Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (157808)	1/10/2003 2:30:54 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579974

Socialism is not a part time ideology......something you do as a halfway measure.......and its not a continuum from more to less. its a complete society which advocates "the collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" and there is no private property. That is simply not correct and if it was socialism would not even be a useful concept except perhaps in abstract theory unrelated to the real world. There has never been and probably will never be 100% socialism at least not on the scale of a nation/state. Because it does not exist, it does not mean its not a useful concept. It may well be that its way ahead of its time. The more government there is the close you get to socialism. Oh, horse shit......you could have a huge gov't that does everything but control production and distribution of goods and prohibit private ownership of property and it would not be socialism. Just like with other isms there have to be certain things in place to make it so. Just as you can't have a democracy without the right to vote between two or more real choices, you can't have socialism without the two principles above. But I do know that the Dems are not a party espousing socialism or working towards a socialistic state. They keep advocating moves in that direction. Oh damn, you're scaring yourself. As a culture becomes more civilized, its not unusual for it to be more altruistic. If the Dems are doing anything, its assuring that everyone gets a at least a small piece of pie. Rich societies tend to be less squeamish about sharing. However, the Dem. party is strongly rooted in capitalism and has no intention of perverting it. The desired end might not be to go all the way in that direction but at some point they have to stop moving in that direction if they are to avoid that end (or avoid the closest approximation that can be "achieved" by a large nation) Yikes, they are not even close. This concern is so ridiculous its would not be worth discussing if weren't for the fact that you believe it. I am a liberal and I have no intention of overthrowing capitalism. Do I believe there is a better system....yes, I do but either it hasn't been discovered or it hasn't been made palatable yet. So I stick with capitalism until something better comes along. The fear of party planks that resemble components found in socialism is borne of ignorance and probably greed. Opposition to such party planks is based on support for freedom and desire for economic benefit to the country. That's what I believe people say to mask the fear. Of course, it can't be said one is worried that they will lose their money especially when they have piles so they say its not for the good of the country. The desire of many to take wealth away through increasing taxation is a perfect example of greed and lust for power and arrogance as they think they have more right to, and will make better decisions with, the wealth then those they confiscate it from. The arrogance is in believing that everything one makes is solely attributable to the intellect, abilities and hard work of that person. If there were not the little people, the so called captains of industry would not be able to make their fortunes. The captains and the little people both know that. Its why the wealthy liked slaves so much....it gave them absolute control over their destiny. But what many of the well off don't get real well and why M. Antoinette's quote became so famous is that when everyone doesn't get a share of the wealth........at least little, then there is usually trouble. So instead of worrying whether the gov't is getting too big and taking all your hard earned money, I suggest you worry more that all the peoples in this great country feel they have been adequately entitled. If they don't, then that's when anarchy and violence breaks out. Ask the people of LA.......they learned the hard way. ted

To: TimF who wrote (157808)	1/10/2003 7:57:16 AM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1579974

Tim Re.. They keep advocating moves in that direction. Aren't you confusing the Dems. primary objective, to expand its base, which is primarily poor people, with socialisms primary objective, which is to make sure all people are in the same class; it just happens that socialism, or more specifically, its governmental variant, communism, is the most efficient means to create the base the dems require. . The dems don't want everybody to be socialist, just poor, nor is socialisms primary objective to have one class of poor people, but rather one class; fortunately, for the dems, they also mostly happen to be poor; which is why the Dems embrace socialistic causes. ..