It's alright - I'm used to people resorting to describing someone's debating methods when all else fails. I simply see it as straying from the topic when nothing else relevant can be said about any of the points that were brought up. But I know that isn't always the case!

But that's not why I do it. I do it because when you get down to it, most things people say when they are debating or arguing a point are either flimsy, poorly thought up, or easy to discredit. Plus, I find it's the most efficient means of addressing everything that is discussed (something other people could bother to do once in a while instead of just ignoring the points contrary to their favor; again not implying anything).

And this brings me back to my original point - what you're seeing or think you're seeing is not necessary socialism (or any other economically motivated political system). It just so happens that you may liken it to that because of similarities, but again it all comes down to what you know about.

It would be like if someone drew up all these horror stories about the evil things this legendary, but unseen, creature, "the unicorn" is. Seeing a unicorn and riding it would be experiencing it, but nonetheless people will constantly emerge with their gripping tails of their encounters with things like horses and rinos that they mistakenly liken to that of a unicorn.

My point here is simply that when you make a comparison or allusion to something else, there needs to be some sort of baseline comparison. In other words, you can't say America is "capitalist" alone, but only in reference to other countries. There would have to be some standard to be used which would act as the baseline for the comparison. You can't (properly) make a comparison to something being socialist, without the background to understand what socialism is.

The point is very simply: just because you think you've seen socialism (in there in America) doesn't mean it is so. You may have simply drawn parallels to how you were educated on socialism, much in the same way that people will mistakenly liken their experiences to things that make them mad, angry or frustrated to abstract ideas, of which most of us have never seen and can't validly vouch for.

Because that is the biggest point here that I am arguing.. You say that the socialism you see in America is horrifying, but I don't believe what you are seeing is socialism. That's what I was trying to explain earlier - socialism isn't that simple.

I don't think you ought to tone down any of your items or comments about American or socialism, if you really do feel that way. I think it's important that everyone explains their point of view, because it's only when all the points of views come together collectively that we can make any general consensus to what things really are or mean. Plus, if you never brought things up, then maybe someone out there may have thought the same thing but didn't have the integrity to come forward with it. And it's also beneficial to people who don't agree because it gives them the opportunity to attempt to inform others of any misinformation.

I hope that doesn't sound condescending in anyway because I don't mean it to be. If people don't talk about things then people don't learn from one another. The biggest mistake any of us can make is remaining silent when we are passionate about what we believe in.

I just happen to see things a little bit differently than you here, but I still think it's good and respect the fact that you take the time to say what you think, when most others just remain indifferent.

Indifference is the biggest problem - not really those who are dedicated in believing in capitalism, socialism or communism, but those who just don't seem to give a shit. Because that indifference is what makes controlling us so incredibly simple.

And now I'm rambling again.

(My apologies for posting this somewhat late, and at a rather inconvenient time - seeing as you wrote a new thread... I had wrote a response earlier today and hadn't gotten around to posting it until just now. I will check out your new item soon!)

HAHA. Pardon my laughter, but I've heard so much about the infamous "Lev Post" riddled with quotes, and I never thought I'd see the day that I would either;

1. Require a more "informed argument" or,
2. Need a reply Intervention

haha. Don't quote that. It was a joke. haha

You could be right about socialism as a functioning form of government. And while I'm offended at the accusation that my opinion of socialism is "black and white" and "misinformed" and that my take on socialism is from a dictionary, I will grant you that my personal experience with socialism IS (not could be or may be, but IS) skewed because I am american.

However, my take on socialism is purely philosophical. It is only recently that I have taken those philosophical ideals and seen them applied to american politics. I can honestly say that I have never experienced a socialistic form of government, but the way that socialism is being portrayed (and I dare say practiced) in america is horrifying.

Perhaps I'll tone down the socialist america posts, but I doubt it.

And I don't have a problem with "stealth" posts. But I want more "guest"s to become members. I want more people to disagree with on a more regular basis. I want more people like that to make posts of their own so I can post my own replies. I want this site to get moving again.

AMERICA is the key word here folks

America is ONE of the keywords; SOCIALISM is the other keyword you keep using. This isn't just about America, this about America turning towards socialism, is it not?

You seem to be missing the whole point. The point isn't "socialism is so great because of these places for example", the point is, socialism in action is nothing like what you are claiming it to be. You probably have taken just a black and white dictionary description of an abstract form of social practices dumbed down into words people might be able to understand. Socialism isn't simply giving money to people who aren't working. Yes, that is often a facility of socialism, but that is not what socialism is defined by (or shouldn't be at least). Socialism is quite simply a government structured around the idea of putting the notion of everyone in front of the concept of "me alone". It doesn't have to mean handouts, and it doesn't have to mean the hundred of other things it is often associated with. It is simply government oriented around providing the most essential human needs to everyone.

You seem to be portraying it rather simplistically, and in light of the many follies of capitalism.

It seems a bit weird to me that you can admit you are ignorant of what socialism is like in practice, yet you the way you talk about it suggests you know all about it. How is it you know what socialism is if you haven't even experienced it? It's one thing to read some words on a page and think you get the idea, and it's quite another to live in a place where things like health care, money for going to school, and worker rights are in a state that capitalism couldn't even dream of.

That seems to be what a lot of this is about. You're talking about "rights", but in many ways capitalism is setup to deprive individual workers of certain undeniable rights, that in social systems are commonplace. So one could easily argue that socialism is government trying to disperse economic power more fairly by governing companies more in terms of how they do business.

And don't claim not to be a socialist and then take it upon yourself to spearhead the Tainted Thoughts Non-Members Socialists Movement Who Masturbate About Scandinavia.

Seriously, to any onlooker who is taking all this information in, who do you think sarcastic remarks like that are going to impress? I'm just as much socialist as I am communist or capitalist. I don't subscribe to any political parties, or even vote for that matter, so my enthusiasm towards socialism would look quite odd considering my lack of political activity altogether. Granted, I am currently writing open-source software that I will choose to give out freely in the hope that it can help others. Since that's a pretty non-capitalist thing to do (seeing as I'm putting everyone in front of my own gain), you could call me what you want.

And I say, let it! Capitalism (when unobstructed) embodies economic Darwinism.

Yes and no. I really used to think and believe in this a lot once upon a time, but there are just too many things I've observed that make me think otherwise. For instance: Bill Gates; one of the richest and most successful entrepreneurs. His knowledge of computers is what is keeping Windows in the 90s, and his fairness at providing a reliable product at a fair price doesn't seem on the horizon. Yet, he was for a long time, the richest man in the world. This would suggest that he must be somehow more evolved and fitter than the rest, but when you get down to the grim reality of most of the successful money masters, most of their winners are made through exploitation, theft, and a disregard for any sense of work ethic. So once again, what it all comes down to is human nature (greed and selfishness). This is what you get when you have a stable capitalistic government that caters to the whim of its "investors", and this is what socialism attempts to avoid. Again, I'm not saying I agree with either, only clarifying more to what they are all about in reality.

And I'm not saying that providing for the common good isn't admirable, but IN AMERICA you cannot force it! You can't force people to volunteer. You can't force people to donate goods. You can't force people to give money. The second you start taking from the people who are busting their asses to give to the people who aren't doing shit, I fucking quit!

That's your opinion and that's fine. Many a times I think the same way, as I was bitching about it for the past year or so, but come last December, being on unemployment now, my attitude has changed, for obvious reasons. However, I think it's important to clarify here that you can still be opposed to handouts for people who don't want to work and still not be incompatible with socialism. From how I am reading it, you don't have socialism, but handouts which are often associated with socialism. I think it's a terminology issue we may be having here, because in some things I can agree.

I think it's also really important when we are talking about unemployment to address all the social inequalities, which attribute to it. It's not just as simple as "everyone not working is just lazy" because in many times, jobs are simply unavailable (for example due to the current situation), discrimination is a role (which is very common in all forms, race, religion, intelligence, sexual orientation and appearance), or a lack of sufficient education (which generally in capitalist societies is paid for). So there are some major variables such as race and wealth that play a part in who gets what jobs or who gets jobs at all. My only point here being that when someone wins someone else loses. When you're the one that loses, it's nice to still be recognized as a human and not be shafted by a rigged system.

And don't come to this site and reply to my post calling me a hatemonger and misinformed idiot in your not-so-subtle passive aggressive tone as an anonymous "guest" when it's way too easy to sign up and get a screen name. Then you can log in and reply to my posts with an anonymous "screen name." If you come here often enough that I'm just driving you crazy, get a damn screen name already!

First of all, what's with all these people on this site who really get bent out of shape from guest or private posts? I thought a lot more people on TT understood the desire for anonymity. Maybe it's just a few of us then.

Anyhow, I wouldn't personally call you a hate monger, by anything you've said, but I would agree on the misinformed part, but not necessarily the idiot part. Sometimes (many times) who we get our information from is not necessarily up to us, and just as many times things are expressed so densely as to mask an idea that the authority describing it may have considered "threatening". I think a lot of the problem is that everyone has their own bubble of reality around them, and much of what is outside of that bubble is completely foreign to them. So many times it seems like people get some really weird ideas about things that are actually pretty simply and much less sinister in nature. I don't think that's a personal thing, I think it's something that we all suffer from and clouds or perception of what goes on outside of what we know. Maybe it's this same sense of fear we have towards foreign political thinking as that of the fear from foreign religious thinking. When it's all completely different, it seems to be so evil and out to change you, but when you see what it is really like, it's much different.

That's how I feel at least. I never knew anything about socialism before moving to Sweden at around 18, so all I knew was capitalism. I knew there was a lot of benefits people had here that people didn't in the states, long before I even knew this was a de facto socialist government. All I'm trying to say here is that to a normal American or Canadian person, the type of government wouldn't seem totally crazy or different if you lived in it for a while. Lots of things would be changed, but it's really nothing like it is portrayed by the States to be. The initial shock of certain things you like being changed wears off, and you eventually realize, it's just another system with other rights and benefits.

I think it would be really healthy for any government to have a healthy fair share of capitalist and socialist parties to keep a nice balance between business rights and human rights. But maybe that's just me. I guess it's kinda like religion... all of them might have some really great ideas, but it's best to keep a cautious distance before blindly affirming to any of them.

AMERICA is the key word here folks (and goddamn you all for making me use capital letters because she doesn't deserve it)!

I don't give a shit about socialism in other countries. And I REALLY don't give a shit about Scandinavia. Oh no! Gertrude stole Rolph's goat! It's okay. Gertrude needed it and Rolph had two. He'll live. Hurray! Scandinavian Socialism solves another crisis of humanitarianism.

The only thing I have ever talked about is how socialism is a threat to AMERICAN! AMERICAN! AMERICAN! beliefs, foundations, and way of life. I really would hate to have to do a post dedicated to the US Constitution or Bill of Rights and do a checklist with socialism and show how it fairs. I don't want to... but I will. (please don't make me by the way, because it would be long and preachy and so far, my posts have just been short, humorous, and somewhat bitchy).

And don't claim not to be a socialist and then take it upon yourself to spearhead the Tainted Thoughts Non-Members Socialists Movement Who Masturbate About Scandinavia.

I know capitalism isn't perfect. Aside from an outright dictatorship, it's probably the most prone to corruption. Capitalism is the great beast of greed, and eventually, it will devour itself. And I say, let it! Capitalism (when unobstructed) embodies economic Darwinism.

And I'm not saying that providing for the common good isn't admirable, but IN AMERICA you cannot force it! You can't force people to volunteer. You can't force people to donate goods. You can't force people to give money. The second you start taking from the people who are busting their asses to give to the people who aren't doing shit, I fucking quit!

Even from a philosophical point of view, the "Heaven" idealistic way of life where everyone is treated equally and no one has any more than anyone else is an utter failure (this is the utopian socialistic way; not the working socialistic way).

Of course, the capitalistic way doesn't fail, it's just doesn't succeed in the sense that about 30% of people fail. Ideally (again, from a philosophical standpoint), only a capitalistic socialism could be considered "fair". This would be a world (no matter how imaginary) where doctors and teachers and the like would be the upper class due to their humanitarianism and everyone else would the the middle class (no matter what they did; CEO or hobo).

And don't come to this site and reply to my post calling me a hatemonger and misinformed idiot in your not-so-subtle passive aggressive tone as an anonymous "guest" when it's way too easy to sign up and get a screen name. Then you can log in and reply to my posts with an anonymous "screen name." If you come here often enough that I'm just driving you crazy, get a damn screen name already!

P.S.

Obama gets a giant tiger, and Geitner has to be the idiot wizard

That was a great post. And i agree completely Mr Guest. And I'll take a healthy dose of Socialism any day.

People are greedy and corrupt. That greed and corruption will surface in any type of society. I do believe Capitalism encourages selfishness and greed more then Socialism does though. If you raise one group of kids to always look out for themselves and another group to look out for each other. When they grow up the people from the first group will be more likely to do selfish things and disregard anything bad that might happen to there peers in the process. While the second group will more likely work together and realize that by helping others your helping yourself.

This won't be always the case for everyone of course. There will always be some greedy fuckers in any group. It is an easy emotion to give into. If it is socially acceptable to be greedy then it is that much easier to give into and become apart of. That is how i see American Capitalism.

Boy oh boy do you have some really kooky, and downright misinformed ideas of what socialism is. Then again, look where you get them (the pinnacle of the capitalist empire).

Yeah, thinking of society before your own personal wants, and having a social conscious is a really horrible thing. After all, when you get down to all the mechanics of socialism, that really is all it is: having a social conscious and thinking about the needs of many before your own needs.

Kinda ironic, yet not surprising, that this sort of behavior is ridiculed in our societies. Of course, then again, we have built societies, which by in large, rely on personal gain and selfishness.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, I've lived in both: socialism and capitalism, and socialism is far from what you portray it to be. There is a whole hell of a lot more to socialism than it pertaining to who controls the financial capital - a LOT more, yet you seem completely unaware, and completely misinformed to what it is about.

If we get down to the fine nuts and bolts of both systems, neither (capitalism or socialism) is any better or worse off than the other, so I don't know where you are getting all your misshaped ideas from. Both have some amazingly weird quirks that should keep us on our toes at all the time, and both have been structuralized around what it is humans need or desire, in both a personal level and social level.

Have you ever lived in a socialist society? Be honest.

Do you have any idea what it actually means in execution and and philosophy? Again, be honest.

And, no I don't mean a dictionary description of what it means - I mean an EDUCATED basis of what it stands for and what it is all about for the people who are a part of it. Because, this socialism you are often portraying isn't at all like those socialist governments in the world today. I don't know if these entire socialist rants are based on some 50's commie hysteria pamphlets, or simply a "worst case" scenario for what is in store for America..?

Frankly, the way you talk about socialism as being a demon to mankind is a bit frightening and unsettling. Not just because of many of the positive things socialism stands for (ie: our needs before my needs), but because here we have someone who is so bent up on fighting something they don't really seem to know two things about.

I do stand by this because all of the things you have said in your many "socialism is destroying America" rants seem to only imply that the only knowledge you have about socialism comes from people who have an agenda behind why they want you to think what you do. What you have described as socialism every time you have brought it up is not socialism: it is a black and white analogy of what it means for people who are having trouble at trying to think about the big picture differently, and aren't used to thinking in terms different than capitalism.

Sorry, I've just got to say... From all the socialism is evil threads I've seen you start, none of them had any real sense to it... Just the whole 50's Americanized hysteria we've all heard so much about.

Yeah, yeah, capitalism is great.. socialism is evil... health care is evil, providing for those who are in need is evil, having a sense of security and bitch slapping companies when they get out of line is evil.. Keeping the poverty line to it's minimum is evil, encouraging people to think of society before themselves is evil.. blah blah Money money money for the people, and a complete disregard for the fact that everything we do in our lives affects the lives of everyone around us.

I challenge you, or anyone else, to prove (through empirical data; not mindless ranting) how capitalism (or ANY OTHER ECOPOLITICAL system) is any worse or any more immune from corruption than socialism. Before you immediately just jump to assume that I must sympathize with socialism because I am "defending" it, this isn't an accurate approach. There are many aspects of socialism and capitalism I agree with, and just as many I disagree with. But more importantly, I think it's important to make a distinction between what socialism is all about, and what you seem to think it is all about. So I guess you could say, the biggest reason I am even writing this post is because the last thing the world needs is more self-righteous know-it-alls spreading a bunch of misinformed rubbish to other uninformed, easily impressionable minds.

Don't get me wrong... I fear of the same America you do, but dumbing it down into a black and white evil versus good scenario is both unrealistic and asinine (not to mention what all the mindless leaders before have done... *cough* Bush). Socialism is not the evil. Capitalism is not the evil. Neither of these are the problem.

The problem is human greed, which continues to perpetuate every single problem we have in society. So to ridicule a economic structure which aims to alleviate this by putting the focus on your peers as well, is quite disturbing. (Of course, I suppose what's most disturbing is the possibility that you may not even see how disturbing it is to demonize thinking of others before yourself. - that makes it all that much more disturbing)

I encourage you to visit one of the many socialist societies before you do any more preaching about what it is, or what you think you know about it. The language you speak wouldn't even be compatible in many such places because the things you talk about aren't even relevant.

Oh, and here's some funny food for thought. A couple years ago, a study was performed as to what governments are the most clean (and free from corruption). Ironically, almost all of Scandinavia was at the top of the list (including the number one slot). It's also interesting to note that most of Scandinavia is made up of socialist governments.

America wasn't even in the top hundred, nor any of the other monuments of "free trade".

One would think, based on the simplistic views expressed here, that socialism = corruption, yet the exact opposite was actually shown, or at least implied.

The world would be a lot better if people stopped scapegoating all these abstract notions and fears and started to take responsibility for their own actions by trying to lead less selfish lifestyles, and stop indemnifying themselves from being a part of the system.

You don't have to agree with it, but like it or not, humans are biologically social creatures (much like countless other species). We can't exist on our own, and we only progress when we stick together. I don't like it, and I really don't like any people, but denying it isn't going to make the way the world works change for me.

Social problems call for social solutions. We can't address the social imbalances that exist without using social solutions. If that means taking a social conscious and thinking of everyone else before what you want the most, then I guess that's me. If thinking of society, and what helps others the most, as well as what may help you as well, then I'd be glad to be called a socialist.

The problem here is that you aren't even talking about socialism. You're just taking a bunch of economically related actions the US government is carrying out, or considering carrying out, and portraying it all like it's all about socialism and capitalism. Things are not always as black and white as they appear! This is why I haven't even commented on most of what you have written here... Most of what you have written isn't even about socialism. It's you calling a bunch of your worst fears for this government socialist.

Waa waa...

The real enemy isn't socialism, and the real enemy isn't capitalism. The real enemies are greed, indifference, assumptions, lying, selfishness and more than all of those: governments setup to protect the interests of companies and not people. Things got out of hand because we somehow allowed ourselves to create governments looking out for the interests of companies (and therefor capital) instead of the people they were originally supposed to GOVERN.

So I guess I just can't see things your way. It's not just because I've lived in socialist and capitalist states, but more so because this way of thinking that you seem to have, is all about pointing the blame on someone or something else, instead of acknowledging the core problems in all political and economical systems are within all of us personally.

So does Obama get a big green and orange cat to ride?