The irrational fears of Americans of "Socialism"

The fact alone that you use the term "*THEIR* desires" tells me enough about what you think about solidarity with other people who are not as "successful" or "lucky" as you are. IMO, you do not see yourself as a part of a whole, but as a lone warrior. We have different ideas about morale.

Me. It's called an opinion. Personal ethics.

Of course that's only my personal definition of decent. Have I claimed anything else?

Now it's my turn to ask "says who"? We are not all members of the "Homo Oeconomicus" species. Some of us think this whole thing is stupid and backward and even amoral. Some of us think that we can only survive when we see ourselves as a community, not as lone fighters who have only their own benefit in mind.

Socialism is in your cereal!!!! RUN!!! ARRRGH!!!!

Okay, so socialism doesn't work, unrestrained capitalism doesn't work, democracy doesn't work, taxes are evil, that about it?

Okay, then, so no beliefs constructed by human beings are worth believing in.

Let's close up shop.

Skin thinks Dickynoo finally gets it.

What, now, after you appear to have finally shaken off the enslaving yoke of belief and can now instead travel unencumbered?

Why not?

#123.

That's not much of an answer. Most would find accepting your life a far more satisfying option than rejecting your life -- either rejecting life by clinging to beliefs, or rejecting life upon realizing that most beliefs are just shabby hand-me-down ideas crafted by others.

Fuck "most".

Dude those dots just don't connect, what the heck are you talking about?

Yeah they do.

Pack the bags, we're going on a guilt trip. And, while my success in life is rather modest, I'll tell you this: luck had little to do with it. Luck didn't enroll me in night school, didn't take exams for me, and didn't bust its ass getting my projects done.

And you're perfectly content to force me to suit your vision of "morale."

I see myself as an individual first. I am a living individual. To the extent I am part of some whole (and, let's be frank: you mean collective), it should only be as far as I consent.

Would you view it as wrong, say, if you lived in an Islamic society and were forced to observe Islamic traditions and laws? Or if you lived in a socialist society and were jailed for being a dissenter? If so, why? Wouldn't you be "not seeing yourself as part of a whole?" Wouldn't you have a "different idea of morale," too?

Your viewpoint can only be what it is because you think it will be dominant. In that sense, you'd be no different than any other collective that forces its will on individuals.

So society should go to you for ethical guidance? Why not the Pope? Or someone of royal blood? Or someone from a powerful family? What is it about YOUR opinion that makes it so good it should override the will of others?

If you say the state should enforce your definition of decent, then yes. If you don't allow for others to live by an opposing opinion, you're claiming your position is absolute.

I don't ask that all be members of Homo Oeconomicus. I ask that I be allowed to live free of others' claims on my means to do so. I will allow them the same freedom (i.e., I won't seek claims on their lives).

And those who think that way should be free to pursue an alternative. But they shouldn't get a claim on my income.

You can be an individual and a member of a community simultaneously. Coercion is not required. I work very well with lots of other people on a purely consensual and voluntary basis.

Your claims of community really are just claims on my income. You want to force me to accept your vision of community. That's the difference. I think the state should be the least coercive it can possibly be.

Hey that's Glenn Beck!

But we can still hate Christianity and white people right?

No.
But you can poke fun until they cry into their ice cream cone.

Don't make me put your two quotes side by side to illustrate the obvious lack of connection between the two! I'll do it.

What happened? I thought we were blaming white Christians for everything.

Paladin:

You missunderstood my point completely. I don't want to enforce my views on anyone. And I don't consider my opinion as superior. And I am quite assured about the fact that my views are not very useful for the masses or even practicable as a moral imperative.

Of course I would be happy if everyone on this planet had my opinion. It will be the same when it comes to you.

I don't get why you react so aggressive concerning my post. You've always came across as a level-headed guy. It may have to do with the fact that I sound "arrogant" because I have only very limited skills when it comes to the English language.

Good lord do you realize what country that most of the people you are talking to in this thread actually live in?

Work for free?

People are saying, "hell fucking no."

Business is saying, "hell fucking no, we don't want that liability!"

Lawyers are saying, "MONEY TRAIN!!!!! Let's get Obama and the Democrats to use this to "get people off unemployment" and when things start getting fucked up we start suing business! KA-FUCKING-CHING$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"

It's hard enough to get 'em to work for money.

Holy Poop on a Stick!

We've got a German who isn't nuts.

But that's right you can't have moderate socialism.

First it starts with "nationalizing one industry". Then it moves on to the next one and so on until you have Venezuela.

Welfare is bad too if it is allowed to run out of control because it turns into a cancer and helps let socialism in the door. Notice I didn't say welfare itself is bad just that it's bad if it's allowed to run out of control. Like in America.

And whose DIE LINKE ?

Elwood agrees: How many times have you have it drilled in your head that working off the clock is against Federal Labor Law?

As a salary manager at previous jobs I was always "on the clock" but employees? Working off the clock? People are going to get fired. Fast.

I don't think there is a good term in English for what we call a "dialog between deaf people" in French. But that's what this thread is. It is a "discussion" between entrenched positions which do not understand, or try to understand, or want to understand each other.

Jan Jansen lives in Switzerland, one of the least "socialist" countries in Europe. Sure, Switzerland has some pretty powerful social welfare programs, but the Swiss economy is based on a very capitalist outlook and a very strong work ethic. (The average workweek of the Swiss people is almost ten hours longer than the average workweek of the French, for example.) Larry Niven wrote: "Most societies have the ethics they can afford" (or something like that; it's in "A Gift from Earth" and I am too lazy to look it up right now). With the highest per capita income in the West, Switzerland can afford pretty stong ethics.

Jan thus argues in favor of socialism, without knowing what it is or having ever lived under anything remotely like it. Without realizing it, he is actually defending only the concept of a strong social net as part of a very capitalist society. That works in Switzerland, at least for now, because of their incredible work ethic. But it will be noted that their work ethic long predated their social net. It would be a major error to assume that countries that do not have that work ethic will somehow develop it by having a strong social net.

The Scandinavian countries have very strong social nets, too. Nevertheless, like Switzerland they are anything but socialist. It also should be pointed out that, long before the current economic crisis that sent unemployment "skyrocketing" in America, they were running 10% unemployment. In fact, it was more like 20% for those under 25, just trying to get into the work force.

Arguing against Jan are several people who simply react to the word "socialism," without realizing (as he himself does not realize) that that is not what is being promoted here. As hard as it is for Americans to understand, that social net works fairly well in Europe, because Europeans have been bred for milennia to accept a strong central government that takes care of a lot of aspects of the life of society. There are serious abuses of the system here, too, and the further south you get in Europe, the worse they are. But over all, especially in the more Germanic parts of Europe, people work quite well, even with a government that limits a lot of their freedoms, takes a lot of their money, and provides a lot of things for them. It's just part of their mentality.

At the same time, as hard as it is for many Europeans to understand, that same structure to society does not work nearly as well outside of that handful of profoundly capitalist, Germanic, European societies with strong work ethics. Already in Europe, we see how much economic trouble there is in some countries, but the Germanic/Scandinavian countries are not the ones in the most serious trouble.

And once you get outside of Western Europe, the situation is radically different. Does the same social net produce the same level of prosperity Switzerland enjoys when it is put in place in China? In Africa? In America? No, because those societies are all radically different.

So the "Socialism works!" "No, it doesn't!" debate won't really get anywhere, because neither side knows what the other one is talking about. Neither side in the debate is actually referring to socialism, and both are extrapolating from their own experience and assuming that what works in the society they know will therefore work in societies they don't know. But with extensive experience in both North America and Europe, I can say with assurance that the two mentalities are profoundly different. Even within each continent, there are such radical differences that the same system does not produce anything at all like the same results from one country or state to another.

Me, for one.

As a 24 year old with no dependents, I had no safety nets avalible to me. My family hasn't had a full pantry in our stepdad's house since we moved there three years ago. My mom and brother have been looking for jobs forever, and only now has my mom found anything after two YEARS. My brother's only job came via a youth agency and that only lasted four months last summer.

I was fortunate enough to have had my last job a year before the economy crashed, and I loved working at Target; but I couldn't help out with bills AND pay for food off of it. My only options were go back to college (which takes time and is no guarentee of income these days) or join the military and have more money than I've ever had in my life AND have college paid for.

Guess which one I took.

It took my mom being married to the most pathetic, worthless excuse of a human being and to lose everything but our dignity to make me consider a career in the Navy. But now that I'm here it's the best feeling in the world to know that I can afford the little things again...things like clothes and a dinner once a week...hell, even fucking toliet paper.

Maybe some people will sit in their asses when things get hard (like my brother, who still takes for granted that my mom will keep feeding him with what little money she does make), but most people like myself usually draw the line at not having food to eat and buying a pair of 30 dollar shoes once a year.

Mileage varies, of course.

Good for you, although the illustrious history of Communism/socialism disagrees with you.

Why does it have to be one or the other? We can be a community without being a fucking hive mind...which is inevitably what happens in every socialist state. North Korea. China. The Soviet. Germany. The Ukraine. Cuba. Possibly Argentina in a few years. Take your pick.

While I'd agree that the Swiss are doing good as you say it also helps that they are a tiny country population wise.

Let's see how well their safety nets work with a population over 300 million.

Everything I ever needed to know about communism/socialism I learned from someone who lived it.

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

No you didn't!

Show me where I said I personally knew them
As for the Native American, please LOOK UP the statistics on how many are able to function above the poverty level and get back to me.
Until then, quit acting smart. You aren't

I disagree, I think both Paladin and Jan Jansen have held up their ends of the debate admirably, and have simultaneously persuaded me that everything is evil.