- Feb 6, 2010
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
How is it obvious?What?
It's pretty obvious that socialism encourages national socialism, which encourages tyranny, oppression, and eventual collapse or restructuring. It's a power paradigm, not because socialism is evil or whatever. Power flows that way under those rules, it's like Ohm's law for national power flow.
Capitalism has given us a great boost but it's time has come and gone. What you have now is an obscuring of the ways that others have control over your life.Actually, in the past few hundred years, it was capitalism coupled with a great deal of personal freedoms that fueled the biggest booms in human productivity, prosperity, and freedoms, that has yet to stop. And these accepted community, and freed them sufficient to allow them to serve one another on their own terms, with few controls or middle men, and only tax as the overarching big brother that dips his hand in. What it did was RESTRICT you from getting into my personal business. It was explicitly RESTRICTING the flow of power from individual to community that fostered it.
Except we know now that throwing money at people isnt the best way to motivate them. And what you're describing sounds more like Communism.It was the recognition that individuals sufficiently empowered innovated, created, served, and profited, like never before. Once the nobles and elite were no longer telling everyone what to do, amazing things happened. Going to socialism just replaces nobles with a collective, which inevitably becomes a power base, which quickly turns into the elite/nobles again, and you're back to "you're screwed and living in 1984 again".
Re-defining an already established society is much more difficult.:shrug: You define "society" to include whom you wish and exclude those you don't want. It's not neurosurgery there, and it's something societies have been doing as long as there have been societies.
That is not a valid argument and you know it.There's nothing about socialism which excludes it, either.
I'm saying racism runs contrary to the goals of Socialism and it's methodology.You're the one claiming it does. You're the one saying that racism can't exist within socialism.
Alright, then show me how Marx was somehow different than anyone else of the period.When one of the founders and the chief architect of a philosophy envisions his system to allow for racism, then yeah, it really does.
Where else did National Socialism appear?Wow; you're really unfamiliar with the first half of the 20th century, aren't you?
They are related but distinct ideologies.:facepalm: you realize that's sort of like saying that the animal in front of you isn't a dog, it's a terrier? Communism is a subset of Socialism.
National Socialism is not Socialism in almost all respects. The tennents of the different ideologies are almost polar opposite.as is national socialism. they both grew out of the same general intellectual movement towards nationalized control over industry and reaction against enlightenment-era liberalism.
That has nothing to do with my point.yup. you know who killed the most socialists and communists within their own country? Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Bolshevicks killed Menschevicks by the score for the same reason that Nazis killed the internationalist-socialists; they were the competition.
How on Earth is that even possible? Socialism and National Socialism are inherently conflicting ideologies.not at all; their ideology was thoroughly left-wing.
Care to elaborate?you are defining "socialists" far too narrowly; methinks in the context of modern socialist parties in Western Europe rather than in the intellectual era of the 1930's.
Mussolini was a Fascist, not a National Socialist. Fascism and National Socialism are related but distinct ideologies.:fail: mussolini came to power in 1922.
Unity is perfectly achievable with the "other" of poverty, disease, starvation etc etc.because that's how you unify society. you need an "other"; whether that be the burgeosie, trotskyites, communists, capitalists, jews, etc so on and so forth.
What on earth does Francis Galton have to do with this?then i would suggest that you study who made up the Eugenics movement and get back to us once your knowledge is enhanced .
If you want to continue your lifestyle in it's present form, yes.Are you honestly comparing free choice dependence that I must be part in, to a forced compliance dependence?
That's Socialism, sonLike I said, the two kind of dependences are not comparable. In any kind of society people will work together for a goal. The difference is free choice with lack of force. The entire reason society was created is to work together to make "yourself" have a better chance of survival and still be free.
Against force? We're plenty for the use of force against marginal elements of our society, see the Civil Rights movement, Native Americans, Kent State, etc etc.That isn't ignoring anything. That is staying true to the vision of the society we are in which has always been against force, which clearly minimum wage is, and clearly what unions represent.
What knowledge changed? Black people are just as black today as they were fifty years ago.Oh but that doesn't have to do with the policies put in place. The polices put in place in the end did more harm than good. The thing that changed the behavior was knowledge. What I was trying to point out was that no matter what you do, the underlining problem is a built in mechanism that can only be played with, but not replaced.
Politics IS theory until you try it out.The papers in themselves don't teach all that much in all honesty. They teach what they thought of the subject, not how it has ever actually worked. I never put much backing on theories that have never actually came to the light of day. They're all appear to me to be theories made by delusional men.
You assume that human nature is immutable and unchanging when very clearly it can and hasYou appear to missing the point completely. Its not about the control of the private sector. The private sector has nothing to do with why socialism leads to national socialism. The problem is the government and human nature for why the change happens.
Not true at all. Look at many European countries and systems such as Social Security and Medicare in this country, public health in Canada, etc etc.One of things you must always remember is just this. Socialist policies can only be enacted through means that a socialist would never approve of.
The fact that two gay men or two gay women can walk down the street holding hands and NOT be arrested or shot at is a pretty big step. The election of openly gay public officials and the repeals of several bans on gay marriage.Did we know? Name an example?
That question seems a little too broad to answer with any degree of accuracy.So where would you stop?