On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM, studio took issue with this statement by me:
*"It is very, "black and white". There is no socialistic program that has worked in this Nation, period." * Stu-Stu-Studio went on to pontificate: *"Does that include the military? Do you get your mail delivered regularly? Belong to any groups? Ever had to call for an ambulance, firemen, police? Ever take a loan out? Ever go to school? Belong to a political party? Ever drove on a road? Ever used the Internet?" "You can spin your wheels all you want, but the fact is; these are are all social programs in one way or another. But let me add... Social Security Medicare MedicAide * *You're living in a fantasy land of flawed ideology." * ** ** *=========================* ** Let's review: First, let's take a look at what the definition of "Socialism" really is: "Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" or "companion" or "associate". Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; usually there is no private property; in Marxist theory this is also considered just a transitional stage between capitalism and communism and it is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done." The above definition is by Mr. John Spargo, from his work titled: "Socialism, A Summary And Interpretation Of Socialist Principles" (McMillan & Co. 1913). Below is the Wiki definition, which is quite similar. "Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done" ============ So. How does the definition of "Socialism" apply to Stu's posts? Well, let's take a look. Take a loan out?? Join a political party? Drive on a road? Mail delivery? The internet?? Obviously, Stu doesn't understand the concept of, nor the definition of "Socialism". This isn't surprising, most liberal/progressives don't know what they speak of when they start attempting to define and describe political ideologies. With regard to the military, I will grant you that Stu is correct in a small sense. The United States military does in fact practice a sense of skewed socialsim. By example, soldiers, sailors and airmen are subsidized, by giving them a housing allowance. By example, here in Tampa, all of the airmen from McDill Air Force Base get a housing allowance from the Air Force. As a result, local landlords are able to jack up the prices to otherwise untenable levels. Only the non-military folks are affected. Here is but one example where socialism in our society is a dismal failure. In this and other ways, people who join the United States Armed Forces are taken care of. They are fed, provided for by cheap or free transportation and accommodations, and given discounts on groceries and other goods. All this, thanks to collectivized production with taxpayer dollars. If you're dropping off the bottom rung of the social ladder in America, the safety net of the military is there to catch you, and provide an attractive alternative to the hell of split shifts of minimum wage work. Just a few caveats: you have to be willing to kill others and die for your country. So, in general, the military practices not only a hybrid kind of socialism, that views a relative increase in economic well-being as a means to an end (ensuring a supply of cannon fodder, for example), rather than an end in itself. To suggest that Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security are working well, is laughable, and a typical Moonbat response. I had thought Stu was a little more perceptive than that. We'll address these government boondoggles in a future post, but I wanted to get something up to address Stu's post, before Holly wet his pants in anticipation. *===============* ** Stu apparently disagrees with these statements that I wrote: *"There is no socialistic form of government, that has been successful, anywhere, period".* ** *"Show me any socialist Nation-State, or communist Nation-State that is working successfully. Show me one successful socialistic program in this Nation that is working well. Just one, pick any one that you think you can defend."* ** As Stu went on to say:* * *"Sure there is, the world is full of them by your own measures, you complain about them all the time."* ** ====== In another post, contained within this thread, I am assuming that Stu references these Nation-States, as being huge successes with their socialistic programs: ** *Stu said:* *"Well much like any labels you try to use, it doesn't much matter. Chile (although it's a Republic...I know you love the sound of that)...Frei Ruiz-Tagle was succeeded in 2000 by *Socialist* Ricardo Lagos, who won the presidency in an unprecedented runoff election against Joaquín Lavín of the rightist Alliance for Chile. In January 2006, Chileans elected their first female president, Michelle Bachelet Jeria, of the *Socialist* Party."* Stu?? Uhm.....Are you suggesting that Chile has just now become "socialist"?? Remember Salvador Allende, followed by the Dictator Pinochet? How'd that work out? Are you here to suggest that Chile has been this model of socialist ingenuity, and that their economy is something that we should aspire to? That any other third world, or fourth world Nation-State should attempt to emulate Chile's economy or political structure? Both are dismal failures!! The new Chilean Socialist-led government's economy minister is a conservative, MIT-trained economist. Its finance minister is a Harvard-trained former International Monetary Fund bureaucrat. So the heavy dose of "free market" orthodoxy in its economic program is hardly surprising. The Lagos administration has worked to accelerate Chile's integration into the world capitalist economy, seeking a NAFTA-like "free trade" agreement with the United States. It has pledged to step up the privatization of state assets. The government's plans for the state copper company, which accounts for nearly 20% of Chile's export earnings, include joint ventures with multinational corporations and investment by private mutual funds. Meanwhile, one of Lagos's key economic advisors has called for the privatization of the state oil company. The government has also made it a top priority to balance the budget, whose 1999 deficit was equal to 1.5% of Chile's gross domestic product (GDP), in order to keep inflation and interest rates down - in other words, to make Chile a profitable place to invest. I'll address the rest of your missive(s) in an additional post, maybe tonight, or maybe tomorrow, but as stated, I wanted to get something written before Holly has a hissy fit... -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
