Webb is philosophically confused. The Foxnews ‘pundits’ thought he was in the wrong debate. He had no chance in either party so he’s saved wasting resources.
The main color theory taught in most universities is that with the primary colors one can mix all and any other colors; the problem is that up to now no one has been able to actually create pure primary colors. Socialism has the same problem; beautiful theory, but the participant most of the time do not want to play, and those who play some are greedy, some are lasy, and yes some are hard workers, some are crooks, and some just want power, and the majority don’t want to be responsible for their decisions. This is called human nature, the biggest and the most powerful force against socialism, thus, the need for tyranny. That’s how all socialist governments remain in power. I agree with Stry428, socialist wanna-be used them as examples, because they know and are afraid of the tyrannycal prospects. They are capitalists, but has chosen the help each other, it’s just common sense. You really want to know where does socialism takes you and how: look for Yuri Bezmenov’s interviews, he spells what socialists “wanna-bes” are, their future and the future of the country at their command.
If only more Dems would get off the mad rush of the Democrat party towards the socialist left…. good for Webb. Him and Biden are the only Dems I would have ever even considered voting for out of the current batch of democrats.
Here’s a better account of socialism:Socialism: A political creed whose origins are normally traced back to the mid-nineteenth century. There have been many types of socialism (e.g. utopian socialists, Fabian socialists, Guild socialists) but they share in common an adherence to particular principles with regard to how human society should be organized. In contrast to liberalism, which advocates the primacy of the individual’s liberty and rights, socialists have traditionally placed emphasis upon the importance of equality as a political principle. This in turn is expressed in terms of the importance of economic relationships within society. Socialists are particularly opposed to the individualism of liberal capitalist society, holding that a desirable form of social order (which would be based on mutuality, co-operation, and shared public ownership of the mans of production) is not possible as long as human relationships are dominated by the self-interested and antagonistic principles which underlie civil society….Socialists have…emphasized the importance of democratic procedures within the political process….The international aspect of socialism can be seen in its adherence to values associated with humanism, for instance the notion of a universal conception of value with regard to such things as the establishment of supranational mutuality, shared norms of justice and human rights between different nations. from "Cultural Theory: The Key Concepts. Second Edition. Edited by Andrew Edgar and Peter Sedgwick. Routledge 2008.
So anyone here ever live in a socialist society? I’m betting that most of the people that are making comments about socialism don’t actually know what it is, just quoting definitions.
Lisa. That SOCIALIST is very concerned about the weakening of the middle class in this country. Damn him. But lets send thousands of American jobs to china – uhhh communist china. Right, lisa. Support communism!
And here’s my two cents. Socialism has to be understood historically. It grew up as a response to the particular kind of misery produced by industrialization. Industrialization in turn was linked to liberalism, which emphasized a particular kind of individualism. Liberal individualism was progressive in its day, and it released a tremendous amount of energy and innovation, but at the price of a lot of misery. This was documented at the time in such works as Mayhew’s “London Labour and the London Poor”, also in Engels’ book “The Working Class in England in 1844”, and even in the novels of Charles Dickens, particularly “Hard Times”.So if this kind of misery was created by liberal individualism, the response was a theory of based on social relationships. The fundamental idea is that social problems require social solutions. Mass unemployment, for example, is not an individual problem, but a social problem. Disease caused by industrial pollution is not an individual problem, but a social problem. And so on. The question is Can these problems be solved by liberal individualism, or is another political and economic theory necessary. In my opinion, the question remains open, but I would note that insofar as “capitalist” economies have been able to deal with these problems, it has been through adopting a kind of watered down socialism, in the form of unemployment insurance, social security, universal health insurance, workplace health and safety regulations, the eight-hour day, abolition of child labor, and so on. Measures of this sort have established a kind of social control over industrial capitalism without public ownership.Historically all of these measures were part of the programs of the various socialist parties. If you actually look at the programs (such as the famous Gotha program) you will see that the demands are precisely these sorts of social programs. It is historically inaccurate to say that the call for social programs was not part of socialism. Most socialists would have seen such programs as steps on the way to more extensive socialism, but what they actually fought for was social programs. Moreover, one of the principal socialist institutions was labor unions, which attempt to give workers more power over the conditions of their labor, but which are not usually seen as part of government.I have more to say, but that’s more than enough for now. I will end by saying that brief dictionary definitions of socialism are misleading and it’s intellectually lazy to depend on them,
@LonecatI think you purposely forgot the industrailization of the Soviet Union after WWII, the only purpose that served was to finance unstability around the world, while the soviet worker suffered in oppressive silence. And if any one dared to say something, to the concentration camp or death (come to think of it, it’s just like Cuba right now), Mao tried to do the same with agriculture, and when that failed he blamed the workers and order the assesination of more then 35 millions of his own people (the true face of socialism/communism).@old coalYou are right the pundits don’t know the difference between communism or fascism, what confuses things even more is that both of them used the same rhetoric, Both the Soviet and the Germans fell for it, and now it’s clear that many are falling for it again.
Webb left because his campaign failed to engage potential voters & he felt neglected during the debates. On the issues, there isn’t a lot of difference between Webb & Clinton.
“…but most life and human society doesn’t fit into neat little boxes.”
But, whether it makes sense or not, we have a de facto binary political system that becomes more polarized as time goes on … to nobody’s true advantage.
Supply and demand is a law, just like Newton’s law of physics.Supply and demand applies to capitalism as well as socialism and communism.If you study the Chicago School theory of a perfect free market, you will find USAmerica leaned toward inside information, insider trading, and price fixing to become one of the royalist, grand cross bath, monarchist, feudal aristocracy, rich.(the real estate and housing market is just that corrupt)1Our government hides military secrets against civilians.Free speech is a crime. Loose lips sink ships.How do you like that, Chicago school “perfect free market” theory?
colinmichaeljames over 8 years ago
Webb is philosophically confused. The Foxnews ‘pundits’ thought he was in the wrong debate. He had no chance in either party so he’s saved wasting resources.
Stryk428 over 8 years ago
None of the Democratic Party candidates are socialists including Bernie Sanders. Bernie admires Denmark which has a capitalist economy.
Stryk428 over 8 years ago
He calls himself a socialist but he’s not one. He is in favor of a market-driven economy like Denmark’s.
canFunny over 8 years ago
The main color theory taught in most universities is that with the primary colors one can mix all and any other colors; the problem is that up to now no one has been able to actually create pure primary colors. Socialism has the same problem; beautiful theory, but the participant most of the time do not want to play, and those who play some are greedy, some are lasy, and yes some are hard workers, some are crooks, and some just want power, and the majority don’t want to be responsible for their decisions. This is called human nature, the biggest and the most powerful force against socialism, thus, the need for tyranny. That’s how all socialist governments remain in power. I agree with Stry428, socialist wanna-be used them as examples, because they know and are afraid of the tyrannycal prospects. They are capitalists, but has chosen the help each other, it’s just common sense. You really want to know where does socialism takes you and how: look for Yuri Bezmenov’s interviews, he spells what socialists “wanna-bes” are, their future and the future of the country at their command.
mschleim over 8 years ago
If only more Dems would get off the mad rush of the Democrat party towards the socialist left…. good for Webb. Him and Biden are the only Dems I would have ever even considered voting for out of the current batch of democrats.
lonecat over 8 years ago
Here’s a better account of socialism:Socialism: A political creed whose origins are normally traced back to the mid-nineteenth century. There have been many types of socialism (e.g. utopian socialists, Fabian socialists, Guild socialists) but they share in common an adherence to particular principles with regard to how human society should be organized. In contrast to liberalism, which advocates the primacy of the individual’s liberty and rights, socialists have traditionally placed emphasis upon the importance of equality as a political principle. This in turn is expressed in terms of the importance of economic relationships within society. Socialists are particularly opposed to the individualism of liberal capitalist society, holding that a desirable form of social order (which would be based on mutuality, co-operation, and shared public ownership of the mans of production) is not possible as long as human relationships are dominated by the self-interested and antagonistic principles which underlie civil society….Socialists have…emphasized the importance of democratic procedures within the political process….The international aspect of socialism can be seen in its adherence to values associated with humanism, for instance the notion of a universal conception of value with regard to such things as the establishment of supranational mutuality, shared norms of justice and human rights between different nations. from "Cultural Theory: The Key Concepts. Second Edition. Edited by Andrew Edgar and Peter Sedgwick. Routledge 2008.
sofartotheleftimright over 8 years ago
So anyone here ever live in a socialist society? I’m betting that most of the people that are making comments about socialism don’t actually know what it is, just quoting definitions.
lopaka over 8 years ago
Lisa. That SOCIALIST is very concerned about the weakening of the middle class in this country. Damn him. But lets send thousands of American jobs to china – uhhh communist china. Right, lisa. Support communism!
lonecat over 8 years ago
And here’s my two cents. Socialism has to be understood historically. It grew up as a response to the particular kind of misery produced by industrialization. Industrialization in turn was linked to liberalism, which emphasized a particular kind of individualism. Liberal individualism was progressive in its day, and it released a tremendous amount of energy and innovation, but at the price of a lot of misery. This was documented at the time in such works as Mayhew’s “London Labour and the London Poor”, also in Engels’ book “The Working Class in England in 1844”, and even in the novels of Charles Dickens, particularly “Hard Times”.So if this kind of misery was created by liberal individualism, the response was a theory of based on social relationships. The fundamental idea is that social problems require social solutions. Mass unemployment, for example, is not an individual problem, but a social problem. Disease caused by industrial pollution is not an individual problem, but a social problem. And so on. The question is Can these problems be solved by liberal individualism, or is another political and economic theory necessary. In my opinion, the question remains open, but I would note that insofar as “capitalist” economies have been able to deal with these problems, it has been through adopting a kind of watered down socialism, in the form of unemployment insurance, social security, universal health insurance, workplace health and safety regulations, the eight-hour day, abolition of child labor, and so on. Measures of this sort have established a kind of social control over industrial capitalism without public ownership.Historically all of these measures were part of the programs of the various socialist parties. If you actually look at the programs (such as the famous Gotha program) you will see that the demands are precisely these sorts of social programs. It is historically inaccurate to say that the call for social programs was not part of socialism. Most socialists would have seen such programs as steps on the way to more extensive socialism, but what they actually fought for was social programs. Moreover, one of the principal socialist institutions was labor unions, which attempt to give workers more power over the conditions of their labor, but which are not usually seen as part of government.I have more to say, but that’s more than enough for now. I will end by saying that brief dictionary definitions of socialism are misleading and it’s intellectually lazy to depend on them,
FishDog93 over 8 years ago
Umm, thanks for the Bernie stump speech. Really wasn’t needed. Sad that some people actually believe that garbage.
canFunny over 8 years ago
@LonecatI think you purposely forgot the industrailization of the Soviet Union after WWII, the only purpose that served was to finance unstability around the world, while the soviet worker suffered in oppressive silence. And if any one dared to say something, to the concentration camp or death (come to think of it, it’s just like Cuba right now), Mao tried to do the same with agriculture, and when that failed he blamed the workers and order the assesination of more then 35 millions of his own people (the true face of socialism/communism).@old coalYou are right the pundits don’t know the difference between communism or fascism, what confuses things even more is that both of them used the same rhetoric, Both the Soviet and the Germans fell for it, and now it’s clear that many are falling for it again.
lonecat over 8 years ago
Well, you didn’t get the point.
Stryk428 over 8 years ago
A country cannot have a capitalist economy and be Democratic Socialist.
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 8 years ago
Webb left because his campaign failed to engage potential voters & he felt neglected during the debates. On the issues, there isn’t a lot of difference between Webb & Clinton.
superposition over 8 years ago
“…but most life and human society doesn’t fit into neat little boxes.”
But, whether it makes sense or not, we have a de facto binary political system that becomes more polarized as time goes on … to nobody’s true advantage.
kernelcorny Premium Member over 8 years ago
Supply and demand is a law, just like Newton’s law of physics.Supply and demand applies to capitalism as well as socialism and communism.If you study the Chicago School theory of a perfect free market, you will find USAmerica leaned toward inside information, insider trading, and price fixing to become one of the royalist, grand cross bath, monarchist, feudal aristocracy, rich.(the real estate and housing market is just that corrupt)1Our government hides military secrets against civilians.Free speech is a crime. Loose lips sink ships.How do you like that, Chicago school “perfect free market” theory?