FinnMacCool
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 153
- Location
- South Shore of Long Island.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
I strongly suggest reading Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" and "Anthem". In the vein of many of the Utopic-based books of half a century ago, they tell the stories of protagonists questioning a conformist society and their findings as they embark on their journeys for truth.
I never got into the background beliefs of these novelists. Something there that may reduce or eradicate my appreciation for their work, perhaps.
Could you elaborate what kind of socialism? E.g. Communism, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialism, etc. etc.
The answer you're looking for is libertarianism, I promise
Ayn Rand was an extremist. Don't take that as an insult neccisarily, cause that's not how it's intended. What I am trying to get across is that there are such things as moderates in every direction, not just left and right. I consider us up.
I guess the end goal would be voluntary socialism, where we go out and participate in the economy, work, and earn what we deserve based on supply and demand, but once that is done, we realize that it is better for everyone if we work together and share.
The problem that lies in this goal is that it's unrealistic because people are greedy. Greed plays an interesting role in economics and society because to a certain degree it's great, since it fuels innovation and good hard work, but then it also leads to the adherant inequities in the capitalist system. This goal would require greed to exist only in the world of commerce, and complete, or at least quite a bit of selflessness in the world outside of commerce.
FinnMacCool said:Pretty much just socialism in general. But I've been a little bit more into the idea of Orwell's vision of democratic socialism probably because I love Orwell's writing and I also find it a bit more realistic then hardcore socialism, no offence Comrade
I've never thought of Stalin as a socialist leader honestly. More like a dictator. It's true that his economics were far left but when it comes to social policies, he was an authoritarian to the core. Socialism is supposed to be both I think. I think my ideas of a socialist government, if you can even call it socialism though, is to have businesses do pretty much what they want but to have regulations so they don't blow the whole ****ing world up in the process of making a buck you know?No, no offense. It is your opinion that it can't work(or very improbable), it is my opinion that it can work. The only ones I can't stand are those who think Stalin and the likes are like heroes to us, or those who consider him a hero, I don't consider anyone a hero, everyone does many bad and good things(even bith Hitler and Stalin).
FinnMacCool said:I've never thought of Stalin as a socialist leader honestly. More like a dictator. It's true that his economics were far left but when it comes to social policies, he was an authoritarian to the core. Socialism is supposed to be both I think. I think my ideas of a socialist government, if you can even call it socialism though, is to have businesses do pretty much what they want but to have regulations so they don't blow the whole ****ing world up in the process of making a buck you know?
Well when you say public ownership, it does sound a lot better then gov't ownership. I think I will have to look a bit more into Stalin. He sounds fascinating.Stalin can be considered a socialist leader, but most socialists and other related, call him a Stalinist because of govt. ownership and tons of bureacracy. His social practices were sorta like Hitler's, he employed quite a bit of racism and homophobia, and extremly dictatorial. His economics too are debatable if they are far-left. Far-left is not govt. ownership, but rather public ownership, most far-lefties also view many times govt. ownership worse than private. Stalin is a very, very complicated subject.
You might be right though the socialist party USA, while modeled after democratic socialism, I can't say I'm a big fan of. Although I like how they get away from the whole russian flag waving, Stalin worshiping, "socialist" bullshit other supposed "socialists" support, to me they just seem like either just a bunch of idiot teenagers (which I am but I consider myself slightly more mature) or a bunch of senile old people. I think if a new party were to take off we should have a completely new look. We would need to look a lot less like a bunch of "tree huggers" as conservatives love to call us and more like a bunch of tea sipping, rational, intellectual assholes. Thats how we will get people to join.Your views would be best described as Democratic Socialism, a more moderate view than most socialists. The best pictures of this would probably be something like Sweden.
FinnMacCool said:Well when you say public ownership, it does sound a lot better then gov't ownership. I think I will have to look a bit more into Stalin. He sounds fascinating.
FinnMacCool said:You might be right though the socialist party USA, while modeled after democratic socialism, I can't say I'm a big fan of. Although I like how they get away from the whole russian flag waving, Stalin worshiping, "socialist" bullshit other supposed "socialists" support, to me they just seem like either just a bunch of idiot teenagers (which I am but I consider myself slightly more mature) or a bunch of senile old people. I think if a new party were to take off we should have a completely new look. We would need to look a lot less like a bunch of "tree huggers" as conservatives love to call us and more like a bunch of tea sipping, rational, intellectual assholes. Thats how we will get people to join.
Thats not really what I meant. I am very serious about protecting the enviorment. Its extremely important. But its the imagery of it. People are going to have a hard time accepting people who are like, for the lack of a better word, hippies. I'm not a hippy but if you asked me what my politics were I sure as hell sound like one.Cept I don't do drugs hahaYou do have to admit most are "tree-huggers", most are environmentalists, but the cons. don't care about environment usually, thinking economy is superior.
I understand that but still socialism needs to lose both its 1) pyschopath revolutionary image and its 2) Hippy image. Your right though. If there was a way of showing both I would.Your new idea would look kind of great, except, it would seem only talk, little action, socialists and communists have always tried to combine intellect and action. Becuase those who are only action don't know how things work, and if you are only talk, how does anything get done, so its best to combine the two, you fight and know why you're fighting. Engels probably put it best when he exclaimed, " An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory."
I think your right about that. Ever since I read 1984 I've been very interested in politically drived, Dystopian novels and I was going to read Anthem as well after having read Huxley's Brave New World and Bradbury's Farenheit 451. I never looked into either authors own politics. For all I know they could be fascists (though considering the subject matter of both, I find that highly unlikely) but ever since I've found that Ayn Rand has a philosophy I happen to disagree with, I've been hesitant about reading her books. I suppose I'll have to give it a try anyways though because I don't think I will be able to rest until I do.
Ahh Brave New World: The one True Utopia I have seen in all the literature I have read. I don't really believe it is a dystopia at all. It is painted as such, but ironically, I believe he fails.
FinnMacCool said:I understand that but still socialism needs to lose both its 1) pyschopath revolutionary image and its 2) Hippy image. Your right though. If there was a way of showing both I would.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?