People have been brainwashed to believe that socialism is evil...

reply to post by Murgatroid
Welcome to the club.
Wasn't Murgatroid a name that bugs bunny used to call people? I have a vague memory.

Originally posted by robhines
Wow, it just goes in circles. People just can't seem to grasp the fact that the socialism they loathe isn't even socialism, but corruption masked as state-socialism.

Anyway, most people I guess that are railing against this idea have been brought up in a country that hard McCarthy and all the cold war propaganda against communism, Marxism and socialism, so I guess the conditioning runs deep.

Personally like I said, I prefer anarchism so I don't really hold to anything economic unless I think it frees us of government and corporate control, but when you look at it I suppose if it wasn't for the corruption a lot of these systems would work decently, maybe even some type of mixture of several of them.

At the end of the day socialism isn't causing the problems, it's just not been applied properly to benefit people as whole enough, but maybe capitalism hasn't either. If checks and balances protected people and the environment from corruption maybe things wouldn't be so bad, but it's those same small groups that just seem to warp any system put in place anyway. It's our ability to root out the corruption that's always been the problem, and our lack of ability to really pursue freedom from rulers (anarchism) that keeps us enslaved.

Maybe in the future, but left vs right, democratic vs republican, labour vs conservative, socialism vs capitalism, well we're just arguing and doing not much else while they fleece us hiding behind all those things. Maybe if we wake up enough we'll get to try most of these systems and see that they work pretty well if done right.

edit on 9-3-2013 by robhines because: typo

Capitalism and socialism are both FAILURES. Because they are attempts at realizing a social order based on questionable philosophy that wasn't based on an exhaustive observations of real-life and material issues of politics.

Capitalism, based initially on Adam Smith's philosophy, has repeatedly failed to circumvent the problem of consolidation of power through a State elite that is generated by the need to eradicate competition and accumulate capital.

Socialism, based on statist thinkers of the First International, failed to circumvent consolidation of power through the bureaucratic elite generated by the need to manage society in an equalitarian, "fair", way.

Fascism brought a kind of way to "solve" the problem of politics by exacerbating it to its worse extents, turning both socialism and capitalism into despotic, repressive rules of the few, even though it contradicts the basic ideas of each system.

Anarchy brings another way to solve the problem of politics by...tabula raza! By using the long-repressed forces of chaos as a tool for social progress and political balance.

reply to post by Cabin


Surely, because they set nazis on political functions. Not that one.



Next, there are variants of marxist socialism, too. How much of People Property may be in private hands, about that.

Next, there was missunderstanding about classes in socialism. Marx said, toward no class society, not class of workers, and class of musicians, actors, and similar, who are well paid for working nothing of common interest. And they are mostly selected from former ruling class families. Sportists, too. They are organising stealing of artistic works of those out of their family clans, destroying the authors. Why not to clean them up, first, here, for an example?

I am against classes, I am for equal opportunities.

Originally posted by twoandthree
Socialism is for p*ssies and weakling sheeple because it is the Nanny State presented as a benevolent parent to a child who willingly trusts and feeds from its mammaries.

Again, this is why I should just give up in here. I could say capitalism is just for p*ssies and weakling sheeple who can't grasp the concept of compassion for others and who don't want to see us all have a decent standard of living, but that's just false.

Libertarian socialism is anti-state. That just proves you wrong, no matter what else you write. It's the fact that there's several types of socialism that even oppose eachother that makes a singular attack on the concept useless.

Socialism leads* to the Supremacy of the State (Nation-State) where individual rights are subservient to the power of the collective. Once personal property rights are nullified (read Marx's Communist Manifesto) then it can be argued that you no longer have a right to own a weapon for self defense, maintain a surplus of food and water or even create a garden without government permission.

* "Progressive" advancement from "socialism" to "communism"

Originally posted by robhines

Originally posted by twoandthree
Socialism is for p*ssies and weakling sheeple because it is the Nanny State presented as a benevolent parent to a child who willingly trusts and feeds from its mammaries.

Again, this is why I should just give up in here. I could say capitalism is just for p*ssies and weakling sheeple who can't grasp the concept of compassion for others and who don't want to see us all have a decent standard of living, but that's just false.

Libertarian socialism is anti-state. That just proves you wrong, no matter what else you write. It's the fact that there's several types of socialism that even oppose eachother that makes a singular attack on the concept useless.

Libertarian socialists are not genuinely anti-state, although surely not as statists a people like the Obama crowd or the stalinists are, or the fascist capitalists. They are for a self-managed state, hence why they usually advocate communitarian organizing and free labor unions. It is not to be confused with anarchism or nihilism, that deny the necessity of any forms of statist politics in human affairs, organizations beyond the level of the individuals, just like any other form of established order.

Read my comments.

Originally posted by Echtelion
Capitalism and socialism are both FAILURES. Because they are attempts at realizing a social order based on questionable philosophy that wasn't based on an exhaustive observations of real-life and material issues of politics.

Capitalism, based initially on Adam Smith's philosophy, has repeatedly failed to circumvent the problem of consolidation of power through a State elite that is generated by the need to eradicate competition and accumulate capital.

Socialism, based on statist thinkers of the First International, failed to circumvent consolidation of power through the bureaucratic elite generated by the need to manage society in an equalitarian, "fair", way.

Fascism brought a kind of way to "solve" the problem of politics by exacerbating it to its worse extents, turning both socialism and capitalism into despotic, repressive rules of the few, even though it contradicts the basic ideas of each system.

Anarchy brings another way to solve the problem of politics by...tabula raza! By using the long-repressed forces of chaos as a tool for social progress and political balance.

There's maybe some truth to what you're saying, but anarchism isn't just about chaos, that's a misconception that the elite peddle to make people think it's impossible to apply and not even worth thinking about. It just means leaving people to self-govern themselves naturally without any government causing issues and interfering in what we want to do.

Yes, it's utopian, and yes, maybe we're not ready for it by a long shot, but if none of us even try to help clear up the crap surrounding the concept and at least try to imagine it properly and look at how it could be done, we'll never even have a chance. There's probably very little real anarchists around so it looks a long way off ever being possible, but if people start waking up enough maybe we'll be able to create the chances of trying it in the future.

Originally posted by robhines

Originally posted by Echtelion
Capitalism and socialism are both FAILURES. Because they are attempts at realizing a social order based on questionable philosophy that wasn't based on an exhaustive observations of real-life and material issues of politics.

Capitalism, based initially on Adam Smith's philosophy, has repeatedly failed to circumvent the problem of consolidation of power through a State elite that is generated by the need to eradicate competition and accumulate capital.

Socialism, based on statist thinkers of the First International, failed to circumvent consolidation of power through the bureaucratic elite generated by the need to manage society in an equalitarian, "fair", way.

Fascism brought a kind of way to "solve" the problem of politics by exacerbating it to its worse extents, turning both socialism and capitalism into despotic, repressive rules of the few, even though it contradicts the basic ideas of each system.

Anarchy brings another way to solve the problem of politics by...tabula raza! By using the long-repressed forces of chaos as a tool for social progress and political balance.

There's maybe some truth to what you're saying, but anarchism isn't just about chaos, that's a misconception that the elite peddle to make people think it's impossible to apply and not even worth thinking about. It just means leaving people to self-govern themselves naturally without any government causing issues and interfering in what we want to do.

Yes, it's utopian, and yes, maybe we're not ready for it by a long shot, but if none of us even try to help clear up the crap surrounding the concept and at least try to imagine it properly and look at how it could be done, we'll never even have a chance. There's probably very little real anarchists around so it looks a long way off ever being possible, but if people start waking up enough maybe we'll be able to create the chances of trying it in the future.

Of course, anarchy is not necessarily "disorder". Only a negation of established, especially consolidated order, and the general allowance of chaos and conflict as natural parts of human affairs.

Originally posted by Echtelion
Libertarian socialists are not genuinely anti-state, although surely not as statists a people like the Obama crowd or the stalinists are, or the fascist capitalists. They are for a self-managed state, hence why they usually advocate communitarian organizing and free labor unions. It is not to be confused with anarchism or nihilism, that deny the necessity of any forms of statist politics in human affairs, organizations beyond the level of the individuals, just like any other form of established order.

Yeah I realised most of this too, (but the idea of a state as most people here think is just so out that it may as well be classed as anti to what those concepts are) and thought of the idea as something that could be a transition path for anarchy, kind of like a night-watchman state could be and minarchism. Thanks anyway.

People have different opinions about all aspects of life and how to live it. For someone of one thought to claim the person of another thought to be brainwashed is complete vanity. I'm sure plenty of individuals which have contradictory views to yours would claim the same about you. We as humans have had many different experiences and learning opportunities during our lives. Many differences in beliefs can be attributed to this. There too are people, even siblings, which have had the same rearing and education which have arrived at different conclusions. Maybe it is because they expect or want different things out of life or develop compassion, or lack there of, for any multitude of things based on personal feelings about what individuals or entities should be responsible for. I believe no one group, in general, is anymore brainwashed than the other. I do believe that the biggest problem humans have is the vanity of people who believe their beliefs are superior to the point they believe their views should be forced on others.

Originally posted by Echtelion
Of course, anarchy is not necessarily "disorder". Only a negation of established, especially consolidated order, and the general allowance of chaos and conflict as natural parts of human affairs.

Yep, I just think that if people were left to themselves more a natural balance would arrive that would cut out most of that chaos and conflict. More like a real chance of a spontaneous balance where the chaos and order of the past are kind of left behind and not experienced so much as we learn to understand ourselves more as individuals and collectively.

Like I said, kind of utopian I guess, especially when looking at the current state of things. Again, as with socialism, there's a whole spectrum of types of anarchism too as I'm sure you know, but that's maybe for a different thread in the future.

reply to post by robhines

Socialism, based on statist thinkers of the First International, failed to circumvent consolidation of power through the bureaucratic elite generated by the need to manage society in an equalitarian, "fair", way.

I am more for the 3rd one...
You know, bureaucratics are not protecting marxist society, they are only protecting their positions and privilegies!
They will only change their sponsors...


I don't know what I am talking about? You are wrong... I was born in 1965. For your orientation on time scale...

Originally posted by dragnik
reply to post by robhines

 

Socialism, based on statist thinkers of the First International, failed to circumvent consolidation of power through the bureaucratic elite generated by the need to manage society in an equalitarian, "fair", way.

I am more for the 3rd one...

You know, bureaucratics are not protecting marxist society, they are only protecting their positions and privilegies!
They will only change their sponsors...

Just so you know : you got my name with that quote by mistake. Not sure how far back it is or who said it though!

Originally posted by robhines

Originally posted by dragnik
reply to post by robhines

 

Socialism, based on statist thinkers of the First International, failed to circumvent consolidation of power through the bureaucratic elite generated by the need to manage society in an equalitarian, "fair", way.

I am more for the 3rd one...

You know, bureaucratics are not protecting marxist society, they are only protecting their positions and privilegies!
They will only change their sponsors...

Just so you know : you got my name with that quote by mistake. Not sure how far back it is or who said it though!

I must notice I am from C.O.M.M.U.N.I.S.M.!!!

Originally posted by robhines

Originally posted by dragnik
reply to post by robhines

 

Socialism, based on statist thinkers of the First International, failed to circumvent consolidation of power through the bureaucratic elite generated by the need to manage society in an equalitarian, "fair", way.

I am more for the 3rd one...

You know, bureaucratics are not protecting marxist society, they are only protecting their positions and privilegies!
They will only change their sponsors...

Just so you know : you got my name with that quote by mistake. Not sure how far back it is or who said it though!

I must notice I am from C.O.M.M.U.N.I.S.M.!!!

lol, sorry, it was Echtelion who said that a few posts back to me, am getting tired now.

reply to post by Cabin


Au Contrare. Let's not say that socialism is evil. Let's just say that socialists are evil.

Was Venezuela evil for attempting socialism through the fourteen year evil reign of Hugo Chavez? I suppose that statement answers itself. Hugo Chavez was an inherently evil man. He could manipulate any form of government to meet his evil, greedy needs.

Ergo, allow me to post a link to Glenn Beck's 'Heartfelt Eulogy to Hugo Chavez.' In a very heartfelt, tongue in cheek manner, Mr. Beck expressed what most good Americans felt about the evil socialists like Hugo Chavez.


www.glennbeck.com...

Originally posted by dragnik
I must notice I am from C.O.M.M.U.N.I.S.M.!!!

Haha, cool stuff.

Originally posted by coltcall
Ergo, allow me to post a link to Glenn Beck's 'Heartfelt Eulogy to Hugo Chavez.' In a very heartfelt, tongue in cheek manner, Mr. Beck expressed what most good Americans felt about the evil socialists like Hugo Chavez.


www.glennbeck.com...

edit on 9-3-2013 by coltcall because: (no reason given)

Just found this near the end :

“Finally Hugo Chavez was able to warn his people about the threat. The threat that not only they face but every citizen of every country in all of mankind. He was able to warn his people from the threat from Jews. Letting Venezuelans know about the Jewish influence over the banks and allowed him to take possession of those banks during his election campaign. Against an opposition candidate, he warned his people ‘Don’t let yourself be poisoned by the wandering Jews.’ Good advice, Hugo.”

Real smooth Beck. His last avatar on twitter had "Stand with Israel" plastered over the bottom of it, one of the most corrupt states on the planet, and he's surely being backed financially for taking such a stance, or at least having several "perks" for the stuff he's coming out with, and all while he's promoting ignorance of what Palestinians have to go through.

The man is one of the kings of fakery and delusion.

reply to post by Cabin


People are brainwashed in many to most areas simply because it is so easy to brainwash people. It's like saying people eat hot dogs and drink beer at baseball games. It's what is done.