Socialism = Dependence

[implodinggoat]

In a socialist system the people become dependent on the government. As dependent as we have become on the governement in the United States further socializing our government would only result in further dependence on the government. When one becomes dependent, one becomes enslaved. Here is an example...you are a lower class worker and the government puts in a new provision that to continue recieving government assistance you must suck a government official's cock on command (this is obviously a dramatazation). Now you have no desire to suck a government officials cock but you have organized your budget so that you need the government money to pay your bills. To be truly free you must live without any governement intervention on your life. Sadly, without government society would fall into chaos. Thus man must find the balance that maintains order, yet leaves him as free as possible. The question you must ask yourself is given the choice would you prefer to be free and responsible, or dominated yet secure?

[swayside]

everyone should be free and responsible. everyone should be accountable for theirself and not blame the government for society's short-commings.

[whitedragon-my]

Yes, Socialism does not work, didn't the Soviet Union prove that?

[implodinggoat]

Aren't there any ardent communists on here for me to argue with anymore?

[MarijuanaClock]

At 1/8/03 11:05 PM, whitedragon_my wrote: Yes, Socialism does not work, didn't the Soviet Union prove that?

Socialism is not communism fuck wit.

[MarijuanaClock]

At 1/8/03 11:09 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Aren't there any ardent communists on here for me to argue with anymore?

One socialism is not communism fuck wit.

Two You seem to be confussing the well fare state for true socialism, so whats' the point in arguing?

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

Socialism is not communism, but communism is socialism. Who's the fuck wit? come on, let's be civil MarajuanaClock, there's a lot of confusion over the definitions of communism, socialism, fascism, statism and whatnot.

[Slizor]

Socialism is not communism, but communism is socialism.

No, socialism is the first step to Communism when used in the Communist sense.

[Slizor]

In a socialist system the people become dependent on the government.

In a capitalist one they become dependent on Companies.

As dependent as we have become on the governement in the United States further socializing our government would only result in further dependence on the government. When one becomes dependent, one becomes enslaved.

"Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains." You use of the word enslavement is weakly qualified, frankly I just think it is used to add the negative connotations the word has.

Here is an example...you are a lower class worker and the government puts in a new provision that to continue recieving government assistance you must suck a government official's cock on command (this is obviously a dramatazation). Now you have no desire to suck a government officials cock but you have organized your budget so that you need the government money to pay your bills.

How is this different from Capitalism again?

To be truly free you must live without any governement intervention on your life. Sadly, without government society would fall into chaos. Thus man must find the balance that maintains order, yet leaves him as free as possible. The question you must ask yourself is given the choice would you prefer to be free and responsible, or dominated yet secure?

It is a socialist's governments perogative to give you as many freedom's as possible(it is a government for the people!), it is a Capitalist Government's perogative to safeguard their(and the rich elite's) property, even if it limits personal freedoms.

[Red-XXV]

Socialism equals dependence? The only way one could think that is to base the view off of the smear campaign the US employs against the far left. As Slizor said, a socialist government's goal is to provide more opportunity than people would get otherwise. If everyone should succeed on their own merits, as most capitalists believe, then a socialist government looks to even the playing field so everyone is afforded the same opportunities at the start. But that's exactly what a purely capitalist regime does not want, as there's a chance for everyone to succeed in that scenario. But at the moment, there are no true socialist or communist states to base our knowledge off of. The problem with capitalism is that it is an exclusive system in that it cannot tolerate a different economic system, and that creates an inherent conflict.

And Whitedragon_my, as far as communism, what people in the US equate as communism is NOT real communism, it's a view of Soviet Communism, which is a vastly different system than pure communism. A bastardized form of communism, if you will.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

The issue is, what constitutes a freedom. I think that the only freedoms are those of the right to life (the right to not be murdered or attacked), and the right to own property.

It seems that you have additional things that you consider rights. I'm not really attacking this, but I think that you need to figure out WHY people have these rights. I understand that ethics derived from metaphysics and epistemology might not be your idea of fun, but the BIG issue here is a conflict of worldview, and no agreement will be found if we can't figure out which worldview is right

[Slizor]

Why do people have a right to property?

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

It is related to the right to life. It's based on the idea that man is rational, and the advantage of being rational is the ability to do productive work, and as a result insure against future disaster. If you don't have the right to property, you cannot take advantage of your rational nature, and thus is a violation of human nature.

I'm sorry I'm having a hard time writing it out coherently. I'm sure I left something out, so don't attack me, I'm just explaining my rationalization. If I spent a few weeks trying to write this out perfectly, it would look better.

[Red-XXV]

At 1/9/03 02:36 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I understand that ethics derived from metaphysics and epistemology might not be your idea of fun, but the BIG issue here is a conflict of worldview, and no agreement will be found if we can't figure out which worldview is right

Ethics derived from metaphysics and epistemology will let me put my philosophy degree to some more work, so I'm game for that. It's a similar situation to law. There's a question of natural law versus positivist law. One says there are rights and laws that are morally inherent, the other says laws and rights are whatever the current systems of law say they should be. People have been arguing about this issue for decades, so the chances of those two different views coming together for the first time here are slim, but you're right in that I assign more inalienable rights to humanity than you do.

Our worldviews are vastly different, yes. I would actually fear your worldview. I personally like, for example, my right to free speech and my right to equality under law, both of which I view as inherent to the human condition. Basing this from what you said, you wouldn't have a problem with them being taken away from you, which leaves you with only your life and some land. I personally think we are entitled to much more than that. But to each their own.

[implodinggoat]

At 1/9/03 03:24 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote:

At 1/8/03 11:09 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Aren't there any ardent communists on here for me to argue with anymore?

One socialism is not communism fuck wit.

Did I say it was dumbass?

Two You seem to be confussing the well fare state for true socialism, so whats' the point in arguing?

Socialism is more extreme than a welfare state...thus the dependence on the government is even more extreme.

[implodinggoat]

At 1/9/03 02:05 PM, Slizor wrote:
In a capitalist one they become dependent on Companies.

Yes but companies must compete with eachother. The government has no competition and thus total dominance.

"Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains." You use of the word enslavement is weakly qualified, frankly I just think it is used to add the negative connotations the word has.

Sadly man can never be truly free without society crumbling. However the more power one sacrifices to the government the more enslaved they become.

How is this different from Capitalism again?

If a company recquired you to suck their CEO's cock in order to get a product you might choose to stop buying said product. Or another company might make a product with the new "No Cock Sucking Gurantee" and the other company would be forced to compete or die.

It is a socialist's governments perogative to give you as many freedom's as possible(it is a government for the people!), it is a Capitalist Government's perogative to safeguard their(and the rich elite's) property, even if it limits personal freedoms.

Oh yes a socialist government will give you as many freedoms as they want after they tax the fuck out of you as punishment for your sucess. I have worked my whole fucking life to make something of myself and I look around and see the worthless pieces of shit who learn nothing and contribute nothing and I must wonder how they are entitled to as pleasent a lifestyle as I.

[Red-XXV]

At 1/9/03 04:46 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Socialism is more extreme than a welfare state...thus the dependence on the government is even more extreme.

Socialism, in the purist form, is not a welfare state. If you'd like to do further reading on that, I can suggest some books for you. It's when unchecked capitalism and socialism get together that a welfare state begins. As I said above, it's one of capitalism's traits that it finds ways to come out on top when it faces something that runs counter to it. It's that adability to new situations that is reason the system has been around for several thousand years and still reigns supreme. I'm saying capitalism is inherently wrong, as much good has come as a result of it, but it does not create an equal playground, which is something I feel we attempt to remedy somehow.

[implodinggoat]

At 1/9/03 02:32 PM, Red_XXV wrote: Socialism equals dependence? The only way one could think that is to base the view off of the smear campaign the US employs against the far left. As Slizor said, a socialist government's goal is to provide more opportunity than people would get otherwise. If everyone should succeed on their own merits, as most capitalists believe, then a socialist government looks to even the playing field so everyone is afforded the same opportunities at the start. But that's exactly what a purely capitalist regime does not want, as there's a chance for everyone to succeed in that scenario. But at the moment, there are no true socialist or communist states to base our knowledge off of. The problem with capitalism is that it is an exclusive system in that it cannot tolerate a different economic system, and that creates an inherent conflict.

There is a greater chance for everyone to suceed in capatilism. In addition in capitalism a person's sucess isn't capped as it is in a socialist system.

I ask you why should the playing field be even? Why should I be dragged down to make myself the equal of all? In capitalism you sink or you swim...but if the government is there to bail you out why should you ever learn to swim?

And Whitedragon_my, as far as communism, what people in the US equate as communism is NOT real communism, it's a view of Soviet Communism, which is a vastly different system than pure communism. A bastardized form of communism, if you will.

True communism is a fools dream, it isn't possible in the real world. History as proven this again, and again, and again.....

[implodinggoat]

At 1/9/03 02:45 PM, Slizor wrote: Why do people have a right to property?

Why? Why? Because my life is my own! My effort is mine! I am entitled to the fruits of my labor...you are entitled to yours.

Why do people have the right to other people's property Slizor?

[Red-XXV]

At 1/9/03 04:55 PM, implodinggoat wrote: I have worked my whole fucking life to make something of myself and I look around and see the worthless pieces of shit who learn nothing and contribute nothing and I must wonder how they are entitled to as pleasent a lifestyle as I.

On your profile it says you're 18, and I'm sure that your 18 years have provided you with an unsurpassed plethora of experience. You know what it's like to put yourself through college by working three jobs, been on your own, found that perfect job for you, gotten married, raised a family, and have been enough of a success in life to justify your views. Please tell us more about working your whole fucking life to make something of yourself, we'd love to hear more about as esteemed a life as yours.

[implodinggoat]

At 1/9/03 05:00 PM, Red_XXV wrote:

At 1/9/03 04:46 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Socialism is more extreme than a welfare state...thus the dependence on the government is even more extreme.

Socialism, in the purist form, is not a welfare state. If you'd like to do further reading on that, I can suggest some books for you. It's when unchecked capitalism and socialism get together that a welfare state begins. As I said above, it's one of capitalism's traits that it finds ways to come out on top when it faces something that runs counter to it. It's that adability to new situations that is reason the system has been around for several thousand years and still reigns supreme. I'm saying capitalism is inherently wrong, as much good has come as a result of it, but it does not create an equal playground, which is something I feel we attempt to remedy somehow.

Capitalism is dominant because ownership is part of human nature. Greed is resultant of man's self survival instinct.

I would like to find a book that could provide a clearer definition of socialism....if you have a recomendation I would like to hear it. However I am only interested in books based on fact...not opinion.

[Red-XXV]

At 1/9/03 05:07 PM, implodinggoat wrote: There is a greater chance for everyone to suceed in capatilism. In addition in capitalism a person's sucess isn't capped as it is in a socialist system.

There's a better chance for humanity and society to succeed if we work together for the benefit of each other. No one is saying individuals should not succeed, they have the right to do so, but why not try to help society at the same time?

I ask you why should the playing field be even? Why should I be dragged down to make myself the equal of all? In capitalism you sink or you swim...but if the government is there to bail you out why should you ever learn to swim?

If everyone is created equal, the playing field should be even at the beginning so people can have the same opportunities. The government's job isn't to bail out the people who blow those opportunities, it's to make sure they have those opportunities.

True communism is a fools dream, it isn't possible in the real world. History as proven this again, and again, and again.....

I never said it wasn't a fools dream. I was letting him know that communism isn't socialism, and that the communism most people are familiar with is not true communism.

[Slizor]

Yes but companies must compete with eachother. The government has no competition and thus total dominance.

A choice between shit is still shit.

Sadly man can never be truly free without society crumbling. However the more power one sacrifices to the government the more enslaved they become.

To the government, in Capitalism the chains just go to more things.

How is this different from Capitalism again?

If a company recquired you to suck their CEO's cock in order to get a product you might choose to stop buying said product. Or another company might make a product with the new "No Cock Sucking Gurantee" and the other company would be forced to compete or die.

It might, but then again, like on a lot of issues, it might not as it is not accountable to the public, like a Socialist government is.

It is a socialist's governments perogative to give you as many freedom's as possible(it is a government for the people!), it is a Capitalist Government's perogative to safeguard their(and the rich elite's) property, even if it limits personal freedoms.

Oh yes a socialist government will give you as many freedoms as they want after they tax the fuck out of you as punishment for your sucess.

You did not really earn it, it is not really yours.

I have worked my whole fucking life to make something of myself and I look around and see the worthless pieces of shit who learn nothing and contribute nothing and I must wonder how they are entitled to as pleasent a lifestyle as I.

You work in a fucking sweatshop then try and talk about hard work. That is the very worst of Capitalism, you think you deserve what you get when they get shit?

[implodinggoat]

At 1/9/03 05:16 PM, Red_XXV wrote: On your profile it says you're 18, and I'm sure that your 18 years have provided you with an unsurpassed plethora of experience. You know what it's like to put yourself through college by working three jobs, been on your own, found that perfect job for you, gotten married, raised a family, and have been enough of a success in life to justify your views. Please tell us more about working your whole fucking life to make something of yourself, we'd love to hear more about as esteemed a life as yours.

I realize I am far from a self made man. However for my life to this point I have worked quite hard. There is nothing to say that I won't fuck up later in life and end up working at 7-11. At this point in my life I have put forth a great deal of effort to make sure that eventuality doesn't occur. I have worked much harder than the multitude of rednecks that fill my school to attempt to provide myself with more oppurtunity. Am I not entitled to more oppurtunity then the afore mentioned rednecks?

[Slizor]

Why? Why? Because my life is my own! My effort is mine! I am entitled to the fruits of my labor...you are entitled to yours.

Indeed you are, I would just love to give you what you deserve(ahem.) I just don't define "what you deserve" by "how much money you could make".

Why do people have the right to other people's property Slizor?

I was going to ask you the same thing, why do people have a right to peoples' property?

Notice, the placing of the comma is deliberate and has a different meaning

[Red-XXV]

At 1/9/03 05:19 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Capitalism is dominant because ownership is part of human nature. Greed is resultant of man's self survival instinct.

This is a red herring. "Human nature" is undefined, and is therefore an unacceptable appeal in a logical discussion.

I would like to find a book that could provide a clearer definition of socialism....if you have a recomendation I would like to hear it. However I am only interested in books based on fact...not opinion.

For a history of Western Socialism, One Hundred Years of Socialism: The West European Left in the Twentieth Century by Donald Sassoon would be my first suggestion. He's admittedly a democratic socialist, but this is, by far, one of the most objective and fair evaluations of the topic I've run across.

For a better understanding of socialist theory, there's tons of literature. The earliest writers are Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Robert Owen and Claude-Henri de Rouvroy St. Simon (it's better to read his books in the original French as most of the translation suck), but as with all political theories, there are many branches of thought on the topic. You could try Edouard Bernstein's Evolutionary Socialism, Sidney James Webb's The Historical Basis of Socialism, and for a more modern take by an economist, you could look at John Maynard Keynes' writings.

[implodinggoat]

At 1/9/03 05:20 PM, Red_XXV wrote: There's a better chance for humanity and society to succeed if we work together for the benefit of each other. No one is saying individuals should not succeed, they have the right to do so, but why not try to help society at the same time?

I could care less for the benfit of others. If they want to succeed they can take care of themselves. In the United States there is no one who is employed who is likely to starve to death thus they have the oppurtunity to pull themselves up. They may not be able to pull themselves up out of the gutter to be a millionaire but they might be able to pull themselves into the middle class. Then their children can have a better oppurtunity. Rich families are rich because someone in their family worked to get where they are. What gives the government the right to destroy the work of generations in the name of equality?

If everyone is created equal, the playing field should be even at the beginning so people can have the same opportunities. The government's job isn't to bail out the people who blow those opportunities, it's to make sure they have those opportunities.

All men are not created equal. Some people will always be up and some will always be down it is nature. Men are equal before the law...they are not equal in nature.

[IamjustSci]

It seems to me that America's system of unemployment is probably it's biggest sign of socialism. While it's not as bad as it used to be, thanks to changes in certain states...(from what I've heard of them, the Jersey laws are hilarious. One woman I know from there told me they don't pay a dime for any kids born after you're on welfare. Who says we can't learn anything from China?) But anyway, to me, I think they should just abolish the whole damn thing, and take the money to give people employment in some Government job. There are always roads that need construction, trash that needs to be cleaned up, dumps that need workers, ect. Yeah they're degrading jobs, but it's better than being a government sponge. ...and if people don't like it, fuck em. They can starve. "Bad economy" or not (Which just because it's not as good as it has been doesn't mean it's bad), anyone can get a job nowadays. A job they necessarily WANT? Not always...but damnit, people need to learn a little humility.

[implodinggoat]

At 1/9/03 05:24 PM, Slizor wrote:
A choice between shit is still shit.

And you expect your wonderful, fictional socialist government to make a superior product? Thats fucking hilarious.

To the government, in Capitalism the chains just go to more things.

Don't be so fucking obscure. There is no way to debate someone who says nothing.

It might, but then again, like on a lot of issues, it might not as it is not accountable to the public, like a Socialist government is.

How praytell is a socialist government accountable? There is one government...in modern society succesful revolutions are near impossible.

You did not really earn it, it is not really yours.

How doesn't someone earn what they have worked for?

You work in a fucking sweatshop then try and talk about hard work. That is the very worst of Capitalism, you think you deserve what you get when they get shit?

Sweatshops are illegal in my country, as in yours.

[Red-XXV]

At 1/9/03 05:30 PM, implodinggoat wrote: I have worked much harder than the multitude of rednecks that fill my school to attempt to provide myself with more oppurtunity. Am I not entitled to more oppurtunity then the afore mentioned rednecks?

If your work creates more opportunites for you than their work creates for them, then your work has earned you more opportunities, but it doesn't entitle you to anything on an a priori basis.