Thread: Socialism Works!

Or does it?

http://www.namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/

Interesting web-site.

I'm sorry, I don't actually get it. Some of those quotes had nothing to do with socialism....and some of it is based on a true ignorance about what socialism actually is. (Hitler, despite the name of his party, was not actually a socialist....)

I'm not a socialist but I actually don't get the site. Just, "Socialism is bad, mmmkay?" Is that it?

Did you follow the link all the way to the bottom where it says "Fascism doesn't fit?"? Click on that and read if you are so inclined.

I look at the total scope of politics in a slightly different and much less complicated way which is as follows:

You have systems that see the individual rights as the important factor and then you have systems that see the state as the important factor, in other words, one puts the people above its government, which the US used to be an example of and hopefully will be again. conservative values as we see in America follow this trend. And the other puts the Government above its people. Socialism, Fascism, communism and so on are great examples of this.

Great thread! Thanks Scott.

Originally Posted by JMS

Did you follow the link all the way to the bottom where it says "Fascism doesn't fit?"? Click on that and read if you are so inclined.

I look at the total scope of politics in a slightly different and much less complicated way which is as follows:

You have systems that see the individual rights as the important factor and then you have systems that see the state as the important factor, in other words, one puts the people above its government, which the US used to be an example of and hopefully will be again. conservative values as we see in America follow this trend. And the other puts the Government above its people. Socialism, Fascism, communism and so on are great examples of this.

Great thread! Thanks Scott.

I agree that, on the surface, the conservative movement recognizes that individual rights are more important than the government, but I would disagree with the implication that the liberal side of politics does NOT. Both "sides" of the American political spectrum focus on the value and essential necessity of the preservation of individual rights. I think, however, that the difference is actually WHAT those rights are. The conservative movement focuses on economic rights. That is, freedom from government control of money. Thus the emphasis on lower taxation, less regulation of business, etc. Then there is the emphasis on "tradition", under which rubric I place gun control, right-to-life and same sex marriage. (I personally believe that the conservative political movement focuses on tradition as a way to ground itself with the working class rather than any kind of true dedication to these ideas, but that's neither here nor there.)

I think the liberal side is rather more concerned with social rights--freedom of sexuality, religious choice (including the freedom FROM religion...), reproductive rights etc. Economically, the liberal idea is that without some government control of the economy, there will be no room for these social rights to flourish, as economic power equals social power, and the tendency is for wealth to accrue in more conservative strata of society, where there is a difference of opinion on social rights. There is of course, also the basic idea that every individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which the poor simply do not enjoy in the same way that the wealthy do. Life--health care is exceedingly expensive. Liberty--see also legal representation and the "OJ effect"; rich people, when they are accused of crimes, simply don't go to jail as often as the poor--often due to poor legal representation. And Happiness? Well...that's different for every individual, so who's to say? But basically, the government's job is to protect the weak, not to allow the strong to flourish.

The fallacy that the Liberal political side believes that the government is more important than the individual comes form a conservative misunderstanding of the liberal idea that, without government protection, there IS no individual freedom. Without government regulation of business, you get sweatshops. Without government regulation of the economy, you get meltdowns like we're seeing now, where innicent people lose their work and their homes due to the greed of a few. Without government helathcare, people (even some of whom are lucky enough to have health insurance) are denied care that will save their lives because of corporate decisions. It's not that liberals believe that the government is more important than the individual--we believe that the government should be the extention of the individual, that there is strength in numbers, and that there are problems that can be solved when people work together that cannot be solved when people are on their own.

Whether or not it always works that way is another story...

But that's what I believe. If that's socialism, well, call me a socialist. (It's not, though...)

JimR, I believe where our true difference lies is that you see Government as a force for good and I see Government as a necessary evil.

Originally Posted by JMS

JimR, I believe where our true difference lies is that you see Government as a force for good and I see Government as a necessary evil.

Indeed. Or rather, I see government as a POTENTIAL force for good, but all too often a tool of evil.
I'm actually relieved, Mark, that you at least think it's necessary. Far too many Libertarians (I'm assuming that is what you are? Forgive me if I'm wrong) are much too close to anarchists for my comfort.

I certainly understand the appeal of less government, the freedom to do as I see fit with my money and my life, but there are far too many NON-governmental forces that would take those very things away without the government's prevention...

Funny. Am I too naive, or too cynical?

Originally Posted by JMS

JimR, I believe where our true difference lies is that you see Government as a force for good and I see Government as a necessary evil.

Mark, your opinion has good company:

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Thomas Paine

Originally Posted by JMS

You have systems that see the individual rights as the important factor and then you have systems that see the state as the important factor, in other words, one puts the people above its government, which the US used to be an example of and hopefully will be again. conservative values as we see in America follow this trend. And the other puts the Government above its people. Socialism, Fascism, communism and so on are great examples of this.

Great thread! Thanks Scott.

And perhaps the best solution is somewhere in the middle?
The rights of the individual cannot always trump the decisions of the government.

For example: you could argue that since the 2nd is not specific, you should be allowed the right to bear thermonuclear weapons. And the government would be wise to tell you to sod off. And if you were trying to build one, they'd be wise to throw you in jail because there is no reason why you should own a thermonulear weapon.

Despite the fact that you can argue it's an individual right allowed by the constituation, it is for the good of the whole that individuals don't have them. If no good can come from something, then the government has a case for restricting you, as indicated by the previous example.

Originally Posted by Bruno

And perhaps the best solution is somewhere in the middle?
The rights of the individual cannot always trump the decisions of the government.

For example: you could argue that since the 2nd is not specific, you should be allowed the right to bear thermonuclear weapons. And the government would be wise to tell you to sod off. And if you were trying to build one, they'd be wise to throw you in jail because there is no reason why you should own a thermonulear weapon.

Despite the fact that you can argue it's an individual right allowed by the constituation, it is for the good of the whole that individuals don't have them. If no good can come from something, then the government has a case for restricting you, as indicated by the previous example.

Bruno, the second amendment is probably not a good example for your point. As a point of fact no serious argument could be crafted as a legal basis to support the idea that citizens have the right to weapon's of mass destruction. The second amendment's intent was to keep weapons of self defense in the hands of private non-military citizens and strip the federal government of the ability to take those weapons away. No understanding of that amendment's intent could broaden it's scope to what you are talking about and I don't believe anyone would seriously try to make it. (Apologies, as a student of constitutional law I just had to make that point) :-)

Hope that helps.

Regards,
EL