RE: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
Many of the people in the images have shown to be anti-social towards humans in their politics and are talking about governments not groups of people . It's the same old problem manufacturing consent. That is all our lives we had heard the same things put in the same way and have taken it as truth without much deep thought of the subject. I wonder how many people feel the same way about employee own companies?
If we are talking about socialism in the form of governments then I agree all socialist governments in history (as far as I know) have failed their constituents but ever government that I know have failed their constituents also, however I know of employee own companies who have not. What the elite (those who control major media) does is lump it all in one pot and tell us to drink up! I think we have to reject the accounts until we truly understand what in totality is being spoken of. Here is a short clip that says it much better than I ever could. Real socialism is not about getting things for free it's about working together. Like unions in the workplace another thing many would be against, but is socialist in nature.
If anyone is offended by my pronouncements please understand they are only said to give an opinion and to broaden the conversation. Not to start arguments, but debates are fine..
I agree, the most logical solution to end gov corruption and crony capitalism, is to shift to an economy that is controlled democratically. Worker coops is the best example of such an economy.
There is nothing inevitable about this logic friend - what makes you believe that you have to control an economy at all? The idea that one way or another our economies have to be controlled necessitates our need for controllers. This necessitates the need for a theory of best control. This necessitates agreement on the 'good' regarding human economic activity. All of this necessitates authoritarianism, you just pick your favourite flavour - and in your logic, we pick our authority with 'democracy'. But what about the horrors of 'dictatorship of the majority' - how are you going to protect minorities? The problems go on, I won't list them here, they are readily available. Every single one of these 'necessities' is problematic and contended, the answers are not obvious or logical. The 'good' for me is not necessarily the 'good' for you regarding economic activity - and there is no reason it should be, we are individuals. Here's what's logical - drop the need to control the output of human activity, let it fall as it will. If you believe that results in crony capitalism, you're wrong - crony capitalism is another effort to control economic output. Same with socialist planning. All any of this does is justify and spread massive centralised governments, who enrich themselves at everyone else's expense - and massive, centralised multinationals and crime cartels and banks - synonyms, and ditto. You want to end government corruption and crony capitalism - eliminate government (as we currently understand it) and cronyism (synonym - directed control of social economic output). Db
No one is talking about controlling the economy. Prof. Wolff is talking about people controlling their energy (their output) as appose to someone at the top controlling it.
i.e. people working for themselves in a group. Which can be done in most countries without changing the system that they are in. We have been programmed to respond to words. Many times the words do not do justice to the concept.
Then we are agreed. The problem was your language - "... shift to an economy that is controlled democratically." Your words needed addressing, so I did, precisely because we are programmed to respond to words, and indeed words never do justice to actual experience - they are a phenomenal compression of it that leaves out the actual life referred to. So when we use words, precision is essential, lest our intended meaning result in attempts to 'democratically control the economy' - which, as you know, always ends in tears. Db
Unfortunately I don't ( and I do not know of anyone who) reads minds, therefore words are all we have to communicate our thoughts. It may take some time before we reach a point were we can agree however reach an agreement we must if we are to live in peace. And words are all we have.
No we have not agreed because it's not my language!
P.S. notice of post here are the pits. 26 days later and would have never seen it if I didn't come back to this post for another reason altogether
I have to agree with your choice of professor Wolff, as a man who can explain the capitalist terminology trap on the expression of “Socialism”. Here is his detailed explanation, which is necessary if we want to know what we are talking about:
https://steemit.com/politics/@lighteye/what-socialism-is-and-what-is-not
This is called an Appeal to Emotion fallacy. It is a typical socialist attack method. It works on those that haven't been taught critical thinking.
It is hard to be anymore anti-social to humans than to impose socialism which removes their choice.
Compassion requires doing something when you have a choice. If you are forced then there was no choice and it has nothing to do with compassion.
So if you want to be convincing avoid the appeals to emotions. That proves nothing in that it is a logical fallacy.
That defines why socialism ever gets implemented as far as I can tell. I need not say much I covered this subject in some detail in this post three days ago Socialists like Slavery. They likely don't realize it, but that is what they advocate for.
I don't want to repeat what was already covered there.
Sure, I am fine with them. Yet if you pass emotion, opinion, etc as FACT then I'll likely call you out on it. Though I do respect your right to have and express your opinion.
No this is called critical thinking, lets look at the people you hold in such high regard.
Peter Brimelows a British-born American writer. He is the founder of the website VDARE,
[ VDARE is an American website that publishes socio-political commentary pieces, particularly focusing on advocating for a moratorium on immigration into the United States as well as arguments related to race and American politics. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, VDARE is "an anti-immigration hate website" which "regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites." Salon calls it a white supremacist group. VDARE editor Peter Brimelow rejected Southern Poverty Law Center's accusations as guilt by association.
The name VDARE refers to Virginia Dare, the first child born to English settlers in the New World (in 1587). Wikipedia
I know Wikipedia has a lot of funk up information. But I didn't know who he was at all before. However this is not a good look for him.
Trump who get into office by saying he will pull us out of wars and one of the first things he does is drop missiles on another country.
Margaret Thatcher who never saw a war she didn't like. (and that is a fact)
Ben Carson, I never know which way he is going or what he will say.
Winston Churchill! Really? Now I'm no fan of Hitler but when Hitler wanted to make peace with England it was Churchill who wanted to press on, maybe he was right and all those people die for a reason.
However! Calvin Coolidge is (IMO) a respectable source for quoting.
No I'd say those who are always making threats and going to war are more anti-social.
Many times when fact are stated other take them as opinions and they are the opinion of the person who stated the facts. Opinion as fact are rarely black and white. Things that were fact yesterday are today error. Thank you for your reply. With respect .
See there you go again. Acting like you read minds. Give me a break. Focus on what you think and quit trying to assume you know what I think.
I don't hold him in high regard. I just did a search for meme images related to socialism and chose some I thought were interesting. ;)
I don't put ANYONE on some pedestal of "authority". That doesn't mean even people with questionable actions or ideas might not say an interesting phrase from time to time.
There is NO ONE (even me) that I believe everything they say. Why do I include me? I am fine with changing my mind. I don't think I am a God and that I know it all.
I certainly can't read minds. I have plenty of problems keeping track of my own.
EDIT: I can tell you had no idea how I chose those images. That is why I was slapping you around for writing your phrasing as though you know my mind. I'm trying to break you of that habit. I can see that you're an intelligent person. I'm more interested in what you think than in having you assume and tell me what I am thinking. :)
OK, that just the way I write. However you are correct that I should have not used those terms. Thanks for your input. I'll see what I can do about that.
Cool. It is never easy. So I don't expect you to change over night. I am trying to change things about myself as well. It is far from easy. I've found being aware it is there is the first step.
I knew next to nothing about the first person you mentioned, I just liked his quote. :)
Respect!