Classic Marxist Socialism was long ago been established as mistaken at best and fraudulent at worst. There is no "idle capitalist" — not in an environment, where there are other capitalists competing with him, being idle is a losing proposition.
Marx' definition of value was completely wrong — he proposed to value the work based on the effort put into it, not the results. From this he concluded, that the "hard-working" proletariat were "robbed" (never mind their completely voluntary joining)...
Modern Socialists don't define it this way — or they'd get laughed out off any forum except their own. Their description for the idle is "less fortunate"... But, as Heinlein put it, there are only three categories: makers, takers, and fakers — there is no fourth choice. If you aren't making, you must be one of the other two and anybody proposing, you be fed (and sheltered, and entertained, and educated, and, most recently, treated) at the expense of the makers — is either soft in the head or, worse, expects to personally profit from the "wealth redistribution" he advocates.
The number of victims prevents any such comparison... The number of own citizens perished in American "witch hunts" is, pretty much, zero.
Collectivist ideologies — Fascism and Communism (as well as Communism-light, otherwise known as Socialism) — don't value the Individual for much and would not hesitate to kill thousands and millions "for the greater good", while in America Individual still usually trumps the Collective and any attempts at mass-murder (or even mass incarceration) tend to fail.
So, in demolishing your ridiculous attempt to compare America to Nazis, we could stop right here. But I'll go on... The number of foreigners dead off American weaponry — in the 60 years from Korean War to the Iraq one — is well under 5 million, whereas just the USSR lost, by official figures, over 20 million dead to the Germans — in only 4 years.
Quite a few of those send to gulags have also died - which is also recorded in the 1 million total figure that is the consensus at the time.
Compared to mere hundreds of Hover's and McCarthy's intimidated Americans, even the 2 million of dead Soviets remain, as I said, incomparable.
Of course, this does not count famines like Holodomor, and various other policies which resulted in deaths. But those were not witch hunts for "enemies of the proletariat", which is the Soviet analog to the activities of Hoover and McCarthy.
Oh, but Holodomor was deliberate. Russia's modern denials of that ring just as hollow as Turkey's denials of deliberate murder of Armenians at the end of the First World War. Ukrainian peasants — as well as those of the Russian ones, who lived in the fertile regions along Volga — were fairly well off and, unlike the proletariat, did have something to "lose besides their chains". Lenin was warning comrades about Ukrainian peasants in the early 1920-ies — in the next decade Stalin implemented his own "final solution".
It remains rather puzzling (and offensive) to me, that while no one would ever think of using swastika to promote anything German today, the red flag, red star, and hammer-and-sickle are considered "chic" and routinely used to promote vodkas (Russia has little else to offer for export).
All these kinds of purges have the same thing on common, those conservative stooges squatting in the background, did not target those who threatened the state
The single largest hit to the security of the USA was made the Communist couple, who stole the designs of the nuclear bomb — and handed them to Stalin.
Conservatives were absolutely right to be wary of Communists — the most murderous school of thought known to humanity with Hitler's peculiar brand of Fascism (itself a slightly different kind of Collectivism) being a distant second.
but they targeted anyone and everyone who threatened their power, who had something they wanted or who were targets of sexual abuse that refused.
Whatever misdeed you can throw at American government, something far worse was done by the Soviet (and Chinese) officials.
Sexual abuse, you say? That governor of Arkansas was not a Conservative — not by a long shot...
Though a far-Left Socialist in his pre-war youth, Heinlein moved firmly to the near-Libertarian right by the end of 1940-ies (he was a big proponent of government's sponsorship of space-exploration, which does not make him quite a Libertarian).
His novel asked the question, that bothered him for years — why do we bestow the franchise on every born American? His argument was that between the king having full power in a monarchy to the power being shared by all in a democracy there is a middle ground of voting rights being held only by those, who have demonstrated — through personal sacrifice — their willingness to serve the humanity (as a civil servant or a soldier). Under his plan, you'd only get to vote after retiring from the service — something the protagonist forgoes for many years by deciding to become a career officer...
Very little of this is in a movie — and it was justly derided for the omission.
But to find satire on "jingoism" and "American militarism" — however much the Atlantic's Illiberals may want to scratch that particular itch — in that movie is to give it way too much credit.
This is only true if you think the statement "The government should promote the general welfare" immediately makes you a socialist.
It might, depending on what you think, the meaning of that phrase is. If "promoting general welfare" means — to you — people need to be subsidized to be "well", then, yes, you are a Socialist, willing to rob the productive Peter to console the idle Paul.
What absolutely doesn't exist is a well-established and well-funded set of organizations with media outlets, think tanks, etc hiring bunches of people making well over $250,000 a year promoting socialism
Not true. The apparatus you are talking about exists and is scary. I'm talking about all the federal and state bureaucrats working on dispensing the taxpayers' monies to the "less fortunate". Their comfortable jobs — which give them the pay, the benefits, and the daily reassurance, they are better than others (their visitors) — would all be at risk, if the number of recipients went down. Obama Administration, for example, goes to great length to sign-up new recipients of Food Stamps, spending millions of dollars per month just on the advertisements for the program — something unthinkable, when it was originated. Why, if you need to be "encouraged to sign-up", then you don't really need the assistance — it is only for the truly desperate. Are you going to pretend, it is done out of sincere concern for the poor? No, it is because feeding those people — at someone else's expense — is a source of comfy jobs.
Sadly, their efforts — in what FDR once called "administering a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of human spirt" — are successful.
If you're thinking that the people receiving welfare are being rewarded for being a socialist
No, not at all — some recipients are decidedly against the existing setup. (So much so, they are being ridiculed for "hypocrisy", when, in fact, it is just the opposite — their willingness to abolish the program that benefits them shows their sincerity.)
They are arguably benefiting from the majority of voters believing that a bit of socialism in the name of preventing people from starving or freezing to death is a good idea
The majority of voters are being tricked into thinking, the programs do good to people in real need. Yet, the stories of people selling their food stamps (including on facebook, which, BTW, reveals their ability to afford a computer and Internet-access) constantly give a lie to the lamentations about "food insecurity".
Simply put, a politician, who is elected on the promise to "fight poverty" has a conflict of interest — what is he going to run on next time, if he succeeds in destroying poverty today? The Military-Industrial Complex, at least, produces something. The Welfare-Industrial Complex is completely parasitic.
When you are at the top, your enemies are all around you. We have not done any wrong to the French, for example, but they hate us more than the Germans, whom we crushed (or helped crush) in two wars.
Why? Because of the envy... Oh, they'll never admit it, but their spoken explanations for derision towards the yanks don't hold much water...
Likewise, all the other critics criticize us for doing things, they would've done themselves, if they could.
When we are dethroned (by China?), the new "king of the hill" will have to watch its back from all directions...
Yep. Today's NSA makes J. Edger look like an amateur.
Compared even to his contemporaries — on the other side of the Iron Curtain — he has always been an amateur. Same goes for the much-despised Joe McCarthy as well.
Maybe, a total of 200 people (Asimov not among them) have lost their jobs unjustly because of those two gentlemen. Compared to the roughly 20 million losing their freedom and lives in USSR due to Stalin's (and post-Stalin's) repressions, that is, well, incomparable.
If they missed the 2008 meltdown, well, so did everybody else. If they expected the recovery to be more robust, well, so did everybody else.
CBO "misunderestimated", which is the point — their predictions are worthless. Consequently, arguments based on such predictions are just as worthless.
"Everybody else"? A rather unfounded claim.
khallow's claims that the world is going to end because of the ACA are nonsense. His claims that rebates will cause funding problems for 'roads, defense, entitlements' is nonsense. His claims that medicare patients will face death panels are nonsense. Look at debt/GDP and learn to add for fuck sake.
Notably, you aren't offering any proofs to support this either.
BTW, here is a fun blog entry on the republican war against the CBO [crooksandliars.com].
"Crooksandliars" are so partisan — the name of the site applies, in the owners' sophisticated opinion, to the Republicans — that you should not have suggested it. This subthread started, when someone else rejected a link to anncoulter.com...
Apparently, some Republicans (cough Newt, Ryan) don't like to be told that they are too stupid to claim 'wonk' status.
I postulate, that nobody — Republicans, Democrats, independents, Libertarians, Communists, even the present company — like to be told, they are stupid... You don't have to write a blog entry (fun or otherwise) to point that out.
Well, then, you don't recall very well some of the major issues for which Elsevier was targeted
The fraud you are referring to is, indeed, reprehensible, but the publisher (and I remain convinced, other publishers were blamed too) was targeted simply for wanting profit. Indeed, you are doing just that right now:
The Elsevier upper management are profiteering crooks
khallow explained, rather convincingly, how unreliable the CBO's projections are (and your argument along with them).
His job was much easier, of course — he did not need to prove anything himself, merely destroy your proof. Well, he did it — the CBO not only failed to predict the 2008 crash, but, according to the figures khallow quoted, the subsequent "recovery" as well. The CBO's numbers are so far off, year after year, it is laughable.
A useful benefit is that you'll find out what types of advertising recommendations Anonymous members usually get.
Encryption devices and software (guaranteed against hacking by any government or your money back!), Linux-based computers, infra red-blocking clothing... We have a product for everyone.
You keep saying this in reference to Obama, when Obama's history since 2009 has been to continue the policies of Bush and implement Republican ideas like Romneycare.
Other than politician's name followed by the word "care", there is very little in common between Obama's and Romney's programs.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for you, that the charlatan you elected turned out to be less red than you wanted?
But, perhaps, you just don't know something, our government does... Judging by Administration's directives, the threat is much more immediate than "in 100s of years".
inability for the government to manage a simple website
It could be, the observed failure exceeded the planners' expectations... The site does not merely suck, which could've been blamed on the evil insurers somehow. It completely does not work.
But I'm not sure, the suspicion is correct myself: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" (Hanlon's Razor)...
Obama's personal favorite healthcare model â" as well as that of the rest of the Left is "single-payer"
So that's why he took it off the table straight away, right? That's part of his evil master plan, right?
Quite possibly, he took it off the table straight away because he — and his team — realized, it is not going to pass. Indeed, that's what his web-site says: "Single Payer Would Kill Health Care Reform".
Whether what we are seeing unfold really was planned, or is, as it appears on the surface, evidence of gross incompetence, there is nothing impossible — nor even "unlikely" — about such plan.
Moron
Oh, the thoughtful and insightful arguments of the Left. Do post more, I beg of you.
Single payer is my personal favorite healthcare model. Not Obama's.
Can't say I've met smarter supporters of the idea...
Slashdot Mirror
Marx' definition of value was completely wrong — he proposed to value the work based on the effort put into it, not the results. From this he concluded, that the "hard-working" proletariat were "robbed" (never mind their completely voluntary joining)...
Modern Socialists don't define it this way — or they'd get laughed out off any forum except their own. Their description for the idle is "less fortunate"... But, as Heinlein put it, there are only three categories: makers, takers, and fakers — there is no fourth choice. If you aren't making, you must be one of the other two and anybody proposing, you be fed (and sheltered, and entertained, and educated, and, most recently, treated) at the expense of the makers — is either soft in the head or, worse, expects to personally profit from the "wealth redistribution" he advocates.
Bear with me, kind sir — and spare some more words to avoid confusion...
Though we did crush the Germans, I was saying, we did nothing wrong to the French.
And yet, I was saying, the French, whom we helped, despise us more, than do the Germans, whom we fought.
That's what I said earlier. Now, if you disagree with any of it, please, reply — but kindly avoid the pronouns...
The number of victims prevents any such comparison... The number of own citizens perished in American "witch hunts" is, pretty much, zero.
Collectivist ideologies — Fascism and Communism (as well as Communism-light, otherwise known as Socialism) — don't value the Individual for much and would not hesitate to kill thousands and millions "for the greater good", while in America Individual still usually trumps the Collective and any attempts at mass-murder (or even mass incarceration) tend to fail.
So, in demolishing your ridiculous attempt to compare America to Nazis, we could stop right here. But I'll go on... The number of foreigners dead off American weaponry — in the 60 years from Korean War to the Iraq one — is well under 5 million, whereas just the USSR lost, by official figures, over 20 million dead to the Germans — in only 4 years.
Compared to mere hundreds of Hover's and McCarthy's intimidated Americans, even the 2 million of dead Soviets remain, as I said, incomparable.
Oh, but Holodomor was deliberate. Russia's modern denials of that ring just as hollow as Turkey's denials of deliberate murder of Armenians at the end of the First World War. Ukrainian peasants — as well as those of the Russian ones, who lived in the fertile regions along Volga — were fairly well off and, unlike the proletariat, did have something to "lose besides their chains". Lenin was warning comrades about Ukrainian peasants in the early 1920-ies — in the next decade Stalin implemented his own "final solution".
It remains rather puzzling (and offensive) to me, that while no one would ever think of using swastika to promote anything German today, the red flag, red star, and hammer-and-sickle are considered "chic" and routinely used to promote vodkas (Russia has little else to offer for export).
The single largest hit to the security of the USA was made the Communist couple, who stole the designs of the nuclear bomb — and handed them to Stalin.
Conservatives were absolutely right to be wary of Communists — the most murderous school of thought known to humanity with Hitler's peculiar brand of Fascism (itself a slightly different kind of Collectivism) being a distant second.
Whatever misdeed you can throw at American government, something far worse was done by the Soviet (and Chinese) officials.
Sexual abuse, you say? That governor of Arkansas was not a Conservative — not by a long shot...
This was, most certainly, not in the book. The non-citizens (residents) had all the same rights as citizens — except the voting franchise.
Though a far-Left Socialist in his pre-war youth, Heinlein moved firmly to the near-Libertarian right by the end of 1940-ies (he was a big proponent of government's sponsorship of space-exploration, which does not make him quite a Libertarian).
His novel asked the question, that bothered him for years — why do we bestow the franchise on every born American? His argument was that between the king having full power in a monarchy to the power being shared by all in a democracy there is a middle ground of voting rights being held only by those, who have demonstrated — through personal sacrifice — their willingness to serve the humanity (as a civil servant or a soldier). Under his plan, you'd only get to vote after retiring from the service — something the protagonist forgoes for many years by deciding to become a career officer...
Very little of this is in a movie — and it was justly derided for the omission.
But to find satire on "jingoism" and "American militarism" — however much the Atlantic's Illiberals may want to scratch that particular itch — in that movie is to give it way too much credit.
By freeing them from German occupation in 1944? Indeed, such deeds are not soon forgiven...
It might, depending on what you think, the meaning of that phrase is. If "promoting general welfare" means — to you — people need to be subsidized to be "well", then, yes, you are a Socialist, willing to rob the productive Peter to console the idle Paul.
Not true. The apparatus you are talking about exists and is scary. I'm talking about all the federal and state bureaucrats working on dispensing the taxpayers' monies to the "less fortunate". Their comfortable jobs — which give them the pay, the benefits, and the daily reassurance, they are better than others (their visitors) — would all be at risk, if the number of recipients went down. Obama Administration, for example, goes to great length to sign-up new recipients of Food Stamps, spending millions of dollars per month just on the advertisements for the program — something unthinkable, when it was originated. Why, if you need to be "encouraged to sign-up", then you don't really need the assistance — it is only for the truly desperate. Are you going to pretend, it is done out of sincere concern for the poor? No, it is because feeding those people — at someone else's expense — is a source of comfy jobs.
Sadly, their efforts — in what FDR once called "administering a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of human spirt" — are successful.
No, not at all — some recipients are decidedly against the existing setup. (So much so, they are being ridiculed for "hypocrisy", when, in fact, it is just the opposite — their willingness to abolish the program that benefits them shows their sincerity.)
The majority of voters are being tricked into thinking, the programs do good to people in real need. Yet, the stories of people selling their food stamps (including on facebook, which, BTW, reveals their ability to afford a computer and Internet-access) constantly give a lie to the lamentations about "food insecurity".
Simply put, a politician, who is elected on the promise to "fight poverty" has a conflict of interest — what is he going to run on next time, if he succeeds in destroying poverty today? The Military-Industrial Complex, at least, produces something. The Welfare-Industrial Complex is completely parasitic.
Why? Because of the envy... Oh, they'll never admit it, but their spoken explanations for derision towards the yanks don't hold much water...
Likewise, all the other critics criticize us for doing things, they would've done themselves, if they could.
When we are dethroned (by China?), the new "king of the hill" will have to watch its back from all directions...
Yep. Today's NSA makes J. Edger look like an amateur.
Compared even to his contemporaries — on the other side of the Iron Curtain — he has always been an amateur. Same goes for the much-despised Joe McCarthy as well.
Maybe, a total of 200 people (Asimov not among them) have lost their jobs unjustly because of those two gentlemen. Compared to the roughly 20 million losing their freedom and lives in USSR due to Stalin's (and post-Stalin's) repressions, that is, well, incomparable.
CBO "misunderestimated", which is the point — their predictions are worthless. Consequently, arguments based on such predictions are just as worthless.
"Everybody else"? A rather unfounded claim.
Notably, you aren't offering any proofs to support this either.
"Crooksandliars" are so partisan — the name of the site applies, in the owners' sophisticated opinion, to the Republicans — that you should not have suggested it. This subthread started, when someone else rejected a link to anncoulter.com...
I postulate, that nobody — Republicans, Democrats, independents, Libertarians, Communists, even the present company — like to be told, they are stupid... You don't have to write a blog entry (fun or otherwise) to point that out.
The fraud you are referring to is, indeed, reprehensible, but the publisher (and I remain convinced, other publishers were blamed too) was targeted simply for wanting profit. Indeed, you are doing just that right now:
"Profit" seems to be a dirty word for you...
khallow did not, actually, make any projections. You quoted the CBO's — to support your argument:
khallow explained, rather convincingly, how unreliable the CBO's projections are (and your argument along with them).
His job was much easier, of course — he did not need to prove anything himself, merely destroy your proof. Well, he did it — the CBO not only failed to predict the 2008 crash, but, according to the figures khallow quoted, the subsequent "recovery" as well. The CBO's numbers are so far off, year after year, it is laughable.
Indeed... Well, I guess, the time (and the free market) shall tell. Hope, the market remains free...
Encryption devices and software (guaranteed against hacking by any government or your money back!), Linux-based computers, infra red-blocking clothing... We have a product for everyone.
Wouldn't this be the place to list good examples? I'm most curious... Thanks!
My recollection is, more than a single publisher was targeted by the "information wants to be free" folks...
The established publications — often denounced as "greedy" for having the audacity of wanting to get paid — do add value, after all?
Next in the news: a private farm's crop beats the yield of a communal field.
George W. Bush was — a fairly successful — governor (Executive) of a major State.
"In many cases" — carefully avoiding stating "in most"... Khmm... Could it be, CNN rooted for Al Gore back in 1999?..
Other than politician's name followed by the word "care", there is very little in common between Obama's and Romney's programs.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for you, that the charlatan you elected turned out to be less red than you wanted?
Well, in this case, maybe we should change our priorities a little — because currently, for example, America's government spends more fighting "global warming", than illegal immigration...
But, perhaps, you just don't know something, our government does... Judging by Administration's directives, the threat is much more immediate than "in 100s of years".
The shutdown — whosoever's fault it was — began on October 1st — exactly the day, the site was to open. Sorry, try again.
Be sure to include more insightful arguments like this one, please.
It could be, the observed failure exceeded the planners' expectations... The site does not merely suck, which could've been blamed on the evil insurers somehow. It completely does not work.
But I'm not sure, the suspicion is correct myself: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" (Hanlon's Razor)...
Quite possibly, he took it off the table straight away because he — and his team — realized, it is not going to pass. Indeed, that's what his web-site says: "Single Payer Would Kill Health Care Reform".
Whether what we are seeing unfold really was planned, or is, as it appears on the surface, evidence of gross incompetence, there is nothing impossible — nor even "unlikely" — about such plan.
Oh, the thoughtful and insightful arguments of the Left. Do post more, I beg of you.
Can't say I've met smarter supporters of the idea...