Agnostic.com

10 13

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

10 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Very educational!

4

I don't get how some can believe it doesn't work when it demonstrably does, right now, just across the ocean.

4

to summarize: a large % of the electorate are dumb & brainwashed.

2

1rst part where he is wrong. He attempts to redefine socialism as a meaning on the Left. He also attempts to state that care for equality is a socialism idea. This is incorrect. Right side views of equality is that for Oppurtunity versus outcome.
Going to bible is bad choice if you don't mention teach a man to fish or that sloth is a sin.
His comments on Marxism is also a failure. His book was a theoretical thought of how socialism would occur. In his thought model the end result was communism which is only achieved through totalitarian and would lead to corruption.

Right wing means individuality and freedom of choice the far right is anarchism.
Left wing means community and control of choice the far left is Orwellian.

Not only does the guy mix up the concept of Social and Socialism, Socialism and Left.

He tends to think Totalitarian is a right wing but laissez faire is the farthest right so how is that possible?

I agree. Most folk don't have a clue about the different types of governments or economic systems. It is not hard to research the concepts -- but they don't.

Laissez faire is another way of saying Oligarchy. It protects the fortunes of the most wealth while stymieing the rights of their workers. The last time we had “laissez faire” government was in the early part of the Twentieth Century, just before the market crash in the 1920’s and created the rise of Unionism. Sadly, the Robber Barons have returned.

@Barnie2years I'm not a proponent only pointing out the finer flaws of the argument. I think a Free Market with certain regulations is the best choice.

5

You can lead a trumpanzee to facts but you can't make him learn.

2

This video states that the one form of socalled socialism that has worked is anarcho-socialism; which is an oxymoron. Catalonia, Sumeria under Hammurabi; which was a brutal dictatorship with tons of slaves, and some place in Mexico.

The most ridiculous claims is that inca and maoist states avhieved successful socialism. Hahaha Okay.

At least he admits the Scandanavian and Canadian structures are Capitalist.

SCal Level 7 Mar 2, 2019
1

Thanks , addressing this in the history taught today
would go a long way to get the facts straight.

1

I haven’t actually heard anyone say that socialism doesn’t work. I hear them say that Marx-style communism doesn’t work, and there is a degree of truth in that sentiment I think. The video states several times that communism is not socialism, but rather is “right-wing” dictatorship created by force. Did anyone tell the participants in the Russian revolution that they were right-wingers? The video makes some good points but IMO is flawed by a reactionary and argumentive stance. Despite that, I gained valuable information, especially by all those biblical quotes calling for socialism and by information about socialism in various old civilizations.

All of these conflicting ideas and “isms” can be confusing and divisive—perfect fodder for power-hungry politicians. I am certainly no expert in economics, but I think it helps to take a broader view.

It is obvious that joint effort often leads to greater efficiency and enhanced survival. The principle is embedded in all of nature from the development of multi-celled organisms to the establishment of families, villages, nations and international corporations. But there is an optimal level of joint effort which depends on the environment. Please note that there remains a large role for single-celled organisms—there is a niche for one-person businesses, just as there are some very small countries.

Nearly everyone agrees that some level of cooperation is desirable. Even if you live alone in the wilderness you will be dependent on mankind for your birth if nothing else. It’s a question of personal preference and goals. If you want to own a Stemme S12 motor glider obviously you will require a high level of mutual support in order to get $400k to fulfill your goal. By living on the street, eating cheap food and walking everywhere a person might be just as happy but won’t get to soar around in the clouds.

Socialism and capitalism are not opposites. They are manifestations of the same underlying principle. My electricity is provided by a co-op. A credit union provides my banking needs. A member-owned association provides insurance and manages my retirement account. All that is socialism. I shop at Walmart, a corporation, but I AM PART OWNER OF WALMART, and that is also socialism. Capitalism is socialism! It doesn’t matter if it’s through government or through private investment, joint efforts are joint efforts.

There can be too much socialism (or too little). There is an optimal amount depending on conditions. Government itself is a joint effort, but if through government we force an excessive level of socialism there might be a negative impact, with subsequent corrections. Please don’t force me to join your group or to buy insurance, etc.

Some of Bernie’s ideas might just work.

Socialism doesnt work.

I humballly think u nailed it,
Russia under Peter theGreat in 14/16 century needed change.BUT to say, as some
politicians do that social security is Socialism^^^is rather scary.
The definitions are ,today very convoluted. Spinning them
today seems to be sport(or profit)-i cannot fathom that it's not on purpose.

You are correct in thinking co-op is an example of a more socialism but because the scale of ownership isn't 100% public it would be not at the end of a spectrum but sliding towards the middle.
Totalitarian isn't right wing. It's left of right depending on its purpose and goals it can be farther left.

@BryanLV So now I’ve reard it said, but this is the first time IIRC. 🙂

3

They also didn't talk about the talks given by the economists Dr Richard Wolff, Dr Michael Hudson and Dr.Steve Keen.

3

Very interesting. Needs to be shown more wtdely

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:301488
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.