I think it could
I think it couldn't
☮★★☮ Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
really? look man u are debating an ideal that can never be achived as long as greed pride and lust for power are parts of the human dna.socialism,build by the communist party we were suposedly building.i have heard the concepts all my life.is no different to what the church/bussiness concept.they both sell.... utopia.hope.meanwhile the people in power get the entitlement virus,become visionaries and start building their own version.it's...human.
in the usa we have olygarchy.it's not hard to see.
Specifically, I am pointing out that in the U.S., we are already free to establish industry and workplaces where workers have direct control and management (!)
Not only are you factually FREE to do this, right now in the U.S., and have been since it's formation (in most industries), it has been gaining steam lately. A lot of the new tech companies and even an older one (Apple), are demonstrating a different way. However, it's minefiled for the "intellectual" (read, ignorant fool) who tries to then exclaim "the top 5 new big companies use this method, THEREFORE it's the best method and everyone should implement it". Well, no. Tech companies may have a far different worker base, all fairly well educated, analytical, etc., and what may work for them may fail miserably for a call-center. But then, that's why markets always do it best.
Of course, "labor" is a tiny fraction of the economic success. If you knew that, you wouldn't still think of that archaic notion of 'worker labor is the bomb'. That was from a fairly strict era where you had government backed industry that paid slave wages to a large work force...those workers had ever right to rise up against that. Yes, that's what free markets are, the answer to that. Now, you're free to bust the company, sue them, legislate against them, start your own company, compete with them, make a company where you equally share ownership, public ownership, non-profit private, etc., etc. Welcome to the 21st century.
Fortunately, we're free in the U.S. by in large, and I hope we remain so. If I had to live under the rule of half the jack-asses that post on these forums, I would seriously consider an alternative line of work. Maybe time for some V for Vendetta.
Ah, in theory it doesn't literally state that as a goal, maybe. However, in practice, and in a more holistic "theoretical", it appears to mean some sort of single party, authoritarian type regime.Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.
There will be leaders, there will be key figures, they will start to consolidate power for the good of the many. They will seek to protect that power, they will then rule the country, and its people, for the greater good.
Last edited by Mach; 09-22-11 at 03:39 PM.
It does when discussing the term in any meaningful way.Early socialists called for no such thing as ownership being controlled by the state.
Socialism means the workers have direct control and management of the industries/workplace.
Socialism does not mean government or state ownership
A sure sign of a weak argument is when one is forced to resort to conveninet botique definitions of the terms under discussion - such as you have.
And, as you said, you agreed with my defintion "As a basic definition", so your points, and the complaints that stem from them, are moot.
Except that, since socialsim can exist under such a system, you're wrong.It does not mean a closed party run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.
Socislism is an economic system, and therefore can exist under any sort of government.
Thank you for confirming the obvious.Sure we believe in a redistribution of wealth through a progressive tax system.
Redistribution of wealth thru anything other than a fully voluntary system of charity, in and of itself, runs contrary to human nature, as people, given the choice, will only give their wealth to others when they believe it is in their best interest to do so, arrived at by whatever meas. You advocate the removal of that choice, and as such, act in opposition to human nature.
I didnt say anything about the nanny state. Did you read my post?What do you mean by "nanny state"?
Aww. That's special.I believe that homeless people should have the right to shelter. I believe that impoverished people should have the right to some food assistance. I believe everyone has the right to a high school education. I believe everyone has the right to healthcare.
What you fail to understand is that having a right to something is not the same as being entitled to the means to exercise that someting.
You seek not the right - as those rights already exist - but the entitlement to the means.
The entitlement comes thru rediustribuion of wealth, which is, as noted, an indication that socialism runs contrary to human nature.
You certainly know that this is not at all what I mean; your ineffective response indicates that you cannot counter what I said.What do you mean?
Yes you can own producing that wealth as long with the workers.
Under socialism, I -cannot- own or control a means or producing wealth - that is, a for-profit business - and I can neither own/control the means to distribute that wealth, nor keep my wealth from being distributed to others. This absolutely negates the right to pursue happiness.
Your response does not address what I said.You can own property.
You can create wealth through how you do it now. Through work.
Under socialism, I do not have the freedom to own property AND use it to produce wealth.
Your attempt to remove the conjunction indicates that you cannot counter what I said.
As previously noted and left unaddressed by you.How so?
As previously noted and left unaddressed by you.How does it run to the contrary?
Last edited by PzKfW IVe; 09-22-11 at 03:44 PM.
Well. I can see this thread has been going well...
Originally Posted by Wake
Really? So you think the laws of North Korea or Syria currently are made by people whose beliefs are in the majority?
So the law that prohibits restaurants in Wisconsin from serving margarine instead of butter is based on morals?Laws are based on morality, whether religious or secular.
A conditional right, then, is not a right.Originally Posted by fredmertz
Yet I am speaking of situations in which rights are violated specifically not to protect other rights. I don't know why you can't understand that.
You can stop pounding the table with this idea that rights aren't concrete because of the fact that in some situation, a right must be sacrificed to protect itself or other rights. That's just natural order.
Originally Posted by Pfk
No such thing
Originally Posted by Wake
The latter is meaningless without concrete definition.
This is not inherent to humans irrespective of social situation. You are abstracting out illogically.I worked hard for it, I earned it, I deserve it, I don't want to share it with lazy people just because we're citizens of the same nation. Or how about, Mine! Mine! I want more! I want it all! This, sadly, comprises a great deal of human nature......and it generally doesn't fit well with the whole socialist mantra.
Liberal bull****. Small companies turn into corporations.Originally Posted by Zang
LOL yes and "people like to be free" isn't subjective and vague at all.Originally Posted by Gip
Romania under Ceauscesceau was not "socialist".Originally Posted by Fubar
That's the dumbest ****ing thing I've ever heard. Yeah, Romania and the USSR were slave societies. Seriously, go read a ****ing book Jesus Christ.Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist
Originally Posted by Wake
Then you're a huge self-contradicting dunce as the USSR had money and government.Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist
"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."