Conquer Club

OKAY, I wish to let the mods know this is not a spam thread, so don't lock it for "spamming". This is a legitimate time to ask questions on a certain individual to get their opinion of stuff.

BES wrote:its a legitimate topic. if you want to get it locked, i don't care. Socialism is crap and I want you guys to know it.

Why is Socialism crap? There are some downturns that are not possible in todays society, but to say it's crap, it's an over statement. I do not understand why you believe it's crap, it's probably from your up bringing. But what are your reasoning's to believe that Socialism is crap?

Also, Hitler was not a Socialist. Let's just make this clear, okay? Yes, his party was a "National Socialist" party, but only in name. They were fascists, in every sense of the word. Not Socialists.

DO NOT LOCK.

Skittles! wrote:OKAY, I wish to let the mods know this is not a spam thread, so don't lock it for "spamming". This is a legitimate time to ask questions on a certain individual to get their opinion of stuff.

BES wrote:its a legitimate topic. if you want to get it locked, i don't care. Socialism is crap and I want you guys to know it.

Why is Socialism crap? There are some downturns that are not possible in todays society, but to say it's crap, it's an over statement. I do not understand why you believe it's crap, it's probably from your up bringing. But what are your reasoning's to believe that Socialism is crap?

Also, Hitler was not a Socialist. Let's just make this clear, okay? Yes, his party was a "National Socialist" party, but only in name. They were fascists, in every sense of the word. Not Socialists.

DO NOT LOCK.

No, lets make it clear... The Nazi's were a socialist movement. It wasn't just in their name alone. The philosophies and practices were socialist at the core. Everything was for the collective. They controlled their economy at the state level, on and on. Just because they murdered jews and attacked the rest of Europe doesn't mean that they weren't socialists. and just because you are a socialist doesn't mean that you are softhearted and loving person. Hillary Clinton is proof of that.

But frankly I am tired of trying to educate you and the rest of the pinko clan. You will just have to figure it out on your own.

Hey BES... there's some guy called 'Godwin' on the phone for you.

He says you've lost this thread (and the internets).

You also didn't answer my question. Why are you so afraid?

So there are two competing totalitarian systems, Stalinist (and similar) Communism on the far left, and Fascism on the far right. Therefore people who see fault with any system BES doesn't agree with are socialists.

Is this correct?

Bes: Obama is a socialist.
Everyone else: Do you even know what socialism is?
BES: Yes, socialism is what Obama believes in.

WAIT JUST ONE DAMN SECOND HERE.

Where are the Commies and why is there not a rifle in my hand already? All I have is an old-timey torch and pitchfork.

I thought were were storming the monster's castle tonight, but if we're rounding up Commies, so much the better. Let's begin by storming the White House. That won't be misinterpreted in the slightest!

ADVENTURES IN THE SOCRATIC METHOD - In which the great Socrates exposes his opponents ignorance via the power of questioning

Socrates: Bessie, allow me to expose your ignorance using only questions; what is socialism?
Black_Elk_Speaks: Any system of government that doesn't have zero impact on my life, and which doesn't try to stop me from acting selfishly, irresponsibly and dangerously; in other words any type of government that doesn't create a climate in which I am free to sleep on top of a big pile of gold and diamonds while other people starve and die.
Socrates: Oh... well that was easier than I expected.
Black_Elk_Speaks: What was? Taking the Pinko pill that lizardman Obama wants you to swallow?!?!?!
Socrates: Err, yeah, whatever... look, I don't really want to hang around with you any more; can you lend me $.25 so I can get the bus home to Athens?
Black_Elk_Speaks: THAT IS SOCIALISM!!!! YOU FUCKING COMMUNIST NAZI NEO-CON LIBERAL VAMPIRE DEMON!!!1!!1!
Socrates: Dude... you're a douche. Get some help and stop swiping your mother's meds.

*Exeunt*

Snorri1234 wrote:Bes: Obama is a socialist.
Everyone else: Do you even know what socialism is?
BES: Yes, socialism is what Obama believes in.

following on:
- hitler was a socialist
- therefore obama is like hitler
- therefore the US will be like nazi germany in a few years' time

black elk could you check this for me? I want to make sure it's accurate.

BES, do us all and yourself favour and read this please...
http://polisci.nelson.com/glossary.html

Thanks Hector. Your post was really enlightening. I didn't read the entire set of definitions,

socialism A leftist political ideology that emphasizes the principle of equality and usually prescribes a large role for government to intervene in society and the economy via taxation, regulation, redistribution, and public ownership.

I think its funny how your definition paints such a pretty picture of socialism.

To me, the Nazi party used a system such as this as a catalyst for coming to power in 1933, later to become the fascist Nazi party that we all know and love.

...The party grew out of smaller political groups with a nationalist orientation that formed in the last years of World War I. In the early months of 1918, a party called the Freier Ausschuss für einen deutschen Arbeiterfrieden ("Free Committee for a German Workers' Peace") was created in Bremen, Germany. Anton Drexler, an avid German nationalist, formed a branch of this league on 7 March 1918, in Munich. Drexler was a local locksmith in Munich who had been a member of the militarist Fatherland Party during World War I, and was bitterly opposed to the armistice of November 1918 and to the revolutionary upheavals that followed in its wake. Drexler followed the typical views of militant nationalists of time, such as opposing the Treaty of Versailles, having anti-Semitic, anti-monarchist, and anti-Marxist views, and believing in the superiority of Germans who nationalists claimed to be part of the Aryan "master race" (Herrenvolk), but he also accused international capitalism of being a Jewish-dominated movement and denounced capitalists for war profiteering in World War I. Drexler saw the situation of political violence and instability in Germany as the result of the new Weimar Republic being out-of-touch with the masses, especially the lower classes. Drexler emphasized the need for a synthesis of völkisch nationalism, a strong central government movement, with economic socialism to create a popular, centerist nationalist-oriented workers movement that could challenge the rise of communism, as well as the internationalist left and right in general.

On 5 January 1919, Drexler, together with Gottfried Feder, Dietrich Eckart and Karl Harrer, and twenty workers from Munich's railway shops and some others met to discuss the creation of a new political party based on the political principles which Drexler endorsed. Drexler proposed that the party be named the German-Socialist Workers Party, but Harrer objected to using the term "socialist" in the name, the issue was settled by removing the term from the name, and it was agreed that the party was named the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, DAP). In the wake of World War I, monarchy in Middle Europe had collapsed. For centuries the monarch had been the raison d'être uniting the nation. To ease concerns among potential middle-class nationalist supporters, Drexler made clear that unlike Marxists, the party supported middle-class citizens, and that the party's socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to German citizens deemed part of the Aryan race. They became one of many völkisch movements that existed in Germany at the time. Like other völkisch groups, the DAP advocated the belief that Germany should become a unified "national community" (Volksgemeinschaft) rather than a society divided along class and party lines. This ideology was explicitly anti-Semitic as it declared that the "national community" must be judenfrei ("free of Jews")...


...The Party believed that Social Welfare was the business of the State. Before the Nazi movement, the churches administered charity. The government enforced a collection of a 10% tithe which was paid directly to the churches. This charitable bureaucracy was shifted to the State..

Here, we see that Germans were clearly miffed about losing the first world war, and angry at Jews as they seemed to be the worlds economic leaders, keeping them poor. Using socialism as a means to gain political power in post wwI Germany, the Nazi movement ascended to such an authoritarian state that all it took was for one mad man to come in and sweep the party and the country into WWII and some of the most despicable human behavior ever seen on the face of the planet.

Why do I hate Socialism?

Why do I think it Sucks so much as a political system? It shifts power and responsibility from the individual to the state. To me, that creates two things, a state that controls you, and a you that is okay with being controlled.

With the new corporate welfare that is being implemented in our country, it is clear to be that government (people) no longer have confidence in themselves. It is clear to me that we are implementing protectionism to keep everyone feeling safe and secure when what we need to be doing is rolling up our sleeves, brainstorming our best ideas to get out of this mess that bloated government has created, and bring about a positive change in this country that gets people inspired to do the work that they love to do.

But instead, we are sitting around bleakly crying to ourselves "I can't do it, I am incapable."

That may be you skittles, but its not me and its not he country that I want to live in. I do not think that, with the way that unemployment is about to skyrocket (the big three are something like 3 million strong) the people that are actually left employed are going to be able to stomach the incredibly high taxes that are going to be levied to provide for the masses of unemployed when they could just as easily give up their jobs and live off the Government.

Finally!

Looking specifically at the part you highlighted...

Drexler was a local locksmith in Munich who had been a member of the militarist Fatherland Party during World War I, and was bitterly opposed to the armistice of November 1918 and to the revolutionary upheavals that followed in its wake. Drexler followed the typical views of militant nationalists of time, such as opposing the Treaty of Versailles, having anti-Semitic, anti-monarchist, and anti-Marxist views, and believing in the superiority of Germans who nationalists claimed to be part of the Aryan "master race" (Herrenvolk), but he also accused international capitalism of being a Jewish-dominated movement and denounced capitalists for war profiteering in World War I.

That pretty much goes against the biggest part of the definition of socialism.

Socialism wrote:A leftist political ideology that emphasizes the principle of equality and usually prescribes a large role for government to intervene in society and the economy via taxation, regulation, redistribution, and public ownership.

That's the key bit of socialism right there, that everybody is equal and is deserving of equal opportunity. That means that what he's doing can't be socialism, while there are similarities, the fundamental principles are completely different. Kinda like an airplane and a car, they both go places, but the fundamentals of them are completely different. You say you (the people) are 'sitting around bleakly crying to ourselves "I can't do it, I am incapable."', that means that somebody needs to excite the people to say "Yes, we can do it, we can get out of this mess, we can make a difference". Obama seems to have done a pretty good job of that, a lot of people are really passionate about him and whether or not that's a good thing, only time will tell. You can cry about the "pinko commies" all you want, in the end the only thing that's going to matter is what he actually does and nobody knows what he's going to do. I'm not entirely sure they way the system works over there, but here you can try contacting a local representative or what ever to make your views known (I'm positive they don't read the CC Off-Topic boards looking for public opinion) or be active in the community and such to actually try making a difference rather than "I can't do it, I am incapable."

Wow BES, I found something I agree with you on.

Example: I started a business a couple years ago and did not even make 30K last year. I worked a second job. In a few years I should be able to make 6 figures but why should I take the risk and work hard so Obama can spread it around to people who did not invest to make more money? Also, if Obama increase taxes on "evil business" like mine I will not be adding jobs but cutting them and benifits too. Socialism makes you dependent on the state and controls your wealth for you.

Well said BES

PopeBenXVI wrote:Wow BES, I found something I agree with you on.

Example: I started a business a couple years ago and did not even make 30K last year. I worked a second job. In a few years I should be able to make 6 figures but why should I take the risk and work hard so Obama can spread it around to people who did not invest to make more money? Also, if Obama increase taxes on "evil business" like mine I will not be adding jobs but cutting them and benifits too. Socialism makes you dependent on the state and controls your wealth for you.

Well said BES

Because even if the government takes a large portion of your money and "spreads it around", you still get a larger profit than before. That's what I don't get about the outcries against the capital gains tax. Is it a good thing? Probably not. But will it absolutely stop people from investing? No, it won't, because of the total gains made in your investments over the year, the capital gains tax is only taking a percentage of it, and so long as the tax doesn't reach 100%, you're still making money.

Higher taxes may hurt the smaller businesses that don't have a large enough profit margin to make the payments, but if anything, it should encourage the businesses to expand so that they can pay those taxes.

"Socialisim Light" a sort of watered down version has gotten us saturdays off, 8 hour works days and the OSHA. Eugene V. Debs and crew are partially responsible for all of the improvements above.

As usual, the answer is a balance. No, we can't have pure capitalism; no, we can't exactly have pure socialism either. There can be an equilibrium, though at the moment I believe the US is too far capitalist-leaning (though only by a little bit); Europe, on the other hand, is probably too far socialist-leaning. The best is somewhere in between, in my opinion.

Socialism = extreme of economic liberalism (high government control of finances) + social liberalism (low government control of "moral" issues).
Nazi's were also for high government control... but in "moral" issues. Hitler pretty much let businesses do whatever the hell they wanted. As long as people supported his system of social control, he didn't actually try to enact too much economic control. Socialism is about economic control.

InkL0sed wrote:As usual, the answer is a balance. No, we can't have pure capitalism; no, we can't exactly have pure socialism either. There can be an equilibrium, though at the moment I believe the US is too far capitalist-leaning (though only by a little bit); Europe, on the other hand, is probably too far socialist-leaning. The best is somewhere in between, in my opinion.

Why can't you have pure capitalism. People give to charity, hell, socialism is just forced charity for and on everyone anyway.

the problem with this is that once the socialism snowball starts rolling, and government gets expansive power, it becomes stoppable.

black elk speaks wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:As usual, the answer is a balance. No, we can't have pure capitalism; no, we can't exactly have pure socialism either. There can be an equilibrium, though at the moment I believe the US is too far capitalist-leaning (though only by a little bit); Europe, on the other hand, is probably too far socialist-leaning. The best is somewhere in between, in my opinion.

Why can't you have pure capitalism. People give to charity, hell, socialism is just forced charity for and on everyone anyway.

Pure capitalism would be a completely free market, with not only no taxes (to build stuff like socialized roads, socialized libraries, socialized schools, socialized fire departments, socialized police forces, and socialized national defense), but also no restraints or regulations at all.

Why did I say, for instance, "socialized national defense"? Well, because we all pay for something that serves all of us. A privitized national defense, which would exist in "pure" capitalism, would be private militias only, meaning that you'd pay for your own damn defense. Why should I have to pay to keep terrorists away from the lazy poor? "Socialized fire departments"? How many people have a house that burns down? Yet, we all pay for the fire department. With pure capitalism, fire departments would be privatized and for-profit, meaning that you'd pay them to keep you safe from a fire. This would obviously suck, because if a poor person's house caught on fire, then it would burn down without anything to stop it, and it would be very likely to start a city-wide fire.

So obviously, socialism is sometimes necessary. The only debate is how much? Pure socialism would suck as well, nobody is denying that.

Ditocoaf wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:As usual, the answer is a balance. No, we can't have pure capitalism; no, we can't exactly have pure socialism either. There can be an equilibrium, though at the moment I believe the US is too far capitalist-leaning (though only by a little bit); Europe, on the other hand, is probably too far socialist-leaning. The best is somewhere in between, in my opinion.

Why can't you have pure capitalism. People give to charity, hell, socialism is just forced charity for and on everyone anyway.

Pure capitalism would be a completely free market, with not only no taxes (to build stuff like socialized roads, socialized libraries, socialized schools, socialized fire departments, socialized police forces, and socialized national defense), but also no restraints or regulations at all.

Why did I say, for instance, "socialized national defense"? Well, because we all pay for something that serves all of us. A privitized national defense, which would exist in "pure" capitalism, would be private militias only, meaning that you'd pay for your own damn defense. Why should I have to pay to keep terrorists away from the lazy poor? "Socialized fire departments"? How many people have a house that burns down? Yet, we all pay for the fire department. With pure capitalism, fire departments would be privatized and for-profit, meaning that you'd pay them to keep you safe from a fire. This would obviously suck, because if a poor person's house caught on fire, then it would burn down without anything to stop it, and it would be very likely to start a city-wide fire.

So obviously, socialism is sometimes necessary. The only debate is how much? Pure socialism would suck as well, nobody is denying that.

Much as I hate to use the word... Amen.

Wait, no, f*ck that. I'll go with "word up, son!"

Ditocoaf wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:As usual, the answer is a balance. No, we can't have pure capitalism; no, we can't exactly have pure socialism either. There can be an equilibrium, though at the moment I believe the US is too far capitalist-leaning (though only by a little bit); Europe, on the other hand, is probably too far socialist-leaning. The best is somewhere in between, in my opinion.

Why can't you have pure capitalism. People give to charity, hell, socialism is just forced charity for and on everyone anyway.

Pure capitalism would be a completely free market, with not only no taxes (to build stuff like socialized roads, socialized libraries, socialized schools, socialized fire departments, socialized police forces, and socialized national defense), but also no restraints or regulations at all.

Why did I say, for instance, "socialized national defense"? Well, because we all pay for something that serves all of us. A privitized national defense, which would exist in "pure" capitalism, would be private militias only, meaning that you'd pay for your own damn defense. Why should I have to pay to keep terrorists away from the lazy poor? "Socialized fire departments"? How many people have a house that burns down? Yet, we all pay for the fire department. With pure capitalism, fire departments would be privatized and for-profit, meaning that you'd pay them to keep you safe from a fire. This would obviously suck, because if a poor person's house caught on fire, then it would burn down without anything to stop it, and it would be very likely to start a city-wide fire.

So obviously, socialism is sometimes necessary. The only debate is how much? Pure socialism would suck as well, nobody is denying that.

Give me a break. For the most part, I tend to agree that roads and military are legitimate publicly funded services. Fire fighting is too, but if there was no fire department, you would have volunteer fighter fighters like you actually still do in some parts of the country now. there also needs to be a legal system of judges and law enforcement. Sure... those things are needed.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that some taxable services are good. But I strongly oppose such federal oversite that the US government has become, and I believe that the US universal health care approach to the health insurance problems that we have is, simply put, inadequate.

You misunderstand what I meant and I suppose I misunderstood what you meant when talking about pure capitalism. But there can be no doubt that civilization advances more productively when the government is not intruding on the free market.

Pure capitalism would be complete anarchy. Everything any government does is socialist. Paying to defend people from foreign invaders is socialist. Making public schools is socialist. Building roads/public facilities is socialist. Having actual laws and courts to enforce them is the government trying to control us. And then on the other end there's the Soviet Union where the police take you away for putting up a lemonade stand. BES seems to think of any economy that he doesn't like as Socialist. Did BES mention yet that Attila the Hun was a socialist?

On health care, I fail to see the difference between defense against a terrorist and defense against a virus.

black elk speaks wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:As usual, the answer is a balance. No, we can't have pure capitalism; no, we can't exactly have pure socialism either. There can be an equilibrium, though at the moment I believe the US is too far capitalist-leaning (though only by a little bit); Europe, on the other hand, is probably too far socialist-leaning. The best is somewhere in between, in my opinion.

Why can't you have pure capitalism. People give to charity, hell, socialism is just forced charity for and on everyone anyway.

Pure capitalism would be a completely free market, with not only no taxes (to build stuff like socialized roads, socialized libraries, socialized schools, socialized fire departments, socialized police forces, and socialized national defense), but also no restraints or regulations at all.

Why did I say, for instance, "socialized national defense"? Well, because we all pay for something that serves all of us. A privitized national defense, which would exist in "pure" capitalism, would be private militias only, meaning that you'd pay for your own damn defense. Why should I have to pay to keep terrorists away from the lazy poor? "Socialized fire departments"? How many people have a house that burns down? Yet, we all pay for the fire department. With pure capitalism, fire departments would be privatized and for-profit, meaning that you'd pay them to keep you safe from a fire. This would obviously suck, because if a poor person's house caught on fire, then it would burn down without anything to stop it, and it would be very likely to start a city-wide fire.

So obviously, socialism is sometimes necessary. The only debate is how much? Pure socialism would suck as well, nobody is denying that.

Give me a break. For the most part, I tend to agree that roads and military are legitimate publicly funded services. Fire fighting is too, but if there was no fire department, you would have volunteer fighter fighters like you actually still do in some parts of the country now. there also needs to be a legal system of judges and law enforcement. Sure... those things are needed.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that some taxable services are good. But I strongly oppose such federal oversite that the US government has become, and I believe that the US universal health care approach to the health insurance problems that we have is, simply put, inadequate.

You misunderstand what I meant and I suppose I misunderstood what you meant when talking about pure capitalism. But there can be no doubt that civilization advances more productively when the government is not intruding on the free market.

My main point is that those things are examples of good socialism. I don't think socialism is always good, and I definitely wouldn't want our country to be primarily socialist. I think the US is a lot closer to having it right than a lot of places. Capitalism works, and is definitely the best way to go... but we can't automatically reject every instance of socialism, because sometimes it is a good thing.

Ditocoaf wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:As usual, the answer is a balance. No, we can't have pure capitalism; no, we can't exactly have pure socialism either. There can be an equilibrium, though at the moment I believe the US is too far capitalist-leaning (though only by a little bit); Europe, on the other hand, is probably too far socialist-leaning. The best is somewhere in between, in my opinion.

Why can't you have pure capitalism. People give to charity, hell, socialism is just forced charity for and on everyone anyway.

Pure capitalism would be a completely free market, with not only no taxes (to build stuff like socialized roads, socialized libraries, socialized schools, socialized fire departments, socialized police forces, and socialized national defense), but also no restraints or regulations at all.

Why did I say, for instance, "socialized national defense"? Well, because we all pay for something that serves all of us. A privitized national defense, which would exist in "pure" capitalism, would be private militias only, meaning that you'd pay for your own damn defense. Why should I have to pay to keep terrorists away from the lazy poor? "Socialized fire departments"? How many people have a house that burns down? Yet, we all pay for the fire department. With pure capitalism, fire departments would be privatized and for-profit, meaning that you'd pay them to keep you safe from a fire. This would obviously suck, because if a poor person's house caught on fire, then it would burn down without anything to stop it, and it would be very likely to start a city-wide fire.

So obviously, socialism is sometimes necessary. The only debate is how much? Pure socialism would suck as well, nobody is denying that.

Give me a break. For the most part, I tend to agree that roads and military are legitimate publicly funded services. Fire fighting is too, but if there was no fire department, you would have volunteer fighter fighters like you actually still do in some parts of the country now. there also needs to be a legal system of judges and law enforcement. Sure... those things are needed.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that some taxable services are good. But I strongly oppose such federal oversite that the US government has become, and I believe that the US universal health care approach to the health insurance problems that we have is, simply put, inadequate.

You misunderstand what I meant and I suppose I misunderstood what you meant when talking about pure capitalism. But there can be no doubt that civilization advances more productively when the government is not intruding on the free market.

My main point is that those things are examples of good socialism. I don't think socialism is always good, and I definitely wouldn't want our country to be primarily socialist. I think the US is a lot closer to having it right than a lot of places. Capitalism works, and is definitely the best way to go... but we can't automatically reject every instance of socialism, because sometimes it is a good thing.

Jacking up the tax rates and "re-distributing wealth" are the primary problems that I have with what the new administration is going to do. As you and I seem to agree, some degree of publicly funded service should be available. But where we are and where we are heading is slipping into the obscene. Corporate welfare and universal health care are signs that we are losing our capitalist status and turning into another monstrosity of Socialism. I don't think it will be good for anyone in the long term.

black elk speaks wrote:where we are and where we are heading is slipping into the obscene. Corporate welfare and universal health care are signs that we are losing our capitalist status and turning into another monstrosity of Socialism. I don't think it will be good for anyone in the long term.

Yeah man, you're totally right. An economy that doesn't boom and bust is totally not what is good for people! And longer life expectancy for all? Man, f*ck that shit... who the hell thinks that's going to improve anybody's lives?

black elk speaks wrote:socialism A leftist political ideology that emphasizes the principle of equality and usually prescribes a large role for government to intervene in society and the economy via taxation, regulation, redistribution, and public ownership.

Do you really lack basic english comprehension skills? The key part of that is the former bit - it specifies that socialism is a government that stresses egalitarian values, not that intervenes in society etc. The latter half is a usual effect of socialism, but not exclusively of socialism, which is why we have the aforementioned social services (what your taxes pay for).

Screaming "socialist! evil!" when a tax rise is suggested is foolish in the extreme - a reasonable debate (which you're now actually starting to get into, commendably) is to suggest where social(ist) government policies go too far. So far, you've named corporate welfare and public health services as the two harbingers of metamorphosis into your (hugely perjorative, btw) "monstrosity of Socialism". I can assure you that there are a lot of countries in the world with public healthcare that are the better for it, living in one of them (when I'm hit by a car I'm happy that I can get treated at least a little regardless of my current employment status), and corporate welfare is, while often overdone - see debate on subsidising farmers - a big part of ensuring that, for example, your lauded small businesses don't go under as soon as Starbucks/Wal-Mart/whatever influential chain sets up next door, because they don't care about you working it for yourself, they care that you're cutting into their profits.