I didn't choose the "ism", the "ism" chose me

[Harshaw]

Good rant! I like this one.

Dude, I'm just tossing back pretty much what you've said to me several times, so . . .

 

[Mensch]

Oh dont we have a bit of a superiority complex going


Not true at all. Socialism recognizes and respects the rights of the individual and sees the state as a way to guarantee and protect them.


Y'know, I think I'm just going to delete it when you post rhetoric but no actual substance from now on.

Explain to me why the man who murdered Dr. Tiller called himself a Christian. I am not responsible for the labels people choose to pick up, regardless how false the claim is.

If you think Fascism and Socialism are even remotely related, you very seriously need to read up on both. Aside from a strong central state (a characteristic of probably half of all political philosophies) I cant think of a single similarity between the two.

Simply because Communism views Socialism as Communism Step 1 doesnt mean the terms are interchangeable. I do not feel Communism is the best ideology to support the human race and while I may consider it better than Fascism or Theocracy, I dont support it.

1) Comparing Christianity to Communism (or Socialism) in this day and age is not really going to help you. You can bring up the crusades to point out the flaws in the religion's foundation of goodness, but it's not going to do you any good when you actually look at the results of Christianity and the results of Marxism. You calling yourself a socialist means that you've self-identified as a member of (at least) a general Marxist belief system. "Socialism" and "Communism" were actually his and Engels creation. I am not a Christian and I'm not here to defend Christianity. I'm just pointing out the RESULTS of both belief systems. Socialism does very little for much of the world, especially in comparison to the free market alternative. What you are is probably a brand of Socialism-Lite. You probably agree with much of the ideas from social democrats in Europe, just as they seem to be turning against (or at least, modifiying) their systems. The sustained benefits from a mixed economy always come from the private sector. The public nationalization of certain industries only retards the production and growth of that industry.

So, you probably generally like the idea of Marxism, but you think "we're not ready for it," or "we haven't evolved to that point yet." Both, IMHO, are wrong and I'd like use to observe some historical facts when we move on to our next debate:

Fascism is very much like socialism. Take this chart as an example:

This is a modified version of the Nolan Chart. Here we see that the polar opposite of communism is not inherently fascism, but libertarianism. The same goes for fascism. The core of fascism is totalitarianism. The core of socialism is totalitarianism. It is simply the reliance on a popular leader, coupled with the complete nationalization of certain or all industries (though from an economic standpoint, I would argue that it is impossible to nationalize every industry on a permanent basis). Liberalism (in its modern, American form) is a direction of political thought that prioritizes personal freedom over economic freedom. The direction of conservatism will prioritize the opposite. The Libertarian proposes fiscal conservatism and individual liberalism (I refrained from using the term social liberalism to prevent a misunderstanding).

When you boil it down, it simply means you have politicians who are totalitarian that want to make your day-to-day decisions their priority, and then you have politicians who (rarely) empower the individual to be accountable for himself, while protecting his civil liberties. The only REAL difference between communism and fascism is that the language and cuture that they utilize. One uses the capitalist and the intellectual as scapegoats while the other uses the communists and the Jew as scapegoats (though, to reenforce my argument of their similarity, you also have communists that kill Jews and fascists that kill intellectuals).

I restate my point and add another:

The foundation of communism is totalitarianism and corporatism, and this foundation is shared WITH the fascists (just because two family members hate each other doesn't remove the family bloodline). The opposite foundation would simply be freedom.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Dude, I'm just tossing back pretty much what you've said to me several times, so . . .

Nah but I've heard your argument a million times and customarily demolished it so you can go ahead and keep on believing that. And keep ranting. They're entertaining.

 

[Harshaw]

Nah but I've heard your argument a million times and customarily demolished it so you can go ahead and keep on believing that. And keep ranting. They're entertaining.

What, like you did here? Yes, I'd buy that.

 

[TurtleDude]

Your intolerance and Fascist leanings are noted

I guess you need to read up on fascism since Fascism is alot closer to socialism than my political views are

and yes I am intolerant of parasites, socialists and other such attitudes that demand that my freedom be subordinate to an idiotic and pernicious socio-economic collectivist mindset

 

[WingsOfDesire]

What liberal views have you adopted because of "mindless conservatives"?

I'm no longer a supporter of capital punishment, not because of moral applications, but because of an imperfect justice system. I never want to hear another story about a person being found innocent years after they were put to death. Most of my 'liberal' policies I've adopted are more social than fiscal. I'm not particularly religious, so that's a break from most people there, I'm a supporter of conservation, green-research technologies (but not because of the myth of global warming), smart regulation, LGBT rights (mostly), some form of health care that can actually cover everyone in the US, and other things

I'm not really hard core liberal on anything, I really just think of it as smarter conservativism, but around these parts if it isn't strict conservativism as they see it, then you're not really one of them.

I'm not calling conservatives mindless at all, I just think that maybe it's because they're in college now, they think they're politically savvy. So you'll hear someone say, "yeah man, capital punishment needs to be enforced more" or "we need to deport every single illegal immigrant.", and I'll ask, "well how do we do that," or "what about this..." etc. They're not used to being challenged, so more often then not there's not a good response to come up with.

An example is a College Republicans/Democrats debate we had in 2008 (it was the College Democrats first time being together in at least a year because they simply did not exist due to lack of interest). And one of my debate partners just rambled and rambled the entire time about, "well we've got to cut taxes and say no to health care and blah blah blah". Well that's fine and dandy, but explain to me why specifically you want those? And you get nothing.

Sorry to ramble myself, but I live for debate, and simply can't stand to agree with what I see as lemmings all around me. So I think at first I started taking on a liberal-esque (in their minds) position just for the hell of it, and overtime began to agree with the ideas themselves :rantoff:

 

[Hoplite]

1) Comparing Christianity to Communism (or Socialism) in this day and age is not really going to help you. You can bring up the crusades to point out the flaws in the religion's foundation of goodness, but it's not going to do you any good when you actually look at the results of Christianity and the results of Marxism. You calling yourself a socialist means that you've self-identified as a member of (at least) a general Marxist belief system. "Socialism" and "Communism" were actually his and Engels creation. I am not a Christian and I'm not here to defend Christianity. I'm just pointing out the RESULTS of both belief systems. Socialism does very little for much of the world, especially in comparison to the free market alternative. What you are is probably a brand of Socialism-Lite. You probably agree with much of the ideas from social democrats in Europe, just as they seem to be turning against (or at least, modifiying) their systems. The sustained benefits from a mixed economy always come from the private sector. The public nationalization of certain industries only retards the production and growth of that industry.

So, you probably generally like the idea of Marxism, but you think "we're not ready for it," or "we haven't evolved to that point yet." Both, IMHO, are wrong and I'd like use to observe some historical facts when we move on to our next debate:

Fascism is very much like socialism. Take this chart as an example:

This is a modified version of the Nolan Chart. Here we see that the polar opposite of communism is not inherently fascism, but libertarianism. The same goes for fascism. The core of fascism is totalitarianism. The core of socialism is totalitarianism. It is simply the reliance on a popular leader, coupled with the complete nationalization of certain or all industries (though from an economic standpoint, I would argue that it is impossible to nationalize every industry on a permanent basis). Liberalism (in its modern, American form) is a direction of political thought that prioritizes personal freedom over economic freedom. The direction of conservatism will prioritize the opposite. The Libertarian proposes fiscal conservatism and individual liberalism (I refrained from using the term social liberalism to prevent a misunderstanding).

When you boil it down, it simply means you have politicians who are totalitarian that want to make your day-to-day decisions their priority, and then you have politicians who (rarely) empower the individual to be accountable for himself, while protecting his civil liberties. The only REAL difference between communism and fascism is that the language and cuture that they utilize. One uses the capitalist and the intellectual as scapegoats while the other uses the communists and the Jew as scapegoats (though, to reenforce my argument of their similarity, you also have communists that kill Jews and fascists that kill intellectuals).

I restate my point and add another:

The foundation of communism is totalitarianism and corporatism, and this foundation is shared WITH the fascists (just because two family members hate each other doesn't remove the family bloodline). The opposite foundation would simply be freedom.

Ok, look up the terms you are using because I guarantee you, a lot of them dont mean what you seem to think they mean. Especially if you're coming out with "the foundation of communism [is] corporatism".

 

[Mensch]

Ok, look up the terms you are using because I guarantee you, a lot of them dont mean what you seem to think they mean. Especially if you're coming out with "the foundation of communism [is] corporatism".

From Wikipedia...

Corporatism also known as corporativism is a system of economic, political, or social organisation that views a community as a body based upon organic social solidarity and functional distinction and roles amongst individuals. The term corporatism is based on the Latin word "corpus" meaning "body". Formal corporatist models are based upon the contract of corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, scientific, or religious affiliations, into a collective body. One of the most prominent forms of corporatism is economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to set economic policy.

The corporatist economic system that we operate under today caters to the needs of the special interests, powerful backroom wheeler-dealers who have politicians in their pockets and get them to make laws (tax, subsidy and otherwise) to benefit them. Logically, this occurs at the expense of others. If, for example, the US House passes a $25 billion subsidy for the American automobile industry so that Chevrolet can build an assembly plant for the new Volt, well then Chevy benefits while we–the taxpayers and consumers–lose out. We may not want to buy a Chevy Volt–why, then, are we paying to have it built?

This doesn’t even take into consideration how taxpayer subsidies have a tendency to delay innovation in the auto industry. Why would a car company or its industry as a whole be in any rush to produce/invent alternatively fueled cars if there’s assurance that they can keep getting “free” money from the American people if they stall?

A free market system, on the other hand, would reject any government involvement in the economy (beyond enforcing contracts and basic regulation [which I'll define at a later time]) and leave it up to people to make voluntary decisions on what they want to buy or sell and for what price.

You see, when government gets involved in the economy and starts to help out the friends of the politicians, we have a muddled, controlled economy. If, on the other hand, we leave it up to people to choose–which was Milton Friedman’s hope–the “invisible hand” that Adam Smith talked about will lead society into the most beneficial position.