PDA

View Full Version : Socialism Questions


True_Avery
02-23-2010, 07:36 PM
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/child-support-subpoena-reveals-palins-grandson-on-socialized-medicine/
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/20/839027/-Palin-grandson-is-socialized-medicine-victim.-
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978063541&grpId=3659174697244816

Tripp's grandfather Todd is a descendant of the Yup'ik Eskimo, and thus, his children and grandchildren are registered with the Curyung Tribal Council, part of the Bristol Bay Native Association. Further, this means they are eligible for government-run health insurance through the Indian Health Service.

Bristol Palin's lawyers argued that exemptions claimed by Johnston's attorneys were invalid due to Tripp's health coverage by the IHS. On page eight of the court documents:

"There are two reasons why this request should be rejected. First, Levi has never paid for any health insurance. One cannot seek deduction for costs or support one has never paid. Second, this insurance is unnecessary. Tripp is an enrolled member of Curyung Tribal Council within the Bristol Bay Native Association consortium. Because the majority of Tripp's health care costs are already covered by IHS and the Alaska Native Medical Center, Mr. Johnston has no need to purchase additional health insurance and his deduction should not be allowed."

------

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/health_care_for_the_us_congress
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Health_Benefits_Program

"As soon as members of Congress are sworn in, they may participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The program offers an assortment of health plans from which to choose, including fee-for-service, point-of-service, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). In addition, Congress members can also insure their spouses and their dependents."

"The FEBHP's cost is about $40 billion in 2010, including both premiums and out-of-pocket costs. It enrolls about 4 million employees and annuitants and, with their dependents, 8 million persons in total."

"Choices among health plans are available to employees during an "open enrollment" period, or "open season," after which the employee will be covered fully in any plan he or she chooses without limitations regarding pre-existing conditions."

“Members of Congress have their own pharmacy, right in the Capitol. They also have a team of doctors, technicians and nurses standing by in case something busts in a filibuster. They can get a physical exam, an X-ray or an electrocardiogram, without leaving work.”

"The employer* pays an amount up to 72 percent of the average plan premium for self-only or family coverage (not to exceed 75 percent of the premium for the selected plan), and the employee pays the rest."

*Note: The Employer being the Tax Payers

"In enacting the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003, the Congress explicitly modeled the reformed Medicare Advantage program and the new Medicare Part D Prescription Drug program after the FEHBP."

-------------

So... Socialist Health Care is evil then why are we allowing our government officials the option of socialist government-run health care? Shouldn't Sarah and the rest of us being trying our hardest to get Tripp out of a system that, she claims, is evil? If Dick Cheney hates Socialist Health Care so much, then why is he currently using his own to fix his latest heart attack?

If Socialist Health Care is so bad, then why did Rush Limbaugh praise Hawaii's progressive Health Care system after getting a heart checkup and then, when he was called out for it, turned around and said "no, wait, it does suck after all"?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010610/content/01125106.guest.html

Isn't the saying, "You can't have your cake and eat it too"? Can they go to the conventions and so on and rail on socialism and death panels while they ride the health care gravy train on my tax money? Can they say that socialist health care is evil, but be fine with their grandson using socialist health care right under their nose especially when they're a millionaire and a former federal official using government run health care?

Congress and governor Seats, sure, but then you've got police, firemen, street repair, road building, public schooling, and so on using tax money for socialist means. Hell, aren't taxes socialist by today's current political standards? Shouldn't we close down public schools since the teachers are running on socialist funding? How about the police force? They're paid in tax dollars and their Health Care is paid by the state. Do I really want to be driving on a freeway created by the socialist agenda? How about those socialist libraries?

Do I really want a military running almost entirely on socialism? Shouldn't the entire thing be capitalist? Are we not crippling our military by powering it with our tax dollars? And why are veterans whining about injuries? Shouldn't they pay for their own mistakes?

So, why the hypocrisy?

Seriously, I must be missing something because this just doesn't seem right at all. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, demeaning, etc. I'm genuinely curious at why we allow something that is apparently so incredibly evil. I know there are plenty of people on this board against socialism, so I'd like to hear your take.

Speaking of which:

To all citizens outside the United States running on Socialism:

How are your Death Panels run?
How many mentally disabled people do you execute on a daily basis?
Are older citizens given a choice, or are they killed on the spot?
How long was the longest you had to wait for care?
How crippling are your taxes overall?
How many dead people are in the clinic lobby's on average?
Are you allowed property?
How many kids are you allowed to have?
How long have you been a communist?
How long have you hated Jesus?

You think I'm joking? I listen to Glenn, Rush, Fox, and watch the Republican speakers so I'm straight faced asking you all how terrible your lives are. Feel free to correct me, but from my understanding those are all completely valid questions.

Pavlos
02-23-2010, 08:37 PM
How are your Death Panels run?
Weekly meetings: there's a government target of three hundred deaths a week but the current average is unfortunately just shy of 200 (another New Labour failure, I say). We mostly pick from out of the white Anglo-Saxon middle classes, generally protestants. The board is unashamedly pro-Arab Catholics.

How many mentally disabled people do you execute on a daily basis?
Unfortunately, until the new NHS database is set-up we won't be able to get statistics on the daily operations of the Death Panel. I read somewhere that the number is generally around five.

Are older citizens given a choice, or are they killed on the spot?
Of course they're given a choice. It's much harder to kill someone if their in hysterics over not having the right type of tea. That said, the government are trying to push a new "Tea Variety Card" bill through parliament, which is set to speed up the entire process. Yet I can't help but feel that having all that information on some super-computer, readily accessible by the execution staff dehumanises the whole affair somewhat.

How long was the longest you had to wait for care?
12 years.

How crippling are your taxes overall?
I am forced to have children just to have a cheap alternative to turkey at Christmas.

How many dead people are in the clinic lobby's on average?
None... why would you want dead people lolling around the lobby? What an absurd question.

Are you allowed property?
We have no desire for property. Property is simply a distraction from the work of the motherland.

How many kids are you allowed to have?
Four at any one time, excluding those reared for Christmas.

How long have you been a communist?
Since I first hated Jesus.

How long have you hated Jesus?
Since I became a communist.

Ping
02-23-2010, 08:39 PM
Are those last questions jokes? I know you said they weren't, but to me, they just seem, no offence, ridiculous.

And, in answer to your question about the hypocrisy going around...well, I don't really know why. Though, I will admit, after reading articles in Time magazine, I've come to the conclusion that the Republicans are, unfortunately, nothing but hypocrites in this time and age. They're trying to discredit Obama and the Democrats by whatever means possible, and I guess that means they're willing to become hypocrites in the process. The worst part is that it's working. Trust in the government is at an all time low, the Tea Parties are forming, and nobody seems to notice that the Repubs are just contradicting themselves. I really would like to believe that the Republicans are not trying to be hypocrites, I really do, but that is most definitely not the case at this point. George Washington was right - political parties don't make you loyal to your nation, it makes you loyal to your party.

Darth InSidious
02-23-2010, 08:42 PM
We have no desire for property. Property is simply a distraction from the work of the motherland.

Non-gender-exclusive, ethnic and non-prejudiced motherland. Evidently you need more time at the Ministry of Information, comrade 61528-P.

Samnmax221
02-23-2010, 08:43 PM
Sarah Palin should fall down a hole someplace and die.

True_Avery
02-23-2010, 08:56 PM
Are those last questions jokes? I know you said they weren't, but to me, they just seem, no offence, ridiculous.
Every one of my questions I've asked are reasons against socialism given by Savage, Rush, Fox, and Republican speakers. If they are valid reasons given by speakers and politicians on why socialism is evil, then there must be something to them, especially when it is evident that people believe them because they state them at rallies in voice and on signs.

If these people take them as serious stances, then I'll use them as serious questions. As you say below, the Tea Party and so on have been gaining supporters by the day.

And, in answer to your question about the hypocrisy going around...well, I don't really know why. Though, I will admit, after reading articles in Time magazine, I've come to the conclusion that the Republicans are, unfortunately, nothing but hypocrites in this time and age. They're trying to discredit Obama and the Democrats by whatever means possible, and I guess that means they're willing to become hypocrites in the process. The worst part is that it's working. Trust in the government is at an all time low, the Tea Parties are forming, and nobody seems to notice that the Repubs are just contradicting themselves. I really would like to believe that the Republicans are not trying to be hypocrites, I really do, but that is most definitely not the case at this point. George Washington was right - political parties don't make you loyal to your nation, it makes you loyal to your party.
Still, by being so heavily anti-socialism aren't they effectively trying to undermine their own socialist health care that they themselves use? Schooling? Military Funding? The public libraries in which Glenn Beck states he read books on why socialism and taxes are evil?

What is there to gain from it? Isn't that self destructive?

Ping
02-23-2010, 11:10 PM
What is there to gain from it? Isn't that self destructive?

Yes, it is, but they're playing us for fools, meaning they think most Americans will believe anything, or not do the proper research.

Totenkopf
02-25-2010, 12:35 AM
And, in answer to your question about the hypocrisy going around...well, I don't really know why. Though, I will admit, after reading articles in Time magazine, I've come to the conclusion that the Republicans are, unfortunately, nothing but hypocrites in this time and age.

C'mon, Ping, are you implying that hypocrisy is only a republican problem?:

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

And then there's this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/its-my-health-its-my-choice-danny-williams-says/article1477872/

If the Canadian system is as great as advertised, why would a Canadian pol come south of the border for his med treatment? One type of behavior for the rich/ruling class and another for the rest?

Face it, hypocrisy is human and indiscriminate......and in great abundance in politics. It's often wedded to condescension.


So... Socialist Health Care is evil then why are we allowing our government officials the option of socialist government-run health care? Shouldn't Sarah and the rest of us being trying our hardest to get Tripp out of a system that, she claims, is evil? If Dick Cheney hates Socialist Health Care so much, then why is he currently using his own to fix his latest heart attack?

Congress and governor Seats, sure, but then you've got police, firemen, street repair, road building, public schooling, and so on using tax money for socialist means. Hell, aren't taxes socialist by today's current political standards? Shouldn't we close down public schools since the teachers are running on socialist funding? How about the police force? They're paid in tax dollars and their Health Care is paid by the state. Do I really want to be driving on a freeway created by the socialist agenda? How about those socialist libraries?

Do I really want a military running almost entirely on socialism? Shouldn't the entire thing be capitalist? Are we not crippling our military by powering it with our tax dollars? And why are veterans whining about injuries? Shouldn't they pay for their own mistakes?

So, why the hypocrisy?

Seriously, I must be missing something because this just doesn't seem right at all. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, demeaning, etc. I'm genuinely curious at why we allow something that is apparently so incredibly evil. I know there are plenty of people on this board against socialism, so I'd like to hear your take.


Not quite sure how you jump to conclusion that govt employees receiving benefits, as do many in the private sector with their employers, is axiomatically socialist. Govt. by its nature is not automatically socialist or communist b/c it's govt.

Ping
02-25-2010, 10:14 AM
C'mon, Ping, are you implying that hypocrisy is only a republican problem?:

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

And then there's this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/its-my-health-its-my-choice-danny-williams-says/article1477872/

If the Canadian system is as great as advertised, why would a Canadian pol come south of the border for his med treatment? One type of behavior for the rich/ruling class and another for the rest?

Face it, hypocrisy is human and indiscriminate......and in great abundance in politics. It's often wedded to condescension.



I wasn't implying that it was solely a Republican problem, what I was trying to say is that to me it's a bit more widespread, or just more obvious to everyone else. And I should also point out that I get the feeling that most of the party is doing it, too.

Drunkside
02-25-2010, 02:15 PM
Are you allowed property?


Is that really used as an argument by somebody? And people are buying it? Or you just raving :xp:? Even the people of the soviet union were allowed to have property, they were allowed to own their houses, cars and a lot of other stuff. The only thing they werent allowed to own was industrial machinery. Shocking eh? :p

Totenkopf
02-25-2010, 03:10 PM
I wasn't implying that it was solely a Republican problem, what I was trying to say is that to me it's a bit more widespread, or just more obvious to everyone else. And I should also point out that I get the feeling that most of the party is doing it, too.

Even if you change the word "only" to primarily, that's a very skewed view. It would be much like if you'd been reading The Weekly Standard and concluded that corruption and hypocrisy were mostly a glaring democrat problem. I'd say that if you're reading material that favors one side over the other that you're likely to walk away with such a cock-eyed view.

Q
02-25-2010, 03:25 PM
I wasn't aware that something is automatically socialist in nature simply because it's financed by taxes. That would mean that all government is socialist in nature, which is completely untrue. I can certainly see the benefit to convincing everyone that it is true, however.
Sarah Palin should fall down a hole someplace and die.
And I'd help dig the hole, but what everyone needs to realize is that the best weapon to use against an attention whore like Sarah Palin is to stop paying attention to her. Without attention to absorb she'll dry up and blow away like any other piece of fecal matter.

Darth Avlectus
02-25-2010, 08:47 PM
So... Socialist Health Care is evil then why are we allowing our government officials the option of socialist government-run health care?

Actually, lots of US citizens dislike it intensely that gov't. officials are allowed it. We shouldn't. So, why does it happen? Suppose there are things we have no control over. Like this. Personally I'm sick of the lack of leadership and lack of good example provided. By both parties. They may be employed by the gov't, but that shouldn't mean they get any more privledge than we little people do. And if I get the ire of people in general who work for the government for holding my beliefs...so be it. We ought to fight it.

As well, we have a president that promised us transparency, afterall. However he is powerless to stop the senate members from shutting the door on the press. That's not even going into if whether or not he approves of whatever deals are made behind closed doors. So we'll have to just leave it at that. Point here is I don't necessarily blame the president b/c of a lack of transparency due to Reid and Pelosi--but he'd be remiss in his position if he didn't try to do something to correct it to keep his promise.

If Dick Cheney hates Socialist Health Care so much, then why is he currently using his own to fix his latest heart attack?

Just because he is being a hypocrite doesn't mean anyone with the same leanings necessarily agrees with him or his actions.

It's on him.

Also I'd like to add: If a political conservative is for less government overall and protecting our freedoms and liberties then Cheney (no liberal votes notwithstanding) is a s***ty example of one. Why do I say this? Considering: the patriot act tripled the size of overall government, indiscriminantly, and took away many smaller freedoms and liberties. He FAILED to keep government down and to protect our freedoms.

Some say at the cost of those we are granted better security. Ok. Slippery as this slope is I think this question is worth asking: When we give up freedoms to the government, will we ever get them back? If so, when?

It should have been applied with checks and balances like time limits and laser slim focus on the areas of power allowed to the gov't. Just my opinion.

For ignoring all this, I really dislike him. I even mistrust him. Because of his and Bush's actions, this is what the opposition thinks of, EVERY TIME when anyone mentions their rightward leaning political views. Not that Keith Olberdouche would really care. But still...

Last note: I'm not altogether sure Dick Cheney is completely human anyways.

(Rush Limbaugh) *brevity*

Same goes here with the pundits. If there are people who go with it when someone is being a hypocrite, let 'em defend themselves and each other.

You're only paying this much attention to it with these folks because you have such an obvious dislike of them. Come on, They all do it.

*brevity*
So, why the hypocrisy?


Perhaps it's the times we live in. Nobody means just what they say. :dozey:

All I can say is if anyone is truly open minded, they don't conflate the misguided actions of a leader (or of the few) under that banner to individuals who may agree with that banner in general. Nor should you assume that any such individuals necessarily agrees with those actions. It would not be right if, for example, I blamed my neighbors in NV for the hypocrisy of some butt-wipe senator in another state, no matter how much my neighbors loved that senator. However, I am well within my means to lambaste them for continuing going along with that senator's actions thereafter.

That same hypocrisy is not exclusively nor predominantly (EDIT: not permanently as though naturally ingrained, anyways) to one side or the other as though it were a (born in) trait. I'm not going to point the finger, but will say the left are just as guilty on hypocrisy as the right. It shifts around from time to time with both sides. (Depending on issues and people involved.) You could look for it on both sides and find it.

Hypocrisy itself: It is disappointing, yes. It is at least as disappointing if not moreso when one who strongly identifies with the right (being all about self governance and self reliance) decides to turn around and use government run services for their little things.

The turncoat actions of some in charge: I don't condone them, personally. Why would I? I'm only shooting myself in the foot if I did. And frankly neither should anyone else. While hypocrisy is frustrating, annoying, evil, and as I said before, disappointing, it is hardly a surprise.

It's wrong. You know this. So let's be real: It's nothing new. It happened since long ago, and will probably continue forever more until the human race can no longer make decisions for itself.

And since this hypocrisy largely seems to revolve around social issues of taxing and spending: While we cannot completely cut out government and we do need laws, it ought to be minimal, but strongly enforced.

Tax and spend...no financial, fiscal conservativism at all. Shame. So nice how no parties actually use that as a policy anymore.

We as a nation could really stand to just step on the brakes w.r.t. spending. Especially if cutting taxes. I'm not big on international dealings but it might actually help the U.S. if we weren't in the red all the time. Our creditors/lenders might relax a little more at least.

True_Avery
02-25-2010, 09:27 PM
I'll respond to more later, but am low on time atm.

I wasn't aware that something is automatically socialist in nature simply because it's financed by taxes. That would mean that all government is socialist in nature, which is completely untrue. I can certainly see the benefit to convincing everyone that it is true, however.
Interesting Then what constitutes socialism?

–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of productionand distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfectimplementation of collectivist principles.

If a Library is being funded by Tax Dollars given by the community (via state), isn't it not a socialist building? Or, is it not because of a government medium?

Is not the road socialist because it is a "building" created by community money and not a capitalistic system? The police a government run, but socially/community funded group?

Indeed, a "government" does not need to be socialist in nature, but since our government is community funded is it not a socialist republic? Or, is it not socialist because the community doesn't have direct control? But, then what is voting?

So, again, either I'm missing something in translation or much that is funded by taxes/community is indeed socialist by definition. If "universal" Health Care is socialist because it is paid with tax money, then I currently fail to see how everything else paid for by taxes isn't socialist. Same goes for the bailouts being socialist. The current, political/media definition I see simply seems to paste "socialist" on anything with tax dollars next to it. Even put Tax Dollars aside and just look at churches and charities; are they not also socialist for being community funded?

I am not attempting to so much convince as I am trying to get my facts straight here, so if someone has a more solid definition of socialism I'd like to hear it.

Ping
02-25-2010, 09:50 PM
Even if you change the word "only" to primarily, that's a very skewed view. It would be much like if you'd been reading The Weekly Standard and concluded that corruption and hypocrisy were mostly a glaring democrat problem. I'd say that if you're reading material that favors one side over the other that you're likely to walk away with such a cock-eyed view.

Where the hell did that come from? I didn't use the word "only" at any point. Besides, the Repubs are being nothing but whining brats, and if there is one thing I can't stand, it's spoiled brats.

Totenkopf
02-26-2010, 12:27 AM
I'd advise you to read what you wrote again. You didn't have to write either "only" or "primarily" as it is painfully obvious that you believe it anyway. Your words were "I wasn't implying that it was solely", ie. only, but in fact you were implying just that. Your last observation above merely reinforces that implication. But outside of coloring inside the lines of the OP, which addresses issues of "hypocrisy", this issue is ancillary to the main question of whether or not govt is, somehow by its nature, axiomatically socialist. But given that you claim to have a negative predisposition toward "whining brats", it's a wonder you can embrace the democrat party either. So, if you wish to provide any further evidence that one party is more full of whiny hypocrites than the other, you can always PM that info.

–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of productionand distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

The current system in America doesn't do just that b/c there is private ownership of the means of production and distribution. Last I saw, the govt still has to make use of private contractors to supply it with the resources it needs to carry out it's responsibilities under law. While the US has become quasi-socialist, thanks to FDR, it's still not socialist (nor is much of Europe ACTUALLY socialist, just much closer--or perceived as such--than America).

Samnmax221
02-26-2010, 01:49 AM
Mixed markets markets are at work in all the "nice countries" of the world, Sarah Palin is a dumb bitch, and teabaggers are insane. AAnnd thread.

Totenkopf
02-26-2010, 01:54 AM
Lighten up Sam, someone might think you're that dbag Levi Johnston. :lol:

Q
02-26-2010, 09:43 AM
Interesting Then what constitutes socialism?

Put simply, it's government ownership of all production and complete government control of commerce and distribution of wealth, with no private ownership at all. We don't have that here, at least not yet. Obama and his flunkies are working on it, though. The recent government takeover of GM and its giving of a controlling interest to the UAW as a reward for driving the corporation into the ground is a poignant example of this and the corruption that accompanies it.

A government service isn't socialist by default. It would only qualify as such if it somehow supported the above. So while the police, fire and highway departments are not inherently socialist in nature, I'd have to say that the public school system most definitely is.

True_Avery
02-26-2010, 06:57 PM
Put simply, it's government ownership of all production and complete government control of commerce and distribution of wealth, with no private ownership at all. We don't have that here, at least not yet. Obama and his flunkies are working on it, though. The recent government takeover of GM and its giving of a controlling interest to the UAW as a reward for driving the corporation into the ground is a poignant example of this and the corruption that accompanies it.

A government service isn't socialist by default. It would only qualify as such if it somehow supported the above. So while the police, fire and highway departments are not inherently socialist in nature, I'd have to say that the public school system most definitely is.
Ohhh, ok, so since we have private security, firefighters, and so contractors who build the highway they aren't fully socialist since there is competition?

Ok, that actually makes a good deal of sense. But, in that case, public schooling wouldn't be socialist because of private schooling being an option, right?

Q
02-27-2010, 12:19 PM
For what percentage of school-aged children is private schooling a realistic option?

True_Avery
02-27-2010, 03:41 PM
For what percentage of school-aged children is private schooling a realistic option?
Not asking if it is a realistic option. Asking if the very fact the option exists as even low level competition means that public schooling isn't socialist according to your guidelines. Private Firefighters aren't seen very often, but you seem to consider government paid firefighters to not be socialist in nature.

Also, my former High School went charter and has control over the spending of its own money so, even though it is public, the charter public schools have private control and also don't seem to fit your guidelines.

Q
02-27-2010, 05:57 PM
Private Firefighters aren't seen very often, but you seem to consider government paid firefighters to not be socialist in nature.
Probably because, last time I checked, firefighters aren't pushing the socialist agenda. The public school system, on the other hand, is notorious for doing just that, which is why I called it socialist.

True_Avery
03-02-2010, 09:08 PM
Probably because, last time I checked, firefighters aren't pushing the socialist agenda. The public school system, on the other hand, is notorious for doing just that, which is why I called it socialist.
I've asked before and I'll dare another ask:

What is the "socialist agenda", and how it the public school "socialist"?

Gonna be honest here and say that, right now, "socialist agenda" just looks like a red herring label for something you disagree with.

Q
03-02-2010, 10:07 PM
I probably would have done better to use wording that didn't sound like propaganda, but it fits in this case. The public school system is the greatest exponent of socialism in this country because it indoctrinates children at a young age to the ideals of socialism by encouraging conformity while discouraging individuality. Conformist children are groomed for success while individuals are groomed for failure by being singled out, persecuted and harassed to the point of suicide (or murder) by the conformist students while the faculty either turns a blind eye or even joins in. Conformists are far easier to govern and control by the mere threat not fitting in, and I happen to regard them as something less than human.

Go ahead and think that I'm throwing out "red herring labels for something (I) disagree with" if you wish. I know better because I've lived it and experienced it first-hand. Needless to say, I hate conformity with a purple passion.

jrrtoken
03-02-2010, 10:17 PM
I wouldn't say that conformity within society is a trait of socialism, but of pseudo-capitalism. Conformity allows for more "team-players", which are essential components of mega-corporate ideology: More agreement, more productivity.

The principle has been present in American society since the late-1800's when industrialism was in full swing, but I think that the modern phase has been forged in post-WWII suburbia. It's social-oriented, yes, but not directly for state or government, but for corporate prosperity.

Ping
03-02-2010, 10:20 PM
I probably would have done better to use wording that didn't sound like propaganda, but it fits in this case. The public school system is the greatest exponent of socialism in this country because it indoctrinates children at a young age to the ideals of socialism by encouraging conformity while discouraging individuality. Conformist children are groomed for success while individuals are groomed for failure by being singled out, persecuted and harassed to the point of suicide (or murder) by the conformist students while the faculty either turns a blind eye or even joins in. Conformists are far easier to govern and control by the mere threat not fitting in, and I happen to regard them as something less than human.

Go ahead and think that I'm throwing out "red herring labels for something (I) disagree with" if you wish. I know better because I've lived it and experienced it first-hand. Needless to say, I hate conformity with a purple passion.

I wouldn't go so far as to label it socialism, but I do see your point. I've personally been through similar experiences. Finally, someone I can relate to. :)

urluckyday
03-02-2010, 10:21 PM
I probably would have done better to use wording that didn't sound like propaganda, but it fits in this case. The public school system is the greatest exponent of socialism in this country because it indoctrinates children at a young age to the ideals of socialism by encouraging conformity while discouraging individuality. Conformist children are groomed for success while individuals are groomed for failure by being singled out, persecuted and harassed to the point of suicide (or murder) by the conformist students while the faculty either turns a blind eye or even joins in. Conformists are far easier to govern and control by the mere threat not fitting in, and I happen to regard them as something less than human.

You do make an interesting point...

Totenkopf
03-02-2010, 10:46 PM
The nail that sticks up gets hammered down. But, frankly, conformism has less to do with any economic ideology and everything to do with social control for whomever is in charge.

True_Avery
03-02-2010, 11:24 PM
I probably would have done better to use wording that didn't sound like propaganda, but it fits in this case. The public school system is the greatest exponent of socialism in this country because it indoctrinates children at a young age to the ideals of socialism by encouraging conformity while discouraging individuality. Conformist children are groomed for success while individuals are groomed for failure by being singled out, persecuted and harassed to the point of suicide (or murder) by the conformist students while the faculty either turns a blind eye or even joins in. Conformists are far easier to govern and control by the mere threat not fitting in, and I happen to regard them as something less than human.

Go ahead and think that I'm throwing out "red herring labels for something (I) disagree with" if you wish. I know better because I've lived it and experienced it first-hand. Needless to say, I hate conformity with a purple passion.
If I agree with you, I'll be a conformist for conforming to your opinion. If I try to refute any of your above points, I'm a conformist because you know better. If I try to bring any sociology into this and explain conformity to you the way I understand it, I'll be a conformist for going to school. If I try to share any life experiences and relate, you'll just tell me I had it easy and in what ways I'm a conformist. If I try to understand your beliefs more in depth, you'll just explain to me how I need to be saved from my conformist ways and be an individual. If I try to explain myself, I have to step on the landmines of people you know who've been affected by conformity. If I do, I'm conformist. If I don't, I'm conformist.

I've been staring at your post for an hour and there is absolutely no way I can respond in any way that wont get you to hate me more :(

Q
03-03-2010, 12:02 AM
I had a good teacher. :p

But I don't hate you, Avery, or anyone else here. I hate the system and its effects; not its products. I am, after all, just as much a product of the system as you are, but I'm part of the opposite demographic.

EDIT: I see what you did there.

True_Avery
03-03-2010, 12:27 AM
Well, either here or in this thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=202944), could you at least explain how it could be fixed? I'm not really sure there is a way to stop conformity, but you may have some ideas.

But, as far as conformity goes, isn't that more of a problem with human nature and social norms instead of socialism? I was under the impression that socialism is supposedly the economic ideology, while straight communism deals with more of the social aspects.

Ctrl Alt Del
03-03-2010, 09:30 PM
I probably would have done better to use wording that didn't sound like propaganda, but it fits in this case. The public school system is the greatest exponent of socialism in this country because it indoctrinates children at a young age to the ideals of socialism by encouraging conformity while discouraging individuality. Conformist children are groomed for success while individuals are groomed for failure by being singled out, persecuted and harassed to the point of suicide (or murder) by the conformist students while the faculty either turns a blind eye or even joins in. Conformists are far easier to govern and control by the mere threat not fitting in, and I happen to regard them as something less than human.

Go ahead and think that I'm throwing out "red herring labels for something (I) disagree with" if you wish. I know better because I've lived it and experienced it first-hand. Needless to say, I hate conformity with a purple passion.I think you got it backwards. Conformity is something that can only exist towards the ruling system. Regardless of what may have been said, we've got Capitalism running the show on the US, as it always have been. Now, I did never study on a North American public school so I can't check first-hand on your allegations regarding indocrination, but if one is led to think on the collective before thinking on himself, well that's excellent, isn't it?

Yes, off with the disguise, I'm by no means a sympathizer of Capitalism and most of it's damaging byproducts. By saying someone ought to think on others rather than just look out for himself and those that suround him and are in some fashion profitable to have around, does not equal to discouraging the belief on the individual's potential. In fact, there's a lot an individual can do in terms of self-improvement that'll only benefit society afterwards.

When one is born and educated in a place that demonizes differences - and we're talking especifically about the socioeconomic side - then there's little hope for individualism to actually blossom on him or her. I believe in the honest option of having an minimally unbiased choice betwixt what the general consensus is and what you wish to believe.

Totenkopf
03-03-2010, 10:12 PM
.. if one is led to think on the collective before thinking on himself, well that's excellent, isn't it?


Depends on the nature of the "collective", unfortunately.

Q
03-04-2010, 12:23 AM
Yeah, it's really excellent when the idiotic collective gets convinced by some manipulative lunatic in a leadership position that thousands or even millions of people should be exterminated simply because they're somehow different from the members of the collective.

How many times has that happened in the past century? I can count half a dozen just off the top of my head. How many more times will it have to happen? Call me "selfish", but the collective can collectively kiss my ass.

True_Avery
03-04-2010, 02:55 AM
Yeah, it's really excellent when the idiotic collective gets convinced by some manipulative lunatic in a leadership position that thousands or even millions of people should be exterminated simply because they're somehow different from the members of the collective.

How many times has that happened in the past century? I can count half a dozen just off the top of my head. How many more times will it have to happen? Call me "selfish", but the collective can collectively kiss my ass.
Warning: Going to abuse a metaphor this entire post.

I think its more of a love/hate thing. I mean, without a "collective" I doubt society would hold together very well. A country of individuals sounds... difficult to manage. A collective can vote, create law and "order" or sorts, come together to form enforcement, business, parties, etc.

The side effect of this is that individuality becomes a minority and, strictly and non-offensively speaking, almost like an odd cog in the machine. The cog can stray off the pattern and cause the machine to do something new, or it can strip gears and drag other cogs into its basement and eat them.

But, cogs really all flow and spin together, stripped or skewed off regardless. Even if you and I view ourselves as "individuals" or "different", we're still a cog in the end. We conformed to language, customs, traditions, beliefs, etc of our machine. If your catholic upbringing was against the spin of your cog, you then spin the other way, moving other cogs in the process.

Our parties, religions, viewpoints, etc all seem to form working "collectives" of cogs, working together to at least some degree through the, well, centrist cogs I guess.

I think my point is, an "individual" cog on the side of the machine that just runs by itself is effectively doing nothing at all. It is, in a way, just a waste of energy. This cog, in reality, could only really be approximated to a non-English speaking... I dunno, asian man being dropped in the middle of new york with no idea of customs, language, ect of the country. He's a cog that sort of works, but at the moment has nothing else to grip onto to make him a functioning part of the system. This may also apply in some fashion to anarchists or, well, straight criminals although, while they strip some gears they are probably more apart in moving the machine than the "individual" on the side.

The concept of an "individual" is hard for me to define. While you or myself may call ourselves individuals, me may just be cogs in the middle, or off to the side working while the main gears and cylinders work away. Maybe its gears that didn't hook in right with the collective heart and were relegated to other points, etc. I dunno.

In thinking so, the "collective" seems to be, in many ways, just a perspective issue. Cogs at the bottom look up and see a mountain of cogs, and those at the top look down and see and sea of cogs. The Republicans see an overwhelming and destructive sea of cogs, while the Democrats see a raging volcanic mountain of cogs. Those in the perceived middle see both, and those to the side, or perceived side, watch the rest of the cogs work merrily.

What you may see as a collective, they may consider themselves a bunch of individuals doing their part. Are you conservative/liberal? Do you vote conservative/liberal? Well, you may see yourself as an individual, but chances are you're still spinning with the cogs all around you but you just don't care to bother with who you're spinning with.

Point is, the machine is there and we're mostly all apart of it.

Sometimes one shifts drastically and causes a bunch to spin backwards with it. While, say, Germany got a bunch to spin with the Nazi party, there were still a great deal that didn't exactly approve. Maybe it is fear that keeps them quiet, honor, or something else. Slowly, more cogs went with the changer and those that didn't turn got stripped and thus major parts of the machine either stop working, or are forcible turned.

Who's "collective" can kiss your ass is up for question. As Toten says, it entirely depends on the nature. While I bet you'd take offense to it, you probably fit into more of an anarchistic collective branch of the machine. That, or the "libertarian" collective. Take your pick. You belong somewhere because you aren't an Asian man with no knowledge of America's language, customs, etc.

While the idea of some leader coming forth and moving a collective absolutely disgusts you, it again may come down to perspective. You're a hill of cogs watching another hill of cogs saying "[insert here]". But, what if someone, or a group, were to come forth with the legitimate idea of throwing power back to the people, dissolving most of the government, and, well, [insert your belief here].

Would you follow that "party", or those cogs? Would you follow Jefferson's influential cog on government?

Or, do you truly believe you are just a cog that sits outside the rest of the machine looking on? In all honesty, what use are you then? Are you not just then a cog that, well, wastes space and energy on the machine? While you would indeed be sticking it to the collective, what use are you?

I don't believe that. I believe you fit in somewhere because we're talking. But, by fitting in somewhere, I also believe that, under the right circumstances, either a major cog could move you by mechanics, or maybe you'd even be one of those major cogs. I don't know.

Essentially what I'm saying is I don't see how a "collective" can be pointed out as a whole. You can look from your spot and see a horizon of cogs, but you're still apart of the machine no matter how rusty you try to get.

I've talked to you. I have a basic understanding of a lot of your beliefs, and I find it hard to imagine that you would refuse a following that built itself upon your beliefs. If not that, then you're at least apart of some part of the machine trying to affect the collective. Essentially, by sticking it to them and resisting you're trying to move the collective itself and effectively becoming the "manipulative lunatic" that changes course.

I'm being brutally honest here with my opinion, but the only way you're going to be an "individual" is if you move out to a lone island somewhere or fall off and die. Everywhere else you're still apart of some machine, and some collective.

Conformity is human nature. How our social dynamics work. No matter what, you're going to conform to something somewhere. Whether that be "anarchy", rebellion, etc they are all still stances and pieces especially in a society as big as ours.

In this sense, "non-conformity", "individualism", "anarchy" may all be illusions and dreams just as elaborate and far fetched as communism. While some cogs stick, rust, sheer, pop out, the machine often keeps running, compensating for the lost cog. Its why "communism" may, in the end, just be a utopia lie since it would imply a machine that never rusts, never stutters, never changes. An movable god. But, a true "individual" cog just spins, connecting to nothing, changing nothing, wasting space, time, and energy until it finds it niche and runs with the rest.

Personally, I think you run with the rest by some capacity. We all do. You're not posting porn, speaking in Japanese, and generally doing everything in your power to ruin this forum or doing anything in your power to ruin every cog here so, in some capacity, you're at least moving, even if grudgingly, along with this forum's collective.

Even if a cog is skewed, running slow or fast, etc, the machine can still compensate and, in doing so, may change many parts of it. It is why mutations, individuals, etc are important for the function and "evolution" of the machine... but, if changing, even by their own unique factor... they're still connection, spinning with others, and, in the end, still very much apart of the mass "collective", or the "machine".

This isn't a "side effect" of capitalism, socialism, schools, business, etc. Calling it a "side effect" seems to almost be a denial of the existence and function of any society, no matter how small. If anything, it is a "side effect" of the meeting and communication of 2 or more humans. They can either go at it and both die like savages, alone, or they can communicate and find common ground on something as simple as being a fan of some fashion of Star Wars. Once that connection is made, conformation begins. Boundaries are made between likes and dislikes. Rules, and such are made and then you have the foundation of a society, even if only 2 people. And, possibly, even if it is only 1 person that person still "conforms" in some fashion to the world around him, finding boundaries, limits, etc to animals, trees, weather, etc.

In summary, I believe a true "individual" in society exists about as much as absolute true communism.

Q
04-19-2010, 08:43 PM
^Hm, I'd be willing to bet that I could sum up that entire post's worth of reverse psychology in three words:

"Resistance is futile."

:p

Salzella
04-19-2010, 09:26 PM
Why do you equate socialism with loss of freedom? economic big state/small state issues are very different to ideas of conformity and 'freedom' (a word i don't like using). Also, do you consider yourself an anarchist? the things you say sound like anarchist ideas but you're very cynical about it if they are. maybe they're not, maybe i'm misinterpreting. also, do you consider socialism a bad thing compared to neoliberalism? if you do, then i would say that it's an odd thing to take that from socialism and capitalism, the former emphasising the common good whilst maintaining individual freedom, and the latter being individual concerns at the expense of the common good which always strikes me as frankly incredibly selfish.

Totenkopf
04-19-2010, 11:07 PM
if you do, then i would say that it's an odd thing to take that from socialism and capitalism, the former emphasising the common good whilst maintaining individual freedom, and the latter being individual concerns at the expense of the common good which always strikes me as frankly incredibly selfish.

Seems a bit naive. Neither capitalism nor socialism really have anything to do with the common good. Socialism puts the "burden" of charity on govt (and ultimately the private sector via heavy taxation), whilst capitalism largely leaves it to individuals to decide. I'd say that the way both are practiced currently could be more or less described as such: capitalism is about equality of opportunity and socialism about equality (NOT quality, mind you) of outcome. This is even more pronounced in "communist" nations, where everyone that's not important (pretty much entire populations) has crappy quality of life. I'm thinking it's equally selfish of one to expect govt to pick up the tab for your miserable existence and does nothing to foster personal responsibility.

Q
04-19-2010, 11:28 PM
Why do you equate socialism with loss of freedom?
Because, in a nutshell it is the taking, by force, of money from people who've earned it and then giving it to those who haven't. It's slavery.
economic big state/small state issues are very different to ideas of conformity
They go hand in hand as far as I'm concerned. Conformists are far easier to deceive, oppress and enslave. It is easier to convince conformists that they aren't really slaves when, in fact, they are.
and 'freedom' (a word i don't like using).
Why not? I know that it's become clichéd and perhaps even unfashionable, but I wasn't aware that it had become a dirty word.
Also, do you consider yourself an anarchist?
No. I'm well aware of the need for the rule of law. The problem is that the law has been corrupted to the point that we are now under the rule of an oligarchy of sorts, which is precisely what the founding fathers wanted to avoid when they wrote the constitution and its amendments.
the things you say sound like anarchist ideas but you're very cynical about it if they are. maybe they're not, maybe i'm misinterpreting.
Explained above, and, yes, I'm very cynical, especially in certain situations. Who isn't at my age?
also, do you consider socialism a bad thing compared to neoliberalism? if you do, then i would say that it's an odd thing to take that from socialism and capitalism, the former emphasising the common good whilst maintaining individual freedom,
When and where has it ever managed to do that? I'm fairly certain that socialism sacrifices individual freedom on the altar of "the common good".
and the latter being individual concerns at the expense of the common good which always strikes me as frankly incredibly selfish.
I'm sure that's what you've been taught. It is my belief that a system designed around the way people actually are here in reality is going to work better than a system that forces people to conform to an ideal and destroys the people who can't or won't. Or at least it will as long as the government doesn't try to sabotage it for its own ends. Yes, people should give more, but they should be encouraged to do so voluntarily, and not at gunpoint. Voluntary altruism is charity. Involuntary altruism is slavery. I'd rather live in a society that gives me a choice, be it charitable or selfish.

Salzella
04-20-2010, 10:13 AM
Seems a bit naive. Neither capitalism nor socialism really have anything to do with the common good. Socialism puts the "burden" of charity on govt (and ultimately the private sector via heavy taxation), whilst capitalism largely leaves it to individuals to decide. I'd say that the way both are practiced currently could be more or less described as such: capitalism is about equality of opportunity and socialism about equality (NOT quality, mind you) of outcome. This is even more pronounced in "communist" nations, where everyone that's not important (pretty much entire populations) has crappy quality of life. I'm thinking it's equally selfish of one to expect govt to pick up the tab for your miserable existence and does nothing to foster personal responsibility.
Socialism has everything to do with the common good - that's rather the point. The only thing that usually prevents it from operating as perhaps people would like is the manner in which it is implemented, which is where the problems of quality you talk about come in - perhaps naivety on the left's part, but there should be room for idealism in this world. Incidentally, this is not always the case anyway; just look at the Nordic countries such as Sweden, where they have very high taxation and fantastic welfare and, not coincidentally as far as i'm concenerned, a much higher quality of life than in America. which is not to say it is totally left-leaning, just that there is both freedom in the private sector (for better or worse) and good government provision. When i was in America i found the suburban areas despicably monotonous and chain-run - the influence of capitalism.

Because, in a nutshell it is the taking, by force, of money from people who've earned it and then giving it to those who haven't. It's slavery.
that is one of the most ludicrous comparisions i have ever heard. slavery? really?

They go hand in hand as far as I'm concerned. Conformists are far easier to deceive, oppress and enslave. It is easier to convince conformists that they aren't really slaves when, in fact, they are.
i can't understand how you equate left-leaning society with conformity - in my experience the right encourages conformity to a far greater extent through all this corporate 'team-building' ethos etc., not to mention the focus on equipping children for jobs rather than thinking - one of the few things i agree with Marxists on.

Why not? I know that it's become clichéd and perhaps even unfashionable, but I wasn't aware that it had become a dirty word.
because Freedom as a world does not make sense unless you define the freedom from whom and to do what. absolute freedom seems to me to be perfect selfishness.
No. I'm well aware of the need for the rule of law. The problem is that the law has been corrupted to the point that we are now under the rule of an oligarchy of sorts, which is precisely what the founding fathers wanted to avoid when they wrote the constitution and its amendments.
i assume by 'we' you mean America? i'm british so i'll take your word for it but i can accept that point. Oligarchies are very much more symptomatic of capitalist, money-driven societies (hence the name) than socialist societies.
Explained above, and, yes, I'm very cynical, especially in certain situations. Who isn't at my age?[/QUOTE]
too much so perhaps.
When and where has it ever managed to do that? I'm fairly certain that socialism sacrifices individual freedom on the altar of "the common good".
as i said above, freedom is not this holy grail of human life we should all aspir to at any cost - sacrifices should be made if we don't want to end up lonely, parasitic leeches as the higher-ups in capitalist businesses seem to be.
I'm sure that's what you've been taught. It is my belief that a system designed around the way people actually are here in reality is going to work better than a system that forces people to conform to an ideal and destroys the people who can't or won't. Or at least it will as long as the government doesn't try to sabotage it for its own ends. Yes, people should give more, but they should be encouraged to do so voluntarily, and not at gunpoint. Voluntary altruism is charity. Involuntary altruism is slavery. I'd rather live in a society that gives me a choice, be it charitable or selfish.
your idea of voluntary charity seems incompatible with your view that we all need freedom and shouldn't give unless we hamper that persons ability to think for themselves, and also the fact that people are by their nature are too selfish too anyway. you seem to advocating a 'survival of the fittest' sort of thing. humans formed society for a reason - because we are not a collection of disparate individuals fighting for our lives, a viewpoint that seems unnecessarily cynical and pessimistic. for the record i do not believe in communism or the far ends of socialism but i do believe that for all our sakes it pays to be left-leaning as opposed to a '**** everyone else' view. capitalism seems to be an excuse for people to act on their misanthropic tendencies which is not going to help anyone.

Totenkopf
04-20-2010, 01:26 PM
Socialism has everything to do with the common good - that's rather the point. The only thing that usually prevents it from operating as perhaps people would like is the manner in which it is implemented, which is where the problems of quality you talk about come in - perhaps naivety on the left's part, but there should be room for idealism in this world. Incidentally, this is not always the case anyway; just look at the Nordic countries such as Sweden, where they have very high taxation and fantastic welfare and, not coincidentally as far as i'm concenerned, a much higher quality of life than in America. which is not to say it is totally left-leaning, just that there is both freedom in the private sector (for better or worse) and good government provision. When i was in America i found the suburban areas despicably monotonous and chain-run - the influence of capitalism.

No, the rhetoric of socialism has everything to do with claims of looking out for the common good. But then, how loosely is "common good" defined? I've been to several countries as well and can't say that I've been impressed enough with any of them to want to leave America and settle there. Some very interesting places to visit, but as the saying goes, I wouldn't want to live there. Guess we'll have to chalk up our differences to our own enculturations. ;)

Q
04-20-2010, 08:26 PM
just look at the Nordic countries such as Sweden, where they have very high taxation and fantastic welfare and, not coincidentally as far as i'm concenerned, a much higher quality of life than in America
Well, that's your opinion, though I very much doubt that that is truly the case.
When i was in America i found the suburban areas despicably monotonous and chain-run - the influence of capitalism.
Once again, that's your opinion; not fact. I'm not too fond of "vinyl villages" myself, but they exist for the sake of convenience for people who don't want to reside in apartments but still want to live close to their workplace. Is that "the influence of capitalism" that you refer to?
that is one of the most ludicrous comparisions i have ever heard. slavery? really?
Yes. Really. Take away all of the legality and political sugar-coating and slavery is precisely what you're left with.
i can't understand how you equate left-leaning society with conformity - in my experience the right encourages conformity to a far greater extent through all this corporate 'team-building' ethos etc., not to mention the focus on equipping children for jobs rather than thinking - one of the few things i agree with Marxists on.
Aren't children supposed to be equipped for jobs so that they can actually provide for themselves when they reach adulthood? I disagree that conformity is a result of capitalism, but you know, you're right. Schoolchildren in left-leaning societies are indeed encouraged to think, and it comes as no surprise that it happens to be precisely what you think.

Unfortunately, the teacher's union in my country is extremely left-leaning and conformity forms the basis of their curriculum. I know because I've been through it.
because Freedom as a world does not make sense unless you define the freedom from whom and to do what. absolute freedom seems to me to be perfect selfishness.
I've read that argument countless times and my answer to it is this:
Should people be selfish? No, but they should still have the freedom to be selfish if they want to be. Taking away that choice is tyrannical.
i assume by 'we' you mean America?
Yes.
i'm british so i'll take your word for it but i can accept that point.
Well, that explains a lot regarding your point of view. How about a little allegory from your own country's history? I give you the R100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R100) verses the R101 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101).
Oligarchies are very much more symptomatic of capitalist, money-driven societies (hence the name) than socialist societies.
In the strictest sense of the term you are correct, but I was referring to a new aristocracy in my country made up of members of the government who are, incidentally, wealthy, powerful and firmly entrenched because the voters are usually restricted to choosing between one faction of this aristocracy or the other.
Explained above, and, yes, I'm very cynical, especially in certain situations. Who isn't at my age?
too much so perhaps.
See if you're still of the same opinion in a decade or so. ;)
as i said above, freedom is not this holy grail of human life we should all aspir to at any cost
Fundamental disagreement, here. In my opinion, freedom is just about the only thing worth living for. Without it there is no hope for the future.
- sacrifices should be made
This statement, or one very similar to it, is spoken several times by the antagonists in Atlas Shrugged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged) in an effort to justify destroying the nation's economy. Scary. If "sacrifices must be made" for the good of society, then feel free to make them yourself. Go ahead; knock yourself out. But if you try to force me to do it against my will you're in for a world of hurt because that would constitute an act of war as far as I'm concerned.
if we don't want to end up lonely, parasitic leeches as the higher-ups in capitalist businesses seem to be.
Are you referring to the people who provide everyone else with jobs? Do you think that a nation's only employer should be its government? Employers are only "parasitic leeches" if their business practices are unscrupulous, and, yes, I believe that there should laws in place to prevent such practices, but not to the extent that has the government strictly controlling everything.
your idea of voluntary charity seems incompatible with your view that we all need freedom and shouldn't give unless we hamper that persons ability to think for themselves, and also the fact that people are by their nature are too selfish too anyway.
I never said that people shouldn't give; only that they should not be forced to give. It's the basic principle of forcing people to be charitable that I have a problem with, not the charity itself.
you seem to advocating a 'survival of the fittest' sort of thing. humans formed society for a reason - because we are not a collection of disparate individuals fighting for our lives, a viewpoint that seems unnecessarily cynical and pessimistic.
Or merely realistic.
for the record i do not believe in communism or the far ends of socialism
You honestly could've fooled me.
but i do believe that for all our sakes it pays to be left-leaning as opposed to a '**** everyone else' view.
How can a society be called "free" if no one is allowed to possess any point of view that is deemed to be "bad" or politically incorrect?
capitalism seems to be an excuse for people to act on their misanthropic tendencies which is not going to help anyone.
I'd rather be labeled a misanthrope than a pod-person. And I'm going to go as far as to say that, after everything that our marvelous society has taken from me by force in the first half of my life, I am of the opinion that, as far as the second half is concerned, I don't owe society jack ****. If that's "selfish" and "misanthropic", then so be it; I can live with that. If you don't like it, well, that's just too bad. At least for now, I am still afforded the freedom to hold any opinion that I want to; so I'm going to. :)

Darth Avlectus
04-20-2010, 11:37 PM
Socialism has everything to do with the common good - that's rather the point. The only thing that usually prevents it from operating as perhaps people would like is the manner in which it is implemented,
By the human element itself. It is and always will be botched as a result of human nature. Just like capitalism. Just because it is government doesn't necessarily mean it's any more in the right (correct, ethical, moral--what we associate with good and in many cases common good).

which is where the problems of quality you talk about come in - perhaps naivety on the left's part, but there should be room for idealism in this world. There already is room for idealism in freedom of speech. That's why we debate and discuss.

which is not to say it is totally left-leaning, just that there is both freedom in the private sector (for better or worse) and good government provision.
And then you have other places where people could give a flip because they'll be paid no matter what anyways, if they only just meet some minimum standard (hardly a mindset to accomplish quality).

because Freedom as a world does not make sense unless you define the freedom from whom and to do what. absolute freedom seems to me to be perfect selfishness.

To you, maybe. To me it implies responsibility as it should, as should it with any remotely reasonable person.

Oligarchies are very much more symptomatic of capitalist, money-driven societies (hence the name) than socialist societies.

Oligopolies that control markets are symptomatic of capitalism. It does not have any political control.
Oligarchy is where Government works with companies which are more or less (often less because of its clout--making money for the government) regulated. This is so with public and unionized companies.

Socialism is not communism so it must be... selectively capitalist. It's where government controls, owns, runs, or is in some major way is a part of the market. Considering how public and unionized companies tend to get coddled much more than private companies (which is a liberal leaning capitalist model), I would say oligarchy is symptomatic of socialism. That doesn't necessarily make it any more for the common good. Sure that's debatable but in these instances you get practically an invite for terribly over-designed regulation which always ends in red tape bureaucracy that hampers effectiveness of voting or directly doing much of anything.

Then you also have government jobs which are by definition not competitive--which I'm still trying to figure out how they will revitalize the economy simply because it's "providing jobs for people".

Maybe this is a different view than others here but socialism can be capitalist: a company for profits is a company for profits regardless if it's private or public. So now the government is the C.E.O. and the rule maker.

Ctrl Alt Del
04-22-2010, 01:00 AM
capitalism is about equality of opportunityAt what times did this ever happened? I can't recall it ever off papers and theories on the system's functionality, with little to no relation to realiy. Empirical evidence (and we just need to open our eyes at any shantyhouse out there, unless it's properly hidden as governments often make an effort to do) has shown that equality of opportunity (and luck) in nonexistent.

How can anybody argue with a straight face that someone who during his or her whole childhood barely has enough to feed on is in equal starting ground as another kid pampered from birth and given every basic need satisfied? And considering that capitalism requires permanent misery for some unlucky populational stripe, crushing chances are that our Joe/Jane Doe from the first example isn't going to be someone living on at least decent human condition.

And, well, I didn't even name countries and places in which the "less-favored" consists in way more than half the population.

Totenkopf
04-22-2010, 02:03 AM
At what times did this ever happened? I can't recall it ever off papers and theories on the system's functionality, with little to no relation to realiy. Empirical evidence (and we just need to open our eyes at any shantyhouse out there, unless it's properly hidden as governments often make an effort to do) has shown that equality of opportunity (and luck) in nonexistent.

How can anybody argue with a straight face that someone who during his or her whole childhood barely has enough to feed on is in equal starting ground as another kid pampered from birth and given every basic need satisfied? And considering that capitalism requires permanent misery for some unlucky populational stripe, crushing chances are that our Joe/Jane Doe from the first example isn't going to be someone living on at least decent human condition.

And, well, I didn't even name countries and places in which the "less-favored" consists in way more than half the population.

No offense, but you're conflating outcome w/opportunity. I'm merely speaking of the fact that in the capitalist system a poor person has as much a chance as someone born in a rich family to attempt to succeed on his own merits...if he seizes or recognizes the opportunity before him. It does not mean that he will BE as successful, just that if he applies himself he has the chance to do it. But let's be honest, most people don't have enough drive and/or ambition (and yes, sometimes not even the talent) to succeed. Many people would rather have the govt give them a check and other goodies so they can focus on their own entertainment. World is full of people throughout history that rose above their circumstances. It's also full of trust fund morons that probably couldn't balance their own check book. But, like any economic system, capitalism and socialism's "successes" depend on a wider variety of circumstances than just whther your check comes from the private or public sectors. What does socialism do when it can no longer afford the level of goodies promised to it's populations? A declining birthrate in Europe, and lackluster productivity, coupled with a burgeoning debt due to socialism's promise of cradle to grave benefits will make for an interesting case study. Even America faces a burgeoning crisis brought on by too many promises of govt support and not enough revenue to pay for them.

vanir
05-11-2010, 10:06 AM
I never cease to be taken aback by the American cultural tendency to interpret socialism as collectivism and capitalism and libertarianism.

socialism is just subsidy. Switzerland is a parliamentary democracy practising socialist economics, the degree of subsidy varies between parties and terms.

the Australian Labor Party is nationalist-socialist (a formal member of socialist international, but where the Nazi Party was autocracy the ALP are closest to Menshevism by policy, so are closer to communism than nazism despite inferrence of concise labelling).

France runs basically on Menshevism.

The CIS which is most of Eastern Europe (chased back into the hands of the Kremlin by US foreign policy in the last twenty years), were of course Bolshevik during USSR but soviets (unions/workers councils) still hold a lot of power I guess you could sort of call them default Menshevists with overtones of extreme corruption atm.

Republicans are basically Nationalists, despite their capitalist economic policy their right wingers have more in common with Nazism than say parliamentarianism, whilst their leftists have more in common with Stalinism.

And capitalism as any kind of governing authority by and of itself is nothing more than purist corruption. It is libertine, not libertarian. Whilst socialism again as a governing authority by and of itself is nothing more than totalitarianism, subjugation is not really a welfare state.

The mistake being continually made is politically unaware individuals assuming there is only one way to intellectually define the world around us (the "correct" way), and that governing bodies are economic institutions. This is not the case. The same words mean completely different things to an American, a Frenchman or a Russian, and these differences directly alter economics where one is given political authority over another.


The only thing "socialism" or subsidy is going to do to the USA is make your evil and cruel health and welfare systems more human and more humane, and perhaps eventually it might even shift your social culturing towards less "live and let die" greedy, selfish and entitled attitudes.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with governing, just economics.

Ping
05-11-2010, 06:43 PM
I never cease to be taken aback by the American cultural tendency to interpret socialism as collectivism and capitalism and libertarianism.

socialism is just subsidy. Switzerland is a parliamentary democracy practising socialist economics, the degree of subsidy varies between parties and terms.

the Australian Labor Party is nationalist-socialist (a formal member of socialist international, but where the Nazi Party was autocracy the ALP are closest to Menshevism by policy, so are closer to communism than nazism despite inferrence of concise labelling).

France runs basically on Menshevism.

The CIS which is most of Eastern Europe (chased back into the hands of the Kremlin by US foreign policy in the last twenty years), were of course Bolshevik during USSR but soviets (unions/workers councils) still hold a lot of power I guess you could sort of call them default Menshevists with overtones of extreme corruption atm.

Republicans are basically Nationalists, despite their capitalist economic policy their right wingers have more in common with Nazism than say parliamentarianism, whilst their leftists have more in common with Stalinism.

And capitalism as any kind of governing authority by and of itself is nothing more than purist corruption. It is libertine, not libertarian. Whilst socialism again as a governing authority by and of itself is nothing more than totalitarianism, subjugation is not really a welfare state.

The mistake being continually made is politically unaware individuals assuming there is only one way to intellectually define the world around us (the "correct" way), and that governing bodies are economic institutions. This is not the case. The same words mean completely different things to an American, a Frenchman or a Russian, and these differences directly alter economics where one is given political authority over another.


The only thing "socialism" or subsidy is going to do to the USA is make your evil and cruel health and welfare systems more human and more humane, and perhaps eventually it might even shift your social culturing towards less "live and let die" greedy, selfish and entitled attitudes.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with governing, just economics.

Finally, I find someone who I agree with 100%.

Ten-96
05-13-2010, 08:59 PM
The only thing "socialism" or subsidy is going to do to the USA is make your evil and cruel health and welfare systems more human and more humane, and perhaps eventually it might even shift your social culturing towards less "live and let die" greedy, selfish and entitled attitudes.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with governing, just economics.

Like Greece, Spain and the UK. All of their economic systems are based on the socialism structure and look where they are financially with their "humane" health care systems.

vanir
05-14-2010, 02:28 AM
Like Greece, Spain and the UK. All of their economic systems are based on the socialism structure and look where they are financially with their "humane" health care systems.

Not true, this is again the product of Americanism in political definement. You're calling subsidy and "socialism" interchangeable terms again, which is the age old "Reds under the Bed" Cold War paranoia.

They are industrial economies under parliamentary government. Socialism is a clean sweep of capitalist economy in legislative terms, a paradigm shift.

Even when we have the ALP in federal parliament Australia remains a "democratic monarchy," it doesn't suddenly switch to a socialist republic. This is because federal parliament trumps individual parties as a legislative body, pride of place secured by the Australian Constitution. We frequently have a socialist party in power yet remain a capitalist nation by strict definition.

Spain has a fascist history and greece has socialist tendencies, however their economies remain industrial (ours was once colonial). If anything their financial woes are more an example of capitalist failing than they are of socialist failing.

France uses an institutional socialist economy, so does Switzerland and Finland. Those are the strict west European examples of socialism, they haven't done too badly at all, France did better in the last thirty years than most of western Europe combined, maintaining a similar standard of living with much greater defence spending.

Totenkopf
05-14-2010, 03:45 AM
No matter what term you wish to use, socialist or statist or something else, the subsidizing of the Greek population by it's govt has been a big source of Greece's problems. At some point they, the govt, are no longer going to be able to do so and then the people revolt b/c their sense of entitlement has been offended. It's difficult to generate wealth when the govt is robbing peter to pay paul so it can get perpetually reelected. Frankly, it's merely a conceit to claim that "socializing" America's health and welfare system will make it somehow more humane or human. It just shilfts control from an arguably impersonal private sector to an unaccountable public one.

vanir
05-14-2010, 09:12 AM
...the subsidizing of the Greek population by it's govt has been a big source of Greece's problems.

It would be customary to qualify the statement (evidentiary procedure), then point out how that extrapolates the generalised claim.

For example, let me toss out, "No subsidy had nothing to do with it. It was corruption."

You might also explain why Australian economy isn't in third world nation status when we subsidise flagrantly. Medicare, I don't pay for any mandatory medical care, not a cent. I pay a yearly levy in taxes, a few hundred bucks I never notice. You know how much I pay for $100 medication, 5 bucks. Welfare, if I'm unemployed I get benefits...forever. If I'm invalid, elderly, disabled, pension. Must be paying ridiculous taxes? Got a payslip right here. Taxable $677, Nett $633. Y'know how much my tax return was last year? $1200.

Dude, trust me, subsidy is working. Really, really well. You guys, yanks, you've got some serious brain related troubles in your government offices over there.

Tommycat
05-14-2010, 10:44 AM
You guys, yanks, you've got some serious brain related troubles in your government offices over there.
Australia population: 21 M
US population 300 M

Australia military budget:Appx $15B US
US military budget: Appx $540B US

Australian medical budget: Couldn't find hard numbers
US Medical budget :$394.5B US Medicare + $276.4B US Medicaid (HOLY CRAP!!! We actually DID spend more on healthcare than military and this was under Bush)

Now seems to me that we just aren't getting our money's worth out of medicare and medicaid. I blame it on the numbers of supervisors and administrators. The efficiency of Medicare and Medicaid is sorely lacking. Currently we are spending around 750B US on Medicare and Medicaid. That does not include the 700B we also spend on social security, or the 570 in other mandatory expenses(including Welfare). Now, I'm no financial genius, but you'd think that the TRILLION PLUS we spend on medicare, medicaid and SS would get us a bit more than health care for a few people. It seems that we should expect more bang for our buck.

Heck with JUST medicare and medicaid, if we take that money and put it aside solely for funding medical needs, the entire population of the US would have 2500 extra for medical expenses PER YEAR. NOW, that population number includes people that can afford better insurance(appx 70% of the population) so we're left with around 10k per person per year.... average health care cost per person? around $7500

edit: please don't beat me up too much over the numbers, I just did quick searches.

Salzella
05-14-2010, 01:58 PM
No matter what term you wish to use, socialist or statist or something else, the subsidizing of the Greek population by it's govt has been a big source of Greece's problems. At some point they, the govt, are no longer going to be able to do so and then the people revolt b/c their sense of entitlement has been offended.

Oh come on. The problem with Greece is not that it is socialist (it's not), it's that it's poorly run, and in Europe you could look at several more socialist examples, although we're still talking only in comparision to America and it's bizarre fear of anything even slightly red, that are in fact propping up Greece, to varying extents. The Nordic countries for example. And in any case the recent troubles are not in fact down entirely to the government.

At some point they, the govt, are no longer going to be able to do so and then the people revolt b/c their sense of entitlement has been offended. It's difficult to generate wealth when the govt is robbing peter to pay paul so it can get perpetually reelected.
That is a series of pretty extraordinary assumptions. Firstly, I can't see it being true that a people under a government that has some sort of welfare protection is more likely to revolt than one where the government does nothing. Secondly, the protests in Greece are largely down not to the government, but due to the financial speculators who made the market panic by downgrading the bonds, and I find it sickening that a small clique of suits in Wall street can panic a massive insitution such as the EU, not to mention the organisations that it is connected to, just because they get a bit jittery about payments, which let's not forget was not a problem before the economy tanked...

Frankly, it's merely a conceit to claim that "socializing" America's health and welfare system will make it somehow more humane or human. It just shilfts control from an arguably impersonal private sector to an unaccountable public one.
No, it's not. Capitalist healthcare is, by definition, not human; it is faceless, it is corporate, it is regulated. That seems to be a large part of the appeal of the whole system for some. Also, a public body is, again by definition, accountable. That is largely the point of it being associated with government and it is why the NHS in the UK is accountable, and part of the reason we value it so much, even though it is bloated and inefficient, is because we can look across the Atlantic and see how much worse off we could be.

Tommycat
05-14-2010, 03:35 PM
No, it's not. Capitalist healthcare is, by definition, not human; it is faceless, it is corporate, it is regulated. That seems to be a large part of the appeal of the whole system for some. Also, a public body is, again by definition, accountable. That is largely the point of it being associated with government and it is why the NHS in the UK is accountable, and part of the reason we value it so much, even though it is bloated and inefficient, is because we can look across the Atlantic and see how much worse off we could be.

Sorry, but for all your talk of assumptions, you forget the key problem with government run healthcare is it depends on the government. In the US that relies on the US government. Ask yourself this: Would you trust your healthcare in the hands of either party? If you would trust the Dems to do it, would you trust the Republicans to take care of you properly? Is it too far removed to think that a future US administration(or rather congress) might add in a requirement of government service to have access to this healthcare. Some requirement that military service is required?

Keep in mind persons in the military have experienced a type of government run healthcare. Look at the VA and it's bloated inefficient and pretty dismal treatment of patients(in many areas). When I was in the service, they pretty well prescribed whatever the drug of the month was to everyone. We used to joke about how they would give prescription strength Tylenol for everything. Viral infection? Tylenol. Pneumonia? Tylenol. Broken leg? Tylenol. Necrotizong Faciitis? Tylenol. (Though I hear they use Vicodin now)

Salzella
05-14-2010, 03:50 PM
Assuming that nationalised healthcare will be bad because it's 'run by the government' is the biggest and daftest assumption you could make, and could well end up a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm guessing from the quote in your signature you don't view governments with a fantasic amount of good faith. Well, fine. However, I would trust the government to do it because Governments have a mandate to govern, ie. provide the best possible service to people in the areas in which it holds power, and in a country as large, rich and (apparently) willing as the US of A then I would think it a pretty good bet that the healthcare would be of good quality. Private companies have no such mandate and their interests are beyond regulation, and as such it's slick and faceless, but overall a) not universal which we already know and b) largely unconcerned with the extent to which it gets people better beyond the impact that it has on their (considerable no doubt) pay packets. I know which of the two I would rather have looking after me.

Also, conflating public healthcare with military healthcare is daft because they are two completely seperate institutions and furthermore I'm guessing that the former is going to be a hell of a lot better funded and run than the latter.

Tommycat
05-14-2010, 04:30 PM
Assuming that nationalised healthcare will be bad because it's 'run by the government' is the biggest and daftest assumption you could make, and could well end up a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm guessing from the quote in your signature you don't view governments with a fantasic amount of good faith. Well, fine. However, I would trust the government to do it because Governments have a mandate to govern, ie. provide the best possible service to people in the areas in which it holds power, and in a country as large, rich and (apparently) willing as the US of A then I would think it a pretty good bet that the healthcare would be of good quality. Private companies have no such mandate and their interests are beyond regulation, and as such it's slick and faceless, but overall a) not universal which we already know and b) largely unconcerned with the extent to which it gets people better beyond the impact that it has on their (considerable no doubt) pay packets. I know which of the two I would rather have looking after me.

Also, conflating public healthcare with military healthcare is daft because they are two completely seperate institutions and furthermore I'm guessing that the former is going to be a hell of a lot better funded and run than the latter.
My quote is from one of the founding fathers of this country. It just so happens that HE didn't trust the government either.

As for whether ANY government can do it: Well I'm sure one can. I just don't have faith in the US government to run anything all that well. Look at all the waste fraud and abuse ALREADY in the system. Now we add a huge bureaucracy to that. and we'll end up with VA healthcare(not military healthcare) which getting them to reverse a "no" decision just about requires an act of congress.

Again, I point out that even if you trust THIS administration with your health, ask yourself if you would trust say... the Bush administration with your health.

Totenkopf
05-14-2010, 05:53 PM
Oh come on. The problem with Greece is not that it is socialist (it's not), it's that it's poorly run, and in Europe you could look at several more socialist examples, although we're still talking only in comparision to America and it's bizarre fear of anything even slightly red, that are in fact propping up Greece, to varying extents. The Nordic countries for example. And in any case the recent troubles are not in fact down entirely to the government.

Slightly red? You mean like Social Security, welfare and Medicaid....all of which have existed in America for several decades already and don't appear in any real danger of going away, other than by potential insolvency? As to who's to blame in Greece, are you absolving govt of any responsibility or is this another one of those anti-capitalist argumants you're making? I never said Greece's problem was ENTIRELY the govt anyway. But you have to admit they were promising subsidy levels that were economically unsustainable.


That is a series of pretty extraordinary assumptions. Firstly, I can't see it being true that a people under a government that has some sort of welfare protection is more likely to revolt than one where the government does nothing.

Nice strawman. Not making comparisons between two seperate systems. Greece is under significant financial strain and the people who've gotten used to being heavily subsidized now face austerity measures and are being egged on by communists and other malcontents to riot in the streets. The Germans are even being villified for not wanting to subsidize Greek irresponsibility.


Secondly, the protests in Greece are largely down not to the government, but due to the financial speculators who made the market panic by downgrading the bonds, and I find it sickening that a small clique of suits in Wall street can panic a massive insitution such as the EU, not to mention the organisations that it is connected to, just because they get a bit jittery about payments, which let's not forget was not a problem before the economy tanked...

The protests in Greece are mostly about the fact that they will now have to make hard choices and not get by on someone else's dime. Whether they scapegoat Wall Street or their own govt's incompetence is irrelevant. They only want their subsidies and don't care who has to finance it. And when economies are "good" and everyone can make their payments, no one worries. When people start defaulting, then it becomes an issue. Basic logic.


No, it's not. Capitalist healthcare is, by definition, not human; it is faceless, it is corporate, it is regulated. That seems to be a large part of the appeal of the whole system for some. Also, a public body is, again by definition, accountable. That is largely the point of it being associated with government and it is why the NHS in the UK is accountable, and part of the reason we value it so much, even though it is bloated and inefficient, is because we can look across the Atlantic and see how much worse off we could be.

Socialst healthcare is no less faceless than capitalist healthcare. It is also regulated, usually by the very entity that provides it in the first place. No, a public body that is a faceless bureaucracy is no more accountable in the end than a private corporation. Except in cases where a govt allows for a virtual monopoly, regionally or nationally, corporations are also accountable in the end. Both to the govt itself and to the shifting sands of popular opinion. Seeing as how I've never experienced the horrors of "capitalist healthcare" that many across the pond seem to think exist (and I've gone periods of years w/o health insurance), I can say I'm glad I'm not stuck (yet?) w/ "socialist healthcare".

Also, conflating public healthcare with military healthcare is daft because they are two completely seperate institutions and furthermore I'm guessing that the former is going to be a hell of a lot better funded and run than the latter.

Can I interest you in a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge. :xp:

You might also explain why Australian economy isn't in third world nation status when we subsidise flagrantly. Medicare, I don't pay for any mandatory medical care, not a cent. I pay a yearly levy in taxes, a few hundred bucks I never notice. You know how much I pay for $100 medication, 5 bucks. Welfare, if I'm unemployed I get benefits...forever. If I'm invalid, elderly, disabled, pension. Must be paying ridiculous taxes? Got a payslip right here. Taxable $677, Nett $633. Y'know how much my tax return was last year? $1200.

Dude, trust me, subsidy is working. Really, really well. You guys, yanks, you've got some serious brain related troubles in your government offices over there.

Subsidy is always great when someone else is carrying the freight. ;)

Tysyacha
06-17-2010, 12:13 AM
Ayn Rand, one of my favorite writers, was one of the most pro-capitalist authors I've ever had the privilege of reading. I believe that she would be against so-called "corporate welfare" as well as welfare for individual people.

If capitalism involves competition among businesses, especially businesses which offer the same type of good or service, then why are some of them given government money? Shouldn't the free market be the sole decider of whether a given business can "compete" or not? Why should I, as a taxpayer, fund corporate subsidies? I may be ignorant, but this doesn't make sense to me.

Totenkopf
06-17-2010, 05:25 AM
No, I wouldn't say ignorant. If the market is to decide, then there should be no subsidies for business. Otherwise you've basically only got crony capitalism. However, neither should there be public subsidies for individuals (barring the legitimately sick or incapacitated) or at least not w/o strict strings attached. Just like w/the service, if the govt is footing your bill, it gets to call the shots about what you'll need to do to qualify and where you may have to go as well.