General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCertain Problems Need Socialist Solutions
via Dissent magazine:
Certain Problems Need Socialist Solutions
By Maria Svart - October 3, 2012
The following is adapted from a talk delivered at the fiftieth anniversary celebration of Michael Harrington’s The Other America, held on September 10, 2012 at the CUNY Graduate Center.
I’m told that Michael Harrington once wistfully commented to colleagues that he had written sixteen books, and on the dust jacket of the sixteenth, the publisher had put, “By the author of The Other America.” It is entirely fitting that Mike should be best remembered for his first work. It influenced President Kennedy, and President Johnson sent Mike a pen from the signing of the Economic Opportunity Act, the War on Poverty. The book has sold well over a million copies.
We should remember, however, that Mike’s other fifteen books were about socialism. Unlike many on the left, Mike was not an impossibilist. He believed that through union organization and an expanded safety net, the lives of everyday people—both the poor and the middle class—could be vastly improved, even under capitalism. Indeed, Mike-the-Socialist was far more optimistic about this than many liberals are today.
Nonetheless, in a subsequent essay, “Poverty and the Eighties,” Mike concluded: “There was progress; there could be more progress; the poor need not always be with us. But it will take a political movement much more imaginative and militant than those in existence in 1980 to bring that progress about.”
What happened? Why, from 1962 to the present, has that movement not come about? Indeed, everything now seems to be moving in the wrong direction. Last July an Associated Press survey of economists predicted that the poverty rate in 2012 would rise to the same level it was in 1965, the year after President Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act. ...................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/24753
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)a problem of definitions (and perhaps a problem involving the "one drop" idea).
Are you equating a social democracy with a Socialist state?
tama
(9,137 posts)DSA is obviously not a revolutionary socialist party but a reformist party working together with Democratic Party. According to reformist tactics there can be no clear boundary where a former capitalist state is reformed into socialist state, but the change is gradual.
I don't know much about DSA, but the Wikipedia article gives the impression that it is more interested in modern European social democracy than e.g. Venezuelan etc. reformist socialism more clearly aiming for socialist state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) Hugo Chavez grabbed up an opposing media center.
2.) Europe's a little too into ennui for my tastes.
tama
(9,137 posts)has IMO been far too kind to capitalist propaganda. Airwaves are public property and if you want to make socialist revolution, don't sell access to them to any capitalist propagandists.
As for Europe, I agree with Russel Means.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)so if someone disagrees with you, you should silence them, take their stuff, and then force them to pay a fine? Kind of Marcusian of you, if that's your line of reasoning.
As to the RusellMeans.com site, my variety of non-christianity prefers time-bound information and replicable facts.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)The problem is determining who is a capitalist and who simply disagrees with revolutionary leadership. But if the "leadership" is that narrow and lacking in transparency, it isn't socialist in the first place.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) What if some citizens don't want a socialist revolution? Socialist revolutions seem to fall into tyrannies VERY easily. Why shouldn't I have the same rights to speak, as a mob?
2.) Under a period of Capitalist change, should socialists be silenced? Where is the equal treatment under the law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Bolivia
By the info on that page, Chavez violated his own laws.
tama
(9,137 posts)"A Rugged Individualist" called "Bob" wants to have control of airwaves and that way what information community called "Mob" (just because it rhymes 
can receive and is exposed to, in order to make the Mob feed and serve him so he can enjoy parasite life of power fantasies, to feed his "rugged individual" greed?
But as you know, I'm not socialist but anarchist, and I have no respect for any state laws - they never have anything to do with "equal treatment".
So how would You answer this question: why should "Mob" of peasant commoners feed and clothe and serve capitalist "Bob", who either cannot or will not do that just by himself, as though "rugged individualist", he's not that rugged?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) I'll simply make a note of your use of black/white fallacies, and demonizing your opponent, and then move on...
"A Rugged Individualist" called "Bob" wants to have control of airwaves and that way what information community called "Mob" (just because it rhymes ) can receive and is exposed to, in order to make the Mob feed and serve him so he can enjoy parasite life of power fantasies, to feed his "rugged individual" greed?
2.) I think you've got the start of a limerick. If/when you finish it, Id like a copy to hang in my study.
3.) There you go, putting words in my mouth. WHEN have I asked for folks to "serve" me? Mind you, as I like building power micro-grids, I guess you have a point in re power fantasies. I'll consider investing in black leather, but I draw the line at ass-less chaps...)
4.) Chavez violated the constitution he's supposed to uphold.
So how would You answer this question: why should "Mob" of peasant commoners feed and clothe and serve capitalist "Bob", who either cannot or will not do that just by himself, as though "rugged individualist", he's not that rugged?
5.) First off, I'd say your question shows about as much "fair and balanced" questioning as an average morning of "Fox and friends."
6.) When did the station demand the regular folks be forced to feed and clothe them? Cite sources, please.
7.) You say Capitalist like it's a bad thing...
tama
(9,137 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)if you survive only on plants, are you not a parasite?
tama
(9,137 posts)Ecosystem <- primary producers ("self-sufficient" ways of life) <- secondary and tertiary producers <- capitalists living from monetary interests
Meaning that ecosystem and primary producers survive without the classes dependent from those, but the dependent classes don't survive without primary producers.
Note that these are social roles, not personifications, a person can belong to all classes even simultaneously.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)Self-sufficient and sustainable ways of life are not "eating from beside" but organic parts of the ecosystem. Western hierarchic culture has strange divide between culture and nature, culture being something external to nature.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Western culture has given us nifty things like antibiotics and electricity. I think I'll stick with it.
Have you read John Barnes' Daybreak series?
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Not that I am disagreeing that there is parasitic capitalism, but being honest and accurate is MUCH more important for and to progressives than cons.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalist?s=t
cap·i·tal·ist
[kap-i-tl-ist]
noun
1. a person who has capital, especially extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
3. a very wealthy person.
-----------------------------------------------------
Parasite is not this this dictionary. What about Merriam Webster?
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalist
cap·i·tal·ist
noun \-ist\
Definition of CAPITALIST
1 : a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat
2 : a person who favors capitalism
-----------------------------------------------------
Standards and accuracy of definitions IS important.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I look at capitalism like farming...
I have a certain number of seeds. I'd like to grow something that will feed me, and give me at least the number of seeds that I started with.
tama
(9,137 posts)"Capitalist" (or Feudal land lord) is the one who claims ownership of more land than he can or will farm by himself, makes others toil his soil and takes most of the product in his possession.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Tama, sweetie, your ideology is showing.
tama
(9,137 posts)Destroy and deny self-sufficient ways of life, so that the people have no choice but to either die or work for the capitalist who owns the means of production, land etc.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)wow...
right... every Maker is all about forcing people to buy stuff from us.
If Socialism is so great...
1.) WHY is there a lower standard of living for all socialist countries? (not social democracies... SOCIALIST countries)
2.) WHY do people leave the "pure" socialist countries, in an attempt to get to a capitalist country?
3.) WHY do so many socialist countries have such miserable environmental records?
Please avail yourself of the opportunity to get a grip.
tama
(9,137 posts)I'm not a Marxist socialist. But I know enough about the theory to say that, "state socialism" is abomination as it is internationalist theory so there can be no "pure" socialist countries. And technocratic state hierarchies are what they are in both capitalistic and "socialist" countries.
As for your questions, it is stupid to measure "standard of living" by level of consumerism, and while not without the curses of technocratic insanity, socialist countries have been generally less much efficient in environmental destruction that capitalistic exploitation of ecosystems.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Lake Bakhal (sp)
Ural Sea
Brought to you by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics!
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)He buys them. Just like you buy a home, and hire someone to put on a new roof or mow your lawn.
I see it as a good thing that you buy a home or someone else buys a business. And when I want a job, I'm glad someone started the company where I work. I'm not the entrepreneurial type. How else would I get money to live, buy my own home so that I can hire roofers and lawn mowers?
If you have some junk to sell, you can sell it on e-bay for whatever price someone is willing to pay. You don't have to sell it to the lowest bidder because they need it more. Just like the person who sold your home to you didn't have to sell it to a lower bidder because they needed the house more than you did.
That's capitalism.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)You were cheated of the right to struggle and glory of building your own house.
tama
(9,137 posts)you have to claim it for commodity of capitalistic ownership. In your case and as usual, kill and dislocate and slave the indigenous people and destroy and deny their way of life and claim the land they lived as part of.
And as you say, you see yourself totally dependent from the capitalistic and/or monetary system and cannot imagine anything else.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)perhaps we simply are willing to HIRE other people to do certain tasks.
Tama, sweetie, there's only so much time in the day. Building a house takes a LOT of time. (to hell with living in a tent.)
"anything else" - as you say - tends to be nasty, brutish, and short.
you are trying to "justify" capitalism by need to build a house, massive fail:
The Finns were accomplished in building several forms of log housing, having different methods of corner timbering, and they utilized both round and hewn logs. Their log building had undergone an evolutionary process from the crude "pirtti"...a small gabled-roof cabin of round logs with an opening in the roof to vent smoke, to more sophisticated squared logs with interlocking double-notch joints, the timber extending beyond the corners. Log saunas or bathhouses of this type are still found in rural Finland.
By stacking tree trunks one on top of another and overlapping the logs at the corners, people made the "log cabin". They developed interlocking corners by notching the logs at the ends, resulting in strong structures that were easier to make weather-tight by inserting moss or other soft material into the joints. As the original coniferous forest extended over the coldest parts of the world, there was a prime need to keep these houses warm. The insulating properties of the solid wood were a great advantage over a timber frame construction covered with animal skins, felt, boards or shingles. Over the decades, increasingly complex joints were developed to ensure more weather tight joints between the logs, but the profiles were still largely based on the round log.
—C. A. Weslager, [5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_cabin
A skilled builder can build a decent log cabin in few weeks by himself, with help from friends much faster. Something our people - who certainly were not capitalists during those times but culturally much closer to American indigenous people, taught America:
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) the first paragraph of your article shows those houses are not usually permanent structures, and not "sophisticated."
Instead of spending several weeks, cursing and swearing with/at friends, building a structure only partially to my tastes...
I can hire a collection of people with DECADES of experience to build a house more to my liking...
Or...
I can look in the "for sale" ads, and find a house.
Tama, some of us don't want the experience of building a house.
tama
(9,137 posts)a well made log house are not exactly "permanent" but anyhow lasts for hundreds of years. A modern cement house lasts for few decades, at tops. But that's beside the point.
Again, market and various forms of market economies are not same as capitalism, which means, as I've said, private ownership of means of production. If you want to give that word some other meaning, fine. But I don't believe you are ready to do that and go for "capitalism" without private ownership of means of production.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)You're trying to compare a modern economic system with how a country was founded. Two separate, unrelated things. If you want to talk about how America and every other country got its start, that's another thing, and has nothing to do with the economic systems in those countries now. EVERY country has evil in its history. None more so than Italy (Rome) and the Soviet Union. Consider the raping and pillaging vikings of the nordic countries. That has nothing to do with their current economic systems (which are based on capitalism).
That's not to say that social programs, to provide a safety net, aren't good and necessary. They are. Social Security and Medicare were started and kept healthy by the Democratic Party in this country. Everyone in this forum agrees with certain social programs. But that doesn't mean Democrats are against capitalism.
If you think you have a right to sell your junk on e-bay, you might be a capitalist.
If you think you have a right to buy a sofa or a house, you might be a capitalist.
If you think you have a right to take out a loan and start a deli, you might be a capitalist.
If you think you have a right to join a union, you might be a capitalist.
If you're a waiter and busted your buns all night waiting tables, and you think you shouldn't have to share your tips with Alice, who was slow and didn't give as good service as you did and so got less in tips, you might be a capitalist. (that was a DU post a while back)
There are different kinds of capitalism. Most of the world operates on some sort of capitalistic economic system. The other systems have not worked out. It seems to me (and this is just my opinion) that some sort of capitalistic system with robust social programs works best and is best for the people (like Canada).
Pure socialism hasn't worked as fair for the people, as the hippie communes of the 60's discovered. When you get a group of people together, they will not all put forth the same effort, even though they can. Those that work harder begin to resent having to hand over the fruits of their labor to Bob over there, who slept in. Waiters in the Soviet Union slacked off, because no matter how hard they worked, they got the same pay as the slackers. There was no incentive to work harder. Human nature. However, for those that could not put forth the same effort because of age or physical limitations, social programs come into play to take care of them.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)use some form of capitalism, to get things done. (I remember reading that the Hog Farm uses a token system... I'll have to ferret that one out again.)
As for sleeping in, that sounds wonderful.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)My day starts at 06:30, and ends (usually) at 00:00.
I dream fervently of sleeping for 12 hours.
tama
(9,137 posts)Aristotle understood that money is sterile; it doesn’t beget more money the way cows beget more cows. He knew that “Money exists not by nature but by law”:
“The most hated sort (of wealth getting) and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange but not to increase at interest. And this term interest (tokos), which means the birth of money from money is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth, this is the most unnatural.” (1258b, POLITICS)
And he really disliked usurers:
“…those who ply sordid trades, pimps and all such people, and those who lend small sums at high rates. For all these take more than they ought, and from the wrong sources. What is common to them is evidently a sordid love of gain…” (1122a, ETHICS)
http://www.monetary.org/a-brief-history-of-interest/2010/12
Local money systems are not based on interest.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)MONEY systems aren't based on interest. LOANS are based on interest (or on partial shares of a business, if you're into Islam).
tama
(9,137 posts)from Feodalism and the more ancient hierarchic civilizations it's developed from. The concept of private ownership (not to be confused with personal belongings) has long roots, but it has spread like cancer all over the globe.
Capitalism - Capitalism as we know it, to avoid theorizing over some Libertarian utopian capitalism - has not worked out. It's in the process of collapsing, which will take a while which may seem long from usual human attention span but is quite fast compared to the thousands of years that the cancer has been spreading and transforming. The reason is very simple, system based on infinite growth on finite planet will collapse just like cancer cannot keep on growing when the host organism offers no more room for growth but ceases functioning.
Most human cultures have been working out quite fine, in the sense of evolutionary adaptation, except for their destruction by the cancer of imperialism and capitalism. But there are indigenous cultures that survive very well against imperialism, Pashtoun have been kicking both Soviet and US ass.
"Hippie communes" are not "socialist" in the sense of state or marxist hierarchic and centralized socialism, but anarchic. It is true that relearning communal anarchic ways of life does not happen without growing pains for Western(ized) people, but local communal and mostly anarchic ways of living are currently spreading everywhere fast and strong. We know very well that those with skills and will to do more practical work are necessary and valuable, but if they start to gripe about those who e.g. play more music than work in the garden, they can make the whole community miserable and destroy it. We know that collectively, we keep on learning individually and collectively and are doing quite fine, thanks.
eridani
(51,907 posts)You are only a capitalist if you have employees Selling stuff is not capitalist unless someone else made it and you get the profit because you own the means of production. If you own your own means of production but do not skim off the top of what employees produce, you are not a capitalist.
Waiters are not capitalists--only restauarant ownaer are. If you start a deli, you might become a capitalist, but you also have the option of forming a cooperative.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--made by the hands of men? As the Grateful Dead once put it--
Let it be known, there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of men.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)My wife says that socialism is the perfect system for scam artists:
If the person is a "Brother in the struggle" then you are "sharing."
If the person in question won't share, then they are a Capitalist, and you can just go and take what you want...
Not theft, but re-acquiring.
Brilliant stuff.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)I know you asked someone else, but I couldn't resist - it practically writes itself!
"A Rugged Individualist" called "Bob"
Wants to have control of a "Mob"
So they will feed and serve him
He knew he had to swerve 'em
Now he can enjoy the fruits of their job
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)But you left out the part about black leather and not liking ass-less chaps...
tama
(9,137 posts)DireStrike
(6,452 posts)There will always be some citizens that don't want a socialist revolution. Some of them will not be interested in playing fair, and will not care what other citizens want. See for example Chile, 1973.
Revolutions are an authoritarian action. Capitalists will never allow socialism to come about peacefully.
There can be no more periods of capitalist change. Global capitalism is already implemented. Now there are only socialist revolutions that will succeed or fail. Back in the day when we had feudalism, THEY should have tried to suppress capitalists to keep their power structure going. And they did. But they failed, because capitalism is just plain better than feudalism. Just as capitalists try to silence socialists daily, the two sides cannot be reconciled and will be in conflict until capitalism's time is finished.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)you are trying to justify mob violence.
If YOU want to have socialism somewhere, go start up a retreat or whathaveyou.
If I don't want socialism, I have the right to stop you from putting it on me.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)I don't want capitalism, but it's forced on me.
If you dont understand the difference between a global economy and living alone in the woods, well that's your problem.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Capitalism is forced on you? The only things that are forced on you are the law, taxes, and death.
All states are mob violence
a blatant assertion on your part does not make a thing true. States have these funny things called LAWS, so we DON't have mob violence. Your inexperience is showing, sweetie.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)There's really no way I can argue with someone who doesn't understand the issues. Especially someone with your attitude.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I can respect that. You're making blatant assertions, and I'm calling you on them.
When you can actually make a case for your positions, please feel free to come back.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Old enough to remember when:
We got to the Moon...
We put up the first space station...
The Berlin Wall coming down...
The pre-internet Fido net...
Look, kid... I can take a few guesses at the next tacks you'll take. Any age number I put in, you'll likely say:
A.) I'm not acting like it...
B.) You're older and far more experienced...
After that, you'll probably start tossing in some handwavium from one of the ISR/Columbia set, and then claim that proves some point you've made.
When you stop acting like a kid (blatant assertions, false equivocations, etc), I'll stop calling you kid.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)Why? Well, Republicanism isn't the only ideology with a demographics problem.
One of the only good things about the abiding failure of the left in the past 20 years or so is that capital has stopped its massive propaganda offensive, since we're no longer a threat. Of course the reason we're not a threat is that it was so successful in the first place...
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)What is a leftist? What is Liberal? What is Conservative?
I believe that most things should (if possible) be handled at the lowest and most local level of funding and organization. I also believe in the principle of personal responsibility and defense, with a basic right to firearms, balanced by public safety. Does that make me a Conservative? Given my middling light travels around the world, I believe the USA to be among the best, if not the best, country on earth. Does that make me Conservative?
On the other hand, I believe that High quality education, guaranteed right to a healthy level and mode of eating, safe housing, and equal treatment under the law are basic human rights. I feel that free speech is and should be protected, but inciting violence and/or hate should be prosecuted under public order ordinances. The best times - economically - for this country were under periods of Higher Taxation (The "long 50's" and the go-go nineties.) I feel that we shouldn't subsidize corporations that are taking jobs away from existing employees in the USA. Does that make me Liberal?
I feel that corporations can react faster and more creatively than can government (as per the Wright Bros. versus the 50 year efforts of our federal government, the thousand-plus patents of the Edison Corp, and the Tesla work, and the Ithaca Dollar program, etc.) However, I think that such drives need rev-limiters, and therefore we need strong corporate regulations at all levels. Does this make me a Libertarian, or a Liberal?
This may be why my wife calls us Progressives. I joke and call myself the aggressive progressive.
Defining the currently evolving systems with the past social/political systems would be a lot like trying to explain Christianity to pre-mystery Pagans:
"So this Jesus kid... He goes around doing great things, then dies and rises again. Like Sun gods, right?"
"...sort of. He also gets tortured for all of our sins. So We don't have to pay for them."
"What's a sin?"
"Sort of like a moral debt you owe the Gods."
"So I can be bad, and He's already gotten to Gods to forgive us? Wait'll I tell my neighbors wife!"
"Nope. His dad, God, is against that."
And so it goes...
eridani
(51,907 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Socialism doesn't allow for private ventures.
eridani
(51,907 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)The single socialist principle that all have in common is that no one, under any circumstances, is allowd to own anybody else's means of production. That means that you can own your own, or own the means of production as a cooperative association. Communists say that the state should own them as the sole representative of the people. Sydicalists think that the state should be abolished and only worker-owned cooperatives should exist.
argiel1234
(390 posts)If I dont want to be fair and continue to rip you off, I have the right to make laws and have a police state that perpetuates my lust for greed at any cost
There, I fixed your sentence for you
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)my lust for greed at any cost?
Says who? Fair day's work for a fair day's trade. That includes Bankers and Inventors, as well as the supposed shared commonality of the masses.
Socialism really sounds more and more like a semi-circular logic path to take what you want, and then dress it up with rhetoric.
Try again, chuckles.
argiel1234
(390 posts)its a fair days work for a fair day's pay.
I noticed you capitalized Bankers and Investors.
Nice touch.
lol
PS no one is buying the bulllllshitttt
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I had written Bankers and Inventors - that's with an "N" as in news.
As to the
PS no one is buying the bulllllshitttt
1.) nice mature come-back. What are you, 12?
2.) the fact that nobody is buying the BS, is EXACTLY the reason that Socialists have to take things by force. People that listen to reason don't fall for Socialism.
Nice try, chuckles.
argiel1234
(390 posts)no one is still buying what you are selling
Socialists don't take things by force. See European countries as well as Scandinavian countries for example
People that listen to reason don't like others who advocate profiting off of peoples lives
also I find it funny you say the word chuckles
bit of nostalgia FRiend?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) You need to stop shouting at the mirror. No one in the USA is buying Socialism, other than a semi-permanent band of the strange.
2.) Socialists OFTEN take things by force: Russia 1917, China 1949, Korea (North) 1950, Vietnam 1954 - 1976, Afghanistan 1979.
3.) If I invent something, shouldn't I get paid? Quite frankly, chuckles, you aren't pretty or witty enough to send gifts to.
As to Nostalgia... Ever since the Freddy Mercury period of Queen broke up, things just haven't seemed the same.
argiel1234
(390 posts)whether you acknowledge it or not. The countries you listed we have often invaded or at least tried to murder their leaders on a regular schedule.
If you invent something you should indeed get paid for your labor and ideas, but you have no right to profit off of other peoples lives
unfortunately for your limited intellect, there are plenty of people who are laborers and union members who are not paid for their time or labor who contribute on a daily basis hundreds of times more than the vulture capitalist who buys a company out and fires everybody to make a profit.
Romney seems to be more to your liking "a geek named Bob"
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)whether you acknowledge it or not. The countries you listed we have often invaded or at least tried to murder their leaders on a regular schedule.
People woke up in 1991, when the USSR broke up. That was waking up. I figure the people of CHina will wake up pretty soon, too.
If you invent something you should indeed get paid for your labor and ideas, but you have no right to profit off of other peoples lives
From your own logic, other's don't have the right to profit off of my work. Therefore, we have to arrive at an agreed on price/trade.
unfortunately for your limited intellect, there are plenty of people who are laborers and union members who are not paid for their time or labor who contribute on a daily basis hundreds of times more than the vulture capitalist who buys a company out and fires everybody to make a profit.
I was waiting for the "you can't understand it" dig. I guess being a capitalist precludes talent in other areas. To bad being a Socialist seems to preclude talent in understanding FACT from Rhetoric, nor understanding history and economics. The dig you've used is basically a college Sophomore dodge. If you are actually older, then I suggest you look into your argumentation style book.
Romney seems to be more to your liking "a geek named Bob"
I was waiting for that one, too. Black/White Fallacy. I'm voting for Obama. So is my wife, and pretty much all of our friends.
Chuckles, you need to push the socialist rhetoric away for a bit, and LOOK at the damage done by said group.
argiel1234
(390 posts)based on your love of the police state and Capitalism.
Its right up Romney and your alley
just be honest
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Honestly, then...
I think President Obama has been, is now, and will be, one of the greatest presidents the United States has had, since Franklin Delano Roosevelt along with Teddy Roosevelt. Given the complete mess that GW bush had made of the economy and Civil Rights, anybody who runs a business, or works for a US based business, should be building shrines.
You can tease all you want, I'm voting the full Democratic party ticket. Matter of fact, you're now witness:
If Obama wins a second term, I will:
1.) Teach another 10 semesters of students in critical thinking, light manufacturing, and inventing skills
2.) I will build at least 3 devices that will slow down/stop global warming
3.) I will re-wire my neighborhood to be self-sufficient and sustainable in terms of electrical power and fuel (I'll do what I can with food, but wheat takes up a LOT of room.)
Just be honest, you want the system to crumble, so you can "set up the RIGHT system, in the ashes..."
argiel1234
(390 posts)"a geek named Bob" to express yourself properly without giving too much away?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)interesting slip on your part.
I was speaking of Inventors. Those who come up with ideas, refine them, test them via models, and then go build progressively better working concept versions.
Are you lumping the Inventors in with the Investors? I know that their was a thread of Socialism that was built on the premise that there are no single inventors, but I had thought that mental illness had passed away.
Too many Socialists seem to be about figuring out ways to scam people out of time/money/energy/services.
At least be an honest thief.
argiel1234
(390 posts)and no knowledge of European socialist countries. Inventors have been around for ages.
The people who have a hatred and also despise socialists are right wing Republicans, Teabaggers, Fascists, and Vulture Capitalists, as it exposes the putrid corpse of profiting off of peoples lives
keep posting responses so many more will see this exchange.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The Soviet Union's rise disproves your claims. The MANY socialist countries use violence to achieve their ends paid paid to it. (Then there's the widespread pogroms, lack of general civil rights, and general level of utter misery in those countries, but why muddy the thread?)
Let me lay it out for you. The only way a socialist uprising will happen in the USA is via widespread rioting. If it comes to that, I'll be arming hte police with a few devices.
argiel1234
(390 posts)keep posting "a geek named Bob"
your love of a police state is exposed for all to see.. FRiend
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)yet another black/white fallacy. You either like Socialism and the "inevitable overthrow of the capitalist system, by the joined forces of the masses!" or you like police states. That's almost the textbook definition of a black or white fallacy.
Do I like having an active police force? Why, yes I do. It stops mobs from destroying cities.
Do I think we need a civilian review board? Why, yes I do! it gives a regulator system to the enforcement teams.
Is there a difference between a Social-Democracy and a Socialist State? Yes, there is.
The USA is not a police state. I checked out South Africa in the 80's. THAT was a police state.
You have no legal right to riot. If you do riot, you take your chances with the law - and those of us tinkering inventor types that will arm them.
argiel1234
(390 posts)Let me lay it out for you. The only way a socialist uprising will happen in the USA is via widespread rioting. If it comes to that, I'll be arming hte police with a few devices.
arming "hte" police with a few devices
Im sure you will "a geek named Bob"
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Among the devices I like:
1.) autoranging tasers, phased to Delta Brain state. Instead of high wattage OUCH, they would induce sleepiness.
2.) Remote RFE IED detonators.
3.) (theoretical) variable RF gun jammer.
4.) portable rock cheap concerts
5.) Aerosolized Oxytoscin/PHEA crowd control gas (Instead of making people choke and tear up, why not make them feel loved and hugged?)
argiel1234
(390 posts)a violent "democratic" supporter... you will fit right in to the trojan horse
why not add some tear gas and live bullets "a geek named Bob"
Please Please keep posting and posting..post some more after that
tell us of your love for the police state some more.
Bonus points if you add some great prison abuse stories..
you develish Obama supporter
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Over the top arguments... you're a socialist.
a few points of correction:
1.) I'm a defensive violent democratic supporter.
Why do you have the RIGHT to riot, and I don't have to RIGHT to defend myself? Weird as it is, I go by the golden rule. (Then there's that rule about no rioting in just about every legal system.) In the USA you have the right to peacefully protest, provided it doesn't interfere with other people's right to exercise their rights. Why should your RIGHT to protest override my RIGHT to walk down the street? What about if I like the idea of going into a store you are protesting? Why is your RIGHT to protest greater than my RIGHT to buy something in that store (commerce is a form of expression...)
2.) Russia to USSR was not a peaceful process. YOU said that socialists are violent in their takeovers. Either your were mistaken, or you were lying. Which is it?
3.) The list I produced was my humble attempt to ratchet down the "lowest useful level of force" argument. Cops usually talk about the Taser is better than a gun. And (supposedly) pepper spray is better than a taser. Why not replace them with sleepy foam sticks and hug fog?
argiel1234
(390 posts)that is direct quote which is a lie. lying is not permitted here
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Pretty violent.
Where do I lie, in this statement?
Just be honest... you really want people to not fight back, when you push for violent overthrow.
That's why I'll be on the side of the regular folk, who don't want burning buildings. That's why I'll arm the cops.
argiel1234
(390 posts)provide specific links and supporting documentation of Russia 1917. because there was no USSR in 1917
when you say 1917 Russia and USSR in the same sentence you are lying and giving false information
you want to profit off of peoples lives and everybody else to shut up about it.
You have no right to profit off of peoples lives
You are not on the side of regular folk.
You espouse Romney right wing talking points and arming cops against the people, like you stated, is exactly what Romney wants more of
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)You've used black and white fallacy again, and then tried to demonize your opponent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution
that covers the violent start of the socialists...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/483936/purge-trials
that covers the Soviet idea of Civil Rights...
As I've taught developmental Reading, Math, and study skills solely in inner cities, I'd say I've made my claim to being for the people. What have you done?
The choice isn't Romney or Socialism. It's Romney or Obama. I'm voting for Obama.
Go back to school and learn something.
argiel1234
(390 posts)you have lied and tried to cover your tracks
you have no claim as you have not provided links of any kind.
You claim to be a teacher, prove it. State which schools district.
You continually have no answer
The choice you have made is clearly in Romney's corner.
You love Capitalism. you love to arm police violently to suppress the people.
You have stated this clearly for all to see
You have nothing to teach for anybody to learn
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)You keep saying I will vote for Romney. Please provide proof.
You are attempting to shore up your pathetic attempts of an "argument" with blatant assertion. That's sad.
There is no way giving a troll like you personal information regarding my teaching career.
I posted incidences of violence of the Socialist system, as per the Bolshevik revolution. That's not a lie.
It's really beginning to sound like you've run out of "proof" for your socialist system.
As to my violence... Yes, I will help the cops to stop rioters. I have absolutely no problem hammering arsonists. Deal with it. You don't have the legal right to get violent.
Should someone get tased/peppered/clubbed at a peaceful demonstration, I'll chip in for the protestor's legal fund - and the lawsuit against the city that allowed the brutality. It's a line item in my R&D budget.
eridani
(51,907 posts)You can only make money by blocking access to your invention without payment of a toll. That occasionally the maker and the blocker of access are the same person does not countermand the basic point. Mostly, the makers just want to get onto the next project, and find the legal squabbling involved on blocking access not nearly as much fun as making stuff.
The 20th century's three greatest medical discoveries were (IMO) insulin, antibiotics and the polio vaccine. Banting and Best, Fleming, and Salk never made a dime from them, though with reputations permanently assured, they had no trouble getting funds for any more research that they wanted to do.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)http://gotopatentlawfirm.com/2010/01/31/twenty-two-22-simple-inventions-that-made-many-independent-inventors-wealthy/
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/08/smbusiness/Scott_Jones.fsb/index.htm
Those would suggest your statement is wrong.
My Uncles made money inventing things and selling their products.
eridani
(51,907 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Please provide proof.
First you said inventors (with a heavy implication that you meant ALL inventors) "didn't make a dime" on their inventions.
Now you are saying that "most" of us work cheap.
Facts not in evidence.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Response to argiel1234 (Reply #60)
limpyhobbler This message was self-deleted by its author.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)never called 'tyranny'.
not to mention that capitalism as we know it is just as likely to take your 'stuff' -- just by different methods.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)What is stopping a socialist from walking down the street with a sign? What is stopping a socialist from setting up a radio/TV/internet station and preaching the good word? (and make no mistake, socialism is a religion in search of a problem.)
Hugo Chavez was shutting down radio stations that disagreed with him. So much for free speech. If you are going to trot out something like "This revolution is too important to merely be stopped by the whinings of some desperate capitalists," then you are pretty much showing your colors. You are for tyrannies.
Personally, Every pure socialist country I've heard about sounds like a horrid place to visit, let alone live. Lower standards of living, damn near no civil rights, and environmental "quality" that would make the Koch bros. blush.
Without codified rules, the most persuasive run things, and they always give witches for the crowd to burn.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)I think this argument is foolish. The only functional economies are mixed and the real debate is what the blend is.
I also think that democracy of whatever form is conflated with capitalism, which it isn't.
You can explain how the people win and have self determination when almost all the money is in very few hands? What is the logical outcome?
I also would like people that are so quick to defend and advance capitalism why is it that they only focus on the exceptional period between WWII and say the early to mid 70's when affirming how well the system works and ignore the overall history?
When you talk rule then it doesn't sell. Only the "New Deal" period is actually used to sell the theory and those conditions cannot be replicated and required some serious socialism just to make it workable for one country without global competition, much lower population, low hanging resource fruit, and even then we are talking mostly white men doing well. As soon as women heavily entered the workplace and Jim Crow was gone then we started falling off the rails again.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)books, but i doubt you're interested.
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Bullets-Suppression-Dissent-United/dp/1904859593
http://wagingnonviolence.org/2011/07/ratner-discusses-suppression-of-dissent-in-north-america/
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-releases-report-suppression-dissent-post-911-america
http://www.lavoisier.fr/livre/notice.asp?ouvrage=1318865
fil62793skx
(21 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:05 AM - Edit history (1)
Mi piacerebbe tagliarti la gola
Response to fil62793skx (Reply #104)
PowerToThePeople This message was self-deleted by its author.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)If a cop smacks down a rioter, I'm not going to cry about it.
If a cop smacks down a peaceful protestor, I'll give money to the legal fund.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)It's a line item in my budget.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)what was mccarthyism? Red scare? There is a big history of silencing socialist views.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)While I PERSONALLY consider Pure socialism to be treason, most of it is free speech, and I have to defend that.
Mind you, if you speak socialist rhetoric, you are NOT getting into my home or my lab.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)On a planet with a limited amount of resources, permanent exponential growth is unsustainable. Capitalism is unsustainable. All you can do is divert resources from one human to another, starve and impoverish one for the benefit of another. This IS criminal.
I don't want or need in your house or lab. Thanks.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)we don't need to worry about permanent starvation. We DO need to switch over from Pertroleum to Electric, bio-diesel, non-corn ethanol, and hydrogen based systems. We DO need to switch over to carbon-carbon chains for power wires.
Forcing someone to live at the whims of the mob is criminal.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)"As we're slowing down in population we don't need to worry about permanent starvation."
I do not even want to respond to this argument of yours, it is not worth my time. If you can not see how poor it is, I will never be able to convince you.
You were an obvious troll in this thread prior to my even posting here with 50% of the posts being yours even though the thread was not started by you. But, since the subject is important to me and so rarely comes up at DU, I posted anyway. It appears that you just want to single-handedly shit all over this thread. I am sorry that you go not agree with socialism. You, one person, have likely stopped and at minimum hindered any good discussion of the ideas with your trolling. This is not unlike what happens outside in the 'real world'.
Forcing many to live at the whims of the few is criminal.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)look, if we were going to have a longer term posting thread, I'd show how to feed this country, and the others, given existing resources.
This thread was predicated on the - to me - ridiculous ideas that there are problems that inherently MUST be solved ONLY with socialism. I don't buy that. I keep hearing that line, and I have yet to see any proof.
You like socialism. I get that. I think adherents of socialism are mentally ill. As long as you don't go E5150, you are free to do your thing.
Forcing many to live at the whims of the few is criminal? So is allowing a mob to - at whim - rob, rape, kill those they don't like.
Also, I seem to remember that calling someone a troll is against the rules...
Is it that some have to follow the rules, and YOU don't have to?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)of the wants of the few.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)One of the core principles of Socialism is group ownership of the means of production, yes?
In the USA, I can own my own printing press. I can do whatever I want to or with it, provided I don't break the law.
For that matter, I can put rabbit ears on it, and install a steam powered pogo stick to make it hop about.
That's private ownership. That's against socialism.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)BS you have so thoroughly bought into and seek to regurgitate here.
America was founded on the very ideals that evolved into Socialism, it was the epitome of the Enlightenment at that time. The fact that we have abandoned those ideals almost entirely does not alter that fact.
It is somewhat unfortunate that the founding of this nation predates the word and solidification of Socialism, which allows the kind of sophistic arguments that you put forth with regularity. Our nation however, does not predate Adam Smith's economic theories and it is significant that the men who created the United States of America not only did not mention them in any founding documents, but went to some lengths to avoid them as a model for establishing our government.
From the Oxford English Dictionary;
Socialism noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy
The definition has a variety of meanings, but the key consistencies are composed of being owned or controlled by the community as a whole. i.e. police, fire, military, education, infrastructure, etc., and an opposition to dominance by unregulated economic markets. Both of these criteria are both present and essential to the function and growth of America. We became a world power through socialistic practice and have collapsed as we have abandoned it more and more.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)http://www.workers.org/2008/us/socialism_1106/ (mind you, it contradicts itself, not unlike Mitt at his best)
The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished.
Under Socialism, I'd likely have my 3D printers, welding torches, lathe, windmills, etc. "socialized" (appropriated) and given little in return.
Doesn't sound like a great deal to me. Given that all of the socialists I've met are sheer death on any equipment they use, all of that stuff I've mentioned would likely be destroyed.
Not cool.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)The crimes against the private farmers is enough to show that socialists steal.
How about Addressing THAT?
WHY should you decide what my line of demarcation over private/personal property is?
My property is that which I built, bought, and/or traded 5 cases of home-made Mead for. Why should you and/or your social group have a "right" to it?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)whole conservative, authoritarian movement that has hollowed out and is destroying this nation always does.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)WHAT are my false premises?
Are you saying the Russians (as they became the USSR) didn't steal from other people? If so, you are either lying, or a fool.
Socialism talks glowingly about public ownership of the means of production. I have 3D printers, Lathes, Bandsaw, Drill presses, and welding equipment. I'd argue those are means of production. When did you get the right to take my stuff, "in the name of the people?"
To me, Socialism is little more than an attempt at ennobling sloth and envy, and winds only being an obsessive "answer" in search of a problem to attach itself to.
Your right to protest stops at my right to travel, speak, and conduct legal business.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Communist than Nazi Germany was Socialist or than the U.S.A. is democratic. Every one of the nations better than us in living standards, social mobility, distribution of wealth, mortality, satisfaction of its population, education, and so on are to a greater degree Socialist than the mess people like you have created here.
Your adamant refusal to address either the questions put to you, or the issues raised in the OP just show how completely bankrupt your notions are. So unless you want to start addressing them, we are done.
Just another authoritarian with nothing to say that is of any relevance to anyone that doesn't live in your head, fortunately and unlike others like you, you are harmless.
"That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." - Karl Rove
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Unless you are going to trot out something along the lines of "they have X, therefore they are socialist," There is a distinction between a good social safety network, and the band of thieves that are socialists.
If I'm harmless, then you've got no worries. It sounds an awful lot like you are projecting a tad.
OP didn't show ANY problems that ONLY socialists can fix. I'm still waiting for OP to post those exclusive problems.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)socialism from a socialist party POV is a verboten threat to the Democratic Party around here.
If you promote the socialist party, your thread will be locked. just sayin'
marmar
(77,080 posts)nt
upi402
(16,854 posts)just licking it around the edges has drawn unwanted/undeserved attention.
not calling it out at all, just having fun today. socialism will draw flames, locks, etc here.
but yes, socialism today was party platform when I came up in the Democratic Party. i want my party back!
argiel1234
(390 posts)off of other peoples lives will always make excuses to control the message. They feel its their right to rip off consumers and make money off the backs of laborers as long as it benefits them. They will then turn around and proclaim how individualistic they are.
Sociopaths are pretty individualistic as well. It doesnt mean we should be ok with it.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) It's never been tried.
2.) The failures weren't real Socialism.
3.) We just need to try again in (Name of target country) to get it right.
Also, Socialists always seem willing to share other people's stuff...
Socialism, when lesser scams lost their thrill.
upi402
(16,854 posts)That's the claim. The USSR was authoritarian.
Socialism is in effect in much of western civilization. Has been for decades.
Travel is good!
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) Socialism is NOT running much of western civilization. There are a whole lot of Social Democracies in Western Europe. (Unless you are going to use a variation on the "one drop rule," then the mere point of being able to own a craft shop in Europe as a private means of production would preclude the social democracies from being labeled as pure socialist states.)
2.) Travel is great, but not on a day like today. I intend to go on a wanderfest in year or so, and see a few more countries.
upi402
(16,854 posts)1.) In America, Goldwater would be called a socialist now. Obama is right there. Any country that has medical coverage for its citizens, and against the death penalty, and doesn't worship the gun = socialist. 100% socialist, no qualifiers here. There are forces in the corporatist take-over that are undermining it, but it's infrastructure is in existence still.
When I travel, people like their socialist medical system and think we're gun nuts here, who've lost the plot.
Even SE Asia has far better medical care.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'd mix TR and FDR, Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama's policies. That might give us a reasonable facsimile of a culture.
With some work, I'd like to travel to other countries via personal airship. It just has this nice sound to it...
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)chartered companies of england, holland, etc. who came to north america & started taking the indians' stuff, and then moved into actually taking africans' 'stuff', including their very bodies.
capitalism was built on taking other people's stuff, it runs by taking other people's stuff (that's where profit comes from), and it continues to take other people's stuff today.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)People who usually pretend to be Dems would know who that is.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I've voted the straight democratic ticket since I entered college. (For that matter, I've also tutored and taught in inner cities from college on, actually MADE soup in soup kitchens, and escorted women to PP.)
YOU don't get to define what a member of the Democratic party is, or is not - outside of saying that person should be voting in the local, state, and national election with their vote going to the Democratic candidate. Your "you're not a REAL democrat" is right up there with other Pagans telling me I can't be a REAL pagan unless I stop eating meat, develop a same sex relationship, and vote the full Worker's Party ticket.
Personally, I consider Socialists to be traitors to the USA, and a bad attempt at scam-artistry.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I guess you'd better refuse to take Social Security, since that would be treason by your reckoning. You have one of those nice days.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)and why would I have pics of cleaning pots? (Who's got that kind of time? it takes forever to get curry spice-stains out of a big pot.)
Social Security is not a socialist system. Please try again.
Enjoy the post-hurricane day.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)& destroying its productive capacity, setting it up for eventual breakup.
now there's some fucking traitors.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Are you actually trying to push for Socialist or republican are the only choices? Shame on you!
Look, I get that you are a socialist. It's sad to hear, but I hold hope that you might one day recover. Still, I didn't expect you'd use a fallacy and demonizing combo.
WHICH Republican talking points have I parroted? provide proof.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)other people's stuff, and runs by taking other people's stuff?
let alone how does recycled thomas sowell refute my point?
why are you here?
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)Socialists steal stuff, and then use cheap rhetorical tactics to hide said theft.
To put it bluntly, you try to steal from me, you'd better be adept at hiding.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)steal stuff.
maybe an introductory logic course?
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)socialists re-acquire that which was taken or wrongfully denied them by capitalists.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)If I don't give someone a cookie that they REALLY want... that person can just take it.
Overriding ID attempting to trump mutually agreed on laws.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)"It may be..." Links already posted, showing FACT that socialists steal.
If you feel you need an intro logic course, feel free to go get one.
Socialism: The political form of rabies.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)1.) you haven't shown proof of your statements.
2.) You can't refute those links I posted.
3.) You've tried the "you're either a socialist, or you're supporting the republican talking points."
Look, I get it. You're hoping the rhetorical tricks you've used will get you a win.
Personally, as long as the socialists obey the law, I'll just laugh at them. (Easy enough to do, they give up so much straight-line material). If they try uprisings, I have no problem with the police suppressing them. (Hell, I'll bring coffee for the line officers. Maybe I can have a crack at the rioters.)
I'm still waiting for OP's list of problems with exclusively socialist solutions.
you want to stop posting, that's on you.
brooklynite
(94,541 posts)...I don't see an argument that socialism is better, or a specific socialist solution to the problems.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)many of the socialist articles never seem ot get around to directly showing that "better" system.
I guess I'm just too dumb to dig it.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)If Socialism is so much better, then you ought to be able to present a country that does so much better than those nasty places that have capitalism running about. Not social democracies, as those allow capitalism. (unless you want to try that "if it's got any traits of socialism, it's socialist..." which is using the One Drop rule of "logic."
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)Despite the fact that Cuba has to deal with a U.S. embargo. So there's an example of socialism, albeit a very poor version of it, doing better than a capitalist nation of comparable size and wealth.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)They are still dealing with losing the handouts from the USSR.
This is your idea of a better system???
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)What do you want to compare Cuba to the U.S. a country that is many times larger with more natural resources? Once again Cuba is doing much better than similar countries. I'd much rather live in Cuba than Haiti or many similar countries.
a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I'm giving it another 20 years, for the inertia to leave.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)when, hopefully, the republican party falls apart, we can get true third parties into the game.
I will vote democratic socialist.
midnight
(26,624 posts)the bankers and the corporations have litigated nafta and this should of been seen as a constitutional deal breaker.... Don't let our jobs out of the country.... that should be the focus to turn the tide on poverty in America.. and then fix this nonsense about the rich not paying taxes because the create jobs....