Socialism does work

[Brian]

<snip>

Someone will always disagree.

Will not.

[Karl]

Ok just add to the mix - why do people like Donald Trump? (for Brits Nigel Farage)?

 

Trump is vastly different to Farage in every sense other than a maverick disestablishment type. I can see where you are going -less smooth suit and carefully chosen words in a similar sense to Corbyn which is obviously refreshing whichever way you look at it. However the economics and politics are very different. Nigel (not, it has to be said his party at present) is essentially a thick libertarian (by that I mean he is broadly for smaller government less state, more free market), I can't figure Trump as he isn't really free market, but is for smaller government and less foreign interventionism. However Corbyn is the odd ball of the pack, he is a dyed in the wool 1970s socialist, big government, big borrowing, public works, nationalisation etc.

 

 

[Apech]

Trump is vastly different to Farage in every sense other than a maverick disestablishment type. I can see where you are going -less smooth suit and carefully chosen words in a similar sense to Corbyn which is obviously refreshing whichever way you look at it. However the economics and politics are very different. Nigel (not, it has to be said his party at present) is essentially a thick libertarian (by that I mean he is broadly for smaller government less state, more free market), I can't figure Trump as he isn't really free market, but is for smaller government and less foreign interventionism. However Corbyn is the odd ball of the pack, he is a dyed in the wool 1970s socialist, big government, big borrowing, public works, nationalisation etc.

 and Bernie Sanders?

[Karl]

 and Bernie Sanders?

 

I only know what I've heard from Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell so I'm not really qualified to give a personal opinion.

[Apech]

I only know what I've heard from Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell so I'm not really qualified to give a personal opinion.

 

 

Ok but he calls himself a social democrat and has been around for years (rather like Corbyn) and is speaking to packed halls of excited people - just like Corbyn.  It's unlikely that all of these people are dyed in the wool socialists ... and they both seem to have old fashioned approaches which you would have thought completely outmoded.  They are not particularly great orators or charismatic.  So what do you think people are looking for?  

[Karl]

Ok but he calls himself a social democrat and has been around for years (rather like Corbyn) and is speaking to packed halls of excited people - just like Corbyn. It's unlikely that all of these people are dyed in the wool socialists ... and they both seem to have old fashioned approaches which you would have thought completely outmoded. They are not particularly great orators or charismatic. So what do you think people are looking for?

Sick of the same old sharp suited, plastic politician types saying nothing at all but whatever the focus groups and speech writers tell them to say. It's very bland and boring.

 

Bernie at least presents an alternative to that evil Clinton witch.

 

Yet, I'm old enough to remember we had these less polished types types before the new breed of plastic politicians and things weren't really any different. Trump is the only one who has the power to shake up the dynasty-I still don't like him, but at least he is entertaining.

 

In the end though, none of these people are in control. Just like Tsapiris in Greece found out. The bankers and corporate cronies tell them what to do and from snippets I have heard, they make offers that can't be refused.

 

Corbyn wouldn't make a dent in the Conservatives, if he had a chance Labour would now be in power. The excuse the Labour supporters used to explain Labours failure was, that, with the SNP they would be seen as a socialist danger. Why then, choose a socialist for leader ? The electorate already gave that verdict if Labour are right. No-no-no.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Karl

[Apech]

Sick of the same old sharp suited, plastic politician types saying nothing at all but whatever the focus groups and speech writers tell them to say. It's very bland and boring.

 

Bernie at least presents an alternative to that evil Clinton witch.

 

Yet, I'm old enough to remember we had these less polished types types before the new breed of plastic politicians and things weren't really any different. Trump is the only one who has the power to shake up the dynasty-I still don't like him, but at least he is entertaining.

 

In the end though, none of these people are in control. Just like Tsapiris in Greece found out. The bankers and corporate cronies tell them what to do and from snippets I have heard, they make offers that can't be refused.

 

Corbyn wouldn't make a dent in the Conservatives, if he had a chance Labour would now be in power. The excuse the Labour supporters used to explain Labours failure was, that, with the SNP they would be seen as a socialist danger. Why then, choose a socialist for leader ? The electorate already gave that verdict if Labour are right. No-no-no.

 

That's kind of where I was going with this.  But a bit deeper - I think there is weltschmerz going on.  People are sick of a kind of boredom and frustration.  Usually this is a prelude to big war.  People search for meaning in the strangest places.  Mr. Trump being one.

[Karl]

That's kind of where I was going with this.  But a bit deeper - I think there is weltschmerz going on.  People are sick of a kind of boredom and frustration.  Usually this is a prelude to big war.  People search for meaning in the strangest places.  Mr. Trump being one.

 

Well they should get off their backsides and do something about it then. The kettle don't boil by sitting looking at it.

 

Unfortunately I think this is the beginning of the end for Western civilisation. It's partly why I'm here. Somebody is going to need to pick up the pieces and it isn't going to be the hynotised sheep.

[Geof Nanto]

That's kind of where I was going with this.  But a bit deeper - I think there is weltschmerz going on.  People are sick of a kind of boredom and frustration.  Usually this is a prelude to big war.  People search for meaning in the strangest places.  

 

I've read that this was the feeling in Europe before the first world war. But large scale war in any conventional sense seems unlikely to me. People in different countries are too connected on an individual level via the web etc to succumb to the type of demonisation of a populations that's necessary to rouse support for war. The fragile area seems to me to be the world economy. We've dammed the flow of natural change in multiple ways and eventually something must give. This is the way of the Dao. 

 

Edit: There does seem to be a demonisation of governments in general. I don't know where this will lead. I've been reading Karl's intelligently written comments with interest for that reason. I suspect this demonisation - like all demonisation - is people denying their own shadow. 

Edited August 26, 2015 by Yueya

[Brian]

That's kind of where I was going with this.  But a bit deeper - I think there is weltschmerz going on.  People are sick of a kind of boredom and frustration.  Usually this is a prelude to big war.  People search for meaning in the strangest places.  Mr. Trump being one.

Trump says, albeit in an attention-seeking fashion, things than many people want to hear. He has the purse to be able to buck the establishment of the Republican Party and their influencers so he can go "unfiltered." It is unclear to me yet if he has genuinely embraced the positions he is verbalizing, or if he is sincere in his bid and is saying the things his research tells him resonates with the target audience, or if he is a calculating spoiler intending to split the vote to ensure a Democrat victory. Personally, I suspect the latter.

 

Sanders, on the other hand, is a dyed-in-the-wool old-school Marxist. He is totally sincere but unrealistic. Fortunately for him, much of the American voter base is unrealistic, too. As a result, he gains traction by advocating 100% taxes and promising lots of "free" stuff.

[Apech]

Trump says, albeit in an attention-seeking fashion, things than many people want to hear. He has the purse to be able to buck the establishment of the Republican Party and their influencers so he can go "unfiltered." It is unclear to me yet if he has genuinely embraced the positions he is verbalizing, or if he is sincere in his bid and is saying the things his research tells him resonates with the target audience, or if he is a calculating spoiler intending to split the vote to ensure a Democrat victory. Personally, I suspect the latter.

 

Sanders, on the other hand, is a dyed-in-the-wool old-school Marxist. He is totally sincere but unrealistic. Fortunately for him, much of the American voter base is unrealistic, too. As a result, he gains traction by advocating 100% taxes and promising lots of "free" stuff.

 

It's not so much who these people are ... what they are supposed to believe ... it's that the political tide is going into a kind of chaotic flux.  The mainstream parties are getting a kicking.  This throws up random people like Trump who not only cross party lines but tend to deconstruct the lines themselves.  I think this is the interesting thing - and is the same reason people are supporting old style socialists ... and its even more interesting that its happening both sides of the Atlantic.  Old orders break down - leading to temporary chaos - then a new order kicks in.

 

No matter what you think of socialism, sympathetic or no, how can it possibly present the right set of solutions to the problems of 2015 - 2020 and beyond.  It can't because it's very design was to address what was arising when Feudalism fell.   The very idea that people can and will come together in the way socialism predicts must now be something for the pages of history.  But that doesn't mean that people cannot think constructively about how to live in a way which seeks to give everyone a happy, fulfilled and creative life.  

[Marblehead]

There's a lot of optimism in there fella.

[Geof Nanto]

I'd call it faith in humanism rather than simply optimism. However, other than this, I very much like Apech's comment. For a critical appraisal of humanism from a perspective more akin to the non-anthropocentric thought of classical Daoism see.... http://thedaobums.com/topic/38675-language-we-trick-ourselves-with/?p=635426    and.....http://thedaobums.com/topic/38675-language-we-trick-ourselves-with/?p=631361

Edited August 26, 2015 by Yueya

[Karl]

It's not so much who these people are ... what they are supposed to believe ... it's that the political tide is going into a kind of chaotic flux.  The mainstream parties are getting a kicking.  This throws up random people like Trump who not only cross party lines but tend to deconstruct the lines themselves.  I think this is the interesting thing - and is the same reason people are supporting old style socialists ... and its even more interesting that its happening both sides of the Atlantic.  Old orders break down - leading to temporary chaos - then a new order kicks in.

 

No matter what you think of socialism, sympathetic or no, how can it possibly present the right set of solutions to the problems of 2015 - 2020 and beyond.  It can't because it's very design was to address what was arising when Feudalism fell.   The very idea that people can and will come together in the way socialism predicts must now be something for the pages of history.  But that doesn't mean that people cannot think constructively about how to live in a way which seeks to give everyone a happy, fulfilled and creative life.  

 

They should start living to their values and they won't be happy until they do. Any imposed 'order' is frozen chaos and not natural order. It only looks like order, but it's a poor sort full of legalised action against our own values, it's kind of like hell on earth. I think either it must come to an end, or we will come to an end. We don't need to organise a way to 'give' everyone happy, fulfilled and creative lives, because we already know how to do that. It doesn't need organisation because it's our nature.

[Apech]

They should start living to their values and they won't be happy until they do. Any imposed 'order' is frozen chaos and not natural order. It only looks like order, but it's a poor sort full of legalised action against our own values, it's kind of like hell on earth. I think either it must come to an end, or we will come to an end. We don't need to organise a way to 'give' everyone happy, fulfilled and creative lives, because we already know how to do that. It doesn't need organisation because it's our nature.

 

I'm not talking about imposed order - I'm talking about new way(s) of living which emerge to meet the conditions of our times.  Just as we were hunter gatherers, pastoralists, agriculturalists, feudalists and so on ... these things worked pro tem and only arose because of the conditions of the time.  Well the conditions have moved on from any pre-existing political models but there is a gap ... a kind ignorance in us because the establishment is doing everything it can to distract us from any new ideas.  Even environmentalism is a muddle.

[ralis]

 

 

Sanders, on the other hand, is a dyed-in-the-wool old-school Marxist. He is totally sincere but unrealistic. Fortunately for him, much of the American voter base is unrealistic, too. As a result, he gains traction by advocating 100% taxes and promising lots of "free" stuff.

 

Very broad generalization. 100% taxes? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Brian]

Very broad generalization. 100% taxes? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Only on those evil rich bastards who make/have too much anyhow...

[Apech]

Only on those evil rich bastards who make/have too much anyhow...

 

Oh stop it you two.

[Brian]

 

Oh stop it you two.

To be fair, he is only calling for 90%...

[Karl]

I'm not talking about imposed order - I'm talking about new way(s) of living which emerge to meet the conditions of our times.  Just as we were hunter gatherers, pastoralists, agriculturalists, feudalists and so on ... these things worked pro tem and only arose because of the conditions of the time.  Well the conditions have moved on from any pre-existing political models but there is a gap ... a kind ignorance in us because the establishment is doing everything it can to distract us from any new ideas.  Even environmentalism is a muddle.

 

I think the answer must be a distributed network. The family is the smallest unit of governed existence. Just like the Internet, things should be peer to peer without a central authority. It works well for any system and prevents major breakdowns compared to a one to many system.

[Apech]

I think the answer must be a distributed network. The family is the smallest unit of governed existence. Just like the Internet, things should be peer to peer without a central authority. It works well for any system and prevents major breakdowns compared to a one to many system.

 

Ah family values!  Can't we move on from there.  Especially as these days families ... as in married or otherwise stable partnerships are getting rarer and rarer.  And in any case when it was imperative (as in my parents day) that people remained together the inner tensions were palpable in most marriages.  Forget the family - the only real unit is the individual.

[Karl]

Ah family values!  Can't we move on from there.  Especially as these days families ... as in married or otherwise stable partnerships are getting rarer and rarer.  And in any case when it was imperative (as in my parents day) that people remained together the inner tensions were palpable in most marriages.  Forget the family - the only real unit is the individual.

 

It isn't what I meant. The family unit is the smallest 'governed' unit. My wife and I have a fantastic marriage/partnership. I'm not so sure it's as dead as you think and much of that is the results of poor selection and unobtainable standards. Anyway, I was saying that it should be no larger than a family unit. Village elders were fine in a community of a few hundred, but there can never be total representation when a few hundred are ruling several tens of millions. Government should be cut down then totally localised.

[Apech]

It isn't what I meant. The family unit is the smallest 'governed' unit. My wife and I have a fantastic marriage/partnership. I'm not so sure it's as dead as you think and much of that is the results of poor selection and unobtainable standards. Anyway, I was saying that it should be no larger than a family unit. Village elders were fine in a community of a few hundred, but there can never be total representation when a few hundred are ruling several tens of millions. Government should be cut down then totally localised.

 

 

No organisation at all at a macro level?

[ralis]

It isn't what I meant. The family unit is the smallest 'governed' unit. My wife and I have a fantastic marriage/partnership. I'm not so sure it's as dead as you think and much of that is the results of poor selection and unobtainable standards. Anyway, I was saying that it should be no larger than a family unit. Village elders were fine in a community of a few hundred, but there can never be total representation when a few hundred are ruling several tens of millions. Government should be cut down then totally localised.

 

Never going to happen! Dwindling resources, war, overpopulation, health issues and food shortages for many, are variables that must be considered. I presume you missed the real world which is beyond your family values ideology.

 

In your family unit, are you the supreme ruler?

[ralis]

No organisation at all at a macro level?

 

It seems that he is comfortable with chaos. I suppose each unit will have it's own military?