0
   

The Administration's "Socialism"

 
 
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 10:02 am
The history of the development of socialist ideology as being focused around the collective ownership and management is conveyed through the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "socialism" as "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community." With that in mind, where lies the basis for description of the liberal democratic capitalist administration as "socialist" in nature?

Liberalism and socialism are in fact antithetical because of the role of the welfare state in maintaining macroeconomic stabilization in general and sustaining the physical efficiency and employment of the working class, the latter constituting a sustainment of static efficiency. This role occurs in the context of the capitalist economy, which means that the welfare state is supporting the existence of the prevailing arrangement of the private ownership of the means of production. It's therefore ironically economic rightists who are greater allies of socialists, as their favored policies will destabilize capitalism.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 928 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
xexon
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 01:10 am
@Agnapostate cv,
What's the point of paying taxes if the government isn't going to take care of us? As it is, they give us crumbs from our own table and spend the rest on warmongering around the world.

Socialism is the future. Do you know why? Because humans are basically herd animals.

Capitalism goes against that instict and replaces it with another instinct.

Greed.



x
kynaston
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 12:50 am
@xexon,
xexon;68523 wrote:
What's the point of paying taxes if the government isn't going to take care of us? As it is, they give us crumbs from our own table and spend the rest on warmongering around the world.

Socialism is the future. Do you know why? Because humans are basically herd animals.

Capitalism goes against that instict and replaces it with another instinct.

Greed.



x
I don't think greed is an instinct - hunter-gatherers couldn't carry heaps of rubbish about with them. Nor do I think people went round in herds - more small groups: it's capitalism that herds us That's two reasons capitalism is contrary to 'human nature'. There are many more.
xexon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Sep, 2009 01:14 am
@kynaston,
Greed is part of your survival instincts.

Preservation of self. I me mine.

Fine when it's used as a survival instinct. Now that our survival is pretty stable, it has nothing to do but multiply and get out of hand in our desire to possess things we don't really "need".

Socialism works for everybody except those who are interested in protecting their status in a society where people are stratified according to their personal wealth.

The better off's want to stay that way.

They don't care what the poor think about it.


x
kynaston
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Sep, 2009 06:30 pm
@xexon,
xexon;68532 wrote:
Greed is part of your survival instincts.

Preservation of self. I me mine.

Fine when it's used as a survival instinct. Now that our survival is pretty stable, it has nothing to do but multiply and get out of hand in our desire to possess things we don't really "need".

Socialism works for everybody except those who are interested in protecting their status in a society where people are stratified according to their personal wealth.

The better off's want to stay that way.

They don't care what the poor think about it.


x


Gently disagree about greed. If the rich had to carry all their rubbish around with them they wouldn't survive. We were hunter-gatherers over most of the time we were developing instincts. Its the status small-band species like surely, not the junk? A different sort of society would give status to more useful things.
0 Replies
 
Truth Detector
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Nov, 2009 03:16 am
@xexon,
xexon;68532 wrote:
Greed is part of your survival instincts.

Preservation of self. I me mine.

Fine when it's used as a survival instinct. Now that our survival is pretty stable, it has nothing to do but multiply and get out of hand in our desire to possess things we don't really "need".

Socialism works for everybody except those who are interested in protecting their status in a society where people are stratified according to their personal wealth.

The better off's want to stay that way.

They don't care what the poor think about it.


x


I want to see one instance that supports the contention that "Socialism" works. We have historic evidence that the extreme version of it called Communism is a miserable failure and the current mess in Europe with many of their biggest nations struggling to deal with the massive amounts of taxes it takes to support such systems.

Europe is teetering on collapse under the weight of its own social largess and regulation red tape and Americans naively think we want to import the same failed policies here; so we can feel GOOD about ourselves and that we care?

The only way thinking like this can be expressed is based on ignorance of history and the facts and a lack of education about how economics work and the human factor that makes the free market philosophy the best system known to man.

America didn't become the most free, prosperous and powerful nation by accident. It was the incredibly intelligent vision of the founders of this nation based on the ideas of a Liberal Democrat Republic.

I think the other thing that permits such ignorance about markets is the notion that there is some "perfect" government. There isn't; what we do know is that the Free Market version that this nation was based on is not perfect; but it is better than everything else man has ever attempted.

The notion we should tear it down based on emotional ?feel-goodism? that socialism represents is nonsense and the realm of naive Socialist like Obama. But be assured, no nation ever spent its citizens into prosperity. Only by permitting individuals the freedom and laws to enter into contracts with each other and innovation of the human spirit can do that.

After five decades of this Librul "feel-goodism" spending on welfare programs, that have done NOTHING positive for the people they are intended for other than turning them into wards of the State, has done NOTHING to reduce poverty but has rather done the opposite and made it a bankrupt way of life for those these well meaning programs were intended for.

Libruls always tell us not to judge them on their failures, but merely judge them for how they FEEL or that the TRIED. I say it is time to honestly face their abject failure to do anything positive for the poor and minorities and hold their bankrupt ideology accountable.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Administration's "Socialism"
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/06/2026 at 04:06:59