Exposure to socialism increases the proclivity to cheat?

[untermensche]

In the old days leftists used to argue these socialist places weren't shitty. Now they argue these shitty places weren't socialism.

One seems to require less delusion than the other, so I guess this is progress.

Provide me with a quote of somebody on the left who said East Germany was a model of socialism.

 

[ZiprHead]

In the old days leftists used to argue these socialist places weren't shitty. Now they argue these shitty places weren't socialism.

One seems to require less delusion than the other, so I guess this is progress.

When someone has a commodity and they sell it, that's capitalism. It was the capitalistic cheating in the socialistic system that created the OP situation.

 

[doubtingt]

In the old days leftists used to argue these socialist places weren't shitty. Now they argue these shitty places weren't socialism.

One seems to require less delusion than the other, so I guess this is progress.

In the old days rational people used to argue that crappy correlational pseudo-science fails to provide any evidence of anything, while rightists embraced such "science" when they could abuse it to support their faith and rejected superior valid science when they couldn't abuse it that way.

That's what still happens today as your posts show, so there has been no progress, but then rightists are opposed to progress so it works out pretty well for them.

 

[Bomb#20]

... It doesn't take a conspiracy for an ideologue of whatever persuasion to fudge his definitions in order to make people's emotional reaction to one thing rub off on whatever other thing he'd like it to rub off on; ...

Hrm. Complaining about how unfair it is of me to accuse you of believing in conspiracy theories will be more effective if it doesn't immediately follow your description of how the left uses a fluid definition of socialism so that basic social welfare policies can be used to slowly lure people into abolishing private ownership.

Help me out here. Are you saying that when you described how the right uses a fluid definition of socialism so that the observed outcomes after abolition of private ownership can be used to lure people into opposing basic social welfare policies, you were expressing your own belief in a conspiracy theory? Or are you saying description of the use of fluid definitions to persuade people is a conspiracy theory, provided the fluid definitions are being used to establish innocence-by-association, but isn't a conspiracy theory when they're being used to establish guilt-by-association? Or are you saying you have some other double-standard that makes me but not you a conspiracy theorist? Or are you saying accusing opponents of believing in conspiracy theories is something you do for no reason at all?

 

[bilby]

We seem to be avoiding the obvious conclusion here. That what is true in life is also true in political and economic systems, moderation is the key, avoid the extremes.

In political systems we shouldn't go to the extremes of either the totalitarianism of the left and of the workers, communism, or the totalitarianism of the right and of the capitalists, fascism.

In economic systems we should avoid the extremes of collectivism suppressing individual initiative or the abandonment of collective action from an idealistic view of what the individual can accomplish alone. We shouldn't go to the extremes of trying to change our current economy into an idealistic and impossible to achieve model economy based on ideology of either the capital and personal ownership free model of Marx or the self-regulating, self-organizing free market operating without any government interference so popular with so many here.

Rather we should work to understand the economy that we have here today, the economy that has changed and evolved over thousands of years. An economy that has over the years tried most of the ideas in both extremes and has rejected them. Not because of the heavy hand of government action but because the ideas and theories were impractical and unworkable.

Moderation is the key. Avoid the extremes. Simple.

Exactly. The only people who can be trusted with power are the moderates, and as the extremists refuse to moderate their position, our only option, as committed moderates, is to round them up and shoot the lot of them.

Only by strictly enforcing a moderate stance, and ruthlessly eliminating any and all extremists, can we hope to achieve a utopian society made up solely of committed, fundamentalist, hard-core, moderation.

What do we want? Gradual change!

When do we want it? In due course!

 

[Harry Bosch]

Exactly. The only people who can be trusted with power are the moderates, and as the extremists refuse to moderate their position, our only option, as committed moderates, is to round them up and shoot the lot of them. Only by strictly enforcing a moderate stance, and ruthlessly eliminating any and all extremists, can we hope to achieve a utopian society made up solely of committed, fundamentalist, hard-core, moderation. What do we want? Gradual change! When do we want it? In due course!

When have moderates committed mass murder? All the great criminal regimes of history were commuted by extremists.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Can someone point out what part of socialism necessarily leads to mass murder?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Can someone point out what part of socialism necessarily leads to mass murder?

Stealing people's stuff and distributing it to the "The collective" generally requires a brutal transitional period that often results in mass murder.

 

[bilby]

Exactly. The only people who can be trusted with power are the moderates, and as the extremists refuse to moderate their position, our only option, as committed moderates, is to round them up and shoot the lot of them. Only by strictly enforcing a moderate stance, and ruthlessly eliminating any and all extremists, can we hope to achieve a utopian society made up solely of committed, fundamentalist, hard-core, moderation. What do we want? Gradual change! When do we want it? In due course!

When have moderates committed mass murder? All the great criminal regimes of history were commuted by extremists.

Gosh, really?

 

[barbos]

Exactly. The only people who can be trusted with power are the moderates, and as the extremists refuse to moderate their position, our only option, as committed moderates, is to round them up and shoot the lot of them. Only by strictly enforcing a moderate stance, and ruthlessly eliminating any and all extremists, can we hope to achieve a utopian society made up solely of committed, fundamentalist, hard-core, moderation. What do we want? Gradual change! When do we want it? In due course!

When have moderates committed mass murder? All the great criminal regimes of history were commuted by extremists.

Get a humor detection unit, will you?

 

[Tigers!]

In the old days leftists used to argue these socialist places weren't shitty. Now they argue these shitty places weren't socialism.

One seems to require less delusion than the other, so I guess this is progress.

Provide me with a quote of somebody on the left who said East Germany was a model of socialism.

Not quotes but joks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany_jokes

Some are rather good.

 

[untermensche]

Can someone point out what part of socialism necessarily leads to mass murder?

Stealing people's stuff and distributing it to the "The collective" generally requires a brutal transitional period that often results in mass murder.

Capitalism is based on stealing stuff.

It isn't the government, but business owners. They steal from workers.

The way capitalism works is by paying workers less than the value of their work (the owners profit). Without all this massive theft the system would implode. And there is only one remedy for this theft, unionization. Which is why the owners have crushed the unions and get hysterical at the mention of them. They are the instrument to ease the theft. They are a damn nuisance.

Why is it capitalists only care about theft when it is the government?

 

[dismal]

And there is only one remedy for this theft, unionization.

Well, two since workers could just start their own business and keep all the profit they generate for themselves. And not have the union dues stealing their profit either.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Stealing people's stuff and distributing it to the "The collective" generally requires a brutal transitional period that often results in mass murder.

Capitalism is based on stealing stuff.

It isn't the government, but business owners. They steal from workers.

The way capitalism works is by paying workers less than the value of their work (the owners profit). Without all this massive theft the system would implode. And there is only one remedy for this theft, unionization. Which is why the owners have crushed the unions and get hysterical at the mention of them. They are the instrument to ease the theft. They are a damn nuisance.

Why is it capitalists only care about theft when it is the government?

It's because you use a different definition of theft than what is understood.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Stealing people's stuff and distributing it to the "The collective" generally requires a brutal transitional period that often results in mass murder.

Capitalism is based on stealing stuff.

It isn't the government, but business owners. They steal from workers.

The way capitalism works is by paying workers less than the value of their work (the owners profit). Without all this massive theft the system would implode. And there is only one remedy for this theft, unionization. Which is why the owners have crushed the unions and get hysterical at the mention of them. They are the instrument to ease the theft. They are a damn nuisance.

Why is it capitalists only care about theft when it is the government?

The problem here is that you are assuming capital has no value--you're looking only at the current labor, not the stored labor added to the business by the owner, nor the risk the owner takes.

Note that if you put no value on capital then nobody is going to provide capital--there will be no new businesses. Your society runs down.

 

[untermensche]

And there is only one remedy for this theft, unionization.

Well, two since workers could just start their own business and keep all the profit they generate for themselves. And not have the union dues stealing their profit either.

That's Anarchism, worker ownership and control. It's a better alternative to capitalism, not a remedy.

And many people are moving in this direction all over the planet. In the US, owners have always behaved violently and illegally towards increased worker control. The US will lag behind the world in this advancement. The US system is obsolete, on a downward spiral.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Well, two since workers could just start their own business and keep all the profit they generate for themselves. And not have the union dues stealing their profit either.

That's Anarchism, worker ownership and control. It's a better alternative to capitalism, not a remedy.

And many people are moving in this direction all over the planet. In the US, owners have always behaved violently and illegally towards increased worker control. The US will lag behind the world in this advancement. The US system is obsolete, on a downward spiral.

What I believe we are going to get is a downward spiral for a while because of "socialism" the government run economy that we have but it will be blamed on capitalism.

and the violence in the first world countries is very minor, though companies will fight it with other means. But as dismal said, all it takes is about $50 to start a worked owned company in the US.

 

[dismal]

Well, two since workers could just start their own business and keep all the profit they generate for themselves. And not have the union dues stealing their profit either.

That's Anarchism, worker ownership and control. It's a better alternative to capitalism, not a remedy.

And many people are moving in this direction all over the planet. In the US, owners have always behaved violently and illegally towards increased worker control. The US will lag behind the world in this advancement. The US system is obsolete, on a downward spiral.

Here's what I'm saying:

1) Quit your job
2) Start your own business employing yourself

Bam! No employer and no union taking the fruits of your labor.

Now comes the mindblowing part: This is possible within the system we already got.

We don't need to ascend to the anarcho-unicorn world for you to do it.

 

[ksen]

The problem here is that you are assuming capital has no value--you're looking only at the current labor, not the stored labor added to the business by the owner, nor the risk the owner takes.

That's not what capital is.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

That's Anarchism, worker ownership and control. It's a better alternative to capitalism, not a remedy.

And many people are moving in this direction all over the planet. In the US, owners have always behaved violently and illegally towards increased worker control. The US will lag behind the world in this advancement. The US system is obsolete, on a downward spiral.

Here's what I'm saying:

1) Quit your job
2) Start your own business employing yourself

Bam! No employer and no union taking the fruits of your labor.

Now comes the mindblowing part: This is possible within the system we already got.

We don't need to ascend to the anarcho-unicorn world for you to do it.

Because everyone has the aptitude to run a business?