Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 144
  1.    #41  
    Actually that term had been coined long before my existence. The NYT's Walter Duranty and the Pullitzer he got for covering the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics would be a prime example of commie ragdom.

    What is the difference between a modern "liberal" and a socialist? Redistrubtion of income...check! Centralized state control of health care...check! Private property rights abrogated...check! Control of speech....check! (The whole "Politically Correct" movement is quintessentially a tenet of modern liberalism. Look what happened to Larry Summers. Or these students :http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0505020808.asp.)

    Perhaps you should explain to me what the difference is between modern liberalism and socialism?
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yea, like china. Whom we all give money to as we buy their cheap products made with prison labor of those arrested for using google
    Big grain of truth to that...and we managed to transfer nuclear weapons delivery technology to them via Loral Corporation. One day the ChiComs will try to smack us a good one with weapons technology they stole from us or bought outright.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    what the difference is between modern liberalism and socialism?
    It is an interesting question, as is the relationship between extreme conservatism in our country and fascism. I have been meaning to read this book sometime this spring.

    http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...-2005+13:57:42
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    It is an interesting question, as is the relationship between extreme conservatism in our country and fascism. I have been meaning to read this book sometime this spring.

    http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...-2005+13:57:42
    I guess you can make SOME case for either side (Right/Facism, Left/Socialism.) I wonder if one becomes too Facist, and the other too Socialistic, will they finally agree with one another?
    Last edited by Insertion; 05/02/2005 at 01:19 PM. Reason: tiepoe's
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I consider myself liberal but not socialist. A liberal socially can be conservative fiscally
    well out here in California, AAAHnold has the same philosophy. I am sure he would say "Chick - you are no girly-man"!
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 05/02/2005 at 01:11 PM.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    What is the difference between a modern "liberal" and a socialist? Redistrubtion of income...check! Centralized state control of health care...check! Private property rights abrogated...check! Control of speech....check! (The whole "Politically Correct" movement is quintessentially a tenet of modern liberalism.
    I think the term "socialism" is enough to make you stop thinking. Maybe you could consider for a second that Bush's closest ally in Europe is a socialist, the head of a socialist party and a socialist government... could be too confusing for a purely black and white world, though.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    LOL I believe Jesse (The Body) Ventura – a.k.a. former Governor of MN – claimed to be as such prior to AAhnold. No?
    I used it as an example because Socialism-Capitalism doesn’t mix in its Marxism-sense. Yet, people try adding the prefix “modern” to liberalism and/or socialism to make the two fit…. I just don’t buy that, sorry.
    I think it was Robert Bork, who popularized the phrase modern liberalism, in his "unbiased" treatise: Slouching towards Gomorrah

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...bosnation0e-20
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 05/02/2005 at 01:52 PM.
  8.    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I consider myself liberal but not socialist. A liberal socially can be conservative fiscally (I encourage you to argue the validation of a Socialist-Capitalist…). I’d say that some newspapers (including the NYT and LAT) have humanitarian, altruisms, mutual self-interests elements in them.
    Each term you use, "humanitarian", "altrusim" and "mutual self-interest" are synonyms for modern liberalism. (Mutual self-interest, sort of like, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"?)

    Also, how can a "social liberal", meaning centralized health care, a maxium welfare state, etc. be "fiscally conserative". Tell me, where would you trim the federal government?

    As far as my defining a Socialist-Capitalist, well, that's largely a dichotomy. Maybe someone that is trying to grow markets and services faster than they can be redistributed by the government.
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I think the term "socialism" is enough to make you stop thinking. Maybe you could consider for a second that Bush's closest ally in Europe is a socialist, the head of a socialist party and a socialist government... could be too confusing for a purely black and white world, though.
    Yes. And look at the state of industry in England right now. Try to start a business in the EU right now. Speak out against acceptance, vice tolerance, of homosexuality and you **** can go to jail. (Look what is happening in Canada to media that report on their scandal.) Home break in crime is on the rise, and street crime is approaching pre-Giulani New York levels.

    In the past week I needed some serious medical evaluation. Within a week I had an MRI and had consulted a specialist. The only way that can happen to a British citizen would be if he got on a plane and came over here.

    The one thing that Blair has right, and the courage to oppose his party on, is the threat posed by Islamo-Fascism. I give him great credit for that steadfast courage and vision, but I wouldn't want to live in that country.
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I think it was Robert Bork, who popularized the phrase modern liberalism, in his "unbiased" treatise: Slouching towards Gomorrah

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...bosnation0e-20
    Then what DO you call your political idealogy? Progressive? (As in progressing towards a socialist state
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Then what DO you call your political idealogy? Progressive? (As in progressing towards a socialist state
    When did "Progressive" happen? More and more "Liberals" are using the term now. Why? Is being Liberal something to be ashamed of?
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Then what DO you call your political idealogy? Progressive? (As in progressing towards a socialist state
    I don't mind calling myself a liberal, I figure anything that Bork hates must not be all that bad.
  13.    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Socialism is to seduction what Communism is to rape.
    In that someone is going to get screwed, yes. Socialist seduction at least gives the comfort of consent. Communism, and the 100 million plus it killed in the last century, is rape in its most vile form, an act of subjugation and domination.
  14.    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    When did "Progressive" happen? More and more "Liberals" are using the term now. Why? Is being Liberal something to be ashamed of?
    They had to repackage the same old ideas under a different brand. Liberals lose national elections, but they do well in the Northeast and West.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    In that someone is going to get screwed, yes. Socialist seduction at least gives the comfort of consent. Communism, and the 100 million plus it killed in the last century, is rape in its most vile form, an act of subjugation and domination.
    Yes. That was my point. Socialism seduces you, with goodies and promises.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Yes. That was my point. Socialism seduces you, with goodies and promises.
    seduction is the ugly side of all politics

    goodies like tax breaks and bork-like judge nominations are a different seduction to a different group of people.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 05/02/2005 at 02:15 PM.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    seduction is the ugly side of all politics

    goodies like tax breaks and bork-like judge nominations are a different seduction to a different group of people.
    Well, if you wanted to broaden the arguement, I would agree. But my point was to Socialism/Communism.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  18.    #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That is about as intelligent as saying Conservatism is the human face of Fascism... (Don't get me wrong, though, I don't vote socialist )
    "Etymologically, the use of the word Fascism in modern Italian political history stretches back to the 1890s in the form of fasci, which were radical leftist political factions that proliferated in the decades before World War I. The adoption of this term by the Fascist Party reflected the previous involvement of a number of them in radical left politics. (See Fascio for more on this movement and its evolution.)

    More fascinating reading at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism

    Now then, as far as conservativism:
    "Conservatism can be contrasted on the one hand to radical libertarianism or anarchism, and on the other to such statist movements as fascism and the authoritarian (as opposed to libertarian) versions of communism, and socialism. In terms of the relation of the individual and the state, conservatism falls in the middle. While one end of the spectrum sees no need for the state to exist, the other sees the state as more important than the individual."

    And: While conservatives often identify with nationalist movements, there is a clear distinction between conservative nationalism and the ultra-nationalism of fascism. Conservatism, at its root, is an attitude of political and social quietism. The big plans of the Big Man, the noisy and levelling mass movements, the Führerprinzip, the personality cults, and the strong propensity toward totalitarianism that are central to fascism, are antithetical to the positions of classical conservatism. Conservatism stands for learning from the mistakes of the past, and primum non nocere is an essential conservative principle.

    The but clause:
    Nonetheless, historically, some conservative traditionalists have been drawn to Fascist movements, just like some liberal have been drawn to Communism and Stalinism during the 1970s. Some may have admired the moral and military renewal that Fascist leaders promised. Others may have merely thought fascism a more palatable alternative to socialism or communism. For example, in mid-1930s Britain, conservative media baron Lord Rothermere's Daily Mail enthusiastically backed Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, whilst a number of Tory peers and MPs supported closer ties with Nazi Germany. For a more contemporary example, in a 2003 article in National Review, John Laughland accuses contemporary neoconservative Michael Ledeen of "flirting with fascism", citing examples of the latter's praise for Italian fascist Gabriele D'Annunzio. [3] (http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.html)

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

    You will note, then, that conservatism and facism are mutually exclusive by generally accepted definition, which exluces the fever swamps of Democratic Underground, Howard Dean's office and the main stream media.

    Now then, let's compare socialism with communism:

    "Socialism is a concept, an ideology and a collection of party-based political movements that have evolved and branched over time. Initially, it was based on the organized working class, with the purpose of building a classless society. But eventually, it increasingly concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist also refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed. See Definitions of Socialism.

    1911sforever: Interestingly, Marx saw socialism as a transitory state toward achieving communism:

    Although Marxists and other socialists generally use the word "socialism" in the senses described above, there is also another specifically Marxist use of the term that is worth noting. Karl Marx, in his exposition of historical materialism (his Hegelian model of history) saw socialism as a phase of human society that would follow capitalism and precede communism. Marx is by no means clear about the expected characteristics of such a society, but he is consistent in his belief in the eventual triumph of revolutionary-socialism over capitalism, and then, its eventual transformation into communism.

    In Marxist theory, it also refers to the society that would succeed capitalism, and in some cases develop further into communism. Marxism and communism are both very specific branches of socialism. The two do not represent socialism as a whole.

    1911sforever: Hmmm. Some interesting historical indicators of a socialist state are:

    Tendency Toward Genocide
    Incentives (As in none)
    Prices (As in high)
    Profits and Losses (Profits? See incentive above. Losses? The starvation of millions.)
    Private Property Rights (See incentives)

    OK, OK, the parens comments above are mine

    Communism, which Marx saw as the end state of development is defined as:

    As a theoretical social and economic system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no privately owned means of production, no money and no social classes. In communism, all property is owned cooperatively and collectively, by the community as a whole, and all people have equal social and economic status and rights. Theoretically, under communism, human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved through distribution of resources as needed.

    1911sforever: Hmmm. What is this "gift economy"?

    A gift economy is an economic system in which goods and services are given, rather than traded. This should in theory be beneficial because needs can be satisfied immediately, as opposed to economic stagnation caused by adverse or inappropriate trade conditions, as such in a poverty-stricken area.

    Gee, I wonder who decides who the givers and the recipients are going to be....

    What about liberalism?

    Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. In this respect, it is sometimes held in contrast to conservatism. Since liberalism also focuses on the ability of individuals to structure their own society, it is almost always opposed to totalitarianism, and often to collectivist ideologies, particularly communism.

    1911sforever: The first two sentences of this definition describes the framers well. The last sentence, though, seems contradictory. How is a collectivist ideology NOT totalitarian?

    Here's an intersesting bit:

    Conservatism and classical liberalism
    Some conservatives see themselves as the true inheritors of classical liberalism instead; Jonah Goldberg of National Review argues "most conservatives are closer to classical liberals than a lot of Reason (magazine)-libertarians" because conservatives want to preserve some institutions that they see as needed for liberty.[4] (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldbe...rg121801.shtml) Further confusing the classification of libertarianism with regard to liberalism are attempts by other groups to claim its values as their own. A good example is this quotation from Ronald Reagan:

    [T]he very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

    Anyway, there you have it. Liberal=Socialist=Communist.
  19.    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    seduction is the ugly side of all politics

    goodies like tax breaks and bork-like judge nominations are a different seduction to a different group of people.
    Yes. And in a democracy, if those people vote in a majority control of government then their policies are to be implemented within constitutional guidelines.

    I'm still waiting for DA to explain why that only works when the left has control of government.
  20.    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Judge Bork wrote a book...authors are SUPPOSED to have opinions.
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions