This week in stupid, Royal wedding, Venezuela etc.

Started by pr126, May 21, 2018, 09:31:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sal1981

Quote from: Shiranu on May 22, 2018, 11:05:13 AM
So corruption, cult of personality and totalitarianism is only possible in a socialist state...

Y'all dudes be getting ridiculous.
This is, almost equally, also possible in a fascist state. You're reading too much into my reply.

It's the elements of totalitarianism which is the deciding factor, which, as I said, wouldn't be nearly as easy in a democracy, because the incompetent leaders would be booted out in an election. But since Maduro has taken control of both the legislative and government parts of the country, Venezuelans are shit out of luck.

Gilgamesh

#31
Further expounding:

Capitalism and socialism are purely economic models. They are mutually exclusive models at that. That is; they cannot exist amongst one another; if you have one then it is necessarily the case that you don't have the other.

Shiranu, you ceaselessly attempt to conflate social policies with socialism. You seem to think that the more social policies a state has, the more socialist it is. This is not the case. Socialism is an economic model ONLY. A capitalist economy with social services and mild market regulation is still capitalism. As long as private entities can control capital then it is capitalistic, and if its capitalistic it is necessarily NOT socialist.

You've been propagandized to to be sympathetic to a tried-and-failed ideology. The specter of socialism and communism are going to be with us seemingly forever, unfortunately, because telling people that it's not necessary that they work to sustain themselves - and that the idea that it is is just conspiracy by people better off to keep you down, is a very satisfying thing to believe.

Shiranu

Yes, we have already had this debate, and you lost; you are completely right it's semantics, and it's the semantics of the day. Socialism means something today that it didn't, say, 50 years ago. That's how language works. The fact that I am a socialist by today's standards does not remotely make me sympathetic of communism-style socialism, or far-left socialism.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Gilgamesh

Quote from: Shiranu on May 24, 2018, 07:24:55 AM
Yes, we have already had this debate, and you lost; you are completely right it's semantics, and it's the semantics of the day. Socialism means something today that it didn't, say, 50 years ago. That's how language works. The fact that I am a socialist by today's standards does not remotely make me sympathetic of communism-style socialism, or far-left socialism.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. As long as you understand that social policies and government control of the economy/means of production are not necessarily correlated, then you're fine. I would disagree with you that the terminology has changed, because I think that the vast majority of people use the language as I do and not as you do, but that's fine if we disagree here as long as we understand what the other is actually talking about despite using different language to understand it.

Gilgamesh

Now personally I think you conflate the language for malicious reasons; I think that you are actively conflating social policy and socialism because you have sympathies with socialism (as in the economic model) and want to convince others to support your cause in ignorance.

But hey this is just conjecture.

Cavebear

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 07:55:25 AM
Now personally I think you conflate the language for malicious reasons; I think that you are actively conflating social policy and socialism because you have sympathies with socialism (as in the economic model) and want to convince others to support your cause in ignorance.

But hey this is just conjecture.

I personally disagree that Capitalism and Socialism are mutually opposing models.  Many Western European nations are both, and the US is getting closer.  The basic function of government being to both "provide for the general welfare of the citizens" and "the pursuit of happiness" (in a vague way) allows both.  I want a government that allows citizens to create wealth through business (examples abound), but also care for those who cannot manage the system (and more importantly, help their children who are innocent of their parents' failures). 

I mostly will not condemn the children to the failures of their parents.  And to do that requires some degree of socialism.  We who are successful, transfer some of our wealth to schools (and lunch programs - what child can learn well when hungry?) to give the children an opportunity to succeed. 

And what functional society intends to reduce the number of children who might succeed.  History is full of poverty-stricken individuals who "made good".  I sure don't want to reduce the number of those.  Do you?

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

How can you pick the winners from the losers?  Japanese industrial selection policy failed with computers.  The bureaucrats aren't smart enough, in Japan or in the USSR.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Gilgamesh

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 02:12:00 AM
I want a government that allows citizens to create wealth through business (examples abound), but also care for those who cannot manage the system (and more importantly, help their children who are innocent of their parents' failures). 

Yeah, so does everyone.

And that model is called capitalism. Capitalism doesn't become less capitalism, or more socialism, because it installs social policies. If private entities can control capital, then the society is capitalist state. End of. If the government controls the capital, it is a socialist state. End of. Both things cannot exist together.

When I say socialism, I'm referring to the economic model of socialism. If you want to call capitalism with social policies socialism; go ahead, but be aware that we are using the terms different, and are talking about different things.

Cavebear

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2018, 10:46:01 AM
Yeah, so does everyone.

And that model is called capitalism. Capitalism doesn't become less capitalism, or more socialism, because it installs social policies. If private entities can control capital, then the society is capitalist state. End of. If the government controls the capital, it is a socialist state. End of. Both things cannot exist together.

When I say socialism, I'm referring to the economic model of socialism. If you want to call capitalism with social policies socialism; go ahead, but be aware that we are using the terms different, and are talking about different things.

You are limiting yourself.  Dualities can exist comfortably.  Capitalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive.  For example, I do not need social services in general.  Not now.  But I did once when I was fired from a job at a tire warehouse for falling 25 feet  retrieving tires on idiotically tall palletts in a 100F warehouse.  Fortunately for ME (and the company) I landed on a pile of tires.   No harm, no foul, right.  They fired me on the spot.  I wasn't enough of a gymnist.

Now about the term "socialism"...  There is really only one definition as YOU describe it.  You think of it as "communism" (and even THAT term is suspect given what Marx and Engel actually wrote...). 

What you are objecting to is "welfare".  You know, "The Caddilac Queens".  The guys getting paid to stand on the street corners and pass cheap beer around among "themsefs".  "Yeah, I be on da wefare"  Like that, right?

That's not how it is.

I expect a thoughtful hit.  If you can.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Gilgamesh


Baruch

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2018, 10:46:01 AM
Yeah, so does everyone.

And that model is called capitalism. Capitalism doesn't become less capitalism, or more socialism, because it installs social policies. If private entities can control capital, then the society is capitalist state. End of. If the government controls the capital, it is a socialist state. End of. Both things cannot exist together.

When I say socialism, I'm referring to the economic model of socialism. If you want to call capitalism with social policies socialism; go ahead, but be aware that we are using the terms different, and are talking about different things.

Fabian socialism (look them up) are the gateway drug to Stalinism.  They aren't innocent, just patient.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on May 25, 2018, 11:46:03 AM
Fabian socialism (look them up) are the gateway drug to Stalinism.  They aren't innocent, just patient.

I did, and the name of the society is derived from the Roman general Fabius Cunctator, whose patient and elusive tactics in avoiding pitched battles secured his ultimate victory over stronger forces. 

A good general...  More tactics like him would result in more living soldiers.  Or perhaps they study him to good effect.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 11:57:50 AM
I did, and the name of the society is derived from the Roman general Fabius Cunctator, whose patient and elusive tactics in avoiding pitched battles secured his ultimate victory over stronger forces. 

A good general...  More tactics like him would result in more living soldiers.  Or perhaps they study him to good effect.

The British Fabians porned the Cuntator's good name.  He should sue them.

Britain is different, because it isn't France and it isn't the US.  The Brits are too sluggish to have a revolution, so they changed in slow motion ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on May 25, 2018, 06:53:52 PM
The British Fabians porned the Cuntator's good name.  He should sue them.

Britain is different, because it isn't France and it isn't the US.  The Brits are too sluggish to have a revolution, so they changed in slow motion ;-)

Yeah, most western nations had violent revolutions.  The Brits just industrialized and got a better outcome.  LOL!
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 02:10:29 AM
Yeah, most western nations had violent revolutions.  The Brits just industrialized and got a better outcome.  LOL!

That remains to be seen.  The present Queen is a descendent of the Dracula family.  Violent revolutions are just the modern name for peasant revolts.  Happened all thru history.  And the peasants always lost in the end.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.