• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Socialist USA!

This guy and those that follow him are idiots but I love them because they piss Republicans off especially in here.

Good job :thumbsup:
 
Dang it.

I was hoping this was a Jack Van Impe thread about how Obama is the anti-Christ and will bring about the socialist New World Order.





--
 
Wait.. so he's saying we have a right to someone else's labor? What if they don't want to give it at the price that the government or he demands? I believe we've gone through that already.. it's called slavery.
 
Hacp said:
Hahah thats hilarious. Who's going to pay for all this? Is Obama going to print more money?
Click to expand...
The rich, who else?

Same old shit just a different era. This type of thinking rears its ugly head every so many decades. Young people are especially susceptible to this mindset. They don't have any true life experiences and aren't capable of making wise decisions.

There is a new wrinkle this time around though. Our top leaders fully embrace these ideologies. Interesting times right now. We are truly at a crossroads. We can continue on the path of a Republic bucking a world-wide trend, or we'll go down a darker path that has been tried many times before with a 100% failure rate.

It's all down to the health care bill. It's the crown jewel of Socialism. Control over an enormous percentage of the economy and full control over the populous. We'll know soon enough.
 
wiretap said:
Wait.. so he's saying we have a right to someone else's labor? What if they don't want to give it at the price that the government or he demands? I believe we've gone through that already.. it's called slavery.
Click to expand...

That's what the socialists will never understand: That the work product of one man can NEVER be the right of another. That's why not one single right in the Bill of Rights required the labor of another. Rights are individual, NOT collective. In a collective, there are NO rights. No freedom.
 
wiretap said:
Wait.. so he's saying we have a right to someone else's labor? What if they don't want to give it at the price that the government or he demands? I believe we've gone through that already.. it's called slavery.
Click to expand...

Not so much slavery as the new serfdom. We've already got a big part of it, with Government owning a significant part of your labor (and taking its share, like a feudal lord, off the top.) The problem is that not many of us would like to live in a society with absolutely no socialism. Imagine trying to arrange an interstate (or the Internet) or national defense. Such things have to take labor either directly or in the form of taxes. So the real question is not shall we have socialism, but rather how much socialism is enough, how much is too much, and how do we manage to stay within that range.
 
Amused said:
That's what the socialists will never understand: That the work product of one man can NEVER be the right of another.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance with regards to Socialist thought is astounding. You write as though you've never read any of the philosophy behind the various realms of Socialist ideals. Even the most ardent Libertarian Capitalist Rothbardians can respect the Socialist or Anarchist construct of wage labor and ownership of that labor (and Rothbardians simply pursue the same ideal with different means). I would say that the concept of the ownership of labor is a very central aspect in most Socialist thought. I would recommend you even conduct a rudimentary search for Mutualism, Left Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism, Georgism, Anarchism, Libertarian Capitalism (for their treatment of State Capitalism), or even Marxism.

The central theme behind much of Socialist thought is that the wage labor relationship is theft of labor by Capitalists instead of bureaucrats. The Rothbardians would say the same thing except they wouldn't call the Capitalists by that name. They would simply dismiss such a situation as "not Capitalism." Regardless, coercive relationships between capital and labor presents a problem in either economic paradigm.
 
BigDH01 said:
Your ignorance with regards to Socialist thought is astounding. You write as though you've never read any of the philosophy behind the various realms of Socialist ideals. Even the most ardent Libertarian Capitalist Rothbardians can respect the Socialist or Anarchist construct of wage labor and ownership of that labor (and Rothbardians simply pursue the same ideal with different means). I would say that the concept of the ownership of labor is a very central aspect in most Socialist thought. I would recommend you even conduct a rudimentary search for Mutualism, Left Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism, Georgism, Anarchism, Libertarian Capitalism (for their treatment of State Capitalism), or even Marxism.

The central theme behind much of Socialist thought is that the wage labor relationship is theft of labor by Capitalists instead of bureaucrats. The Rothbardians would say the same thing except they wouldn't call the Capitalists by that name. They would simply dismiss such a situation as "not Capitalism." Regardless, coercive relationships between capital and labor presents a problem in either economic paradigm.
Click to expand...

No matter how lofty the stated ideals, Socialism by any flavor must devolve into the government controlling means of production, or the production itself, rather than resource owners. And it's a lot easier to change your employer than to change your government. So the trick is balancing government's power with its socialist benefits. Quoting Socialist philosophers is just silly, as their philosophies break down when the commune has enough people to prevent social pressure from enforcing ethics. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" inevitably turns into "From each according to what the State demands, to each according to what the State wishes to allocate." A desire for a Socialist state usually means nothing more than "I want more."

The employer has work he wants done plus resources. The employee has needs and wants plus time and labor. The two agree on compensation for the work in question, and if either party isn't pleased, that party can walk away. That is the essence of justice and fairness.
 
Last edited:
BigDH01 said:
Your ignorance with regards to Socialist thought is astounding. You write as though you've never read any of the philosophy behind the various realms of Socialist ideals. Even the most ardent Libertarian Capitalist Rothbardians can respect the Socialist or Anarchist construct of wage labor and ownership of that labor (and Rothbardians simply pursue the same ideal with different means). I would say that the concept of the ownership of labor is a very central aspect in most Socialist thought. I would recommend you even conduct a rudimentary search for Mutualism, Left Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism, Georgism, Anarchism, Libertarian Capitalism (for their treatment of State Capitalism), or even Marxism.

The central theme behind much of Socialist thought is that the wage labor relationship is theft of labor by Capitalists instead of bureaucrats. The Rothbardians would say the same thing except they wouldn't call the Capitalists by that name. They would simply dismiss such a situation as "not Capitalism." Regardless, coercive relationships between capital and labor presents a problem in either economic paradigm.
Click to expand...

The very idea that private wage labor is theft is absurd on it's face.

Employment is a MUTUAL agreement. A worker can quit his job, and shop for higher wages, a serf/slave cannot.

In a collective, the individual owns NOTHING, not even his labor.

The ignorance is all on your side. You've been snowed.
 
Socialism = I want more, but I'm not going to take it from you. No, that's the government's job. No way in hell I'd expend the effort or risk to take it direct.
 
Last edited:
werepossum said:
No matter how lofty the stated ideals, Socialism by any flavor must devolve into the government controlling means of production, or the production itself, rather than resource owners. And it's a lot easier to change your employer than to change your government. So the trick is balancing government's power with its socialist benefits. Quoting Socialist philosophers is just silly, as their philosophies break down when the commune has enough people to prevent social pressure from enforcing ethics. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" inevitably turns into "From each according to what the State demands, to each according to what the State wishes to allocate." A desire for a Socialist state usually means nothing more than "I want more."
Click to expand...

Socialism must no more devolve into State Socialism than Capitalism into State Capitalism. And once you reach the latter of either, they can, for all intents and purposes, be labeled either Crony Capitalism or Lemon Socialism.

Why is it silly to quote Socialist thinkers? Many of them hated Stalin's version of authoritarian government control just as Rothbard hated our version of State Capitalism. And your idea of enforcing ethics would be better directed as a general critique of Libertarianism or Anarchism as both basically presume at least some degree of human "goodness."

The employer has work he wants done plus resources. The employee has needs and wants plus time and labor. The two agree on compensation for the work in question, and if either party isn't pleased, that party can walk away. That is the essence of justice and fairness.
Click to expand...

You assume that both parties have equal bargaining power. You also assume that the party with fewer resources has the opportunity to just walk away if they deem the arrangement unfair. There is plenty of history where there existed unlimited private ownership that shows us that voluntary transactions need not necessarily always be voluntary. There is more to coercion than simple aggressive force.
 
Amused said:
The very idea that private wage labor is theft is absurd on it's face.

Employment is a MUTUAL agreement. A worker can quit his job, and shop for higher wages, a serf/slave cannot.

In a collective, the individual owns NOTHING, not even his labor.

The ignorance is all on your side. You've been snowed.
Click to expand...

Ironically enough, serfdom is an illustration of the issue of unlimited private ownership. Often, free men were driven into serfdom due to bad harvest or other economic conditions. They basically sold their labor to lords in often very punitive ways. And their ownership of land was very limited and mostly superficial.

In other words, mutual agreement does not necessarily mean without coercion, nor does it always mean fair. There is a reason people like Thomas Jefferson promoted giving every free man a certain number of acres of arable land upon reaching a certain age. It meant that the landowner always had a means to support themselves and could not be coerced into labor (as was happening in France, a situation which influenced him). A person that always has the means to sustain themselves can only be enticed into labor (a strong theme in Right Libertarianism).

Your last line once again demonstrates your ignorance of many Socialist schools of thought, in this case in particular, Georgism. I don't know how I got "snowed" or what that even means.
 
BigDH01 said:
Socialism must no more devolve into State Socialism than Capitalism into State Capitalism. And once you reach the latter of either, they can, for all intents and purposes, be labeled either Crony Capitalism or Lemon Socialism.

Why is it silly to quote Socialist thinkers? Many of them hated Stalin's version of authoritarian government control just as Rothbard hated our version of State Capitalism. And your idea of enforcing ethics would be better directed as a general critique of Libertarianism or Anarchism as both basically presume at least some degree of human "goodness."



You assume that both parties have equal bargaining power. You also assume that the party with fewer resources has the opportunity to just walk away if they deem the arrangement unfair. There is plenty of history where there existed unlimited private ownership that shows us that voluntary transactions need not necessarily always be voluntary. There is more to coercion than simple aggressive force.
Click to expand...

Someone must control the means of production (or the production itself, which is the same thing.) Capitalism is decentralized control. Socialism is centralized control, whether a few people in a commune make decisions "for the good of all" or a government "for the good of all". You cannot just say "the people", there has to be some mechanism to actually exert control and that mechanism is thereby empowered - it MUST be empowered, else it cannot do its job.

The free market is necessarily always fair. If no resource owner will give you more than a chicken a day for your labor, your labor is worth a chicken a day. If a resource owner will give you a cow a day for your labor, your labor is worth a cow a day. Assuming that the party with fewer resources is free to walk away (i.e. is not unfree) then a voluntary transaction must indeed be voluntary. If I'd really like to have the cow but I need to take the chicken because my family is hungry, I have a greater need for the chicken than does the resource owner. That is the essence of a free market transaction, that both parties have something which the other values more - and it is inherently more fair than having some third party or external force set the value of my labor and his chicken. When we adopt socialism in whole or part, it is not in search of greater justice or fairness but in search of greater wealth at less expense or to provide a minimum return to those whose labor is worth nothing or at least less than we as a society judge acceptable.
 
BigDH01 said:
Ironically enough, serfdom is an illustration of the issue of unlimited private ownership. Often, free men were driven into serfdom due to bad harvest or other economic conditions. They basically sold their labor to lords in often very punitive ways. And their ownership of land was very limited and mostly superficial.

In other words, mutual agreement does not necessarily mean without coercion, nor does it always mean fair. There is a reason people like Thomas Jefferson promoted giving every free man a certain number of acres of arable land upon reaching a certain age. It meant that the landowner always had a means to support themselves and could not be coerced into labor (as was happening in France, a situation which influenced him). A person that always has the means to sustain themselves can only be enticed into labor (a strong theme in Right Libertarianism).

Your last line once again demonstrates your ignorance of many Socialist schools of thought, in this case in particular, Georgism. I don't know how I got "snowed" or what that even means.
Click to expand...

First off, "fair" is cutting off everybody's legs because the guy with no legs wants to play.

You cannot be "fair," and free.

Secondly, "coercion" is dependent on the individual, and not universal. Not all failed farmers, etc were coerced into labor, many have, and continue to start new lives and trades. I dare say any worker who finds them self coerced into labor is simple weak minded and a victim unto himself.

Socialism caters to the lowest common denominator, and limits everyone. Freedom rewards the highest common denominator and limits no one.

I'll take freedom, thank you.

BTW, you've been snowed because you have fallen for the Marxist line of bullshit that equates freedom with slavery. You've been told the sky is black and you bought it.
 
werepossum said:
Someone must control the means of production (or the production itself, which is the same thing.) Capitalism is decentralized control. Socialism is centralized control, whether a few people in a commune make decisions "for the good of all" or a government "for the good of all". You cannot just say "the people", there has to be some mechanism to actually exert control and that mechanism is thereby empowered - it MUST be empowered, else it cannot do its job.
Click to expand...

Centrally planned economies are not a requirement for Socialism. Many of the schools of thought I listed above are based in free market idealism and promote as much. And your second critique (that of control in the hands of the labor) is applicable to Capitalist associations as well. What is a corporation other than a small centrally planned economy? You simply change the means of control from labor to capital.

The free market is necessarily always fair. If no resource owner will give you more than a chicken a day for your labor, your labor is worth a chicken a day. If a resource owner will give you a cow a day for your labor, your labor is worth a cow a day. Assuming that the party with fewer resources is free to walk away (i.e. is not unfree) then a voluntary transaction must indeed be voluntary. If I'd really like to have the cow but I need to take the chicken because my family is hungry, I have a greater need for the chicken than does the resource owner. That is the essence of a free market transaction, that both parties have something which the other values more - and it is inherently more fair than having some third party or external force set the value of my labor and his chicken. When we adopt socialism in whole or part, it is not in search of greater justice or fairness but in search of greater wealth at less expense or to provide a minimum return to those whose labor is worth nothing or at least less than we as a society judge acceptable.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to reply to your explanation of a free market in light of the fact that I never promoted nor claimed the virtues of a large centrally planned economy, and neither did most of Socialist thought.
 
Amused said:
First off, "fair" is cutting off everybody's legs because the guy with no legs wants to play.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call that fair, and no where did I suggest it.

You cannot be "fair," and free.
Click to expand...

If we are throwing out hyperbole, you cannot have unlimited private ownership in a system that favors capital and retain freedom for labor.

Secondly, "coercion" is dependent on the individual, and not universal. Not all failed farmers, etc were coerced into labor, many have, and continue to start new lives and trades. I dare say any worker who finds them self coerced into labor is simple weak minded and a victim unto himself.
Click to expand...

So a person who is coerced into labor (and thereby had their transactional, along with possibly countless other freedoms robbed) deserves it?

History also shows us it's not just farmers. You can simply go look at the industrial revolution and the associated urbanism to find more of the same.

Socialism caters to the lowest common denominator, and limits everyone. Freedom rewards the highest common denominator and limits no one.
Click to expand...

Socialism, by definition, caters to labor.

I'll take freedom, thank you.
Click to expand...

And those who can't have it deserve not to have it.

BTW, you've been snowed because you have fallen for the Marxist line of bullshit that equates freedom with slavery. You've been told the sky is black and you bought it.
Click to expand...

I still don't know what snowed means and I'm by no means a Marxist. The fact that you still haven't at least even looked beyond this one school of thought tells me that you are intellectually dishonest or purposefully ignorant. The fact that you made the labor theft comment above tells me that you haven't even read Marx either.
 
Socialism is about getting you to work as a slave for good of the state. Because if you complain you will be sent to the death camps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top