Socialism on the rise?

[greenguzzi]

We cant marry politics with faith.

Forgive my impertinence, but do you vote?

 

[Extraneous]

Forgive my impertinence, but do you vote?

I use to vote at one time. However that shouldn't be relevant to my opinion.

 

[Extraneous]

Sorry, i had to edit my last post

 

[A2SG]

That is what I mean taxes should be VERY limited in what they cover.

They are. We just disagree on where those limits should be.

-- A2SG, I say government should function as an advocate for the people, not corporations....you, apparently, disagree....

 

[greenguzzi]

I use to vote at one time. However that shouldn't be relevant to my opinion.

Fair enough. If you did say that you vote, I would ask how doing so isn't being "Babylonian". What's good for each member is surely good for the whole Body. But as you don't vote, my question is moot.

 

[A2SG]

Socialism isn't Communism, that's so. But what you're describing here isn't even close to being Socialism.

Maybe not socialism as it has been practiced in the past, but as it needs to be practiced today. We can take ideas from socialism and adapt them to our needs.

Coincidentally or not, that may be why young people and a growing number of Democratic Party people say that they approve of Socialism--they don't know what it is.

They know what it can be, which isn't what it once was in the past.

-- A2SG, that's how history works: we see what worked in the past, and what didn't, and take the best ideas from the former while trying to avoid the latter.....

 

[Chesterton]

Glad we agree.

I said it is a common complaint. Not that the complaint is valid or worth anything. Its been a complaint for generations, and yet as you note economic and technological progress continues.

citation needed

Someone made a popular video, other people jump on the bandwagon using the same techniques to create the same style of video. You could produce an endless amount of such videos on endless topics. There's plenty of people to interview to find some dumb ones or ignorant ones who will give you the answers you want. The number of such videos is not any indication of widespread ignorance. And no, studies that show how bad people are at say, history, today is not evidence that people have gotten worse. You actually need studies from the past to compare it to.

Look around you. If you want to argue that people are smart the burden's on you. I used to argue with people that Americans aren't stupid but I've pretty much had to give up on that.

 

[Rick Otto]

Tell me more.

Any a n d every system (body of law) is vulnerable to circumstances wherein adherence to the letter of that law, obedience to a rule, will violate the spirit of that law ( the principal behind the rule).

I can't thank you enough for asking.
Praise the Lord.

 

[Aureus]

Look around you. If you want to argue that people are smart the burden's on you. I used to argue with people that Americans aren't stupid but I've pretty much had to give up on that.

You made specific assertions about people doing worse by specific measures than in the past. The burden is on you to demonstrate that. As far as 'people' being smart or dumb... half the world is below average.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yeah I actually tried to resist that idea for years, but I think you're right.

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:

 

[Rick Otto]

You made specific assertions about people doing worse by specific measures than in the past. The burden is on you to demonstrate that. As far as 'people' being smart or dumb... half the world is below average.

I come from Lake Woebegone, the little town that time forgot, and the decades cannot improve. Where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking and all the children are above average.

 

[Rick Otto]

I agree. Except for the first bit. The vast majority of people are brainwashed to accept that the state IS a necessary evil, when it isn't. And they comply BECAUSE said state has a monopoly on "legitimate" violence. Most people never question this, because it's the air they breath. They believe it almost as a superstition, but they don't know it in an intellectual sense.

Point taken.

 

[Rick Otto]

Again, that is NOT socialism. There is nothing intrinsic in socialism that requires welfare or social security. Although I think that welfare in some cases benefits all of society, it's not required by socialism. Conversely, there is nothing to stop a conservative government maintaining a welfare system if it keeps the exploited workers from questioning their "position in life". Some socialists would oppose social security, because it's like a drug that keeps the workers from unrest.

However there is one aspect of welfare that is intrinsic to socialism, and that it does not allow welfare to go to the filthy rich. For example it would have stopped the huge amount of corporate welfare - tax payers money - going to Australia's richest woman.

Once again, you seem to have no clue what socialism is, and you really should do some proper research before you dismiss it.

I recall Ron Paul asserting the Welfare State was only one side of the coin. The other is the Warfare State.

 

[greenguzzi]

Any a n d every system (body of law) is vulnerable to circumstances wherein adherence to the letter of that law, obedience to a rule, will violate the spirit of that law ( the principal behind the rule).

I can't thank you enough for asking.
Praise the Lord.

Hmmm, I might have to think about that one some more.
But my first thoughts are this:

If we look at the spirit of the "law", then not all of them are created equal:

In its purest form capitalism will make a small number of people very rich, whilst exploiting everyone and everything else around it. The wealth goes to those least deserving of it, in magnitudes that they can never use. Left to be free it will ultimately destroy itself because even those in ultimate power will start to suffer. But like many systems, capitalism has the possibility of becoming a self sustaining uncontrollable beast. If so then even those in power might not be able to stop it. If it can be stopped, then it will need to be replaced by something else. If it can't be stopped, then it will result in even more misery.

In it's purest form socialism gives workers the control - and fruit - of their own labour. It stops exploitation. Everyone gets what they are worth, and everyone pays their own way. No one is exploited. Even if it were to become uncontrollable it still has the possibility of sustaining us all until the Kingdom Comes.

So, when the spirit of a "law" is so intrinsically flawed as capitalism is, then it's kinda meaningless to talk about the "letter" of that law. Whereas socialism does have the possibility to succeed. Even though people will try to bend the"letter". My favourite form of socialism is social anarchism. One reason I like it is because it has the fewest number of "letters of law".

 

[NightHawkeye]

So, when the spirit of a "law" is so intrinsically flawed as capitalism is, then it's kinda meaningless to talk about the "letter" of that law. Whereas socialism does have the possibility to succeed. Even though people will try to bend the"letter". My favourite form of socialism is social anarchism. One reason I like it is because it has the fewest number of "letters of law".

Yet, the unvarnished reality is that capitalism as practiced by moral people has brought the most prosperity to the world that has ever been. This fact would suggest that morality ought to be stressed much more than it is currently.

Similarly, the unvarnished reality of socialism in its various guises is that it has brought to the world the most misery and suffering which has ever been.

Curious, eh? For all the talk about how much good government can do, the reality is that governments are far too likely to bring misery and suffering. In contrast, a moral population operating under capitalism with limited government and open competition brings prosperity to all.

 

[The Cadet]

Similarly, the unvarnished reality of socialism in its various guises is that it has brought to the world the most misery and suffering which has ever been.

Can we at least try to make sure we're all talking about the same thing? I'm pretty sure @greenguzzi isn't talking about Soviet Russia here.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="greenguzzi, post: 69247023, member: 380124"]Hmmm, I might have to think about that one some more.
But my first thoughts are this:

If we look at the spirit of the "law", then not all of them are created equal:

Dang. I thought I had everything categorized. Now I'm going to have to preface that remark with something. I don't want to abandon it altogether, and I don't want to exclude atheists, so I am using the golden rule as the ideal common denominator.

In its purest form capitalism will make a small number of people very rich, whilst exploiting everyone and everything else around it. The wealth goes to those least deserving of it, in magnitudes that they can never use. Left to be free it will ultimately destroy itself because even those in ultimate power will start to suffer. But like many systems, capitalism has the possibility of becoming a self sustaining uncontrollable beast. If so then even those in power might not be able to stop it. If it can be stopped, then it will need to be replaced by something else. If it can't be stopped, then it will result in even more misery.

In it's purest form socialism gives workers the control - and fruit - of their own labour. It stops exploitation. Everyone gets what they are worth, and everyone pays their own way. No one is exploited. Even if it were to become uncontrollable it still has the possibility of sustaining us all until the Kingdom Comes.

So, when the spirit of a "law" is so intrinsically flawed as capitalism is, then it's kinda meaningless to talk about the "letter" of that law. Whereas socialism does have the possibility to succeed. Even though people will try to bend the"letter". My favourite form of socialism is social anarchism. One reason I like it is because it has the fewest number of "letters of law".[/QUOTE]


Thank you. I have to admit I was fuzzy on what socialism means.
I started a thread about the idea of Christian anarchy some time back. I think we spit balled about it, but didn't reach any profound conclusions that I can remember.
I had a great rehearsal last night . I play keyboards in a rock band and we are in the middle of recording and writing originals, and rehearsing a bunch of new covers, besides our day jobs. Forgive me if I get behind here a little.

 

[greenguzzi]

Can we at least try to make sure we're all talking about the same thing? I'm pretty sure @greenguzzi isn't talking about Soviet Russia here.

Thanks Cadet, you're correct. Much of what is called "socialism" isn't socialism at all. Mostly it's a state run command economy or state controlled capitalism.

 

[greenguzzi]

Yet, the unvarnished reality is that capitalism as practiced by moral people has brought the most prosperity to the world that has ever been. This fact would suggest that morality ought to be stressed much more than it is currently.

Similarly, the unvarnished reality of socialism in its various guises is that it has brought to the world the most misery and suffering which has ever been.

Curious, eh? For all the talk about how much good government can do, the reality is that governments are far too likely to bring misery and suffering. In contrast, a moral population operating under capitalism with limited government and open competition brings prosperity to all.

Capitalism has brought prosperity to some; me and you for example. But this prosperity was more then we earned, more than we deserved. It was at the expense of others who got less then they deserved; poverty and death in many cases. It was also at the cost of future generations, who will be paying a huge price for our prosperity.
You have made the mistake of using the prosperity of those like us right now as the measure of success. It is not a success, it's an illusion. For capitalism to be sustainable we currently need four (4) planet Earths. Capitalism is a huge Ponzy scheme.

The examples of socialism failing that you elude to are "socialism" by name only. It isn't difficult to do the analysis.
There have been any number of embryonic socialist states, all destroyed by USA state violence, protecting capitalism in the guise of "freedom". Also there are other socialist options that haven't been tried yet. Capitalism is a house of cards. We need to be looking for alternatives right now, and socialism offers some excellent options.

I agree that small government is probably a good idea. But the problem isn't really the government. The real problem is undeserved power. So to reduce government in a capitalist society would be going from the frying pan into the fire. The vacuum left by a smaller government will be replaced by rapacious corporations. Yes, undeserved government power isn't great, but it's much better than unrestricted capitalist/corporate power. Before we can safely reduce the size of government we must first dismantle capitalism.

Capitalism and socialism (and other ways to organise society) are amoral. But capitalism is such a deeply flawed system that even the most moral of people using it will eventually fail. They already have.

 

[The Cadet]

There have been any number of embryonic socialist states, all destroyed by USA state violence, protecting capitalism in the guise of "freedom".

Well that's a tall claim; care to elaborate?

Capitalism is a house of cards. We need to be looking for alternatives right now, and socialism offers some excellent options.

A remarkably stable house of cards, one that has a lot speaking in favor of it, and which has, again, built our modern world. There's nothing inherently unstable about capitalism once you crucially consider factors such as the tragedy of the commons and related externalities.