Cutural Marxism is a Sociological Technology

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: introvert

Sounds like you are a sort of fascist. You believe in collectivism but want to keep production in private hands but for the benefit of the collective?

It's the Mooseolini Model.

a reply to: introvert

Now you are being a little silly, this isn't even an etymological or lexicological debate.

Semantically speaking, what do you consider is the difference between the collective and the government?

Your distinction is well ensconced in the weeds.

a reply to: greencmp

Now you are being a little silly, this isn't even an etymological or lexicological debate.

That is true, but we must have some sort of common ground on definitions. You provided a definition as a rebuttal but did not notice the one word within that definition that refuted the very premise of your assertion.

The word "or" separated socialism in to two distinct categories. One being the state and the other being the collective.

To answer your question, the difference between them is that one is directed and controlled by the "state" and the others is directed and controlled by the people.

That distinction is very clear and I thank you for providing a definition you can agree with that very clearly separates the two.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Annee

I actually support a kind of progressive layered socialism and controlled capitalism.

So do I. I think a good mix between the two is what is important. As of now, we only have socialist programs or ideals when it's necessary to bail-out the failures of capitalism.

Let's quit denying reality and be open about our socialist roots and needs.

Right. I do not support free reign Capitalism.

They (business/corp owners), can huff, puff, and squawk that they deserve every cent - - but, IMO - - if they had to give back to humanity - - they would still be who they are. As I believe they are hard wired to do what they do.

We should not have to fear the "power of money".

I also do not support free handouts, BTW. Everyone needs to contribute in some way. If all you can do is push a broom, then you better be pushing a broom.

Biggest problem is the same no matter what "ism". Corruption, waste, bad management, etc.

a reply to: introvert

The people ARE the state. How is it any different?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

Now you are being a little silly, this isn't even an etymological or lexicological debate.

That is true, but we must have some sort of common ground on definitions. You provided a definition as a rebuttal but did not notice the one word within that definition that refuted the very premise of your assertion.

The word "or" separated socialism in to two distinct categories. One being the state and the other being the collective.

To answer your question, the difference between them is that one is directed and controlled by the "state" and the others is directed and controlled by the people.

That distinction is very clear and I thank you for providing a definition you can agree with that very clearly separates the two.

We are all part of our voluntary collective so, no political (coercive force) motivation need be exercised.

What non-voluntary collective do you propose to introduce which could not be considered government?

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: introvert

The people ARE the state. How is it any different?

That sounds like a delusion to me.

a reply to: greencmp

We are all part of our voluntary collective so, no political (coercive force) motivation need be exercised.

True. Then you would agree that basic socialism (the collective) is voluntary and that is what separates it from full-on state communism?

What non-voluntary collective do you propose to introduce which could not be considered government?

I do not propose to introduce anything that creates a collective. The collective already exists.

a reply to: introvert

If you accept that voluntary cooperation is identical to socialism, we have found the weak link in the logic.

Additionally, no further action is necessary on your part since we have always been a socialism.

a reply to: greencmp

If you accept that voluntary cooperation is identical to socialism, we have found the weak link in the logic.

I did not say voluntary cooperation is identical to socialism. Based on their very definitions, that quite an absurd assertion. One is an individual choice and the other is an economic system.

What I did say is that socialism, unlike communism, is/can be voluntary. You do not have to be part of the collective if you do not wish. Anyone that wishes to not be part of it can freely disassociate themselves and join/create a system of their choosing.

a reply to: introvert

So, you are OK if everyone who makes money and possesses property voluntarily disassociates themselves from your collective?

a reply to: introvert

Anyone that wishes to not be part of it can freely disassociate themselves and join/create a system of their choosing.

Dont mention that to the Basque or the Flemmish.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

So, you are OK if everyone who makes money and possesses property voluntarily disassociates themselves from your collective?

Yes, but I wonder if you actually understand the ramifications of that.

For example, the US is a collective in and of itself. To be part of that collective you have to play by certain rules.

If you don't like that, you are free to take your money and move to any where else you see fit. Sadly, you can't take any land you may own with you, but you can sell it before you depart to your new destination.

a reply to: introvert

*sigh* Regulation = Intervention

a reply to: introvert

So, I can do whatever I want as long as it is what you want or I can leave?

Sounds voluntary to me and entirely cooperative.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

*sigh* Regulation = Intervention

Every game has to have rules, otherwise the only people that will get to play are the cheaters or no one will play at all.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

So, I can do whatever I want as long as it is what you want or I can leave?

Sounds voluntary to me and entirely cooperative.

It is voluntary, is it not?

Also, it is not what I want. It's up to the collective to set their own policies, laws, etc.

a reply to: introvert

You do realize that your collective now has "policies, laws, etc."?

Tell me again how it isn't government?

a reply to: introvert

These are the various means by which they con you into believing that socialism isn't all that bad.

These are also the means by which they convince you that:

1.) It is OK to vote your way into your neighbor's pocket is the intentions are good.

2.) If only a "little" socialism isn't that bad, then the next, bigger step won't be all that bad either. Look at all those reactionary folks squawking over their. You are the frog in the slowly boiling water who likes his hot tub.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

You do realize that your collective now has "policies, laws, etc."?

Tell me again how it isn't government?

I never claimed there would not be a government. A government is necessary, but only to fulfill certain roles and based on what the collective decides what role it should play.

a reply to: introvert

Where did I say that? Have a quote?

That was the "or". They made an important distinction between collective ownership and government ownership.

fascism -

a ​political ​system ​based on a very ​powerful ​leader, ​state ​control of ​social and ​economic ​life, and ​extreme ​pride in ​country and ​race, with no ​expression of ​political ​disagreement ​allowed

Noting that control and ownership are not the same thing.