Talking about socialism rationally

[BIGBULL29]

Not at all.

What I'm saying is that somehow making value judgments, about groups, or individuals became taboo.

The reason for that, was since values are all relative, since there are no "real" values, the only reason one would make a distinction would be in an effort to validate or justify or excuse some sort of domination, or degradation.

The flip side is that since there is no "wrong", it likewise would not make sense to speak of something being "right" in an absolute sense.

As Alston Chase pointed out, in discussing the consequences for education, so also are we throwing out the possibility of recognizing "excellence".

extrapolating from this, the same "logic" is applied as Bbucko is urging: to recognize the achievements or excellence achieved by one set of people, is to denigrate another

So, we are foreclosed from making certain distinctions, to maintain the idea that no real values can be applied, else we fall into the trap of denigrating with the intention of dominating, or dehumanizing.

What I was trying to point out, is that it was during an age when the civil rights struggle had reached a boiling point. Real breakthroughs were being blocked by arguments ascribing to the "minority races" certain inherent flaws of character, intelligence, etc., so real progress seemed uncertain.

The rhetoric became louder, and, when the left took up the cause, a weird amalgam of these different strands that the left was espousing and adopting, occurred.

It became imperative to prevent the transmission of bigotry to the younger generations, and to overcome the existing prejudices in society.

The way that was adopted was to categorically deny any differences among us -- to assert any difference, was to partake of, and engage in bigotry.

But again, that means, as Alston Chase pointed out, that we would be throwing out the notions of achievement and excellence.

Accept it, or not, but so sayeth Nick444.

Relavitism is silly: To state that there is no such thing as a truth is in itself a contradiction.

 

[JTalbain]

oh, yeah, that was the other thing

simply instituting a health care program does not render the country socialist

socialism is not on the table under Obama

Sensibility in an Obama criticism? You apparently aren't a subscriber to World Net Daily. :tongue:

if anything, Obama is unquestionably a trilateral-globalist (which is probably the best descriptor I've come across for him). If anything, as well, he favors the larger corporations at the expense of the smaller enterprises; a proposition that is indisputable, given his globalist proclivities, the policies he has implemented, and his proposed taxation scheme.

That's usually criticism used for Republicans (too much foreign policy, favor large businesses, tax breaks for the rich). In fact, Obama was repealing the tax breaks on the upper tax brackets that were put in place by George W Bush. Which policies are you referring to that make you feel this way?

and, they will be necessary in the foreseeable future owing to another policy he is pursuing -- that of a government imposed US dollar devaluation.

Since I doubt Obama woke up one morning and said, "I want to make the dollar tank today", I assume you are talking about this being a side effect of another of his policies. Which one? Without knowing which policy you are referring to, you force us to take all of the consequences (basically a highway to dystopia) on faith.

 

[b.c.]

Not at all.

What I'm saying is that somehow making value judgments, about groups, or individuals became taboo.

The reason for that, was since values are all relative, since there are no "real" values, the only reason one would make a distinction would be in an effort to validate or justify or excuse some sort of domination, or degradation.

The flip side is that since there is no "wrong", it likewise would not make sense to speak of something being "right" in an absolute sense.

As Alston Chase pointed out, in discussing the consequences for education, so also are we throwing out the possibility of recognizing "excellence".

extrapolating from this, the same "logic" is applied as Bbucko is urging: to recognize the achievements or excellence achieved by one set of people, is to denigrate another

So, we are foreclosed from making certain distinctions, to maintain the idea that no real values can be applied, else we fall into the trap of denigrating with the intention of dominating, or dehumanizing.

What I was trying to point out, is that it was during an age when the civil rights struggle had reached a boiling point. Real breakthroughs were being blocked by arguments ascribing to the "minority races" certain inherent flaws of character, intelligence, etc., so real progress seemed uncertain.

The rhetoric became louder, and, when the left took up the cause, a weird amalgam of these different strands that the left was espousing and adopting, occurred.

It became imperative to prevent the transmission of bigotry to the younger generations, and to overcome the existing prejudices in society.

The way that was adopted was to categorically deny any differences among us -- to assert any difference, was to partake of, and engage in bigotry.

But again, that means, as Alston Chase pointed out, that we would be throwing out the notions of achievement and excellence.

Accept it, or not, but so sayeth Nick444.

Yes, that's just about what I though you were suggesting: That the left adopted some kind of "amalgam"... was the word I think you used... of liberal and socialistic ideas which (you appear to be suggesting) resulted in a "dehumanizing" (of the individual, I take it), by ascribing all (for the sake of achieving equality) to some alleged "lowest common denominator", and refusing all recognition of "excellence" and/or individual achievement.

Of course, I disagree. The aim of social programs, and movements toward social justice is not to "dehumanize" by making (out of necessity) everyone the same, as you imply. Nor are those who you define as liberal or left leaning incapable of recognizing "excellence" or individual achievement. "We" recognize it all the time.

Value judgments imposed upon individuals or groups are valid so long as they are based in fact rather than supposition. And even as such, whether that judgment be one of "excellence" or the opposite, they cannot be applied willy-nilly to others who, at first glance, may seem to fall into that same group or category, because at that point this "dehumanization" (that you suggest is a character flaw of the left) begins to occur.

In fact, to the contrary of what you postulate, we (who are inclined to so-called liberal though) celebrate our differences, not try to deny them as you suggest. Bigotry is the refusal to accept those differences, while imposing certain other presupposed differences (i.e. "inherent flaws of character, intelligence etc.") for the sole purpose of "dominating and dehumanizing", especially when "differences" of that nature are based upon a lie.

It is, in my opinion, a bogus argument to suggest that social movements, intended to achieve social justice for various peoples, necessitate the denial of excellence or achievement.

Or, to put it more succinctly... BULLSHIT.

 

[JTalbain]

Of course, I disagree. The aim of social programs, and movements toward social justice is not to "dehumanize" by making (out of necessity) everyone the same, as you imply. Nor are those who you define as liberal or left leaning incapable of recognizing "excellence" or individual achievement. "We" recognize it all the time.

Again, I draw people's attention to the CEO of Mayo Clinic, Denis Cortese. As he has stated, a better use of public dollars than providing mandatory healthcare is to reallocate the dollars already being spent to compensation for those that provide better quality in health care. Basically, only punish those that try to give their patients the minumum amount of care possible, to ensure they are chronically ill, while distributing more of the dollars to those that provide better service.

By making quality health care and preventative medicine profitable, it will decrease the burden on the medical industry in general, and decrease the health care costs all on its own because fewer people will be sick. Currently, what he is proposing is being received favorably by both parties, a sign that he's definitely helping them cooperate toward their (supposedly) shared goal.

Honestly, I don't see what difference it makes even if the government was dictating who you could and couldn't see as a provider. They do this with ALL federal funding. If you accept federal dollars as an education instititution, for example, there are limits on what you can teach, which you accept by accepting the funds. The reason why abstinence education has stuck around for so long, even in the face of studies that show it doesn't work and is dangerous to children in the future? It is an ideological stance which is slipped into the fine print of many bills, due to batch legislation. If you try to teach a more balanced view of sex ed, you lose your funding, usually for something very important and totally unrelated to sex ed.

In my opinion, complaining in the face of someone who has no insurance that you can't choose your doctor under a new program is kind of like a middle class American complaining to a hobo that Pizza Hut no longer carries their favorite topping.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

Here's an article I caught in today's news:

(this is just a part of the article, not reproducing in full)


Germany's likely next foreign minister openly gay


BERLIN – Guido Westerwelle and his gay partner are Germany's new "power couple" — at least according to the nation's leading daily, which splashed a photo of the pair hugging on election night on the front-page above the fold in Tuesday's paper.

The ringing endorsement for the 47-year-old Westerwelle, who is widely expected to be tapped for the high-profile post of foreign minister in Chancellor Angela Merkel's new government, in the Bild daily also highlighted his personal life in a way he rarely has.

"His man makes him so strong," Bild wrote about Westerwelle, declaring that his 42-year-old partner Michael Mronz was not only his most important adviser during the campaign, but also "gives him security and ... supports him when he suffers a setback."

Despite eight years as leader of the pro-business Free Democrats, Westerwelle's homosexuality has generated relatively little discussion. But with his party set to become kingmaker to Chancellor Merkel's conservatives and him foreign minister, it has been thrust into the spotlight.

--------------------


"Foreign minister" is a governmental cabinet minister that helps form foreign policy. It's a senior position below that of president or prime minister.

This got me thinking about how the american right-wing would react if Obama had selected a gay secretary of state, say (instead of Hillary Clinton), or some other high-ranking governmental position.


I think homosexuals are treated more democratically in most european socialist countries. Why is this? Why is our democracy more flawed with regards to gays?

 

[SilverTrain]

This got me thinking about how the american right-wing would react if Obama had selected a gay secretary of state, say (instead of Hillary Clinton), or some other high-ranking governmental position.

I'm not sure I understand it when you say instead of Hillary Clinton.



Sorry, couldn't resist. Didn't mean to hijack your post.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

You're quoted poster was correct, Willtom. We should never let Democrats deny that they are socialists. Often the socialists in congress deny that they worship the communist flag by changing the name of it. They call themselves 'progressives' or 'liberal'. In the end it is all the same animal; jealousy.

Not only can we lean on the experiences that socialism/communism has given us in the previous century, but we were also blessed with being able to watch how well capitalism worked over the same period. So, we stand at the highest point humanity has ever achieved, with a higher standard of living then ever before, more choices, opportunities, and ability than any generation before us, and we say, "lets get rid of this horrible system that created all this wealth and stability."

Your total ignorance of history and economics is flabbergasting.

The only reason the US did not have a communist revolution back in the heyday of the robber barons was the legalization of trade unions.
THis concession to socialism not only preserved captialism, but was the engine for US growth for the next 80 years, as rising union wages INVENTED the modern middle class and the "American Dream" of home ownership.

The higher incomes also drove consumer spending, which, it turned out, made business vastly MORE money than the old Company store and slave wages model the unions destroyed.

From the 5 day, 40 hour workweek, to paid vacation, to workplace safety, to unemployment insurance... the UNIONS brought the political pressure to force legislation that made being middle class in America a life for the rest of the world to envy.

Add to that the fact that only after the crash of 29 did the US government impose strict regulation on businesses and the financial sector... and that these tight regulations ALIONE were repsonsible for the most stable period of growth in the US economy- 70 years without the boom and bust charlatanism that prevailed when we had a purely capitalist economy.

Social programs, like Social security, like water and sewer, like the interstate highway system, like the Tennessee Valley authority, like government funded research, like unemployment insurance, like the FDIC...
these 'socialist' programs have contributed more to the Productivity of the US and GNP than ALL corporate investments combined.

The greatest generation had HOMES because of the G.I. Bill, and healthcare because of the VA.

And, seriously... track the past 30 years and the implementation of republican policies of free markets and de-regulation...
Take a hard look at wages since the right began union busting in earnest, and taking the watchful eye of regulation off of business...
Wages have stagnated, debt has soared, the infrastrucure that makes this country run is crumpling, and charlatans and con men have bilked the american people out of trillions of dollars...

EVERY DECADE you can cite as being "better" in terms of real growth in wealth in the middle class, greater growth nationwide in GNP, is a decade in which this nation was far MORE socialized than it is today.

Capitalism is great... within strictly set boundaries.
Socialism is great... also within strictly set boundaries...

But, pal. GOVENRMENT IS SOCIALISM- period.
Its the one actor in the drama that is supposed to act in the interests of the whole.


Oh, and by the way... INSURANCE of ANY kind...as an idea, is nothing other than the fundamental concept of socialism.
Spreading risk, and spreading benefit, to make for a more survivable and more compassionate social structure.

only an IMBECILE speaks in terms of capitalism= good / socialism = bad.
And vice versa.

The ideal civilization must balance the power of self interest as a motivator, against the danger of self interest as the genesis of criminality.
It must act to counter-balance the unequal distribution of wealth and advantage to prevent the masses from revolution, and the concentration of power in too few hands.
And it must provide for the common good so that even the poorest can be productive contributors to the body politic.

The idiots fighting single payer healthcare are too stupid to realize that, as health cost rise, they are pulling money form OTHER commercial industries... and that as few people are covered, the overall productivity of US workers declines, which will result in shrinking markets, which will cause capitalism to FAIL.


Your government handled defense, and drinking water, because we ALL need them alike... and we need them to cost as little as possible, so we can spend our money on innovation and growing new markets.

The stupid thing is that national healthcare SAVED European capitalism, by giving more money to the consumer to spend on what they want, rather than on just staying alive and productive.

And the sad thing is that conservatives are too ignorant and uneducated to comprehend the destructive numbnuttery of their positions.


We very nearly went under, as a nation. And that was entirely due to the staggering stupidity of believing in invisible hands and absolutist economics.

Trying formulating a slightly more sophisticated worldview that is less based upon hysteria over an idea, and more grounded in actual assessment of real programs and their real effects over time.


You could not LIVE in this country without the socialized systems your government handles so well that you are totally unaware of them.

And you have to be a fool to think that a corporation could deliver you better water for less, or get your mail to your house for less.
The difference between government and private sector is the private sector's MARKUP.
And that ALWAYS costs you more.

 

[Nrets]

Your total ignorance of history and economics is flabbergasting.

The only reason the US did not have a communist revolution back in the heyday of the robber barons was the legalization of trade unions.
THis concession to socialism not only preserved captialism, but was the engine for US growth for the next 80 years, as rising union wages INVENTED the modern middle class and the "American Dream" of home ownership.

The higher incomes also drove consumer spending, which, it turned out, made business vastly MORE money than the old Company store and slave wages model the unions destroyed.

From the 5 day, 40 hour workweek, to paid vacation, to workplace safety, to unemployment insurance... the UNIONS brought the political pressure to force legislation that made being middle class in America a life for the rest of the world to envy.

Add to that the fact that only after the crash of 29 did the US government impose strict regulation on businesses and the financial sector... and that these tight regulations ALIONE were repsonsible for the most stable period of growth in the US economy- 70 years without the boom and bust charlatanism that prevailed when we had a purely capitalist economy.

Social programs, like Social security, like water and sewer, like the interstate highway system, like the Tennessee Valley authority, like government funded research, like unemployment insurance, like the FDIC...
these 'socialist' programs have contributed more to the Productivity of the US and GNP than ALL corporate investments combined.

The greatest generation had HOMES because of the G.I. Bill, and healthcare because of the VA.

And, seriously... track the past 30 years and the implementation of republican policies of free markets and de-regulation...
Take a hard look at wages since the right began union busting in earnest, and taking the watchful eye of regulation off of business...
Wages have stagnated, debt has soared, the infrastrucure that makes this country run is crumpling, and charlatans and con men have bilked the american people out of trillions of dollars...

Phil you are so wordy, but you speak the truth. That first paragraph you wrote says it all. And socialist programs during the Great Depression further saved capitalism in a time when people were beginnign to pull out their revolution hats. Time will tell if saving capitalism was a wise decision.