First GOP Debate!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-08-2015, 11:13 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(15-08-2015 07:46 AM)Alla Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 11:59 PM)Cosmic Discourse Wrote:  Here's an example:
Let's say you and I were both graduating from high school next semester. We live in different neighborhoods, but in the same city. We both went to public high schools for our general education. Now, let's say you lived in a more affluent neighborhood than I did. Typically in America, odds are your chances of receiving the better education and greater number of high paying employment opportunities will outnumber mine.

While this isn't always the case, it occurs more than it should. As a country it greatly reduces our chances of competing on a global scale, since the best talent doesn't always get the opportunity to rise to the top. In that example, if I was given the identical educational experience you had, it increases the odds of us fairly competing against one another in the job market.
OK, I understand it better.
1)So, what is the solution? To make poor people more rich? or to make rich people more poor.
2)How?
To be honest, there isn't a one size fits all solution to this problem. It's something that would be handled better, if we had thoroughly agreed upon national standards. But getting modern GOP politicians to focus on the issues, instead of the fodder and talking points is a lost cause.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cosmic Discourse's post
15-08-2015, 11:15 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(15-08-2015 10:44 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 10:32 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  American misunderstanding (thanks to a lot of capitalist propaganda over decades) of what socialism is/entails always blows me away. What happened in the Soviet bloc countries was not socialism or communism, even though it was called it. It was a theocracy of Leninism, which succeeded as all religion-based governments do: by executing those who stood in its way (see, e.g., Trotsky). Making false equivalences helps no one, and you should really stop, Alla. Especially since you should know better.


Don't have books with me so I can not consult them. But why thing that happened behind Iron Curtain can not be called socialism? There was governmental ownership of means of production and if I remember right unequal pay. Goods certainly weren't distributed equal.

Indeed marxism-leninism was religion, though it used not only terror but genuine enthusiasm and subterfuge. I'm curious though why you mention Trotsky? He was victim yes, but far from blameless. His death wasn't tragedy, I think he got what he deserved.

EK already covered what I'd say about the difference between actual socialism/communism (as in Marxist theory) and what we observed in the Soviet Empire. It was a joke, and a bad one. That "the right not to be arrested" bit is dead-accurate. There was no power to the people, which robs the Soviet state of the entire goal of what it claimed to be. Since the issue here is "sharing = socialism", I think the Soviets failed completely on that level. Just like in Capitalism, all the "sharing" was upward.

As for Trotsky, I cited him as an example of "someone who disagreed with Lenin (god) and had to be removed", not because he was a saint and/or didn't have it coming to him.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
15-08-2015, 11:24 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(15-08-2015 11:15 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  EK already covered what I'd say about the difference between actual socialism/communism (as in Marxist theory) and what we observed in the Soviet Empire. It was a joke, and a bad one. That "the right not to be arrested" bit is dead-accurate. There was no power to the people, which robs the Soviet state of the entire goal of what it claimed to be. Since the issue here is "sharing = socialism", I think the Soviets failed completely on that level. Just like in Capitalism, all the "sharing" was upward.

Communism is utopia. Definition of socialism (which I supplied) though fit with what happened in USSR. Pay was unequal as was distribution of goods. Means of production were owned by gov.

You could disagree of course, but to be honest to me it looks like trying to absolve socialism of sins of the past.

(15-08-2015 11:15 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  As for Trotsky, I cited him as an example of "someone who disagreed with Lenin (god) and had to be removed", not because he was a saint and/or didn't have it coming to him.

Again don't have books but what killed Trotsky was rather his disagreement with Stalin not Lenin.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 11:27 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(15-08-2015 10:32 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ......
1)I read your post carefully and slowly.
2)I am not against helping poor or sharing. But I am against of doing it wrong way.

Let me show you example of right way of helping the poor and wrong way of helping the poor
Right way - I help the poor to learn how to catch fish. While he is learning I share with him some money so he can pay his bills and have food on the table. I want him to become more self-reliant.
Wrong way: I supply the poor with fish all the time so he doesn't die. He will never become self-reliant.

I love socialism idea. It s great and noble idea. But this is why it doesn't work
By giving most of my money to bureaucrat I have to trust that he is honest, not greedy, smart enough.
So, knowing human nature and seeing corruption in Washington D.C., and waste of tax payers money why would I want to give more? why would I want to pay more taxes?

capitalism helps me to grow, to be more rich and to help others to become more self-reliant.
socialism takes this away from me. Socialist bureaucrats tell me that they are smarter than me, they know better how to share my money. So, I have to trust them.
Meanwhile, socialists bureaucrats become richer and richer, I become poorer and poorer.
I saw it in the Soviet Union. My husband saw it in El Salvador. Socialist terrorists(leaders) were telling the poor to hate rich and made those poor pendejos/ estupidos to loose their lives while they(leadres socilaists) started to build their mansions and live in luxury.
This is why I reject socialists. This is why I will never vote for Democrats. Especially radical Democrats. I don't hate them, I reject them.
But my Latino husband hates them(Dems).

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 11:29 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(15-08-2015 11:13 AM)Cosmic Discourse Wrote:  To be honest, there isn't a one size fits all solution to this problem. It's something that would be handled better, if we had thoroughly agreed upon national standards. But getting modern GOP politicians to focus on the issues, instead of the fodder and talking points is a lost cause.
I agree with you.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 11:29 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(15-08-2015 11:10 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 11:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Did the people have a say in what was done with the means of production? No, they just swapped out one powerful elite (czars and nobility) for another (the communist party). So the means of production were hardly 'collective' in comparison to how things operated before. If you count the U.S.S.R. as being socialist, then so was serfdom in medieval Europe when all of the means of production were controlled by the landed nobility and monarchies.

So you don't agree with definition I supplied? No problem as I don't agree with yours. Saying it wasn't socialism doesn't mean it was something else.

There is no need of people having something to say as (according to definition I supplied) it's about gov control over means of production and distribution.

Let's say that medieval Europe was socialist. So what? It make USSR less socialist?

My point is, that your definition is so vague as to be unhelpful. When feudalism, the oligarchy of the U.S.S.R., and Denmark are all 'socialist', the term has little descriptive power or meaning.

It can also be argued that the U.S.S.R. was a form of state capitalism.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 11:31 AM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2015 11:39 AM by DLJ.)
RE: First GOP Debate!
(15-08-2015 11:24 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  ...
Again don't have books but what killed Trotsky was rather his disagreement with Stalin not Lenin.

... and I thought it was an ice-pick.




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(15-08-2015 11:02 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Neither Marx nor Lenin considered their creation to be religion so I suppose their only answer to you would be laugh.
You don't know what they considered.
If they didn't consider they were wrong.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 11:39 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(15-08-2015 11:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  My point is, that your definition is so vague as to be unhelpful. When feudalism, the oligarchy of the U.S.S.R., and Denmark are all 'socialist', the term has little descriptive power or meaning.

But when USSR isn't socialist it's look like true scotsman fallacy - no true socialist would do that yet USSR did, ergo USSR wasn't socialist.

I think we could agree to disagree on this topic.

(15-08-2015 11:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It can also be argued that the U.S.S.R. was a form of state capitalism.

Sure. I heard about this, but I didn't yet read book containing such thesis.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2015, 11:43 AM
RE: First GOP Debate!
(15-08-2015 11:37 AM)Alla Wrote:  
(15-08-2015 11:02 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Neither Marx nor Lenin considered their creation to be religion so I suppose their only answer to you would be laugh.
You don't know what they considered.
If they didn't consider they were wrong.

I do not claim to be an expert but I've never seen book written by serious scholar which said that Marx or Lenin considered their creations to be religion.

So you could stop your nonsense. Or show some credible source that will tell that Marx or Lenin considered their ideas to be religion.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: