Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As opposed to our government where power is (relative to the rest of the world) decentralized with many checks on power.

Which is becoming more in name only as time goes by, as the executive branch under several administrations, both Republican and Democrats, garnered more power unto themselves. Obama's intervention in Libya without consulting Congress is one example.

Except that they polar opposite and fundamentally opposed to one another.

No, thats collectivist communist economics.

Socialism is not technically a form of government either.

Nope, it's a method of governance. Which capitalism is not.

There are socialist democracies, dictaroships, and everything in between. Pretty much the same as capitalism.

Nope. Economic and governmental systems are not inherently intrinsically linked unless the government is the regulating and controlling factor in the economy.

But capitalism lends itself to one type of government (free, decentralized, small government)

No. It doesn't. Considering virtually every country on earth is capitalist it doesn't lend itself to any form of government. You just wish it did because it would legitimize you're contradictory and nonsense views on socialism and capitalism.

socialism another (large, centralize, with less individual freedom).

Is that why the freest countries on the planet are capitalist democracies with wide ranging socialist policies? Or do you mean individual freedom in the way that some dude in sub saharan africa can do anything he wants in the absence of functioning governance.

And like the two economic systems the types of government that are the logical fits are also fundamentally opposed to one another.

SOCIALISM IS NOT A FORM OF ECONOMY. THE MOST POWERFUL ECONOMIES ON EARTH UTILIZE SOCIALIST SOCIAL POLICIES.

Not that it always works out so perfectly, but I think if you pay attention to what's going on the world things typicall drift in those directions.

Frazzled wrote:
1. Its not trolling if its true.

So, if I say something like "I think Texas is a terrible state!" I'm not trolling? After all, it may well be a true statement about what I think.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. Obama won because he wasn't Bush. The Democrats could have run a complete nobody and he would have beaten the Republican candidate ...oh wait!....

And yet, until the financial crisis, poll numbers put Obama neck-and-neck with McCain.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
If I recall my history correctly the Axis powers were made up of one monarchy (Japan), one fascist (Itally), and one socialist nation (Nazis). That's one point that they don't teach in history anymore, the Nazi's were some of the purest socialists around. About the only way they deviated from traditional extreme socialism (or communism) was in their national vs international focus. In virtually every other way the Nazis were the logical conclusion of most socialist thinking.

You do not recall correctly. The National Socialist German Workers Party Party was largely a nationalist party that was socialist only to the degree that necessary that a popular, centrist nationalist-oriented workers movement might be created that could challenge the rise of Communism, as well as the internationalist left and right in general. The original founders (German Worker's Party- DAP) even objected to it being labelled a socialist movement and supported profit sharing, not socialism, like many populist movements at the time! A young corporal named Adolph Hitler was sent to infiltrate and investigate for subversive tendencies.

Hitler was the one who added the "Socialist" part to increase broad appeal to socialists and nationalists. But his agenda was uninterested in socialism beyond moving authority for social welfare from the church to the state (he didn't want any authority besides the state IE him). He disliked the mass working class of the big cities (viewed them as corrupted by Bolsheviks or minorities), and had no sympathy with the notions of attacking private property or the business class. Indeed, much of Hitler's rhetoric in 21 and 22 focused on anti socialist and anti liberal backlash for the failed Weimar Republic.

The socialist nations at the time stood in direct opposition to both Hitler's anti-Communist fascism and Stalin's Communism. The United States adopted increasingly socialist positions (such as a national welfare program for the elderly and disabled), after the collapse during the Great Depression (largely attributed to free market capitalism).

The fact that you cannot deistinguish from historical fascism, socialism (especially of the liberal democracy flavor) and Communism is telling.

Governance and economic systems are distinct but inter-related as you cannot completely separate a nations economic activity from its governance except in the abstract. But that's okay, because absolute forms (which the uneducated often try to apply to real world hybrids) only exist there, too. It's why those who raise the flag of capitalism while ignoring its excesses, failures, and tendency towards crony-ism are laughable. In the real world, most systems do get subverted to one degree or another- there is no "perfect" system as their are a myriad of different situations. Such dogmatism is understandable in religion, but much less so in an economic policy setting where pesky things like "facts" and "numbers" show up.

But follow your faith of unrestrained capitalism and when the big wigs squeeze you without any accountability, let us know how that works for you. Adam Smith certainly wasn't a fan and foresaw such problems. Not sure why apologists ignore them. Oh yeah, that's how faith, not problem solving, works.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Except that they polar opposite and fundamentally opposed to one another.

No, thats collectivist communist economics.

So we can at least I agree capitalism and communism are polar opposites. But how is a system that emphasizes success of the group, needs of the group, responsibilities to the group not the polar opposite of a system that emphasizes the need of the individual, the success of the individual, the responsibilities of the individual for themselves? Socialism and communism are not the exact same thing but you seem to ignore the areas where they are similar. They are both collectivist ideologies, and both favor some sort of central administration used to redistribute the resources of the nation. I don’t see how you can argue that.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Socialism is not technically a form of government either.

Nope, it's a method of governance. Which capitalism is not.

How is capitalism any less of a “method” of government. They are both economic systems based on ideologies that influence the way people govern. I think you are fighting just to fight on this one.

ShumaGorath wrote:

There are socialist democracies, dictaroships, and everything in between. Pretty much the same as capitalism.

Nope. Economic and governmental systems are not inherently intrinsically linked unless the government is the regulating and controlling factor in the economy.

I disagree. Like I said I the base assumptions about life, people, and how they should interact that feed economic systems fit better with the base assumptions about life, people, and how they should interact that shape certain forms of governments. I already said it doesn’t work out perfectly in the real world. We can disagree on if the real world is drifting in a way that the economic systems match the political systems (I think it is), and we can disagree on which one drives the other, but again I think you are fighting just to fight on this point.

ShumaGorath wrote:

But capitalism lends itself to one type of government (free, decentralized, small government)

No. It doesn't. Considering virtually every country on earth is capitalist it doesn't lend itself to any form of government. You just wish it did because it would legitimize you're contradictory and nonsense views on socialism and capitalism.

This is pretty much tied to the last point. The base assumptions of capitalism do fit in better with the base assumptions of certain governments. It’s not perfect in real life, but I think the general trend is the that either the economics or the government starts to change so that the underlying beliefs of the government and economy line up over time.

ShumaGorath wrote:

socialism another (large, centralize, with less individual freedom).

Is that why the freest countries on the planet are capitalist democracies with wide ranging socialist policies? Or do you mean individual freedom in the way that some dude in sub saharan africa can do anything he wants in the absence of functioning governance.

I think the social policies of the free nations limit our freedom and have been taking the western world towards larger, more centralized, less free governments. Nobody is advocating anarchy, but I find it hard to argue that economic freedom is not diminishing in the US.

ShumaGorath wrote:

And like the two economic systems the types of government that are the logical fits are also fundamentally opposed to one another.

SOCIALISM IS NOT A FORM OF ECONOMY. THE MOST POWERFUL ECONOMIES ON EARTH UTILIZE SOCIALIST SOCIAL POLICIES.

Socialism is a form of economy. Most western nations are blended economies, not nearly as capitalist and they used to be and are drifting towards a pure socialist economy. Will that drift reserve, get worse, stall, who knows. Social policies are all economic in nature, because socialism an economic ideology.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Not that it always works out so perfectly, but I think if you pay attention to what's going on the world things typicall drift in those directions.

Pictures venting your frustration are not helpful. I came into the thread calm and expressing an educated opinion. You are the one who, not liking my opinion, has blown off the handle. If you don’t like what other people have to say, don’t post stuff in public forums.

Melissia wrote:

Sckitzo wrote:Is Mr. a common form of address when referencing the POTUS? Form some reason that was annoying me. But an interesting article

Mr. President (or Ms./Mrs./Madame President for whenever the first female president gets elected) is the common form of address.

Not just mister. Mister President.

See this I'm used to, but Mr. Obama just seemed...off.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Except that they polar opposite and fundamentally opposed to one another.

No, thats collectivist communist economics.

So we can at least I agree capitalism and communism are polar opposites. But how is a system that emphasizes success of the group, needs of the group, responsibilities to the group not the polar opposite of a system that emphasizes the need of the individual, the success of the individual, the responsibilities of the individual for themselves? Socialism and communism are not the exact same thing but you seem to ignore the areas where they are similar. They are both collectivist ideologies, and both favor some sort of central administration used to redistribute the resources of the nation. I don’t see how you can argue that.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Socialism is not technically a form of government either.

Nope, it's a method of governance. Which capitalism is not.

How is capitalism any less of a “method” of government. They are both economic systems based on ideologies that influence the way people govern. I think you are fighting just to fight on this one.

ShumaGorath wrote:

There are socialist democracies, dictaroships, and everything in between. Pretty much the same as capitalism.

Nope. Economic and governmental systems are not inherently intrinsically linked unless the government is the regulating and controlling factor in the economy.

I disagree. Like I said I the base assumptions about life, people, and how they should interact that feed economic systems fit better with the base assumptions about life, people, and how they should interact that shape certain forms of governments. I already said it doesn’t work out perfectly in the real world. We can disagree on if the real world is drifting in a way that the economic systems match the political systems (I think it is), and we can disagree on which one drives the other, but again I think you are fighting just to fight on this point.

ShumaGorath wrote:

But capitalism lends itself to one type of government (free, decentralized, small government)

No. It doesn't. Considering virtually every country on earth is capitalist it doesn't lend itself to any form of government. You just wish it did because it would legitimize you're contradictory and nonsense views on socialism and capitalism.

This is pretty much tied to the last point. The base assumptions of capitalism do fit in better with the base assumptions of certain governments. It’s not perfect in real life, but I think the general trend is the that either the economics or the government starts to change so that the underlying beliefs of the government and economy line up over time.

ShumaGorath wrote:

socialism another (large, centralize, with less individual freedom).

Is that why the freest countries on the planet are capitalist democracies with wide ranging socialist policies? Or do you mean individual freedom in the way that some dude in sub saharan africa can do anything he wants in the absence of functioning governance.

I think the social policies of the free nations limit our freedom and have been taking the western world towards larger, more centralized, less free governments. Nobody is advocating anarchy, but I find it hard to argue that economic freedom is not diminishing in the US.

ShumaGorath wrote:

And like the two economic systems the types of government that are the logical fits are also fundamentally opposed to one another.

SOCIALISM IS NOT A FORM OF ECONOMY. THE MOST POWERFUL ECONOMIES ON EARTH UTILIZE SOCIALIST SOCIAL POLICIES.

Socialism is a form of economy. Most western nations are blended economies, not nearly as capitalist and they used to be and are drifting towards a pure socialist economy. Will that drift reserve, get worse, stall, who knows. Social policies are all economic in nature, because socialism an economic ideology.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Not that it always works out so perfectly, but I think if you pay attention to what's going on the world things typicall drift in those directions.

Pictures venting your frustration are not helpful. I came into the thread calm and expressing an educated opinion. You are the one who, not liking my opinion, has blown off the handle. If you don’t like what other people have to say, don’t post stuff in public forums.

In 2012, Kanya West will reunite with the Three Lost Kanyes (north, south, east) and the world will be cleansed in fire. After reading this I can't fething wait to die. I don't want to live on this planet any more.

jmurph wrote:
You do not recall correctly.

A couple of things about that. I think we can all agree Hitler had an insane, confused, and contradictory way of looking at the world. And I am not saying 100% of what the Nazi’s believed was what a socialist would believe. I am saying that there was a socialist mentality (you yourself said it was used to sell the Nazi agenda) that went hand in hand with the Nazi way of thinking, and a lot of the horrible things they did were justified because of their overall good for the society.
Would a socialist come to the same conclusions and make the same decisions? No. Is it easy to see how socialist values can be abused to do some pretty awful things? Yes. Is a lot of what the Nazis did examples of that? Yes. Are some of the things Nazis did advocated for on a smaller by leading socialist thinkers? Yes.

On a side note, hurling insults and questioning people’s intelligence does not make you right.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:After reading this I can't fething wait to die. I don't want to live on this planet any more.

Feel free to do so anytime.

On a side note, hurling insults and questioning people’s intelligence does not make you right.

No, but when you're as wrong as you are it's the only recourse seemingly left. Most of your posts are supported with "I think". Thats not a logical argumentative basis upon which to believe anything. You don't have reasons for believing what you do. What you believe makes no sense logically, it's circular and contradictory in ways that are as vexing as they are confusing. You make up definitions to suit arguments and then you base arguments on those definitions. Economies are governments, socialism is collectivism, socialism is "authoritarian", capitalism is "freeing", taxes are "progressive", "socialisms" need to have few "checks and balances". These are baseless, meaningless, hyperbolic inferences and you refuse to examine them in even the most simple of ways, instead redoubling the insistence of one by stating another and equivocating them. It's what a five year old would do.

Gentlemen,

Please keep the discussion courteous. Let me remind you that attacking an argument is fine. Attacking a poster is not.

Thanks!

ShumaGorath wrote:

On a side note, hurling insults and questioning people’s intelligence does not make you right.

No, but when you're as wrong as you are it's the only recourse seemingly left. Most of your posts are supported with "I think". Thats not a logical argumentative basis upon which to believe anything. You don't have reasons for believing what you do. What you believe makes no sense logically, it's circular and contradictory in ways that are as vexing as they are confusing. You make up definitions to suit arguments and then you base arguments on those definitions. Economies are governments, socialism is collectivism, socialism is "authoritarian", capitalism is "freeing", taxes are "progressive", "socialisms" need to have few "checks and balances". These are baseless, meaningless, hyperbolic inferences and you refuse to examine them in even the most simple of ways, instead redoubling the insistence of one by stating another and equivocating them. It's what a five year old would do.

I use “I think” as a way to shorten what would be 5 pages worth of dialogue into something appropriate for an internet gaming forum. If you showed genuine interest in understanding a differing opinion I would be happy to elaborate. But your method shuts down communication, makes yourself look silly, and is generally childish and unscholarly.

If jargon is really what has gotten you so worked up, please provide me with your definitions of socialism, communism, collectivism, government, economies, authoritarian, and any other concept where you may not have understood what I meant and I would be happy to rephrase my arguments for you.

But all indications would point to the fact that you don't want to have a real discussion, you want to shut down someone who is saying something that might make a politician you like look bad.

the Nazi's were some of the purest socialists around

hence why they got on so well with the Soviet Union and Hitler's many, many speeches saying what a great idea socialism is.
Oh.. hang on..

Well, it must have been two, maybe even three days since that rascally old Hitler reared his head in the OT board, but fret not I'm sure he and his goosestepping chums will be back soon enough, in a thread that you'd think was even less likely than this one to feature him. But, bless it and all who post therein, I have every faith the OT board will find a way.