When is it ok to hate someone for their politics?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Typically yes, but with Imran that doesn't matter.

Hilarious!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I thrive on silliness Imran thrives on obstinancy.

[Lorizael]

Tell us more, please!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

In the beginning....

[Lorizael]

Yeah that's it! Who started it??

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Who first agitated for those safety nets? Who called for them? Che can let you know the history of the socialists who first called for regulations and legislation which we refer to as 'safety nets'. And what was the argument against them? That they were socialist.

So yeah, safety nets are socialist policies, advanced initially by socialists, you know, people who believe in socialism?

it appropriate to merely say the program exists therefor it is still socialistic.

Well.. duh! Welfare reform still depends on government assistance for people without jobs. That doesn't sound socialist to you? What planet do you live on?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Hmmm.... I'm torn between responding to the absurd or merely allowing the absurdity to be self evident.

Let me ponder.

[Lorizael]

Be the better man. Someone. Anyone. For the love of Apolyton.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I thrive on silliness Imran thrives on obstinancy.

Imran's a lawyer. What's your excuse?



-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian


Imran's a lawyer. What's your excuse?



-Arrian

I'm bored.

Or did you mean to imply lawyers are inherently silly and/or obstinate.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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

is Imran actually arguing that safety nets - socailism? Is he actually neglecting that every early socialist theorist denied that private property was a just system? Is he actually neglecting the support for limits on the market, and from folks like Disraeli, and Bismarck?

The welfare state was a natural reaction to the conditions of 19th century capitalism, under the social circumstances of the time. It was quickly adopted as a selling point by the more enlightened conservatives, and by the "left wing" of liberalism (Progressivism, Lloyd George Liberalism, what have you) the actual Socialists had NO CHOICE but to support it, in order to compete for working class votes. You could hardly get the working class interested in you if you were chattering on about the classless society, while the consies and the progressives were talking about health care and limited working hours.

Ogie isnt the one being silly.

[Arrian]

Who's the greater fool? The fool or the fool who argues with him?

Own goal! Doh!

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Why are you arguing with me?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark is Imran actually arguing that safety nets - socailism? Is he actually neglecting that every early socialist theorist denied that private property was a just system? Is he actually neglecting the support for limits on the market, and from folks like Disraeli, and Bismarck?

The welfare state was a natural reaction to the conditions of 19th century capitalism, under the social circumstances of the time. It was quickly adopted as a selling point by the more enlightened conservatives, and by the "left wing" of liberalism (Progressivism, Lloyd George Liberalism, what have you) the actual Socialists had NO CHOICE but to support it, in order to compete for working class votes. You could hardly get the working class interested in you if you were chattering on about the classless society, while the consies and the progressives were talking about health care and limited working hours.

Excuse me? Every early socialist theorist denied private property? Aren't you ignoring moderate socialist groups int the late 19th Century, such as the Social Democratic Workers Party of Germany (known today as the SDP) founded in 1869, where some members wanted a gradual change through trade unionism? Or the Fabian Society founded in 1884?

These were moderate voices in socialism which founded the idea of Social Democrats far before the massive welfare states were enacted. They argued for a more gradual change, organizing trade unions and labor (in fact the Fabians helped form the Labor Party later on).

A lot of reforms passed were to prevent socialists and communists gaining power. It was a bone thrown to the people to prevent a uprising, especially after the 1848 rebellions (in fact that was exactly the reason Bismarck initiated reforms). And plenty of those ideas were from the ideas advanced by the moderate socialists.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Excuse me? Every early socialist theorist denied private property? Aren't you ignoring moderate socialist groups int the late 19th Century, such as the Social Democratic Workers Party of Germany (known today as the SDP) founded in 1869, where some members wanted a gradual change through trade unionism? Or the Fabian Society founded in 1884?

These were moderate voices in socialism which founded the idea of Social Democrats far before the massive welfare states were enacted. They argued for a more gradual change, organizing trade unions and labor (in fact the Fabians helped form the Labor Party later on).

A lot of reforms passed were to prevent socialists and communists gaining power. It was a bone thrown to the people to prevent a uprising, especially after the 1848 rebellions (in fact that was exactly the reason Bismarck initiated reforms). And plenty of those ideas were from the ideas advanced by the moderate socialists.

AFAIK, by no means everyone in the SDP was "moderate" It would be a mistake to read backwards from after WW1, when the radical Independent Socialists broke away. AFAIK the official position of the SDP was for the abolition of private property.

The fabians Id hardly call early. That was already after the Second Internationl, IIRC. And I beleive even some fabians called for the abolition of private property.


One should not confuse a change in means (democratic change vs revolution) with a change in ends.

Yes, some conservatives were cynical (Im not sure Disraeli was though) and were trying to avoid revolution. But was every 1848er a socialist? The consies were trying to avoid a working class revolution, and the working class wanted welfare state social reforms. That doesnt mean the reforms were socialist. The Socialists wanted to go beyond those reforms, but HAD to advocate them, as they were the bread and butter of working class politics. And the consies, to the extent they were cynical were not only trying to head off socialist revolution, but to outflank the laissez faire liberals (certainly that makes more sense as an explanation of Disraeli)

19th century politics in western europe features a great variety of radicals, working class and lower middle class democrats, and other "left" elements besides socialists.