I don’t like socialism any more than you do, but when I look at your list of its ills I think that a lot of them have very little to do with socialism.

Socialism was primarily an economic theory which suggested that state ownership of most of the economy under the guise of the public good would allow the elimination of poverty. In much early left wing theorising poverty was regarded as the “root cause” of pretty much everything that was bad in society.

Examined logically socialism was rubbish. The fact that rich people commit crimes should refute the idea that crime is something to do with poverty, for example. Socialism, however, was never really about logic. It was always more than that. One of the biggest socialist tendencies was utopianism. The creation of an ideal vision of society against which all real societies would be measured and found wanting. The utopian vision tended to create a desire for the most extreme methods for the creation of this imaginary society. It also created a sense of dissatisfaction with all existing practical possibilities. The perfect, in the well worn phrase, was the enemy of the good.

Socialism was, however, mainly about economics. Actual socialist societies, such as those in Eastern Europe did not go on a witch hunt against national identity, nor did they adopt soft policies on crime or immigration. These ideas are more, in my opinion, symptoms of the failure of the socialist economic vision. As the impractical nature of socialist economics became apparent, many in the European and US left (and right) shifted their focus away from economics (and away from socialism) and towards culture and society. the utopia became increasingly vague in its specifics, but the utopian thinking persisted. This thinking led people to think that as utopia had not come, their own societies were basically entirely bad.

The result was a desire to recast all of society by large scale social engineering projects to remove whatever was deemed to be an enemy of some indeterminate sense of progress. The main European project of this nature was the European Union, which was to supercede fractious national identities in a superstate that would make war unthinkable. Given that one of the EU’s key principles is free movement of goods, services and labour it is hardly a socialist creation.

Oops, meant to say, “…how an economic philosophy can morph”

“Socialism was/is about control.”

I agree. Socialism is basically applying human rationality to solve problems. It was subject to a moral flaw and a practical flaw. Morally, it tended to reason consequentially. The end justified the means. Practially, economic and social problems were a lot more complex than socialists imagined and their policies did not actually solve them. The end was never achieved, so all that was left was the means.

I am convinced that socialism is basically dead and I doubt that it will be resurrected. It has been replaced in the politically utopian stakes by multiculturalism and Islamism.

My wife was brought up in a Communist country and received most of her schooling under the socialist system before the changes in 1989. The educational system in her country promoted pride in her nation and its achievements. I was brought up in capitalist western Europe, yet in my country the educational system was very apologetic and critical of our nation. This is why I am sceptical of the notion that socialism is equivalent to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism seems to me to be very much a western disease.

I notice that none of this intelligent pontification notes that socialism was in fact a reaction to the massive injustices that were part and parcel of the rise of industrial society. In addition no one bothers to notice that socialism is not necessarily the same as Communism. Large numbers of conservative Americans view any social program run by the government as socialism/Communism. It’s one of those black and white versus shades of gray things.

Conservative capitalists are just as utopian, believing that if you just let the free market work its magic everything will be hunky dory. In other words, every ideologue is some kind of utopian dreamer.

That’s exactly where you are wrong about conservatism, Jim. You assume that we are utopian and then you criticize on that basis, that the free market system has imperfections. But what we advocate is to deal with the imperfections as much as possible, while realizing that utopia is impossible. That you don’t get this point is why you always make snarky comments like calling free market conservatives “believers in the Church of the Free Market.” None of us have the rose colored glasses that you think we do; we simply think that there are ways to appropriately regulate markets which produce better outcomes for all than does government control of the economy.

And most of us know very well the origins of socialism and communism; that doesn’t change our opinion that they are failures. You can show how and why people were motivated to try these systems, but that doesn’t mean that these solutions were the right ones for the problems that existed or the problems that exist today.

It’s really part of a greater logical fallacy that I see the left using against the right all the time: if we don’t agree with your solutions, you assume that we don’t agree that there are problems. In actuality, we just see different ways of handling the problems and we accept limits on the ability of mankind to solve every problem under the sun (but of course, when we do that, when we refuse to believe in utopia, you view that as a lack of compassion).

Jim, just stop the rhetoric, that’s nonsense and you know it.

The gist of the comment to which Satterfield responded was: judge us by our principles, not our actions. That approach becomes meaningless if extended equally to other ideologies and their adherents. Everybody and his brother has fine principles, but the proof is in actions.

Doma,
What you are saying is perfectly true if we are talking about the policies of a particular administration, Congress, etc. They must be judged by their actions (and the current bunch comes up sorely lacking.)

But in case Jim hasn’t noticed, neither I nor MvdG nor any other conservative commenter here holds a political office or has the kind of influence on the “movement” to make it hold true to the ideology. All that we can do is talk about the ideas and how we believe they can be most effective IF IMPLEMENTED. By talking about it, we can influence others (obviously not some, who won’t even listen) to think about trying the approach that we advocate and perhaps build momentum for candidates that more closely adhere to a reasonble but conservative ideology.

You can say all that you want that our beliefs can be used as an excuse to do nothing and you can find examples of that being true. I could also say that on the left side of the spectrum, the policies are open to exploitation by those who wish to create a permanent dependent class who are beholden to them and I can show examples where I see this being true. NEITHER of those corruptions of the actual ideologies are examples of why the philosophies themselves are at fault; rather, they’re examples of how the philosophies can be twisted by self-serving politicians.Yet
Jim wants to use this as a reason to belittle conservative ideas and to try to convince people that my comments hide an ulterior motive.

doma,
Do you not see that you are doing exactly the same thing in reverse (asking us to think about socialism as an abstract ideology rather than condemning it to the rubbish heap based on it’s track record, while saying that conservativism should be judged by it’s actions?

I’m fine with the applying the same rules to both sides. If you want to discuss socialism in the abstract, can you explain how it could be done better than it already has been? Because to me, while it’s goals may be understandable and laudable, it is doomed to failure because I truly don’t believe that a government can manage an economy better than market forces can. With free markets, supply and demand automatically adjust to one another (relax, Jim, I’m speaking in generalities and I KNOW there are a number of exceptions to the rules here). A government can’t anticipate how many people need to be trained in a given profession, how many doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants are needed but the market forces will determine that pretty well. A government will be motivated to keep prices low but then there will be shortages because demand will outstrip supply. I could go on and on but you get the drift and I imagine you already know this. I don’t think you’re actually advocating that pure socialism is superior to capitalism (and neither am I advocating a pure laissez-faire capitalist system). But my point is, that you can just as easily make the case against a true socialist state in the abstract as you can by pointing out the specific examples of when it’s been tried.

What rhetoric, Michael? Please be specific.

Was it my mention of the “philosophy” of Grover Norquist and pointing out that he is a major figure in modern conservatism? Please note the large numbers of conservative luminaries that attend Mr. Norquist’s meetings. In that case what problems do you have with the truth?

Although most current Republicans don’t speak of abolishing OSHA here is a section from the official history of the agency

Another goal with a higher priority quickly emerged, however: survival. It was dictated principally by critical attitudes in Congress toward OSHA. Like Morton Corn, Auchter had come to the agency at a time when its very existence seemed threatened. Auchter visited several congressman before his confirmation hearings, which were held by the Senate Labor Committee, Orrin Hatch (Utah Republican) chairman. In a private meeting Senator Hatch told Auchter he was ready to seek legislation to abolish OSHA. Several other congressmen told Auchter that they too favored such a move. However, he persuaded them to give him a grace period of one year to try to turn the agency around.

Yes, Senator Hatch is still in office. Since no other names are provided it can only be guessed whether or not the others who told Auchter that they’d like to eliminate the agency are still officeholders. Of course with appointees from the Bush administration in place they can just limit what they do.

These are the people that you support rhetorically and CS votes for.

So what objectionable rhetoric did I use, Michael?

“These are the people…” O please. Stalin killed 10 million people. He is the kind of person you defend and vote for.

(I am applying your ‘logic’ here)

Doma: please do hold conservative policies responsible for the outcome. Western countries ruled by conservatives in the last, say, 50 years at least, have always improved. They often saved the economy (in Europe at least) and provided security.

Bait and switch, Doma? How about Jim saying that I vote for extremists? I have never made assumptions about his voting record and just because he defends left wing politics I don’t assume that he favors the more extreme views; I’d ask him to have the same courtesy toward me.

Jim,
I really was not familiar with the push to abolish OSHA that you’ve described (funny how these people that you describe as heroes of the conservative movement are people that I’ve barely heard of, isn’t it?) When you say that most Republicans don’t talk about this you sound almost as though you think there’s a whispering conspiracy about it, but in actuality it’s because few Republicans really want to abolish OSHA.

But since you mentioned this I looked up a few things and here’s an interesting thing about the drive to abolish OSHA: the person who pushed back in the other direction to save and reform the agency was a young conservative Reagan appointee.

This is why it’s so disingenous to cherry pick the more radical people in the conservative movement (or those who call themselves conservatives but actually advocate policies that aren’t even conservative ones). You’re misrepresenting the situation that way just as I would if I said that the majority of Democrats are far left or socialistic.

Heh, I just realized, Jim, that the article I linked to was the same webpage that you quoted. Did you actually read the whole thing? And did you really not find it relevant to note that along with some conservatives who were pushing for abolition of OSHA, there were also conservatives who opposed that and found ways to fix the problems and make the agency function better?

Where severe divergence occurs is in positions between the socialists and the non socialists.

Socialists believe that with just enough regulation you can REGULATE peoples Activity. You do that by MAKING THEM HAPPY. Demanding that business cater to people by laws, rules and regulations. Socialists trully are nanny staters.

This has ALWAYS failed.

Conservatives believe that if you just stop regulating people that people will seek to improve themselves. Will come to rely upon themselves and not hand outs to succeed. They believe that if you just give businesses free reign (with some regulation of course) that businesses by their nature (PROFITS) will do what is best for themselves which is making money. But in making money they must cater to the wants and needs of the populace and therefore give the People what they want.

Neither movement is bulletproof.

That is why you all really should consider being Neocons.

We believe in smaller less intrusive government that tolerates welfare to help the needy but encourages independence………..NOT dependence.

Socialism’s problem is that it’s wrong at its very core. I am not twisting about that in any way. It’s very core is wrong. It’s very basic principles disastrous.

And, I am sorry, but I do not get the first part of your comment. I am telling you that you should hold conservatives accountable for conservative policies, than you’re saying that I am being intellectually dishonest. Either you’re not getting what I say, I am not getting what you say, or both.

Christine: yes, exactly, that’s my view. As to “extreme outcomes”: I consider them to be the logical outcome of socialist policies / socialist ideology, even when it is so-called moderate. Moderate Socialism starts out small, but becomes bigger and bigger over time, until it has eaten away the core of Western democracies.

Socialism’s ideology is at its very core wrong. Does socialism have a point every now and then? Sure they do, a broken clock is right twice a day as well.

MVDG-

Which word is unclear in your own statement of “hold conservatism responsible for its policies”? This says “policies’ and excludes conservatives as individual actors and excludes actions by groups of conservatives that you don’t personally endorse.
This is not the same narrow definition you use when criticizing others.

“Socialism’s problem is that it’s wrong at its very core” is a declaration of belief or a credo. It’s not an argument. It’s rhetoric.

If I said, ‘conservatism is just plain wrong”, I wouldn’t accept the statement as a valid argument. It would be rhetoric.

You have one set of standards for yourself and your beliefs and another for everyone else’s.

You are free to choose your own standards, and I am free to evaluate them.

Doma: surely you can hold conservative individuals responsible for their actions and, when their actions were truly conservative, you should / can also criticize conservative policies. In fact, one of the strengths of conservatism is that it constantly reviews itself. There is a lot of room for doubt (read Andrew Sullivan’s book on that).

I have tried to explain, shortly, why I believe that socialism is wrong at its very core, a little bit at least. Short? Yes. Too short? Perhaps. Rhetoric? No

I just realized that I accidently changed my name from domajot to domaju.
They’re both words in a foreign language.
-domajot = thinking
-domaju = (I) think or am thinking

Whether either form is a true reflection of what is going on can be the subject of another debate.

CS-
You can go wrong with any ideology, even a pragmatic one.
I, however, feel that one is much more likely to adopt the “end justifies the means’ position precisely if you start with a set ideology. In reading the warring debates on blogs, the initial issue is soon forgotten in the effort to justify one’s ideology.

Ideologies also give cover for disguised biases. You can get away with almost any specific policy as long as you claim you are defending ‘liberty’ the Constitution or mom’s apple pie.

If I see a polluted river, I want to know how I can clean it up, because water from it is entering the local water supply and the pollutants are affecting the fish in it that I may eat. Somebody’s liberty to pollute will have to be curtailed, and I don’t much care how the cleanup would be justified by constitutionalists. The people who drink the water and eat the fish are much more important to me than ideological queeziness.

With each succeessive river cleanup, one gets smarter about the best way to do it. You can judge which methods had negative impacts to be avoided, etc. But the important thing is to start addtessing the pollution and not wait for all the ideologies to finish their turf battles.

wow,

Okay - to start off.

You tap dance and BS constantly when you deny that people like him not only exist but are in fact the ones who have immense amounts of influence in the current conservative movement. Pardon me for calling you out on such crap.

Good ole JimS. The man who evidentially feels he’s owed something. Take his sentence, then apply it to one of his statements on TMV about a new Internet company that started up. something like a truly impressive building with vast amounts of computers - then he went on to say that they only hired 15 people. I guess the big scary company should have outsourced instead.

Moving along.

This says that criticism is only acceptable if if applies to theoretical policies, not any actions or events caused by conservatives.
…
Yes, it’s a nice magic circle you draw around yourselves.
……

You have one set of standards for yourself and your beliefs and another for everyone else’s.

You are free to choose your own standards, and I am free to evaluate them.

And we are free to evaluate yours.

You know I’ve got to say. I see, and maybe it’s just lost in between the thinking and how it comes out in words. but there seems to be a trying to shift around an argument.

Either way, I agree we need a set standards if we are going to evaluate - but that works in reverse as well. For instance, if you evaluate Socialism spanning several countries - one should also evaluate Conservatism over several countries. However Macro or Micro one wishes to be. One cannot argue against someone not setting the same standards when they do not themselves.

Interested,
Thanks for the support but for the love of Pete, take your finger off the “submit comment” button! LOL

Thanks for the support but for the love of Pete, take your finger off the “submit comment” button! LOL

lol no kidding I”m going wtf, nothing for like 20 minutes or so. trying to get Michael to remove all but the last one.

And while I’m making mistakes and learning from them, you’re still in your armchair debating the finer points of freedoms.

What exactly are you trying to say here Dom.

CS-
On some issues, I’m probably more ‘conservative (by some interpretations) than you.

I see the debate about wiretapping and national ID as a good example of ideologies gone amock. I can accept that security issues could infringe on some liberties, and I could accept a certain tradeoff. For me, it’s more important how it is done than whether it is done. In other words, what protections are there against misuse and what recourse is there for the unjustly targeted?
At present, I don’t trust our government to do a good job in these areas. I would hope, though, that those pro and con on an ideological basis would focus more on how to justly manage these measures, instead of arguing the fine points of their ideologies.

Um, for the purposes of these discussions, aren’t we all sitting in armchairs or something similar? I fail to see why my particular point of view in this discussion makes me deserve that criticism. During the course of this debate I haven’t preserved any freedoms and you haven’t saved any of the powerless from the high and mighty, but talking about these things still matters to some extent.

I don’t get why you are more likely to learn from your mistakes than I am, either. In fact, if we err on the side of removing freedoms I’d say it’s less likely that we can correct that in many cases.

And that discussion of the tension between freedoms of one party and another is a very valid one; one which I could just as easily participate in as you and we might actually come to the same conclusions (because it’s truly not possible for everyone to be completely free, that would be anarchy). It’s our starting point that differs though, because I do feel that it’s important to start off acknowledging that each side should be as free as possible to pursue its interest.

MVDG-
Yes, I already admitted to an approach (an ideology, if you want). But it’s open ended, and I change my mind freely as I gather more information. I find I make mistakes, and I correct my thinking.
I feel myself “above” the rest only in the sense that if I argue a point, I feel at that moment it’s the right one. In a debate, everyone who expresses a view thinks his view is right; everone thinks he is ‘above’ those opposed.

Interested-
I meant exactly what I said.
You’ll have to ask a specific question, if you need more definition.

CS-
When I say “you” I don’t mean you personally. I meant your postition in defense of adopting and staying loyal to a political ideology.
When I say “I’ (in terms of river cleanups), I am referring, in the same way, to the apprpach I support, not me, personally.

‘You and I’ just seemed like a handy shorthand for long explanatory phrases.

like I specifically said - and will specifically quote again

And while I’m making mistakes and learning from them, you’re still in your armchair debating the finer points of freedoms.

what exactly are you trying to say when you elevate your ideology as better than others.

Again - maybe it’s lost in the text vs thought, but you seem to be all for *protecting* one group - paying no matter if it harms another group. That would be rather simplistic and unrealistic, not to mention quite dangerous at the same time don’t you think.

Doma,
I think you are making all kinds of assumptions about those of us who hold to an ideology. First off, a lot of thought has gone into the decision to adopt the ideology itself and why we hold some ideals as paramount; then, the thought process involves applying the pure ideology to a particular situation and thinking of what the effects will be; then if that seems as though it won’t be satisfactory, we think about whether there is reason to adjust the philosophy (is there some overriding interest). It’s not so knee jerk as you seem to make it.

You feel your approach is better for you, that’s fine. I asked you to consider my point and you obviously don’t agree with it, and that’s fine too. But I don’t see why you have to denigrate those who take a different approach to problem solving.

CS-

What does “denigrate’ mean? I am explaining how my thinking is different from ideologues. How can I say that I disagree and point out the areas where I disagree without implying that I am right and they are worng?

It goes without saying, that honorable people can approach life with different mindsets. It would get awfully lengthy and boring, though, if I inserted that discalimer every few sentences.

This whole mess started with the way commenters of different opinions are treated here. Please note that I don’t make fun of you or make snide remarks about you personally. I simply disagree.
It would be nice if that curtesy were extended to all.

I don’t mean to be discourteous. But I have to leave. You can E-mail me, if you feel you want to say anything furher.

domaju - is it Latvian?

CS- I said in #61
“It goes without saying, that honorable people can approach life with different mindsets. It would get awfully lengthy and boring, though, if I inserted that discalimer every few sentences.”

Davis-
Yes.