The keyboard is mightier than the machine gun... The political, philosophical and general outpourings of a troubled soul living in Australia and blogging his Vietnam veteran's head off.
Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...
posted by The Editor at
9:59 AM
The counter shown below displays the number of Israeli military personnel refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories. I applaud their integrity and their strength of character. To me they are heroes of peace and humanity.
41 Comments:
Well, he showed up and posted a crap comment on another post, so it got deleted.
Let's hope he learns to raise his standards...
Zero tolerance for daft comments here, I'm afraid.
Well, nothing like a nice, clean forum for honest discourse. No preconcieved hostility or anything...
The word, "socialist," is most often slung around by some little martinette trying to establish a dictatorship under the guise of pie-in-the-sky, governmental largesse.
Hi BeeFlow, glad you could make it.
This is not a forum, it is a blog. Compare it to a newspaper: You submit "letters to the editor" and if you're real lucky they get published. You don't go getting crazy if the newspaper doesn't publish your letter. The editor is god. The same applies to blogs.
Preconceived hostility? It's everywhere, get used to it, ignore it, and move on, preferably staying on topic.
Thank you for giving me your highly skewed opinion about what type of person most often uses the word 'socialist', but so far you have failed to address the question posed by this blog post.
Strike two!
We should approach this slowly, if you will. Nobody has handed our world to us in a lump. There will be no one-liner answers. Probably, there will be a series of observations like those that led me to ask the original question.
It's your blog, though. If you have to have your weltenschaung fast-food style, this will probably end up in a pissing contest.
First premise: Every Self-styled socialist I have met lately is all about conquest.
You're still not in the ballpark, Beeflow. You're not talking about socialism, or what its social responsibility is, or whether or not it's lost it. In other words, you're not yet on topic.
Technically this would be "strike three", but because I'm a benevolent man, I'll give you one last chance to get on topic.
If you don't crack it with your next comment, this 'debate' is over between you and me.
Well, screw it, then. I'm a holistic thinker with no agenda but my own. I don't have an anti-socialist manifesto to present. I think socialism is (1) a much misused term and (2) is too often a catchall for disaffected citizens of capitalist countries.
In it's early, getting-the-message-to-Gen. Garcia days, it meant each individual did his best to contribute as needed, working out of loyalty and honor, as required by the leaders. Time was not wasted. Resources were not squandered. All of a man's creativity was focused on the mission.
Even in those days, socialism was a response to less productive human activities.
Now, it has a big PR problem, thanks to the unattainable nature of motivational perfection.
There's more to say, but I just worked through a fairly convoluted day. If you don't like the installment plan, I have nothing else to offer.
At last you're starting to deal with the question (sort of).
Let me prompt you: What do you mean by "socialism's social responsibility"?
The responsibility to avoid becoming a big, stupid, graft-riddled, nationalistic bureaucracy. The responsibility to communicate and to allow sufficient communication to accomplish the mission statement that first convinced the population to support it. The responsibility to stop protecting it's percieved identity (and a lot of "entitled" employees) at the population's expense.
How's that? Can you see where the original question was heading, yet?
.. which brings me to a 'quote' that i saw somewhere - "if capitalism is the antithesis of socialism, why is it not called 'antisocialism'".
(yer, i know, another non sequitur .. see, i do learn something from this blog).
Yep, that's pretty good.
So with socialism, you can see who's responsible for a less than optimum state of affairs. The culprits are visible and therefore able to be held to account. In other words, we can see where the problems lie and therefore they are fixable.
But tell me, BeeFlow, who is responsible for the less than optimum state of affairs unbridled globalised capitalism has presented us with?
And how can it be fixed?
Where is capitalism's social responsibility?
Davo (I refuse to call you Davoh), we're going to make BeeFlow work hard here. :-)
I disagree that socialism is transparent. In order to keep the population working in a society where individuals own nothing, the leaders must keep up a constant barage of unavoidable social education. Then, there's the visible coercion, taken to levels that are double those required by capitalism. Level one: (for lack of a better term) the ten commandments. Level two: keeping the population offering its all to the big, dumb, graft-riddled bureaucracy.
To answer Uncle's question about the current economic decline----wait for it---- US legislators with socialist leanings pressured the banks to relax their mortgage lending standards so that even those who shouldn't could invest in housing. Also, I am sure there were some very tall fortunes made during the housing price bubble this caused. Historically, American politicians just love real estate. I wager that many of them are not above making a few waves in the market. Hedge funds may have been sold because lenders were already defaulting on the easy loans. There are rumors of changes in investment regulations that should help control real estate hedge funds. That should remove the tendency to sell bottled air labeled "real estate" to the eager idiots who buy such things. You see that this is transparent, right? ...that nobody was coerced into buying loans they couldn't afford - or shares in funds with all the value of a popcorn fart? Blaming "capitalism" for this is like blaming Wikileaks for outing e-mails. The individuals who defaulted on their loans and the trusted employees who leaked the e-mails are the real culprits. Those are the people who should be paying for everybody else's hardship. I suppose, if the elements in socialist governments who take advantage of the social control exerted over the population in order to practice graft could be brought to justice, it might more palatable - provided the prosecutions weren't simply for propaganda.
That's it for now. I eagerly await my next lesson.
OK,BeeFlow,let's get back on topic here:
Are you saying that socialism:-
[1] Always turns into "a big, stupid, graft-riddled, nationalistic bureaucracy"?
[2] Always fails "to communicate and to allow sufficient communication to accomplish the mission statement that first convinced the population to support it"?
[3] Always protects "it's perceived identity (and a lot of "entitled" employees) at the population's expense"?
Well, it's hard to tell since it isn't a transparent society. The opportunity exists.
So now you also claim that socialism is _never_ transparent?
And are you now saying that:
[1] The opportunity exists that socialism always turns into "a big, stupid, graft-riddled, nationalistic bureaucracy"?
[2] The opportunity exists that socialism always fails "to communicate and to allow sufficient communication to accomplish the mission statement that first convinced the population to support it"?
[3] The opportunity exists that socialism always protects "it's perceived identity (and a lot of "entitled" employees) at the population's expense"?
I'm finding it difficult to understand what you are actually trying to say, BeeFlow.
All of the above. With the state in control, the population must take what they are given.
And what would you say if "the state" were a democracy, i.e. the people choose who runs the state?
Well, screw it, then. I'm a holistic thinker with no agenda but my own.
Ooo, interesting.
We are, of course, playing with words. Define "democracy".
Davo, I'll leave that to BeeFlow, being as he is, from the world's most authoritarian democracy. ;-)
The word verification for this was "cruddle".
Well, just like some dictatorships call themselves "socialist" some republics call themselves "democracies."
The public's satisfaction with the degree of actual liberty allowed the individual citizen might be a start. Except, a lot of grabass excuses for government don't really govern worth noticing, anyway. (You here me, Karzai?)
Given the way most states regulate privately owned weapons, I'd say democracy has a long way to go before the absolute form ever arises. It's dependent on the level of personal responsibility each citizen will maintain - and how many zoos can be built to house the irresponsible.
Ok, so what would you say if some form of socialism were the preferred economic system of the majority of voters in a state which had a reasonable constitution and free and fair elections? Would you have a problem with that?
One of the left's classic problems is the belief that valuta can be created by legislative action. I am having more fun than kittens watching our democrats being forced nearer to fiscal responsibility in order to balance the budget and keep in office.
As a tax-payer, my response to the government's budget problems is, "We gave you guys fair a percentage. When we're makin', you're makin'. Now, we ain't makin'. So, now you ain't gettin' - and neither are all those poor cousins you been stringin' along just for the votes."
The pivotal term in your post was, "reasonable constitution." I believe legal, responsible people do not need the government creating restrictions that are responses to the crimes of an irresponsible minority. Every such inroad is a devaluation of a citizen's dignity and a clear indication that the country's justice system failing. If these inroads are the wishes of a majority, than the country is too conflicted to be viable - and unworthy of loyalty.
Let's examine the term, "hate crime." Why is a murder more heinous if it is the result of ethnic friction? That smacks of thought control. In my opinion, all such legal distinctions should be challenged in court for being unconstitutional (and discriminatory, since they only have meaning if all agree a specific minority is always getting picked-on.)
I wasn't against Obama-care, even though there are doctors in the family. What I would rather have seen, though, was a cap on the awards of "runaway" malpractice juries and the insurance bills they create. That would go a long way toward keeping the cost of medical care affordable.
So, my answer to your question is that "reasonable" is good. It may even be asymptotically approachable. A higher state exists than compelled charity, however. That's my true opinion of socialism. It's state-supported mugging. It is also too often controlled by big, dumb, graft-riddled bureaucracies.
Of course, all of that is relative.
Nice little rant, BeeFlow, but so far you've done little except to display a significant amount of ignorance about what socialism, and indeed politics, is all about. Sweeping generalisations and irrational judgments litter your comments.
A good case in point is how your last comment did not really address the questions I asked.
Care to have another go at answering those questions?
That's because you went off topic.
Yes, I would have a problem with a population accepting a socialist government, even with a "reasonable" constitution. Some things should never be in the hands of a BDG-RB. Once you give it away, it's much harder to retrieve it.
We are very much on-topic, old chap. Surely one of socialism's "social responsibilities" would be to uphold democratic principles, no?
What does BDG-RB mean?
Are you saying that the will of the majority of people should be over-ruled? Would that not be some form of dictatorship?
I absolutely agree with you that capitalist and socialist economic systems require long-term commitments as each requires the dismantlement of the other.
However, I think it would be fair to say that voters for either system understand the fundamental and long-term nature of their choices, and therefore if a clear majority chose to go down the socialist path, then any advocate for democracy, such as your good self, would have to respect the wishes of the majority.
Seems to me, though, that what you're saying is "You can have any democracy you want, as long as it's capitalist."
BDG-RB means "Big, Dumb, Graft-Riddled Bureaucracy."
I don't think either system, in its purest form, is fit for human consumption. You can't have the socialists expecting everybody to live on Monopoly money - and you can't have the capitalists forcing everyone to "make big money for us or die."
How can a government call itself a democracy when the liberty of each citizen is usurped by the BDG-RB every day after the day they chose to vote to instate it? That's not democracy. It's a willing surrender to Big Brother. They might as well have voted to make meaningful voting illegal.
BeeFlow, you're probably not aware that you are dutifully parrotting, like a good little brainwashed citizen, the logical fallacies and unfounded assumptions which make up the typical American capitalist propaganda.
A bureaucracy need not be big, dumb, or graft-riddled to make socialism work.
The wealth created within a socialist system is as real, if not more so, than that created in a captitalist system.
Please explain what you mean by your implied loss of liberty under a socialist system.
And you're once again ducking questions put to you:
[1] Are you saying that the will of the majority of people should be over-ruled (if they wish to choose socialism)?
[2] Would that not be some form of dictatorship?
(1) Of course not. Their state, however, should be held responsible for its own support. It would also be nice if it could have solid trade realtions with capitalist countries - just to show a willingness to get along.
(2) N/A, given the answer to (1)
I think you are slyly trying to lead this back to your old assertion that the US kills foreign civilians for beer money. That is the leading indicator that you think like a conspiracy theorist with PTSD thrown in for spice. Unfortunately, I cannot give you sole credit for your own brain-washing. You always seem to be on the verge of reciting some party line about capitalistic, running-dog imperialist, fornicators-with-fryer-aged chickens. Gauche, indeed!
This discourse is getting loopy.
What's a four-letter word that means, "intercourse?"
"Talk."
OK, we're starting to get somewhere. We seem to agree that a democratically elected socialist government should not experience direct interference by the US or any other capitalist nation; i.e. that their choice of economic system and their sovereignty ought to be respected.
Agreed so far?
I'll get to the trade thing soon, don't worry.
I'm still waiting for you to explain what you meant when you implied that people experience a loss of liberty under a socialist system. How must that follow?
Also, your last comment is way more loopy than any comment I've made so far in this discussion, so, nyer... :-)
While yes, so far this 'discussion' has remained within 'socially acceptable' bounds .. "nyer" is not a word.
At this point i would like to backtrack and ask "nomdeplume", yet again, define "democracy".
If one looks critically and systematically (and briefly) at the "political" system of the 'United States of America' from 'founding Fathers' to the present day ..
.. one can understand why 'graft', 'corruption', 'religious righteousness', and 'Imperial dictats' .. are popular. Especially since "voting" is "optional" and quite some considerable numbers of 'low level' voters can be 'manipulated', discouraged, and sometimes 'prevented' from attending a ballot box.
Davo, "nyer" is not a word???
I beg to differ. So, nyer...
.. and you are trying to keep this discussion "on track"?
Gerry, am an 'oldish' person, and while yes, am aware of the "Macquarie" (updated)dictionary, as well as the "Oxford" and "Chambers" .. have yet to 'catch up' with "Urban jargon".
Davo, "on track" ? Nah, you and I are just having a little chat whilst BeeFlow figures out what to do next.
An interlude...
And whilst we're having an interlude, Davo, let me say that 'democracy' is a con the ruling class invented to deceive the lower classes into believing they had a say in who ran the country.
If you'll recall, at that time in European history, the working (almost starving) class and the starving class in various countries were getting restless and had developed notions of self assertiveness.
They had to be offered a sop to quieten them down a bit. Calling it 'democracy' was very clever.
Ohhh.. I like that last bit about "democracy" being a big lie to cover...what? Economic feudalism? I couldn't agree more.
I still think you are putting the cart ahead of the little Asian guy when it comes to comparing the socialist and capitalist systems. The real question is, "How do they conflict?"
BTW, if I forgot to answer something, it's because there are so many topics, right now.
Beeflow, glad we can agree about "democracy" being a big lie to cover...what? Economic feudalism.
But don't you realise that this economic feudalism is America's Holy of Holies, i.e capitalism? Don't you get it yet?
To help you catch up with other stuff: Why do you suggest that people must experience a loss of liberty under a socialist system?
First off, every government is a mixture of socialism and capitalism. The tip of the scales is all there is to argue about. Under pure capitalism, the poor (i.e., economic non-achievers) would be without recourse and the rich would be without charitable obligation, except where voluntary charity is seen as a virtue. Under pure socialism, the entire population would have a mandated stipend for subsistence and the fruit of every effort would go silently into the common pot unless it was glorified for motivational value.
These extremes will never exist. They are the true examples of what starts revolutions because each is so abhorent. So, in between lies the playground of human politics.
End of part 1
Stay tuned for churches, dictatorships, and well-meaning BDG-RB's.
I can't wait. :-)
You might like to take a look at Parecon (or you might not.)
I looked. Thanks you for the link. I do not believe the paradigm reveals anything new or more efficient, but I bet it looked good to a publisher. We have an employee-owned, aerospace machine shop in Tacoma with a union workforce. To date, their most notable characteristic is the speed with which large numbers of employees are laid-off whenever business takes the slightest downturn. They make jobs in shops owned by stockholders look like lifetime entitlements.
I don't think anything constructive will be achieved by continuing this debate, BeeFlow.
You seem sold on the idea that individuals hoarding wealth and avoiding taxes is the way to go, whereas I believe the communal sharing of wealth is the way to go. So did a guy called Jesus, before they crucified him.
Thanks for dropping by.
OK,OK, I'm outta here. But I need to say one more thing before leaving.
When people start realizing the best way to react to any evil is to fight it on a case-by-case basis, things will start to change. Instead of fighting racism, society should stand against individual discriminatory acts. Instead of defaming entire nations, single crimes should be researched and prosecuted. Instead of taking away the freedoms of the majority, the ones who misuse freedom should be punished. All the gross, grandstanding generalizations promoted by pandering politicians and angst-riddled amature pundits amount to squat for real people. (copyright BeeFlow, 2011) It seems some would rather refuse everybody a breath of air because one or two don't brush their teeth.
The worst thing is that there are so many idiots willing to buy this pile of wholesale crap.
...and with that, I'll leave the arena to the idiots.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========