The ineffable quality of socialism....

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is that a safe way to hold that gun... right next to another person?

 

[DrZoidberg]

In America, socialism has a very bad word. I think that it's more that people like to blame all their problems on government. Right wingers have picked up on this. They really play it up. They often run on the platform that elect me, I'll cut government and relieve the BS that you are putting you through. Don't elect those democrats, they are all heathen socialists who want to take away your assets. It's a very effective political strategy.

I see positives of both systems. Collecting and distributing taxes is expensive. A high tax country is going to have a poorer population. I can't afford the same standard of living as somebody with the equivalent job in USA. It is a trade off. It's a trade off I'm happy to do. But I understand those who don't.

I wonder whether a federal socialist system would be possible in a big country. I think it needs a small state. Regulation is difficult to get right. The more people and the more varied the businesses, the harder to get right. I'm not saying it's impossible. But it's certainly a challenge. Perhaps it's possible to do on the state level in USA? It requires a high degree of trust in the government. USA by tradition has very little trust in the government. And to be honest, I think that's a healthy attitude to have, in general. So I'm not going to vigorously wave the patriotic flag of Scandinavia.

An example. I had a friend who got a job at Microsoft in Redmond and had a life of luxury. Same job as he had in Sweden. He lived like a playboy. Could buy anything it wanted to. Had a huge house. Could go out and eat every day of the week. Then one of his kids got leukemia and his wealth was gone within a year. He went into debt. He couldn't afford the treatments. Now he lives in Sweden again. His kid survived. Thanks to Sweden's socialism. Now he's got a modest house in a Malmö suburb, and has to pinch pennies and loves socialism.

What I do like about socialist countries is the culture that develops. Nobody cares if you have money or not. They only care if you're nice. People have lovers across class boundaries all the time. There's little social cost to mix with people outside your group. There's less fear. More trust. I like that. Which is why I live in Denmark now.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is that a safe way to hold that gun... right next to another person?

Maybe they've already had that accident once before? Since you can only shoot a guys cock off once, it's the safest place to aim now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My take is that socialism is barn raising and sharing community demands. My take on America's take on socialism is that we tend to think it's 'from each according to each according' which is a very untrusting formulation that Russians rove in to the ground with corruption. Must is very different from free to.

Socialism rose to existence in America due to the unfair treatment of workers. The interesting thing is that the AFL didn't join the Debs' movement of socialism. Somewhat like Madison verses Jefferson, with both sides having virtues and being right, but one side generally winning more (Madison in that case), Gompers (AFL) on the other. But in the end... well... Debs' movement kind of won even if they, the party, generally lost. So many of the Socialist platform in the very early 1900s was eventually put in to law, just not directly because of the socialists.

 

[DrZoidberg]

My take is that socialism is barn raising and sharing community demands. My take on America's take on socialism is that we tend to think it's 'from each according to each according' which is a very untrusting formulation that Russians rove in to the ground with corruption. Must is very different from free to.

Socialism rose to existence in America due to the unfair treatment of workers. The interesting thing is that the AFL didn't join the Debs' movement of socialism. Somewhat like Madison verses Jefferson, with both sides having virtues and being right, but one side generally winning more (Madison in that case), Gompers (AFL) on the other. But in the end... well... Debs' movement kind of won even if they, the party, generally lost. So many of the Socialist platform in the very early 1900s was eventually put in to law, just not directly because of the socialists.

What I got explained to me was that as socialism was forming in Europe 1848 - 1918 USA was continually pushing west and expanding into new territories. Unhappy workers in the east could just fuck off west. They had no need to organise and didn't.

So the left wing in USA kept the label "liberal". The term socialism never got a foothold. Until the cold War when it became equated with the Devil.

Its interesting how American attacks on socialism tend to be more cartoony than in Europe. Jordan Peterson equating socialism with the Russian Gulag system is rediculous. And probably would be to any European. But in USA and Canada it seems to fly

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My take is that socialism is barn raising and sharing community demands. My take on America's take on socialism is that we tend to think it's 'from each according to each according' which is a very untrusting formulation that Russians rove in to the ground with corruption. Must is very different from free to.

Socialism rose to existence in America due to the unfair treatment of workers. The interesting thing is that the AFL didn't join the Debs' movement of socialism. Somewhat like Madison verses Jefferson, with both sides having virtues and being right, but one side generally winning more (Madison in that case), Gompers (AFL) on the other. But in the end... well... Debs' movement kind of won even if they, the party, generally lost. So many of the Socialist platform in the very early 1900s was eventually put in to law, just not directly because of the socialists.

What I got explained to me was that as socialism was forming in Europe 1848 - 1918 USA was continually pushing west and expanding into new territories. Unhappy workers in the east could just fuck off west. They had no need to organise and didn't.

And the existence of the AFL (founded in 1886) and IWW (1905) was what exactly? Americans did unionize! And it was met with harsh resistance in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

Its interesting how American attacks on socialism tend to be more cartoony than in Europe.

Right-wing attacks in the US are usually grounded in unhealthy levels of hyperbole.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What I got explained to me was that as socialism was forming in Europe 1848 - 1918 USA was continually pushing west and expanding into new territories. Unhappy workers in the east could just fuck off west. They had no need to organise and didn't.

And the existence of the AFL (founded in 1886) and IWW (1905) was what exactly? Americans did unionize! And it was met with harsh resistance in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

In Europe the socialists brought true democracy and shaped our political systems. Every country had a major political party calling themselves socialist.

You can't compare the movements in significance. American unions also disqualified themselves from having political influence when they became corrupt.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I got explained to me was that as socialism was forming in Europe 1848 - 1918 USA was continually pushing west and expanding into new territories. Unhappy workers in the east could just fuck off west. They had no need to organise and didn't.

And the existence of the AFL (founded in 1886) and IWW (1905) was what exactly? Americans did unionize! And it was met with harsh resistance in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

In Europe the socialists brought true democracy and shaped our political systems. Every country had a major political party calling themselves socialist.

I responded to your statement that the workers didn't organize. That was not accurate.

Regarding politics, really only Wisconsin managed to see the Socialists get anywhere in politics in the US.

You can't compare the movements in significance. American unions also disqualified themselves from having political influence when they became corrupt.

Yes, the Socialist movement in the US certainly pales compared to the movement in Europe. But there was definitely a labor movement. In the US, socialism was heavily tied to the plight of the hard laborer. But the AFL won out over the IWW.

 

[Harry Bosch]

In America, socialism has a very bad word. I think that it's more that people like to blame all their problems on government. Right wingers have picked up on this. They really play it up. They often run on the platform that elect me, I'll cut government and relieve the BS that you are putting you through. Don't elect those democrats, they are all heathen socialists who want to take away your assets. It's a very effective political strategy.

I see positives of both systems. Collecting and distributing taxes is expensive. A high tax country is going to have a poorer population. I can't afford the same standard of living as somebody with the equivalent job in USA. It is a trade off. It's a trade off I'm happy to do. But I understand those who don't.

I wonder whether a federal socialist system would be possible in a big country. I think it needs a small state. Regulation is difficult to get right. The more people and the more varied the businesses, the harder to get right. I'm not saying it's impossible. But it's certainly a challenge. Perhaps it's possible to do on the state level in USA? It requires a high degree of trust in the government. USA by tradition has very little trust in the government. And to be honest, I think that's a healthy attitude to have, in general. So I'm not going to vigorously wave the patriotic flag of Scandinavia.

An example. I had a friend who got a job at Microsoft in Redmond and had a life of luxury. Same job as he had in Sweden. He lived like a playboy. Could buy anything it wanted to. Had a huge house. Could go out and eat every day of the week. Then one of his kids got leukemia and his wealth was gone within a year. He went into debt. He couldn't afford the treatments. Now he lives in Sweden again. His kid survived. Thanks to Sweden's socialism. Now he's got a modest house in a Malmö suburb, and has to pinch pennies and loves socialism.

What I do like about socialist countries is the culture that develops. Nobody cares if you have money or not. They only care if you're nice. People have lovers across class boundaries all the time. There's little social cost to mix with people outside your group. There's less fear. More trust. I like that. Which is why I live in Denmark now.

I'm sorry to say but a large percentage of the people who will decide the 2024 election believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, climate change is a myth and that windmills destroyed the texas power grid. I don't expect them to understand the nuanced difference between the modern definition of socialism and the standard definition of socialism.

 

[DBT]

The word becomes a psychologal trigger in relation to 'all that's bad in the world,' Socialism practicality synonymous with Communism, Commies, the enemy of Christian values, God and freedom...

 

[DrZoidberg]

In Europe the socialists brought true democracy and shaped our political systems. Every country had a major political party calling themselves socialist.

I responded to your statement that the workers didn't organize. That was not accurate.

I think it's more along the lines of you not understanding what I wrote. It's about power and what you use it for. Union power in Europe in the 19th century was the most powerful political force on the continent. They reshaped every nation they touched. That never happened in USA. Unions negotiated worker rights, and that was it. Its a chapter of western political history that USA skipped. Which is the explanation for why the American left are still called "liberals" and not "socialists".

I can go to Burger King, put on a paper crown and proclaim myself emperor of Earth. Unless there's a popular movement of magnitude that recognises that, I'd just be a joker in a fast food place.

What killed the union's power in Europe was their success. They ran out of things to fight for. They ran out of unfairness to rectify. Which is why the European left has switched to more esoteric enemies like "structural oppression" and "the patriarchy".

 

[DrZoidberg]

The word becomes a psychologal trigger in relation to 'all that's bad in the world,' Socialism practicality synonymous with Communism, Commies, the enemy of Christian values, God and freedom...

I'd say its accurate that socialism is the enemy of Christian values. Its important for a Christian society to keep its population divided, passive, weak and fearful. The church solves a problem they create themselves.

Wherever socialism comes religion dies. The European Labour movement acted to systematically replace each church institution, one by one, to make it redundant.

Worth noting is that Soviet communism did the opposite. They replaced God with the Party and kept the same dynamic. They didn't make God redundant. They switched to a new God that had a similar social function and sucked for the same reason.

 

[Trausti]

I'd say its accurate that socialism is the enemy of Christian values. Its important for a Christian society to keep its population divided, passive, weak and fearful. The church solves a problem they create themselves.

Eh. Socialism is a spawn of Christianity, even if socialists are atheists. Jesus was a poor and dirty carpenter who died to save everyone. The focus on helping and protecting the poor and meek is uniquely Christian because of this. And Christianity has a universalism that let it spread; it had to, as the early adherents were not Jewish. Surely you can say that professed Christians have deviated from Christian values. Yet, Christianity is again unique in that those values can be called one to right the deviating behavior. Think Bartolomé de Las Casas and William Wilberforce. Abolition and concern for society's riff-raff is Christianity. Our present world would be very different without it.

 

[DBT]

How do you think our world would look without it?

 

[Jarhyn]

How do you think our world would look without it?

Depends on how the world gets there. If it's through a shifting and improving understanding of "truth" insofar as acceptance of the moral unimportance of gods, then the world would look good without it. If the world lacks Christianity because a lack of any idea of universal convergence in the presence of personal ignorance in the philosophical zeitgeist? It would look pretty bad, then.

Christianity is a step humans had to walk over, if not in it's exact form. We were destined to be wrong about a lot, in the quest to be less wrong. In fact, we will always be wrong, just hopefully less so. Christianity just represents an artifact of when we were collectively less wrong than we were but also when we were more wrong than we are.

 

[DBT]

What I do like about socialist countries is the culture that develops. Nobody cares if you have money or not. They only care if you're nice. People have lovers across class boundaries all the time. There's little social cost to mix with people outside your group. There's less fear. More trust. I like that. Which is why I live in Denmark now.

Which, I guess, shows what a powerful driver wealth is in building and entrenching a social class and caste structure, value judgement, lives of luxury and privilege for some, struggling to make ends meet for to many.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'd say its accurate that socialism is the enemy of Christian values. Its important for a Christian society to keep its population divided, passive, weak and fearful. The church solves a problem they create themselves.

Eh. Socialism is a spawn of Christianity, even if socialists are atheists. Jesus was a poor and dirty carpenter who died to save everyone. The focus on helping and protecting the poor and meek is uniquely Christian because of this. And Christianity has a universalism that let it spread; it had to, as the early adherents were not Jewish. Surely you can say that professed Christians have deviated from Christian values. Yet, Christianity is again unique in that those values can be called one to right the deviating behavior. Think Bartolomé de Las Casas and William Wilberforce. Abolition and concern for society's riff-raff is Christianity. Our present world would be very different without it.

Wasn't that Foucault's critique on Soviet socialism. It was basically that it was the purest form of Christianity.

 

[untermensche]

I refuse to accept the idea that treating people well and caring about your neighbor were invented by the Christians.