4
   

Socialism is BAD & the Fall of Capitalism! Study of 24 hour news network ism bashing

 
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 04:07 am
PART 1 SOCIALISM IS BAD!!!:devilish:

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm quite confident that these two phrases in the title are not new to you. "Socialism is BAD!" and "The Fall of Capitalism!" These phrases have been thrown around the 24 hour news networks since October of 2008 and I'm sure we all have opinions on the uses of these phrases. But, I wish to study them, understand them, know where they came from and learn what they reveal about the people's view on what is unfolding in the global market.

The first phrase is "Socialism is BAD", now there are many other related quotes I can remember, "I don't want my country to end up like Russia!"; "France is a Socialist and horrible country"Laughing...etc, etc, etc. Why so much hate for Socialism? Well, it is a simple case of misuse, misuse and misuse. The great political philosopher of our times Glenn Beck as proposed that Socialism is fundamentaly evil. Let us explore this statement.

Socialism. What is it? Socialism as basic as it can be placed is a political and economic system in which state/worker ownership is established over the means of production. Now this may differ from your definition, but let's leave this definition as a working definition.

Now to continue I need your help, I would like YOU to supply me with YOUR definition of socialism and be careful to explain both economic and political outcomes when the ideals of socialism are adopted. Good Luck.

After you have done this, I will continue this thread by explaining the great turmoil there is in defining Socialism due its effects on two important sections of a nation, its economy and its political behavior.

Good Luck and thank you for reading this first part!:bigsmile:
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 2,418 • Replies: 29
No top replies

 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 04:27 am
@ImMachiavellian,
I'mMachiavellian;174146 wrote:
PART 1 SOCIALISM IS BAD!!!:devilish:

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm quite confident that these two phrases in the title are not new to you. "Socialism is BAD!" and "The Fall of Capitalism!" These phrases have been thrown around the 24 hour news networks since October of 2008 and I'm sure we all have opinions on the uses of these phrases. But, I wish to study them, understand them, know where they came from and learn what they reveal about the people's view on what is unfolding in the global market.

The first phrase is "Socialism is BAD", now there are many other related quotes I can remember, "I don't want my country to end up like Russia!"; "France is a Socialist and horrible country"Laughing...etc, etc, etc. Why so much hate for Socialism? Well, it is a simple case of misuse, misuse and misuse. The great political philosopher of our times Glenn Beck as proposed that Socialism is fundamentaly evil. Let us explore this statement.

Socialism. What is it? Socialism as basic as it can be placed is a political and economic system in which state/worker ownership is established over the means of production. Now this may differ from your definition, but let's leave this definition as a working definition.

Now to continue I need your help, I would like YOU to supply me with YOUR definition of socialism and be careful to explain both economic and political outcomes when the ideals of socialism are adopted. Good Luck.

After you have done this, I will continue this thread by explaining the great turmoil there is in defining Socialism due its effects on two important sections of a nation, its economy and its political behavior.

Good Luck and thank you for reading this first part!:bigsmile:
With your ability of living in two worldly regions, with two differing views on socialism ,I think it more apt that you should first give us your opinion on socialism. Do you think it can be so easily defined as you suggest? Remember slavery was quite acceptable in capitalist inspired economies of the the 18 century, should that define our views of capitalism.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 05:19 am
@ImMachiavellian,
If you can control the language you can control the thought... And that is true of revolutionary times as well as times of reaction... What cannot be so easily controlled are the thoughts of people, one on one, in the course of their lives when no respected third party is putting words in their heads as substitutes for real dialogue...

Socialism is so maligned that if we ever have socialism it will not be called socialism... But as long as the rich have everything the poor are forced to share what is left, the socialism of poverty instead of the socialism of plenty...

What will really make revolution possible is the moment those who have destroyed the trust of the people stand against it... People fear change... People do not change their forms for light or transient causes... When it become necessary it will be because the government has lost the trust of the people to a significant degree... And we see this from the right reactionaries, that with the tea baggers, they are lighting a fuse they may not easily put out... They think they can elect enough ultra constervative reactionaries to deny the changes the country needs... Instead, they may hasten the change that sweeps them from power... God willing..
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 05:54 am
@ImMachiavellian,
Since you brought up the cable news stations, I thought I would post Jon Stewart's parody of Glen Beck's logic and thinking. At times it is a bit ridiculous, but it does show how certain talking heads operate and spew out certain code words, talk about them in condescending tones and attack images to words that are not necessarily there.

The Daily Show: Conservative Libertarian Video
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 06:11 am
@Theaetetus,
Thanks but not allowed to watch it..Words that convey nothing but the speakers bias.
0 Replies
 
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 06:15 am
@ImMachiavellian,
If can watch YouTube videos, or want an edited version that can be found here:

YouTube - Jon Stewart spoofs Glenn Beck's WACKO conspiracies. LOL!!! - Countdown
ImMachiavellian
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 08:57 am
@Theaetetus,
:a-ok:Xris! I accept! The views presented above give, at least in my view, a good example of how Socialism is concept that has many identities.

Now Xris also points out something I was going to bring up. I have lived in the US and I also currently live in London, UK. Thus, I have been exposed to the many opinions and studies on Socialism (and Capitalism).

In Europe Socialism is an accepted theory of political behavior one that has affected its history for decades and it is from these effects that Europe has come to better understand Socialism-its functions and properties. This does not mean that all Europeans are Socialists and that all European nations are on the verge of a Communist/Fascist Revolution...but, I don't think I have to tell you wonderful people.

However, in the United States, Socialism is treated as an old world evil that has somehow slipped into the fabric of American politics. Why? Simply in my opinion it's due to the history of the nation. America was a nation founded on the principal that it would be different. That it would not follow the devastating cycle of old world Europe. It would be a land of economic and social freedoms. Thus, along with Socialism, "change" became a hated concept as well. It's actually quite obvious; in no other nation where I have visited or lived "change" has never been so intensely attacked than the United States.

:a-thought:The USA had never lived with or suffered the benefits or consequences of Socialism or any other political theory other than the one they had developed themselves. WHY? Because unlike Europe, their history never supported such a period of time to allow experimentation in political theory. Thus, Socialism is an alien and dangerous concept to them. This in fact is normal, however, the recent Economic turmoil combined with the media's hideous over use of -isms such as Socialism (and capitalism and poor old Communism) this hesitation has now become full out hysteria.

I do not wish to discuss if Socialism is bad or not. I wish to discuss why must it be bad or good? For I believe a political theorem is neither bad nor good, it is Society's need to label, that judges it good or bad. Society's interpretations whether hazardously wrong, cynical or correct that lead to it being called good or bad.

:a-thought:In conclusion to Part 1: A -ism is as bad as the intentions of the person or persons that employ the -ism and its ideals. This is true for all -isms whether Capitalism, Socialism, Communism or even Anarchism.
0 Replies
 
cluckk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 09:18 am
@Fido,
Fido;174162 wrote:
But as long as the rich have everything the poor are forced to share what is left


The rich do not have everything and the poor are not left to share what is left. This is reheated propoganda used as an unfounded excuse to seize another man's property for the good of the collective. Most of the poor of one generation were among the rich of another and most of the rich of one were among the poor of another. These two categories constantly change players, with a small number capable of staying in place.

The problem wih socialism is that it swoops in and devours after others have worked hard to make an industry productive. It robs a man of his efforts and work, forcing him to surrender his property to the might of the state so the state can redistribute the benefits to those they deem more worthy.

In captialism, an individual is free to accumulate or spend, consume or save. He can invest his funds in building the future, securing the present or in paying off his choices of the past. Socialism rewards those making bad choices with the harvest of those making good choices.

Those who think capitalism failed in this country are wrong. We have been a quasi-socialist country since Teddy Roosevelt, with more and more government control creeping in. Tragicaly, capitalism, which built our country in its first century plus, was rejected in the most recent century.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship none the less. Dctatorships always devolve into tyranny and tyranny is always evil, whether defended on Marxist or Utilitarian grounds.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 11:55 am
@cluckk,
cluckk;174225 wrote:
The rich do not have everything and the poor are not left to share what is left. This is reheated propoganda used as an unfounded excuse to seize another man's property for the good of the collective. Most of the poor of one generation were among the rich of another and most of the rich of one were among the poor of another. These two categories constantly change players, with a small number capable of staying in place.

The problem wih socialism is that it swoops in and devours after others have worked hard to make an industry productive. It robs a man of his efforts and work, forcing him to surrender his property to the might of the state so the state can redistribute the benefits to those they deem more worthy.

In captialism, an individual is free to accumulate or spend, consume or save. He can invest his funds in building the future, securing the present or in paying off his choices of the past. Socialism rewards those making bad choices with the harvest of those making good choices.

Those who think capitalism failed in this country are wrong. We have been a quasi-socialist country since Teddy Roosevelt, with more and more government control creeping in. Tragicaly, capitalism, which built our country in its first century plus, was rejected in the most recent century.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a dictatorship none the less. Dctatorships always devolve into tyranny and tyranny is always evil, whether defended on Marxist or Utilitarian grounds.
You have just displayed all the generalisation and rhetoric condemnation of socialism that was so cleverly made fun of. Why is it so many Americans are still living in the cold war with all their inabilities to recognise the differrence between a democratic social government and an authoritarian communist state?

Why we in Europe have resorted to revolution and condemnation of unregulated capitalism ? Its simple, we suffered beyond human endurance and sought to change society with the best intentions. The trouble with ever good cause that rises from necessity, it is hijacked by the unscrupulous and the opportunists. When your children are starving , your teeth are dropping out through malnutrition, child prostitution is the norm and you see the rich oblivious to your suffering, rebellion appears very appealing. Those who suggest rebellion are your heroes, you ignore their politics its their intentions you admire. Taxation without representation could have made communism an admired word inAmerica given the right circumstances. Modern socialism is not communism, its a moderate force that recognises the need of regulated capitalism with safeguards for the unfortunate. Its a pragmatic, forward thinking, moral stand point
cluckk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:34 pm
@xris,
xris;174265 wrote:

Why we in Europe have resorted to revolution and condemnation of unregulated capitalism ?


That explains everything.

All socialism, even the warm and fuzzy kind, eventually breaks down into tyranny. Any business owner in Europe who has come up against his "best of intentions government" in areas such as wages, days off, or any other number of regulated interactions sees it. It is the wage drone who is happy to have a government who will violate someone else's rights on their behalf who see European economic society as anything approaching true freedom.

To give me a better understanding of your viewpoint, where in Europe do you live?
ImMachiavellian
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:42 pm
@ImMachiavellian,
It seems my arguement has been lost here huh?
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:57 pm
@cluckk,
cluckk;174286 wrote:
That explains everything.

All socialism, even the warm and fuzzy kind, eventually breaks down into tyranny. Any business owner in Europe who has come up against his "best of intentions government" in areas such as wages, days off, or any other number of regulated interactions sees it. It is the wage drone who is happy to have a government who will violate someone else's rights on their behalf who see European economic society as anything approaching true freedom.

To give me a better understanding of your viewpoint, where in Europe do you live?
Violate whose rights ? the right to exploit, is not a right, its either controlled or it is not. To get a better idea of my view point? that has nothing to do with my location.:perplexed: If we choose by democratic intentions to moderate capitalism and to inform those who wish to use our labour then they need to obey certain obligations, thats not tyranny its democracy. You would love for it to be imposed by some autocratic regime without representation but it ain't and thats your problem. You cant understand why those who love freedom and would die for its cause would choose to have a social accountability above all else.

My location is clearly visible

---------- Post added 06-07-2010 at 02:15 PM ----------

I'mMachiavellian;174293 wrote:
It seems my arguement has been lost here huh?

I am afraid so...You must define socialism ..thats your problem, its like religion , so many gods to choose from. If we should choose communism then so be it but thats not socialism.The original social conscious of the 19C that found its voice communism is completely different to the Marxist ideology our American cousins so love to abhor. Is it the image , the craven image, the boggy man , the red in your bed. I can remember the targets I had to shoot at in the army, they resembled the red hoards waiting to rape my mother and sisters, its the same fear. Capitalism is killing itself and the fear of socialism is driving its warriors into ranting rages , searching for the scape goat to crucify for its own ineptitude.
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 12:02 am
@xris,
xris;174300 wrote:

I am afraid so...You must define socialism ..thats your problem, its like religion , so many gods to choose from. If we should choose communism then so be it but thats not socialism.The original social conscious of the 19C that found its voice communism is completely different to the Marxist ideology our American cousins so love to abhor. Is it the image , the craven image, the boggy man , the red in your bed. I can remember the targets I had to shoot at in the army, they resembled the red hoards waiting to rape my mother and sisters, its the same fear. Capitalism is killing itself and the fear of socialism is driving its warriors into ranting rages , searching for the scape goat to crucify for its own ineptitude.


The thread was not really about socialism or capitalism--at least in the beginning--but rather cable news network talking heads throwing out statements like "socialism is bad" and it will lead to "the fall of capitalism." It would seem to be most effective to mostly stick to propaganda and how these simple phrases are molded into loaded statements carry negative connotations.

So really, it doesn't really matter what "socialism" means in this context, because what the news networks are doing is altering the meaning to serve their purpose, whatever that may be.

Anyway, my two cents on making the thread more productive. Focus on the idea of manufacturing consent what socialism actually means, because it is generally thought to mean something totally different than what it means when Glen Beck says it.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 02:47 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;174519 wrote:
The thread was not really about socialism or capitalism--at least in the beginning--but rather cable news network talking heads throwing out statements like "socialism is bad" and it will lead to "the fall of capitalism." It would seem to be most effective to mostly stick to propaganda and how these simple phrases are molded into loaded statements carry negative connotations.

So really, it doesn't really matter what "socialism" means in this context, because what the news networks are doing is altering the meaning to serve their purpose, whatever that may be.

Anyway, my two cents on making the thread more productive. Focus on the idea of manufacturing consent what socialism actually means, because it is generally thought to mean something totally different than what it means when Glen Beck says it.
I understand the intent but the proviso was to consider socialism in a certain light, for the sake of debate. If it was general question, considering propaganda in the media, it would not be such a loaded question. I merely reacted to the answers and connotations it encouraged. It appears for many that it is not propaganda but statements of facts. If you wanted my objective view of this bigoted attitude, I would say its politically led by factions in the republican right who are on a campaign to colour the left more left than they really are and to undermine your presidents position. From our perspective in Europe, it appears Obama has no chance of operating to his full potential because of the adverse publicity that the media spew out about him and his proposed social reforms. Its endemic in your bigoted media, funded by those whose motives are apparent by the crap they churn out.
0 Replies
 
cluckk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 09:43 am
@xris,
xris;174300 wrote:
To get a better idea of my view point? that has nothing to do with my location.

My location is clearly visible.


One, I am new to these forums so I did not see your location and I did not say that about you being in Europe to be insulting. Different people have different views of many things including government that is given to them "right along with their mother's milk" and these mindsets continue through life.

In a conversation with a friend who was from New Zealand, he was wondering why Americans are so insistent on their right to keep guns. His point was that New Zealanders did not feel this way and were wlling to have such a right curtailed for safetly and security.

I pointed out to him that his people and ours have a different view of government. Among Americans, at least a certain variety, the government is not a benevolent benefactor looking out for the good of the masses and seeking to help everyone to achieve their highest. For those Americans, like myself, the government is a necessary evil created among men whereby we surrender certain rights--such as self-help justice--to combine efforts to protect the personal property and rights of each individual. This first thing we must be protected from is an overreaching government. I fear my government far more than the neighborhood thug in baggy pants. I fear any human organization that can be swayed by human passions to make pronouncements about what is mine. When a gang robs a man on the street it is a crime and an affront to justice. When a gang of suited IRS agents does the same thing--take my money to give to someone who did not earn it--they are no different and just as unjust. Socialism would permit this action so long as it was the action of either the majority or of positive law. However, many, like myself, follow the concept of natural law and find there are certain actions that even a well-intentioned government cannot be permitted to do.


No government official has the needs of the people first and foremost in his or her mind. Anyone in the government has the retention of power as supreme for that is in their natural self-interest. If removing a wealthy man's personal property to distribute to a large poor constituency will keep them in power then justice be damned. They will of course wrap themselves in the rhetoric of the revolution, but it will still be a theft. My self-interest is to preserve my own property. I trust myself to do this better than the government.

xris;174300 wrote:
If we choose by democratic intentions to moderate capitalism and to inform those who wish to use our labour then they need to obey certain obligations, thats not tyranny its democracy.


But such a democracy is a tyranny of the majority. Government was formed to protect the rights and properties of the individual and when it violates that purpose it does what it was never intended to do and never empowered to do (Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government). It gets away with it only because of the coercive force and power of its numbers. This is still theft and a violation of rights (Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia).

xris;174300 wrote:
You would love for it to be imposed by some autocratic regime without representation but it ain't and thats your problem. You cant understand why those who love freedom and would die for its cause would choose to have a social accountability above all else.


Autocratic regimes do not have to be unrepresentative. Our Congress and current administration over the last few months is just such an example. I agree with those who have declared Obama's the Imperial Administration. Yes, many who love freedoom and would die for it would also choose such social engineering, but it is always because such engineering is in their personal interest. All humans will gladly take from another to help him or her self. This is human nature grown large. That is why we need controls over governments, even popular ones and why most people wanting it does not make it right.

xris;174300 wrote:
the right to exploit, is not a right, its either controlled or it is not.


Could you please explain what you mean by exploitation. By this word do you mean when an employer agrees to pay 'x' amount to a worker and then, as promised, pays 'x'? Do you mean when a capitalist receives a profit as a return on the funds that rather than consuming he invested to build the factory that employs the worker? Does exploited mean a company that signs a contract with Joe Insurance-Consumer to cover x,y, and z ailments for a set premium and then only covers x, y and z as agreed and refuses to cover ailment a, b or c?

As for the original OP, the reason we see socialism portrayed as bad is because that is the conotation the word inspires in the average American. Other countries may get the warm fuzzies, but the word gives me the heeby-jeebies. This is not a left-over from the cold war but a firm grasp of history and context. The warp and woof of Socialism is exploitation.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 12:28 pm
@cluckk,
Socialism is not robin the rich to feed the poor, Robin Hood is an ancient myth, just like your views on socialism. If socialism was as you describe, I would oppose its values. America was founded by people who abhorred the excesses of the powerful , who failed to recognize the freedom of labour. We in Europe faced the uncontrolled capitalism of the 19 C, we know its ugly nature. We have by great sacrifice, obtained by consent the ability to insure each of our citizens from the vagaries and accidents of life. Making labour laws and controlling monopolies is not an infringement of liberties its pragmatic approach to allowing capitalism without permitting its excesses. A social health system is an insurance system from us ,for us. An unemployment benefit is from us, for us. Its an extended family benefit to help each other through difficult times. Are you telling me you dont believe in any labour laws or any corporate legislation? If you dont agree with democracy, whats your alternative?
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 12:33 pm
@ImMachiavellian,
My ideas on socialism are quite simple.

The basic tenants of socialism is that everyone deserves equal proportions and services. Meaning there is no haves and havenots. The only way this system can work is by the government controlled corporations and services such as education, healthcare, public safty ect. However; in theory this sounds like such a great way to bring out equality and no one get's left out in the cold sort of speak. But the reality is, a system like this can not sustain itself because of the money that is required to support it.

You can not have corporations that are run by the government producing high profit margins. You cap all the competition and destroy the free market trade that businesses fall into cheap production and low quality products that no one wants. If no one wants to buy these cheap and low quality products these businesses will not sustain themselves yet the government will continue to pump money into them to try to keep them from closing down shop. This requires even more government financial resources and when you do this on a large scale it strangles every last penny so the government is forced into creating high inflation through inventing wealth that it does not have. This further snowballs into a very broken economy that is headed no where but a total collapse. The old Soviet Union and Zimbabwe are examples but there have been many others that have run this same course and ended in collapse.

In conclusion these social systems can not maintain themselves indefinitely. The longer they try the more the standard of living will drop for it's people.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 12:54 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;174727 wrote:
My ideas on socialism are quite simple.

The basic tenants of socialism is that everyone deserves equal proportions and services. Meaning there is no haves and havenots. The only way this system can work is by the government controlled corporations and services such as education, healthcare, public safty ect. However; in theory this sounds like such a great way to bring out equality and no one get's left out in the cold sort of speak. But the reality is, a system like this can not sustain itself because of the money that is required to support it.

You can not have corporations that are run by the government producing high profit margins. You cap all the competition and destroy the free market trade that businesses fall into cheap production and low quality products that no one wants. If no one wants to buy these cheap and low quality products these businesses will not sustain themselves yet the government will continue to pump money into them to try to keep them from closing down shop. This requires even more government financial resources and when you do this on a large scale it strangles every last penny so the government is forced into creating high inflation through inventing wealth that it does not have. This further snowballs into a very broken economy that is headed no where but a total collapse. The old Soviet Union and Zimbabwe are examples but there have been many others that have run this same course and ended in collapse.

In conclusion these social systems can not maintain themselves indefinitely. The longer they try the more the standard of living will drop for it's people.

Then your ideas of socialism is outdated..what you see is communism and thats the American desire. You dont want to see it for what it is, your self imposed blinkered attitude is evident . Who here has ever supported the excesses and stupidity of the communist state. Do you honestly see the modern democratic social governments in the same context as the autocratic states you mention? When we are looking at failures, should we look at the historic disasters capitalism has brought about and the famines it has created? shall we?
chad3006
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 01:08 pm
@ImMachiavellian,
cluckk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 01:30 pm
@chad3006,
chad3006;174746 wrote:
. . . never realizing that their opinions are not their own, but seeds planted in their minds by media designed for that purpose.


Does this apply to your opinions as well? If so, then it appears we have no basis upon which to discuss anything. If not, then you must somehow be more special than the rest of us.

Oh wait! Now I recognize it! This is a simple genetic fallacy.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Socialism is BAD & the Fall of Capitalism! Study of 24 hour news network ism bashing
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/07/2020 at 03:25:14