Hey Conservatives. Wanna feel uncomfortable?

Well, most folk, even political opposites, usually agree on *something*.
And when it's something as obvious as that, I suppose it's not a huge surprise.
 
So he disagreed in 2008, and now in 2014, he finally agrees that I was right
 
metalman said:
So he disagreed in 2008, and now in 2014, he finally agrees that I was right
Click to expand...
No, you are just really late to the party. This is stuff that Noam has been talking about for more than 30 years. Every president has played their part in it and he's been critical of all of them. The difference between you and Noam is that when one of your team is wrecking the country you think it's a good thing.

From 2008:
While he doesn't talk specifically talk about the destruction of civil liberties but he wasn't full of "hope and change" at the outset of the Obama government.
 
Let me know when Chomsky finally figures out socialism doesn't work

"telos"

The telos of socialism is Utopia, which is incompatible with human nature.

Socialism will never create the "New Moral Man" in a socialist Utopia. Selfishness will always be here, greed will always be here, there will always be sociopaths, messing up all your tidy socialist plans to make Heaven on Earth.

Socialist Atheism is a spiritual religion. Stalin sent a lot of revolutionaries, who were entirely unselfish and driven by the highest ideals, to the gulags.
 
metalman said:
"telos"

The telos of socialism is Utopia, which is incompatible with human nature.
Click to expand...
The "telos" of socialism is society which is quintessential human nature.

Socialism will never create the "New Moral Man" in a socialist Utopia.
Click to expand...
But it REQUIRES a new moral man, a man that has the morality espoused by Christ. Do not ignore the beam in your own eye, judge not lest ye be judged, do thee unto others as ye would have done unto you.

Selfishness will always be here, greed will always be here,
Click to expand...
and they will always be sins.

Stalin sent a lot of revolutionaries, who were entirely unselfish and driven by the highest ideals, to the gulags.
Click to expand...
Stalin wasn't a socialist. He was a Stalinist.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Stalin wasn't a socialist. He was a Stalinist.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it was the centralized power that allowed him to etch his name in the bowels of history. Those who hate socialism hate it because it concentrates power, which from what I can tell, you don't care for either. The other extreme would be anarchy, where everyone is his own personal Stalin, but not everyone wants to be Stalin and most actually would rather follow a strong leader than be one - so that won't do either. So we need something in between that can make everyone equally unhappy. Removing greed and selfishness from the human race is not possible nor should we ever try to do so, so what we need to do is to make it work for us or at least to deal with it. It's ok to always want to win, I have no problems with that, but when you start paying off the refs then there are serious problems for everyone.
 
Glaucus said:
Those who hate socialism hate it because it concentrates power...
Click to expand...

Then, to coin a term you seem quite fond of, they're fucking idiots.
Socialism doesn't have to concentrate power, anymore than any other form of society.
 
Glaucus said:
Those who hate socialism hate it because it concentrates power,
Click to expand...
Socialism itself doesn't concentrate power. In fact, once you get a true concentration of power you don't really have socialism any more.
 
Glaucus said:
The other extreme would be anarchy, where everyone is his own personal Stalin
Click to expand...
Wow. That's not really what anarchy is either. Anarchy is merely self rule or an emergent order from everyone taking responsibility for running society.
 
Glaucus said:
It's ok to always want to win, I have no problems with that, but when you start paying off the refs then there are serious problems for everyone.
Click to expand...

Welcome to what we call capitalism, what some would call crony capitalism but what people a hundred years ago would have called gangsterism and corruption. Stalinism wasn't socialism or communism, it was "crony communism".

It doesn't really matter what ism you dress it up in, Stalin ran his country the way the Koch brothers run theirs, and the Tzar ran his and Mafia Dons run theirs. It's all about who can grease whom. It's all about who has resources and who they will share them with to get more (and with that more power). It doesn't matter if you do that by capitalist means or "government" means or shake downs and plain brown envelopes.
 
Robert said:
Then, to coin a term you seem quite fond of, they're fucking idiots.
Socialism doesn't have to concentrate power, anymore than any other form of society.
Click to expand...
Well, there are in fact various forms of socialism, theoretically and practically. However, the only significant practical examples are socialist governments. There's also the issue that what academics call socialism may not fully agree with politicians who declare themselves to be socialist, but that's a normal problem for academia in general.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Wow. That's not really what anarchy is either. Anarchy is merely self rule or an emergent order from everyone taking responsibility for running society.
Click to expand...
Well that's why I was careful to say "personal" Stalin, a ruler of the self. Also, not implying people would wish to self punish or exterminate like Stalin did to his own citizens, but any masochistic self mutilation would certainly be within their power.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to define anarchy but merely state that not everyone wants to self rule or wishes to take a responsible part in running society. There are a great many who would much rather others do that for them.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
But it REQUIRES a new moral man, a man that has the morality espoused by Christ. Do not ignore the beam in your own eye, judge not lest ye be judged, do thee unto others as ye would have done unto you.
Click to expand...

for 2000 years Christians have been working on teaching that "help thy fellow man" morality

the ONLY examples of long term working socialist organizations holding to socialist ideals are the religious orders, but they spend a lot of time praying to the spirit god, and take a vow of poverty, and they really emphasize the ideals of "help thy fellow man" morality

FluffyMcDeath said:
and they will always be sins.
Click to expand...
the 7 deadly sins are wrath, avarice, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.
They are not mortal sins, merely venial

FluffyMcDeath said:
Stalin wasn't a socialist. He was a Stalinist.
Click to expand...

Stalinism = Socialism in One Country
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Welcome to what we call capitalism, what some would call crony capitalism but what people a hundred years ago would have called gangsterism and corruption. Stalinism wasn't socialism or communism, it was "crony communism".
Click to expand...

Cronyism is not capitalism, it is due to the power of government regulations and politics, the money flows to those who hold the power to regulate. Why are taxi medallions so valuable ? because they limit competition
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
Socialism doesn't have to concentrate power, anymore than any other form of society.
Click to expand...

free markets function through individual voluntary exchange within an often chaotic decentralized market

Socialism enables selfless government officials to create order through centralized planning. The socialist paradise requires a concentration of all transactions into a single monopoly market, enforced by the force of government.

Socialism works where angels govern men

Joseph Stalin was a seminary student, who left his studies for the higher calling of "scientific socialism"
 
Last edited:
metalman said:
free markets function through individual voluntary exchange within a decentralized market
Click to expand...
Free markets DON'T function unless there is an effective referee. Completely unregulated markets self destruct as capital is repeatedly concentrated by the winners. The goal of monopoly is to own everything but imagine what the game would be like if, instead of packing it back in the box after someone won you were forced to keep on playing. There's no point. You need to pack up all the money and hotels and cards and then start over with everyone on an equal footing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top