Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Rimjob Bob, Jan 16, 2019.
He wasn't held in particularly high esteem by the public while he was active.
We also know these men are more like animals and animals struggle and fight the most when they are about to be killed and have to. In a way this is to be expected in the deaths of the uncivilized parts of us.
People like me...?
Yes, yes. Socialism is a stepping stone towards communism. It is part of communism.
No it is it's own system of government and if you live in the USA you have a type of socialist government.
Ah, you are one of those who confuse the social programmes of a free democratic country with socialism.
A lot like you, not exactly like you. It was a different mindset.
Yes, you don't get to pull definitions from your ass.
Show me an actual socialist country
Like me... in what way?
O God! The good old "socialism has never been tried"? Really?
The country of my birth, the GDR, was a Socialist run country. The Socialist Unity Party running the country styled the land as one of "Real Existing Socialism".
But I'm sure you'd disagree with THOSE Socialists that they were Socialists. Isn't that so?
You misinterpret me.
There's been no socialist country, there's been no capitalist country, the world isn't that simple, binary or clear cut.
Every country has a differing mix of policies and characterising any one nation as being an exemplar of any system is always an oversimplification, including the GDR.
Socialism is no more to blame for atrocities or wars than capitalism, not is it communism lite.
Sure, we go with the idea that a system (Socialism) that seeks to control for the utopian ideal of equality of outcome cannot be made responsible for its own failure, its own inherent tendency towards suppression of opportunity (to achieve the goal of an equal outcome), and its inherent tendency to micro-control every aspect of a peoples' life (to ensure the goal of an equal outcome)...
If that system cannot be blamed for all the ill it has already produced in the world, how could we - hypothetically - attribute it then with any successes?
BTW: Your handwaving away the very observable fact that Socialism is a failure in and of itself with "it's more complicated" is (while in a sense true, of course) trying to push any blame away from that system.
oh shit! You are "branded" as not measuring up to the liberal standard of excellence. Now they have to educated you to save you from yourself (for your own good of course!)
I was arguing something with a really conservative friend once, and he started a sentence "Liberals like you..."
I did a spit-take.
I notice a lot of the more dense uneducated people have this locked in idea of socialism that is wrong and they are going to stick with it because socialism bad.
It is bad. Not always for the reasons most people think but still bad.
Speaking of dense uneducated people who are mostly wrong, how are you doing mr. Supreme village idiot? How is being the anchor of society going?
I'm handwaving nothing, I'm pointing out the very idea of any archetype of a system actually existing in the real world is the sort of over simplification which is better suited to propaganda than nuanced discussion.
Socialism doesn't exist, nor does capitalism. Nor in the final analysis does any clear cut balance of responsibility.
Equating socialism to communism makes as much sense as equating capitalism to slavery, raising the spectre of Cuba or Venezuala ignores the Sierra Leones of the world, bring up the Gulags and you can't avoid the mass atrocities of the British Empire which went on for centuries and represent the most damaging regime for human rights the world has seen. It's always going to be jingoism and hyperbole.
Socialism is represented in the developed world by socialised healthcare systems, by publicly managed travel and power infrastructure, by the police force and fire brigade you call if you need them, by regulation of workers rights. When I say we don't have a socialist country it's because we can't, much as we can't have a country entirely operated by market forces. The idea of a "socialist nation" or "the free world" is flag waving stuff, not actual analysis and ignores the extent to which much of the G7 is actually defined by socialist policy making, which hardly lends itself to "the very observable fact that Socialism is a failure".
"Socialism doesn't exist, nor does capitalism." - spot261
Should I use smaller words?
Speaking of which, a 27-year-old incel from Colorado was just arrested for threatening to shoot "as many girls as I see" in retaliation for his continued virginity.
Only stupid, well-fed, and ignorant people in one of the freest nations on this Earth who never were under the control of a Socialist regime, who never experienced the numbing and oppressive fear of "stepping out of line", and who willingly turn a blind eye on the repeated failures of the Socialist experiment can call all those who oppose Socialism "dense" and "uneducated".
Ah, Sierra Leone... what does the German Wiki-entry say in the first paragraph... "Das Land ist hoch verschuldet und hat mit großer Armut zu kämpfen." meaning "The country is heavily in debt and has to fight with severe poverty rates."
What a silly idea to call anything and everything that is paid for with taxes and fees "Socialist".
Any words. You still haven't explained who or what "people like me" are.
I assumed you were a white man. It has nothing to do with racism though. At the time it was more about preserving peace and the status quo, not necessarily hate or racism. King attacked these people, the moderate white, as an obstacle. Honestly none of us can say for sure where we’d stand because it was a different time and people were raised in a very different world. You seem to want to see this at an attack for some reason, but it’s not. I can try to dumb this down if that isn’t clear enough.
Maybe I can find pictures.
So... that's still a non-answer.
But that's okay. That you even think your can draw conclusions about me as a person simply based on skin colour says quite a lot about you.
And Sierra Leone has predominantly what economic system? I think you made an assumption there about my point, it's a shit hole with mass exploitation, shocking life expectancy and awful living conditions but it isn't socialist.
Sorry but being one person who lived in one country which once defined itself as socialist doesn't qualify you to make sweeping uncontested statements about socialism any more than someone from Gambia is qualified to make similar statements about living under capitalism. It gives you experience sure, but the world is big and absolutely full of atrocities and human suffering, most of it having nothing to do with socialism.
My whole point is that no one system is ever truly representative of how any country operates in the real world and no system has been totally free of abuses or the risk of economic collapse. No country is an archetypal example of a system, that's simply not how these things work unless you are taking an unrealistically simplistic view of the world, the kind of view that serious analysis is supposed to be a remedy to. If all you want is a lot of people on opposite sides of an ocean shouting "Commies" and "Capitalist pigs" at each other do let me know and we can stop wasting each others time.
I'm in the UK, please do feel free to look up what went hand in hand with our greatest period of power. Then try to tell me the mass murders, rampant starvation and disease, concentration camps, colonialism, slavery and mass exploitation of child labour were due to socialist policies.
It was the introduction of policies with socialist principles which alleviated that, brought up life expectancies, improved workers rights, helped the abolition of slavery, improved education, nutrition and healthcare and therein lies the point. All you ever have are policies, not entire clear cut examples of a system in practise. To say nationalised health care or state benefits aren't instances of socialism is akin to claiming Wall Street isn't an example of free market capitalism. They don't make the UK or Sweden truly socialist sure, but by that overly literal logic the stock market doesn't make the US truly capitalist.
It wasn't capitalism that was evil in the British Empire, it was a set of circumstances which encouraged abuses and the acknowledgement that the policies in place weren't ideal for the conditions was what led to improvements. There's no one size fits all approach, sometimes a stagnant economy needs a does of stimulation from the free market, sometimes an economy run amock needs regulation.
Basic social programmes are not socialism. No matter how often your repeat that nonsense.
Separate names with a comma.