For all the Bush Admin Bashers...

I think we agree, Anastasia. We don't even have a two-party system at this point. I could see a more European party system working very well here -- but it would enrage the two major parties. Until those parties' supporters recognize this, we're stuck with the corruption and the secrecy...

as long as they have all the money, and as long as money is what rules the world ... I think so.

(and that's about as far into conspiracy theory territory as I go ... I wouldn't want to be accused of 'whining'. <winks>

And I STILL can't vote in yer poll - that's actually quite typical of american thinking ... heheheh ... you're being all generous and offering "green" and "independent" - but I am REGISTERED as "natural law" (and that is not a joke. <smiles brightly>) - how about an "other" category?

Tartarin - Nowhere in my exchange with Dys did I claim that he owed me an answer. Everything I wrote was simply part of a discussion, part of which dealt with reasons Dys stated for not choosing to answer and responses by me as to why I hoped he would.

In this I was not attempting to put anyone in a box. Dys wrote that he might vote Green. I wanted to know whether he intended to cast that vote in ignorance of or in support of their platform. I didn't label him a Green. I didn't even label him an "extreme socialist". I did label the Green platform as an "extreme socialist" platform, because I believe that is an accurate description of a platform that advocates government confiscation of the assets (in toto) of private corporations.

In another not-so-recent discussion, I asked a participant a question and was set upon by others who offered their unsolicited opinions as to why I shouldn't expect an answer to my question. In that case, I offered my opinion as to why I thought my question was valid. Then as now, I in no way opined that anyone owed me an answer to anything.

Good t'ing, too, boyo, this ain't no existential collection agency . . .

Scrat, out of curiosity - what was wrong with socialism again?

It's cuz they make everyone share their toys . . .

huh-uh - they don't have their *own* toys to share!

<giggles>

At some point, as the election nears, I will argue against votes for the Greens and Nader -- unless it appears likely that the far right (read that, Republican Party) will lose handily in whatever venue you cast your vote.

I'm a registered Independent -- and locally, as far as the Democrats and Republicans are concerned, my philosophy is "a pox on both your houses" -- but defeating this very, very dangerous group Bush has put together should be utmost in the minds of everyone who recognizes the danger for what it is. I understand the kinds of points people want to make by voting Green or Nader, but I will argue that those points should be a distant second to the consideration of that defeat. If the points can be made without endangering the defeat of Bush, I say "go for it" -- but if the cost is, in effect, "a vote for Green or Nader ends up being a vote for Bush" -- then someone should try to talk sense into the voter making this terrible mistake.

I acknowledge that not all the votes that might go Green or Nader will go toward electing whomever the Democrats put up as opponents to Bush -- but my guess is that the majority will.

In the meantime, as an Independent, I will try to get as many people as possible who favor Libertarian or Conservative candidates, to vote that way. I cannot imagine any significant number of Libertarian or Conservative votes coming from people who would otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate.

"Dys - I'll take that as a "yes". My point (which you almost managed to elude through your refusal to simply answer a simple question)...." That's kind of a typical scratism, I think...

Anatasia, I couldn't find myself in that poll either. There's tremendous ignorance about socialism in the US. There are degrees of socialism, applications of socialism, nationalist socialism, democratic socialism -- it's a little like blowing off democracy because you're a Republican, not a Democrat! Our education system at work again?

Anastasia - Thanks for asking.

1) Socialism assumes that wealth pre-exists human effort.

2) Socialism assumes that human effort can be optimized in an environment where direct reward for personal effort does not exist.

3) Socialism assumes that when I act in my own self-interest the result is inherently bad for others.

4) Socialism assumes that others naturally own the fruits of my labor.

5) Socialism treats the desires of the individual as suspect, and the desires of the government as pure.

6) Socialism assumes that someone else knows what is best for me.

7) Socialism assumes that when one man pursues personal enrichment through effort, the result harms more others than it helps.

8) Socialism assumes that when government confiscates the fruits of the labor of men and distributes them for the benefit of all, the results helps more others than it harms.

...

I could go on and on, but I suspect you aren't really reading. :wink:

I think those are bugaboo views of socialism, but they do make for easy responses:

1) The capitalist capitalizes on others' efforts.
2) and then minimizes the reward for the hardest workers while taking the cream off the top.
3) He believes self-interest is a virtue.
4) The capitalist seizes the fruits of labor with little regard for the laborer's needs.
5) The capitalist believes others' desires are simply a handy indicator for new marketing tools.
6) The capitalist assumes that he knows what's best for me.
7) The capitalist would like you to believe that, in spite of his riches coming from a stable society, a public education system, the rule of law, publicly funded highways for shipping his goods -- all paid for by the taxes of others -- that he has done it all by himself.
8) Capitalism assumes that when it takes the fruits of others' labors and keeps them for its own benefit, the result should be accepted gratefully by society.

I could go on, but I suspect you aren't really thinking...

LOL! Well done, Tartarin.

Now that we've both had a good laugh, can you tell me of one socialist country that has a better economy or higher standard of living than the US? Is there a single success story in the history of socialist experiments?

Scrat,

I'm no fan of socialism (for some of the reasons you posted) but the lack of socialist success does not prove much. Remember that it was seen as a danger to be contained. That type of reaction tends to hamper it.

IMO it is a ideology that only works in the absense of its foil. If all nations were socialist it might work, since that's not gonna happen I'd call it flawed. I just don't think it's track record is that good of an argument.

Depends on how you define success, Boss--i assume you're willing to ignore strife, social injustice based on race, ethnicity and gender, high crime rates, malnutrition, the ignorance of individuals, and so many other ills of the United States in measuring this success . . . i'd be surprised if you were surprised to think that the success of greed is not a universal standard for measuring the worth of a political/economic system . . . Reagan's experiment in unhindered greed made a great many vituously hard-working Americans poor and homeless, while jobs were exported to nations with very low standards of wages and working conditions, but the go-go boys on Wall Street made a mint, the Dow Jones grew as never before in history. That your measure of success?

I support the two party system.




One party a week is not enough!

Way to go, Tartarin.



Scat

Your analysis of socialism is almost comical.

I've known some socialists in my day -- and while they, and I, would agree with some of the points you made (although you tended to make your points with a chain saw when a scalpel was appropriate) you included some that are absurd.



You wrote: "3) Socialism assumes that when I act in my own self-interest the result is inherently bad for others."

COMMENT: Why say you that? What part of socialism besides your obvious distaste for it, leads you to assume that?

There certainly are times where a person acting in his/her self-interests has a result that is inherently bad for others -- but observation of that fact hardly requires that one be a socialist. In fact, one could easily be a capitalist and recognize that -- if the capitalist kept his/her eyes open and evaluated honestly.

You wrote: "4) Socialism assumes that others naturally own the fruits of my labor."

COMMENT: Gimme a break! Socialism assumes no such thing. Socialism may assume that because "the fruits of your labor" are obtained within the confines of (and by dint of) society -- that society ought be able to gain some value from your labor. Fact is, your labor wouldn't net you anything if society were not your partner.

You wrote: "5) Socialism treats the desires of the individual as suspect, and the desires of the government as pure. "

COMMENT: Do you really think this is so? This is so far out, I have to assume that at some point, a socialist must have raped someone in your family -- and you simply cannot get over it.

You wrote: "6) Socialism assumes that someone else knows what is best for me. "

COMMENT: Well, I suspect there are many times where "someone else" knows what is best for you -- but that is hardly a tenet of socialism. Same comment as I made above.

You wrote: "7) Socialism assumes that when one man pursues personal enrichment through effort, the result harms more others than it helps."

COMMENT: Maybe I was wrong. Maybe it wasn't rape. Maybe a socialist tortured and murdered someone in your family. You are certainly torturing socialism here.

Craven - Fair points.

Since my earliest thoughts on the subject as a child, the notion of socialism (even before I knew what to call it) appealed to me. I used to wonder how anyone could really believe he or she "owned" a piece of land. Surely it belonged to the planet, as did we.

In a perfect world, inhabited by selfless beings, socialism would be the natural order. I happen to believe that--with limitations (ethics, regulation)--capitalism best approximates the natural order given the world in which we live and the beings we actually are.

Socialism tells the hungry man that his hunger should trouble him less than his neighbor's. Capitalism tells the hungry man that if he finds a way to feed himself, he may also be able to feed his neighbor.

Easy now, Frank, put down that baseball bat . . .


heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

okbye

An example of this was the introduction of the "New Coke", back in the late 80's, I believe. It went over like a lead balloon, and was pulled from the market in favor of the original. Capitalism took its revenge.