Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

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.

I think I get it so far...

[xris]

Fabian Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Fabian society is a good example of moderate democratic socialism.It is not all revolution and Marxist dogma.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

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

That's the reality of it.
Of course we cant get by completely without taxes, I don't see how that extreme is any good argument against a lesser degree.
You don't want to tax everybody at 100%, so what do extremes matter?

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by xris

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.

[xris]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

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.

Im not denying a completely free market but i am denying an uncontrolled growth and the power of money being allowed to exploit others.I believe in the common necessities in life being determined by government for the good of the whole community.Normal moral attitudes are forsaken in the world of commerce,its the like the poet who lyrics to his master about love and noble quests, while his master watches the poor begging in the streets below..

[Ultracrepidarian]

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

[xris]

Originally Posted by Ultracrepidarian

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

Depends on whose doing the scoring.I don't see it as a battle of politics but more about moral attitudes.You cant departmentalise moral attitudes and economic theories as if they where two different issues.

[EmperorNero]

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.

[xris]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

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.
In an oil rich country all your native inhabitants could be moderately rich but if it employs foreign labour on slave wages it does not act morally.I will wear my red rose as long it smells sweet.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

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.

Yes, and my moral attitude is that we serve the weakest needs by less government intervention, not more of it.
And we strengthen the strong through government intervention.

It's harder to understand, but it's accurate.

Originally Posted by xris

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

What does that mean?