Have you gone from being a Libertarian to Socialism?

coolemon

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Hitler banned all other political parties in i think 1933 , its a bit disengenious to say he banned socialists.

nationalising industries is an inherently socialist policy regardless of who does it.

Hitler privatised industry. It was a key feature of Nazi Germany.

Are you a Nazi because you favour privatisation?

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Move on from the Nazi stuff please - it is tangental at best!

Eric Cartman

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

So Obama is a Socialist Because he nationalised general motors?

thats a loaded question , as calling obama a socialist puts me in a completely different category of crazy, but that certainly was a socialist ideal and he's one of the most left wing leaders the US has ever had the displeasure of having.

<Snip>

coolemon

"Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing
so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which
systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also
unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by
government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse
sectors." - http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

Are you a Nazi Eric?

johnnyskeleton

coolemon wrote: »

Are you a Nazi Eric?

Mod note:

Next time its a ban. And please dont comment on moderation on thread

hardCopy

mhge wrote: »

I definitely went more SocDem, starting from a free market worship youth. At some stage, especially when you're starting a family, you realise that your personal money can only take you so far and so properly functioning healthcare, transport, education, policing etc. are to be appreciated if you don't want to end up in a compound fearing the great unwashed but prefer a balanced society where people are not being made desperate and things are run smoothly.

I'd be similar. As I've gotten older I've realised that I can live without some of my income of it means I don't need to fear half the population of my city and live in a gated estate. There are plenty of countries around the world where the poor are left to fend for themselves and I wouldn't like to live in any of them, no matter how rich I was.

I've also realised that some people are dealt such a sh1tty hand in life that they'd have to work harder than I ever have just to get to where I was when I left college.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

This is the worst kind of ad hominem argument. Not only is it inaccurate, it's completely irrelevant.

Well done on insulting every journalist in the world, by the way. They should all go and find real work.

No rebuttal...no argument

Your attachment to Marx and his ideas prevents you from criticizing him...that's quite clear

Brian?

gobsh!te wrote: »

No rebuttal...no argument

Your attachment to Marx and his ideas prevents you from criticizing him...that's quite clear

You didn't make a point to rebut or argue with. Your post was simple character assassination.

It was also wrong.

And you're right, I won't criticise Marx as a person and I'm attached to his ideas. I won't criticise Rand, Friedman or Ron Paul as people either but I will attack their ideas.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't quite understand your point here. They should be doing what exactly?

The wine and cheese comment is pure childishness.

BoJack Horseman

Brian? wrote: »

I don't quite understand your point here. They should be doing what exactly?

Make good on their double standard & book the next flight to Pyongyang..... lest the horrors of capitalism become too much.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Actually it's much easier to take them seriously. They've reached the peak of their profession and are using their position to lobby for change. I don't have a problem with the money they earn, unless they use it to exploit or earn it from exploitation of workers.

Do you think they should abandon all material possessions and shout from street corners?

Again, the point is to illustrate that the most vocal critics of global capitalism have no issue with benefiting from its proceeds.

It was childish because you actually have no idea what they eat or drink. There's an equally high chance they purchase from a local cooperative or producer. Or they may be tea total and vegan. You assume they're ethically questionable because it fits your world view.

Lockstep

Can we move away from "You're a Nazi" and "Go back to North Korea" type comments please?

Brian?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Make good on their double standard & book the next flight to Pyongyang..... lest the horrors of capitalism become too much.

Find me a socialist who believes in the North Korean model.

BoJack Horseman

Brian? wrote: »

Find me a socialist.

I've never met one.

Just look at where they poll in Ireland, barley breaching 1%.....

Socialists in Ireland are a rare bird indeed.

NoCrackHaving

I'm curious as to why so few libertarians would not just go the whole hog and become anarchists, could someone explain it to me as I'm genuinely confused as to what the exact difference is.

Lockstep

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

I'm curious as to why so few libertarians would not just go the whole hog and become anarchists, could someone explain it to me as I'm genuinely confused as to what the exact difference is.

Presumably it's as they think the state is a necessary evil. Although they think the state is inefficient at providing services and the like, it has a vital role in protecting people from aggression both externally (through the military) and internally (through the police) while maintaining a court system to resolve disputes. Of course, that's just the case with minarchism but like every other ideology, you'll have a lot of different shades of libertarians with a variety of opinions.

Brian?

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

I'm curious as to why so few libertarians would not just go the whole hog and become anarchists, could someone explain it to me as I'm genuinely confused as to what the exact difference is.

There's no money in anarchy.

The "libertarians" here are very hard to pin down on what they actually want in terms of state. But the general idea I get is they want a small state without the power to coerce the populous to pay tax etc. or no state at all. And by state I mean government.

Zero regulation on profit making. That's what they really want.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Do you think wealthy or successful people can't be socialists/marxist, or if they are it's some kind of hypocrisy?

Honestly what do you want these people to do, just retreat from society? Accept a minimum wage job? Honestly I'd love to hear that one argued.

Here's the thing though, intelligent, wealthy and successful people have been socialists for generation after generation, you could name hundreds of world famous ones alone.

As for myself I can't claim to be hugely wealthy, but I own a small business, I own property which I let and I'm fairly well educated, I like to eat well and I love wine, am I not allowed to be a socialist?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You know I couldn't honestly tell you, I've always classed myself as more your garden variety socialist but the more I learn about Marx the more I am persuaded by his arguments.

Let's just say I am, how is that hypocrisy? I'm not finding your argument convincing at all. My previous question stands, even if I would prefer the capitalist system replaced by marxism, what is it you expect me to do in the meantime? What course of action could I possibly take, given we live in a capitalist economy, for me not to be a hypocrite in your eyes?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eric Cartman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

this is my biggest issue. In a free market economy socialists would be free to have communes, benefit from resource pooling or do whatever other craic they wanted not at my expense.

My issue is that half of my income is taken by force from me , and what I get back for it is an understaffed police force, poorly maintained roads and the rest of it is wasted on people who I don't feel deserve my money. I give absolutely nothing to charity purely because I already help people deserving and undeserving too much, by force.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

karma_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It'll have to be another night to go into what it is I like about Marx, for now, suffice to say that his ideas have genuine merit. To be fair it's only in recent years I've looked at his ideas again, and the current state of the world has probably pushed me a little more in that direction, although that's not saying much as I've always been a lefty.

Well, that's legitimately a good point. However, I think you've called Ayn Rand a hypocrite in the past for claiming Social Security in her old age. Is that not much the same thing?

hehe I don't doubt that... In my own defence though if nobody called me on it then no foul!

coolemon

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is my biggest issue. In a free market economy socialists would be free to have communes, benefit from resource pooling or do whatever other craic they wanted not at my expense.

That would be "idealist" forms of socialism. Marxism does not advocate idealist forms of socialism. Marxists do not believe that one can simply "create" or "wish for" a commune or Kibbutz. To try do so would be doomed to failure.

Instead, Marxism advocates the materialist conception of history.

Just as one cannot simply "re-create" feudalism, one cannot create a new mode of production unless the material conditions exist for its emergence.

As Marx states:

"Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist." - https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm#s2

So in your free market economy it would be idealist to suggest Marxist socialists could set up communes. Such notions are pre-Marxist and unscientific.

coolemon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not really. Marxist socialism is not based upon morality. If it were, yes, it would be morally hypocritical to have such a stance.

Given that it is not necessarily a moral issue, one could advocate the overthrow of the system while simultaneously not having any actual threat to ones exploitative position. A socialist with a business could advocate or favour socialism their entire life without having any impact in this regard whatsoever.

It is only when ones economic interests are actually challenged that one is left with the dilemma of whether to give them up in favour of the overthrow of the economic system or not.

So I don't believe it to be necessarily hypocritical at all. One can advocate and believe in a scientific understanding of social change. Its a scientific matter, not a moral one.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gobsh!te

Brian? wrote: »

You didn't make a point to rebut or argue with. Your post was simple character assassination.

It was also wrong.

And you're right, I won't criticise Marx as a person and I'm attached to his ideas. I won't criticise Rand, Friedman or Ron Paul as people either but I will attack their ideas.

Nonsense....if a man could not manage his own financial affairs other than borrowing from his mate, why would anyone other than fool take his ideas on managing a nation or the world's financial affairs seriously?

Marx's ideas have been tested and the closer you get to his ideas the worse things get for people.....nobody wants it....the only way you can implement this garbage is through the initiation of force.

I don't support initiation of violence but clearly any kind of socialist has no problem with it.