Socialism on the rise?

greenguzzi · Feb 11, 2016

NightHawkeye said:
Of course, Cadet. I can't imagine why I would have equated one version of Marxism with another.

But then that logical extreme had already been taken with regard to capitalism ... so perhaps the comparison wasn't nearly so off the mark as you would like to think. In its pure form Marxism (... and, yes, that includes "socialism") leads to untold misery and suffering.

Anyone seeing benefits to capitalism yet?

Actually it's not the logical extreme version of capitalism that's been taken as being awful, it's the purest. So what you are saying is that the worst form of "socialism" (which is so perverted it's "socialist" by name only) is not quite as good as the best and purest form of capitalism.
Marxism isn't socialism.
Capitalism leads to untold suffering.

Belk · Feb 11, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
They apply to all equally ( really they do not because even among those that receive them it is based on need)

They are based on criteria that are applied equally across the board. If I have no money I get X. If I have some money I get Y no matter what my sex, religion , or color.

dogs4thewin said:
but that does not mean that they should make for a comfortable living.

Live in poverty collecting government assistance for a while then come tell me how "comfortable" it was.

BrianJK · Feb 11, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
Well, it certainly had nothing to do with meeting any one group's needs.

It didn't have anything to do with our country, really, yet taxpayers spent billions and billions on it and didn't get a say in how it was done. You're fine with that but not fine with people getting to go to the doctor and being fed?

greenguzzi · Feb 11, 2016

Chesterton said:
It's only Thursday.

I really don't care at all about the rich. I tend to think in terms of time and space, i.e., history and geography. I don't take things for granted. I feel rich 'cause I've got electric light and hot running water at the turn of a knob, luxuries many kings never had, and many people in places today don't have. Much of the comfort and high standard of living I enjoy was made possible by individuals seeking to get rich. Capitalism been bedy bedy good to me.

You should care about the filthy rich. Not because they are rich, but because they are powerful. They have the power to stop the evils of capitalism, but they don't. I agree with you that we white western middle-class people are also rich. But we don't have the power to help the desperately poor in any real way.
Capitalism has been good to me too. But I'm not one of the ones suffering from it. Just because I'm privileged by the system doesn't mean that the system is good.

dogs4thewin · Feb 11, 2016

Belk said:
They are based on criteria that are applied equally across the board. If I have no money I get X. If I have some money I get Y no matter what my sex, religion , or color.

Live in poverty collecting government assistance for a while then come tell me how "comfortable" it was.

That was my point it was not meant to be comfortable.

dogs4thewin · Feb 11, 2016

BrianJK said:
It didn't have anything to do with our country, really, yet taxpayers spent billions and billions on it and didn't get a say in how it was done. You're fine with that but not fine with people getting to go to the doctor and being fed?

I am fine with people being fed, but not with what they please ( except for the 40% of their OWN money they are supposed to use. I am OK with people getting basic care at the doctor, but not rushing to the doctor with every little problem.

BrianJK · Feb 11, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
I am fine with people being fed, but not with what they please ( except for the 40% of their OWN money they are supposed to use. I am OK with people getting basic care at the doctor, but not rushing to the doctor with every little problem.

It'd actually be cheaper if people went to the doctor for small issues before they escalated into larger, more costly to treat issues.

So if it were up to you, what would you feed the families who lost their jobs and had to turn to the government for support? What would you dictate the children be allowed to eat?

dogs4thewin · Feb 11, 2016

BrianJK said:
It'd actually be cheaper if people went to the doctor for small issues before they escalated into larger, more costly to treat issues.

So if it were up to you, what would you feed the families who lost their jobs and had to turn to the government for support? What would you dictate the children be allowed to eat?

Well, first of all, they are to spend 30% (typo with 40% of their own money on food) Secondly, produce, lean meats, cheaper cuts, milk not sugarly drinks or junk food. If they choose to buy that with the 30% of their own funds that is their business).

Belk · Feb 11, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
That was my point it was not meant to be comfortable.

You are in luck then. It is not what most would consider comfortable since it is designed only to help people get back on their feet.

dogs4thewin · Feb 11, 2016

Belk said:
You are in luck then. It is not what most would consider comfortable since it is designed only to help people get back on their feet.

and it is not meant to be comfortable.

Chesterton · Feb 11, 2016

super animator said:
I don't not want anecdotal evidence, I want actual peer review studies on this.

My dear sir or madam, I don't believe I care much for your tone. If you want something, you can write to Santa Claus. If you disagree with my opinion you can do so using your own research, your own opinion or whatever you like. But if you want academia disparaging itself that might be hard to come by.

NightHawkeye · Feb 11, 2016

greenguzzi said:
Actually it's not the logical extreme version of capitalism that's been taken as being awful, it's the purest. So what you are saying is that the worst form of "socialism" (which is so perverted it's "socialist" by name only) is not quite as good as the best and purest form of capitalism.

I'm merely pointing out that out here in the real world when free market economics has been practiced by moral people it has provided the greatest prosperity the world has ever seen.

Just the truth.

greenguzzi said:
Marxism isn't socialism.

Deny it all you want.

Socialism is Marxism.

greenguzzi said:
Capitalism leads to untold suffering.

Exceeded only by the misery, horrors, death and destruction of Marxism and Socialism which have yet to be demonstrated in the form which you describe.

greenguzzi · Feb 11, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
That was my point it was not meant to be comfortable.

Why would anyone want someone else to be uncomfortable? I can't fathom such an attitude.

dogs4thewin · Feb 11, 2016

greenguzzi said:
Why would anyone want someone else to be uncomfortable? I can't fathom such an attitude.

Well, we do not want them to want to be comfortable enough to want to stay that way.

Sistrin · Feb 11, 2016

Chesterton said:
I'm sort of surprised this didn't happen sooner. Schools have been teaching our young to be stupid for decades. I guess it's finally paying off for the Left.

Quoted for Truth.

greenguzzi · Feb 11, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
Well, we do not want them to want to be comfortable enough to want to stay that way.

It's not that simple. I'll elaborate later, time for me to start work.

Smidlee · Feb 11, 2016

greenguzzi said:
It could be argued that Acts 4 is a good example of Social Anarchism (AKA Libertarian Socialism - my favourite kind of socialism). I'm all for that. If anyone did it it could be the beginning of a grass-roots Christian anarchic-socialist revolution!

You are confusing charity with socialism. Acts 5:4 is clear Ananias could do as he will with his own but he lied in order to get the glory that others got.
My church helps support other groups and churches including in other countries .. we refer that as charity.

Smidlee · Feb 11, 2016

Rick Otto said:
Cool. I mean think about it. You and I could happily live our lives out alternately arguing and then agreeing with each other on various issues, but neither of us would harbor real malice toward each other. For one thing, we are both obsessing over our differences in how to love God, not how to kill each other for honor or revenge.

At least I haven't thought about you that way this week, Chez.

Check this out, bro:

This video is misleading. While it's true about wealth it doesn't deal with how much of each group actually uses up resources. While the top 1% may eat more , use more gas individual and have a bigger house there is no doubt the mass majority of resources are used by the other 99%.
I seriously doubt Bill Gates eats too many more eggs for example than the average American.

USincognito · Feb 11, 2016

Smidlee said:
So you envy anyone who makes more than you. I'm no where close to the 1% and I have my needs meet through hard work.

So's Law - Whenever a response begins with "So...."the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.

Smidlee · Feb 11, 2016

USincognito said:
So's Law - Whenever a response begins with "So...."the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.

How is that statement a straw man?

Socialism on the rise?

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way

Senior Member

Abdul Masih

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way

dog lover

dog lover

Abdul Masih

dog lover

Senior Member

dog lover

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Work-in-progress

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way

dog lover

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way

Veteran

Veteran

a post by Alan Smithee

Veteran

Similar threads