Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

Now, so far in this thread socialism has been portrayed as a statist proposal, but this is not necessarily true. A long list of self-proclaimed socialists have argued that capital ownership exists not in spite of government intervention, but precisely because of it. They have argued that certain perpetuated government monopolies, money, land, banking and credit, etc, are the only reason the capital/labor divide could be maintained. Socialists like Proudhon, Tucker, and other mutualists believe in a free market where the contract is maintained, but invision a system of collective actions and worker self-management.

Your explaining your view on socialism.You had to tax the rich...richer..to help the poor.QED.....

So give me an example where capitalism has distributed the wealth more evenly without government intervention.In the US we have the most defined right wing capitalist economy and the wealth still hangs around in 10% of the population.Your theories are based on your opinions not any thought out process of moral or even economic reasoning.I don't want to rob the rich ,I'm not Robin Hood.I want safeguards for the underprivileged and certain certainties in their life.

In the U.S. there is not a shred of capitalism. The republicans are pro-business (they support certain business that fund them) not pro-capitalism (in favor of a free market, regulated only in that freely made contactual obligations are enforced by law). Your statement is factually incorrect. I won't speak for EmperorNero, but for myself, there is nothing remotely dogmatic or faith-based in my advocation of free market capitalism. Knowledge of simple logic, economics, history and psychology will tell you that there are only two choices: individualism and freedom (which requires a free market) and collectivism and tyranny (which always has and always will, despite the slogans fed to the masses, be an operation by and for a ruling elite). I choose freedom. Those collectivists, who are not among the elite for whom the system is in fact beneficial, are the most politically dogmatic people around. In my own personal experience, I find that these people rely far more on emotional appeals than logical arguments. The vast majority of people in this country, especially in college, are not educated such that they can see the glaring flaws in the collectivist argument. There is a whole generation of sheep ready to baaaaah! off the stage any 'capitalist pig' who dares threaten the revolution...all while the sheeps' leaders sit in a back room eating mutton payed for by the bankers. :nonooo:

Whats the score, gentlemen? Or, do we believe in keeping score?

Yeah, but we agree on the ultimate goal, it's more a disagreement on which approach to get there will work.
And I think it's safe to say that nobody knows that for sure.

Moral attitudes become relevant when deciding your politics.You can attain a countries ambitions by the strongest or the weakest needs or demand, i maintain it must be weakest.I demand we use morality as a guide when forming our policies.

I will wear my red rose as long it smells sweet.

Everybody paying the same rate does sound fair to me.
Do you agree that it is a good idea to punish your children for better grades, while rewarding bad grades?

Why would the majority, that does not pay any taxes, be against socialism?
They don't have to pay for it.
The state has no business redistributing wealth. Quit useless social programs and the state does not need as much income.

Your principles are not that simple as you have demonstrated before.The red rose of socialism does not always smell that sweet, when it is grown with dogma as fertiliser.

---------- Post added at 09:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 AM ----------

This is your opinion that gave me most concern.

Alrighty. I still approve of that. It might have been badly explained.
What do you disapprove of?

The dogma that free enterprise is almost sinful and land ownership should be placed in government hands.There are extremes in every ideology and it is for moderate men to calm the storms of excess.

I don't understand, I didn't support that. Isn't that what I was against all the time?

Its what im against, thats what you asked me...Keep up.

Oh do me favour brother you are sounding just like the opposite to my Old union fanatics.Historical fanatical rhetoric , that conveys no real meaning or gives me any new reason to even listen to you.
Ive heard it all before its so bloody boring and just like the Chinese torture i was taught to withstand by the military, if captured..drip drip drip.I believe you, i believe, just leave me alone please...I just want to go home....

I feel like you do a lot in political debates, friend.
For example the strategy on the gay marriage thing is just making people tired of debating so they give in.
I am not trying to do that. I wanted to explain the complicated truth. If you reject it because it's complicated, I can't help you. It's all there, in that last post.

That's why people are leftys. It takes so long to explain the other side of things, that they reject it.
Since we allowed every breathing being to vote, emotional appeals have more political power than hard to understand logical arguments.

Gay marriage is a leftish plot to overcome western democracy...oh my..im just about to wet myself with hysterical laughter..