• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How the Poor and Working Class Can Finally Break the Democratic Party.

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
scandanavia is not socialist, heavy government yes. The 'fruits' of marxism being anything but rotten have yet to be seen.. Cuba Venezuela
I disagree. Socialism has emerged several times, and has been enormously successful, but each time capitalist powers have moved in to suppress and destroy it. Chile, Burkina Faso, Nicaragua, Bolivia... Social and economic success stories -- for a short time; but sharing the wealth or spending it on social programs that don't benefit corporate interests invites intervention and overthrow. It's happened over and over. The US, in particular, has been suppressing nascent democracies ever since WWII.
 

LeftyLen

Active Member
I disagree. Socialism has emerged several times, and has been enormously successful, but each time capitalist powers have moved in to suppress and destroy it. Chile, Burkina Faso, Nicaragua, Bolivia... Social and economic success stories -- for a short time; but sharing the wealth or spending it on social programs that don't benefit corporate interests invites intervention and overthrow. It's happened over and over. The US, in particular, has been suppressing nascent democracies ever since WWII.
For one thing what defines the american experiment is freedom. Socialism, the hive mind values equality more than liberty. As one example Norwegian government recently passed a law that the boards of its largest corporations must be half female. The California left, the Democratic Party, passed a law that no employer may fire a male employee who wears women’s clothing at work. Because the Left holds liberty (except sexual liberty) in lower esteem, Europe has raised a generation that does not value liberty nearly as much Americans do (though we’re getting there).
Socialism teaches you to avoid taking care of other people. The state will – why should you? If people in socialist countries take less care of their aging parents, it is because they are taught from childhood to allow others, i.e. the state, to take care of everybody. Just as we saw in America when the state stepped in to take care of women who had children without a husband, these women increasingly refused to marry and felt little compunction about having more babies out of wedlock. The BIGGER the government, the worse the people. The larger the state, the more callous it becomes. 20th century evil was made possible in large measure by the bureaucratic mentality – the type of person who is merely a cog in huge governmental machine, collectively all-powerful but individually powerless to do anything except take and execute orders. The bigger the state, the smaller the citizens. Corporations are a-moral, but they are competitive, thus are forced by consumers to act in certain ways. socialist governments are monolithic, and all that leads to. I see SOME Marxist admit that MOST “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to then the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.

If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.
 

LeftyLen

Active Member
I disagree. Socialism has emerged several times, and has been enormously successful, but each time capitalist powers have moved in to suppress and destroy it. Chile, Burkina Faso, Nicaragua, Bolivia... Social and economic success stories -- for a short time; but sharing the wealth or spending it on social programs that don't benefit corporate interests invites intervention and overthrow. It's happened over and over. The US, in particular, has been suppressing nascent democracies ever since WWII.
Let me add, you mention Nicaragua? there are no civil rights their. I look at Maduro’s socialist regime which turned Venezuela, once the wealthiest nation in South America, into utter ruin. Its economy is now about hyperinflation, oppression, and starvation, with nearly one-fifth of the population having already fled the country since 2014. Socialism has also been tried in Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Somalia, and many other countries, the end result has always been the same: tyranny and mass suffering. Ordinary citizens, the very people whom the socialists claimed to champion in the countries you mention, were shot dead on the streets, thrown in prison camps, and deprived of the most basic human rights. What started as a well-meaning commitment to improve life economic collapse, political oppression, and more than 100 million deaths across socialist societies. the appeal of socialism is delusional. endless socialist experiments is not that 'better ' people, are needed to achieve the right kind of ' real socialism' but that SOCIALISM ALL ALONG IS THE PROBLEM. It is a cancer that need in this country that needs to be expunged.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
For one thing what defines the american experiment is freedom. Socialism, the hive mind values equality more than liberty. As one example Norwegian government recently passed a law that the boards of its largest corporations must be half female. The California left, the Democratic Party, passed a law that no employer may fire a male employee who wears women’s clothing at work. Because the Left holds liberty (except sexual liberty) in lower esteem, Europe has raised a generation that does not value liberty nearly as much Americans do (though we’re getting there).
And you think this is anti-liberty because .... ?

Isn't it pro-liberty to allow people to wear the clothing they prefer and to employ females in government, especially when females make up 51% of the population?

How, exactly are these examples of "the Left" holding liberty "in lower esteem?"
Socialism teaches you to avoid taking care of other people.
The opposite, actually.
The state will – why should you?
Because we're all in this together. The government is us.
If people in socialist countries take less care of their aging parents,
What does this mean?
it is because they are taught from childhood to allow others, i.e. the state, to take care of everybody. Just as we saw in America when the state stepped in to take care of women who had children without a husband, these women increasingly refused to marry and felt little compunction about having more babies out of wedlock.
What on earth? "Refused to marry" ... ?

Sounds like you want to force women to conform to your personal views of what they should be. I don't see much "pro-liberty" there. "Live your life the way we say or no support for you and your children!" Because you "had children without a husband" and "refuse to marry."

Like, wtf?
The BIGGER the government, the worse the people. The larger the state, the more callous it becomes. 20th century evil was made possible in large measure by the bureaucratic mentality – the type of person who is merely a cog in huge governmental machine, collectively all-powerful but individually powerless to do anything except take and execute orders. The bigger the state, the smaller the citizens. Corporations are a-moral, but they are competitive, thus are forced by consumers to act in certain ways. socialist governments are monolithic, and all that leads to. I see SOME Marxist admit that MOST “socialist” countries around the world were failing. However, according to then the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing “pure” socialism. The perfect version of socialism would work; it is just the imperfect socialism that doesn’t work. Marxists like to compare a theoretically perfect version of socialism with practical, imperfect capitalism which allows them to claim that socialism is superior to capitalism.
It seems to me that whatever version of capitalism the US is dealing with right now is not helping the lower and middle income populations very much.
If perfection really were an available option, the choice of economic and political systems would be irrelevant. In a world with perfect beings and infinite abundance, any economic or political system–socialism, capitalism, fascism, or communism–would work perfectly.
No such thing as perfection.
 

LeftyLen

Active Member
And you think this is anti-liberty because .... ?

Isn't it pro-liberty to allow people to wear the clothing they prefer and to employ females in government, especially when females make up 51% of the population?

How, exactly are these examples of "the Left" holding liberty "in lower esteem?"

The opposite, actually.

Because we're all in this together. The government is us.

What does this mean?

What on earth? "Refused to marry" ... ?

Sounds like you want to force women to conform to your personal views of what they should be. I don't see much "pro-liberty" there. "Live your life the way we say or no support for you and your children!" Because you "had children without a husband" and "refuse to marry."

Like, wtf?

It seems to me that whatever version of capitalism the US is dealing with right now is not helping the lower and middle income populations very much.

No such thing as perfection.
I take my cue from Thomas Paine, "All government is evil, but it is a necessary evil, therefore it is an evil that must be LIMITED." Government is us? -The larger the government the small the citizen. No government reflects my values, nor should it reflect any. It should be reduced to its constitutional limitations, like the 10th amendment. Its not up to government to mandate cloths, values etc. Those are individual values. there is no such thing as "we are all in this together" utter nonsense, that is a collectivist cliche.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I take my cue from Thomas Paine, "All government is evil, but it is a necessary evil, therefore it is an evil that must be LIMITED." Government is us? -The larger the government the small the citizen. No government reflects my values, nor should it reflect any. It should be reduced to its constitutional limitations, like the 10th amendment. Its not up to government to mandate cloths, values etc. Those are individual values. there is no such thing as "we are all in this together" utter nonsense, that is a collectivist cliche.
Good for you. Maybe next time you'll provide answers to my questions and we can have a real conversation.

We are all in this together. We must share our community, our society and our planet with every other person on it.

Ta ta til then.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I take my cue from Thomas Paine, "All government is evil, but it is a necessary evil, therefore it is an evil that must be LIMITED."
Has anyone anywhere ever suggested that government should NOT be limited? I am not aware of anyone ever suggesting that it shouldn't be. So I am wondering who you and Thomas Paine think your alerting, here? Who you think would stand against such an idea?
Government is us? -The larger the government the small(er) the citizen.
This is an absurd 'bumper-sticker' cliche that means nothing in actuality.

Big, highly complex and interdependent societies need big, highly complex governments to govern them effectively. And EVERY government entity, regardless of their size, is susceptible to corruption. So the governed must remain ever vigilant and willing to fight that inevitable propensity toward corruption.
No government reflects my values, nor should it reflect any. It should be reduced to its constitutional limitations, like the 10th amendment.
The purpose of government is to promote and protect the functional well-being of the (collective) society of humans that it governs. And that (collective) society will then have the obligation to determine what exactly that entails.
Its not up to government to mandate cloths, values etc.
It will happen automatically. Society's (including every individual within it) well-being IS A VALUE. In fact, it will encompass a whole range of more specific values. And these will need to be spelled out and rigorously protected if there is to be any hope of maintaining them.
Those are individual values. there is no such thing as "we are all in this together" utter nonsense, that is a collectivist cliche.
In a healthy and intelligent society, the individual's values and the collective's values will align. Because the individual will understand that their well-being is directly tied to the well-being of the collective society that they are members and participants within. It's only the selfish adult toddlers that can't grasp this ideal. And so whine and cry when the mean old government tells them they can't do whatever they want.
 
Last edited:
Top