Or does it?
http://www.namyth.com/SocialismWORKS!/
Interesting web-site.
Printable View
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
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.
Indeed. Or rather, I see government as a POTENTIAL force for good, but all too often a tool of evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
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?
And perhaps the best solution is somewhere in the middle?Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
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.
Once the principles of "someone can make better decisions about my fate than I do - in the name of overall good and a better society" are established as a society's mantra (which *is* the building block of socialism), you are always on a verge of establishing some form of dictatorship. Human imperfection make noble intentions quickly deteriorate into "I can make better decisions about them than they are - for their own good", and there are no mechanisms in such environment that can prevent or stop massive abusing of power and moral corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimR
For that reason, I see governments as a necessary evil. They need to be kept at bay and closely watched and purged and stripped of false entitlements. If you do not see the danger of empowerment of "the wrong elites" (the weakest link of democracies, IMO) and their entitlement to run your lives, you are certainly very naive in my eyes.
Always ready to welcome a comrade. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JimR
One great mistake the Soviets made was assuming that their Communism could be implemented at all. It is common to misinterpret Marx to mean that radical changes are what drive social progress. Politics and Social convention, like all things in nature, evolve. I might use the interesting developments this line of discussion has shown throughout the last several months as an example of how a set of memes, those we've been bandying through these conversations, have evolved. Marx believed that a period of global Socialism would be necessary before true Communism (which I envision much like the Libertarian ideal) could be practised. Under such a system people would have plenty and need much less so there should be less disruptive behaviour.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimR
X
First of all I didn't read all of the page, but i did skim through the par about Sweden.
But first of all what kind of socialism are we talking about? For example Social democrats and communists hate each other more than anything. I think we must make a distinction as the term Socialism is too broad, like Christianity..they all have some things in common but may be very different indeed.
Also, why is there a pic of Jacques Chirac? he is not a socialist.. Also one might question weather national socialism and fascism are socialism, but generally sure we could accept that as they are actually closer than socialists want to admit for example they share the idea that capitalism is not good (but we must remember that capitalism is also an integral part of some forms of socialism).
Anyway about some of the Sweden parts - Some of the stuff written here are just ridiculous with the only aim of saying socialism is bad, I wont go in to details as I'm too lazy for that. But some of the stuff is just playing with numbers and (perhaps) theoretical assumptions. Like the statement "Workers can earn up to 570 paid days off a year (that's no typo - we know there are only 365 days a year - Swedes can earn more paid days off than days they actually work)" this is just bullcrap, I have never heard of such a thing and even it is so theoretically (although i doubt it) in real life thats not how it works.
Also that sweden has high taxes, now that is true the municipal tax is around 32-33% and the VAT is 25% except for food 12% and books 6% (I dont know if there are other exceptions. And of course there are also other taxes. But this IMO does not tell us much if we do not ask the question of what the citizens get it return for their tax.
Here is a short list (except for the usual things like lawenfocement, government administration, defence etc.) - Free schools (and school lunch), free univeristies and higher education, child support and students allowences, free health and dental care for childern and for adults at a very reduced price, various wellfare support, pension etc etc.
These are things that many people would have troubble affording if it werent for these taxes, they may be high but what you get in return is worth it.
Sure the serilizations etc did occur but it would be wrong to say "The history of Swedish domestic relations is chock full of civil rights abuses[...]". I also doubt that the sterilizations were conducted just because of the socialdemocrats were in government, it would probably have been going on even with another government in rule. Also non-socialist countries also engaged in civilrights abuses. Sweden probably have a more clean past when it comes to these thing than most other modern countries both socialist and not.
"While the government spent 70% of the Swedish Gross National Product in the '90s, for 4 years the national debt doubled and for 3 years the nation experienced negative financial growth." Ok, but during these years the government was led by a center-right coalission, not socialdemocrats. But the financial crisis of the 90's was not started by this new government it was quite global. however the effects of the crisis was in many cases milder in Sweden because of the measures that were taken (along with the then oppositional socialdemocrats).
Alright I'm tiered now, but the webpage is highly biased and gives an unfair portrayl of "socialism" and of sweden.
What fate are we talking about? Because the difference between capitalism and socialism is not "in capitalism, I make my own decisions about EVERYTHING", because that is patently not true. Do you make decisions about what cancer treatment you get? Nope, you health insurance provider does. Do you make decisions about the price of a new car? No, a corporation has done enormous amounts of research to find out JUST how expensive they can make the cars, without losing too many customers.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparq
Basically, it comes down to who is going to make decisions about your fate--a democratically elected government, or faceless corporate goons.
I choose the former.
Oh my. "The wrong elites." Are there any "RIGHT" Elites?Quote:
Originally Posted by sparq
Listen, I have exactly the same concern, but I trust the government MORE than the other forces that would love to run our lives...In fact, I have no belief that ANY member of the US government wants to run anyone's life--except the conservatives.
You know, it's funny. If the great conservative ideal is "laissez faire", then why is gay marriage and abortion denied by it? Sounds a WHOLE lot like trying to run people's lives...
"You can do anything you want with your money, but NOT your body..."
Yep. A laugh riot.
Free? But you just posted that all of those services were paid via taxes. Maybe you meant free for those who don't pay taxes? Otherwise none of what you mentioned is free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rawaz
Here's an article regarding education in Sweden: The Swedish Model - Socialism, Education, and Failure
The article is dated 1992, but I think the information is relevant. I don't know, but maybe the facts in this article are ridiculous too.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
I would like to know, from any of you who are inclined towards Liberal or even Socialist thought, do you see, or comprehend, in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence above, any wording that supports your view?
Feel free to use any part of the Declaration, even the Constitution, to support your views.
Let's discuss.
Yes but I did state in the paragraph before that one that it is the taxes that pay for these services.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Mark, your opinion has good company:Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
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
All of it except the "endowed by their Creator" part.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Was this the paragraph you meant? If it is and if I understood the text correctly i.e the basics of a democracy. That the government should be made up of Men (I assume Men as in mankind, at least that would be the meaning today) and that their powers come from the citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
I don't see how this could contradict socialism (if we then mean social democracy for example). I don't see your point really why you would believe otherwise? According to the Democracy index Sweden, one of those terrible socialist states:rolleyes: is number 1..while the US is number 18.
This part of the american const. (the red highlighting) is also quite similar to what the swedish law says.
But anyway if you would care to alaborate why it would not be consistent with socialism....
My understanding is that the United States is a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. Our democratic process is defined by our Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rawaz
The Declaration states that "all men are created equal." Socialism, as I understand it, declares that all men must live equal.
In order for that to occur, those with greater abilities, talents, potential (all men are created equal, but not all men remain equal) must give up a part of the fruits of their labors (property) to supply others with lesser abilities, talent, potential.
If one is deprived of property (as must occur under socialism) - how is that an example of liberty, a natural right bestowed by the creator and protected (secured) by the government?
Consider this quote from John Adams:
"Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent."
Or this from James Madison:
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own."
And, to be fair, this from Ben Franklin:
"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
But Franklin also said this:
"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them."
Xman, thats the most beautiful part of it. Man is endowed by his creator, this takes the power of endowment out of the hands of other men. The government was not meant to be trusted with the power of endowment of individual liberty, government has no right to allocate liberty or deny liberty, the only proper function of government is the protection of that liberty. Amen!:pQuote:
Originally Posted by xman
You are mistaken. Your liberty is granted to you by men whether you would like to think of it that way or not. Here in Canada though, the courts have the final say over governments in their struggle to circumvent rights since we have a Declaration of Rights and Freedoms attached to our constitution which they consult.Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
X
I'm sure George III held similar sentiments...Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Actually George was a monarchist (obviously) and believed that there was an invisible man who imbued him with the responsibility of endowing rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
No sir I am not mistaken, nor am I Canadian. It would really suck to think I am dependent on others for my own well being. In order to avoid the religous debate that would ensue I will simply say that I much prefer the love of God and the government that has been instituted here in the U.S. than the arbitrary fancies of some self seeking politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
From Bastiat "The Law" -
The Results of Legal Plunder:
"It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.
What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.
In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them."
Does this explain why some accept, or at least tolerate, socialism?
'Suck' it up. We are a pack animal. We gather in collective groups and liberties as well as responsibilities are agreed upon by the group. That Declaration of Independence is a document written by men, no different from any other document written by men. It is 'men' who will be the arbiter of your rights and responsibilities in enforcing that or any other document. Just like Soilant Green, 'It's people"! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
X
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) :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Hope that helps.
Regards,
EL
I was actually laughing when I read this thread!
A couple of questions:
1: How many of you have actually been in scandinavia (Norway, Sweden & Denmark)?
2: If democracy is a government elected by the people in that country, wouldn't it be a fair measurement of democracy to see how many % of it's people actually bothers to vote.
3: Another measurement of how good a country is to live in would be how many inmates it's prisons have: The United States has 5% of the world's population and 23.6% of the world's prison population.
Don't take me wrong here, I have lived in the US for over a year now and love it, but I have always been puzzled by the extreme socialist-fear over here.
Then you will have to also disagree with the notion that the rights are inalienable. They can only be inalienable if the Giver of rights (the only One who has power to take them away) is also the Creator of them to whom the rights were given. You will also have to disagree that the truth of that is something you hold as self-evident. Someone said it well: "Once abolish the God and the government becomes the God." Of course I could give up those rights myself, but regardless of how men or government attempt to limit my free exercising of those rights, they still remain my rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
The greatness in the foundation of how the US federal government was constructed to regard our rights is that it was created as an agency to protect those certain rights rather than restrict them or take them away. In so many societies the law is designed to tell you what the men in power say your rights are (whereas we hold certain truths to be self-evident) and such law is meant to keep the peace among the people by restricting individuals from exercising their own rights. But in the US your rights are protected not because the government is making sure you don't become too free but because the people who commissioned the government to protect your rights are making sure that neither I nor the government come along and hinder your free exercise.
If US society continues to break down along the current trend lines to the point where the majority of the voters no longer hold those truths to be self-evident, then what you said in the bit I quoted above will increasingly be how those in power will approach, treat, and devalue the people and their Constitution
I do not disagree. The only thing separating us is the belief that such rights are granted by an invisible fairy and that the application of those rights is divinely granted to those in the positions of power to grant and judge. I accept that all those words in legal texts and constitutions were conceived and written by people and can only be interpreted and enforced by people.
Ah then we are not separated at all! I too do not believe that such rights are granted by an invisible fairy :) After all, it is self-evident that invisible fairies do not create anything!Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
I think what the basic problem between the two main opinions that have been shown in this thread is a cultural clash. We basically have two different mentalities about these subjects. And I don't think we will ever come anywhere with this discussion because of these mental or cultural differences.
Anyway I would like to quote the former social democratic prime minister in Sweden who was murdered in 1986 Olof Palme when he is asked by the leader of the opposing center-right leader Thorbjörn Fälldin why he is a socialist.
"I am a democratic socialist, with pride and with joy. I became that when I was in India and saw the terrible poverty, even though some were terribly rich. When I travelled and saw an even more degrading poverty, in a way, in the United States. When I as a very young man and came eye to eye with the lack of freedom and the oppression of communism and its persecution of humans in the communist states. When I came to the Nazi's concentration camps and saw the death rolls of social democrats and labour unionists.
I became that [democratic socialist] when it became clear to me that it was social democracy that was ground breaking for the democracy in Sweden. When it became clear to me that it was social democracy that lifted [Sweden] out of poverty and unemployment with the policy to meet the crisis of the 1930s. [---]
My conviction is confirmed when I look out to the world when I see the wars and the arms race and the mass unemployement and the gaps between people. My conviction is confirmed when in our own country I see the injustices and unemployment increase, speculation and cheating. When I see the rightist policies in country after country drives people into unemployment, smashes the security and still do not solove the economic problems. And when I see the future the [non-socialist parties] have to offer; wage earners shall become poorer and the rich richer. Where the social security becomes weaker and weaker and the luxury boats more. Where the solidarity becomes weaker and egoism stronger. Where the strong can take and the weak have to settle for less.
Sure I am a democratic socialist with pride, over what this democratic socialism has achieved in this country. I am that with joy because I know the important tasks we have before us [---]
It's about solidarity and concern between human beings[...]"
Here is the speech..if you understand Swedish YouTube - Olof Palme därför är jag demokratisk socialist
A truly great man!
Just wish the SPD in germany would not have been so ruined by people like Schröder or the present great coalition.
I'd so love to resurrect the spirit of Willi Brandt.
we ARE anarchists, but with a realist view of life. and your comfort is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimR
pure anarchy is a lot of fun, perhaps, but not stable. a little bit of government IS, sadly, necessary. but it's a necessary evil. and hopelessly incompetent.
the reason america has traditionally hated collectivist (and here i mean the political ideology, and not the other definition) political systems is that they are bastions of the weak, yes, but also prisons of the strong.
our great country was founded by strong, confident men. they thought they knew how to run their own lives better than some king far away in britain. so they formed an extremely limited government that allowed them to rule themselves as they thought best.
to me, people who are in favor of socialism must be awfully weak and insecure. how could you think the government can take care of you better than you can take care of yourself unless you well and truly suck at taking care of yourself? i've never understood it. i prefer to have to most freedom possible... to make my own choices, bad or good, and to bear the consequences for them alone. romantic? maybe. arrogant? certainly! but it sure beats the alternative of having society forced to cater to the lowest common denominator.
so flame away. i'm an arrogant american, and i think i know what's best for me better than the UN does, or my own government, or even the mob-ocracy. i just want to freedom to take care of myself.
I can see why socialism would work for you. Miserable life, is not it?Quote:
Originally Posted by JimR
democrats want to rule the boardroom. republicans want to rule the bedroom.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimR
people who truly understand personal liberty don't want to government handing out iron edicts about social OR fiscal issues.
many people view politics on a simple 1-dimensional left-right scale, i think 2 dimensions is more accurate. see the following article for more info:
World's Smallest Political Quiz
He actually mentions Willy Brandt in the speech as one of his friends who risked his life in the struggle for the human value.Quote:
Originally Posted by 0livia
Yes the two were close. Brandt has spent some years in Sweden during or after WWII.
I'm pretty curious which one of the systems will prevail in the present crisis.
Guess it all depends on the heads.
If your happy being a pack animal, so be it. I just assume stand upright.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy
Nazi Germany, East Germany, Soviet Union and her satellites, Red China, Pol Pots Cambodia, Canada, etc....
Canada?!:eek: What's so wrong with Canada?Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
Anyway, the examples you bring up are all communist examples (exept for Nazi germany). And that is a very rudimentary way of looking at the issue. Socialism is not equal to communism. Communism is a (extreme) branch of the wide term 'socialism' but for example social democracy and communism are two different things and they both compete and dislike one another.
This reasoning would be like equalling the american system with Pinochet's chile. It is untrue and unfair. Also the US has at times implemented socialist ideas in the forms of FDR's policies during the depression and also social liberalism. I think the Idea of socialism in america is greatly misunderstood, over-simplified and higly erratic.