darkbeaver said:
Sure it will, I believe in freedom of speech, property rights yada yada yada, maybe you should read Thomas Paine's Common Sense? It will give you an idea what freedom is about. Not the socialist version, real freedom.
Jesus was a Socialist
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
Sure it will, I believe in freedom of speech, property rights yada yada yada, maybe you should read Thomas Paine's Common Sense? It will give you an idea what freedom is about. Not the socialist version, real freedom.
Re: RE: Jesus was a Socialist
its not quite forced equality..
its more like a partial redistribution.
and besides that socialism just implies that there is a strong central planner
its imposible to run complex modern nation states successfully without it
in reality you need both
a strong engine-- capitalism to generate the power BUT without tempering factors-- ie socialism--- its too unstable
we have already gone thru this-- historically
marx predicted the fall of capitalism--- if it kept going the way it was---and it did collapse-----the depression-- but it adapted--what stabalized the western economies afterwards was the huge public centralization of planning and capital---
as societies become more nature and compex they use both stratagies---
example-- Sweden---VERY capitalist
AND VERY socialist
example China---formery VERY sociaist
now also VERY capitalist
of course the disagreement is what percentage
of each strategy is optimal
right wing
left wing
ya need both to fly
thats my cortex talking
but my myocardium says--- QUE VIVA CHE!
and bring back tubby jesus
Said1 said:
its not quite forced equality..
its more like a partial redistribution.
and besides that socialism just implies that there is a strong central planner
its imposible to run complex modern nation states successfully without it
in reality you need both
a strong engine-- capitalism to generate the power BUT without tempering factors-- ie socialism--- its too unstable
we have already gone thru this-- historically
marx predicted the fall of capitalism--- if it kept going the way it was---and it did collapse-----the depression-- but it adapted--what stabalized the western economies afterwards was the huge public centralization of planning and capital---
as societies become more nature and compex they use both stratagies---
example-- Sweden---VERY capitalist
AND VERY socialist
example China---formery VERY sociaist
now also VERY capitalist
of course the disagreement is what percentage
of each strategy is optimal
right wing
left wing
ya need both to fly
thats my cortex talking
but my myocardium says--- QUE VIVA CHE!
and bring back tubby jesus
Re: RE: Jesus was a Socialist
What I said that socialism is forced equality of condition. Which, in reality means, socialism is forced equality of condition. This was in respect to socialism, not combinations of socialism/capitalism and son on, but still, the "distribution" is forced. I do agree that there needs to be a combination of both, however, I don't think nations can sustain high levels of social spending, given governments tendency towards mismanagement.
The great depression had more to do with the Smoot-Hawley protectionist tariffs, passed in 1929. Economist Wanninski (sp?) believes it is basically the cause of the great depression by setting off retaliatory tariffs from Europe against the United States ending with the on-set of WWII (I know, I know, simplified version). The econmy in North America stablized not because of increase public spending, but due to increased production and through the obvious loss of European competitors who were no longer able to supply goods and services.
Roosevelt's New Deal deal is simply keynesian economics, which grew into something more than the new dealers had probably envisioned, even though post-WWII economies could afford to spend on a population that was not as large nor elderly.
Sweden=one of the most expensive places to live in the world.
China=must reform to accomodate a growing educated middle class who will inevitably demand more civic participation, instead of a mock constitution and militarized dictatorship.
cortez said:
What I said that socialism is forced equality of condition. Which, in reality means, socialism is forced equality of condition. This was in respect to socialism, not combinations of socialism/capitalism and son on, but still, the "distribution" is forced. I do agree that there needs to be a combination of both, however, I don't think nations can sustain high levels of social spending, given governments tendency towards mismanagement.
The great depression had more to do with the Smoot-Hawley protectionist tariffs, passed in 1929. Economist Wanninski (sp?) believes it is basically the cause of the great depression by setting off retaliatory tariffs from Europe against the United States ending with the on-set of WWII (I know, I know, simplified version). The econmy in North America stablized not because of increase public spending, but due to increased production and through the obvious loss of European competitors who were no longer able to supply goods and services.
Roosevelt's New Deal deal is simply keynesian economics, which grew into something more than the new dealers had probably envisioned, even though post-WWII economies could afford to spend on a population that was not as large nor elderly.
Sweden=one of the most expensive places to live in the world.
China=must reform to accomodate a growing educated middle class who will inevitably demand more civic participation, instead of a mock constitution and militarized dictatorship.
Mismanagement is not exclusive to government as we can redily see with respect to Enron and many other private capital organizations, the business of governments is to serve the needs of the citizens in the best manner possible.Private management of public institutions is and has been disasterous. Witness the financial chaos of the US with respect to debt, most of this is because of poor private sector management isn't it.
You'll notice that the first years of any welfare state
goes rather well, because the first generation was so
NOT conditioned to a safety net that they performed
rather admirably in the beginning of that welfare state.
It's the 2nd and 3rd generation that grows up with
an unerring sense of entitlement, that they deserve
the benefits without the really really hard work to
earn it in the old school way with no guarantees.
Capitalism on the other hand has ruined many a
believer for its ugly greed. And so regulation must
occur to blunt its animalistic primal incentives.
Yep, we always come to the conclusion that we
need qualities of both.
The argument is at what balance of both ?
goes rather well, because the first generation was so
NOT conditioned to a safety net that they performed
rather admirably in the beginning of that welfare state.
It's the 2nd and 3rd generation that grows up with
an unerring sense of entitlement, that they deserve
the benefits without the really really hard work to
earn it in the old school way with no guarantees.
Capitalism on the other hand has ruined many a
believer for its ugly greed. And so regulation must
occur to blunt its animalistic primal incentives.
Yep, we always come to the conclusion that we
need qualities of both.
The argument is at what balance of both ?
Re: RE: Jesus was a Socialist
No one said it wasn't exclusive, you're missing the overall point with respect to heavy central government in relation to taxation and pubic spending ie: welfare, healthcare and so on. Private sector businesses such as Enron are outside the realm of taxation and spending on social programs, for the most part. I don't recall the answer being private management either, as you have seen, government and private industry don't work together well in the best interests of the people.
Also, pls give an example of US financial chaos with respect to debt due to poor private sector management. Is this just in the instances you mentioned above or do you mean overall economic chaos.
darkbeaver said:
No one said it wasn't exclusive, you're missing the overall point with respect to heavy central government in relation to taxation and pubic spending ie: welfare, healthcare and so on. Private sector businesses such as Enron are outside the realm of taxation and spending on social programs, for the most part. I don't recall the answer being private management either, as you have seen, government and private industry don't work together well in the best interests of the people.
Also, pls give an example of US financial chaos with respect to debt due to poor private sector management. Is this just in the instances you mentioned above or do you mean overall economic chaos.
The problem with all modern religion is that the "money lenders",so detested by Jesus in the bible, have total control over all the major sects.
Socialism is the religion of the left.....their morality. The morality they force on us all the while telling Christians not to force their morality on them.....the left is full of fools and idiots or very evil people, and I'm not 100% which one it is.
I'd have to disagree with Jesus being a socialist, but I won't deny that he would certainly have praised the good intentions of the left.
Re: RE: Jesus was a Socialist
Well if you don't believe in socialism then I invite you to consider the very earliest tribal forms of government, in every case the good of the whole was placed above that of the individual. Individual freedoms are not necessary for the survival of the tribe they exist as an earned privilage if they exist at all, they are not a right that you're born with and they never will be. Your contributions in this forum are childish misrepresentations of myth and religious invention.You never comment on what you would see as the new order you only mouth off about the opposition to your poor ideas, you have the disease of the right wing theocractics, that of a singular lack of creativity and poor spatial relations.
Jay said:
Well if you don't believe in socialism then I invite you to consider the very earliest tribal forms of government, in every case the good of the whole was placed above that of the individual. Individual freedoms are not necessary for the survival of the tribe they exist as an earned privilage if they exist at all, they are not a right that you're born with and they never will be. Your contributions in this forum are childish misrepresentations of myth and religious invention.You never comment on what you would see as the new order you only mouth off about the opposition to your poor ideas, you have the disease of the right wing theocractics, that of a singular lack of creativity and poor spatial relations.