Socialism. your thoughts?

[Anonymouse]

Did you mean to actually make a point there? I did not see anyone here claim that the SU was not Communism, thus I don't see a reason for you to mention it.

We, the forumers who participated in your thread, all dislike any form of Socialist government - especially Communism. The Socialistic government imagined by Marxist, and attempted by Lenin is a noble notion, but it is not practical.

My point was for Armeniankid. You whine when I respond to your posts saying I "miss the concept" of what you say. Now you are doing the same.

[ArmoBarbi]

*lowers head and eyes in shame* please forgive me.

Just so you know, now you are whining.

[Anonymouse]

*lowers head and eyes in shame* please forgive me.

Just so you know, now you are whining.

So you admit you whined before.

AHA! I have you. Victory is mine!

[ArmoBarbi]

and you admit that you whined just now?

I won't gloat. I do not enjoy petty victories. Nor do I wear diapers.

[Anonymouse]

and you admit that you whined just now?

I won't gloat. I do not enjoy petty victories. Nor do I wear diapers.

No I did not whine. But you did.

[ArmoBarbi]

Btw, I did enjoy your temp avatars. It was a nice change.

[winoman]

I do not falsely blame anything you just cannot accept anything contrary to the prism you have chosen to live in. As I studied history I saw that the 20th century has been the bloodiest decade known to man, that has produced the most destruction.

20th Century you mean - not decade - and sure - no argument - many reasons for such - mostly having to do with larger populations, more destructive power (technology), and that wars were larger because the world has become more interconnected and our technology allows us to get places faster/easier etc etc. BTW - it is very clear that you have pigeonholed your views - not I - such a shame to be so (self) curtailed at such a young age...

When I study I ask questions, I am not levelling a charge simply on socialism. Do you know how to ask questions? Do you know how to expose your dearest views to criticism? Democracy is just as bad in terms of the horrors it produdced in the 20th century, as socialism, be it international or national. The point is that in the 20th century, political systems produced deaths and destruction unseen before. Political systems ranging from socialism, fascism, to democracy, all played a part in their own way in destroying the lives of their own people and others; socialism more so than the initial two.

You are claiming that I have said your claim is just socialism and such - I understand that it is not. I understand your perspective on governments in general and I share you views more then you might think. Still where are the practical alternatives? If governements are so bad (and I agree that they are) - please offer up something better....I do think that Democracy (in its various incarnations) is not so bad as the other systems and has not produced nearly the horrors - just what are you refering to here? You should understand that Democracy is still a very new thing - when Europe exapanded into the new world it was governed by various Monarchys. I also do not agree that either Democracy or Socialism in and of themselves are "destroying the lives of their own people and others" - this is a spurious claim. I thinmk most would agree that our standards of life - and our freedoms are esentially the highest that they have ever been in history - unless you advocate going back to tribal/nomadic/isolated lives etc - which is just not practical/possible/desireable...and even then you have no appreciation for the realities....

What political systems all have in common is that they make the individual subservient to the collective mass.

This has occured since tribes of humans existed - perhaps for all time. One thing that sets humans aprt form other creatures (though not uniquley) is the ability to consider the collective good and not just the indivudual good - of course many mammals do this as well (and of course as well there are insects and such) - anyway this is a natural thing. (normal) Life is about comprimise and is about caring for your family and your community etc - not just going it alone - it just doesn't work that way - and the idea of collectivism is not at all a new copncept. This is why much of your critique and that of those philosphers you love so well is null and viod - it is based on an ideal that never has been and never can be and it is as false and as far removed from reality in one direction as totolitarian communism is the other. Each viewpoint seems to establish certain ideals that apeal to us - but these are so theoretical to have no real bearing on the reality or the totality of factors of peoples lives - each ideal is equally bankrupt. Oh and BTW - you need to get out more...

What characterizes political systems are mass mindedness. Individuals are meant to serve institutions, contrary to the Lockean nonsense that institutions were supposedly meant to serve man.

(the philosophical underpinnings of) Our nation is very heavily based on the Lockean concepts of the rights of man. That is a great strength of this nation - and one that puts it above even most other Democracies that incorporate a greater degree of Statism. Is it fully realized - no - and I agree there are dangers inherent in institutional government. We all need to be aware of them and hold the government to task and if the government strays to far in its quest for supremacy then revolt is warrented (IMO). I don't think we are quite there yet - but there are aspects of government and its bureaucracy that are over the line and we could certainly use some reform in many areas. Bottom line - our government exists to serve the people - this is very clear in our constitution and there are still many mechanisms in place to ensure such. Corruption at various levels is a great problem and your beloved multinationals and such have undue influence over regular people - but thats what you get when the almighty $ drives all eh?

It is a typical leftist liberal cliche to blame everything on "socio-economic" causes as you do. And you do that excellently and then go on to try to resort to ad hominems to vindicate your fallacious beliefs about "socio economic" or "political upheavel". To me this indicates, again, your insecurity with me and my views which is fine, because you have displayed how uncomfortable my views make you. You apparently don't have an idea of what history is, nor the distinction between micro-history or macro-history, for if you knew, you would understand that history can be interpreted from many different perspectives, and it is constantly in motion, changing, and being revised. History doesn't mean anything other than what interpretation one gives it. That is why history is constantly being debated, argued over, some are being silenced for it as Ernst Zundel was in Canada. There is conventional history and official history, then there is the accidental history, or revisionism, etc. There are many different ideas and varieties on what 'history' is, but as Foucault highlighted, it is based on a language of discourse, which is itself based on power relations of who does the speaking, what is being spoken, who is allowed to speak, and how it is spoken about.

Yes socio-economic causes - this is what it is about and has alwasy been about - you are ignorant and a fool to believe otherwise IMO. And political upheaval - societal upheaval and change is the driver (for the atrocities - situations leading to such etc). Are there other takes - sure - but the evidence is clear. Does "history" always reflect perspective (interpretation...changing interpretation etc etc) - sure. OK - we agree... Is "official" history suspect and often more wrong then right? Yes - I agree with that as well! etc - I'm not nearly so ignorant as you might think - no siree...I've studied most of these issues before you were even born - don't forget that...

[Anonymouse]

20th Century you mean - not decade - and sure - no argument - many reasons for such - mostly having to do with larger populations, more destructive power (technology), and that wars were larger because the world has become more interconnected and our technology allows us to get places faster/easier etc etc. BTW - it is very clear that you have pigeonholed your views - not I - such a shame to be so (self) curtailed at such a young age...

I think it is safe to say that you have a very limited knowledge of the things you speak. Although you agree with me above, I would have to say that you yourself have pidgeonholed your views. It's such a shame that at that age one must be so insecure by someone younger.

You are claiming that I have said your claim is just socialism and such - I understand that it is not. I understand your perspective on governments in general and I share you views more then you might think. Still where are the practical alternatives? If governements are so bad (and I agree that they are) - please offer up something better....I do think that Democracy (in its various incarnations) is not so bad as the other systems and has not produced nearly the horrors - just what are you refering to here? You should understand that Democracy is still a very new thing - when Europe exapanded into the new world it was governed by various Monarchys. I also do not agree that either Democracy or Socialism in and of themselves are "destroying the lives of their own people and others" - this is a spurious claim. I thinmk most would agree that our standards of life - and our freedoms are esentially the highest that they have ever been in history - unless you advocate going back to tribal/nomadic/isolated lives etc - which is just not practical/possible/desireable...and even then you have no appreciation for the realities....

You are confusing two things, politics and economics and the two are different things. The west's standard of living and freedoms are not so much due to the fact that it's because of "democracy". Compare that to other countries who have democracy but did not necessarily experience a industrial revolution (Eastern Europe, Russia, Armenia, etc). It is because of its capitalist revolution that took Europe to its take off point. Democracy is not new. The concept has been practiced by the Greeks before. I suggest you read Hans Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed . Many of the socialist movements, such as Hitler's rise, have been due to democracy. In Plato's The Republic he literally described the transition from what looks like Weimar Germany to the National Socialism. In fact, it can be argued that democracy is the root of all the modern socialistic movements, in that it is majoritarian, and represents the subjugation of the individual to the will of the mass and mass mindedness. In it Hoppe argues that Monarchy was far less destructive than the Democracies in the 20th century, and if compared to democracy, is was better, not that he wants monarchy. As far as your contention that ideas don't matter, I disagree. As Mises said, "ideas have consequences", and when these ideas are applied to peoples in social experiments, they do have consequences and they do destroy the self-directed lives of individuals. Another book I urge you to read is F.A. Hayek's The Road To Serfdom. Hayek was comparing two wartime powers, National Socialist Germany and Democratic Socialist Britain. As one reviewer stated accurately, "The comparison, of course, is between a totalitarian socialist state and a democratic socialist state. Hayek shows that the only difference is the degree of benevolence of those leading the two countries; he also shows that, once arbitrary power is handed over, it usually cannot be regained."

This has occured since tribes of humans existed - perhaps for all time. One thing that sets humans aprt form other creatures (though not uniquley) is the ability to consider the collective good and not just the indivudual good - of course many mammals do this as well (and of course as well there are insects and such) - anyway this is a natural thing. (normal) Life is about comprimise and is about caring for your family and your community etc - not just going it alone - it just doesn't work that way - and the idea of collectivism is not at all a new copncept. This is why much of your critique and that of those philosphers you love so well is null and viod - it is based on an ideal that never has been and never can be and it is as false and as far removed from reality in one direction as totolitarian communism is the other. Each viewpoint seems to establish certain ideals that apeal to us - but these are so theoretical to have no real bearing on the reality or the totality of factors of peoples lives - each ideal is equally bankrupt. Oh and BTW - you need to get out more...

In the above paragraph you show that you understand nothing of what I have said or continue to say. The contention is not whether or not collectivism has existed, it always has, as the darker side of human nature. I have not argued for ideals in case you have noticed. I do not believe in ideals. You do. Remember you are the one that believes in the fiction of egalitarianism and a love for Leviathan, not I. It does not get any more idealistic and fictional than that. It is no wonder that you laud collectivism over the individual because you believe in egalitarian fiction and collective fraud. Your belief in these earthly religions is the ideal that has led to the most destruction, exhibited in the 20th century, when people tried by the deaths of millions to erect these earthly utopias. In an absence of religion, the atheists created their own. You have failed to show how my critique is "bankrupt" or has "no real bearing on reality". I have only provided a critique and a historical analysis, I have not given utopian solutions as I do not believe in utopias and idealisms, because I do not believein telling other people how to live their lives. You do. So on this particular point, you are shadow boxing with yourself on that one.

As far as our obsession with collectivist ideologies, it is destroying both the quality and the existence of human life. Society is not stagnant but always moving and progressing, otherwise it would die out. Thus, humanity has always been able to rise above collectivist disasters to find new and more creative ways of life. While we are social creatures, and need one another’s cooperation in order to survive, we are also individuals who require mutual respect for our respective interests. Only the individual is able to generate thoughts, to be creative, to reproduce, to sense pleasure, to love, and to have transcendent experiences. Only the individual has come up with the most fascinating inventions, theories, and ideas that the mob could not have had the faintest clue about. All contributions to mankind from a to z have been because of the individual. Your argument about the collective well being versus the individual is exactly what socialists, marxists and communists use. I am not against collectivism provided that it is voluntary, but you see you do not understand the nature of political systems to understand my critique of it is a normative position. It is based on ethics, and it is no wonder that lovers of the State can't grasp it. You see, collectivism voluntarily is fine but political systems use coercion to achieve collectivist ends, often against the will of individuals. I do not agree with that, but you seem to agree with it. Supporters of this sort of thing are usually supportive so long as it isn't them paying the price.

the philosophical underpinnings of) Our nation is very heavily based on the Lockean concepts of the rights of man. That is a great strength of this nation - and one that puts it above even most other Democracies that incorporate a greater degree of Statism. Is it fully realized - no - and I agree there are dangers inherent in institutional government. We all need to be aware of them and hold the government to task and if the government strays to far in its quest for supremacy then revolt is warrented (IMO). I don't think we are quite there yet - but there are aspects of government and its bureaucracy that are over the line and we could certainly use some reform in many areas. Bottom line - our government exists to serve the people - this is very clear in our constitution and there are still many mechanisms in place to ensure such. Corruption at various levels is a great problem and your beloved multinationals and such have undue influence over regular people - but thats what you get when the almighty $ drives all eh?

I disagree. The Constitution does not mean much aside from being a piece of paper. As evidence one can only view U.S. history and see how it has changed to mean different things over time. And that is the problem with Constitutions - language. Language by nature is fungible. One of the signs of a decadent society is corruption of the language. Every nation, including the USA, is ruled by men, not by laws or constitutions. Liberty is protected by the people, to the extent that they desire liberty. And in the end it's a cultural, rather than a merely political question. The people of today will interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean. We cannot go back or move back to previous phases or thoughts in the history of the country of what the Constitution once meant to those peoples. We can only move forward. This country has grown more Socialistic as time has evolved, and the Constitution has been interpreted more and more to the bias of Federalism. As far as corporations, that have provided the wealth that we have around us. Those corporations that lobby for government, ally with governments and get subsidies I am against. They are not free market players and it only proves to what degree the government will go to interfere in the market process.

Yes socio-economic causes - this is what it is about and has alwasy been about - you are ignorant and a fool to believe otherwise IMO. And political upheaval - societal upheaval and change is the driver (for the atrocities - situations leading to such etc). Are there other takes - sure - but the evidence is clear. Does "history" always reflect perspective (interpretation...changing interpretation etc etc) - sure. OK - we agree... Is "official" history suspect and often more wrong then right? Yes - I agree with that as well! etc -

If you believe the bromide that the only causes are "socio economic" causes that drive change, you are indeed the fool, as you just proved how you yourself pidgeonholed your views. More often than not anything "social" is usually a symptom of some underlying cause. Causes can be attributed to many things, and causes can be found in anything. This explains why history is fungible and open interpretations. Your ignorance of history is seeping, for what triggers these "changes" is the key, not that they are changing. Any twit can look at change and identify it, "Oh look at that socio economic change". To agree that there are many perspectives in history yet then only trumpet that history is nothing more than socio economic changes is indeed a contradiction and shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not nearly so ignorant as you might think - no siree...I've studied most of these issues before you were even born - don't forget that...

Apparently not good enough. I suggest you restudy these things. For your sake.

[winoman]

Mouse - I know that you live in LA...la la land it seems...your critique "political systems" yet you offer us the views of one who champions Monarchy over Democracy? Isn't Monarchy a political system? You call for individual liberty over collectivism - yet I fail to understand how such can be achieved in a Monarchy - where the poeple are at the complete mercy of the (wims of) Monarch (seems like much more of a crapshoot then a state based upon Democratic principles and laws designed to protect the rights of all - etc)...and if in fact you are not calling for Monarchy - then just what is your alternative to Democracy or to "political systems" etc

Politics and economics go hand in hand. Again please propose to us your Capitalist system wthout Democracy....are there laws? How do we get them? Or are you advocating no laws - and no system for people to have a say? Do you propose that the market alone - market forces suffice? Again I fail to see your alternative...anarcho-capitalism - yeah sounds fun - but I'm waiting to see the proposal concerning how it will work (that won't result in slavery for humanity to the unbridled corporate elite).

And I have read and totally reject Hayaks comparsion of Nazi Germany and Britian (as being no different). And I am no fan of the socialist state and draconian central planning (and you claim that politics and economics are two different things? It is you who are claiming to critique political systems - Democracy in particualr - and you provide an attack against socialistic economics!) - Hayak is another of these typical narrow viewed separated from reality types who rail against one particualr evil yet propose something that is even more half baked and undoable. And Hayak has been proven wrong! Social Democracies - for all of their issues - have not turned into the (toltalitarian) Third Reich!

Again - though I share the libertarian ideal - and ideal is what it is - in practical terms one of the necessary functions of government (even if imperfect) is to protect citizens (and if farsighted enough our environment) from exploitation from short sighted - profits are the pinnacle of life types like Hayak and his ilk and the others you love so well. For instance - I have worked with industry and government (and in many ways they are not so different - but that is another discussion) - I have acted as an agent of the US Congress overseeing (checking on) the EPA and State Health/Environmental organizations - and I have spent much time with coporate Environmental types - and not only have I witnessed catching these guys for serious polution and such - I've had them tell me that its there job to circumvent the laws wherever possible and that if they could get away with unbridled pollution they would! So who you gonna call?

You say you don't provide solutions - yeah I agree. Critiques are easy. The world isn't perfect - we do the bast we can. You have no appreciation of this.

All contributions have been by the individual you say. Well yes and no. We do not exist independent of our sorroundings nor can anyone just go it alone - discoveries and innovation are built upon foundations - and often more then one person has been responsible. Funny how individual achievement has managed all these millenia with all these negative collectivist forces that you rage against. Most of what you claim is just pure fiction - it has no bearing on the real world - on how things work and on how things have proceeded and funtioned throughout time. Your (objectionist school) arguments are largely strawman arguments that sound good - echo wonderful utopian ideal (like Marx) but are not relevant for any solution as they fail to consider the totality of society - they (critiscims and observations and cautionary warnings) are only valid in a narrow sense or against some very worst case offenses. Again - I'm not at all convinced that any alternative is really provided - you explicitly fail to do so and claim that you are just minding your own business - well OK - do so then!


So Hitler came about under a Democratic system -Stalin under a totalitarian - I fail to see your point - and in fact you have no point - as my point - these leaders and the environment that allowe them to rise up and to florish were the result of tremendous societal stress and upheaval. And this is the pattern. You obviously fail to truly appreciate the dynamics of history. Why the Vikings began to raid, what spurred the Crusades, even the Turks and later the Mongols to sweep out of the East...and in Modern times - the Genocide of the Armenians can all be accuratly portrayed using this model.

[ArmenianKid]

I think it is safe to say that you have a very limited knowledge of the things you speak. Although you agree with me above, I would have to say that you yourself have pidgeonholed your views. It's such a shame that at that age one must be so insecure by someone younger.



You are confusing two things, politics and economics and the two are different things. The west's standard of living and freedoms are not so much due to the fact that it's because of "democracy". Compare that to other countries who have democracy but did not necessarily experience a industrial revolution (Eastern Europe, Russia, Armenia, etc). It is because of its capitalist revolution that took Europe to its take off point. Democracy is not new. The concept has been practiced by the Greeks before. I suggest you read Hans Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed . Many of the socialist movements, such as Hitler's rise, have been due to democracy. In Plato's The Republic he literally described the transition from what looks like Weimar Germany to the National Socialism. In fact, it can be argued that democracy is the root of all the modern socialistic movements, in that it is majoritarian, and represents the subjugation of the individual to the will of the mass and mass mindedness. In it Hoppe argues that Monarchy was far less destructive than the Democracies in the 20th century, and if compared to democracy, is was better, not that he wants monarchy. As far as your contention that ideas don't matter, I disagree. As Mises said, "ideas have consequences", and when these ideas are applied to peoples in social experiments, they do have consequences and they do destroy the self-directed lives of individuals. Another book I urge you to read is F.A. Hayek's The Road To Serfdom. Hayek was comparing two wartime powers, National Socialist Germany and Democratic Socialist Britain. As one reviewer stated accurately, "The comparison, of course, is between a totalitarian socialist state and a democratic socialist state. Hayek shows that the only difference is the degree of benevolence of those leading the two countries; he also shows that, once arbitrary power is handed over, it usually cannot be regained."





In the above paragraph you show that you understand nothing of what I have said or continue to say. The contention is not whether or not collectivism has existed, it always has, as the darker side of human nature. I have not argued for ideals in case you have noticed. I do not believe in ideals. You do. Remember you are the one that believes in the fiction of egalitarianism and a love for Leviathan, not I. It does not get any more idealistic and fictional than that. It is no wonder that you laud collectivism over the individual because you believe in egalitarian fiction and collective fraud. Your belief in these earthly religions is the ideal that has led to the most destruction, exhibited in the 20th century, when people tried by the deaths of millions to erect these earthly utopias. In an absence of religion, the atheists created their own. You have failed to show how my critique is "bankrupt" or has "no real bearing on reality". I have only provided a critique and a historical analysis, I have not given utopian solutions as I do not believe in utopias and idealisms, because I do not believein telling other people how to live their lives. You do. So on this particular point, you are shadow boxing with yourself on that one.

As far as our obsession with collectivist ideologies, it is destroying both the quality and the existence of human life. Society is not stagnant but always moving and progressing, otherwise it would die out. Thus, humanity has always been able to rise above collectivist disasters to find new and more creative ways of life. While we are social creatures, and need one another’s cooperation in order to survive, we are also individuals who require mutual respect for our respective interests. Only the individual is able to generate thoughts, to be creative, to reproduce, to sense pleasure, to love, and to have transcendent experiences. Only the individual has come up with the most fascinating inventions, theories, and ideas that the mob could not have had the faintest clue about. All contributions to mankind from a to z have been because of the individual. Your argument about the collective well being versus the individual is exactly what socialists, marxists and communists use. I am not against collectivism provided that it is voluntary, but you see you do not understand the nature of political systems to understand my critique of it is a normative position. It is based on ethics, and it is no wonder that lovers of the State can't grasp it. You see, collectivism voluntarily is fine but political systems use coercion to achieve collectivist ends, often against the will of individuals. I do not agree with that, but you seem to agree with it. Supporters of this sort of thing are usually supportive so long as it isn't them paying the price.





I disagree. The Constitution does not mean much aside from being a piece of paper. As evidence one can only view U.S. history and see how it has changed to mean different things over time. And that is the problem with Constitutions - language. Language by nature is fungible. One of the signs of a decadent society is corruption of the language. Every nation, including the USA, is ruled by men, not by laws or constitutions. Liberty is protected by the people, to the extent that they desire liberty. And in the end it's a cultural, rather than a merely political question. The people of today will interpret the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean. We cannot go back or move back to previous phases or thoughts in the history of the country of what the Constitution once meant to those peoples. We can only move forward. This country has grown more Socialistic as time has evolved, and the Constitution has been interpreted more and more to the bias of Federalism. As far as corporations, that have provided the wealth that we have around us. Those corporations that lobby for government, ally with governments and get subsidies I am against. They are not free market players and it only proves to what degree the government will go to interfere in the market process.





If you believe the bromide that the only causes are "socio economic" causes that drive change, you are indeed the fool, as you just proved how you yourself pidgeonholed your views. More often than not anything "social" is usually a symptom of some underlying cause. Causes can be attributed to many things, and causes can be found in anything. This explains why history is fungible and open interpretations. Your ignorance of history is seeping, for what triggers these "changes" is the key, not that they are changing. Any twit can look at change and identify it, "Oh look at that socio economic change". To agree that there are many perspectives in history yet then only trumpet that history is nothing more than socio economic changes is indeed a contradiction and shows that you don't know what you're talking about.



Apparently not good enough. I suggest you restudy these things. For your sake.

if u read my posts right u would see i have been talking about a democratic socialist state this whole time. not once did i say i wanted a totalitarian socialistic government.