Political Crossfire Forums

[LeopardPM]

bigstick61 wrote: Quote:
Programs such as fire departments, police forces, garbage collection, sewage plants, water treatment plants, national forests, public highways and roads, etc. These are socialsist ideas and in no way imply that people who want these services for the common good want communism or to do away with private ownership fo business or property. For anyone to imply or even suggest otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about and are full of bs.

These are not socialist ideas. Public roads and infrastructure have always been considered necessities in America, even in the earliest days; often, this was the limit of even State and local governments. Not even proponents of limited government will argue against these, so long as they are done at the State, County, or local level.

yes, they are 'socialist' ideas - all such 'common good' ideas are socialistic in nature. Every single one of these, including public roads, were provided at one time or another by the private sector - in fact, they first attempts of government at providing these services were such disasters that laws were written specifically to PREVENT further government involvement. The massive ever-expanding nature of leviathan eventually steamrolled over such laws (not to mention private property rights) and continues to this day.

[Wizard From Oz]

I dont see public roads as socialist concepts, if anything they are more in the capitalist camp.

The origins of transport systems where both economic and military in nature. One supports the growth of business, the other, strengthens the state.

In terms of the general population - being able to move around was not that big a deal. Moving the things they made through local industry was.

[californian conservative]

MG1962 wrote: I dont see public roads as socialist concepts, if anything they are more in the capitalist camp.

The origins of transport systems where both economic and military in nature. One supports the growth of business, the other, strengthens the state.

In terms of the general population - being able to move around was not that big a deal. Moving the things they made through local industry was.

No i'd have to say capitalist is more like a toll road. Socialism isn't in and of itself bad. Neither is capitalism. But taken to extremes i believe both are harmful. A fully socialistic society isn't good, while a completely capitalistic society (i.e. a laize-faire (sp?) capitalism) isn't good either. I fully believe in a capitalist society, however i think that elements of socialism need to be included for the well being of the populace in general.

[gavnook]

MG1962 wrote: I dont see public roads as socialist concepts, if anything they are more in the capitalist camp.

The origins of transport systems where both economic and military in nature. One supports the growth of business, the other, strengthens the state.

In terms of the general population - being able to move around was not that big a deal. Moving the things they made through local industry was.

The first paved roads in the US were privately owned and built.

[Justinius Honorious]

There's no such thing as economic equality. That's just a slogan to buy you into it. If you think about, you quickly realize how asinine a theory it is. Also their version isn't real economic equality. It's extortion by the state packaged to blind you. It's also the lazy, destructive way to solve economic problems by not bothering to work intricately with companies and legislators to solve a problem at it's root (ie. healthcare). Basically what I'm saying is it's a horrible, unfair, destructive system that isn't needed which creates more distinguished obvious problems than it truly solves. There are so many examples there's no need to make my point. It's a fact and any respectable businessman in Europe will tell you that. It basically goes by the idea that no matter how much you accomplish, you're still as equal as any other citizen, moreover, it gives them the right to take your 'excess income' and give it to someone else in a lower class through a horrible inefficient system that will probably steal much of the money along the way anyway. That's what socialism really is.

[LostSoul3412]

Justinius Honorious wrote: There's no such thing as economic equality. That's just a slogan to buy you into it. If you think about, you quickly realize how asinine a theory it is. Also their version isn't real economic equality. It's extortion by the state packaged to blind you. It's also the lazy, destructive way to solve economic problems by not bothering to work intricately with companies and legislators to solve a problem at it's root (ie. healthcare). Basically what I'm saying is it's a horrible, unfair, destructive system that isn't needed which creates more distinguished obvious problems than it truly solves. There are so many examples there's no need to make my point. It's a fact and any respectable businessman in Europe will tell you that. It basically goes by the idea that no matter how much you accomplish, you're still as equal as any other citizen, moreover, it gives them the right to take your 'excess income' and give it to someone else in a lower class through a horrible inefficient system that will probably steal much of the money along the way anyway. That's what socialism really is.

That's what socialism becomes whenever it has been attempted, but that is not what the philosophical ideals are.

[LeopardPM]

LostSoul3412 wrote:
That's what socialism becomes whenever it has been attempted, but that is not what the philosophical ideals are.

what exactly are these ideals?

Socialism, Communism, Feudalism, Federalism, Democracy are all defining the way that the 'state' interacts with the citizens. The way that people interact with each other is by nature, capitalistic.

[veritas lux mea]

This really depends, I suppose, on the context. If you're talking about Marxism then socialism is a stage on the historical timeline from barbarity through feudalism and capitalism to communism. I'm not particularly familiar with Marx's conception of socialism in this sense so I won't speak on it.

Socialism, otherwise seems to me to simply be: total state ownership/control of the means of production.

Thus 'upper case C' Communism, is simple the Soviet attempt at socialism; it is a particular form of state ownership of the means of production.

'Lower case C' communism can either be a) what Marx envisioned it would be, but again I won't comment on it because I'm not up to speed on Marxist theory; or b) taking the word literally: direct communal ownership of the means of production. Thus communism in this sense implies anarchy and could be said to be synonymous with anarcho-socialism; and in my opinion it is a better term than anarcho-socialism because socialism already implies the state.

But does socialism imply the state, perhaps a better definition would simply be: ownership/control of the means of production in hands other than private entrepreneurs. Though if it were in the hand of the workers of individual factories, still subject to market forces, this would be syndicalism (a form of socialism?).

Perhaps socialism is simply the absence of money and prices; this seems to be a common theme among both statist and anarchist anti-capitalists.

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: Socialism, Communism, Feudalism, Federalism, Democracy are all defining the way that the 'state' interacts with the citizens. The way that people interact with each other is by nature, capitalistic.

The error in the above statement is the assumption of a natural, absolute, and unlimited right to private property. Such a right simply does not exist and cannot be justified in any sort of logical, coherent manner.

[veritas lux mea]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Socialism, Communism, Feudalism, Federalism, Democracy are all defining the way that the 'state' interacts with the citizens. The way that people interact with each other is by nature, capitalistic.

The error in the above statement is the assumption of a natural, absolute, and unlimited right to private property. Such a right simply does not exist and cannot be justified in any sort of logical, coherent manner.

I don't see a neccesary relation between how people naturally tend to act and whether or not an absolute right to property can be logically justified. People can tend to act in a way and construct a society which encorporates some idea of private property without such an idea being explicitly established through some rhetorical discourse.

[RueTheDay]

veritas lux mea wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Socialism, Communism, Feudalism, Federalism, Democracy are all defining the way that the 'state' interacts with the citizens. The way that people interact with each other is by nature, capitalistic.

The error in the above statement is the assumption of a natural, absolute, and unlimited right to private property. Such a right simply does not exist and cannot be justified in any sort of logical, coherent manner.

I don't see a neccesary relation between how people naturally tend to act and whether or not an absolute right to property can be logically justified. People can tend to act in a way and construct a society which encorporates some idea of private property without such an idea being explicitly established through some rhetorical discourse.

And such a society can place limits on the institution of private property, including limiting the way the property is used, taxing the property, and under certain circumstances, confiscating the property. Such actions may be just as natural and justifiable as the creation of property rights in the first place.

[mathurin]

much like many things in life the economy is a fluid scale

capitalism-------------------------------------communism


there is no true capitalism and there is no true communism, they are not possible, those who set up communism as a bible written by Marx are wrong (this is possibly a strawman to help some people get over the experiment with communism and the negative connotations associated with the soviets) he isnt the only one to come up with the idea, while he may have made up a set philosophy, the ground work was already laid
and as for capitalism, Marx was right, america would have destroyed itself IF it hadnt introduced several socialist programs

in short, all economic systems are socialist, its just which side they lean more towards, america currently tends to lean towards capitalism, and much of europe leans towards communism, who will turn out the best is a question of time


and for the wiseacre who asked about the standard of living in the US

1. how about europes unemloyment rate?
2. in my opinion, the current spike in europes standard of living is artificially created by the socialist programs and is unsustainable for the long term
3. *cough* Marshal plan *cough*

[cap'n queasy]

LostSoul3412 wrote: bigred510 wrote: I mainly dislike socialist policies because they do not promote hard work to get what you want and deserve; however, such benefits as free education and the like are nice bonuses.

"I like socialism when I get stuff, but not when I have to pay for things..."

Classic American philosophy... :roll:

Sounded more like he said he disliked socialism because people get stuff they have not earned.

That is classic American philosophy.

[LeopardPM]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Socialism, Communism, Feudalism, Federalism, Democracy are all defining the way that the 'state' interacts with the citizens. The way that people interact with each other is by nature, capitalistic.

The error in the above statement is the assumption of a natural, absolute, and unlimited right to private property. Such a right simply does not exist and cannot be justified in any sort of logical, coherent manner.

Rue, OK then, lets assume no 'absolute', no natural right to property - If rights are something that are just represented of the majority view, then I would say that Right to Property is pretty much unanimously agreed upon.

Now, as you pointed out, there are some (if not most) folks who do wish to dilute this property right and claim some portion of ownership to an abstraction called society. People will agree an 'unlimited' right to property in ownership of smaller, personal items (hairdryers, bicycles, cars, toothbrushes, etc) but these same folks tend to waver (or do not see the logical extension) when talking about land (zoning), property used as a business (regulation, 'publicness', etc), smoking, etc.

I just try and be consistent and show the illogic of not carrying property rights on to all things: starting with one's own body, through any other piece of matter a person might own.

[bob.appleyard]

LeopardPM wrote: The way that people interact with each other is by nature, capitalistic.

You can actually check out stateless societies in anthropology reports, see how capitalist they are.

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Socialism, Communism, Feudalism, Federalism, Democracy are all defining the way that the 'state' interacts with the citizens. The way that people interact with each other is by nature, capitalistic.

The error in the above statement is the assumption of a natural, absolute, and unlimited right to private property. Such a right simply does not exist and cannot be justified in any sort of logical, coherent manner.

Rue, OK then, lets assume no 'absolute', no natural right to property - If rights are something that are just represented of the majority view, then I would say that Right to Property is pretty much unanimously agreed upon.

Most people would agree that some measure of property rights are beneficial. Very few people would agree that such rights should be absolute or anything near it.

Quote:
Now, as you pointed out, there are some (if not most) folks who do wish to dilute this property right and claim some portion of ownership to an abstraction called society. People will agree an 'unlimited' right to property in ownership of smaller, personal items (hairdryers, bicycles, cars, toothbrushes, etc) but these same folks tend to waver (or do not see the logical extension) when talking about land (zoning), property used as a business (regulation, 'publicness', etc), smoking, etc.

I just try and be consistent and show the illogic of not carrying property rights on to all things: starting with one's own body, through any other piece of matter a person might own.

That's not being consistent, it's being a non-thinking, extremist, ideologue. There are lots of things that are beneficial in moderation and harmful in excess. Property rights are one of them.

[Norbert]

Socialism is flawed only if one thinks that it will eliminate economic equality... That will always exist. meanwhile... i feel that if people want to be socialists in the sense of the New Deal, etc., than go right ahead, it's obviously a viable system, the question is only whetther one thinks it's the best system.