NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings!

With the elections coming up shortly, many of you are probably highly involved in politics, in support of your preferred candidates. Yet, the media only pronounces the existence of two political parties in the United States, the Republicans and the Democrats (shut up about Nader). I must contend that both of the aforementioned parties are insufficient for society, and quite evil. The republicans support uninhibited capitalism, taxcuts for the wealthy, pollution, questionable religious agendas, and racism. The democrats support Israeli lobbyists, corporate special interest groups, and disenfranchised lower classes.
Ridiculing parties is too vague, let's try the candidates. George W. Bush, a name that is now synonomous with stupidity and arrogance, is the biggest disgrace to popular politics since Prince Mishkin. He shamelessly exploits the 9/11 tragedy to his own political advantage, wages unnecessary war, and has negligent environmental policy. Since George W. Bush's flaws are self-evident, let's look at John F. Kerry.
Kerry feigns to be "humble" and "representative of the working class." LIES! John Kerry is in possession of an extensive elitist background. Oddly enough, the Kerry campaign never mentions the $750,000 speed boat that Kerry purchased in cash, or the ski house he owns in Aspen. Not only is Kerry a mountebank, he is malicious. He voted in favor of the Patriot Act, an act which severely violates the civil rights and basic freedoms of Americans. He voted in favor of NAFTA (the north american free trade agreement), an act which simply benefits large corporations, while further impoverishing the working classes. In addition to this demented medley of tyranny, Kerry supported Welfare Reform, an act which ended welfare entitlement for poor children in the United States and simply exacerbated child poverty (which is now at 18 percent).
As you can see, both candidates are equally deceptive, malevolent, and disingenuous. Socialism (not stalinism, the USSR, China, and Cuba are NOT Socialist) will eradicate the tyranny that we know as capitalism, and insure liberties not only for the priviledged, but also the unpriviledged. Under Socialism, health care is universal and FREE, Education (primary, middle, high school, universities, etc.) are all spectacular and FREE, freedoms are uninhibited, Pacifism guides foreign policy-not spite, racism is non-existent, sexism is non-existent. Might I also add, under Socialism people are truly allowed to emphasize democracy! The American system utilizes the electoral college, which as we saw in the 2000 election, is not always truly indicative of a popular vote. Leon Trotsky once said this of socialism:"Democracy is to socialism what air is to the human body." The choice is obvious, if you wish to free yourself from a system corrupted and manipulated by corporate interest...support socialism!

bump

Come on people! Argue in favor of your political views, comment...

I dont buy it.

Many countries that are not 'socialist' dont have the problems that you claim would be solved by the US becoming a 'socialist' country, so if countries dont have to be 'socialist' to not have these problems, then clearly 'not being socialist' isnt the cause ergo 'becoming socialist' is not the only solution to the problems cited if it is in fact a solution to them at all. Proving that problems can occur under a system of governance doesnt prove that the system is causative of those problems.

Besides which, Socialism has a distinct history of leading to authoritarianism, which, to me, = bad. Therefore, switching to a system of government notorious for causing economic doldrums in nations that utilize it really doesn't seem like such a great idea. After all, government handouts have never solved anything.

Here is a high quality retort. With large amounts of what I have worked hard to find to be truth.

-First off, I am not a fan of either party, but you are mad to assume that -socialists have any chance of anything at all in this election. And I do -believe that these two parties take a flawed view of the issues, but I don't -like what you are trying to get at.
-
-Your post was riddled with dogmatic twists, and assumptions, which in -empirical study are wrong. You often bring up what truthfully aren't factual -statements, but propagandistic quotes.

With the elections coming up shortly, many of you are probably highly involved in politics, in support of your preferred candidates. Yet, the media only pronounces the existence of two political parties in the United States, the Republicans and the Democrats (shut up about Nader).

-No disagreements here

I must contend that both of the aforementioned parties are insufficient for society, and quite evil.

-Agree with the insufficiency, but contest the evil, neither party is evil. They -may be wrong, but wrongness doesn't make an opinion any less valid. Free -speech relies on this very heavily.

The republicans support uninhibited capitalism, taxcuts for the wealthy, pollution, questionable religious agendas, and racism.

-Several flaws on several levels here. You automatically assume that taxcuts -and uninhibited capitalism are wrong, something I would contest. Meanwhile, -I go deeper as to whether the republicans actually do support these things.
-1. Uninhibted Cap.: Definitely not. The republicans definitely restrain - corporations. They impose environmental controls, they protect minimum - wage laws (something inherently wrong, but I'll talk about that later), they - aid in the breaking of monopolies and all sorts of things.
-2. Taxcuts for the wealthy: Yes they do, but they also support taxcuts for - the middle and worker class. After all, my middle class family got a goodly - amount of money back as compared to the nineties. Also the argument - that taxcuts for the wealthy are bad is flawed. They typically worked really - hard their entire lives for their money, and it is their money.
-3. Pollution: The republican's definitely aren't for pollution, as stated above - they support environmental controls, and anyways, name a single individual
- who wants to live in a polluted world, it's not like they fight for pollution - rights.
-4. Questionable religious.: No argument here, religion should be left out of - politics, but can be used as a moral guide, which can be vital in pol.
-5. Racism: There are racist Republican's but no national scale pols - advocate it, they talk of equality, not inequality, listen to what they say
- say and do, not what your source tells you they believe
The democrats support Israeli lobbyists, corporate special interest groups, and disenfranchised lower classes.
-Similar flaws here, once again taking a view that freedoms of speech are - limited only to those who agree with you.
-1. Israeli lobbyists: If they are Americans they have a right to a voice as
- much as anyone else around. If they organize to get their message heard
- good for them.
-2. Corporate spec.: See Israeli lobbyists
-3. Disenfranchised lower.: Not a whole lot of these really in the US. Maybe
-in China, or North Korea or Cuba, but virtually no one who is allowed to vote
-is denied this right, so long as they register.
Ridiculing parties is too vague, let's try the candidates. George W. Bush, a name that is now synonomous with stupidity and arrogance, is the biggest disgrace to popular politics since Prince Mishkin. He shamelessly exploits the 9/11 tragedy to his own political advantage, wages unnecessary war, and has negligent environmental policy. Since George W. Bush's flaws are self-evident
-Lot's of individual prejudices are included here. He led well during 9/11 and
-has a right to talk about it during a campaign. The Iraq war wasn't exactly
-needed, but it isn't that bad. If you believe Afghanistan was unjustified,
-then you are a moron. His environmental policies are what he was elected
-on, if he supported anything different he'd be wronging his voters.
, let's look at John F. Kerry.
Kerry feigns to be "humble" and "representative of the working class." LIES! John Kerry is in possession of an extensive elitist background. Oddly enough, the Kerry campaign never mentions the $750,000 speed boat that Kerry purchased in cash, or the ski house he owns in Aspen. Not only is Kerry a mountebank, he is malicious. He voted in favor of the Patriot Act, an act which severely violates the civil rights and basic freedoms of Americans. He voted in favor of NAFTA (the north american free trade agreement), an act which simply benefits large corporations, while further impoverishing the working classes. In addition to this demented medley of tyranny, Kerry supported Welfare Reform, an act which ended welfare entitlement for poor children in the United States and simply exacerbated child poverty (which is now at 18 percent).
-Wow, lot's of assumptions and personal prejudices here man. Doing this - dash at the beginning of each point'll take forever, but here goes. We
-all know Kerry is rich as fuck, so what, it was either earned by him, or the
-the people who led to his existence or his wife's existence. He's rich, that's
-not a bad thing. At worst it's a neutral thing. The Patriot Act is not really
-all that malicious as you make it seem. When it was compiled, they basically
-took existing drug policies, blanked out the words that identified the crimes
-as drug crimes and put in the word terrorism. You will find many identical
-passages in the varied drug laws as in the patriot act. The government
-could detain you without a warrant before the pat-act, just using drug
-crimes charges. NAFTA allows companies, organizations of individuals mind
-you to go where they please in a much easier manner than previously.
-Welfare reform encourages the poor to stay still, and if they fail to find
-the bettering of their children's lives as a sufficient motivator, then they're
-nuts.
As you can see, both candidates are equally deceptive, malevolent, and disingenuous. Socialism (not stalinism, the USSR, China, and Cuba are NOT Socialist) will eradicate the tyranny that we know as capitalism, and insure liberties not only for the priviledged, but also the unpriviledged.

-Ensuring liberties eh? What about the basic rights of human beings, including
-Life, Liberty and Property (see Locke, the UN Declaration of Human Rights).
-Capitalism is not tyrranny. Capitalism is an economic system where the
-individual is free to make his own decision as to how to expend his -resources. And this freedom helps make capitalism inherently non-tyrannical.
-Yes, the USSR, China, Cuba, N. Korea, Vietnam, etc. are or at one time were -socialist. The basic concept of socialism is government control of all
-means of economic behavior. That seems to fit all of these governments.
-Just because they don't fit into your neat idealistic box doesn't make them
-not socialist. Believe me, you can deny it all you want, but socialism is an
-economic system, which *initially* doesn't involve itself in civil liberties, but
-with such power concentrated in the hands of the chosen leaders, it
-inevitably does, as in these situations

Under Socialism, health care is universal and FREE,
-blatant lie. healthcare is universally paid for, not free. Someone has to
-sacrifice their time and effort to provide it, so they are definitely paying
-and what's so special about unincentived healthcare? It stifles creativity
-and that in turn stifles advances.

Education (primary, middle, high school, universities, etc.) are all spectacular and FREE,
-see above

freedoms are uninhibited,
-There are three fundamental human rights, or freedoms, Life Liberty and -Property. Socialism tramples on one of these rights, property. And the
-surrendering of one right, or freedom leads to the surrendering of others.
-This occurs when the socialist government realizes that it can deprive others
-of rights, such as life and property, Read 1984 by Blair/Orwell, or look at
-history of nations that profess the non-existence of one right or another.
-These nations inevitably end up in tyranny

Pacifism guides foreign policy-not spite
-Sure, come and blow us up again and again Mr. Terrorist. Sorry to tell you
-this, but the reason we were attacked wasn't because of something we did
-but because of what we are, the sole superpower, a sense of order. The
-forces of anarchy will gladly feed upon the body of a non-defensive giant

, racism is non-existent, sexism is non-existent.
-great, now you are forcing others to believe in what you believe. A
-tremendous violation of the right to free speech. No matter what, people
-will see differences, and they will hate others for these differences. To
-force others to conform to your own beliefs is despicable you totalitarian.
-You take one freedom, property, now you take another, Liberty. Your ideas
-disgust me.

Might I also add, under Socialism people are truly allowed to emphasize democracy! The American system utilizes the electoral college, which as we saw in the 2000 election, is not always truly indicative of a popular vote.
-The American system is not based on popular democracy, the American
-system is a republic. In a republic the states share power and they must
-all have sway. In a pop vote situation less populated rural areas would be
-missed whilst the urban centers of California, New York and Texas would
-decide elections, while no one else would get anything

Leon Trotsky once said this of socialism:"Democracy is to socialism what air is to the human body." The choice is obvious, if you wish to free yourself from a system corrupted and manipulated by corporate interest...support

-see above.

Dude I agree with you for the most part but it seems that you need to read a little more Trotsky becoming the uber troskyite revolutionary that you seem to be. For example, Trotsky was a staunch defender of the Soviet Union and would have defended China and Cuba as well. He said that all genuine revolutionaries should fight to the death to defend the USSR, but at the same time stoo political revolution to oust the Stalinist burecratic caste which he veiwed as gravediggers of the revolution, which they were. A good short essay is "The class nature of the Soviet State" or something like that, and his awesome masterpiece "The revolution betrayed".

Give it up. The USA will be the last country getting the benefits of socialism. Theyre just tooo capitalistic. :rolleyes:
Its always the same stuff of totalitarism and forcign other people, vuttign freedom ect. It seems to be a totally different thing if a great concern cuts your freedom then a socialist country forcing their people to work and giving them
a) a safe live, without the fear of becoming poor
b) equality to others
c) even in the education. Oh yes, the capitalist education is sooo fair and sooo equal -_- Not that the one with the richer parents can get a more books and stuff, like paying the costs of a study at an university. Its even an fact that children of richer parents (well, the upper middle class ^^) are better with words than the workers children.
Fairness is only possible through socialism (and in the utopian future communism ^^)

Andalucie.. can you properly rearrange your comment. It's very hard to read your statement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for my comment,

Nah. Socialism isn't supreme. Finding the perfect mix with the good of both capitalism and socialism is.

There isn't enough resources to feed the needs of everybody in the country. And it's too idealistic. People aren't ants.

And socialism in the end would not work, unless it turns communist. Because you'll soon have political oppositions who want to change it back into a capitalistic economy.

And under communism. You'll lose your freedoms. And just be a small cog in a machine.

Pure Socialism doesn't work any more than uninihbited Capitalism does. The best way is a middle way beteen the two - like Sweden!

they protect minimum - wage laws (something inherently wrong, but I'll talk about that later)
What could possible be wrong about minimum wage laws? Do you think workers should be slaves to their employers?

I think I'd stick with the capitalism. I just like the idea of having to earn what you get instead of having stuff handed out to you like free health care. Health care in general though is going to change alot in the near future though. Costs are going to be skyrocketing from the elderly baby boom generation, and the overweight people who are turning diabetic along with other health problems associated with weight.

And about socialism having no racism or sexism: You can enact laws to bring a country to socialism, but you can't enact a law to stop sexism or racism. It's something built into the population and it changes with time.

re-arrange my post? No. Here's how it works, anything with a dash (-) at the beginning of the line are my sentiments. This format has seemed to work elsewhere I won't change my post, it took me 40 minutes.

re-arrange my post? No. Here's how it works, anything with a dash (-) at the beginning of the line are my sentiments. This format has seemed to work elsewhere I won't change my post, it took me 40 minutes.

Oh alright. When I typed that, I didn't take a goooooood look at your post. I found it confusing at first. Then finally it made sense.

Heh, you should use red types like Iakeokeo. :D

Leon Trotsky once said this of socialism:"Democracy is to socialism what air is to the human body."

That explains why he felt the need to ventilate so many of them. :mp5:

Greetings!

With the elections coming up shortly, many of you are probably highly involved in politics, in support of your preferred candidates. Yet, the media only pronounces the existence of two political parties in the United States, the Republicans and the Democrats (shut up about Nader). I must contend that both of the aforementioned parties are insufficient for society, and quite evil. The republicans support uninhibited capitalism, taxcuts for the wealthy, pollution, questionable religious agendas, and racism. The democrats support Israeli lobbyists, corporate special interest groups, and disenfranchised lower classes.
Ridiculing parties is too vague, let's try the candidates. George W. Bush, a name that is now synonomous with stupidity and arrogance, is the biggest disgrace to popular politics since Prince Mishkin. He shamelessly exploits the 9/11 tragedy to his own political advantage, wages unnecessary war, and has negligent environmental policy. Since George W. Bush's flaws are self-evident, let's look at John F. Kerry.
Kerry feigns to be "humble" and "representative of the working class." LIES! John Kerry is in possession of an extensive elitist background. Oddly enough, the Kerry campaign never mentions the $750,000 speed boat that Kerry purchased in cash, or the ski house he owns in Aspen. Not only is Kerry a mountebank, he is malicious. He voted in favor of the Patriot Act, an act which severely violates the civil rights and basic freedoms of Americans. He voted in favor of NAFTA (the north american free trade agreement), an act which simply benefits large corporations, while further impoverishing the working classes. In addition to this demented medley of tyranny, Kerry supported Welfare Reform, an act which ended welfare entitlement for poor children in the United States and simply exacerbated child poverty (which is now at 18 percent).
As you can see, both candidates are equally deceptive, malevolent, and disingenuous. Socialism (not stalinism, the USSR, China, and Cuba are NOT Socialist) will eradicate the tyranny that we know as capitalism, and insure liberties not only for the priviledged, but also the unpriviledged. Under Socialism, health care is universal and FREE, Education (primary, middle, high school, universities, etc.) are all spectacular and FREE, freedoms are uninhibited, Pacifism guides foreign policy-not spite, racism is non-existent, sexism is non-existent. Might I also add, under Socialism people are truly allowed to emphasize democracy! The American system utilizes the electoral college, which as we saw in the 2000 election, is not always truly indicative of a popular vote. Leon Trotsky once said this of socialism:"Democracy is to socialism what air is to the human body." The choice is obvious, if you wish to free yourself from a system corrupted and manipulated by corporate interest...support socialism!

Ok, I don't have the time to properly tear this apart, rather a statement and some info will have to do. Socialism will NEVER work. It is the stuff of fairy tales and the warm milk of a victim mindset. Life is not fair, it is not easy, true their are those whose circumstances are not as forgiving as others yet we all have our own cross to bear. Our country was based on the ideal that anyone who is willing...can enjoy a full life, whatever that may mean to them.
If this is not so then why do so many come here from other countries put in the effort, work hard and succeed at making their dreams come true. Fact is that the mind set of some Americans has become one of entitlement, and that my freind is the disease that prevents people from acheiving their potential. Instead,the mind set for those who wish for more should be one of opportunity (America is still seen as the Land of Opportunity by scores of people who have lived in these so called advanced socialist countries).
A eutopian ideal has no place in the "real" world. There will always be evil or selfish people who will prey on others, you can not "love" and support everyone to create a beautiful new world....but wouldn't it be nice. Some things make good bed time stories for children others a road map to success for those adults willing to act like one. It would appear you prefer to have momma tuck you in than to pull up your boot straps and fix your own life. The role of the government is not to take care of you, rather it is to protect your rights to make your life what you will, It Is YOUR choice, blame no other for your missfortunes, I meet people on a daily basis who are willing to work hard to overcome the challenges in their lives, many of whom are or have been in what whould seem to others as overwhelming circumstances yet they have the fortitude, character, and presence of mind to accept their life as it has been and push towards what they desire. Now some stats.

COUNTRY TAX WEDGE GDP GROWTH UNEMPLOYMENT
US.............15.5............4.3................5.5
SWITZERLND.17.8...........0.0................4.2
UK..............18.3............2.8................4.8
AUSTRAILIA..20.4...........4.0.................5.9
JAPAN.........23.2............3.4.................5.0
CANADA.......23.3...........1.6.................7.4
AUSTRIA......29.5............0.8.................4.4
DENMARK......30.1...........0.3.................6.5
SPAIN..........30.9...........2.7.................11.2
GERMANY......33.5..........0.2.................10.3
NETHERLNDS..33.7..........-0.5................6.2
ITALY...........35.5...........0.1.................8.4
BELGIUM........39.0..........1.2.................12.8
SWEDEN........39.5...........1.9................6.0
FRANCE.........40.0...........0.6................9.6

*figures from National Review September 2004 issue

As you can see, even in what has been described as a low point economicly for the US we are still at the top of the pack. Lower taxes, better growth and a marginal unemployment when compared to most. The reason so many other countries are not doing as well is due to thier socialist ideals. Large welfare benefits, unfriendly rules for employers in the areas of worker relations and the ability to run their business, manditory health care, min wage requirements that can exceed 10 dollars an hour and other issues that make growth difficult or near impossible weigh down thier economy. Oh, and by the way, what incentive is there to work hard and succeed with state sponsered welfare systems that tax businesses and people so heavily provide everything you could need without lifting a finger? Hard work and determination are what make a country and idviduals strong, if you would prefer a country with a more socialistic ideal why not move to France, good luck getting a job though, and when you do the gov. will get a huge chunk of your hard earned money, and dont even consider starting your own business to creat jobs for others and wealth for yourself the rules and regulations make that venture far to risky and difficult, you could of course if you prefer, just be a social parasite. Stop whining and do something.
Rob

While the original post may have been filled with personal prejudices, it needs to be recognised that assertions like "blah blah filthy rich which isn't a bad thing, at worst it's a neutral thing" is a personal prejudice as well. It may be shared by many people, but it is no more credible. And I would argue that it's actually less so--many socialists would argue that property is theft. To have so much capital in the hands of an individual is to deprive other individuals of the means to survival, which I think is rather clearly wrong. There is only so much capital in the world.

Also, your claims that the Republicans support the environment are not supported by their legislative record--they are known more for rolling back environmental policies that aren't beneficial to business. The director of the EPA (and a friend of mine who worked for them) had to quit because the Bush administration exists in a science-free vaccuum, and they were forbidden from actually doing anything to Protect the Environment.

That said, yes, we (the forces of anarchy you mentioned) would gladly feed on the body of a defenseless giant...if that giant is a blood-sucking capitalist pig giant. Generally, socialism does not need to concentrate much power in the hands of a few. The fact that it does is, imho, more a problem with revolutions than with socialism. The French Revolution had a similar problem with Napoleon, though they weren't trying to be socialist or communist. America just got prety lucky first rattle out of the box. That, and before public education we were generally fairly well-read and well-educated. At the very least literate. But the point is that socialism and democracy do work well together, and creating as pure a democracy as possible where the will of the people is regularly enacted (preferably a liberal democracy, so every vote isn't mob rule) will help prevent oppression.

About your obsession with property - I'm going to start by saying I disagree with much of Locke, and that the UN Charter is, of course, going to favour his notions, having been written largely by capitalist nations. There are enough philosophers who would argue that propertys not an inherent right. But we should probably definie property versus possession. In a socialist or anarchist setting, property is defined as that which is owned by an individual (or group of individuals) and used for the exploitation of others. For instance, a factory owned by a small group of individuals or a single owner where the factory workers work for less than they produce (giving due consideration to the expenses of the factory and the running of the establishment) would be property. The men on the top are getting paid money simply for having some bizarre claim to the building and thereby what other people's work produce within. This is where Capitalism fails to provide liberty--those factory workers are a necessary part of a corporate/industrial capitalist society, and their lives are a tale of exploitation and oppression. In many places, the factory and surrounding town are owned by the same Megaglorp, so the workers work at the factory for survival money, then pay most of it back to the company to keep their house, and barely enough to take care of the rest of the needs of their families. Because the owners have a monopoly on the means of survival, the capital, the workers HAVE to work under these dehumanizing and exploitative conditions. This is the wonder and glory of the free market. Also, with deregulation (that has been mostly republican--though while I think the GOP is WORSE, all establishment politics in this country are bad) it has become easier for companies to produce lower quality products (for instance--in Meat-packing...eugh.) and be less responsible for employees injured in hazardous factory situations. Capitalism is an antiquated idealism, ignoring human nature and dating from a pre-industrial era.

Possessions, as distinct from property, are things owned and used by an individual or group of individuals. For instance, my home is my rightfully possession, because I live in it. My computer is mine, because I use it. Neither of these things are used to exploit other people. The hypothetical factory that I and 200 other people hypothetically use collectively and wherefrom we collect the capital which we use to survive is a collective posession--we're all benefitting according to our labour. Together, we run the factory (and I absolutely believe people are capable of doing this...our society beats intelligence out of people, but that's another story) and elect a few recallable administrators to carry out our will (syndicalism is great). If you want to call the factory our property you can--that's semantics. I just shared a working definition to make more clear the socialist notion of why property is bad. It is, by definition, used to oppress other people. Honestly, how can I lay claim to a piece of land I don't use? It seems irrational to me.

Finally, there have been times in history--usually isolated incidents before a more hostile idealogy (like capitalism or fascism) invaded (usually literally) where socialism or anarchism have worked admirably....a few examples.

Spain, during the revolution. Several towns in Spain were given to anarchy (anarchism) during the Spanish Revolution, and visitors habitually commented about how open, egalitarian, and peaceful these places without a single coercive entity were. Eventually, the anarchists joined with the state communists to fight Franco, and everybody lost. The Ukraine was a similar story for a couple of years.

Chile was an example of a democratically elected Marxist assuming the presidency and a more or less socialist 'regime' being in place. The people were very happy and the president was very popular, until the US began using its economic weight to destroy Chile's economy. No matter what your economic system, the ire of a country like the US is enough to make it hurt...this pissed the people off, who were beset from the north with messages of "That's Communism for you." Eventually, we managed to train enough thugs and assassins to tople the Chilean government. Nicaragua was fairly similar, though their government was more inclined toward brutality...but much of that came after counter-revolutionaries were doing their thing because their economy was, once again, being wrecked by the gargantuan America.

I would argue, on the other hand, that socialism won't CURE sexism and racism....but that it could help. Really, these are two ills which must be thoroughly fought before socialism will come to power (there has to be much more solidarity in order to execute such a revolution well) ...but in the more egalitarian socialist community, if sexism and racism are sufficiently weakened, I can imagine them, fairly easily, being destroyed.

At least, that's how I see it.

Alright so everyone who supports socialism, when it comes time to inherit something, oh, say your parents estate, donate 50% of that to some homeless guy if your so morally superior to capitalists.

No?

That’s alright socialism better to preach than practice. Always has, always will be.

I've got a problem with anything being labelled 'supreme'. Somehow, people end up sounding like Daleks...!

While the original post may have been filled with personal prejudices, it needs to be recognised that assertions like "blah blah filthy rich which isn't a bad thing, at worst it's a neutral thing" is a personal prejudice as well. It may be shared by many people, but it is no more credible. And I would argue that it's actually less so--many socialists would argue that property is theft. To have so much capital in the hands of an individual is to deprive other individuals of the means to survival, which I think is rather clearly wrong. There is only so much capital in the world.

Also, your claims that the Republicans support the environment are not supported by their legislative record--they are known more for rolling back environmental policies that aren't beneficial to business. The director of the EPA (and a friend of mine who worked for them) had to quit because the Bush administration exists in a science-free vaccuum, and they were forbidden from actually doing anything to Protect the Environment.

That said, yes, we (the forces of anarchy you mentioned) would gladly feed on the body of a defenseless giant...if that giant is a blood-sucking capitalist pig giant. Generally, socialism does not need to concentrate much power in the hands of a few. The fact that it does is, imho, more a problem with revolutions than with socialism. The French Revolution had a similar problem with Napoleon, though they weren't trying to be socialist or communist. America just got prety lucky first rattle out of the box. That, and before public education we were generally fairly well-read and well-educated. At the very least literate. But the point is that socialism and democracy do work well together, and creating as pure a democracy as possible where the will of the people is regularly enacted (preferably a liberal democracy, so every vote isn't mob rule) will help prevent oppression.

About your obsession with property - I'm going to start by saying I disagree with much of Locke, and that the UN Charter is, of course, going to favour his notions, having been written largely by capitalist nations. There are enough philosophers who would argue that propertys not an inherent right. But we should probably definie property versus possession. In a socialist or anarchist setting, property is defined as that which is owned by an individual (or group of individuals) and used for the exploitation of others. For instance, a factory owned by a small group of individuals or a single owner where the factory workers work for less than they produce (giving due consideration to the expenses of the factory and the running of the establishment) would be property. The men on the top are getting paid money simply for having some bizarre claim to the building and thereby what other people's work produce within. This is where Capitalism fails to provide liberty--those factory workers are a necessary part of a corporate/industrial capitalist society, and their lives are a tale of exploitation and oppression. In many places, the factory and surrounding town are owned by the same Megaglorp, so the workers work at the factory for survival money, then pay most of it back to the company to keep their house, and barely enough to take care of the rest of the needs of their families. Because the owners have a monopoly on the means of survival, the capital, the workers HAVE to work under these dehumanizing and exploitative conditions. This is the wonder and glory of the free market. Also, with deregulation (that has been mostly republican--though while I think the GOP is WORSE, all establishment politics in this country are bad) it has become easier for companies to produce lower quality products (for instance--in Meat-packing...eugh.) and be less responsible for employees injured in hazardous factory situations. Capitalism is an antiquated idealism, ignoring human nature and dating from a pre-industrial era.

Possessions, as distinct from property, are things owned and used by an individual or group of individuals. For instance, my home is my rightfully possession, because I live in it. My computer is mine, because I use it. Neither of these things are used to exploit other people. The hypothetical factory that I and 200 other people hypothetically use collectively and wherefrom we collect the capital which we use to survive is a collective posession--we're all benefitting according to our labour. Together, we run the factory (and I absolutely believe people are capable of doing this...our society beats intelligence out of people, but that's another story) and elect a few recallable administrators to carry out our will (syndicalism is great). If you want to call the factory our property you can--that's semantics. I just shared a working definition to make more clear the socialist notion of why property is bad. It is, by definition, used to oppress other people. Honestly, how can I lay claim to a piece of land I don't use? It seems irrational to me.

Finally, there have been times in history--usually isolated incidents before a more hostile idealogy (like capitalism or fascism) invaded (usually literally) where socialism or anarchism have worked admirably....a few examples.

Spain, during the revolution. Several towns in Spain were given to anarchy (anarchism) during the Spanish Revolution, and visitors habitually commented about how open, egalitarian, and peaceful these places without a single coercive entity were. Eventually, the anarchists joined with the state communists to fight Franco, and everybody lost. The Ukraine was a similar story for a couple of years.

Chile was an example of a democratically elected Marxist assuming the presidency and a more or less socialist 'regime' being in place. The people were very happy and the president was very popular, until the US began using its economic weight to destroy Chile's economy. No matter what your economic system, the ire of a country like the US is enough to make it hurt...this pissed the people off, who were beset from the north with messages of "That's Communism for you." Eventually, we managed to train enough thugs and assassins to tople the Chilean government. Nicaragua was fairly similar, though their government was more inclined toward brutality...but much of that came after counter-revolutionaries were doing their thing because their economy was, once again, being wrecked by the gargantuan America.

I would argue, on the other hand, that socialism won't CURE sexism and racism....but that it could help. Really, these are two ills which must be thoroughly fought before socialism will come to power (there has to be much more solidarity in order to execute such a revolution well) ...but in the more egalitarian socialist community, if sexism and racism are sufficiently weakened, I can imagine them, fairly easily, being destroyed.

At least, that's how I see it.


Why not get commited....that way you can live in your fairy tale idea of right and wrong. The right to property belongs to all........Theft is taking from someone else when YOU didnt EARN it. Go make some capital for yourself, and if you are so envious of anothers position, work to get it yourself. If you disagree so heartily with the very basis of this great country, please locate yourself somewhere more suitable to your tastes and leave this great nation to its own ideals of inalienable rights.
Rob

[At least, that's how I see it.[/QUOTE]

You might want to get some glasses without the rose tint.

Thank you all very much for assuming a great number of things about myself and my lifestyle.

For one, I am a student. I leech off my parents and have a sizeable scholarship. That said, I try to live below my somewhat meager means in order to live the lowest-impact life possible (I do everything in my power to recycle and buy biodegradable products, in the interests of protecting the environment), and am active in and give money to organisations that fight for human rights and try to meet the needs of the disadvantaged. Why? Because I DO live my ideals. There are many theoretical socialists out there who like to talk about the way things ought to be. I endeavour to make them happen. I try to support small, local businesses that do business ethically whenever possible, and to withhold my dollar from megaglorps. I've consciously adopted a lifestyle I know will never be profitable--I'm training to become either a teacher or a lawyer, who will mostly work to defend human rights and civil liberties, which will more than likely land me in a lot of pro bono work. I'm intelligent enough that if I wanted to make money, I could do it and with a lot less effort than I'm putting forth. I'd major in business or communications and sally forth into the work-a-day world and doubtless climb a good distance. But that's not my priority. Money is not, for me, a worthy priority.

Also, I would claim that very few of the wealthiest in our society have earned what they have. Bill Gates, for instance, has more money than God. Can anyone ever do ANYTHING that truly 'earns' them that much money? Has he put forth so much more effort than almost everyone else that he deserves that much wealth? Can anyone truly deserve that much? And you are right, honorland. Theft IS taking from another when you didn't earn it. That's exactly what I'm saying. Socialists and Capitalists both make the argument that people should be allowed to keep what they produce/earn. But capitalists exist in a world of unreasonable abstraction and privelege, and socialists recognise that not everyone can rise to the top, but that it is wrong to punish others for doing jobs that are generally less desirable, anyway.

Finally, I'd like to see something other than ad hominem attacks. The ad hominem fallacy does not prove your argument or disprove mine. If I'm a welfare bum or a multi-millionaire who sits on his money and gives enough away to make a decent tax credit is irrelevant in the context of my argument. People have told me to take off my rosy glasses, but when I did I became a socialist. It wasn't until I saw more than I had as the upper-middle-class child of an engineer that it occurred to me that capitalism is broken. Don't tell me to randomly disillusion myself--that's something I'm constantly working toward. Tell me something meaningful...even about HOW to disillusion myself. I'll check back later--in the meantime, I've got work to do before I head to class, and I've wasted way too much time today.