ROFLMNAO... Ain't delusion grand? (Let the record reflect this member chose to completely ignore the argument and instead opted to change the subject through an appeal to popular leftist opinion... LOL Leftists...)

You keep telling yourself that sis and pretty soon you'll be in here demanding and ever so emphatically that Lenin, Stalin, Mao were right wingers too... after all how could they have murdered so many innocent folks, who simply believed differently, if they weren't Right Wingers?

All leftist cultural trainwrecks turn right wing when re-brushed by the rationalizations of leftist historians...

Friends, let's try to remember that this person is limited in most respects and she believes that 'Leftists are in effect sugar and spice and everything nice... Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin Mao and Pol Pot were not nice, so they COULDN'T have been Leftists...'

And that's really all ya need to know about THAT!

I am being serious here. You really need to see a therapist

If you think that anything that disagrees with your opinion is a joke than I suggest you see a therapist (preferably a decidedly non-liberal one who would beat some sense into you with his cane).

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

PI's just a big old lefty too, when it comes down to it. As he said, leftist believe in protecting the community over individual rights. Any government beyond anarchy requires a giving up of a certain degree of your individual rights and I don't think he's advocating anarchy. He's already said that he is obligated to act if he sees someone else's rights being violated. However, this obligation represents a forfeit of his individual rights to go on his own marry way. This is the seeds of community responsibility over individual rights that only in his own delusions he believes he's free of.

__________________
True knowledge exists in knowing what you don't know.

Sorry Hairy, but with no successful example for you to bring to the table here, you are that which you claim to not be..................solely on the "lecture circuit" promoting a theory you resonate with. This is further evidenced by your rather common-left habit of diluting your idealogy with rhythmic bashing of capitalism with childish name-calling, but nothing explained further. That there exists a wealth of evidence as to the failure of capitalism, your inability to substantiate your position against it with substance, coupled with your denial of the success of Socialist communities under the leadership of strong rulers proves your confine to the Marxist classroom setting alone.Central planners in a socialist society never "act on the behalf of capital." They collect and control it on behalf of, and for the benefit of the masses (see "Social Security" or "Universal Healthcare").

Socialism has never thrived from the inside out. People simply can never be relied upon to "do the right thing" by personal choice............they must have incentive. When a system such as ours requires forfeiture of property and other wealth to the benefit of the less productive and the promotion of uniformity and fairness, enforcement from without has proven to be the only method reliable.

I remain repititous with my unanswered question: Would you think the US can establish a socialist system of universal healthcare by voluntary compliance? Never gonna happen.

Thanks for a good debate. I think maybe its better that we draw it to a close soon for fear of repitition. I want to summarize both our positions and perhaps you would care to come back if you want to pick me up on anything that you feel that I have mis-represented you on. Essentially, your position appaers to be this: You belief, that socialist society is compatible with a small enlightened bunch of people deciding amongst themselves policies that they believe to be to be in the best interests of the masses. These people are necessarily distinct and separate from the working class that they purport to represent. They are in essence, a self-appointed and un-elected elite whose policy outcomes are nevertheless necessarily attuned to the social well-being of society in its totality. It is within this context that you imply that universal health care and education systems would emerge.

Now, being a socialist, I naturally concur with the outcomes of a such a process. The system you have in mind is currently operational in Cuba where it is certainly the case that socialist values trump capitalist values. Fidel and the elite that surround him are at the helm of a centrally planned quasi-form of socialist economy. This system is without doubt more preferable than the capitalist societies of Western liberal democracies like the US and Britain. In fact, Cuba is in practice far closer to my concept of democracy than is the US for example. Noam Chomsky was correct when he proclaimed the US to be "a single-ideological state with competing political factions", rather than a democracy. In this sense, it is more accurate to describe the US as an oligarchy rather than a democracy in terms of OUTCOME.

So, although the US is a FORMAL democracy in the sense that people have the opportunity to vote in elections once every 4 or 5 years, Cuba on the other hand, is clearly not a democracy in the FORMAL sense of the term, but nevertheless is far more democratic than the US in terms of OUTCOME. In other words, Fidel has ensured that Cuba has a world class health service free at the point of delivery, a free education system from cradle to grave, the highest amount of trained medical doctors per capita then anywhere else on earth etc etc. This is despite the fact that Cuba has effectively been subject to a 49 year old economic siege by successive US administrations. What all this indicates is that Cuban society is far more responsive in satisfying the fundamental needs of its citizens than the US is.

So we agree on the potential beneficial outcomes that socialism affords as compared to capitalism. We also both agree that capitalists view the wealth of a society in purely individualistic and monetary terms whereas our priorities lie elswhere.

So far, so good.

Our views begin to diverge in respect to conceptualizing how these outcomes might be realized in philosophical and practical terms. I was at pains to point out to you that unlike the Cuban model, the Russia people themselves on mass in 1917 collectively changed their society in a very real and objective way. That's why I'm mystifyed as to why you claimed that I pointed out "no successful example .... to bring to the table". Russia in 1917 represented the clearest and most successful example yet of the creation of a socialist society from below of the people, by the people, for the people. Russia, in other words, did in fact establish, to use your words, "a socialist system of universal health care by voluntary compliance"- YES, IT DID HAPPEN AND IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN.

The bottom line that separates us is this. You are pessimistic about the capacity of people to democratically change their circumstances in a collective way for the benefit of all, wheras I am not. You believe people on mass are incapable of pre-empting such change, even though historical events have taught us otherwise. Marx was alive to this reality 70 years before the Russian revolution occured because he understood that it is only people through their own efforts who are capable of bringing forth their own freedoms. They do this in the first instance, by merging theory with practice. MARXISM IS THE PHILOSOPHY OF PRACTICE as opposed to the the pie in the sky believes of the Utopian socialists, who you strangely characterise me as being a follower of.

I disagree with this statement. At some point each of the founding fathers signed that piece of papar called "THE CONSTITUTION".

__________________
And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

Considering this entire thread, the cat-worshipper may have to suggest more questions.

__________________
And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

Nope... that's not what PI said, nor is it anything approaching what PI said.



Does it? How so? I've not given up any of my rights and I live in the United States, with a MASSIVE fully fascist government. So your argument appears to be a junker... but I'm open to the seeing the evidence ya might want to vomit.

Sweet Non sequitur... Sadly it drives your entire argument into abject failure. But Jeff, as always, it's clear to me that you did the VERY BEST you could... God bless ya...

Actually, you give up your right to kill people, steal from them, and enslave them in order to live in a country where you have the right to life, liberty, and property. Anarchy has no such restrictions.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro