War is a racket

[angelo]

Impossible for individuals?

Impossible for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater. and thousands of contractors of all types? No, Zoidberg you are wrong. War is quite the corrupting profit machine. War mongers are always rich and powerful people and organizations that stand to PROFIT FROM WAR. In today's world, they promote the wars FOR THE PROFIT...sometimes for access to other people's resources, but always for Profit.

It is impossible for a Socialist country to justify a war for profit because in a society where resources are commonly owned, the allocation of resources for war takes away from the citizenship and expends materials in the act of destruction.

Capitalists on the other hand build a mental little red fence are what they think is theirs and want more of everything inside their little red fence. The society in which they exist and which has provided all their wealth is NOT A PART OF THEIR CONSIDERATIONS.

Such short memories! Soviet Russia ring any bells?

 

[untermensche]

Impossible for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater. and thousands of contractors of all types? No, Zoidberg you are wrong. War is quite the corrupting profit machine. War mongers are always rich and powerful people and organizations that stand to PROFIT FROM WAR. In today's world, they promote the wars FOR THE PROFIT...sometimes for access to other people's resources, but always for Profit.

It is impossible for a Socialist country to justify a war for profit because in a society where resources are commonly owned, the allocation of resources for war takes away from the citizenship and expends materials in the act of destruction.

Capitalists on the other hand build a mental little red fence are what they think is theirs and want more of everything inside their little red fence. The society in which they exist and which has provided all their wealth is NOT A PART OF THEIR CONSIDERATIONS.

Such short memories! Soviet Russia ring any bells?

The Soviet Union only had a connection to socialism in the claims of people like Stalin.

It was a rigid totalitarian state that only paid lip service to socialism.

To use it to criticize socialism is like using the Libertarians to criticize liberty.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Soviet Union only had a connection to socialism in the claims of people like Stalin. It was a rigid totalitarian state that only paid lip service to socialism. To use it to criticize socialism is like using the Libertarians to criticize liberty.

Socialism is either collective or state owning the means of production. Clearly the SU was state owned.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Soviet Union only had a connection to socialism in the claims of people like Stalin. It was a rigid totalitarian state that only paid lip service to socialism. To use it to criticize socialism is like using the Libertarians to criticize liberty.

Socialism is either collective or state owning the means of production. Clearly the SU was state owned.

The term socialism has evolved over the years. It´s meant slightly different things in different times. It´s also a bag of concepts borne out of 19´th century extremely liberal industrial economies. That´s the context in which most of these socialist terms come from. To nit-pick, any government with state sponsored welfare is technically socialist to some degree. So we´re all living in Marxist communist utopias to some degree. Also, uncontroversially a good thing today. Only complete lunatics want to go back to the society we had in the 19´th century.

The socialism of a hundred or fifty years ago is not the socialism of today. Today it feels mostly like a dirty word. So socialist policies need to be dressed up in right-wing terminology. But it´s still socialism.

Yes, of course the Soviet Union was a socialist state. But so it USA today. Just a different kind of socialism.

 

[Valjean]

All "societies" are socialist, to some degree. Anytime we promote the general good over our own, immediate interests, we're being social(ist).

 

[DrZoidberg]

All "societies" are socialist, to some degree. Anytime we promote the general good over our own, immediate interests, we're being social(ist).

Hmm.... Free market capitalists would argue that selfish actors in a market are promiting the general/common good. They´d argue that socialism is only destruction of value. Equality for equalities sake.

Even though I´m a lefty, I don´t like misrepresenting the other side. IMHO all you did was to set up a straw man.

 

[Togo]

Well, most countries have at least some of the means of production owned either by the state, or by a collective. The London Underground (metro) is owned by London, for example. So the idea that socialism is state or collective ownership of assets is not usefully correct, any more than the idea that all actions for the general good are socialist. It may be more accurate to label various activities as tending towards or partaking of socialism or capitalism, and forget the idea of an actual capitalist or socialist state.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well, most countries have at least some of the means of production owned either by the state, or by a collective. The London Underground (metro) is owned by London, for example. So the idea that socialism is state or collective ownership of assets is not usefully correct, any more than the idea that all actions for the general good are socialist. It may be more accurate to label various activities as tending towards or partaking of socialism or capitalism, and forget the idea of an actual capitalist or socialist state.

If I´m to pull a definition out of my ass I´d argue that any government enforced policy´s with the sole purpose of increasing social mobility, for the sake of equality, would be a socialist one. As would any policy with the goal of enforcing equality, for the sake of equality, at the expense of financial efficiency.

What I´m trying to get at is what sets socialism and socialist policy´s apart from free market liberalism and its policy´s. I would say it´s beyond question that socialists view equality in itself as a worthwhile goal, while free market liberals would only consider equality as a worthwhile goal if it also leads to greater productivity somehow. An example would be policy´s that encouraged women to work outside the home. While promoting equality, it´s obviously not socialism as such. It´s an obvious economic and social boon regardless of your political home.

 

[untermensche]

The Soviet Union only had a connection to socialism in the claims of people like Stalin. It was a rigid totalitarian state that only paid lip service to socialism. To use it to criticize socialism is like using the Libertarians to criticize liberty.

Socialism is either collective or state owning the means of production. Clearly the SU was state owned.

A huge feature of Socialism is democracy and extending democratic control as far as possible.

The belief is that if the people control the government and the government controls the means of production that means the people control the means of production.

A totalitarian nation like the Soviet Union was the opposite of Socialism.

 

[BH]

I think most people know war is just about getting some rich folks richer but just do not care or think that opposing the war for money will somehow hurt them economically.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Socialism is either collective or state owning the means of production. Clearly the SU was state owned.

A huge feature of Socialism is democracy and extending democratic control as far as possible.

The belief is that if the people control the government and the government controls the means of production that means the people control the means of production.

A totalitarian nation like the Soviet Union was the opposite of Socialism.

I believe this was the original intent with Karl Marx´s statement, "dictatorship of the proletariat". But in countries where literacy and higher education was low, free democratic elections is tantamount to just giving away power to whoever has the most money. The Egyptian election is a good example. So it was impractical in those extremely poor countries, where communism was the most popular.

I´m not arguing for USSR, China or communist Cambodia. I´m just saying that the only way they could have held on to power was through dictatorship. And politics is the art of the possible.

This can be contrasted with socialism/communism in Sweden. Communism was extremely popular in Sweden, on par with pre-revolutionary China and Russia. But since 1850 huge amounts of money had been put into public schools. So Swedish workers had an almost total level of literacy at the peak of the revolutionary sentiment. Trade unions and socialist clubs organised night schools, that were real and proper schools teaching proper science. So the Swedish working class was relatively well educated. This meant that our "socialist revolution" led to liberal democracy. Without our literacy level Sweden could easily have gone the same way as USSR.

The influence of behaviourism and operate conditioning should not be underestimated. In the first half of the 20´th century. Influential and smart people seriously thought that an entire people could be conditioned to be selfless and boundlessly generous to one another. This explains how totalitarian communism could at all gain traction. There´s still people who buy into that shit.

One thing that I´ve always wondered is how the soviets and Chinese communist view class. Whoever is put in power is not working class any more. He´s comparable to royalty. Ie not working class any more. And today the higher echelons of China is a ruling elite who elect their ruling elite buddies. Belonging to this elite obviously makes them NOT working class. How do they justify it politically? How does the propaganda work?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course war is a racket! Ever hear of a quiet war? <G, D & R>

 

[untermensche]

A huge feature of Socialism is democracy and extending democratic control as far as possible.

The belief is that if the people control the government and the government controls the means of production that means the people control the means of production.

A totalitarian nation like the Soviet Union was the opposite of Socialism.

I believe this was the original intent with Karl Marx´s statement, "dictatorship of the proletariat". But in countries where literacy and higher education was low, free democratic elections is tantamount to just giving away power to whoever has the most money. The Egyptian election is a good example. So it was impractical in those extremely poor countries, where communism was the most popular.

I´m not arguing for USSR, China or communist Cambodia. I´m just saying that the only way they could have held on to power was through dictatorship. And politics is the art of the possible.

This can be contrasted with socialism/communism in Sweden. Communism was extremely popular in Sweden, on par with pre-revolutionary China and Russia. But since 1850 huge amounts of money had been put into public schools. So Swedish workers had an almost total level of literacy at the peak of the revolutionary sentiment. Trade unions and socialist clubs organised night schools, that were real and proper schools teaching proper science. So the Swedish working class was relatively well educated. This meant that our "socialist revolution" led to liberal democracy. Without our literacy level Sweden could easily have gone the same way as USSR.

The influence of behaviourism and operate conditioning should not be underestimated. In the first half of the 20´th century. Influential and smart people seriously thought that an entire people could be conditioned to be selfless and boundlessly generous to one another. This explains how totalitarian communism could at all gain traction. There´s still people who buy into that shit.

One thing that I´ve always wondered is how the soviets and Chinese communist view class. Whoever is put in power is not working class any more. He´s comparable to royalty. Ie not working class any more. And today the higher echelons of China is a ruling elite who elect their ruling elite buddies. Belonging to this elite obviously makes them NOT working class. How do they justify it politically? How does the propaganda work?

When you live in a totalitarian society there are many things you can't talk about too loudly.

But people see and understand the rhetoric doesn't match the reality.

There is also the other side of education. The side Chomsky and Herman discuss in 'Manufacturing Consent'.

In societies like the US people can't be frightened to believe the rhetoric of the state.

That is what a good education is for. Much of it is indoctrination to accept the rhetoric about American capitalism and democracy and opportunity and all the rest.

 

[angelo]

Of course war is a racket! Ever hear of a quiet war? <G, D & R>

Of course not. The day they invent quite explosives is the day there will be quite wars!