Does Socialism lead us to tyranny, communism, or dictatorshi

Post Reply New Topic

Socialism Speaks.

It looked to me like he was describing, not stating a personal conviction.


AG's an anarchist, I doubt he thinks the US government should dictate his beliefs.


Now you're the one imposing ideologies. Nationalists could well believe the state is meant to be an object of reverence, or at least great respect, and that the people are expected to work for the betterment of the state.

To me as well, just wanted to clear this out.


Yes, I get the idea


Everything I say is my personal belief.
I'm not imposing anything - I describe it as I see it. I didn't say that people who think different than me are liars.
I do think that modern states are meant to serve the people, but nevermind the history - if the United States "values" say it's a republic for people and freedom, doesn't it contradict the sense of working for the betterment of it, in the name of American values?
(Perhaps it doesn't, I'm tired)
And what does the "betterment of state" even mean anyway?

(BTW, I'm think etatism would be better than nationalism. But I'm tired, so who knows)

Do I think that welfare programs threaten existing American values? I think that this is almost overwhelmingly true. Political choices reflect the value systems of the general populace. The fact that the US hasn't done this and that some people seem so threatened by this means that these programs have some conflict with some underlying value system.

What value is socialism against? "American capitalism" and "rugged individualism", do I really have to spell out a set of values? EVERY political choice is a reflection of some value somewhere.

As it stands though, I don't think you see the depth of tradition. It provides the roots of many human thoughts, and never *can* we question all elements of our traditions despite living them out. I say "values" because they are what people believe should and should not be done. Does killing Jews in masses threaten my values? Absolutely, as I am anti-killing loads of people for arbitrary reasons. Does abolishing welfare threaten your values? I would guess that they do based upon what you say, because if you hold to the importance of helping out other human beings, then actions to undermine this threaten your values.

As it stands, you aren't escaping from value assertions, you are questioning the matter, and then trying to a little sleight of hand to insert your own value system. Orwell points this out in a bit of what you say. I see it throughout your entire comment, as you may say "tradition", but I never said tradition, and if we stuck to just the word "values", then that's all you are trying to do, is attack values to insert another set. As it stands, libertarians are a political ideology that can oppose tradition rather strongly, that holds the government in relatively negative regard, that is against war and things like that, and that has their values threatened by things called "socialist".


Well, taxation is theft. Obviously.


Ok??

I don't have ties to the conservatives, but frankly, the US has a libertarian party that advocates removal of the draft, legalization of all drugs and other things, along with no socialism and the removal of socialism. I mean, as it stands, we have values in the background that are a mix of cultural conservatism and individualism. Conservatives try to combine both. Liberals reject cultural conservatism, and alter the conservative notion of individualism. Libertarians uphold conservative individualism but reject the cultural elements. Now, I don't see a lot of consistent conservatives. I imagine that such a being is possible, but usually if you have people arguing on the internet, they are liberals or libertarians.


Ok, now you are just looking at the back-assward claims of the right. Look, extremists on all parties say amazingly stupid things at times. I think conservatives are probably worse about it, such as with secret Muslim claims and so on, but still.... it's not as if I think it is generally right to label an ideology by the worse adherents.

Usually most people pretend to speak beyond their personal beliefs.

I don't think that modern states are meant to do anything. They're a historical phenomenon, not a teleological thing. What should you say next, that cows are meant to be eaten? They existed. We found ways to make it easy to eat them.

Not all people think that going this direction is the right direction. What are you going to say? That anyone who opposes these ideas is an idiot? There are a number of free-market oriented economists who would oppose a lot of plans called "socialist", and they are probably more informed than either of us. (I am not saying that economists opposing them aren't informed as well, or even that one side is more numerous or better in any way). In any case though, values are part of the equation, as many people have promoted views of government that are strongly different than yours. After all, the US government was originally said to be built on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and socialism doesn't really fit into their definitions of any of those given that they were relatively anti-government at that time. Nozick's idea is that government only exists for protection and anything beyond that violates its duty. However, Machiavelli argues that governments essentially exist for the power of the people in charge, and I would have to say that Machiavelli has the best intellectual and historical grounds for his claim. Social contracts are also nonsense, even in the US, a country that was almost explicitly built upon a social contract, the social contract is still nonsense.

"As it stands though, I don't think you see the depth of tradition"
"I see it throughout your entire comment, as you may say "tradition", but I never said tradition, and if we stuck to just the word "values", then that's all you are trying to do, is attack values to insert another set"

Maybe it's because I haven't slept for too many hours - but I sensed you speak about tradition, you said you didn't, and then you spoke about tradition. But I'm tired, really, perhaps I didn't understand...

I see the depth of tradition - I don't think it should affect my moral decisions. And I'm not against values as a whole.


You're convincing the convinced, as we say in Hebrew, and I'm not sure you can say in English, perhaps you can


I'm very very tired, and I don't understand your point here


Extremely sorry if I made that impression. I referred to this specific idiotic claim, not to all people who are against Obama's plan - sorry if understood otherwise.


I can see cows. I can't see states. They're artificial. They exist only if we agree on their existence.


I'm not speaking against anti-socialism in my claim here, I'm speaking against worshipping the country for itself.
And yes, the social contract theory is nonsense, I agree.

Well, I spoke about tradition after you brought it up. I am not unwilling to go into an issue if someone else brings it up. However, at the same time, it wasn't what my original comment was saying.

Your traditions impact your moral thinking much much more than you probably recognize then. Unless you think you have transcended culture, you are working within a moral framework delivered to you from a very early age. You also likely work within an intellectual framework that has been made open to you by circumstance.


You ranted about liberties and how socialism isn't so bad, so I brought up the fact that there are people who seem consistent by those standards.


I don't see how your comment relates to mine that much. I never brought up nation worship at all.

Accepted.


My moral thinking was always somewhat (to say the least) different from my surroundings, so...


Exactly - I spoke about it, your comment didn't...

yeah that doesn't answer it - is valkyrieraven88 talking about abortion or about the monstrous communist fluoridation plot uncovered by this man

Your thinking was different ergo you weren't influenced? That seems silly to claim. I mean, I could say the same for myself, but I wouldn't say that I had no influence. If I were born in any other region of the world, I would probably make all sorts of different claims, and honestly some of my ideas will change dramatically based upon current cultural influences or experiential factors being more or less dominant in my cognitive processes.

I was talking about forced sterilization that occurred as part of the German-influenced eugenics movement in the United States in the 30's. Luckily, after the Holocaust "eugenics" became a dirty word and that all ended. Abortion is another controversial topic but not the same thing as sterilization.

aah, ok, all clear now. thanks valkyrieraven

My father's opinions border a lot on fascism.

He thinks that the role of government and the police is to liberate and help individuals. However almost incidences in history have shown otherwise: that the role of government and the police is to protect big business and money and not help poor individuals.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Agreed, that is why Conservatives push for small limited Government.

To permit the tyranny of the wealthy or the military or the gang or the big stupid SOB who enjoys beating people up.