Socialismphobia

[Camelza]

I am aware of the whole British intervention in 1944, the gradual destruction of ELAS, the sham democracy, the dictatorship, the right-wing monarchists, the Truman Doctrine et al. and please don't confuse me not liking the Warsaw Pact for me liking Churchill's antics and the Americans, there's ample posts of mine in the General forum demonstrating otherwise. Likewise please don't assume that I approve of anything done by the royalists and the military junta in their horrific spell of maiming and torturing.

Torture by Stalinists or Right-wingers is the same thing,people get hurt and people get killed,so you should've better picked no side.

But yes, I oversimplified.

I still consider remaining in the "West", however unpleasant that experience was for Greece, to be preferable to remaining in the Warsaw Pact and the broader Soviet bloc or in the Titoist fold, however willing the Greeks were for that outcome. Yes, the actions taken in Greece are unjustifiable, but that doesn't mean that life in the Pact would have been any better, even though life under the junta and the monarchists beforehand was pretty shitty and incredibly repressive.

The "west"(through its puppet governments) did the exact same things to Greece that any authoritarian could do,along with a bonus: state social conservatism
So,I beg to disagree about the fact that we got the better option.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I am aware of the whole British intervention in 1944, the gradual destruction of ELAS, the sham democracy, the dictatorship, the right-wing monarchists, the Truman Doctrine et al. and please don't confuse me not liking the Warsaw Pact for me liking Churchill's antics and the Americans, there's ample posts of mine in the General forum demonstrating otherwise. Likewise please don't assume that I approve of anything done by the royalists and the military junta in their horrific spell of maiming and torturing.

Torture by Stalinists or Right-wingers is the same thing,people get hurt and people get killed,so you should've better picked no side.

That's entirely true.

But yes, I oversimplified.

I still consider remaining in the "West", however unpleasant that experience was for Greece, to be preferable to remaining in the Warsaw Pact and the broader Soviet bloc or in the Titoist fold, however willing the Greeks were for that outcome. Yes, the actions taken in Greece are unjustifiable, but that doesn't mean that life in the Pact would have been any better, even though life under the junta and the monarchists beforehand was pretty shitty and incredibly repressive.

The "west"(through its puppet governments) did the exact same things to Greece that any authoritarian could do,along with a bonus: state social conservatism
So,I beg to disagree about the fact that we got the better option.

I'd argue that the fact that Greece clawed back its democracy to an extent in the '70s is preferable to being trapped in the Eastern Bloc until 1989, but we're splitting hairs, really, because both scenarios are fundamentally unpleasant.

[Blakk Metal]

Paul Ryan

Laissez-faire doesn't equal objectivism.

He was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand.

[Gauthier]

Laissez-faire doesn't equal objectivism.

He was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand.

When Atlas Shrugged is staff required reading, it's not something that can be denied.

[Zweite Alaje]

Laissez-faire doesn't equal objectivism.

He was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand.

Yup, and that automatically classifies him as a loon.

[Nordenkalt]

Look, socialism by definition only calls for the decrease of government control in people's personal lives and an increase amount of control in business and public interest. And yes, Canada and Europe do run under this system.

[Gauthier]

Look, socialism by definition only calls for the decrease of government control in people's personal lives and an increase amount of control in business and public interest. And yes, Canada and Europe do run under this system.

And Canada is on the verge of being a failed state... oh wait.

[Divair]

Look, socialism by definition only calls for the decrease of government control in people's personal lives and an increase amount of control in business and public interest. And yes, Canada and Europe do run under this system.

Wrong. Socialism calls for the democratization of the workplace. Canad and Europe do not run under this system.

[Gauthier]

Look, socialism by definition only calls for the decrease of government control in people's personal lives and an increase amount of control in business and public interest. And yes, Canada and Europe do run under this system.

Wrong. Socialism calls for the democratization of the workplace. Canad and Europe do not run under this system.

The American definition of Socialism boils down to "Any system of government that dares regulate The Job Creators".

[Divair]

Wrong. Socialism calls for the democratization of the workplace. Canad and Europe do not run under this system.

The American definition of Socialism boils down to "Any system of government that dares regulate The Job Creators".

Anything farther right than the center-right Democrat Party

[Kvatchdom]

Look, socialism by definition only calls for the decrease of government control in people's personal lives and an increase amount of control in business and public interest. And yes, Canada and Europe do run under this system.

No, they don't run by socialism. What's with these people?

[Zweite Alaje]

Look, socialism by definition only calls for the decrease of government control in people's personal lives and an increase amount of control in business and public interest. And yes, Canada and Europe do run under this system.

No, they don't run by socialism. What's with these people?

They're victims of capitalist propaganda, they have yet to think outside the box.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Look, socialism by definition only calls for the decrease of government control in people's personal lives and an increase amount of control in business and public interest. And yes, Canada and Europe do run under this system.

No, they don't run by socialism. What's with these people?

They technically do a teeny bit, even if the governments don't.

[Kvatchdom]

No, they don't run by socialism. What's with these people?

They technically do a teeny bit, even if the governments don't.

NHS is practically gone, and most of it will be privatized. Social Democracy is not socialism.

[Blakk Metal]

He was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand.

Yup, and that automatically classifies him as a loon.

...who may become vice president.

[Gauthier]

Yup, and that automatically classifies him as a loon.

...who may become vice president.

That's when they add Looters and Parasites to the category of hunting permits.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

...who may become vice president.

That's when they add Looters and Parasites to the category of hunting permits.

And Moochers. Don't forget the commie Moochers.

[Norsklow]

snip

And between Social Democracy and 'true socialism', or anarchism for that matter, there can be no peaceful coexistence.

snip
That bit is true.

That being firmly established then, there is absolutely no doubt that for Social Democrats, and Democrats of any kind, 'true socialists' and anarchists are a clear and present danger.

QED.

[Divair]

snip

snip
That bit is true.

That being firmly established then, there is absolutely no doubt that for Social Democrats, and Democrats of any kind, 'true socialists' and anarchists are a clear and present danger.

QED.

Social democrat here. No.

[Geilinor]

Look, socialism by definition only calls for the decrease of government control in people's personal lives and an increase amount of control in business and public interest. And yes, Canada and Europe do run under this system.

No it doesn't. I believe that's liberal social democracy.

[Andropoland]

i always though socialism meant government direction of capital.

the question then becomes what is socialism, is there a common definition of it?

i thought marx said socialism was a step on the way to communism.

Different Communism. Marx's definition of Communism was a stateless, moneyless society if I remember correctly.

In America, Communism is meant to be an Authoritarian state where the government controls all aspects of the economy.

Socialism is generally defined as a state with high income equality, and public ownership of the means of production. Not government ownership, public ownership, though government ownership is a kind of public ownership.

[Norsklow]

That being firmly established then, there is absolutely no doubt that for Social Democrats, and Democrats of any kind, 'true socialists' and anarchists are a clear and present danger.

QED.

Social democrat here. No.

Well, the Anarchist just affirmed that it is true.

[Divair]

Social democrat here. No.

Well, the Anarchist just affirmed that it is true.

The anarchist does not choose my views.

[Norsklow]

Well, the Anarchist just affirmed that it is true.

The anarchist does not choose my views.

True. But he does get to pick that you are his enemy, and vice versa.
The rest of it follows from it.

You may well have no aggressive intentions towards him, but that does not stop him from having such towards yours.

[Divair]

The anarchist does not choose my views.

True. But he does get to pick that you are his enemy, and vice versa.
The rest of it follows from it.

You may well have no aggressive intentions towards him, but that does not stop him from having such towards yours.

If anarchists want to fight me, fine. But I don't consider them enemies.