I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: Dec 18, 2004 Posts: 4881 Location: One Mile From the Columbia River
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: Re: The New Party
The terms, 'socialist' and 'communist' are synonymous.
Non-communists try like crazy to split hairs and drum up differences between the two terms, but they have identical meanings.
It's State ownership of the means of production. That means factories, banks, schools, medical care, roads, ports, water and energy resources ... the whole shebang. The only (almost) universally exempted elements of the economy with communism (or socialism) are small gardens and family businesses. And the black market.
It's really not that complex. And it's where we're headed, like I've mentioned here dozens of times.
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: The New Party
Loki and Eastbay, you crack me up.
No student of Political Science would equate the terms Communism and Socialism, nor would many students of Economics, no matter what you two say.
Loki, my degree in Classical Studies is pretty much as relevant to this discussion as your PhD in geography.
Had I time to do it over again I'd certainly have done a double major in Poli-Sci and History. As it stands, maybe a third of my course work was in the the above mentioned disciplines.
As for myself I am certainly no lover of communism, although I am biased towards the kinds of socialism I mentioned. One of my history profs, Dr. Eric Haberer studied Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union extensively even living in St. Petersburg for 5 years.
I am well versed in the evils and death that communism inflicted on hundreds of millions, if you include the likes of China.
As for Nazi Germany, the National Socialists were that in name only.
Loki, with your history back ground I am amazed you'd even try to dispute this.
Joined: Dec 18, 2004 Posts: 4881 Location: One Mile From the Columbia River
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: The New Party
drew wrote:
Loki and Eastbay, you crack me up.
No student of Political Science would equate the terms Communism and Socialism, nor would many students of Economics, no matter what you two say.
Loki, my degree in Classical Studies is pretty much as relevant to this discussion as your PhD in geography.
Had I time to do it over again I'd certainly have done a double major in Poli-Sci and History. As it stands, maybe a third of my course work was in the the above mentioned disciplines.
As for myself I am certainly no lover of communism, although I am biased towards the kinds of socialism I mentioned. One of my history profs, Dr. Eric Haberer studied Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union extensively even living in St. Petersburg for 5 years.
I am well versed in the evils and death that communism inflicted on hundreds of millions, if you include the likes of China.
As for Nazi Germany, the National Socialists were that in name only.
Loki, with your history back ground I am amazed you'd even try to dispute this.
Drew
Re: Highlighted area.
You're right Drew. Academics and non-communists in capitalist countries try like mad to find differences. I've watched this strange phenomenon for decades. But there are no differences. Sorry Drew.
40 years of involvement in The Left (with a brief break, work related) is all I can offer. If there's another SWP, CP, or other leftist here, they'll tell you exactly what I'm saying. Mismo dude.
I travelled in many communist nations during the 80's, and THEY used the terms synonymously.
As does the true left everywhere. And they always have too. And that's a simple fact. _________________ Got Dharma?
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 6285 Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: Re: The New Party
eastbay wrote:
It's State ownership of the means of production. That means factories, banks, schools, medical care, roads, ports, water and energy resources ... the whole shebang. The only (almost) universally exempted elements of the economy with communism (or socialism) are small gardens and family businesses. And the black market.
It's really not that complex. And it's where we're headed, like I've mentioned here dozens of times.
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: Re: The New Party
Well here in the UK we're moving back towards the ideal
Public ownership
Water - Used to - private now, but not popular easy to take back!
Energy - Used to - ditto
Ports - Used to - Won't take much to get them back
Roads - 99% of them
Medical - 95%
Schools - 98% (The private ones get tax breaks, so should be easy to control)
Banks - Probably reaching 80%
Factories - More problematic, but maybe we can pick them up cheap (sorry I mean rescue them) as they fail
Hey - we're nearly there! Best polish up the Lyrics...
The peoples flag is deepest red...
Most industries in the UK have been nationalised because they weren't working under capitalism!
Plantagenet wrote:
eastbay wrote:
It's State ownership of the means of production. That means factories, banks, schools, medical care, roads, ports, water and energy resources ... the whole shebang. The only (almost) universally exempted elements of the economy with communism (or socialism) are small gardens and family businesses. And the black market.
It's really not that complex. And it's where we're headed, like I've mentioned here dozens of times.
Exactly right.
_________________ Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
Joined: Sep 14, 2004 Posts: 6536 Location: Rural Virginia
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:09 am Post subject: Re: The New Party
I think the dream of socialism (in its positive interpretation) is basically a utopian dream. The dream is that nobody will be left out in the cold, be homeless, die of untreated illness, etc. As others have pointed out, the realities of human nature tend to drag it down, although the experiments in Scandinavia seem to have gone quite well.
Capitalism works because it is a much better match with human nature. However, it is a very poor match with NATURAL nature, and that will be its undoing, as we are beginning to see. Perhaps the unraveling of American democracy which we are witnessing has something to do with that. _________________ "Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog
"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---Me and my brother
Last edited by Heineken on Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13065 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: Re: The New Party
I was wondering what services it's "ok" to have socialized and what not.
Ok
- Military
- Water
- Sewer
- Roads
- Phone service
- Electric service
- Police
- Fire department
- Schools
Not ok!
- Health care
Can an anti-socialist clarify what is acceptable to have socialized and what it isn't? Thanks. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
Joined: Sep 14, 2004 Posts: 6536 Location: Rural Virginia
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: Re: The New Party
Ludi, under the "OK" heading you forgot the banks, the stock market, and half the economy!
Alex, I think it's ludicrous that you're complaining about Obama before he's even in office (assuming he gets there), and basically blaming him for the recession.
Bush, a extreme conservative Republican, and his henchman are responsible for the greatest expansion of government in history and the most profligate spending. They're socializing the banking system as we speak! And yet you blame . . . OBAMA! _________________ "Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog
"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---Me and my brother
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13065 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:29 am Post subject: Re: The New Party
Heineken wrote:
Alex, I think it's ludicrous that you're complaining about Obama before he's even in office (assuming he gets there), and basically blaming him for the recession.
That's the plan.
"McCain has to tie the economic crisis to Obama's character and judgment and say who you want in charge in difficult years, who is up to the job, liberal democrats who has hung out with characters, do you want him to run the country. That's got to be the core of McCain's message."
kristol _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
Joined: May 20, 2008 Posts: 948 Location: I have a whole ward
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:11 am Post subject: Re: The New Party
Heineken wrote:
Alex, I think it's ludicrous that you're complaining about Obama before he's even in office (assuming he gets there), and basically blaming him for the recession.
Where did I say that ?? I did say ACORN,where Obama was lead attorney, played a part in subprime by extorting banks to make subprime loans. I did say Franklin Rains, who is an Obama advisor, committed fraud as head of Fannie. Is this not correct?
I am no fan of McCain. I am a libertarian conservative. My objections to Obama are on a deeper level. His past associations,before running for office, tell us what is in his heart. I cannot discount Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Rezko and ACORN who is commiting voter fraud on his behalf.
I look at McCain as a lesser evil that may provide a stop check to a fillibuster proof majority of Democrats lead by Pelosi.
If Obama is elected, any legislation he wants passed will become law. He will also change the character the supreme court to a extreme left perspective.
If that is what you want..........then vote for Obama. I respectfully, disagree. _________________ Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well.
"Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former "terrorist," he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education. " _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
"Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former "terrorist," he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education. "
That's the Obama campaigns spin. _________________ Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well.
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 6285 Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:01 am Post subject: Re: The New Party
Obviously Obama lied about Ayers, just like he lied about Rev. Wright. Obama's claim was that he didn't know Ayers...Ayers was just a guy on his block....is obviously false.
The facts have trickled out about Ayer's hosting Obama at political event, Ayers hiring Obama to run his grant, Ayers and Obama serving together on the board of that group, Ayers and Obama appearing at other events together, Obama writing about Ayers.
Even Obama no longer claims Ayers is just a guy on his block.
Now Obama admits he does know Ayers, but that he didn't know about Ayer's political views. Thats the same excuse he used for Rev. Wright....and Obama's claim that he sat for 20 years in church but didn't listen to Wright's political views is ridiculous.
Obama's obviously lying about these two. Its no biggie.....politicians lie all the time, and its silly to pretend that Obama is the one politician who never lies.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
