Again, I commend your presentation here as appetizing to those overcoming their aversion to the term "socialism." But, let's be real for a moment.

No socialist society can ever place the desires of the individual at it's pinnacle, nor can it ever be supported continually by the democratic process. These things are mutually exclusive of the entire concept of socialism. Democracy by definition requires individual input into the decision-making process, with those misguided individuals generally believing that what's good for them is good for the masses. Socialism, by contrast, requires a certain amount of fascist enforcement to secure obedience from the individual for the good of the masses (see "income tax" or "universal entitlements"). You simply cannot pay homage to individual rights or desires, for example, in allowing people to choose their own vocations, as we could easily end up with too many auto mechanics and not enough botanists. How would your "worker owned" businesses possibly survive without central planning?

A great example of successful socialism was Germany. Socialism brought them out of their raggedy and pitiful existence into the powerful society they became................nearly one capabale of conquering the world. Individual rights were replaced with directives from planners who sought efficiency and excellence of efforts in their nation-building. Their only pitfall was in letting things get a bit out of control when their "planners" applied too much of the fascism fuel they tried to inflict on too many other countries too soon.

Ironically, another example of successful socialism is the United States. Although currently forced to endure seemingly endless infighting with individualist capitalists, our society grows more and more into our socialist destiny with each successive administration in Washington. Even as far back as the 30's, Roosevelt recognized the superiority of the German socialism, and stayed out of its expansion until forced to step in to save the lives of the British. With social security, income tax, and other social programs, he established our format for socialism growth we've steadily continued to this very day. Universal healthcare and universal environmental controls prelude the coming of the remainder of "universal entitlement rights," each and all requiring individual desires be set aside for the betterment of the masses as a whole.

No, folks.........while I admire your "packaging" of socialism through use of symantics and directed comprehension, your definitions come only through theory books and blogger dreams. Socialism is the saviour of the masses by means of the "directive," not the "selective."

Actually, that sounds a lot like the stock market. 1/3 of Americans own stocks, and that statistic should be doubled in my opinion. The stock market (as I'm sure you all know) is a way for common people to invest money into corporations. There may still be the extremely rich, but they're working with you - not against you. In other words, if they buy the same stock as you, you profit along side him. So anyone could be rich.

What I so commonly see socialist do is take money from the rich and give it to the poor. What I also commonly see is that the number of businesses they have compared to America is pathetic. America's GDP is far greater than any other nation, but socialists have the audacity to claim to be better. In America we have a lot of poor, it's true, but if you knew about our poverty line, you would realize that our poor are the envy of the world. Not only that, but we put more money into social programs than practically any other nation, and we can do this with out taxing insane amounts because our base amount is insanely high.

__________________
It doesn't matter who we elect, it doesn't matter what they've done or who they've done, what is important is what they actually do. Too many politicians are politicians - they like to talk about useless issues and keep people in the dark about the real issue: money. I will always care more about what the government tells me I have to spend my money on, opposed to some unborn assassination. Freedom is the right to chose, on everything.

I have mixed feelings on that notion. It only works if the stockmarket is only seen as part of what people count on... In recent years it seems like people are beginning to think it's everything.

If people think the stock market is everything, it means that they will see it as part of government's job to make sure the stock market never fails (I think we're seeing this already) rather than to help keep order when it does.
And it will also lead to a country with far less regard for human rights around the world. If people's livelihood is 100% connected to "The Bottom Line" then they will allow any kind of behavior that keeps "The Bottom Line" up. Say goodbye to any claims of moral standing in the country.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

I appreciate very much your willingness to engage. You have made some interesting observations. I want to give your post the proper attention that is deserving of it but if I reply to it right now, i will not do it justice. Its 02.31am here and I've had a busy day. I'll try and respond tomorrow. Thanks for taking the time... i have neglected you. Take care.

I think it's funny that we see socialists as taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. Obama has pledged to raise the capital gains tax. While he knows that this will hurt the economy to the point where the government makes less money with a higher tax, he supports it in the interest of fairness. In a way, Obama, the most socialist candidate for the presidency we've seen since LBJ does not propose to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, he proposes we take money from everybody; the government, the poor, and the rich, just so we can take more money for the rich so that the gap in wealth will decrease. This isn't even true socialism, its suicidal socialism that hurts everybody, especially when the government loses money so it has less to give to the poor in the socialist system that they supported in the first place. Capital drives the economy, accept it!

__________________
The White Fox Uncertainty Principle states that:
You can never know the position of a liberal and the logic behind it at the same time,
because the closer you get to finding one, the more unknown the other one becomes.

I offer you proof that my uncertainty principle stands true:

The interesting thing is, that's what socialism is supposed to prevent. Socialism tries to create a group of people called workers, then gives those workers a part of the company - or so I understand. This is much like a corporate pension plan that invests all of the money into that corporations stock (which is extremely retarded btw).

However, what of the people who do not fit in? The people who don't work and are lazy just because they want to be? Well in capitalism we let'em rot. But in socialism, they're taken care of. However, that's looking at it from an extreme perception. Not everyone who doesn't work is lazy.

The real flaw with socialism is that since the government does so much for the people (I mean excessive subsidiaries and every corporation is helped to some degree by the government, which is not unrealistic) they begin to depend on the government. No government has ever been able to keep up with consumer's wants. Sure, the government has had its hands in the phones, trains and other things, but there are a million other products out there that exist because there is demand for them. In a socialist society, all means of production rely on some form of government help, if the government does not see the need for progress then they will not progress, and if the government does not see the need for new technology, then there will be no new technology. Therefore, socialism resists progress because any progression has to face the challenge of 1.) fitting in with what the collective society wants, and 2.) getting government support.

For example, many of you probably know someone who does not like computers. Hell, if you owned a computer 20 years ago you were a geek, a social outcast. It was obvious, at that time, that no one liked computers, but they progressed into personal computers and people began to use them outside of work, now they are popular. If this were a socialist society, you would not be having this discussion right now.

__________________
It doesn't matter who we elect, it doesn't matter what they've done or who they've done, what is important is what they actually do. Too many politicians are politicians - they like to talk about useless issues and keep people in the dark about the real issue: money. I will always care more about what the government tells me I have to spend my money on, opposed to some unborn assassination. Freedom is the right to chose, on everything.

Again, like some of the previous posts, you misunderstand the true nature and spirit of socialism. You conceptualize it within the context of already existing capitalist society. Capitalism does not try to "CREATE a group of people called workers" as you claim. The inference you make is that somehow workers are separated off from the process that they are an intrinsic aspect of. You fall into the time honoured trap of falsely assuming that the government and people under socialism will be two distinct and mutually exclusive entities. Socialism, when properly understood in the marxist-Leninist tradition, means both the people and the government are intrinsically linked. It is therefore difficult to continue to engage any further with you when you fail to grasp socialisms fundamental premise.

I'd say it's well north of that... By any objective measure, the US Government is very near becoming a full blown fascist government as we speak...


Thus the reason why it is so imperative that we aggressively shut the ideological left down.... and more importantly we shut down their comrade independent, moderate, centrists, who embrace "The Third Way"...

Because of the left's use of the Hegelian paradox, (Thesis, antithesis, synthesis...) every compromise is another half step towards tyranny and every independent, moderate, centrist, secular progressive, Bolshevik and their vote is the vessel on which that tyranny travels...

There is also the Sorelian belief of the apocalyptic text, which holds that the only way something like Marxism proletariat utopia can actually come into being is if everybody pretty much worships it. That is why liberals will attack you if you don't wholeheartedly support them. Because if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, and must therefore be eliminated.

__________________
The White Fox Uncertainty Principle states that:
You can never know the position of a liberal and the logic behind it at the same time,
because the closer you get to finding one, the more unknown the other one becomes.

I offer you proof that my uncertainty principle stands true:

Again this is purely academic, not realistic. Your previous allusion to socialist governments being democratically chosen cannot be taken seriously. If personal desires of individualists are allowed to be energized in the form of free elections and a voice in their vocational activities, then you may as well accept and support the policies of right-winger Conservatives. That's what they tout as the best balance of power and preservation of their precious "liberty."

However, we know the Conservative and Capitalistic concept to be flawed in allowing some of the more fortunate participants to excel in both accomplishment and in rewards. Equality can never be achieved in such a system of personal choice. Strong, central powers must be applied to the masses to keep them in line for the goal of fairness to prevail.

Again, I ask how Universal Healthcare could possibly be instituted alongside the whims of individual choice. No..........I maintain that for a socialist/progressive society to exist, it must do so through the enforcement of centrally planned policies regardless of the desires of the masses for unnecessary liberties.