Why accept a socialised military if you hate the reds so much?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by munter, Feb 16, 2014.

  1. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The military is not a "means of production" but the agent of the state's police power, so the claim that a military can be "socialized" is as inane as the claim that a seahorse can be shod.
     
  2. Black Monarch

    Black Monarch New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,213
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, we're arguing that it's not socialist on the basis that socialism is collective ownership of the means of production, and the military is not a means of production.

    Herp derp.

    But the terms "public good" and "private good" are not. You are aware that there can be public ownership of private goods (i.e. socialized medicine) and private ownership of public goods, right?

    Pure bollocks.

    Not "complex political ideas", just the notion of a "public good".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
     
  3. PCFExploited

    PCFExploited New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's a fair point. I'm glad to see that someone finally got around to making it after eight pages of "lulzudumb."

    It amazes me that so many people seem to think they can win an argument without actually making one.
     
  4. PCFExploited

    PCFExploited New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, you didn't. What you did is make a series of assumptions about your audience, none of which make sense. First, you decided to use a number of technical economic terms, without bothering to explain them, despite the fact that the average person does not at all understand those terms in the way you do. Then you expected your readers to be able to understand how they apply to the definition of socialism - a word that is contentious, and means vastly different things depending on how it is used (for instance, colloquially versus literally).

    All and all, it is pretty obvious that what you were doing is trying to validate your intellectual self-worth. An argument is meant to persuade; a verbal ejaculation is meant to feel good. I hope it did, because you could have saved yourself a couple posts and a couple insults by taking the time to define your terms and put forth a coherent argument.
     
  5. Black Monarch

    Black Monarch New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,213
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uh, no. Not a single thing that you just said is true. Here's what I ACTUALLY said:

    I even went through the trouble of linking the phrase "public good" to the Wikipedia article explaining what it means, I provided a functional definition of socialism in the post itself, and I used ZERO economic terms other than "public goods" and "socialism".

    Congratulations on being illiterate.
     
  6. munter

    munter New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So bombing the hell out of foreign countries and the like is legitimate, but having a socialised health system is not.

    Care to explain that one?
     
  7. munter

    munter New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Germany, France, Australia, UK, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Finland etc, etc..
     
  8. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    To say that the military is socialist requires a very loose definition of socialism and a very narrow definition of everything else.

    The original Q is silly. What makes the Reds Red was never "Oh hey, they have soldiers and stuff." That's always been true of every system (communist, socialist, monarchist, theocratic etc.). You might just as well be asking, "hey, if you hate theocracy so much, why do you like the military?" The idea that the military is inherently socialist means that you're saying every government is inherently socialist. It's silly and meaningless wordplay.
     
  9. munter

    munter New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lenin can decide this debate.

    Why not just take the defintion of Socialism from the master himself:

    The military system of today could clearly fit into that definition.
     
  10. PCFExploited

    PCFExploited New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I apologize, I didn't notice the link. Good win breh.
     
  11. Str8Edge

    Str8Edge New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, actually I have a BSN and was also the class valedictorian.....

    You can claim socialism is whatever you want but if the state doesn't control the means of production and determines WHAT is produced..... it's not socialism.
     
  12. Str8Edge

    Str8Edge New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, first off, I'm a pacifist so bombing the hell out of countries that never directly attacked us is NEVER legitimate, in my opinion.

    Defense is legitimate though, as in clearly enumerated within the constitution. Our government has the right to protect us from foreign invasion DUH.

    Healthcare, socialized medicine, is NOT clearly enumerated within the constitution BECAUSE the federal government was never intended to hand out ENTITLEMENT RIGHTS....... The federal government was created to protect our NATURAL RIGHTS, INALIENABLE RIGHTS.....
     
  13. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well if you have higher education you should not be making carte blanch claims like you have been.

    A simple google search is all that is required. This is not rocket science (perhaps for a 5th grader) but if you claim to have a bloody education then act like it.

    I have done this for you:

    Yes, at its inception socialism as envisioned by Marx meant total control of the state over the means of production = Marxism

    Later theories did not require full control of the state over the means of production.

    Taxation = a form of socialism when these proceeds are used to enhance the collective good.
     
    munter and (deleted member) like this.
  14. Black Monarch

    Black Monarch New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,213
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah. The private sector sucks at bombing other countries so we leave that to government, and government sucks at running health care so we try to leave it to the private sector (but then we get government involved in it anyway and end up with something no better than a socialist system)

    That's a very peculiar definition of "successful".
     
  15. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In terms of the wellbeing of the people, Sweden is most definitively successful.
     
  16. Str8Edge

    Str8Edge New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    FALSE. Socialism without the economic system in place is simply SOCIAL WELFARE DUH.... And NO, stealing from one and handing to another through government force, targets A VERY SPECIFIC GROUP, not the collective whole. It INJURES the one who rightfully earned and it injures the one it robs of the opportunity to earn.

    You CANNOT act in benevolence by immoral action. Take an ethics course along with economics.
     
  17. munter

    munter New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why do so many people call Obama a 'socialist' then? - because I've never heard him talk about 'dictatorship of the proletariat' - and which companies has he actually nationalised anyway?
     
  18. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you like "not read" the definition of socialism provided ?

    Even though I already told you that the definition of Socialism is in the domain of Political Science you still yap on about taking courses in economics ??

    If you do not want to read my posts by all means, do not, but then please do not bother responding as if you have read them.
     
  19. Str8Edge

    Str8Edge New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And once again, socialism without the economic system in place is nothing more than "social" welfare. You leach off the backs of capitalism because of what you're unable to attain on your own. Your economic system is a miserable failure because the political concept of socialism is FLAWED.

    Modern day "socialist"=A parasite, a leach, a thief.

    I should also point out you've FAILED to convince anyone that national defense is "socialism", mainly because it's not.
     
  20. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The use of sweeping generalizations is speaks to lack of education.

    You have not talked to "everyone" so you could not possibly know whether or not I have "failed to convince anyone". In fact there was at least one poster the clicked "like" on my post so perhaps you can talk to that poster and prove to yourself that you are wrong.

    Few if any modern corporations could exist without roads, infrastructure, educated labor force and so on. These corporations are leeching off the back of socialism. If you would like we can get into the specific details of this equation but this would require you doing something other than spouting out claims but providing no support to back them up.

    The military leaches off the back of socialism. Where do you think the money to fund the military comes from ?

    Taxes when used for the collective good is socialism. Is defense of our nation not for the collective good ?

    Just so we are clear. I am a hard core capitalist and fiscal conservative who despises big government.

    That said, I am not stupid enough to think that unbridled capitalism or a system completely devoid of some socialist policy is a good or even plausible solution.
     
  21. Str8Edge

    Str8Edge New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Attempting to claim a service legitimately provided by the government as "socialism" speaks of a lack of education.
    That's because they don't understand the difference between socialism and a legitimate function of ANY GOVERNMENT of protecting their citizens from foreign invaders DUH.
    :roflol::roflol::roflol: So NOW ANY SERVICE the government provides is "socialism"......

    That's a pretty BROAD DEFINITION of socialism you got there partner.....:roflol:
    From taxes DUH.
    But you are dumb enough to think any service the government provides is "socialism". :roflol:
     
  22. munter

    munter New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most of the right wingers I know, consider socialised housing (ie: projects, estates etc..) to be an offshoot of communism/socialism.

    do you agree?
     
  23. Str8Edge

    Str8Edge New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,579
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Off shoot? You mean the ridiculous premise of FORCFULLY taking from one who earned and handing to another who didn't through government FORCE? No, I consider that ARMED ROBBERY.

    FORCED wealth redistribution is immoral. There's no difference between what the government does and me going to your bank and robbing your account blind because I feel like I "need" the money more than you do.

    But in typical progressive fashion, you'll never understand that FORCE is what makes and action immoral,excepting self defense, whereas voluntary e.g. charity, is moral.
     
  24. munter

    munter New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So how do you justify the bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia, Libya, Iraq, Serbia and the rest?
     
  25. beenthere

    beenthere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,552
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Since you decided to point out Canada, I am going to tell you what I think of all of them. My wife has Aunts, uncles, cousins, etc, in Canada. We don't just listen to the propaganda about their health care system you read about and hear on the news, we KNOW what it is and what it does and DOESN'T do. If that's the best you have got, leave me out of it. Why??? Because her cousin had to come down here to the States to get a leg amputated because of the Canadian's waiting list. It wound up that he did it to late because the infection had gone to far and he died. And why did he need a leg amputated?? Diabetes!!! That's right, sugar diabetes. He got a sore on his leg that keep spreading and wouldn't clear up with antibiotics and gangrene set in along with blood poisoning and the Canadian heath care system put him on a waiting list for an amputation. Go ahead, sign up for this crap if you want to trust your family to it, I don't want to and will refuse to as long as there is some other way.
     

Share This Page