Socialism is Good; Socialism is pro-life; Socialism is pro-People, pro-Planet

[Kurn]

And conservative stick-in-the-mud thinking is pro-Death and pro-Decline.

http://spwi.org/?p=91

You see, socialism is a creative premise, not a legalistic one. No, don't look across the ocean for what socialism is, although the Scandinavian countries have given the idea a good shot.
Again, don't look anywhere else for what socialism is. Look within. Let it come out from within. Within you is a world of people who copulated over the millenia in order to bring YOU into existence. Much of their lives were virtuous lives; much of their lives were scandalous or foolish in varying degrees. But rely upon your better instincts and your better, more humane reason that has evolved over millions of years and you can be a part of surviving into future millenia. The voices in your flesh, the voices of all your ancestors drive you forward to survive, to survive in flesh, to survive in spirit.

To do so, we have to cut out the crap and co-operate. Work hard for a better world.
Socialism doesn't have to be radically different from what we're familiar with. But it does need radical visions in each person to be the better person that they can be.

Try reading the above interview for starters.
I prefer an American version of anarcho-socialism that people grow into.

 

[gaypiper]

Hmmm... by the sounds of things, Mr. NoGood69, you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Socialism. Your ideas sound more like National Socialism, also called Naziism. To me, it sounds as though you've been swinging on the axis of dumbass (i.e., Rush/Beck). I might suggest that you crack open a few books and actually read them... assuming, of course, that you CAN read.

 

[HenryReardon]

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

That about sums it up..

 

[chuck10x]

Socialism:
An economic system in which the prodution and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by GOVERNMENT rather than private enterprise, And in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.
Would you want a socialist government if George Bush and Dick Cheney were still in charge?

 

[legend145]

Socialism to me is a good compromise between capitalism and communism. Look at Hong Kong they are becoming socialist and IS the richest country in the world.

 

[chuck10x]

Do you want an economic system where mega corporations do nothing more than stifle there competition and when they can't buy it out they run into the ground through other means. Mega corporations have a strangle hold on our economy, and the strangle hold they have on money that buys the politicians to further their goals.

As soon as an innovative start firm becomes successful rather than nurture it through competition they seek to either buy it out right or run it into the ground because competition has an impact on there bottom line.

It is the very reason that big oil is so terrified by alternative energy. They realise that alternative energy will effect there bottom line, so they find a team of psudeo scientist they can buy, politicians that they can buy because the politicians realise if big oil is hurting my pocket book is going to be hurting soon also.

What if BIG OIL were to control alternative energy?
They could buy it out and control both oil and alternative energy.
Oil is running out and the Companies need to find new ways to stay in business.
Your post not only implies this, But, Guarantees it.

 

[01solara]

Too bad Churchill was a scumbag and war criminal..

Are you serious?

 

[JB3]

Too bad Churchill was a scumbag and war criminal..

Haha. Says someone who, apparently, is not at all familiar with any of what Churchill did.

 

[JB3]

And conservative stick-in-the-mud thinking is pro-Death and pro-Decline.

http://spwi.org/?p=91

You see, socialism is a creative premise, not a legalistic one. No, don't look across the ocean for what socialism is, although the Scandinavian countries have given the idea a good shot.
Again, don't look anywhere else for what socialism is. Look within. Let it come out from within. Within you is a world of people who copulated over the millenia in order to bring YOU into existence. Much of their lives were virtuous lives; much of their lives were scandalous or foolish in varying degrees. But rely upon your better instincts and your better, more humane reason that has evolved over millions of years and you can be a part of surviving into future millenia. The voices in your flesh, the voices of all your ancestors drive you forward to survive, to survive in flesh, to survive in spirit.

To do so, we have to cut out the crap and co-operate. Work hard for a better world.
Socialism doesn't have to be radically different from what we're familiar with. But it does need radical visions in each person to be the better person that they can be.

Try reading the above interview for starters.
I prefer an American version of anarcho-socialism that people grow into.

What a bunch of BS. Socialism will never happen in the US, because it is wholly at odds with our form of government.

 

[JB3]

Not that quote in particular, but Churchill made it known he considered socialists to be an evil on par with Hitler, and a threat to the free world.

Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. [Loud cheers.] Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. [Cheers.] Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. [Cheers.] Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. [Cheers.] Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly. [Cheers.] These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will think I am right in drawing at this election between our philosophies and our ideals. Don't think that Liberalism is a faith that is played out; that it is a philosophy to which there is no expanding future. As long as the world rolls round Liberalism will have its part to play - a grand, beneficent, and ameliorating part to play - in relation to men and States. [Cheers.]

Ah, gentlemen, I don't want to embark on bitter or harsh controversy, but I think the exalted ideal of the Socialists - a universal brotherhood, owning all things in common - is not always supported by the evidence of their practice. [Laughter.] They put before us a creed of universal self-sacrifice. They preach it in the language of spite and envy, of hatred, and all uncharitableness. [Cheers.] They tell us that we should dwell together in unity and comradeship. They are themselves split into twenty obscure factions, who hate and abuse each other more than they hate and abuse us. [Hear, hear, and laughter.] They wish to reconstruct the world. They begin by leaving out human nature. [Laughter.] Consider how barren a philosophy is the creed of absolute Collectivism. Equality of reward, irrespective of service rendered! It is expressed in other ways. You know the phrase - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." [Laughter.] How nice that sounds. Let me put it another way - "You shall work according to your fancy; you shall be paid according to your appetite." [Cheers.]

Although I have tried my very best to understand these propositions, I have never been able to imagine the mechanical heart in the Socialist world which is to replace the ordinary human heart that palpitates in our breasts. What motive is to induce the men, not for a day, or an hour, or a year, but for all their lives, to make a supreme sacrifice of their individuality? What motive is to induce the Scotsmen who spread all over the world and make their way by various paths to eminence and power in every land and climate to make the great and supreme sacrifice of their individuality? I have heard of loyalty to a Sovereign. We have heard of love of country. Ah, but it is to be a great cosmopolitan, republic. We have heard of love of family and wives and children. These are the mere weaknesses of the bad era in which we live. We have heard of faith in a world beyond this when all its transitory pleasures and perils shall have passed away, a hope that carries serene consolation to the heart of men. Ah, but they deny its existence. [Laughter.] And what then are we to make this sacrifice for? It is for the sake of society.

And what is society? I will tell you what society is. Translated into concrete terms, Socialistic "society" is a set of disagreeable individuals who obtained a majority for their caucus at some recent election, and whose officials in consequence would look on humanity through innumerable grills and pigeon-holes and across innumerable counters, and say to them, "Tickets, please." [Laughter.] Truly this grey old world has never seen so grim a joke. [Applause.] Now, ladies and gentlemen, no man can be either a collectivist or an individualist. He must be both; everybody must be both a collectivist and an individualist. For certain of our affairs we must have our arrangements in common. Others we must have sacredly individual and to ourselves. [Cheers.]We have many good things in common. You have the police, the army, the navy, and officials - why, a President of the Board of Trade you have in common. [Applause.] But we don't eat in common; we eat individually. [Laughter.] And we don't ask the ladies to marry us in common. [Laughter.]

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/lea...winston-churchill/99-liberalism-and-socialism

 

[01solara]

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.

* Speech (May 28, 1948 at the Scottish Unionist Conference, Perth, Scotland

 

[jackoroe]

I read the article. Maybe they could have picked somebody that could have at least made a cogent argument on behalf of Socialism instead of the drivelling nitwit featured.

The article contained many outrageous assertions without any basis in fact, or even a pretense at a factual basis, and then the list of "myths" at the end without so much as an explanation as to why they may or not be false. It wasn't worth reading.

Another "Wold Class" debater.

 

[JB3]

^ Yeah, I saw that on Wikiquote, but then searching for the Scottish Unionist Conference came up with nothing. He gave a speech at a conference that has disappeared from history? I doubt it...

Interesting, so now the question is how he means "socialism" in that speech. I find it interesting how he talks up liberalism vs socialism... should put things in perspective the next time you see someone bash liberalism---which side are they on?

He was not talking of liberalism as in American liberalism. The two are not the same.

 

[CGHJ]

Socialism is slavery. It's like taking the engine out of the car so we can all push it together. Socialism is the philosophy of the gang that surrounds a wealthy person on the street and says, "Hey mate, you seem to have plenty, share some with us or we'll cut you."

Socialism comes from force. Pay in to the system, or we'll use force to get it from you. No matter what the benefits (and they are few), force = slavery and it's wrong.

But you are very right: We will have socialism in this country (we're getting their already and moving closer by the day now) and when we get it, we'll all be poorer for it. The economy will grow sluggish and unresponsive and we'll be literally poorer, and we'll be less free and so be spiritually poorer.

Like I said though, it's inevitable. Once it happens and everything goes to shit I suspect it won't seem nearly as appealing.

 

[jackoroe]

You bothered to read it?

Given the poor argument by the OP, I couldn't be arsed to. The huge leaps of logic of the OP gave me no reason to be interested in it. (Sorry, OP).

*shrug*

Of course I did. Kurn is a well respected, thoughtful poster here at CE&P. He took the time to post something that he thought to be of interest. It's a matter of respect for him as a poster.

I don't have to agree with what's being said. But I thought it appropriate to look at what he'd posted. It facilitates intelligent discussion. I do that for people I hold in high regard.

 

[JB3]

Then it is arguable he wasn't talking about socialism as you think it is, if you're going to go down that route... of course you would though, as you would hate to face doubt over your own mistaken beliefs.

Therefore, the matter remains up in the air, and Reardon's quote continues to be unverified.

It is not remotely arguable. Churchill abhorred large and intrusive government, and did not believe that government was the solution to the problem. He also worked diligently to lower taxes, and deregulate British industry.

When he refers to liberalism, he refers to classical liberalism, which is in no way related to american liberalism.

 

[JB3]

It's not remotely arguable because you ... say so? Just as you say all that other stuff without cite or evidence?

Typical. I predicted this.

It is not remotely arguable because its the history of british politics.

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/biography/biography/how-churchill-became-churchill

Watch that. Churchill's biggest mentor was America's most prominent Classical Liberal.

http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Churchill_TPR_review.html

Scroll down to "Churchill as Classical Liberal". That quote that I posted above? Yeah, it came from one of the speeches cited of evidence of his classical liberalism.

 

[Kurn]

Again, I'm not talking about the socialism you've read about.
(although, to be sure, if you actually read some socialist literature, you might encounter something sobering in an entirely pleasant way.)

I'm not talking about anything that comes from above, from the enlightened ones, from the political apostolate. I'm saying we simply need to be the enlighteners, to ourselves. Each viewpoint/perspective is slightly different.
But the goals of life might be summed up as a struggle to rise above boredom.
That, is above mere survival.
Yes, I'm composing in a suspicious-sounding way.
But how do YOU sound if you attempt to get out of the coffin you've confined yourself in?
I could sound more sophisticated, more level-headed. But the point is to stop doing things the loser-way and start recognizing the kingdom of death you slave away in. And build something better.

As it is we have a misery-dependent, oppression-dependent system.
Those versions of "socialism" that accomplish the same thing are emphatically not what I'm talking about.
Anarcho-socialism is a term that people use to talk about similar ideas.
A getting-away from authority-systems. And ergo from corruption, violence...
In recent times people have come to see that "civilized" norms are really a function of neurology.

 

[Kulindahr]

“This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation”

Albert Einstein

“A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others”

Ayn Rand

“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”

MLK Jr.

These three together make a good point.

Do you want an economic system where mega corporations do nothing more than stifle there competition and when they can't buy it out they run into the ground through other means. Mega corporations have a strangle hold on our economy, and the strangle hold they have on money that buys the politicians to further their goals.

Mega-corps have a stranglehold because we have a fair degree of socialism in the regulatory boards -- which in fact tend to end up dominated by 'veterans' of the same industries they're supposed to regulate, and wwho in practice make rules that favor the corporations in which they still hold stock or other interests.

But you are very right: We will have socialism in this country (we're getting their already and moving closer by the day now) and when we get it, we'll all be poorer for it. The economy will grow sluggish and unresponsive and we'll be literally poorer, and we'll be less free and so be spiritually poorer.

We don't need socialism to do that, only regulation. Regulation already keeps people from having their own homes, making productive use of their own property, and more, none of which is good for the economy -- or for people.

 

[Kulindahr]

Henry, you are fond of quoting Winston Churchill, but wasn't he one of the architects of the National Health Services? I do think you are taking his views out of context.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, I think you are wrong. Churchill was opposition leader at the time, IIRC, and although he made one statement in a speech that said the party supported a national health programme "in principle", the little energy he put into addressing the issue was some wimpy and belated effort to oppose the bill.