Socialism does work

[ralis]

A rationalist believes reality is purely a concept derived from the mind. Your argument is a non sequitur. Reality is what is, that which exists and by which the senses provide precepts which are conceptualised and integrated. We have to conform with it or perish, it's as simple as that. Laissez Faire Capitalism conforms to reality and ethics guide our holding and obtaining values.

 

Your narrative contends that a single absolute reality exists and is perceived in the same way by everyone? I sincerely doubt that you can impose a standard in that one must perceive your version of reality.

 

In regards to your neoliberal economic authoritarian capitalist view, one example comes to mind. The British Empire was the ultimate capitalist exploiter of myriad countries that formed a bloated empire.Resources were stolen, indigenous people were slaughtered, harsh laws were instituted to maintain order and noncompliance was met with execution or prison. In sum the British eventually lost the empire due to their greed, overarching military exploitation and so forth. The same will most likely happen to the USA, given the level of exploitation at the present time.

 

My ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War that overthrew  the British monarchy's rule here in the US. So much for the power of capitalism and greed that the will of a few can defeat such insane aggression.

 

If your neoliberal capitalist views are so powerful, then why not rebuild your crumbled lost empire with capitalist exploitation.

 

I almost forgot to mention the British/English view of the 'Divine Right of Kings' which is no different than unfettered neoliberal capitalism, but serves a different god.

Edited March 14, 2016 by ralis

[Brian]

Absolute reality does not exist except in the mind of the Aristotelian rationalist. So called reality is just an abstraction created by the mind. So called good/evil excludes myriad other possibilities. Free market capitalism is just another scam.

If you believed what you say here, ralis, then you would also believe either that Trump is a figment of your own creation or you would believe that all the people you seek to save from Trump are independently responsible for the realities they create and it isn't your place to interfere with their karma.

 

Instead, you advocate for the system of government which executed, starved or sent to terminal work camps more than 200 million of its own populations in less than a century.

 

Why in the world should we consider you an honest broker on this topic?

 

No, seriously.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Brian

[ralis]

If you believed what you say here, ralis, then you would also believe either that Trump is a figment of your own creation or you would believe that all the people you seek to save from Trump are independently responsible for the realities they create and it isn't your place to interfere with their karma.

 

Instead, you advocate for the system of government which executed, starved or sent to terminal work camps more than 200 million of its own population in less than a century.

 

Why in the world should we consider you an honest broker on this topic?

 

No, seriously.

 

You completely twist and misunderstand what I wrote. Everyone has a slightly different view of reality and to say I would advocate for the work camps as you state is a complete fabrication and lie! I never even mentioned such a thing!.

[Karl]

Your narrative contends that a single absolute reality exists and is perceived in the same way by everyone? I sincerely doubt that you can impose a standard in that one must perceive your version of reality.

 

In regards to your neoliberal economic authoritarian capitalist view, one example comes to mind. The British Empire was the ultimate capitalist exploiter of myriad countries that formed a bloated empire.Resources were stolen, indigenous people were slaughtered, harsh laws were instituted to maintain order and noncompliance was met with execution or prison. In sum the British eventually lost the empire due to their greed, overarching military exploitation and so forth. The same will most likely happen to the USA, given the level of exploitation at the present time.

 

My ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War that overthrew the British monarchy's rule here in the US. So much for the power of capitalism and greed that the will of a few can defeat such insane aggression.

 

If your neoliberal capitalist views are so powerful, then why not rebuild your crumbled lost empire with capitalist exploitation.

 

I almost forgot to mention the British/English view of the 'Divine Right of Kings' which is no different than unfettered neoliberal capitalism, but serves a different god.

Existence exists, A is A and a thing is a thing.

 

We percieve things the same, but, as you are demonstrating quite ably, we don't necessarily conceptualise and integrate them the same way. That we employ reason does not make us omniscient, we are eminently capable of error as well as accuracy. Yet, it remains, that existence exists, A is A and a thing is a thing, regardless of our conceptions.

 

The only way we make sense of it and survive is by reason. The more accurately we reason the better the outcome. Irrationality leads to error. Error leads to failure. Until we accept that this is so, then we will be worshippers of one mystic whim after another leading to failure. I cannot impose any standard, that would be the antithesis of objectivism, all I can ask is that you attempt to correct your conceptual errors and see if what I'm saying is true.

 

I don't subscribe to a perfect kind of regime, economics, or the possibility of an error free existence. I'm saying that we must try to root our thoughts and actions in reality to the best of our ability. We must begin to recognise that this, and only this, will guide our ethics and the attainment of values-however imperfectly. It gives us, personally and individually, a code and a set of principles to follow.

 

This is why I no longer subscribe to being a libertarian, I recognise the same error exists as it does in communism, fascism and religion. They all deprive man of the power and freedom to reason by instituting a code which comes from an authority with no basis in reality. Just another kind of whim worship, however well meaning, it is doomed to exactly the same failure as any other forced code. We are going to have to agree not to trample on each other, steal or kill each other, not to compromise our ethics and to accept an objective and just law which is limited to upholding freedom and property rights. We are on our own and we had better realise that no man made regime, or God is going to save us. We will conform to reality or we will perish. There are no other options left on the field and reality is a harsh master.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

You completely twist and misunderstand what I wrote. Everyone has a slightly different view of reality and to say I would advocate for the work camps as you state is a complete fabrication and lie! I never even mentioned such a thing!.

 

It would lead towards it. You say you despise authoritarian principles and the violence which inevitably arises from their application. Yet, you cannot see the hypocrisy in your ideology which requires an authoritarian regime. You don't advocate freedom but oppression. You believe 'might makes right' and man must be made to conform to your ideology by force if they will not volunteer it.

[Marblehead]

Well, Cuba, a socialist country, has done fairly well for the past 50 years considering it has few natural resources.

[gatito]

<snip>

 

My ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War that overthrew  the British monarchy's rule here in the US. So much for the power of capitalism and greed that the will of a few can defeat such insane aggression.

 

<snip>

 

In fact, your ancestors were merely pawns in one of several Anglo-French wars: -

 

France played a key role in the American Revolutionary War (American War of Independence; 1775–1783). After the Americans captured a British army, France recognized and allied itself with them in 1778, declared war on Britain, provided money and matériel to arm the new republic, and sent an army to the United States. French intervention made a decisive contribution to the U.S. victory in the war.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

 

Se also: -

 

Anglo-French War (1778–83)

 

Do you even know where the Statue of Liberty originated?

 

How quickly you forget....

 

(Enjoy your Freedom Fries...)

 

[Marblehead]

(Enjoy your Freedom Fries...)

 

I still prefer French Fries.

[gatito]

I still prefer French Fries.

 

Moi aussi...

 

[Karl]

Well, Cuba, a socialist country, has done fairly well for the past 50 years considering it has few natural resources.

 

Are you playing devils advocate ?

Cuba received huge subsidies from the USSR and was still a country of extreme poverty. Since ending of the subsidies it began opening up its markets by allowing a small amount of laissez faire freedom, but it has been insufficient to cover the loss of subsidy.

[Marblehead]

Are you playing devils advocate ?

Yes.

[Brian]

Well, Cuba, a socialist country, has done fairly well for the past 50 years considering it has few natural resources.

Ask some if your Cuban neighbors about that and I think you will learn just the opposite...

[Marblehead]

Cuba received huge subsidies from the USSR and was still a country of extreme poverty. Since ending of the subsidies it began opening up its markets by allowing a small amount of laissez faire freedom, but it has been insufficient to cover the loss of subsidy.

I did say "fairly well".  But the points you made are valid.

 

Most European countries have been trading with Cuba for a number of years as well as most countries in the Americas.

 

Socialism, because of its nature, does not generate much disposable wealth.  Therefore the need for a mixture of Socialism and Capitalism.

[Marblehead]

Ask some if your Cuban neighbors about that and I think you will learn just the opposite...

 

No, we need to look at the "Big Picture" here, not individual experiences of those who left the country.  Those who left will make up all sorts of stories as to why they left.

[Karl]

I did say "fairly well". But the points you made are valid.

 

Most European countries have been trading with Cuba for a number of years as well as most countries in the Americas.

 

Socialism, because of its nature, does not generate much disposable wealth. Therefore the need for a mixture of Socialism and Capitalism.

That's how we got the current state of affairs. Capitalism with heavy Government regulation eventually becomes regulatory capture and then crony capitalism. Socialism then turns into serfdom. There are no ways around it. Socialism does not conform with reality. It's evil because it is anti-life. Any attempt to yoke capitalism to socialist aims inevitably creates the conditions for facism to flourish-which is just another kind of collectivism. You can't take 'just a bit of deadly poison' or introduce 'just a bit of cancer'. Damage is damage. Anything that promotes the value of life is good, anything that doesn't is bad.

 

I could work through the philosophical reasons why socialism is anti-life because it isn't immediately obvious how I reached that conclusion-other than the obvious historical truths. We are simply better never to introduce socialism in any form, no matter how well we think we might minimise it's effect. Eventually it will mestastisize into one of the two most destructive forms.

 

We should never trade with any socialist, or fascist countries. One reason the USSR lasted so long was the Wests inability to withhold trade.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Well, shit, Karl.  You sure are making it difficult for me to support my point and still remain honest to my own beliefs.

That's how we got the current state of affairs. Capitalism with heavy Government regulation eventually becomes regulatory capture and then crony capitalism. Socialism then turns into serfdom. There are no ways around it. Socialism does not conform with reality. It's evil because it is anti-life. Any attempt to yoke capitalism to socialist aims inevitably creates the conditions for facism to flourish-which is just another kind of collectivism. You can't take 'just a bit of deadly poison' or introduce 'just a bit of cancer'. Damage is damage. Anything that promotes the value of life is good, anything that doesn't is bad.

I have always supported socialized education and health care.  Beyond that I call it "welfare".

 

True that socialism requires even more government regulation than does capitalism.

 

And I will agree with you that socialism is rarely seen in nature outside that of the human animal.  But then, I could mention bees and ants - they are pure social systems and they do work very well.  But they disallow free will so I personally wouldn't care for that form of existence.

 

I could work through the philosophical reasons why socialism is anti-life because it isn't immediately obvious how I reached that conclusion-other than the obvious historical truths. We are simply better never to introduce socialism in any form, no matter how well we think we might minimise it's effect. Eventually it will mestastisize into one of the two most destructive forms.

Please don't because I would have to retort with talking about ants and bees.  (So much for absolutes.)

 

We should never trade with any socialist, or fascist countries. One reason the USSR lasted so long was the Wests inability to withhold trade.

I will suggest that socialism has not worked too well so far is because of mis-management, not because it is a non-functional system.

 

A balanced mixture of socialism and capitalism could be a very effective means of governing the people.  This would require a progressive taxation system and a stream-lined government administration.  But man normally operates from extremes and this will always screw things up.

[Karl]

Laissez Faire capitalism requires and warrants no regulation. That's why it's called Laissez Faire. It's the freedom for people to trade as they like without external interference other than the law preventing the initiation of force.

 

Bees and Ants are automatic entities, humans are not. It is not our nature. Our survival is dependent on us holding life as a value by choice. We must use reason as the tool of our survival. Anything which promotes life is good and anything that destroys life is evil.

 

You should turn away from socialised health and education if you are rational and hold life as a clear value.

 

Socialism can't work. Man is not a bee. He must think long term and rationally, he must hold life as the primary value. Socialism denies all three. If mans mind is the key to his survival and happiness, then denying a man physical freedom denies him his mind. Socialism is a collectivist movement. It denies identity, hence it denies existence.

 

Those that wish to indulge their whims and live as bees and ants, I say good luck to them. Fuck off somewhere and build a nest of twigs and spit, but leave men alone to be men.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Karl

[Brian]

No, we need to look at the "Big Picture" here, not individual experiences of those who left the country.  Those who left will make up all sorts of stories as to why they left.

Please do! You will find that many citizens buy food for their families off the black market because government rations are insufficient, and they buy it with food from their unofficial black market jobs because the standard pay for their do-nothing official jobs is inadequate (zero unemployment in Cuba, you see, because everyone is assigned a job). You will find that farmers pull their old 1940s & '50s pickup trucks with cows because they haven't run in years -- the cool old 1950s American cars the media likes to show are not collector's cars -- they are their only options and they are fortunate to be able to keep them running.

 

You will find that Cuba is second only to China in the number of imprisoned journalists -- this is really something since the entire journalism trade was executed in the late '50s and early '60s. In fact, that butcher Ernesto "Che" Guevara (known to the Cubans who survived as "El Muerto") killed many with his own pistol.

 

The USSR subsidized Cuba with billions of dollars worth of cash and supplies each year until it collapsed. Several other communist nations helped to make up the slack for the next few years until Hugo Chavez took over -- until Venezuela collapsed (see a pattern here?) It's not that Cuba lacks the resources to be productive -- it was one of the jewels of the Caribbean prior to the revolution. Cuba has oil and nickel and cobalt, fertile soil, plenty of rain, rich biodiversity and abundant seafood off the coast. The problem is oppressive management.

 

The total population is just over 11 million and estimates are that between 30,000 and 80,000 have drown trying to escape. The number of Cubans arriving in the US is roughly the same as the number from all the rest of the Caribbean combined. In fact, in the '90s, the US started issuing 20,000 visas a year to allow the Cuban government to start handing them out to unwanted citizens they would otherwise have let get on boats. (The Cuban military lets undesirables leave but attempts to stop anyone they consider a productive asset from doing so.

 

Cuba is considered on par with North Korea in terms of censorship. The only political party is the Communist Party (by law) and the Party controls content in all the newspapers (one of which only publishes news of the Castro brothers) and runs all the nation's TV stations. Internet access is almost nonexistent and is controlled by the "Department of Revolutionary Orientation" (yes, really). A government-run intranet of sorts is operated by the state communications agency and is essentially an internal wiki site (called EcuRed). All e-mail is screened by the government.

 

Take a look at the listing of nations by wealth distribution and income inequality -- oh, wait! Cuba doesn't report those numbers (or lots of other things, like prisoner information -- but we do know that they have 90 official prisons and at least 200 work camps). A 2013 Reuter's article about the relaxing of trade in Cuba (Cubans would be allow to start buying imports at an effective 24:1 markup due to exchange rates between the internal and external value of the currency) included a doctor lamenting about how he wouldn't be able afford to by a moped because it was four months' salary. From this, it seems safe to extrapolate that it is more a case of distribution of poverty than distribution of wealth.

 

I could continue -- or you could research it for yourself -- but I doubt the former would make any difference and doubt the latter will happen.

 

Let's just say that Cuba ain't a bed of roses or people wouldn't be willing to launch their families into shark-infested waters in hope of escaping. The direction people want to migrate is a telling indicator, you know.

[Brian]

<snip>

I will suggest that socialism has not worked too well so far is because of mis-management, not because it is a non-functional system.

<snip>

By their fruits...

 

Point to one example in history of a collectivist state not collapsing in chaos & atrocity after it has run through the treasury established by hard-working generations and I'll point to a dozen that have. Actually, just point to one example!

[ralis]

It would lead towards it. You say you despise authoritarian principles and the violence which inevitably arises from their application. Yet, you cannot see the hypocrisy in your ideology which requires an authoritarian regime. You don't advocate freedom but oppression. You believe 'might makes right' and man must be made to conform to your ideology by force if they will not volunteer it.

 

Where did you learn to read? Brian twisted what I wrote by proceeding from an incorrect conclusion and you posit the same nonsense. Further, you state falsehoods out of thin air without one word that I stated that would back up your false narrative against me.

[Marblehead]

Laissez Faire capitalism requires and warrants no regulation. That's why it's called Laissez Faire. It's the freedom for people to trade as they like without external interference other than the law preventing the initiation of force.

But man, being the animal it is, is naturally greedy and very selfish.  Man will do anything in order to get the upper hand including enslaving other men (and women).  This is why Laissez Faire capitalism must be regulated - the need for government.

 

Man enslaves children to be sold as sexual slaves.  That's unregulated Laissez Faire capitalism.  And yes, it still happens even with all the regulations.  Man is no better than the animals species that cannibalize of their own kind.

 

Bees and Ants are automatic entities, humans are not. It is not our nature. Our survival is dependent on us holding life as a value by choice. We must use reason as the tool of our survival. Anything which promotes life is good and anything that destroys life is evil.

While what you say is true it seems that we are not practicing that very well if we consider all the wars going on thoday and throughout the history of man.  Seems that only greed and desires are the concerns of man.

 

You should turn away from socialised health and education if you are rational and hold life as a clear value.

No.  I could never do that.  These two are main reasons why there is so much inequality between men.

 

Socialism can't work. Man is not a bee. He must think long term and rationally, he must hold life as the primary value. Socialism denies all three. If mans mind is the key to his survival and happiness, then denying a man physical freedom denies him his mind. Socialism is a collectivist movement. It denies identity, hence it denies existence.

For man, my observations are that there is little thought concerning long term results of their actions.

 

Rational thought?  You gotta' be joking.  Look at the world today.  Where's the rationality?

 

I would agree with you if you said Communism denies all three but I won't agree that socialism does.

 

No, you are looking at the negative extremes of socialism.  It does not deny identity or existence. 

 

Those that wish to indulge their whims and live as bees and ants, I say good luck to them. Fuck off somewhere and build a nest of twigs and spit, but leave men alone to be men.

Were it not for the bees man would not be able to sustain itself.  Base food sources would be depleted and the entire food chain would be destroyed.

 

Ants recycle nature's resources.  Vultures are a very important part of the Earth's ecology.

 

Socialism allows for the care of those who are unable to care for themselves as well as insuring the elderly are allowed to age and greet death with dignity.  Capitalism does not, in the most part.

 

Socialism respects the life of all men (and women and children); capitalism does not.

[Marblehead]

Please do!

 

...

 

Let's just say that Cuba ain't a bed of roses or people wouldn't be willing to launch their families into shark-infested waters in hope of escaping. The direction people want to migrate is a telling indicator, you know.

I never said it was a bed of roses.

 

And I already stated that Cuba does not have many natural resources

 

And I already mentioned that most Socialist systems work poorly because of mis-management by the government.

 

Well, of course there would be the desire to move to an area of the planet where one could become more self-sufficient.  (But most of that is rooted in greed and desires.)

 

And Cubans coming to the USA is nothing compared to the Arabs going to Europe.  And none of those Arab countries they are leaving are socialist countries.

[ralis]

There is a difference between communism and socialism as a few in this thread don't seem to grasp.

 

Examples of socialism here in the USA;

 

Public streets and highways which includes the interstate system.

 

National parks and national forests.

 

Social Security.

 

Medicare and Medicaid.

 

The US military.

 

All other commons which include city parks, lakes and other places for public recreation.

 

Rivers.

 

Most state and local governments have public utilities.

 

Senator Ted Cruz is proposing selling off or returning public lands to the control of states. What if the Grand Canyon was sold to some private investor or corporation?

 

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by ralis

[zerostao]

That's how we got the current state of affairs. Capitalism with heavy Government regulation eventually becomes regulatory capture and then crony capitalism. Socialism then turns into serfdom. There are no ways around it. Socialism does not conform with reality. It's evil because it is anti-life. Any attempt to yoke capitalism to socialist aims inevitably creates the conditions for facism to flourish-which is just another kind of collectivism. You can't take 'just a bit of deadly poison' or introduce 'just a bit of cancer'. Damage is damage. Anything that promotes the value of life is good, anything that doesn't is bad.

 

I could work through the philosophical reasons why socialism is anti-life because it isn't immediately obvious how I reached that conclusion-other than the obvious historical truths. We are simply better never to introduce socialism in any form, no matter how well we think we might minimise it's effect. Eventually it will mestastisize into one of the two most destructive forms.

 

We should never trade with any socialist, or fascist countries. One reason the USSR lasted so long was the Wests inability to withhold trade.

laisez faires having trade emabargo?? and other restrictions

this thread has it all

[zerostao]

There is a difference between communism and socialism as a few in this thread don't seem to grasp.

 

Examples of socialism here in the USA;

 

Public streets and highways which includes the interstate system.

 

National parks and national forests.

 

Social Security.

 

Medicare and Medicaid.

 

The US military.

 

All other commons which include city parks, lakes and other places for public recreation.

 

Rivers.

 

Most state and local governments have public utilities.

 

Senator Ted Cruz is proposing selling off or returning public lands to the control of states. What if the Grand Canyon was sold to some private investor or corporation?

 

 

raphael ted 'trusted' cruz is one the enlightened cubans brain is probably referring to

marco is another