When is it ok to hate someone for their politics?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then you obvioulsy don't subscribe to the welfare reform theory and its positive social impacts. I think the case can be made that once governmental reliance is withheld on a large/generous scale people see the benefits of finding employment or opportunities they otherwise would be complacent to let pass by if only to subsist/live off the governmental largess.

Who said? Nice strawman, btw, but IIRC, welfare reform includes, as its centerpiece.... welfare! Well imagine that. And for a second I thought that people who got fired couldn't get money from the government under this "welfare reform".

Because one does not look at a given policy within the myopic view of calling it socialist. One looks at the entirety of the governmental policy, ownership of industry etc., and determine its relative socialistic leanings.

One doesn't look at a given policy to determine if it is socialist?!



Explain 'socialized medicine'. Or, better yet, 'socialist security'. People most definately do look at policies individually to see if they are more or less socialist or capitalist. Policies can be triumped or tarred as 'socialist' and done so all the time. Welfare, social security, food stamps, all are socialist programs within the capitalist framework of the US economy. Hint, that's why they call the US a 'mixed economy'. I'll give you one guess to find out what exactly is 'mixed'.

Sorry, bud, but individual programs are evaluated on their socialist leanings. That's why socialist parties have certain issues they focus on... you know, socialist programs. Like, say, welfare and social security in the 1930s.

that doesn't mean the adoption of a given social program means the entirety of the given society all of a sudden becomes socialistic.

Nice strawman. Point to where I said that.

[Flip McWho]

A class is not merely one's present state of income or wealth. It is one's permanent, legal status that one cannot cross because of legal stratification of society.

Thats not a class, its a caste/status. This probably underpins your misunderstanding of the left.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Nice strawman. Point to where I said that.

Considering the entire arguement started from

And I don't think any one claims that economic mobility is not great in capitalist economies, but that a) it isn't as great as the promoters of capitalism claim it is, and b) social mobility would be better in a more socialist system.

and then was reinforced here

To claim that safety nets are in no way related to socialism is being willfully ignorant.

Where the commonly accepted definitions of

sys·tem Audio pronunciation of "system" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sstm)
n.

1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.
2. A functionally related group of elements, especially:
1. The human body regarded as a functional physiological unit.
2. An organism as a whole, especially with regard to its vital processes or functions.
3. A group of physiologically or anatomically complementary organs or parts: the nervous system; the skeletal system.
4. A group of interacting mechanical or electrical components.
5. A network of structures and channels, as for communication, travel, or distribution.
6. A network of related computer software, hardware, and data transmission devices.
3. An organized set of interrelated ideas or principles.
4. A social, economic, or political organizational form.
5. A naturally occurring group of objects or phenomena: the solar system.
6. A set of objects or phenomena grouped together for classification or analysis.
7. A condition of harmonious, orderly interaction.
8. An organized and coordinated method; a procedure. See Synonyms at method.
9. The prevailing social order; the establishment. Used with the: You can't beat the system.

so·cial·ism Audio pronunciation of "socialism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

I'ld say that covers it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"more socialist system" now equals "the entirety of the given society all of a sudden becomes socialistic"?



Seeing as you've agreed that we do have a more socialist system than we did in 1900 does that mean the entirety of our society has suddenly become socialistic?

Or are you just being deliberately dense?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Seeing as you equated safety nets to socialism. (quote 2) in combination with (quote 1) talking to a socialistic system I'ld say it was clear what your reference was.

[Arrian]

Zkribbler,

and also a "Life Practices" course...or some such...to teach kids how to read contracts, write checks, etc.

Yes. Didn't this used to be called "Home Economics?" There was a classroom in my highschool that was unused. I remember it was the home ec room. It had gone the way of the dodo. It was kinda like a fossil. You could see evidence that, in the beforetime, kids learned "home ec" whatever that was.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Seeing as you equated safety nets to socialism. (quote 2) in combination with (quote 1) talking to a socialistic system I'ld say it was clear what your reference was.

Uh.. yeah, safety nets are socialist policies, and are the exact things which have made US society more socialist than they were before.

I ask again, are you just being deliberately dense?

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Ned


The class warfare thinking came at a time when almost all of the world was still stratified legally. Feudalism still existed in large measure.

Class warfare thinking presupposes stratification. Workers cannot become merchants, merchants cannot not become barons, etc.

In free societies, though, a millionaire can go bankrupt and the poor can become mega rich. It happens every day.

I don't mean to be rude, but did you happen to pick up a history book recently; in 1848 feudalism in the clasic sense existed only in Russia and maybe Ottoman Turkey, even in the reacionistic Austrian empire the pesants where personaly free (but didn't own the land).

About the last part...

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Ned


More wealth is evil thinking. Punishment of the wealthy does not help the poor. It hurts them because it retards the creation of wealth in the first place. Wealth brings prosperity to all.

The focus ought to remain on equal opportunity. Today's greatest barrier to equal opportunity is not the presence or absence of high taxes on the wealthy, but the bad public education system. The only way to truly remedy this is to provide some sort of voucher system so that the poor are not locked into bad education.

I have a crazy idea let's like take some money (not a lot but just enugh) from the rich and use it to educate the poor, and oh wait let's use some of that money to help poor sick people get better and to send 0.7% of our BDP to poor countries like we promised in the 70's.
Ain't I smart.

You see progresive taxs is meant to provide the state with the resources to create ecuality of opurtunity; do you truly have ecual opurtunities if you go to a bad state school or live on the streat or can't afford a doctor.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


What, that a concept of class exists? Of course it does. We speak of the 'middle class' all the time. There are lower classes. It is very difficult for people from the lower classes to move into the upper classes than it is for people born into the upper classes to stay there.

Where I come from that's called common sense.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Its good to be an Alpha.

No, its good to be an Alpha ++

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Uh.. yeah, safety nets are socialist policies, and are the exact things which have made US society more socialist than they were before.

I ask again, are you just being deliberately dense?

No I'm simply calling you on your assertion that safety nets equate to socialism.

My response was an obvious yes they are more socialistic than the absence of the programs but a far cry from socialism. You may want to read that a bit first.

You then of course decided it was appropriate to put words in my mouth to say that the US did not drift to a more socialistic society.

I never argued the US did not become more socialistic. I merely argued that US was not socialist and comparatively vs. the rest of the world is one of the least socialistic states. As for mixed economies this is so rehashed as to become painful. There is not a given state in the world that is purely capitalistic, socialistic, or communistic. Duhh.

Of course the crux of the arguement came from the drift to even more socialistic policy meaning greater economic mobility.

So when I showed example of reversing the course of socialistic policy having arguable benefits vis a vis welfare reform you decided it appropriate to merely say the program exists therefor it is still socialistic.

Deliberately dense is appropriate here but not from my perspective.

[Lorizael]

Don't people generally have to have differing points of view in order to argue? This is really quite amazing to watch.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Typically yes, but with Imran that doesn't matter.

[Arrian]

This has been a very, very silly little argument. And I don't think you can really tar Imran with all the blame, Ogie.

-Arrian