Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 01:52 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Whether or not you consider yourself a socialist, how do you react to those that clearly do?

I've no problem with them - they are just left of me, perhaps a bit 'sentimentally' wanting an old-style idea back.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 01:55 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

How do you differ from Germans that self-describe as "socialists?"

There are quite a few, mainly assembled in Left (party).
Certainly, I mainly differ from them by a) that a support democracy and thus b) the free and social market economy.
(Article 20 of the Basic Law, our constitution, says in the first paragraph: "The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social Federal state." - That is protected by the 'eternity clause' [Article 79 paragraph (3)].)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:14 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Obviously the socialtist among us fear the label of "socialist," just as the leftists among us fear the label of "liberal."


I don't fear it at all - I'm just a bit right to Socialists.
(I would, however, strongly oppose to be called a 'liberal' ... outside the USA, I mean.)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 05:49 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Yeah that must be it. Rolling Eyes


That IS it....sans silly eye roll.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 06:19 am
First, Finn's typical hyperbole is irrelevant, because the point was being debated on the basis of the definition which Lusatian provided, and as far as my knowledge of the subject goes, it is a perfectly plausible definition. Second, Finn doesn't seem to understand that capitalism is an economic system, and conservatism is a political stance.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 06:53 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Just and only because I'm not a Socialist but as said a Social-Democrat.

I don't usually come down on Finn's side against yours, but this time I think he has a point. Germany's Social-Democratic Party is a member of the Socialist International. Clearly your party has no problem with being labeled "Socialist". If you do, why are you an SPD member?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 07:58 am
@Lusatian,
It only moves us toward the inevitable conclusion that by your definition ALL taxes taken and spent are are "wealth transfer." There is no single dollar spent by the government that benefits everyone that pays taxes.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 08:58 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Germany's Social-Democratic Party is a member of the Socialist International. Clearly your party has no problem with being labeled "Socialist". If you do, why are you an SPD member?


There is no "Social Democrat International". (Socialist International: "The Socialist International is the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties.")
Thus, the SPD is on the European level historically a member of the "Party of European Socialists" as well. In the EU-Parliament, that fraction is called "Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats".

Historically, the SPD was founded as a democratic alternative to the Marxism of Engels and Marx. Over the following decades, the party moved from a more general Socialism to the more specific Social Democracy.
The SPD has 'Social Democracy' in its name, from the very beginning onwards - while other European Social Democrat parties still carry their old "Socialist" name. (The British Labour Party, however, is the only one, still claiming to be a "Socialist" party in its program [as far as I know, that is].)



[Btw: the "Liberal International" has members from the left, like the UK's "Liberal Democrats" (formerly 'Liberals' and 'Social Democratic Party') to the farer right like the Norwegian "Vestre". - And members from the "International Democratic Union" go from the US 'Republican Party' over the 'CDU' in Germany to the French 'UMP' (the latter mostly called 'Socialist' in the USA.]
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 10:16 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
... labels that have undergone linguistic derogation...


Last night I couldn't remember the right word for this, but the correct term is "pejoration" and each time I used "derogation" in this post I meant the linguistic process of pejoration.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 11:19 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Got it. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 11:41 am
@Lusatian,
Anyone can tag the thread, it is not the act of moderators. If you want to get on an intellectual high horse you might want to be, you know, technically correct (the best kind of correct, I might add) in your criticisms.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 11:48 am
I wish i understood what the hell you people are discussing.
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 11:53 am
@RABEL222,
I wish they did too.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 01:30 pm
http://homebrewedchristianity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/newsweek-socialists_now.jpg
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 02:24 pm
@H2O MAN,
So you agree with that newsweek report?
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 02:25 pm
@Walter Hinteler,


Hell no!

... Obama is a Marxists
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 02:29 pm
@Lusatian,
Lusatian wrote:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

by: Ed Will

The professor was an idiot... Socialism is no more than the democratic control of the economy; which is no more than all primitives everywhere practiced, and that was the economy that survived with humanity, and was the main reason for the survival of all people everywhere... It is no secret that the economy controls people in often terrible and destructive fashions... People in the past survived without technology because they governed that which governed them, primarily the behavior of their own people and their means of production...

Now, though technology has improved many times over most people still struggle, and many live is dire want... Consider that the main property of the country is the geography that feeds them, and that this society was taken from king and natives by all the people, and that the people hold the ultimate title to all the wealth, and even if the people decide to trust all the commonwealth in private hands that even there it must support the population...There is no reason wealth should not be turned over to the commonwealth with every generation...

The notion that only wealth beyond needs is reward enough for people to do good is foolish... Honor was the reward when people had little, but honor had to be earned...Wealth, on the other hand only needs be be possessed to confer honor... No one looks closely at how profit is made or they would recoil in outrage... Very often things are sold below their true cost, which if the damage and cleanup were considered would not be bought at all...Democracy is only a defensive form of social organization... It never stopped anyone from being better looking or smarter than another... It never stopped anyone from making a contribution to their society... It never kept anyone from honorable rewards... Democracy is self defense, and the protection of all true rights, and rights are what no person can live without... Now, we may say that all are equal and have inalienable rights... The fact of the matter is that rights can be considered as property, and where property has rights those with more property also have more rights and the advantage leads to those with property having more property until they can deny to the people their own property, and make a commodity of the inalienable rights of the people... Because this land is a commonwealth, the people are entitled to a minimum level of support from privatized property just as in the Roman Commonwealth... These entitlements are considered as a right, but the privilage of property that is not a right considers all rights as though privilages that can be denied... I would dare them to just to find out whether the people are ready for slavery or willing to work only for freedom...Economic inequality is the base of all injustice and all inequality, and it makes a mockery of equal justice and equal access to government...It is the ultimate destroyer of all societies...

We have only had capitalism a little over 500 years, and in that time it has come to threaten the whole of humanity with destruction, has been responsible for two world wars, and countless smaller wars... Compared to socialism as practiced by all primitive societies, it has hardly lasted its first day before bumping against its own demise... Capitalism has only survived because so much of primitive socialism has never been done away with...

The rich survive with the people's wealth only because the people must survive on the socialism of poverty... We could have the socialism of wealth, and for now, we are denied; but it is the very wasting of resources, including the human intellect, that will force in time a general socialism of poverty... No one will want it, but the longer we wait to take back the commonwealth, the worse and more desperate will be our condition... Your professor is so typical of what passes for formal education... No education is often better than a formal education since to be educated formally means to learn the form, and nothing more...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 02:43 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



Hell no!

... Obama is a Marxists
He may be an idiot, and to buy into capitalism and the traditional means of stimulating the economy- he would almost have to be... But; what he will never, ever be is a Marxist... I have studied Marx, as people like Rupert Murdoch, and the late Dr. Armand Hammer... If you want to learn how capitalist economy actually works and why it does not, you almost have to read Marx... I am not all idealistic about it... There is a reason socialist society could not compete with capitalist societies... And there is a lot of reason capitalism is always on the verge of failure... The poor excuse we have for socialism today, the socialism of poverty is the only reason the people can survive with capitalism... No matter how much **** the rich smear on our piss poor examples of socialism, they better do nothing to hurt it, or it will destroy them- because our poverty socialism is all that allows us to tolerate them... So they are all talking out of their asses... They are counting on the government to keep us in bread and off their throats...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 02:43 pm
@H2O MAN,
Indeed, since Marx called it "petty-bourgeois Socialism".
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Feb, 2012 02:45 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Indeed, since Marx called it "petty-bourgeois Socialism".
It is certainly petty, and poor; but the socialsim of the poor is the salvation of the rich... it does little for us, but it make all their crimes possible..
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 05:35:59