Soshalizm

Sandvich

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44

Apparently the Tea Party is garnering 4% more support than Obama at the moment.

Is anyone else seriously worried about this? There's nothing Obama's done that would make people go over to the tea party as an alternative, really. Although I doubt most americans bothered to read his policies.

Most of all though, it shows quite how Xenophobic americans are that they oppose a "Socialism" that's quite common in Europe. I fear for the safety of the earth if this is the state of our primary super power.

PeakOutput

their fear of socialism isnt irrational but what is going on isnt socialism thats for sure

the tea party movement has some very valid points though and its not suprising that they are getting support but they are not going to take over or anything they are just another wing of the republicans right now

Sandvich

their fear of socialism isnt irrational

Sorry, but it kind of is. Unless you believe Sweden is a scary place?

Granted it's not proper "socialist", but it's significantly more socialist and less scary than the US.

Denerick

I really hope to God these gun wielding nutjobs fill out every public space in the USA come November. Let ordinary voters see them for what they are. Let them ruin the Republican primaries by pushing them a few miles into the Republican Right, and lose contact forever with the moderate majority of America.

I've no doubt the Dems will lose a couple dozen house seats and a couple of Senate seats, but not many more than that. Not if these crazies take up anymore of the nations political airwaves.

Or maybe I over-estimate Americans.

Amerika

Sandvich wrote: »

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44

Apparently the Tea Party is garnering 4% more support than Obama at the moment.

Is anyone else seriously worried about this? There's nothing Obama's done that would make people go over to the tea party as an alternative, really. Although I doubt most americans bothered to read his policies.

Most of all though, it shows quite how Xenophobic americans are that they oppose a "Socialism" that's quite common in Europe. I fear for the safety of the earth if this is the state of our primary super power.

So this is the evolution of Tea Party bashing. It started out they were loons, then radicals, now it’s racists, and looks like tomorrow it will be anarchists as they will be causing “fear for the safety of the earth.” :pac: Maybe one day they will be tagged with the correct moniker: Concerned Citizens.

Sandvich

Amerika wrote: »

So this is the evolution of Tea Party bashing. It started out they were loons, then radicals, now it’s racists, and looks like tomorrow it will be anarchists as they will be causing “fear for the safety of the earth.” :pac: Maybe one day they will be tagged with the correct moniker: Concerned Citizens.

I'm sorry, but the fact that most of these people don't even understand what socialism is, is a fact and a dangerous one at that.

Instead of dealing with the argument at hand, you look for a way to defame it. Again, this is intellectual dishonesty.

Do you realise that to anyone else on this forum reading your posts, you don't sound like a real person? That makes the "Concerned citizen" thing hard to swallow.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

So this is the evolution of Tea Party bashing. It started out they were loons, then radicals, now it’s racists, and looks like tomorrow it will be anarchists as they will be causing “fear for the safety of the earth.” :pac: Maybe one day they will be tagged with the correct moniker: Concerned Citizens.

They would be considered concerned citizens if they stopped listening to fire breathing morons like Rush Limbaugh. Face it, the far right has ruined American politics with its constant shower of sensationalism and prejudice. Its the equivilent of having Jackie Healy Rae roaring down a microphone every day, screaming about how ludicrous homosexuals are and that they should be burnt at the stake.

Sandvich

Denerick wrote: »

They would be considered concerned citizens if they stopped listening to fire breathing morons like Rush Limbaugh. Face it, the far right has ruined American politics with its constant shower of sensationalism and prejudice. Its the equivilent of having Jackie Healy Rae roaring down a microphone every day, screaming about how ludicrous homosexuals are and that they should be burnt at the stake.

Ireland is a conservative country by european standards, but we still generally don't take **** like that.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

I've no doubt the Dems will lose a couple dozen house seats and a couple of Senate seats, but not many more than that. Not if these crazies take up anymore of the nations political airwaves.

Or maybe I over-estimate Americans.

Wanna make a bet? I say they lose the senate proper. And it will be close in the house, which I also think will move to (R) if this administration keeps putting forth imbecilic ideas like cap-and-trade, amnesty and more nanny-state initiatives .

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Wanna make a bet? I say they lose the senate proper. And it will be close in the house, which I also think will move to (R) if this administration keeps putting forth imbecilic ideas like cap-and-trade, amnesty and more nanny-state initiatives .

The country may not like the Democrats but they certainly don't like the kind of insane rhetoric of the tea party movement. What I find most amusing is their insistence of getting the government out of their health system, even though the pre-Obama reforms had the government spending more per person on healthcare than many European countries. Yet these people, when they're pensioners, will be more than happy to accept that awfully socialist institution - medicare...

Also, I honestly think that the more moderate Americans who see the tea partiers screaming in public spaces the better. America is a crazy place but most people really don't have the stomach for that kind of radical crap. Its the anti war demonstrators and the Democrats all over again (The left wing of the Democrat party ruined McGovern in 1972)

Sandvich

Denerick; unfortunately it appears they may prefer it to Obama from the results in the thread.

Thus my worry.

Amerika

Sandvich wrote: »

I'm sorry, but the fact that most of these people don't even understand what socialism is, is a fact and a dangerous one at that.

Instead of dealing with the argument at hand, you look for a way to defame it. Again, this is intellectual dishonesty.

Do you realise that to anyone else on this forum reading your posts, you don't sound like a real person? That makes the "Concerned citizen" thing hard to swallow.

Okay, since you claim to be so knowledgable, please explain to us here in the states what an American form of socialism would be, not European socialism. Then explain why we are NOT moving in that path. Please enlighten us poor unfortunate souls.

America became the greatest nation by consistently remaining a center right country. I prefer to keep it that way, unless you can prove to me otherwise. And don't be afraid to use history. I sure will.

Sandvich

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, since you claim to be so knowledgable, please explain to us here in the states what an American form of socialism would be, not European socialism.

What? This doesn't make any sense. Europe is not one country, so obviously, has different forms of economic systems, many of which are considerably more "socialist" than the US.

Then explain why we are NOT moving in that path. Please enlighten us poor unfortunate souls.

Because of people like you, who are quite frankly, ignorant or dishonest when it comes to this subject.

America became the greatest nation by consistently remaining a center right country. I prefer to keep it that way, unless you can prove to me otherwise. And don't be afraid to use history. I sure will.

You're still veering away from the subject at hand. It seems you put any mental faculties you happen to have into making the argument difficult(not the same as asking "hard questions").

What is about Sweden that's so bad in the way it's run? Or Denmark? And is there nothing the US could learn from them? Can you explain why Socialism is so bad without answering in a typical right wing 1 or 2 line slogan?

Amerika

So how could Sweden or Denmark's form of socialism benefit America? Or is it too hard of a question?

Sandvich

Amerika wrote: »

So how could Sweden or Denmark's form of socialism benefit America? Or is it too hard of a question?

You're the person rallying against socialism in general - how about you tell me what's wrong with it?

Obviously, Denmark and Sweden work as countries. So what is the issue with socialism?

Sweden has universal coverage with it's healthcare and costs less on average than the US system(and by a significant amount). How is that not beneficial?

Sweden's unemployment level is consistantly not terribly different than the US's(often less in fact), so obviously the "Welfare state" doesn't have the kind of negative effects you'd like to claim. Sweden has excellent services overall and very high broadband penetration. Since the mentality in sweden doesn't place as much emphasis on work for the sake of putting hairs on your chest, people seem to work better. Swedish design and engineering is something positive. American design and engineering? Not quite as much.

Is there something in American culture that makes it incompatible with this? If so; then that needs to be corrected instead of socialist hybrid systems being shunned.

And it STILL doesn't change the fact that Tea Partiers are calling something socialism that isn't - you still haven't addressed this.

SLUSK

Sandvich wrote: »

Sorry, but it kind of is. Unless you believe Sweden is a scary place?

Granted it's not proper "socialist", but it's significantly more socialist and less scary than the US.

This might be slightly off topic but in reality Sweden is a tax haven for very wealthy people who in reality pay very little taxes. Through an investment vehicle called "kapitalförsäkring" you can pay very little taxes on profits and dividends from equities. Sweden a tax haven for investors http://www.thelocal.se/25756/20100326/

SLUSK

Sandvich wrote: »

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44

Apparently the Tea Party is garnering 4% more support than Obama at the moment.

Is anyone else seriously worried about this? There's nothing Obama's done that would make people go over to the tea party as an alternative, really. Although I doubt most americans bothered to read his policies.

Most of all though, it shows quite how Xenophobic americans are that they oppose a "Socialism" that's quite common in Europe. I fear for the safety of the earth if this is the state of our primary super power.

The Tea Party movement is the voice for real change in America. The Democrats and Republican only serve their corporate masters.

Sandvich

SLUSK wrote: »

This might be slightly off topic but in reality Sweden is a tax haven for very wealthy people who in reality pay very little taxes. Through an investment vehicle called "kapitalförsäkring" you can pay very little taxes on profits and dividends from equities. Sweden a tax haven for investors http://www.thelocal.se/25756/20100326/

That's a shame, but that's an evidence of a lack of socialist policy, not the opposite. Currently the "right" are in the power in Sweden(still more left leaning than the dems) so I suppose things like this might happen.

Also, most Swedes don't complain about taxes. They get their moneys worth.

You shouild probably read the whole article too.

“In the States this type of thing would be totally exploited. Not in Sweden. I think it has to do with the Swede’s introverted nature or even a sense of guilt,” says Quentin Helgren.

Sandvich

SLUSK wrote: »

The Tea Party movement is the voice for real change in America. The Democrats and Republican only serve their corporate masters.

Another slogan.

Denerick

Exactly. Most of their posts seems to be recycled from radical blogs. They could probably set up a bot and it would be just as convincing.

Amerika

Sandvich wrote: »

You're the person rallying against socialism in general - how about you tell me what's wrong with it?

Obviously, Denmark and Sweden work as countries. So what is the issue with socialism?

Sweden has universal coverage with it's healthcare and costs less on average than the US system(and by a significant amount). How is that not beneficial?

Sweden's unemployment level is consistantly not terribly different than the US's(often less in fact), so obviously the "Welfare state" doesn't have the kind of negative effects you'd like to claim. Sweden has excellent services overall and very high broadband penetration. Since the mentality in sweden doesn't place as much emphasis on work for the sake of putting hairs on your chest, people seem to work better. Swedish design and engineering is something positive. American design and engineering? Not quite as much.

Is there something in American culture that makes it incompatible with this? If so; then that needs to be corrected instead of socialist hybrid systems being shunned.

And it STILL doesn't change the fact that Tea Partiers are calling something socialism that isn't - you still haven't addressed this.

We are moving towards socialism. We already have components of it in social security and medicare/medicaid. Many Americans equate socialism with a redistribution of wealth. This also is already happening as 47% of families here do not pay income taxes. The people of America, a center right country, have always believed in having a chance for success through hard work. We have a culture of not having guaranteed success nor do most of us want to be taken care of. We have a culture that feels people that work hard should not have to pay for those who don’t want to work as hard. The disadvantaged are another story. If you don't work hard, then too bad (sounds tough, but that is the culture here). We equate much of the undesirability of wealth distribution with socialism. It may not be socialism proper, but this is the perception here. The only thing most of want is the equality of opportunity, not wealth. Unfortunately this is changing, and part of what the Tea Party is all about.

I often hear of Sweden’s form of socialism touted as if it were heaven on earth. So I'll ask you the question, why is Cuba, North Korea, much of Africa, Latin and Central America’s form of socialism more like hell on earth?

Denerick

Its dishonest to imply that the Democratic Party want America to evolve into a North Korea/Cuba type system.

Strawmen are a lot easier to knock over I'll grant you.

Overheal

Sandvich wrote: »

Sorry, but it kind of is. Unless you believe Sweden is a scary place?

Granted it's not proper "socialist", but it's significantly more socialist and less scary than the US.

Well then you look at Ireland and you have basically the American Antithesis. We don't really want that. Your neighbour's on a 2 year wait list to have his cataract removed; nobody can even bother to get out and politically protest; all self defense items have been outlawed; the gross levels of taxation; etc.

Iwasfrozen

Amerika wrote: »

I often hear of Sweden’s form of socialism touted as if it were heaven on earth. So I'll ask you the question, why is Cuba, North Korea, much of Africa, Latin and Central America’s form of socialism more like hell on earth?

Sweden is not Socialist.
Cuba, North Korea, much of Africa, Latin and Central America are not Socialist.
The Soviet Union was not Socialist.

Socialism is a form of state in which resources are paid "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"

Please do not try to pass off a dictatorship as Socialism. That won't wash here.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Sandvich

Amerika wrote: »

We are moving towards socialism. We already have components of it in social security and medicare/medicaid. Many Americans equate socialism with a redistribution of wealth. This also is already happening as 47% of families here do not pay income taxes. The people of America, a center right country, have always believed in having a chance for success through hard work.

So all people who have loads of money worked honestly for it? Someone earning a thousand times as much as a toilet scrubber works a thousand times as hard?

Yeah, right. And they're rarely a thousand times as valuable either.

We have a culture of not having guaranteed success nor do most of us want to be taken care of.

Um, sorry, but this is a stupid statement. You do not have "guaranteed success" in Scandanavia. Not everyone is the CEO of Nokia or the invetor of Linux.

At the end of the day - it's not about whether YOU want to be taken care of. It's about the fact that you do not want OTHERS to be taken care of. People who would die under a more libertarian system are seen as "necessary sacrifices" - but you shy away from outright admitting this.

Nobody has notable less value of life in Scandanavia because of their economic system.

In fact, I'd suggest your system, which only values money and "Hard work"(which is in theory mindless repetitive labour, and in practice lucking out on the stock markets) decreases "soulfulness" since it encourages selfish values.

Again, you're just throwing a bunch of slogans together. You're not explaining to me WHY this is good, WHY this is bad.

"We don't want to be taken care of" - you don't want to be taken care of, obviously, others do. A system like left leaning european states have does not prevent you from succeeding or failing in your endeavours.

It only prevents you from failing so hard you end up in a dumpster.

Why is this such a valuable feature of capitalism?

I think you've been sold too many "American dream" stories about Hobos running baseball teams.

We have a culture that feels people that work hard should not have to pay for those who don’t want to work as hard.

Except it doesn't work out like that, on a number of levels.

People who work (with some exceptions due to a screwed up system in Ireland) will make more money than those that don't. This is a fact.

Also, how do you know it's "don't want"? What if some people just aren't built for 9 to 5 jobs as readily as others? What about people with disabilities that make it difficult to work?

The amount of money you pay towards people who "Don't want" to work is small compared to other money sinks, and no large amount out of your pocket personally.

When you get into justification between work and earning; that's when redistribution of wealth REALLY comes in. After all; how hard do you work? If people who work less or not at all deserve little or no money; how much do you deserve? Wages do not generally directly reflect someone's worth or how hard they work.

So, the logical extent of this system is that we tax everyone in such a way that they earn money according to their as closely as possible. Because overpaid positions will always exist, as well as underpaid.

Libertarianism is a load of old bollocks primarily for the reason that you're CONSTANTLY using things the government provides for you. Regulations and standards in building and food safety, for example. The same government that protects you in this manner is the same one that protects people from ending up in a dumpster. This is a fair cop.

The disadvantaged are another story. If you don't work hard, then too bad (sounds tough, but that is the culture here). We equate much of the undesirability of wealth distribution with socialism. It may not be socialism proper, but this is the perception here. The only thing most of want is the equality of opportunity, not wealth. Unfortunately this is changing, and part of what the Tea Party is all about.

"Unfortunately"? Then why are countries like Sweden overall better to live in?

Equality of opportunity is a load of **** too, since people are not put on a level playing field. Your background, upbringing, race, sex, physical capabilities, attention span, whatever, all have a huge effect on how successful you are in western capitalism.

To ensure real equality of opportunity; you have to protect it. And being a "Conservative libertarian" you like to believe everything sorts itself out. But obviously, it doesn't.

I often hear of Sweden’s form of socialism touted as if it were heaven on earth. So I'll ask you the question, why is Cuba, North Korea, much of Africa, Latin and Central America’s form of socialism more like hell on earth?

Are you really this thick? Socialism is an economic model. Countries that are dictatorships obviously are going to have issues, and many of those examples aren't even socialist. Also, Cuba was a third world country before it was "socialist", essentially. It was never a paradise in modern times.

Why are you even asking this question? Right wingers only ask these kind of questions if they're rhetorical. So what's your answer for it? Why is Sweden different to North Korea?

I think it's pretty immature that instead of having a real argument against Scandanavia, you try to bring up North Korea. How ridiculous. This is the exactly the kind of nonsense tactics people hate american right wingers for.

Sandvich

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sweden is not Socialist.
Cuba, North Korea, much of Africa, Latin and Central America are not Socialist.
The Soviet Union was not Socialist.

Socialism is a form of state in which resources are paid "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"

Please do not try to pass off a dictatorship as Socialism. That won't wash here.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Sweden is a socialist hybrid state, officially and in practice. There are no true "Socialist" states in existence to my knowledge - but socialism has many different meanings. Otherwise you're stuck with one that probably doesn't work that well since nobody ever evolves it.

What the Scandanavian states have works pretty well for a most part. There are flaws, things are quite expensive there(depending on the country), but overall it's a better system.

Amerika

Sandvich wrote: »

This is the exactly the kind of nonsense tactics people hate american right wingers for.

You seem to be filled with a lot of hate.

Sandvich

Amerika wrote: »

You seem to be filled with a lot of hate.

But this is one of those tactics too! You may as well be a spambot.

Are you going to ignore the rest of my post due to that comment, which is a statement of fact?

Yes; I am filled with a lot of hate. I hate bad debating and writing off poltical slogans as meaty ideologies. I fail to say how this compares with the negative connotations "Hate" normally has.

Nearly every tactic you use would get thrown out in a real debate.

Also; need I remind you -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055396904

You're tippytoeing very close to this line; if not already over it.

Iwasfrozen

Sandvich wrote: »

Sweden is a socialist hybrid state, officially and in practice. There are no true "Socialist" states in existence to my knowledge - but socialism has many different meanings. Otherwise you're stuck with one that probably doesn't work that well since nobody ever evolves it.

Marx had laid out what Socialism is and Sweden is not Socialist. They may call themselves so but they aren't.

Here's a quote from wikipedia:

wikipedia wrote:

The Marxist conception of socialism is that of a specific historical phase that will displace capitalism and precede communism. The major characteristics of socialism (particularly as conceived by Marx and Engels after the Paris Commune of 1871), are that the proletariat will control the means of production through a workers' state erected by the workers in their interests. Economic activity is still organised through the use of incentive systems and social classes would still exist but to a lesser and diminishing extent than under capitalism.

This does not tie in with what Sweden is or ever was.

Instead Sweden is a Social Democratic country. Big difference.

Sandvich wrote: »

What the Scandanavian states have works pretty well for a most part. There are flaws, things are quite expensive there(depending on the country), but overall it's a better system.

Agree with this, but I can't help thinking Norway was helped along a lot by its Oil.

Iwasfrozen

Amerika wrote: »

You seem to be filled with a lot of hate.

And teabaggers aren't ?

Sandvich

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Marx had laid out what Socialism is and Sweden is not Socialist. They may call themselves so but they aren't.

Here's a quote from wikipedia:

This does not tie in with what Sweden is or ever was.

Instead Sweden is a Social Democratic country. Big difference.


Agree with this, but I can't help thinking Norway was helped along a lot by its Oil.

But "Worker's state" links to Social Democracy

Sandvich

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And teabaggers aren't ?

They are quite hateful towards socialists and anyone more left leaning towards them at the end of the day, even if the accusations of racism are a bit exagerrated. You can't ignore some of those posters.

Iwasfrozen

Sandvich wrote: »

But "Worker's state" links to Social Democracy

Social democracy is an evolutionary reformist Socialism. In other words Social Democracy is further right then Socialism.

Wikipedia does a nice comparison table on the Social Democracy page if you're interested. Just here.

Denerick

Marx is incredibly vague on what a socialist system would look like, and besides, your belief that his interpretation is gospel is kind of creepy, and reminiscent of how a fundamentalist Christian would view the Bible. 'The Socialist Ideal' predated Marx, and there were several thinkers who came after him.

Sandvich

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Social democracy is an evolutionary reformist Socialism. In other words Social Democracy is further right then Socialism.

Wikipedia does a nice comparison table on the Social Democracy page if you're interested. Just here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

Actually; this is a very interesting article.

Amerika; you should read this.

Apparently in Denmark you're exceptionally free economically, despite it being a "Welfare state". How you gonna explain this one?

I'm feeling another Rush Limbaugh quote coming.

Iwasfrozen

Denerick wrote: »

Marx is incredibly vague on what a socialist system would look like, and besides, your belief that his interpretation is gospel is kind of creepy, and reminiscent of how a fundamentalist Christian would view the Bible. 'The Socialist Ideal' predated Marx, and there were several thinkers who came after him.

Marx developed the idea of Socialism. Engels and Lenin further developed his works.

It's not creepy at all the main idea on this thread is how teabaggers are mistaken as to what Socialism actually is. But a lot of people, even in Ireland aren't sure what Socialism is and assume countries like the Soviet Union or Cuba were Socialist or worse Communist. :eek:

It is interesting to note though that according to Marx Socialism is inevitable, that it will not be a choice people will consensly make but will instead be the result of the evolution of tecnology and peoples opinions in general. Just as The Roman Empire (A Slave Society) followed Primitive Communism.

Again there is some pretty good reading in wikipedia on this so I'll trow down a link for anyone interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history

Denerick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Marx developed the idea of Socialism. Engels and Lenin further developed his works.

It's not creepy at all the main idea on this thread is how teabaggers are mistaken as to what Socialism actually is. But a lot of people, even in Ireland aren't sure what Socialism is and assume countries like the Soviet Union or Cuba were Socialist or worse Communist. :eek:

It is interesting to note though that according to Marx Socialism is inevitable, that it will not be a choice people will consensly make but will instead be the result of the evolution of tecnology and peoples opinions in general. Just as The Roman Empire (A Slave Society) followed Primitive Communism.

Again there is some pretty good reading in wikipedia on this so I'll trow down a link for anyone interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history

Thanks I'm aware of Wikipedia's existance. But nevertheless socialism has never materialised in the context you speak of, and furthermore its outdated in terms of its description of a 'capitalist', as technically anyone with a Credit Union account is a capitalist. (Or petit-bourgeouis, I always get confused by my red vocabulary)

Socialism existed before Marx, and he is certainly not flawless (Both as an individual and as a political thinker, besides, he is dated at this stage) Sir Robert Owen was a socialist by virtue of a practical experiment in social interactions, Marx, though important, does not have the last say on what a socialist society would look like.

What I consider creepy are the 'totalitarian definitions'. There is no such thing as a capitalist society, and no such thing as a socialist society. Neither have ever existed in history and I doubt either will ever exist in the future.

Sandvich

Anarchocapitalism can't exist without a government to defend a property rights, alright. But I can imagine someone doing it anyway. It'd be anarchocapitalism, it just wouldn't work very well when anyone can nick all your stuff.

Capitalists would do well to remember that capitalism only works because of government intervention in the form of property rights.

dermothickey

Quote:
America became the greatest nation by consistently remaining a center right country. I prefer to keep it that way, unless you can prove to me otherwise. And don't be afraid to use history. I sure will.

Where DO you sprout this sort of propaganda from? Is it your t.v stations tell you this? Your short history books? Your teleevangelists?The only people I've ever heard saying this are SOME Americans..not all, most americans continously complain about greed, poverty gun crime, drugs, Ye may feel that ye are superior to others but it's all in your heads really.Remember what happened in Germany when they believed they were the superior race...sound familiar?

Iwasfrozen

Denerick wrote: »

Thanks I'm aware of Wikipedia's existance. But nevertheless socialism has never materialised in the context you speak of, and furthermore its outdated in terms of its description of a 'capitalist', as technically anyone with a Credit Union account is a capitalist. (Or petit-bourgeouis, I always get confused by my red vocabulary)

Yes, Socialism hasn't materialised in this manner yet. Hence why I linked you to Marx's theory of History.

Denerick wrote: »

Socialism existed before Marx, and he is certainly not flawless (Both as an individual and as a political thinker, besides, he is dated at this stage) Sir Robert Owen was a socialist by virtue of a practical experiment in social interactions, Marx, though important, does not have the last say on what a socialist society would look like.

True Socialism started with Marx. He is the father of Socialism. Robert Owen while important was more of a Spiritualist then a Socialist. Also his work on the grand scale of human history isn't nearly as important as Marx's.

Denerick wrote: »

What I consider creepy are the 'totalitarian definitions'. There is no such thing as a capitalist society, and no such thing as a socialist society. Neither have ever existed in history and I doubt either will ever exist in the future.

Yes there is such a thing as a Capitalist society. You are living in one at the moment. Read this and see how it links in with modern Ireland.

As for my sticking to three Socialist writers, Marx, Engels and Lenin. I believe that by diverging from any theory one ends up with a bastardised version of that original theory. This can be a very dangerous thing with Socialism. As we have seen with The Soviet Union.

Denerick

So in effect you stick to three writers (The most recent one dying in the 1920s) to maintain the 'purity' of your beliefs. Sounds kinda religious to me. As for what your capitalist society looks like - you direct me to what Karl Marx thought a capitalist society looks like. I'm sorry, but I find the Marxist interpretation of history as valid as the Whig Interpretation or the Carlylian 'Heroe' concept.

Iwasfrozen

Denerick wrote: »

So in effect you stick to three writers (The most recent one dying in the 1920s) to maintain the 'purity' of your beliefs. Sounds kinda religious to me. As for what your capitalist society looks like - you direct me to what Karl Marx thought a capitalist society looks like. I'm sorry, but I find the Marxist interpretation of history as valid as the Whig Interpretation or the Carlylian 'Heroe' concept.

Belifes ? God no, I'm not a Marxist.

I linked you to Marx's view of history because that is what we are talking about. Socialism. And Marx is the father of Socialism. Who should I link you to ? Ayn Rand ?

Denerick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Belifes ? God no, I'm not a Marxist.

I'm sorry, assumed you were and was trying to probe to what extent you were willing to think independent of Marx.

Manic Moran

Apparently the Tea Party is garnering 4% more support than Obama at the moment.

Is anyone else seriously worried about this?

No. I think the Tea Party is also garnering more support than the Republican party as well. The majority of 'Tea partiers' are fed up to the back teeth of the whole political scene as it is, both R and D. As am I. The majority are also not radical Limbaugh-listeners, though they are always fun, high-profile people to mock or use as stereotypes for the whole organisation. I don't think I'm a tea partier, but I can certainly sympathise with their frustration with the state of US politics as it is. I'd certainly tell a pollster I support the Tea Party more than Obama. The saving grace for the Democrats is that ultimately when it comes time to vote in November, we're still going to only have "D" and "R" on the ballot sheet in any realistic terms. Thus no matter how strong the Tea Party may be in terms of popularity, there's little chance of it being transformed to anywhere near as great an extent at the ballot booth.

I think the term 'socialist' is used as much as a convenience: There isn't really a better descriptor. The writings of Marx notwithstanding, saying something is too "social democratic" just doesn't really roll off the tongue, and the 'social' in 'social democratic' is there for a reason. Compared to the point of view of the generally conservative American population, calling European philosophies socialist is fairly descriptive. Even conservative European parties are closer to a socialist philosophy than most Democrats.

NTM

Sandvich

think the term 'socialist' is used as much as a convenience: There isn't really a better descriptor. The writings of Marx notwithstanding, saying something is too "social democratic" just doesn't really roll off the tongue,

I really don't think this is the reason the average american says socialism. Otherwise you'd hear them say social democratic now and again at least.

I don't think I'm a tea partier, but I can certainly sympathise with their frustration with the state of US politics as it is. I'd certainly tell a pollster I support the Tea Party more than Obama.

I think maybe you miss the irony that the Tea Party is only part of the wider problem.

The tea party for most is about TAXES and opposing SOCIALISM.

Even conservative European parties are closer to a socialist philosophy than most Democrats.

This is true.

SeanW

Sandvich wrote: »

Another slogan.

So it's not true? "Lobbying" (influence peddling) isn't a multi-billion dollar business?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#Lobbying_expenditure_by_sector
All those politicians (including Chicago Democrat(*shudders*) Barack Obama) don't owe anything to all those corporate campaign donors? (including such luminaries as Goldman Sachs)

Overheal wrote: »

Well then you look at Ireland and you have basically the American Antithesis. We don't really want that. Your neighbour's on a 2 year wait list to have his cataract removed; nobody can even bother to get out and politically protest; all self defense items have been outlawed; the gross levels of taxation; etc.

QFT!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And teabaggers aren't ?

I always find it amusing how people can't just disagree with tea party activists, they have to invoke a sexual slur!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagger

Iwasfrozen

SeanW wrote: »

I always find it amusing how people can't just disagree with tea party activists, they have to invoke a sexual slur!

I knew it was a sexual slur. That's why I used it.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

Well then you look at Ireland and you have basically the American Antithesis. We don't really want that. Your neighbour's on a 2 year wait list to have his cataract removed; nobody can even bother to get out and politically protest; all self defense items have been outlawed; the gross levels of taxation; etc.

Ireland isn't "socialist". It has some half arsed versions of some "socialist" policies that don't have the proper tax structure to properly run or fund them.

If you to see decent countries with "socialist" policies, good healthcare, personal freedoms and liberal laws on "self defense items" then its France, the scandanavian nations, & Germany.

sceptre

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I knew it was a sexual slur. That's why I used it.

It's a gag that was funny for about 20 seconds a year ago. I suggest aiming higher and actually attacking what they have to say, it would make what you're saying immediately more convincing.

Jonny7

At least the pinko loopy left at the time had some valid points, some truths, i.e. there weren't any WMDs in Iraq, Saddam wasn't linked to Al Qaeda, it was practically world opinion at the time... yet..

All I ever hear from tea partiers is complete and utter tripe, Obama hates America, he wants communism, they really and truly believe this stuff.. I mean instead of going for a legit attack on the health reform or taxes or the banking crisis.. they function on pure hate, even before he was elected.. they are whipped into a frenzy by right-wing pundits who are all getting stinking rich because of this..

If you somehow contend this, please feel free to go to youtube and see these same people interviewed on TV, its downright scary.. they really are a bunch of batshiat crazy witch-burners..

BluePlanet

Originally Posted by Overheal
Well then you look at Ireland and you have basically the American Antithesis. We don't really want that. Your neighbour's on a 2 year wait list to have his cataract removed; nobody can even bother to get out and politically protest; all self defense items have been outlawed; the gross levels of taxation; etc.

But income taxes are comparitively low in this country.
I'm certainly willing to pay more - providing I get a quality services in return.
And that's the problem, we don't get bang for our buck.