What is wrong with Socialism ?

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

In most developed countries, even the relative poor are better off than the wealthy of 100 years ago.

It's easy to think about giving others' wealth away until some entity decides you have too much compared to others.

Exactly.

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

When I look at the snobbish bigwigs in your video then I'm glad not being part of it.

Snobbish? Why because they articulate themselves with precision and clarity?? OMG how awful, they must be evil if they do that...

[User4286 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close User4286]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u4_RLY0s2s

Eating a menu for 1000 a person and drinking 3 bottles of champange from their golden cup, listening to an ensemble of music for 10 000 the eveving in a palace with ivory stairs- Their wife in a haute couture manual tailored dress for 2000 and then telling us money is not the evil.

They have it easy to say money is not the evil. What a fucking joke.

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

National Socialism is more of socio-political worldview than an economic model, with very little in common with the socialism of Marxist ideology.

I'm not sure I agree with this. National Socialism is pretty much the same philosophy as far as I can tell. They play identity politics with the Aryans and Jews taking the place of the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat (have's and have nots), they need a large state to regulate and centrally plan everything and they needed some divine mystical leader to channel with the will of the Aryan people to implement whatever policy the collective wanted as though they all had only one mind between them. They also had no problem with sacrificing people to "the greater good".

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

Eating a menu for 1000 a person and drinking 3 bottles of champange from their golden cup, listening to an ensemble of music for 10 000 the eveving in a palace with ivory stairs- Their wife in a haute couture manual tailored dress for 2000 and then telling us money is not the evil.

They have it easy to say money is not the evil. What a fucking joke.

No you didn't watch it. The person doing the talking at the beginning is a politician who is getting married. The person who says argues money is a means with which to trade is just a business man.

Know the difference between political and economic power. One is the power to exert force over others, the other trades goods or services with people voluntarily. This is what the whole speech is about and there is only one evil which I see and it isn't the one that is based on free people choosing to trade freely.

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

I want to trade my fist with these bourgeoisie blatherer.

Well you sound really tough, but this isn't an argument.

[User4286 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close User4286]

I want to trade my fist with these bourgeoisie blatherer.

[Big Al AdministratorPEGym EditorMale Enhancement Coach Rep.PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Big Al]

I want to trade my fist with these bourgeoisie blatherer.

To whom is this directed?

[nagual65 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close nagual65]

The takeover was a part of the set up. When in history has this not happened with any political movement on a large scale.

Here's the issue: Unless the system is one in which everyone can opt-in or opt-out at any time, it sets itself up for abuse- no matter how well meaning the intent or how great the initial plan may seem. Unfortunately, "opt in/out" is usually not the way most governments work. Once you've given your power and rights away to another entity you're not going to get it back without a fight.

History has proven this many times, and some of the most heinous crimes of war in modern history have been done under the flag of "socialism".

To be clear, I'm not espousing any "ism" over another- they all have inherent issues, and the flaw is ALWAYS the abuse of power by those entrusted to run the system.

First, we are all living under the framework of capitalism. So, there goes the the ism. (wage slavery, banks, corporations owning systems of power and committing whatever fuckery they want)

Second, when you are saying the take-over was part of the setup, I assume you know that a socialist movement got exploited by bunch of thugs and politicians. If you know that, why are you conflating socialism with Bolsheviks and likes of them?

you are taking whatever authoritarian regime that calls itself socialist way too seriously.
The first thing that Lenin did after taking over was destroying factory councils. That is the exact opposite of socialism! He was an opportunistic politician who just wanted to cease state power. Now why are you considering his crimes, "crimes on the flag of socialism"?!

Third, why do you think socialism is authoritarian in nature?
left Marxist movement is almost completely anarchistic in nature, you can look at the example of Israeli kibbutzim before statehood and how they were ran, and the Socialist-anarchist revolution in Spain.

I have extensively addressed all the points you are addressing in page 13.

[User4286 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close User4286]

This is what the whole speech is about and there is only one evil which I see and it isn't the one that is based on free people choosing to trade freely.

The salesman will always show you why you need his product and why his product is the best. Even if the product is shitty like monsantos.

Trading with poision and saying they want to treat the hunger of the world with their seed monopople. But they're just trading freely. Sorry but here I loose my temper when I listen to such people chatter with their golden watches and their decadent buildings. And all for our well-being.

[nagual65 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close nagual65]

In most developed countries, even the relative poor are better off than the wealthy of 100 years ago.

It's easy to think about giving others' wealth away until some entity decides you have too much compared to others.

It's a shame how many people in the developed countries live in absolute poverty, considering the absurd fact that the vast majority of wealth and power is in the hands of a small number of people!
how is this system considered moral?
Also, 100 years ago people used to bathe once a week and marry their cousins. it's a very low bar.
The argument by western socialists regarding tax was always angled towards banks and corporations and the top 1%, if it is not acceptable that someone decides that for people's money, how is it acceptable that 600 billion dollars annually goes to US military?!
(although the proposed systems by people like Bernie and Corbyn don't have much to do with socialism, it's mostly having social safety nets under the framework of capitalism)

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

Third, why do you think socialism is authoritarian in nature?
left Marxist movement is almost completely anarchistic in nature, you can look at the example of Israeli kibbutzim before statehood and how they were ran, and the Socialist-anarchist revolution in Spain.

I have extensively addressed all the points you are addressing in page 13.

It just always ends up as authoritarian because central planning doesn't work. You should read The Road To Serfdom by F.A. Hayek. He points out that most central planners are well meaning idealists, but it paves the way for the fascist dictator types.

You can't get everyone to agree on how the economy should be run and why would you trust any government to run it anyway? People want to follow their own interests and passions. Not what is handed down from on high because its good for the collective.

The Kibuttzim was financed by the Rothschild bankers to keep it going before it was privatized so I believe. It wasn't economically viable.

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

The salesman will always show you why you need his product and why his product is the best. Even if the product is shitty like monsantos.

Trading with poision and saying they want to treat the hunger of the world with their seed monopople. But they're just trading freely. Sorry but here I loose my temper when I listen to such people chatter with their golden watches and their decadent buildings. And all for our well-being.

The salesman isn't putting a gun to your head. You don't have to buy what he is selling.

I see people enjoying their earnings and I say good for them. Provided they have earned it and not stolen it of course.

[Big Al AdministratorPEGym EditorMale Enhancement Coach Rep.PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Big Al]

First, we are all living under the framework of capitalism. So, there goes the the ism. (wage slavery, banks, corporations owning systems of power and committing whatever fuckery they want)

There are obvious inherent flaws with this as well- and the entities you mentioned are in great part financially responsible for putting such schemes into place. Realize that at certain levels above them, the concept of wealth and even political associations are meaningless. They're merely a means to an end. It's about power. These entities see it as their right to direct whole sections of humanity with their experiments- for better or for worse.

Do you not think that those who set the ball into motion were aware of this and saw the transition to a more socialistic system as a way to magnify their power even more, while at the same time creating a society of subjects suitable for their needs?

Second, when you are saying the take-over was part of the setup, I assume you know that a socialist movement got exploited by bunch of thugs and politicians. If you know that, why are you conflating socialism with Bolsheviks and likes of them?

you are taking whatever authoritarian regime that calls itself socialist way to seriously.
The first thing that Lenin did after taking over was destroying factory councils. That is the exact opposite of socialism! He was an opportunistic politician who just wanted to cease state power . Now why are you considering his crimes, "crimes on the flag of socialism"?!

The machinations for the development of such a proposed system allowed entities like him into power.

You ask me to consider a philosophy based on materialism as its prime mover. In a time where many of the first world countries have a level of abundance inconceivable when Marx made his initial proposals the rules have changed.

Third, why do you think socialism is authoritarian in nature?
left Marxist movement is almost completely anarchistic in nature, you can look at the example of Israeli kibbutzim before statehood and how they were ran, and the Socialist-anarchist revolution in Spain.

I have extensively addressed all the points you are addressing in page 13.

There are some tenets of socialism which may seem good on the surface, but the machinations used to achieve these states have often failed. This is the great difference between theorizing about socialist "utopias" and attempting to implement them.

Marx advocates socialism as a transitional point between capitalism (after an overthrow) and communism. History shows what's often done to cause this transition is to create division and chaos. Promote the idea of "social" injustices among class, race, etc. and target those who perceive themselves to be victims. This is even if the "struggle" is merely perceived. We're seeing attempts at this in many western countries.

I'm not opposed to beneficent self-management structures. They appear to be realizable in small populations where there's a legitimate opportunity for enlightened self-interest and equality.

How would you advocate for a system like this in a large and mostly affluent country without creating the negative steps required to get there? What changes would you like to see, specifically?

Wouldn't a better system be one in which, having our material needs mostly met, we focus on the inner self? This is what would truly cause the "withering of the state", which is (on paper) supposed to be the goal of Marxism.

[Big Al AdministratorPEGym EditorMale Enhancement Coach Rep.PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close Big Al]

Trading with poision and saying they want to treat the hunger of the world with their seed monopople. But they're just trading freely. Sorry but here I loose my temper when I listen to such people chatter with their golden watches and their decadent buildings. And all for our well-being.

On this, I can agree 100%.