Prog and Politics

1.  I state that all opressive regimes can't be communistic. A true socialist/communist (also true for Christian, and most other religions) will not be oppressive, it's against everything they stand for. 
2. Like I said before there hasn't been a true communistic state before, and it probably will never happen
3. I question Labours socialist credentials. Believe me I'm no Tory!! But when the Labour party abolished Clause 4 of their constitution, which commited the party to public ownership of servies, THAT was the beginning of the death of Socialism in this country.

Sweetnighter wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: If socialists/communists care so much about others why don't they get out there and lead by example and help people instead of clamoring for governments and their armies to steal money from those who have rightfully earned it? How the heck do you know we dont? I shall be more clear. The socialist movement revolves around pointing to the wealth of others and claiming it as their own, and sequentially clamoring for more powerful forces to take that wealth for them. I'm sure many socialists are active in their communities, and I commend them for that, but its more a criticism of the movement in general. Take Christians. Although I'm an atheist, I praise Christian activists for going out and doing the dirty work themselves rather than socialists who expect others to do it for them and then somehow call themselves morally superior human beings. This is just stream-of-concious nonesense. I dont know where this is coming from-it has no basis in fact in my experiences.Gross generalisation based on the premise: "what I think is what I know." I know it is not the same but do you remember saying Geddy Lee writes all Rush's music-well this is another of your fanciful,under-researched, verbal technicolor-yawns! Oh give me a break. I'm wrong once, so I'm wrong always? Not to mention that who writes Rush's music is an entirely different topic from political philosophy. Tell me Sweetsh*ter,how on earth does the government get money to run itself and the infrastructure of the country? Taking money from big business of course! This is why socialism is self-destructive. As Iván said, after to socialists took over in Peru it was just a matter of time until the economy was sucked dry. After you steal the wealth of the rich, where does the money come from? Union run industries? I don't think so. As Iván said, they're ineffective. Look to the Soviet Union as another example of how this worked... and I'm talking about before Stalinist dictatorship! This problem became evident during Lenin's years. Leave it to big business? Oh yes, they have a great record when left to their own devices dont they? Environment,unemployment issues= profitability issues! Oh, but the government doesn't! Don't make me laugh. At least when one organization is mismanaged it goes out of business! Government can't "go out of business" and therefore has no need to be fiscally responsible.

So Sweetnighter-how do you pay for the running of a country?

This stumbling block seems to have eluded you.

Szygy said:

If a communist system was freely chosen by the populace of a stable country,

Then if it's so perfect why nobody votes for them? Mao Tse Tung said it clearly, Power is born from the weapons, that's the most common way communists get the power because they are sure they will loose in clean elections or simply they believe they do it for the people but without their approval.

I do not know about any socialist state, there never has been a such a state,

Perú had 2 Socialist Governments:

1. Juan Velazco Alvarado: 1968 - 1975
2. Alan García Perez (Social Democracy): 1985 - 1990

Other Countries

1. Nicaragua: The Sandinist Governments
2. Chile: Salvador Allende 1971: I don't justify the criminal Pinochet, but Allende was going to fall anyway because his Government was a mess, all the factions of the Socialist movement were already divided because each one wanted more power, they changed Economic Imperialism for State Imperialism.
3. Cuba: 1958 - 1999: Called Socialist but really Communist
4. Venezuela: The actual Government
5. Mexico: The PRI has been the only party in the Government for I believe more than half a Century, they are Social Democrats.

Various quotes:

I state that all opressive regimes can't be communistic. A true socialist/communist (also true for Christian, and most other religions) will not be oppressive, it's against everything they stand for.  Like I said before there hasn't been a true communistic state before, and it probably will never happen I question Labours socialist credentials. Believe me I'm no Tory!! But when the Labour party abolished Clause 4 of their constitution, which commited the party to public ownership of servies, THAT was the beginning of the death of Socialism in this country.

It's the same story I been listening since I entered to the University in 1979, and probably the same stories that have been told since Marx and Engles started writing:

• "The Perfect Socialism will work"
• "USSR was not a comminuist country, was an Imperialist natoion (some otrhers considered them as State Capitalism),"
• "China is not a real Communist Regime"
• "Communism and Socialist natuion don't succeed because the western nations deon't allow them.
• The corruption of Socialist leaders is not the fault of the system.

Please, where in the hell is that perfect Utopia? When will it come? More than 200 years have passed since Marx and Engels wrote their books and still there is not a perfect socialist nation.

I LOVE THIS LINE!!! (Although the communist manifesto was written 1847, putting it more in the 150 year range)

Everybody says Cuba has an oppressive Government but all the Socialist Associations and Governments have awarded Fidel Castro for his achievements, why didn't they spoke when Valladares was sent to jail because he dared to be a poet, or why didn't they said a word when Castro opened the prisons and sent all the criminals to the Peruvian Embassy or even when all the gays were sentenced to life imprissonment?

Some people here criticize Bush for giving opinions about what is best for other countries, but some of you do the same thing because you want to convince us that Socialism is our option.

I live in a world of reality, when this fantasy turns true then start to say it may be convinient for YOUR COUNTRIES. We live here and we know what is best for us.

Iván

Sweetnighter wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: If socialists/communists care so much about others why don't they get out there and lead by example and help people instead of clamoring for governments and their armies to steal money from those who have rightfully earned it? How the heck do you know we dont? I shall be more clear. The socialist movement revolves around pointing to the wealth of others and claiming it as their own, and sequentially clamoring for more powerful forces to take that wealth for them. I'm sure many socialists are active in their communities, and I commend them for that, but its more a criticism of the movement in general. Take Christians. Although I'm an atheist, I praise Christian activists for going out and doing the dirty work themselves rather than socialists who expect others to do it for them and then somehow call themselves morally superior human beings. This is just stream-of-concious nonesense. I dont know where this is coming from-it has no basis in fact in my experiences.Gross generalisation based on the premise: "what I think is what I know." I know it is not the same but do you remember saying Geddy Lee writes all Rush's music-well this is another of your fanciful,under-researched, verbal technicolor-yawns! Oh give me a break. I'm wrong once, so I'm wrong always? Not to mention that who writes Rush's music is an entirely different topic from political philosophy. But it does point to the fact that you are prone to making your mind up without researching too deeply! Not the same as political philosophy but a useful guide to your personality. Tell me Sweetsh*ter,how on earth does the government get money to run itself and the infrastructure of the country? Taking money from big business of course! This is why socialism is self-destructive. As Iván said, after to socialists took over in Peru it was just a matter of time until the economy was sucked dry. After you steal the wealth of the rich, where does the money come from? Union run industries? I don't think so. As Iván said, they're ineffective. Look to the Soviet Union as another example of how this worked... and I'm talking about before Stalinist dictatorship! This problem became evident during Lenin's years. Leave it to big business? Oh yes, they have a great record when left to their own devices dont they? Environment,unemployment issues= profitability issues! Oh, but the government doesn't! Don't make me laugh. At least when one organization is mismanaged it goes out of business! Government can't "go out of business" and therefore has no need to be fiscally responsible. So Sweetnighter-how do you pay for the running of a country? This stumbling block seems to have eluded you. Well, although Libertarians hate to admit it, I have to be realistic- some taxation is a necessary evil. But what kind of taxation? I would have a hierarchy of forms of taxation- which are most tolerable, which aren't. I think the "best" form of taxation is in the form of low tariffs. Not protective tariffs, but tariffs simply for revenue purposes. Then I would say sales tax is moderately tolerable. As a libertarian, I am vehemently opposed to income tax and property tax.  I am opposed to this form of taxation because it taxes the individual too many times: getting taxed for making money, getting taxed for existing on a plot of land, and then getting taxed again when you go to the store? At some point there tax simply becomes a guise for theft. As I know I'll get this response, a system consisting of tariffs and sales tax WILL work for a LOW BUDGET government- a government that isn't cashing out to special interests and hundreds of ineffective social programs. Truth be told this is an issue I'm not very sure about myself, and seems to be a big gap in libertarian political theory. Good question... and thank you for asking it respectfully too by the way.

 Truth be told this is an issue I'm not very sure about myself, and seems to be a big gap in libertarian political theory.

 Your whole argument fails on exactly this.
You dont think things through do you?

Good question... and thank you for asking it respectfully too by the way.

It is not a matter of respect-it is a way of trying to elicit passion from you-patronising, but hey:that's me!

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

A good read

Please, where in the hell is that perfect Utopia? When will it come? More than 200 years have passed since Marx and Engels wrote their books and still there is not a perfect socialist nation.So what? Name a perfect nation of any description!

I LOVE THIS LINE!!! (Although the communist manifesto was written 1847, putting it more in the 150 year range) Try and think for yourself lad.The "line" as you call it is irrelevant.You might as well say "people have been making music for thousands of years-so where is that perfect piece" Utter twaddle!!

I doubt there are many who dont realise that the Communist Manifesto was "of its time" and so irrelevant to these times. As a response to the status quo of its era it was radical to say the least-but why do you guys hold it up and say "there-Communism doesnt work,ergo you are foolish"?
I dont give a flying fig for communism and communists, they are as bad as the right-wingers.
Who says that all socialist principles cant work? You are not seriously telling me that there are any countries out there operating on purely Marxist philosophy? You might as well say all Christians live perfect, spiritual lives. it aint happening and never will. Just because there are chancers all over the world playing havoc with there countries economies in the name of marxism, does not make them Marxists or socialists-or human beings for that matter.

Sweetnighter wrote: . How can you judge that based on my saying, of all miniscule things, that I thought Ged wrote all the Rush music instead of Alex. Whoop-de-f**ken-do! That's not a testament of my character! Have you ever been wrong before?

Frequently - so what?

I have had two discussions with you:

1. About Rush

2.About Politics.

You have made wild assumptions in both.You spend pages and pages discussing a Libertarian Philosophy and taxation but never once anticipated that the necessity to raise revenue somehow would raise its head.Then it dawns on you-Oh dear I hadnt thought that bit through.If this had been at the back of your mind you would have already mentioned it or hinted at it.You are just winging this and wasting my time.
Your argument is an ill-thought out dog's dinner of immature fancy and other people's garbled quasi-philosphical ramblings.

Sweetnighter wrote: Reed Lover wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: . How can you judge that based on my saying, of all miniscule things, that I thought Ged wrote all the Rush music instead of Alex. Whoop-de-f**ken-do! That's not a testament of my character! Have you ever been wrong before? Frequently - so what? I have had two discussions with you: 1. About Rush 2.About Politics. You have made wild assumptions in both.You spend pages and pages discussing a Libertarian Philosophy and taxation but never once anticipated that the necessity to raise revenue somehow would raise its head.Then it dawns on you-Oh dear I hadnt thought that bit through.If this had been at the back of your mind you would have already mentioned it or hinted at it.You are just winging this and wasting my time. Your argument is an ill-thought out dog's dinner of immature fancy and other people's garbled quasi-philosphical ramblings.   1) Saying that geddy lee wrote the music instead of alex is not a "wild assumption," it was a mistake. Am I not allowed mistakes? After all, the albums all say Music by Lee and Lifeson, Lyrics by Peart. I've read one interview that was done with Lee and one with Peart online before. So, naturally, from what I had read, I was under the wrong impression. Oops! I'm a horrible person. 2) I've always been aware of this problem in libertarian theory. Although I consider myself a libertarian, that doesn't mean that I subscribe to everything the libertarian party does. Do most Democrats agree with every stance the party takes? Do Republicans? Assuredly some do, but not all. I use my mind when reading about politics. Yes, I agree with most stances the libertarian party takes, but not all. Plus, I outlined what I thought would be a good policy regarding taxes. Maybe somebody else will voice an opinion, but you want to paint me off as irrational and walk away satisfied with that. Have I really been that irrational?

You dont get it do you?

from what I had read, I was under the wrong impression.

This is exactly your problem in general, in my opinion.Not enough information to form an opinion.......

Goodnight Ian.You are as right and as wrong as I am.

My philosophy (for today, at least):

If you can't be right-be wrong at the top of your voice!