2009, 10:51 AM
You use a stop sign when you drive. Clearly you're a socialist. See? Socialism doesn't mean anything anymore. Now pay for my guilt!

Where can I send the check? Or maybe they can deduct it before I pocket it...

ROYC75
08-24-2009, 11:25 AM
Heh, go figure.

Your answers suggest that you are a centrist conservative. The yellow star shows more precisely where you fall within the centrist conservative region of the Nolan chart.

ClevelandBronco
08-24-2009, 11:35 AM
TJ's still the only one here who's made any sense in his answers.

Actually, it's only one answer.

Donger
08-24-2009, 11:37 AM
I really don't understand why the leftists are so afraid of the label of Socialist. If it's what you are and what you propose, embrace it.

KC native
08-24-2009, 11:39 AM
I really don't understand why the leftists are so afraid of the label of Socialist. If it's what you are and what you propose, embrace it.

Probably because liberal doesn't equal socialist. :shrug:

ClevelandBronco
08-24-2009, 11:43 AM
Probably because liberal doesn't equal socialist. :shrug:

But you'd love to be known as populists.

Anything but liberals.

Definitely not democrats.

Donger
08-24-2009, 11:59 AM
Probably because liberal doesn't equal socialist. :shrug:

Is the UK a socialist country?

KC native
08-24-2009, 11:59 AM
Is the UK a socialist country?

No.

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:00 PM
No.

Do you know of any present country which you would describe as socialist?

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:02 PM
Do you know of any present country which you would describe as socialist?

Not really. China's about as close as it comes but they have become state capitalists.

ClevelandBronco
08-24-2009, 12:26 PM
No.

Certainly not Sweden. Nor France. Nor the U.K.

Cuba? No way. Venezuela? Not a chance.

Do socialist/communist dictatorships count?

Can we begin to name African countries without me being labeled as a racist?

Donger
08-24-2009, 12:41 PM
I actually think there are some liberals (see Amnorix) who actually deep down and in the dark don't pine for full-blown socialism. I do think they are a rare breed, however.

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:45 PM
Certainly not Sweden. Nor France. Nor the U.K.

Cuba? No way. Venezuela? Not a chance.

Do socialist/communist dictatorships count?

Can we begin to name African countries without me being labeled as a racist?

I didn't count dictatorships. I was operating under the assumption that the people have some say in their leaders (hence no Cuba reference and honestly didn't think of Venezuela but you are right venezuela is a socialist country).

KC native
08-24-2009, 12:46 PM
I actually think there are some liberals (see Amnorix) who actually deep down and in the dark don't pine for full-blown socialism. I do think they are a rare breed, however.

I don't advocate full blown socialism nor have I ever advocated it. If you could be so kind as to point out where I ever have advocated such a system then I will stand corrected.

Jenson71
08-24-2009, 12:46 PM
You say that you don't embrace the idea to abolish private property. But when you make arguments, they reflect a point of view in which private property may as well be abolished. It would be like me saying that I don't like to eat meat, while munching on a slice of balogna. Yeah, it might not *technically* be meat, but there's meat in there.

Here's a simple analogy I hope you can follow along with:

I like meat, I just don't like any type of it. I like to clean my meat. I don't eat it raw. I cook it. I add seasonings and sauce sometimes.

Jenson71
08-24-2009, 12:52 PM
LMAO

You've never read past the Preamble have you, you ****ing stooge?

I mean shit, man, if you're going to go with Size 4 ****ing font, you better know what the **** you are talking about, right? Holy ****ing hell.



You're actually a rapist!

One fellow on here (not the person who this was addressed to) thinks this makes me an insecure asshole. No, I'm very secure. I'm a very nice person as well. But I'm not afraid of attack. I'm not a passive little sissy that will let anything fly or won't stand up for his convictions and beliefs. That's my right in this country. If speaking up with assertiveness is too much for someone here, then get the fuck off the porch.

KC Dan
08-24-2009, 12:59 PM
One fellow on here (not the person who this was addressed to) thinks this makes me an insecure asshole. No, I'm very secure. I'm a very nice person as well. But I'm not afraid of attack. I'm not a passive little sissy that will let anything fly or won't stand up for his convictions and beliefs. That's my right in this country. If speaking up with assertiveness is too much for someone here, then get the **** off the porch.I'm glad that you clarified as I never thought you were insecure. However, I wonder if others feel the same about the Marine who shared his view in Vancouver (see that thread).

And, yes I have read past the preamble. I would have responded earlier but I am not insecure and will not participate in a &#%$ shouting match like others here. (See KC native-Pete banter thread)

Radar Chief
08-24-2009, 01:02 PM
100.

ROYC75
08-24-2009, 01:02 PM
Are you a "socialist"?

NO.

End of discussion.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 01:21 PM
Hahaha! In truth I wished I weren't modestly socialist? Leave it to a liberal to tell me what I want in truth.

In truth, I just want your sticky fingers out of my pocket book forcing me to pay for your guilt when you're not willing to do anything meaningful in your own life to affect the change that you're desperate for. You want to make this discussion about local public services to wash away your guilt over being a socialist now - when we both know that Emergency Services and stop signs are not at all what the "socialist" discussion in this country is about. Nationalizing industries such as the auto-industry and health care is what the discussion is about, and you're pathetically dishonest when you try to pretend that "socialism is a word that doesn't mean anything."

You'd like to define socialism in such a way that you get to keep the "local public services" that you love to love while seperating yourself from those communist hooligans that think public schools and banking regulations have benefited our own pocketbooks while not driving out private schools or private banking institutions as the fear mongers would want you to believe.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 01:22 PM
I really don't understand why the leftists are so afraid of the label of Socialist. If it's what you are and what you propose, embrace it.

It's what you are too. That's the point.

Donger
08-24-2009, 01:25 PM
It's what you are too. That's the point.

No, that's what you are trying to argue. I support tax payer funded activities, such as national defense, court system, infrastructure.

I do not support tax-payer funded activities that I can provide for myself and my family.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 01:28 PM
I actually think there are some liberals (see Amnorix) who actually deep down and in the dark don't pine for full-blown socialism. I do think they are a rare breed, however.

Wait, there are degrees of socialism?

You mean there might be people (maybe a lot of them) who are socialists without being "full blown" socialists?

That's amazing.

I wonder how that works?

Donger
08-24-2009, 01:29 PM
Wait, there are degrees of socialism?

You mean there might be people (maybe a lot of them) who are socialists without being "full blown" socialists?

That's amazing.

I wonder how that works?

Well, you can look at your boy Obama. He's probably 90% socialist.

As to how it works, the more socialist programs you support, the more socialist you are.

See?

Reaper16
08-24-2009, 01:32 PM
According to the poll, immigration enforcement is more popular than the existence of public schools.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 01:33 PM
I actually think there are some liberals (see Amnorix) who actually deep down and in the dark don't pine for full-blown socialism. I do think they are a rare breed, however.

Wait, there are degrees of socialism?

You mean there might be people (maybe a lot of them) who are socialists without being "full blown" socialists?

That's amazing.

I wonder how that works?

Donger
08-24-2009, 01:34 PM
Wait, there are degrees of socialism?

You mean there might be people (maybe a lot of them) who are socialists without being "full blown" socialists?

That's amazing.

I wonder how that works?

Are you stuttering?

jAZ
08-24-2009, 01:35 PM
Well, you can look at your boy Obama. He's probably 90% socialist.

As to how it works, the more socialist programs you support, the more socialist you are.

See?

So you are a socialist.

Donger
08-24-2009, 01:37 PM
So you are a socialist.

I support tax-payer funded activities that I cannot provide for myself or my family, such as national defense.

So, I suppose one could argue that I'm about 3.5% socialist.

A rather feeble attempt, really.

Saggysack
08-24-2009, 01:43 PM
I support tax-payer funded activities that I cannot provide for myself or my family, such as national defense.

So, I suppose one could argue that I'm about 3.5% socialist.

A rather feeble attempt, really.


Yeah, always figured you at 96.5% Jezza.

Donger
08-24-2009, 01:46 PM
Yeah, always figured you at 96.5% Jezza.

Jezza?

jAZ
08-24-2009, 01:48 PM
So, I suppose one could argue that I'm about 3.5% socialist.

It's what you are, embrace it.

Taco John
08-24-2009, 01:51 PM
You'd like to define socialism in such a way that you get to keep the "local public services" that you love to love while seperating yourself from those communist hooligans that think public schools and banking regulations have benefited our own pocketbooks while not driving out private schools or private banking institutions as the fear mongers would want you to believe.


No I wouldn't. I'm prefectly fine with turning over local public services to private companies to operate. I send my child to a private school, and would just as soon shut down every public school for the greater benefit of America. And government banking regulations amount to the legalization of corruption.

Donger
08-24-2009, 01:52 PM
It's what you are, embrace it.

I fully embrace it. I can't defend my country from attack by another nation. I can provide health insurance for my family, however. So can a couple of hundred million other Americans for theirs.

But, you are aware of this fact.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 01:53 PM
I fully embrace it. I can't defend my country from attack by another nation. I can provide health insurance for my family, however. So can a couple of hundred million other Americans for theirs.

But, you are aware of this fact.

Blackwater says you are wrong.

Mojo Jojo
08-24-2009, 01:54 PM
jAZ,
Are you "Roland99" at DU or do you just copy his ideas?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Roland99/54

Donger
08-24-2009, 01:54 PM
Blackwater says you are wrong.

LMAO

Saggysack
08-24-2009, 01:57 PM
Jezza?

a guy who likes to sit in a lawn chair while hanging out in his garage

tooge
08-24-2009, 03:06 PM
****ed up poll. If you answer yes to one thing you're a socialist.
Posted via Mobile Device

you suck one cock.....

Donger
08-24-2009, 03:10 PM
a guy who likes to sit in a lawn chair while hanging out in his garage

That's not possible. I disposed of my "lawn chair."

MahiMike
08-24-2009, 05:25 PM
I'm for all the above with the exception of NASA. What a fuggin waste.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2009, 05:55 PM
Took the nolan chart. Results are centrist but I think its not a valid way to measure political leanings. There was only 10 questions and because I'm with the right wing on gun control and the use of the military overseas it slanted me towards the right.

Your answers suggest that you are a centrist. The yellow star shows more precisely where you fall within the centrist region of the Nolan chart.
Scores that fall on the centrist border of the chart are considered to be centrist.

I've never agreed with the Nolan Chart either not just because of too few questions but because they attempt to include economics as part of the picture when economics is not a function of our govt even. That is creation and distribution of wealth. More they just grease the wheels and play referee. I think it's also too generous at placing people as centrist then they are not. So I'd shift most people more to the left by another quarter or a third using what our Founders thought was a proper role for govt. Although placing me on the right side I'd say is correct pretty much.

jAZ
08-24-2009, 05:55 PM
jAZ,
Are you "Roland99" at DU or do you just copy his ideas?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Roland99/54

Sort of... I got the idea for the poll from reading this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6376396

So wrong link, right idea.

banyon
08-24-2009, 08:08 PM
I wouldn't want to call you anything except that which you are. If you read Marx, you'd recognize yourself in his teachings.

LOL, like you've really read anything more than paraphrases of Marx.

banyon
08-24-2009, 08:09 PM
banyon and UP support all of that mess. Huge surprise.

Yeah, I support the basic social safety net, crazy huh?

banyon
08-24-2009, 08:12 PM
Oh I disagree. Go back and look at where some of these guys who deny they are socialist have placed on some of those political tests done on this board. ( I recall jenson, banyon, jaz's placements clearly) Just on the Nolan Chart they were all pretty much dropping off the left side of the graph in the lower quadrant. That's where you'd place a socialist or where one would end up. It makes perfect sense.

.

I'm going to need a little more than "refer to my archives" on this, because I don't believe I've ever had such a result on such a test.

Taco John
08-24-2009, 09:05 PM
LOL, like you've really read anything more than paraphrases of Marx.


Not true. I've been through the Communist Manifesto a couple of times. Anyone can download it as an audio book for free:

http://www.booksshouldbefree.com/book.jsp?id=157



And you can reference the text here:

http://www.booksshouldbefree.com/download/text/61.txt



Of course, they're freely available on the Internet, so I suppose they don't count as actual education.

Taco John
08-24-2009, 09:21 PM
Relevant to this thread, here is what Marx writes with regards to this topic:


We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the
working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of
ruling as to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by
degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all
instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the
proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the
total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by
means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on
the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures,
therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable,
but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves,
necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are
unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of
production.

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will
be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents
of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means
of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive
monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport
in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by
the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and
the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a
common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of
industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries;
gradual abolition of the distinction between town and
country, by a more equable distribution of the population
over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.
Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form.
Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

Calcountry
08-24-2009, 09:53 PM
Not true. I've been through the Communist Manifesto a couple of times. Anyone can download it as an audio book for free:

http://www.booksshouldbefree.com/book.jsp?id=157



And you can reference the text here:

http://www.booksshouldbefree.com/download/text/61.txt



Of course, they're freely available on the Internet, so I suppose they don't count as actual education.No doubt it was better education about marx, than a marxist gave me at College. You see, he believed in equality, not excellence, so we all received an A if we attended the class.

He said as much at the beginning of class. Many days, i used the class to get over a hangover.

banyon
08-24-2009, 10:21 PM
Not true. I've been through the Communist Manifesto a couple of times. Anyone can download it as an audio book for free:

http://www.booksshouldbefree.com/book.jsp?id=157



And you can reference the text here:

http://www.booksshouldbefree.com/download/text/61.txt



Of course, they're freely available on the Internet, so I suppose they don't count as actual education.

Yeah, I figured you'd read the pamphlet, that's pretty light reading. It takes probably less than 20 minutes.

Taco John
08-24-2009, 10:24 PM
Yeah, I figured you'd read the pamphlet, that's pretty light reading. It takes probably less than 20 minutes.

Hahaha!

It's THE Communist Manifesto.

It is what it is man. I'd agree that there's not a whole lot of thought to it: an angry class warfarist pissed that the elites are taking advantage of the little man with their bourgeois ideas such as capital, property, and inheritance. The ideas behind it are about as waif as I can imagine. That's why I don't understand why you reasonably smart fellas insist on parroting it, even if it is unintentional.

(by the way - it takes about an hour and a half from front to back unless you're skimming)

banyon
08-24-2009, 10:28 PM
Hahaha!

It's THE Communist Manifesto.

It is what it is man. I'd agree that there's not a whole lot of thought to it. That's why I don't understand why you reasonably smart fellas insist on parroting it, even if it is unintentional.

(by the way - it takes about an hour and a half from front to back unless you're skimming)

It's pretty much like pretending I'm well versed on your Mises guy from reading a couple of message board posts from BEP.

Hell, it wasn't even authored solely by him.

There's a little more complexity to it, which unsurprisingly, doesn't interest you.

Taco John
08-24-2009, 10:32 PM
It's pretty much like pretending I'm well versed on your Mises guy from reading a couple of message board posts from BEP.

Hell, it wasn't even authored solely by him.

There's a little more complexity to it, which unsurprisingly, doesn't interest you.


You're absolutely right. The complex nuance of communism definitely doesn't interest me. I read the "pamphlet" and that was more than enough.

Jenson71
08-24-2009, 11:09 PM
You're absolutely right. The complex nuance of communism definitely doesn't interest me. I read the "pamphlet" and that was more than enough.

Why "pamphlet"?

Taco John
08-24-2009, 11:13 PM
Why "pamphlet"?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5998897&postcount=132

Jenson71
08-24-2009, 11:29 PM
Even if you don't like communism, it's pretty ridiculous to spend your days ranting and raving about some theory that you haven't even read from it's own mouth. You try to come off as some sort of expert on Marx and what Marxism is and what makes a Marxist, but all you're doing is regurgitating what someone else has told you about this subject that you are so passionate about.

You know what that is? It's dogmatic religion.

Taco John
08-24-2009, 11:35 PM
Even if you don't like communism, it's pretty ridiculous to spend your days ranting and raving about some theory that you haven't even read from it's own mouth. You try to come off as some sort of expert on Marx and what Marxism is and what makes a Marxist, but all you're doing is regurgitating what someone else has told you about this subject that you are so passionate about.

You know what that is? It's dogmatic religion.


I've been through the ACTUAL Communist Manifesto twice. What do you want from me?

BucEyedPea
08-25-2009, 04:00 AM
Even if you don't like communism, it's pretty ridiculous to spend your days ranting and raving about some theory that you haven't even read from it's own mouth. You try to come off as some sort of expert on Marx and what Marxism is and what makes a Marxist, but all you're doing is regurgitating what someone else has told you about this subject that you are so passionate about.

You know what that is? It's dogmatic religion.

Pot Meet Kettle

Meanwhile you regurgigate your parents, your profs/textbooks and your own religion which is based on dogma. Come on Jenson.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2009, 04:02 AM
You're absolutely right. The complex nuance of communism definitely doesn't interest me. I read the "pamphlet" and that was more than enough.

It's complex because they plan the lives of millions. ROFL

BucEyedPea
08-25-2009, 04:17 AM
First of all, govt is a group thing, but how much group is necessary where it begins to squash the individual. ( slavery really) Socialism is much more about the group, to the point where the individual is less. ( but uses certain individual liscentiousness to promote the breakdown of the family so more govt can move into to those areas for more individuals dependent on the state) In full blown socialism the group is all. It's a nonsense argument to claim having any govt at all means one is socialist.

I mean one could define "government" as the aggregate irresponsibility of the people. It's the things the people can't , don't or won't take responsibility for. So they have the govt play that role. Too much govt results in less and less responsibilty by the people. Then again govt is an extension of the people which means it only has rights an individual has. So if an individual has a natural right to self-defense then that's where the govt has the right to perform collective defense. If an individual doesn't have the right to go into somebody's wallet with force, then govt doesn't have that right.

Socialism is any system of economic control to level individuals down to equality in outcome. Socialism calls this social justice. It's egalitarianism. It is not the same as equality under the law because it relies on unequal rules for equal results.

Socialism at it's root is the control of the major means of production....that is you and I. It has to do this to bring about equal results. Hence the central planning where the national govt says what we're gonna have, where it's gonna go, who will get what and how much, who will pay and how much. Then the govt allocates those resources through planning. It can control directly threw outright ownership of private property or it can overregulate and overtax for for social engineering, or to create equal or levelled down outcomes. The latter is the same as ownership because it's control using the laws or tax codes. It doesn't mean just some govt....this takes BIG govt, a LOT of it. It's in essence a form of covert slavery. How about a pro-slavery vs anti-slavery poll using some common laws today. Let's see who wants to be our massahs'! ( banyon, jenson for sure)

I mean if we pay 50% now between all taxes, and it may be more, but the rest is paid for with debt, and inflation with our 4˘ dollar then where is our wealth? I'd say that constitute's ownership and destruction of property. Most American businesses today are unproductive due to overleveraging. Soon the Chinese will own our sovereignty ( right to control) because of the interest we have to pay on our debt to them. Obama will eventually need a 70% tax rate for his agenda. I'd say all these things constituted being owned as the major means of production. We're slaves...and jenson and banyon like it.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2009, 04:21 AM
Even if you don't like communism, it's pretty ridiculous to spend your days ranting and raving about some theory that you haven't even read from it's own mouth. You try to come off as some sort of expert on Marx and what Marxism is and what makes a Marxist, but all you're doing is regurgitating what someone else has told you about this subject that you are so passionate about.

You know what that is? It's dogmatic religion.

Why not? You can learn a lot about the subject reading Austrian Economics because they often use it comparitively. One way of learning something is to study it's opposite while pointing out what Marx said, including when it's an error. Afterall, it was Ludwig who found that Marx's error on the "Labor Theory of Value" was derived from Adam Smith, who got it wrong but Marx assumed it was correct. It wasn't. It was through that Marx gained a foothold.

banyon
08-25-2009, 07:58 AM
You're absolutely right. The complex nuance of communism definitely doesn't interest me. I read the "pamphlet" and that was more than enough.

Yeah, your lack of intellectual curiousity or even bravery about reading theories or ideas different than the lockstep ideas you've recently latched onto is definitely your biggest shortcoming in this forum.

banyon
08-25-2009, 08:00 AM
I've been through the ACTUAL Communist Manifesto twice. What do you want from me?

How about reading the actual theory?

The Manifesto is pretty much just a propaganda piece, much like saying you understand Christian theory by reading one of those pamphlets that people leave under your windshields.

Jenson71
08-25-2009, 08:04 AM
I've been through the ACTUAL Communist Manifesto twice. What do you want from me?

Das Kapital, which is where the meat of Marx's economic theories and capitalism critiques come from. And a little respect for Marx and education. He's not a moron. He's one of the greatest philosophers (many philosophers would say the greatest philosopher) of modern times. Any attempt to paint him as some idiot who had no idea what he was talking about is just digging a deeper hole for yourself. People know when you can objectively critique a writing in an intelligent and reasonable manner, and when you're just ranting about vague ideas given to you secondhand.

If I read the title of Friedman's Freedom of Choice, and know he is a capitalist, well I'm going to want freedom, so I'll fight like hell for everything Friedman says (capitalism). That's only rational. But it's superficial. It's lazy. It's not intellectually honest.

Reaper16
08-25-2009, 11:56 AM
He's one of the greatest philosophers (many philosophers would say the greatest philosopher) of modern times.

In my studies of philosophy I have never heard anyone express that opinion.

Taco John
08-25-2009, 12:11 PM
Yeah, your lack of intellectual curiousity or even bravery about reading theories or ideas different than the lockstep ideas you've recently latched onto is definitely your biggest shortcoming in this forum.


Yeah. Intellectual curiosity has been such a problem for me... :rolleyes:

Taco John
08-25-2009, 12:12 PM
Das Kapital, which is where the meat of Marx's economic theories and capitalism critiques come from. And a little respect for Marx and education. He's not a moron. He's one of the greatest philosophers (many philosophers would say the greatest philosopher) of modern times. Any attempt to paint him as some idiot who had no idea what he was talking about is just digging a deeper hole for yourself. People know when you can objectively critique a writing in an intelligent and reasonable manner, and when you're just ranting about vague ideas given to you secondhand.

If I read the title of Friedman's Freedom of Choice, and know he is a capitalist, well I'm going to want freedom, so I'll fight like hell for everything Friedman says (capitalism). That's only rational. But it's superficial. It's lazy. It's not intellectually honest.


Marx was an idiot who has a shallow understanding of the innate selfish nature of the human animal. His theories are crap.

Calcountry
08-25-2009, 12:54 PM
Pot Meet Kettle

Meanwhile you regurgigate your parents, your profs/textbooks and your own religion which is based on dogma. Come on Jenson.That pretty much sizes up my opinion of Jenson.

Calcountry
08-25-2009, 12:56 PM
Das Kapital, which is where the meat of Marx's economic theories and capitalism critiques come from. And a little respect for Marx and education. He's not a moron. He's one of the greatest philosophers (many philosophers would say the greatest philosopher) of modern times. Any attempt to paint him as some idiot who had no idea what he was talking about is just digging a deeper hole for yourself. People know when you can objectively critique a writing in an intelligent and reasonable manner, and when you're just ranting about vague ideas given to you secondhand.

If I read the title of Friedman's Freedom of Choice, and know he is a capitalist, well I'm going to want freedom, so I'll fight like hell for everything Friedman says (capitalism). That's only rational. But it's superficial. It's lazy. It's not intellectually honest.He was for state control, a tyrant. That's all I need to know. Give me Liberty, or give me death.

Jenson71
08-25-2009, 01:39 PM
In my studies of philosophy I have never heard anyone express that opinion.

That he's not one of the greatest philosophers of modern times or that he's not the greatest philosopher of modern times? Marx, Neitzsche, Heidegger, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Mill, Popper, Sartre, Schopenhauer, and Freud and Russell. There aren't as many Marxists as there were in the 60s and 70s, but Marx is still one of the most highly respected philosophers among various fields.

Russell, though not a Marxist, said that "To judge the work of Marx . . . from a narrow economic standpoint, is to overlook their whole body and spirit of their greatness." He called The Communist Manifesto one of the greatest works ever produced on political literature.

Popper took on Marx directly, but never refused respect for his intelligence and ideas. Same with Heidegger with Marx's views on alienation and historical materialism.

Jenson71
08-25-2009, 01:45 PM
He was for state control, a tyrant. That's all I need to know. Give me Liberty, or give me death.

He wasn't for a tyrant. He wasn't for Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao. He was for a society that was govered by the workers, the producers of society, as he saw it. He saw that as the way to bringing true liberty.

Jenson71
08-25-2009, 02:01 PM
Here's the great Melvyn Bragg of the BBC's In Our Time talking with a philosopher, writer, and political scientist on Marx, who listeners (yes, laymen) voted as the greatest philopsher of all time by a pretty good margin. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20050714.shtml You need RealPlayer.

Reaper16
08-25-2009, 02:13 PM
That he's not one of the greatest philosophers of modern times or that he's not the greatest philosopher of modern times? Marx, Neitzsche, Heidegger, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Mill, Popper, Sartre, Schopenhauer, and Freud and Russell. There aren't as many Marxists as there were in the 60s and 70s, but Marx is still one of the most highly respected philosophers among various fields.

Russell, though not a Marxist, said that "To judge the work of Marx . . . from a narrow economic standpoint, is to overlook their whole body and spirit of their greatness." He called The Communist Manifesto one of the greatest works ever produced on political literature.

Popper took on Marx directly, but never refused respect for his intelligence and ideas. Same with Heidegger with Marx's views on alienation and historical materialism.
Marx's historical materialism was probably his greatest contribution to philosophy proper. His revolutionary political and economic ideas are sort of separate from much of the field of philosophy. I mean, everyone else that you mentioned is considered to be very important in numerous sub-fields of philosophy. As a philosopher, I certainly don't think that he ranks up with the other names on your list. He just didn't engage with the traditional questions of philosophy enough.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2009, 06:33 PM
Marx's historical materialism was probably his greatest contribution to philosophy proper.

ROFL It's load of bunk that has wrecked humanity. Suppressive.

***SPRAYER
08-25-2009, 06:34 PM
ROFL It's load of bunk that has wrecked humanity. Suppressive.

"Greatest contribution".

Holy shit, did he really say that????

ROFL

banyon
08-25-2009, 06:37 PM
He was for state control, a tyrant. That's all I need to know. Give me Liberty, or give me death.

Actually, that's not his position at all.

banyon
08-25-2009, 06:37 PM
Yeah. Intellectual curiosity has been such a problem for me... :rolleyes:

In the last year or two, it certainly appears to be.

Brock
08-25-2009, 06:39 PM
He wasn't for a tyrant. He wasn't for Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao. He was for a society that was govered by the workers, the producers of society, as he saw it. He saw that as the way to bringing true liberty.

Too bad he came up with this theory on planet earth, populated by humans.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2009, 06:50 PM
Das Kapital, which is where the meat of Marx's economic theories and capitalism critiques come from.
You don't even need to read that Victorian piece of literature of Dickenesque proportions to understand that he studied the earlier utopian socialists who preceded him and wrote his planks to show the common denominators of the different socialisms. It's still a good yardstick to measure who is a socialist or not or by what degree.

His labor theory of value was eventually debunked in the 20th century. It's BS. Value is subjective and rests with the consumers. If labor results in something costing $5000 but no one wants it on the market it has ZERO value.

And a little respect for Marx and education. He's not a moron. He's one of the greatest philosophers (many philosophers would say the greatest philosopher) of modern times. Any attempt to paint him as some idiot who had no idea what he was talking about is just digging a deeper hole for yourself. People know when you can objectively critique a writing in an intelligent and reasonable manner, and when you're just ranting about vague ideas given to you secondhand.


Marx was a bum and a criminal who formulated a criminal ideology that reflected his inner character. He was NO humanitarian, that's for sure. His life reflected his communist ideals and philosophy. He thought killing was all right to further the cause of communism. He couldn't be trusted for he even turned in his own fellow revolutionaries for money. He opposed any form of religion since it prevented the fulfillment of his communist ideals. ( That should answer anyone's questions as to why so many on the left are anti-religion) He believed man was an animal. Three of his children died of starvation in infancy due to neglect despite being able enough to secure a middle-class job or living off his wealthy industrialist friend Engels. Two other children committed suicide. It's no wonder, he had a mean nasty disposition and was not well liked by many. In other words known to be a tyrant. He was dirty, unkempt and didn't bathe. He squandered his wife's inheritance and lived off of others. A thief who developed a philosophy that has turned millions of others into thieves.

I have no respect for such a person. Before I left London I sought out his grave just to spit on it. I read only 6 people came to his funeral because he was hated as a man. But go ahead worship him as one of your false gods.

banyon
08-25-2009, 06:58 PM
You don't even need to read that tome to understand that he studied the earlier utopian socialists who preceded him and wrote his planks to show the common denominators of the different socialisms. It's still a good yardstick to measure who is a socialist or not or by what degree.

Actually, Kapital isn't about that at all. You may as well have talked about the book by looking at its cover's color. My book has a red cover, that must mean that it meets the 1 paragraph phrased synopsis of it you read about in a LewRockwell forum. Your quote here might conceivably apply to the manifesto, but not really even that.



Marx was a bum and a criminal who formulated a criminal ideology that reflected his inner character. He was NO humanitarian, that's for sure. His life reflected his communist ideals and philosophy. He thought killing was all right to further the cause of communism. He couldn't be trusted for he even turned in his own fellow revolutionaries for money. He opposed any form of religion since it prevented the fulfillment of his communist ideals. ( That should answer anyone's questions as to why so many on the left are anti-religion) He believed man was an animal. Three of his children died of starvation in infancy due to neglect despite being able enough to secure a middle-class job or living off his wealthy industrialist friend Engels. Two other children committed suicide. It's no wonder, he had a mean nasty disposition and was not well liked by many. In other words known to be a tyrant. He was dirty, unkempt and didn't bathe. He squandered his wife's inheritance and lived off of others. A thief who developed a philosophy that has turned millions of others into thieves.

I have no respect for such a person. Before I left London I sought out his grave just to spit on it. I read only 6 people came to his funeral because he was hated as a man.

Someone's ideas are typically judge on their merits and not a thirdhand biographical hit piece with little correspondence to reality. You're blaming his children's suicides on him too? Classy.

Taco John
08-25-2009, 07:01 PM
He wasn't for a tyrant. He wasn't for Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao. He was for a society that was govered by the workers, the producers of society, as he saw it. He saw that as the way to bringing true liberty.


Thus, you've cracked the eggshell that his theories are founded on in four sentences, and demonstrated just how slippery the slippery slope of centralizing all that power is.

I don't care if his modern intellectual equivalents were graceful in their debates with Marx or not. What I know is that his theories ignore the fundamental nature of the human animal in favor of how he wishes they would act under certain circumstances.

Jenson71
08-25-2009, 07:06 PM
Too bad he came up with this theory on planet earth, populated by humans.

I don't disagree entirely.

My biggest problem with Marx and other socialists though is not any disconnect about the nature of humanity (although I think that might be a legitimate criticism), but about what he sees private property as. I believe in the political tradition that sees private property as a twofold good: one, it develops the individual to his greater potential and two, it provides a stake of interest in a communal, self-governing society. And so, I can not, by definition, be a Marxist or follower of the mainstread socialist threads currently.

I've argued with actual socialists about my qualms with the theory, people who are three times smarter than me (no jokes please). I agree with everyone here who thinks Marxism or Communism leads to Mao or Stalin. The historical record is very clear about this. They argue that this is not a formally logical argument against Communism. I think it is pretty rational though.

Communism has fallen, basically for good, but I don't think Marx has fallen. Marx still resonates with us (look at the BBC poll) like Machiavelli or Hobbes. They don't go away even if princes and Leviathans are. And they shouldn't go away! Some of the ideas they wrote are just as important today as they were when they were written. Same way with Marx. Alienation in an industrial society, worker's unions, power, and parties, class struggles, etc. etc. should not be ideas of the past. It would be a sad, horrible world if they were. These ideas need to be promoted and acted upon by a mature society.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2009, 07:06 PM
Marx=evil incarnate

BucEyedPea
08-25-2009, 07:08 PM
I don't disagree entirely.

My biggest problem with Marx and other socialists though is not any disconnect about the nature of humanity (although I think that might be a legitimate criticism), but about what he sees private property as. I believe in the political tradition that sees private property as a twofold good: one, it develops the individual to his greater potential and two, it provides a stake of interest in a communal, self-governing society. And so, I can not, by definition, be a Marxist or follower of the mainstread socialist threads currently.
Pluhease...that sounds like a sense of property that is communistic.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2009, 07:09 PM
"Greatest contribution".

Holy shit, did he really say that????

ROFL

He's gotta be another closet Marxist here. :eek:

Reaper16
08-25-2009, 07:11 PM
ROFL It's load of bunk that has wrecked humanity. Suppressive.
That may or may not be. Either way, its not to-the-point.
"Greatest contribution".

Holy shit, did he really say that????

ROFL
I did. Its an idea that has been talked about and debated frequently. Many great contributions to philosophy have been ideas that have been shown to be utterly wrong. That's not often the point.

Reaper16
08-25-2009, 07:13 PM
He's gotta be another closet Marxist here. :eek:
Oh, seriously? My saying that Marx's (or anyone's) most significant idea with respect to the field of philosophy is _______ means that I endorse that idea?

Jenson71
08-25-2009, 07:16 PM
His labor theory of value was eventually debunked in the 20th century. It's BS. Value is subjective and rests with the consumers. If labor results in something costing $5000 but no one wants it on the market it has ZERO value.

Leaving aside most of your garbage, let me address this point, because you actually say something worthwhile.

But your idea is a little twisted. You don't look at Marx's idea on the labor theory of value, see that it's wrong, and blow him off. You have to realize that Marx, like all philosophers and scientists (he no doubt saw himself as working in a scientific mode), did not write dogmatic religion. He wrote theory. And theory, scientific and philosophic, can be built upon.

It's like Freud today. Everyone knows that Freud is discredited. It's the cool thing to say. Does that make him an idiot, too? Hell no, he was bright. And what Freud did sparked a century and more of psychological anaylsis that is where we are today. Freud should not be looked down upon. He should be looked up to. Freud matters today. His theories were built on, and built on, and built on, in the process doing some reforming, discrediting, disassembling.

But you know what? That's the Western scientific tradition. We should seek to perfect our theories! That's a good thing! It doesn't mean what Marx did was bad. It doesn't mean what Freud did was bad. Not one bit.

Just like Mises built on someone who built on Smith, and someone will build on Mises, and on and on. Mises isn't the final word forever. But he can be one fantastic starting point. I think you would agree.

banyon
08-25-2009, 07:40 PM
His labor theory of value was eventually debunked in the 20th century. It's BS. Value is subjective and rests with the consumers. If labor results in something costing $5000 but no one wants it on the market it has ZERO value.

.

It also is not quite that simple since the labor that constructed such a product would be squandered and also not have any value. No one would hire anyone for it.

Taco John
08-25-2009, 07:41 PM
If Marx's theories weren't based on a fundamental miscalculation of human nature, you might have a great point. But unfortunately for him - and those who lived under the reign of terror that blossomed due to this intellectual "giant," they were. Man is an inherently selfish creature, and the more you subvert this fundamental fact, the more you HAVE to subvert it to maintain order. It's not so much a slippery slope as it is an escalating plunge downward.

I have no interest - certainly no curiosity - to build on the horrible legacy that Marx has left the world except to use it as a contrast indicator to recognize what I don't want to see our society devolve to.

***SPRAYER
08-25-2009, 08:18 PM
If Marx's theories weren't based on a fundamental miscalculation of human nature, you might have a great point. But unfortunately for him - and those who lived under the reign of terror that blossomed due to this intellectual "giant," they were. Man is an inherently selfish creature

Man is flawed...

Original Sin. Of course, the moonbats don't want to talk about that, they would much rather wax poetic about Karl Marx.

Reaper16
08-25-2009, 08:29 PM
Man is flawed...

Original Sin.
Oh, c'mon.

Taco John
08-25-2009, 09:58 PM
I don't know how original sin fits into the picture. What I do know is that man in innately selfish who will always think about his own self interests in contrast with the interests of society. As such, the longer a socialist/communist system goes on, the greater the diminishing return. Eventually, government wants an accounting on those diminishing returns, because in the eyes of government, those returns belong to the collective (which falls in line with Jenson's communal theory of "private" property).

I don't see what there is to build on here except pain, misery, and destruction.

Direckshun
08-26-2009, 12:49 AM
Before I left London I sought out his grave just to spit on it. I read only 6 people came to his funeral because he was hated as a man. But go ahead worship him as one of your false gods.

It's hard to believe you're a real person.

Joe Seahawk
08-26-2009, 03:47 PM
The American people must regain the ability to distinguish between wants and needs and must shed the ridiculous notion that government exists to provide either. Our Constitution -- drafted by men well acquainted with the abusive capacities of a centralized government -- limited the roles and responsibilities of the federal government in order to allow the principle of self-government to flourish in the new nation. Government exists to preserve and protect the sphere of civil freedom within which we can work to meet our needs and our wants. Government does not exist to provide them."
-columnist Ken Connor-

Taco John
08-26-2009, 03:56 PM
The American people must regain the ability to distinguish between wants and needs and must shed the ridiculous notion that government exists to provide either. Our Constitution -- drafted by men well acquainted with the abusive capacities of a centralized government -- limited the roles and responsibilities of the federal government in order to allow the principle of self-government to flourish in the new nation. Government exists to preserve and protect the sphere of civil freedom within which we can work to meet our needs and our wants. Government does not exist to provide them."
-columnist Ken Connor-



This was more or less Ron Paul's platform this last election.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2009, 04:49 PM
It's hard to believe you're a real person.

There are plenty more of me in this country! :D True blue original Patriots which is an alien race to commies like yourself.