Socialism does work

[Brian]

@Brian,

 

Are you going to weigh in on this situation from a few posts ago? To misrepresent what I wrote is wrong.

 

http://thedaobums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=636248

Be glad to, ralis, since you asked. As I read it, you attempted to paint anyone who disagrees with your position as vile and contemptible, as you so often do, and you had your words turned back on you. The phrase you find so objectionable is literally your own. Karl didn't claim you had applied it to "socialism" and didn't misquote you. In fact, he went to the trouble of hyperlinking to your own post so that the whole world could see you in action.

 

You then responded with a thinly veiled attempt to frighten the Bum who dares to challenge you by invoking possibility of use of force.

 

You are now hoping to trap me, as a Moderator, by suggesting that my failure to "weigh in" according to your timeline and expectations is somehow a breach of duty. The ironic thing, ralis, is that you misrepresent what I write nearly every time we engage in discussion and I have don't believe I have even once cried out for authoritative intervention.

[Brian]

I know names are not included in this, but to ask about parental relationships such as what gendao seems to be obsessed with is unethical. And to indulge his curiosity for what end?

"Obsessed with?" Seemed like a fair enough question to me. He was curious whether there might be a relationship between her "progressive" belief system and her relationship with her father (socialism as a replacement for an absent father figure). I debated whether to post more than the first sentence of my response and decided to answer in a bit more detail as I thought it germane.

 

You frequently ask me personal and probing questions yourself, ralis, and I usually choose to answer them with candor and sincerity even though I think your motives are generally suspect.

[ralis]

Be glad to, ralis, since you asked. As I read it, you attempted to paint anyone who disagrees with your position as vile and contemptible, as you so often do, and you had your words turned back on you. The phrase you find so objectionable is literally your own. Karl didn't claim you had applied it to "socialism" and didn't misquote you. In fact, he went to the trouble of hyperlinking to your own post so that the whole world could see you in action.

 

You then responded with a thinly veiled attempt to frighten the Bum who dares to challenge you by invoking possibility of use of force.

 

You are now hoping to trap me, as a Moderator, by suggesting that my failure to "weigh in" according to your timeline and expectations is somehow a breach of duty. The ironic thing, ralis, is that you misrepresent what I write nearly every time we engage in discussion and I have don't believe I have even once cried out for authoritative intervention.

 

 

Here is what I stated; 

 

So called free markets are presuppositions from the works of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Von Mises and other classical liberal theorists. Such unfounded presuppositions are only an appeal to human greed, rugged individualism and selfishness. The basic premise is that if everyone acted in their own self interest; therefor markets would be absolutely efficient with no need for rules. However, the fanciful neoliberal notion of a fair/level playing field without governmental interference fails to consider the myriad variables regarding the behavior of individuals. 

 

Gendao adds the term 'Socialism' which misleads others in this discussion. That is all I am concerned about.

[Apech]

I meant unfortunately "for your theory"...

 

Personally, I see pros and cons to any position, including both selfishness and unselfishness. While the former is more popularly demonized (yet widely-practiced), the latter can also be very harmful to the individual (and more routinely seen amongst the "spiritual" crowd).

 

Current State prop in the US as disseminated by the mass media is also actually currently Socialist - ergo the repeat election of Obama, Obamacare, etc.... So, it is far from blacked out - but actually the American establishment status quo now.

 

That said, I am not opposed to the idea of pooling resources or any regulation either, in absence of common decency or sense amongst the majority population. But, it must be done carefully under conducive circumstances and conditions to be fair & successful.

 

Obamacare is not socialist ... it wouldn't even qualify for left of centre in any other developed country.

[ralis]

"Obsessed with?" Seemed like a fair enough question to me. He was curious whether there might be a relationship between her "progressive" belief system and her relationship with her father (socialism as a replacement for an absent father figure). I debated whether to post more than the first sentence of my response and decided to answer in a bit more detail as I thought it germane.

 

You frequently ask me personal and probing questions yourself, ralis, and I usually choose to answer them with candor and sincerity even though I think your motives are generally suspect.

 

I don't recall asking you personal questions.

[Brian]

Here is what I stated; 

 

 

Gendao adds the term 'Socialism' which misleads others in this discussion. That is all I am concerned about.

If the reader doesn't click the link then they have no indication that the borrowed phrase "greed. rugged individualism and selfishness" is to be attributed to you and if they do click the link then your post is presented in its entirety.

 

Or are you suggesting that Karl cannot use the phrase "greed, rugged individualism and selfishness" without your express written consent? Or that he shouldn't be allowed to link to one of your posts? This would seem odd since you linked to his post when you falsely accused him of misrepresenting what you wrote.

[ralis]

If the reader doesn't click the link then they have no indication that the borrowed phrase "greed. rugged individualism and selfishness" is to be attributed to you and if they do click the link then your post is presented in its entirety.

 

Or are you suggesting that Karl cannot use the phrase "greed, rugged individualism and selfishness" without your express written consent? Or that he shouldn't be allowed to link to one of your posts? This would seem odd since you linked to his post when you falsely accused him of misrepresenting what you wrote.

 

This is in regarding gendao adding to what I wrote not anything to do with Karl. Link;

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/38911-socialism-does-work/page-6#entry636248

Edited July 20, 2015 by ralis

[Karl]

Obamacare is not socialist ... it wouldn't even qualify for left of centre in any other developed country.

 

Fascist, socialist it's all the same thing. It's a state controlled healthcare system which appropriates money from the producers by force. In a socialist system the government forces people to work for the good of the group(state). In a fascist system taxes are coercively appropriated for the good of the group (state).

 

The state controls and takes payment for the health care in both cases.

[Brian]

Obamacare is not socialist ... it wouldn't even qualify for left of centre in any other developed country.

Well, yes and no. Don't forget that he is on record saying that this is the necessary first-step to trigger a future single-payer (read "nationalized") healthcare system.

 

Heck! Listen to his speech to the American Medical Association where he essentially explains to him that, as a result of his "reforms," they will soon be compensated for how well they follow the government's healthcare instructions rather than how well they actually provide healthcare and telling them that they will be protected from malpractice prosecution if they follow the government's instructions to the letter.. The intent is openly to crash the current system and replace it with one big federal system modeled on the Veterans Administration (anyone notice that hasn't been "fixed" yet?) and managed as an expansion of Medicaid.

[Brian]

If the reader doesn't click the link then they have no indication that the borrowed phrase "greed. rugged individualism and selfishness" is to be attributed to you and if they do click the link then your post is presented in its entirety.

 

Or are you suggesting that Karl cannot use the phrase "greed, rugged individualism and selfishness" without your express written consent? Or that he shouldn't be allowed to link to one of your posts? This would seem odd since you linked to his post when you falsely accused him of misrepresenting what you wrote.

 

 Sorry! Meant to type "...suggesting that gendao cannot use the phrase..." but accidentally wrote Karl. Please reread that post and make the name substitution.

This is in regarding gendao adding to what I wrote not anything to do with Karl. Link;

 

http://thedaobums.com/topic/38911-socialism-does-work/page-6#entry636248

[Brian]

I don't recall asking you personal questions.

LOL

[ralis]

Fascist, socialist it's all the same thing. It's a state controlled healthcare system which appropriates money from the producers by force. In a socialist system the government forces people to work for the good of the group(state). In a fascist system taxes are coercively appropriated for the good of the group (state). The state controls and takes payment for the health care in both cases.

 

Fascism is based on authoritarianism, extreme nationalism/patriotism, the interests of the state takes precedence over the people, the use of symbolism as a rallying point, dissolution of unions and state corporate collusion to name a few points. The genesis can be seen in the authoritarian city states in Italy before WWII. This political ideology is right wing. Unless you have studied the subject in depth such as I, it is quite possible to be mislead by many revisionists.

[ralis]

 

 Sorry! Meant to type "...suggesting that gendao cannot use the phrase..." but accidentally wrote Karl. Please reread that post and make the name substitution.

 

One can use any phrase, but to imply that I said something that I did not is not appropriate.

[Apech]

Fascist, socialist it's all the same thing. It's a state controlled healthcare system which appropriates money from the producers by force. In a socialist system the government forces people to work for the good of the group(state). In a fascist system taxes are coercively appropriated for the good of the group (state). The state controls and takes payment for the health care in both cases.

 

 

Alright I give up - you haven't got a clue about socialism or fascism.  I suggest read some history and political theory.

[Apech]

Well, yes and no. Don't forget that he is on record saying that this is the necessary first-step to trigger a future single-payer (read "nationalized") healthcare system.

 

Heck! Listen to his speech to the American Medical Association where he essentially explains to him that, as a result of his "reforms," they will soon be compensated for how well they follow the government's healthcare instructions rather than how well they actually provide healthcare and telling them that they will be protected from malpractice prosecution if they follow the government's instructions to the letter.. The intent is openly to crash the current system and replace it with one big federal system modeled on the Veterans Administration (anyone notice that hasn't been "fixed" yet?) and managed as an expansion of Medicaid.

 

 

Sorry as with Karl you have no clue about what is socialism or fascism for that matter.  You are locked in an American mindset.  Sorry but that's it.  You are welcome to it of course.  You can't say I haven't tried. 

[ralis]

Alright I give up - you haven't got a clue about socialism or fascism.  I suggest read some history and political theory.

 

You are absolutely correct! These guys have no interest in reading historical accounts or even political theory. 

[ralis]

Here is but one aspect of an authoritarian fascist state. Note the propaganda and symbolism being used to manipulate the masses. Even Hitler's entrance from the air was carefully staged for maximum effect.

 

 

[ralis]

For Karl or anyone interested, linked here are English translations of Goebbels speeches which is a way to understand how propaganda operates .Of course there are myriad examples, but in one speech he discusses the importance of propaganda. Very sinister to say the least. I am providing this link so that the underpinnings of authoritarian manipulation can be studied.

 

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goebmain.htm

[ralis]

'The Authoritarians' by Bob Altemeyer. Explains the authoritarian underpinnings of right wing extremism. I am providing this and the last few links by request of Karl. The pdf link was provided by Mr. Altemeyer.

 

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

[Karl]

Alright I give up - you haven't got a clue about socialism or fascism.  I suggest read some history and political theory.

 

Now, now, don't be hastily jumping to conclusions until all the evidence is in.

[ralis]

Now, now, don't be hastily jumping to conclusions until all the evidence is in.

 

The evidence is already there for anyone willing to think. What is your point?

Edited July 20, 2015 by ralis

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Karl]

Fascism is based on authoritarianism, extreme nationalism/patriotism, the interests of the state takes precedence over the people, the use of symbolism as a rallying point, dissolution of unions and state corporate collusion to name a few points. The genesis can be seen in the authoritarian city states in Italy before WWII. This political ideology is right wing. Unless you have studied the subject in depth such as I, it is quite possible to be mislead by many revisionists.

Well it's a pity you couldn't have provided two straight definitions and made it easy for both of us, but as you are unwilling we will have to do it the long way.

 

You have given a description of a typical facist state and I say upfront that I'm prepared to accept that there are some differences between facist if states as we see with Italy and Germany, there are also differences between the Russian and Chinese States but certain things remains common to them all.

 

1. A dictator and a totalitarian government.

2. The means of production controlled by the government.

3. The institution of price controls-the governments sets all prices, determines all quantities, distribution, method and wages.

4. The use of secret police to enforce the regime and harsh punishment for those who do not.

5. The use of broadcast information for the purposes of propagating the state message. Altering films etc to show a positive slant.

6. The use of symbology (Nazi swastika/USSR hammer and scythe).

7. Public works programs with use of hard labour.

8. The existence of a black market in goods.

9. A privileged class of government, state, forces officials loyal to the dictator and the regime.

 

Anything you don't agree with there ?

 

Then identify the differences:

Fascist -Racism, nationalism. Communism is generally tolerant of wider groups/countries.

The differences economically is the communism does not hide its state control of the means of production whereas fascists preserve a facade of private property.

 

The Nazi party was called the national socialist German workers party. If we really needed anymore proof, there it is in black and white. Socialist- couldn't be clearer, says it on the tin.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Karl

[Karl]

Interesting. The only persons I know personally who share this opinion with you are simpletons...

 

I said I was just above mud, that's kinda lower than a simpleton. Can you give me the names of those others I feel the need of company :-)

[Karl]

The evidence is already there for anyone willing to think. What is your point?

 

Your repeated ad hominems really don't flatter you. It would seem likely that we all 'think' so what is your point ?