Why The Left Loves Socialism

[danielpalos]

Just lousy reading comprehension from the right wing, like usual?

We have a mixed market economy. one part socialism and one part capitalism. can you guess which part is the socialism part?

No we don't. You can keep repeating that nonsense all you like, it's not true and you've not proven it true, nor will your incessant repeating it make it true.

You've demonstrated for everyone that you simply don't understand what "Socialism" means. Your argument failed the test of simple logic and I showed you how. Now it seems you want to grandstand and insist you are right in spite of your own ignorance.

dude, you are simply full of fallacy, if you don't believe we have a mixed-market economy. it is why i don't take the right seriously about economics, or the law.

The fallacy is you arguing for socialism without openly admitting you are for socialism and without you extolling the virtues of socialism.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. I, for one, am grateful for the most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our Constitution, which limits the amount of socialism, to those express exigencies.

No. Socialism starts with a reaction.

No, it doesn't. a reaction could be just infidels, protestants, rebels, and renegades.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. I, for one, am grateful for the most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our Constitution, which limits the amount of socialism, to those express exigencies.

 

[ding]

No we don't. You can keep repeating that nonsense all you like, it's not true and you've not proven it true, nor will your incessant repeating it make it true.

You've demonstrated for everyone that you simply don't understand what "Socialism" means. Your argument failed the test of simple logic and I showed you how. Now it seems you want to grandstand and insist you are right in spite of your own ignorance.

dude, you are simply full of fallacy, if you don't believe we have a mixed-market economy. it is why i don't take the right seriously about economics, or the law.

The fallacy is you arguing for socialism without openly admitting you are for socialism and without you extolling the virtues of socialism.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. I, for one, am grateful for the most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our Constitution, which limits the amount of socialism, to those express exigencies.

No. Socialism starts with a reaction.

No, it doesn't. a reaction could be just infidels, protestants, rebels, and renegades.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. I, for one, am grateful for the most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our Constitution, which limits the amount of socialism, to those express exigencies.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

It seems that certain things in this world simply cannot be discovered without extensive experience, be it personal or collective. This applies to the present book with its fresh and revealing perspective on the millennia-old trends of socialism. While it makes use of a voluminous literature familiar to specialists throughout the world, there is an undeniable logic in the fact that it emerged from the country that has undergone (and is undergoing) the harshest and most prolonged socialist experience in modern history. Nor is it at all incongruous that within that country this book should not have been produced by a humanist, for scholars in the humanities have been the most methodically crushed of all social strata in the Soviet Union ever since the October Revolution. It was written by a mathematician of world renown: in the Communist world, practitioners of the exact sciences must stand in for their annihilated brethren.

But this circumstance has its compensations. It provides us with a rare opportunity of receiving a systematic analysis of the theory and practice of socialism from the pen of an outstanding mathematical thinker versed in the rigorous methodology of his science. (One can attach particular weight, for instance, to his judgment that Marxism lacks even the climate of scientific inquiry.)

World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis, features which the

[vii]
author of this volume points out repeatedly and in many contexts. The doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful instinct--also laid bare by Shafarevich--these contradictions do not in the least hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise, distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach.
The twentieth century marks one of the greatest upsurges in the success of socialism, and concomitantly of its repulsive practical manifestations. Yet due to the same passionate irrationality, attempts to examine these results are repelled: they are either ignored completely, or implausibly explained away in terms of certain "Asiatic" or "Russian" aberrations or the personality of a particular dictator, or else they are ascribed to "state capitalism." The present book encompasses vast stretches of time and space. By carefully describing and analyzing dozens of socialist doctrines and numerous states built on socialist principles, the author leaves no room for evasive arguments based on so-called "insignificant exceptions" (allegedly bearing no resemblance to the glorious future). Whether it is the centralization of China in the first millennium B.C., the bloody European experiments of the time of the Reformation, the chilling (though universally esteemed) utopias of European thinkers, the intrigues of Marx and Engels, or the radical Communist measures of the Lenin period (no wit more humane than Stalin's heavy-handed methods)--the author in all his dozens of examples demonstrates the undeviating consistency of the phenomenon under consideration.

Shafarevich has singled out the invariants of socialism, its fundamental and unchanging elements, which depend neither on time nor place, and which, alas, are looming ominously over today's tottering world. If one considers human history in its entirety, socialism can boast of a greater longevity and durability, of wider diffusion and of control over larger masses of people, than can contemporary Western civilization. It is therefore difficult to shake off gloomy presentiments when contemplating that maw into which--before the century is out--we may all plunge: that "Asiatic formation" which Marx hastened to circumvent in his classification, and before which contemporary Marxist thought stands baffled, having discerned its own hideous countenance

[viii]
in the mirror of the millennia. It could probably be said that the majority of states in the history of mankind have been "socialist." But it is also true that these were in no sense periods or places of human happiness or creativity.
Shafarevich points out with great precision both the cause and the genesis of the first socialist doctrines, which he characterizes as reactions: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. The author also convincingly demonstrates the diametrical opposition between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.

Even though, as this book shows, socialism has always successfully avoided truly scientific analyses of its essence, Shafarevich's study challenges present-day theoreticians of socialism to demonstrate their arguments in a businesslike public discussion.

ALEKSANDR I. SOLZHENITSYN

 

[Dim Bulb]

Socialism starts with a social Contract. I, for one, am grateful for the most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our Constitution, which limits the amount of socialism, to those express exigencies.

But that's not what Socialism is. Sorry. It's just not what the word means. You are ignorant of what things mean as you've demonstrated here. You have an infantile view that isn't supported with logic or reason. There is NO amount of Socialism, limited or otherwise, in our Constitution. There are constitutionally-enumerated powers which the people ratified, and that is our social contract. Socialism is not simply the presence of a social contract. It is government controlling the means of production. In OUR system, that is inherently impossible because we are self-governing.

So would it be impolite to ask then where the US government owns the means of production? And I am a conservative and I still haven't seen anyone suggesting that the government own particular industries. Even the ACA, which I hate as policy, doesn't seek to have the government own it. I view "leftie" and "socialist" as generally curse words thrown out by people. You at least understand the commonly accepted social scientist view of what a socialist is.

A lot of people think that if the government takes even one dollar of their money in taxes and spends it on traffic lights, that is socialism.

PS and I really like Natalie Wood.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, you are simply full of fallacy, if you don't believe we have a mixed-market economy. it is why i don't take the right seriously about economics, or the law.

The fallacy is you arguing for socialism without openly admitting you are for socialism and without you extolling the virtues of socialism.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. I, for one, am grateful for the most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our Constitution, which limits the amount of socialism, to those express exigencies.

No. Socialism starts with a reaction.

No, it doesn't. a reaction could be just infidels, protestants, rebels, and renegades.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. I, for one, am grateful for the most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our Constitution, which limits the amount of socialism, to those express exigencies.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

It seems that certain things in this world simply cannot be discovered without extensive experience, be it personal or collective. This applies to the present book with its fresh and revealing perspective on the millennia-old trends of socialism. While it makes use of a voluminous literature familiar to specialists throughout the world, there is an undeniable logic in the fact that it emerged from the country that has undergone (and is undergoing) the harshest and most prolonged socialist experience in modern history. Nor is it at all incongruous that within that country this book should not have been produced by a humanist, for scholars in the humanities have been the most methodically crushed of all social strata in the Soviet Union ever since the October Revolution. It was written by a mathematician of world renown: in the Communist world, practitioners of the exact sciences must stand in for their annihilated brethren.

But this circumstance has its compensations. It provides us with a rare opportunity of receiving a systematic analysis of the theory and practice of socialism from the pen of an outstanding mathematical thinker versed in the rigorous methodology of his science. (One can attach particular weight, for instance, to his judgment that Marxism lacks even the climate of scientific inquiry.)

World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis, features which the

[vii]
author of this volume points out repeatedly and in many contexts. The doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful instinct--also laid bare by Shafarevich--these contradictions do not in the least hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise, distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach.
The twentieth century marks one of the greatest upsurges in the success of socialism, and concomitantly of its repulsive practical manifestations. Yet due to the same passionate irrationality, attempts to examine these results are repelled: they are either ignored completely, or implausibly explained away in terms of certain "Asiatic" or "Russian" aberrations or the personality of a particular dictator, or else they are ascribed to "state capitalism." The present book encompasses vast stretches of time and space. By carefully describing and analyzing dozens of socialist doctrines and numerous states built on socialist principles, the author leaves no room for evasive arguments based on so-called "insignificant exceptions" (allegedly bearing no resemblance to the glorious future). Whether it is the centralization of China in the first millennium B.C., the bloody European experiments of the time of the Reformation, the chilling (though universally esteemed) utopias of European thinkers, the intrigues of Marx and Engels, or the radical Communist measures of the Lenin period (no wit more humane than Stalin's heavy-handed methods)--the author in all his dozens of examples demonstrates the undeviating consistency of the phenomenon under consideration.

Shafarevich has singled out the invariants of socialism, its fundamental and unchanging elements, which depend neither on time nor place, and which, alas, are looming ominously over today's tottering world. If one considers human history in its entirety, socialism can boast of a greater longevity and durability, of wider diffusion and of control over larger masses of people, than can contemporary Western civilization. It is therefore difficult to shake off gloomy presentiments when contemplating that maw into which--before the century is out--we may all plunge: that "Asiatic formation" which Marx hastened to circumvent in his classification, and before which contemporary Marxist thought stands baffled, having discerned its own hideous countenance

[viii]
in the mirror of the millennia. It could probably be said that the majority of states in the history of mankind have been "socialist." But it is also true that these were in no sense periods or places of human happiness or creativity.
Shafarevich points out with great precision both the cause and the genesis of the first socialist doctrines, which he characterizes as reactions: Plato as a reaction to Greek culture, and the Gnostics as a reaction to Christianity. They sought to counteract the endeavor of the human spirit to stand erect, and strove to return to the earthbound existence of the primitive states of antiquity. The author also convincingly demonstrates the diametrical opposition between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and "God-like" aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.

Even though, as this book shows, socialism has always successfully avoided truly scientific analyses of its essence, Shafarevich's study challenges present-day theoreticians of socialism to demonstrate their arguments in a businesslike public discussion.

ALEKSANDR I. SOLZHENITSYN

it is irrelevant. our Founding Fathers limited our socialism, to paying the debts, and providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism starts with a social Contract. I, for one, am grateful for the most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our Constitution, which limits the amount of socialism, to those express exigencies.

But that's not what Socialism is. Sorry. It's just not what the word means. You are ignorant of what things mean as you've demonstrated here. You have an infantile view that isn't supported with logic or reason. There is NO amount of Socialism, limited or otherwise, in our Constitution. There are constitutionally-enumerated powers which the people ratified, and that is our social contract. Socialism is not simply the presence of a social contract. It is government controlling the means of production. In OUR system, that is inherently impossible because we are self-governing.

So would it be impolite to ask then where the US government owns the means of production? And I am a conservative and I still haven't seen anyone suggesting that the government own particular industries. Even the ACA, which I hate as policy, doesn't seek to have the government own it. I view "leftie" and "socialist" as generally curse words thrown out by people. You at least understand the commonly accepted social scientist view of what a socialist is.

A lot of people think that if the government takes even one dollar of their money in taxes and spends it on traffic lights, that is socialism.

PS and I really like Natalie Wood.

yes, socialism starts with a social Contract.

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror are public sector means of production.

your screen name suits you.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Socialism starts with a social Contract. I, for one, am grateful for the most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our Constitution, which limits the amount of socialism, to those express exigencies.

But that's not what Socialism is. Sorry. It's just not what the word means. You are ignorant of what things mean as you've demonstrated here. You have an infantile view that isn't supported with logic or reason. There is NO amount of Socialism, limited or otherwise, in our Constitution. There are constitutionally-enumerated powers which the people ratified, and that is our social contract. Socialism is not simply the presence of a social contract. It is government controlling the means of production. In OUR system, that is inherently impossible because we are self-governing.

So would it be impolite to ask then where the US government owns the means of production? And I am a conservative and I still haven't seen anyone suggesting that the government own particular industries. Even the ACA, which I hate as policy, doesn't seek to have the government own it. I view "leftie" and "socialist" as generally curse words thrown out by people. You at least understand the commonly accepted social scientist view of what a socialist is.

A lot of people think that if the government takes even one dollar of their money in taxes and spends it on traffic lights, that is socialism.

PS and I really like Natalie Wood.

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror are public sector means of production.

You're gonna have to 'splain that to me.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism starts with a social Contract. I, for one, am grateful for the most Excellent job our Founding Fathers did at the convention with our Constitution, which limits the amount of socialism, to those express exigencies.

But that's not what Socialism is. Sorry. It's just not what the word means. You are ignorant of what things mean as you've demonstrated here. You have an infantile view that isn't supported with logic or reason. There is NO amount of Socialism, limited or otherwise, in our Constitution. There are constitutionally-enumerated powers which the people ratified, and that is our social contract. Socialism is not simply the presence of a social contract. It is government controlling the means of production. In OUR system, that is inherently impossible because we are self-governing.

So would it be impolite to ask then where the US government owns the means of production? And I am a conservative and I still haven't seen anyone suggesting that the government own particular industries. Even the ACA, which I hate as policy, doesn't seek to have the government own it. I view "leftie" and "socialist" as generally curse words thrown out by people. You at least understand the commonly accepted social scientist view of what a socialist is.

A lot of people think that if the government takes even one dollar of their money in taxes and spends it on traffic lights, that is socialism.

PS and I really like Natalie Wood.

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror are public sector means of production.

You're gonna have to 'splain that to me.

States have social Contracts like Constitutions. It really is that simple.

 

[Boss]

Yes, that is what social-ism means; groups rights over individual rights.

You are merely, clueless and Causeless.

No, I'm sorry, that's NOT what Socialism is. Again, you prove your ignorance for everyone to see.

 

[Boss]

yes, socialism starts with a social Contract.

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror are public sector means of production.

A swimming pool starts with digging a hole in the ground. All holes being dug in the ground are NOT swimming pools. All cakes start with a recipe. All recipes are not for cakes. Marriage starts with a contract but all contracts are not for marriage.

Wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror are public policies. Again, you ignorantly try to claim something is Socialism that simply isn't. You continue to fail all over the place, defeated by reason and logic.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, that is what social-ism means; groups rights over individual rights.

You are merely, clueless and Causeless.

No, I'm sorry, that's NOT what Socialism is. Again, you prove your ignorance for everyone to see.

Yes, that is, social-ism.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, socialism starts with a social Contract.

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror are public sector means of production.

A swimming pool starts with digging a hole in the ground. All holes being dug in the ground are NOT swimming pools. All cakes start with a recipe. All recipes are not for cakes. Marriage starts with a contract but all contracts are not for marriage.

Wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror are public policies. Again, you ignorantly try to claim something is Socialism that simply isn't. You continue to fail all over the place, defeated by reason and logic.

false analogy, like usual from the right wing.

Government is socialism. A true command economy is pure government. We have a mixed-market economy; part socialism (of government) and part capitalism (and respect for private property).

Public policy is a "public sector means of production" for that social dilemma.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wall Street socialists do excedingly well with it.

How in the world is Wall Street( which essentually funded Hillary Clinton's entire campaign) a socialist entity?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes, that is what social-ism means; groups rights over individual rights.

You are merely, clueless and Causeless.

No, I'm sorry, that's NOT what Socialism is. Again, you prove your ignorance for everyone to see.

Yes, that is, social-ism.

No it isn't.....Causeless? What the fuck does that mean?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Considering Americans don't even have a socialist party I would say they don't love it all. A better question might be why are right wingers so paranoid and afraid of socialism?

Socialism as a method of operating a nation has been shown to be a failure.
If you want socialism, move to a socialist country.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I liked being in a socialist organization, the military...

Except the military is not a socialist organization.

Sorry... it's just NOT.

When did you serve? Because it is a socialist organization...The farmer analogy is a dictatorship...

No....Its collectivism.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Wall Street socialists do excedingly well with it.

How in the world is Wall Street( which essentually funded Hillary Clinton's entire campaign) a socialist entity?

Bailouts? Anyone recall any of that? Totally bipartisan socialism that the world's staunchest "free marketeers" clamored for across both "conservative" and "liberal" administrations?

 

[Boss]

yes, socialism starts with a social Contract.

our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror are public sector means of production.

A swimming pool starts with digging a hole in the ground. All holes being dug in the ground are NOT swimming pools. All cakes start with a recipe. All recipes are not for cakes. Marriage starts with a contract but all contracts are not for marriage.

Wars on crime, drugs, poverty and terror are public policies. Again, you ignorantly try to claim something is Socialism that simply isn't. You continue to fail all over the place, defeated by reason and logic.

false analogy, like usual from the right wing.

Government is socialism. A true command economy is pure government. We have a mixed-market economy; part socialism (of government) and part capitalism (and respect for private property).

Public policy is a "public sector means of production" for that social dilemma.

All you're doing is repeating your failed arguments. Sorry, that isn't going to suddenly make them come true, Dorothy!

As I already pointed out, if "government IS socialism" as you keep saying, there is no need for us to ever have come up with the word "socialism" because it would be redundant. Why would humans logically create a term to define something that is already defined? Your argument FAILS the test of simple logic. Obviously, the term "socialism" must mean something besides "government" or it would not exist. So the statement that "government is socialism" is false but it demonstrates your ignorance of what Socialism is.

If you are ignorant of what Socialism is, you have no authority to tell us what is Socialism. You obviously don't know. Therefore, reasonable people can dismiss anything further you have to say on this subject.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I liked being in a socialist organization, the military...

Dims don't serve. Dims take.

Democrats do not govern. They RULE

 

[Fenton Lum]

Considering Americans don't even have a socialist party I would say they don't love it all. A better question might be why are right wingers so paranoid and afraid of socialism?

Socialism as a method of operating a nation has been shown to be a failure.
If you want socialism, move to a socialist country.

And land in a much better run healthcare system, run for less, with better outcomes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wall Street socialists do excedingly well with it.

How in the world is Wall Street( which essentually funded Hillary Clinton's entire campaign) a socialist entity?

Bailouts? Anyone recall any of that? Totally bipartisan socialism that the world's staunchest "free marketeers" clamored for across both "conservative" and "liberal" administrations?

Bailout which you libs cheered. And the est of the 75% of the country hated.
You were just told that Mrs Clinton was funded by these same corporate officers.