The Left's Collapse

[Rockie Cantais]

Politics should not be there to entertain you. That is not their function.

It is the real world.

Yes it is the Real World! You are entertaining not the politicians! ;)

This is a sample of what you may encounter internationally (granted, heavily biased torward the male gender, a somewhat younger age group, a gamer mentality and wealthier nations).

That I can see.

Unless you are one of those with dillusions that the US should/will rule the world or otherwise have no interest whatsoever in debating politics outside your borders, you might want to take it into account.

I am one who think we Americans should pull back and leave the world alone. Trade, Commerce and other good will stuff yes; but its time to bring our troops home. We are stretched to thin and its one of the things killing our economy.

Regardless of whether you care about it or not, the politicians you elect certainly will.

I care and I expect them to care too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Capitalism

A term that was appropriated by Communists, Facists, liberals, laissez-faire capitalist thinkers...

It does seem to be a very flexible term.

Seems like all kinds of term are exchangeable nowadays.

You ackowledge that and yet in practice, you argue against anything that goes against the tenets of pure capitalism by claiming it will make things more "socialist".



Consistency please.

That is the one thing the world is lacking right now, Consistency!

If you are refering to the 'original' communists from the Bolchevik revolution, they are probably all dead from old age at this point.

Let them rest in peace.

Lets try this.

Communist have not gone away nor has the Fascist or Ultra Nationalism. You do understand that Socialism is the first steps toward Communism? The people may be dead who started Communism but their ideas are still alive. Same with the hated Fascists the names have changed but all those groups and their fundamental ideas are still alive. The language is changed all the time to hide the truth. He who controls the language controls the debate and so on.

[Rockie Cantais]

Wrong, they were not all Christian. Some of the more prominent founders were not Christians, but rather Freemasons (which was frowned upon by the church) or against organized religion (even though they might still have believed in God). And what is Christian anyway? There are various forms of Christianity that do not necessarily agree with each other in a lot of ways. People only group them together when they want to look more powerful.

True, did I say all Americans are Christians?

That the US was founded upon Christianity is a myth, and that so many people believe it today is because of the idiot right wing Christians who want nothing more than to go back to how things were in medieval times, when the church had all the power.

Really? Your just wrong on this one.

Very much implied, since both Jefferson and Madison explicitly talked about the wall between religion and state. It makes no sense to call the nation Christian if you're allowed to have any religious belief you want and guaranteed by the constitution that religion should not matter if you want to run for office. It just so happened that the Christians took control of the seat of power early on, and it's not because the constitution said they should be there.

The Wall is to keep the government from telling the people what religion they will practice only. Read the Jefferson Bible sometime and tell me that Christianity did not enter into his mind.

Lots of people want it to be taught in science class. Science has nothing to do with faith, so clearly it's a joke to propose to teach creationism in science class, seeing as how it's based on no observable evidence whatsoever.

Also, a Christian nation isn't the same thing as many of the citizens being Christian. And of course, the broad title of "Christian" means little more than believing in the same God these days.

That's up for debate and a matter of opinion.

Either way, it's sad that the US is officially almost as religious as the Arab countries. Most rich countries have moved away from religion, and managed better at separating it from the state. You should be happy about Jefferson and the others and their attitude toward the separation between church and state, because I doubt the US would be doing very well today if the religious nuts had ran things from the beginning.

Like the EU? which by the way is falling apart even with 3 trillion of our dollar and most American are mad about? Maybe the EU should have kept a little more faith?

So if the government is not allowed to support any special religion, how can you call the country Christian? If the nation was truly founded upon Christianity, it would be the religion of the state, although it could still be "ok" to not follow that religion if you don't want to. I'm pretty sure Jefferson and the others were smart enough to understand that as soon as you let people use religion to get power, they will. No doubt they wanted the best people to run the country, based on their skill and dedication, and not on their religion. Sadly that's gone to **** today, because non-Christians are second rate citizens that are merely "tolerated", but will never get anywhere close to real power, regardless of how good they are.

The majority of Americans are Christians maybe one day that will change but the fact that it was started by Christians won't. Christian values are ingrained into the nation.

Also, try to take a step back and stop buying all the Communist propaganda media has been spewing out in your country for ages. Communism never worked, and it's gone in all rational parts of the world. Socialism is not the same as communism, and has in the last decades gone ever further away from it. Most successful countries today understand that the trick is finding a balance between socialism and capitalism, because neither one is a good solution on its own. Everybody's evolved toward that, so to have the viewpoint that one of the extremes is actually better is to be painfully ignorant and incapable of learning from history.

OK, but keep in mind the first steps toward Communism is Socialism. Your right striking a balance between capitalism and socialism is the key right now. We Americans have been there for the last 100 years trying to figure it all out. I would prefer a lot less socialism and a lot more capitalism. maybe we need a new name for it? Seems everyone is in the renaming business anyway!

[SnuggleySoft]

You do understand that Socialism is the first steps toward Communism?

This is incorrect. Communism is one type of socialism. It is an extreme socialism that is brought about by revolution, and institutes the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Name one socialist country that has become communist. It hasn't happened. And I highly doubt we are going to see gigantic statues of a "Glorious Leader" in the town square of Stockholm. Lenin describes why this is better than I can.

Read The Communist Manifesto. Marx devotes a section to "debunking" other socialist theories, (IE. Bourgeois Socialism). He is doing this in order to differentiate his theory with the other theories within that "genre" of ideology, so he can stop people from being placated by the capitalists, (I mean those with capital, not those who believe in Capitalism.)

Otto Van Bismarck is a famous example. Although he was adamantly anti-socialist, he was the first to put many programs like Social Security in Germany, mostly to mollify those who were on the fence about revolution.

[Rockie Cantais]

State Capitalism!

Is National Socialism.

[Rockie Cantais]

This is incorrect. Communism is one type of socialism. It is an extreme socialism that is brought about by revolution, and institutes the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Name one socialist country that has become communist. It hasn't happened. And I highly doubt we are going to see gigantic statues of a "Glorious Leader" in the town square of Stockholm. Lenin describes why this is better than I can.

Read The Communist Manifesto. Marx devotes a section to "debunking" other socialist theories, (IE. Bourgeois Socialism). He is doing this in order to differentiate his theory with the other theories within that "genre" of ideology, so he can stop people from being placated by the capitalists, (I mean those with capital, not those who believe in Capitalism.)

Otto Van Bismarck is a famous example. Although he was adamantly anti-socialist, he was the first to put many programs like Social Security in Germany, mostly to mollify those who were on the fence about revolution.

How about this, Socialism is the first steps toward Communism. Doesn't mean you have to go that route but if you want Communism you'll first become Socialist.

[SnuggleySoft]

Separation of Church and State is the only Christian value I know of that our country was founded on.

And did you really say Creationism should be taught in schools as Science? I just see you replying and don't feel like looking for the original quote... That deserves a good look into Webster's for a definition of "science." The only way Evolution, and Intelligent Design should be taught together would be if they added Pastafarianism. Its only fair, and the science behind it is just as adequate as intelligent design and creationism.

Also... The Jefferson Bible is a bible minus God. Its uses parables with morals that he liked. Its like teaching your child stories about Anansi the Spider essentially, (its an actual african god now only used for morals)... just in adult form.

[SnuggleySoft]

How about this, Socialism is the first steps toward Communism. Doesn't mean you have to go that route but if you want Communism you'll first become Socialist.

Not necessarily, (though that was a clever trick of words to pretend you weren't respoding about socialist countries).

Communism is just one type of socialism. Which type of socialism would the person first have to be? Democratic Socialist? French Socialist? German Socialist?
Mostly you have to be overworked and underpaid in vile working conditions, then have a charismatic leader wax eloquent on that specific theory.

[Rockie Cantais]

Left and right as Big Gov't vs Limited Gov't is a fallacious idea taught by conservative pundits. Left vs right is closer to:

Left= Individual over the state, (the state works for the people in terms of aid etc.) and Right= State over the individual, (the individual works for the State, especially in terms of social conservatism where "social fabric" is a key term)

If you go any further it doesnt make any sense. Bakuninism vs libertarian anarchists both believe in one gov't but they just have different ideas of how their "utopia" will play out.

Its confusing, because you have to realize democracy is a liberal ideology, so our country started out at its founding as a radical leftist nation.

The confusing part is we keep changing the names of things to confuse on purpose. Wither you use the term left/right or something else there are two main opposition in America right now. Then let's add in the other stuff with the shifting names, terms and no good dirty politician on all sides and its a mud fest. Polarization is the name of the game in America right now. What terms would you like to use?

[Rockie Cantais]

Separation of Church and State is the only Christian value I know of that our country was founded on.

And did you really say Creationism should be taught in schools as Science? I just see you replying and don't feel like looking for the original quote... That deserves a good look into Webster's for a definition of "science." The only way Evolution, and Intelligent Design should be taught together would be if they added Pastafarianism. Its only fair, and the science behind it is just as adequate as intelligent design and creationism.

Opinion only, why its all a theory. Teach all theories about it.

Also... The Jefferson Bible is a bible minus God. Its uses parables with morals that he liked. Its like teaching your child stories about Anansi the Spider essentially, (its an actual african god now only used for morals)... just in adult form.

I understand that, missed the point. Jefferson understood the Christians and accepted their values.

[Rockie Cantais]

Not necessarily, (though that was a clever trick of words to pretend you weren't respoding about socialist countries).

Communism is just one type of socialism. Which type of socialism would the person first have to be? Democratic Socialist? French Socialist? German Socialist?
Mostly you have to be overworked and underpaid in vile working conditions, then have a charismatic leader wax eloquent on that specific theory.

Just have to disagree with you on this one and leave it at that.

[SnuggleySoft]

I mostly just took offense to my ideology as being: "I love big gov't, tax and spend please." Also because much of the right wants Gov't just small enough to fit in our bedrooms and a pregnant woman's vagina.

My views are widely influenced by John Rawls, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

Theory of Justice and the Blind Veil and such.

[SnuggleySoft]

Apparently you have your own words for socialism and communism that don't come from the people that invented those terms. You should read some of Marx... its actually pretty good.

I read Conservative ideology, (scholarly work, not Glenn beck because the smell of that much bull**** makes me gag). I even agree with most of the founders of classical conservatism on some points, mostly economical. Things like; unchecked free markets tear at the social fabric.

[Rockie Cantais]

I mostly just took offense to my ideology as being: "I love big gov't, tax and spend please." Also because much of the right wants Gov't just small enough to fit in our bedrooms and a pregnant woman's vagina.

My views are widely influenced by John Rawls, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

Theory of Justice and the Blind Veil and such.

I'll look at John Rawls later but you need to take another look at the Limit Government argument. Tell me you want those idiots in Washington telling us what to do? Either party?

[Rockie Cantais]

Apparently you have your own words for socialism and communism that don't come from the people that invented those terms. You should read some of Marx... its actually pretty good.

I look at the old Soviet Union, remember those guys. Then I look at the other leaders who use communism to take complete control.

I read Conservative ideology, (scholarly work, not Glenn beck because the smell of that much bull**** makes me gag). I even agree with most of the founders of classical conservatism on some points, mostly economical. Things like; unchecked free markets tear at the social fabric.

I'll take a look at Marx if I can stop gagging long enough! ;)

[SnuggleySoft]

I look at the old Soviet Union, remember those guys. Then I look at the other leaders who use communism to take complete control.

That's my point.... They were a rightist monarchy prior to the Bolshevik Revolution. The Bolsheviks were adherents to radical socialism aka Communism. Involving Communism in an argument is akin to calling someone Hitler. It doesn't make any sense 1/2 the time and its impolite discourse.

Especially in arguments about the American Left which is pretty centrist, and even the "Socialists" of which the most "radical" wing in America is usually the Democratic Socialists which believe the only Gov't run businesses should be Education, Health Care, and some housing, (which, whether they know it or not, the vast majority of Americans agree with.) Democratic Socialism doesn't lead to Communism.

So... Communism shouldn't be in a talk about the left unless your talking about 2nd and 3rd world countries.




Also, if you can't read Marx without gagging, then you really don't have any basis to judge Communism do you? Thats like me arguing about Anabaptism because I read 2 paragraphs of a summary by a Catholic priest. Marx is very relevant even today, even if Communism is a crock. Communism is essentially an overreaction to unfettered industrial capitalism.

All of the greatest conservative minds in America have read at LEAST the Manifesto if not Das Kapital, (ex. Ronald Reagan.)

I don't want the Gov't telling me what to do. A safety net isn't telling us what to do. Google "The Blind Veil" as to why safety nets are the only just form of government.

But anyways... Republicans don't believe in limited Gov't really either. They are Stateists. Thats why "Cars should have seatbelts so people don't die" was fought by republicans because it would make the STATE less healthy because the profits of car companies would take a small dip. Whereas the American Left is INDIVIDUALIST, as in "Even if it costs more for the large companies making the cars, the people driving them, of whom the Gov't is deigned to protect, have a much larger likelihood to survive."

However, when it comes to what INDIVIDUALS want to do, the American Right wants us to: be forced to listen to a specific christian theology, (Kansas School Boards), be forced to go through agony, public ridicule, and financial woe, against the will of the mother, (abortion), up until about 9 years ago they instituted laws about HOW you can have sex, (both gay and straight.. In Florida it was illegal to get Blowjobs or anal, though the most famous case of course is Lawrence vs. Texas), They shut down the Gov't to tell a man he didn't have the right to pull the plug on his wife after 20 years as a vegetable in which time he had gotten a nursing degree specifically to take care of her, (Terri Schaivo)

So anyways like my first post said Left vs. Right doesn't really equal small vs. big. Its Individual vs. Social Fabric. Which is more important? Man's dignity? or State's status in the world?