24 minutes ago, Tracker said:

If I follow your line of thought, then democracy is flawed because it led to Donald Trump- would be dictator. Any system of government can be corrupted, and most have been. Once you get into rigidly controlled, centralized governmental or industrial control of the processes of society, then you have problems. The concepts of Marx/Engels/Trotsky was that local processes ought to be controlled by localized committees and national processes such as manufacturing, defence, resource extraction, energy production, and distribution ought to be under the control of a democratically elected government.  Stalin absolu. tely corrupted these concepts. You can argue that it was out of necessity due to the attempted interventions of America (yes, they invaded Russia) and Britain and the looming war with Germany plus the deeply entrenched tsarist interests, but after these were over, things got worse in Russia. Those in power almost always (literally) fight to keep it- one of the few exceptions being Garibaldi in Italy. 

Are you proposing that we have found a perfect, ideal form of government with no flaws?  Because I have never said that.

People are flawed and every form of government will have flaws because people run them.  If you are suggesting socialism is perfect and not flawed, it is this exact form of thinking that is so dangerous that leads to communism.

Yes, democracy led to Donald Trump.  Thankfully it only lasted for 4 years.  So while still flawed, I would propose it is the best form of government we've found to date, and his time in office was minimized.

Extremism on either side is the problem.  You seem to only think extremism on the right is an issue.

9 minutes ago, Mark F said:

yikes bad example from what I know of their society. or is their terrible racism learned from us?  no, it isnt.

I did say that there were downsides to this.  Oriental toilets, for example.

11 minutes ago, Rich said:

Are you proposing that we have found a perfect, ideal form of government with no flaws?  Because I have never said that.

People are flawed and every form of government will have flaws because people run them.  If you are suggesting socialism is perfect and not flawed, it is this exact form of thinking that is so dangerous that leads to communism.

Yes, democracy led to Donald Trump.  Thankfully it only lasted for 4 years.  So while still flawed, I would propose it is the best form of government we've found to date, and his time in office was minimized.

Extremism on either side is the problem.  You seem to only think extremism on the right is an issue.

Democracy is still the best form of government to date, if you assume that we need government. As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms". Socialism and democracy are or rather, should be, mutually inclusive. Capitalism does not need democracy and several American industrialists have said that it actually a detriment to their goals. Monocultures in both agriculture and societies lead to stagnation and entropy, and the corollary to that is that societies and thus governments ought to evolve, so long as the welfare of the society takes precedence over the wealth of the few.

Didnt know about this.

 

https://pressprogress.ca/several-conservative-candidates-directed-public-money-to-canadas-biggest-anti-abortion-lobby-group/

 

"Anti-abortion groups like Campaign Life Coalition and RightNow have been organizing to take control of the federal Conservative party and stack nomination votes to get anti-abortion candidates on the ballot.

This week, PressProgress reported that RightNow hosted hosted a training mworkshop to help activists stack the boards of local riding associations as they prepare for a leadership race to replace O’Toole within the next two years. Anti-abortion groups recently installed actvists into 40% of the Conservative party’s National Council positions."

 

 

1 hour ago, Tracker said:

Disagree. There are those among us who are driven by self-interest and the desire to aggrandize self at the expense of others, but the vast  majority of people are considerate and caring of others. The problem is that thise who are of the first order are abrasive and demanding with little regard for others, driven to positions of power  and very noticeable. When you drive accross a city, you do not notice the drivers who are driving according to rules- you tend to notice the drivers who are aggressive.  

Greed was beneficial to humans in the past. There was perhaps a communal sentiment for small tribes, but in general greed helped. The world is full of greed and every system of government will succumb to the greed of the people who want wealth and power. At least in a democracy they still have to listen to the masses a little bit. 

That's not to say every one is, just speaking in generalities. You see it in a lot of circumstances.

1 hour ago, Tracker said:

Democracy is still the best form of government to date, if you assume that we need government. As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms". Socialism and democracy are or rather, should be, mutually inclusive. Capitalism does not need democracy and several American industrialists have said that it actually a detriment to their goals. Monocultures in both agriculture and societies lead to stagnation and entropy, and the corollary to that is that societies and thus governments ought to evolve, so long as the welfare of the society takes precedence over the wealth of the few.

The original debate with you on this is there is no such thing as extreme leftism.  Which you still do not want to acknowledge. 
 

As for the rest of this post, yes we should always find ways to do better.  But not at the expense of repeating historical atrocities. 
 

Agree there can be a balance between socialism and capitalism in a democracy.  This is what I’ve been saying all along. We get in trouble with extremes.  
 

As for no form of government, never took you for a libertarian. 

11 minutes ago, Rich said:

The original debate with you on this is there is no such thing as extreme leftism.  Which you still do not want to acknowledge.  As for the rest of this post, yes we should always find ways to do better.  But not at the expense of repeating historical atrocities. 
 

Agree there can be a balance between socialism and capitalism in a democracy.  This is what I’ve been saying all along. We get in trouble with extremes.  
 

As for no form of government, never took you for a libertarian. 

I am NOT a libertarian- that works only in small, tribal communities. I can agree that there have been societies and governments (almost the same thing) which have tried to institute a socialist government but instead have degenerated into dictatorships, but I believe that right-wing parties and governments have been shown repeatedly by history to be far more probable to become autocratic. The prevailing attitude of right-wing adherents is that they know what is best for everyone and have given themselves the right to manipulate, lie and rule by fiat. The most stable and enduring societies are both democratic and with strong socialist policies and practices.

 

32 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Greed was beneficial to humans in the past. There was perhaps a communal sentiment for small tribes, but in general greed helped. The world is full of greed and every system of government will succumb to the greed of the people who want wealth and power. At least in a democracy they still have to listen to the masses a little bit. 

That's not to say every one is, just speaking in generalities. You see it in a lot of circumstances.

Disagree. Societies defined by individual or group greed have inevitably imploded.

1 hour ago, Tracker said:

 

Disagree. Societies defined by individual or group greed have inevitably imploded.

Which society in history haven't ultimately imploded?

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

Which society in history haven't ultimately imploded?

Switzerland and Iceland are two current examples- both socialist democracies.

Switzerland is Capitalist.

I would like to know if people here are using a colloquial definition of socialism or the actual definition.

For me the definition of Socialism is a system where the people own the means of production. Also within a Socialist system, there is no such thing as property rights. Socialism is clearly a left wing idea and it has never worked.

The implementation of social programs is not Socialism. 

Socialism and Capitalism are antithetical to each other. You can't have a balance between the 2. (According to my definition and not the colloquial definition.)

I agree with Rich that we need a to leave room in a Capitalist system to implement social programs, (I am assuming that's what you meant by balancing Capitalism with Socialism.), but implementing social programs is not Socialism.

On 2021-08-21 at 11:31 AM, Tracker said:

Switzerland and Iceland are two current examples- both socialist democracies.

Also two young societies  

On 2021-08-21 at 8:23 AM, Rich said:

Are you proposing that we have found a perfect, ideal form of government with no flaws?  Because I have never said that.

People are flawed and every form of government will have flaws because people run them.  If you are suggesting socialism is perfect and not flawed, it is this exact form of thinking that is so dangerous that leads to communism.

Yes, democracy led to Donald Trump.  Thankfully it only lasted for 4 years.  So while still flawed, I would propose it is the best form of government we've found to date, and his time in office was minimized.

Extremism on either side is the problem.  You seem to only think extremism on the right is an issue.

Exactly. We have seen violence emerge from the left in the cases of Antifa and BLM (just as a small microcosm of recent times) and then free speech being halted by the far left on many university campuses around North America. There is danger to our freedoms and violence on both ends of the political extreme and it really makes no difference what anyone's intentions were once it devolves to that level.

8 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Also two young societies  

WIth very small population bases. 

10 hours ago, Dascow said:

Switzerland is Capitalist.

I would like to know if people here are using a colloquial definition of socialism or the actual definition.

For me the definition of Socialism is a system where the people own the means of production. Also within a Socialist system, there is no such thing as property rights. Socialism is clearly a left wing idea and it has never worked.

The implementation of social programs is not Socialism. 

Socialism and Capitalism are antithetical to each other. You can't have a balance between the 2. (According to my definition and not the colloquial definition.)

I agree with Rich that we need a to leave room in a Capitalist system to implement social programs, (I am assuming that's what you meant by balancing Capitalism with Socialism.), but implementing social programs is not Socialism.

DIng ding ding....winner winner chicken dinner. 

On 2021-08-21 at 10:12 AM, Tracker said:

I am NOT a libertarian- that works only in small, tribal communities. I can agree that there have been societies and governments (almost the same thing) which have tried to institute a socialist government but instead have degenerated into dictatorships, but I believe that right-wing parties and governments have been shown repeatedly by history to be far more probable to become autocratic. The prevailing attitude of right-wing adherents is that they know what is best for everyone and have given themselves the right to manipulate, lie and rule by fiat. The most stable and enduring societies are both democratic and with strong socialist policies and practices.

 

Disagree. Societies defined by individual or group greed have inevitably imploded.

As we have seen with every attempt at Marxism/socialism as well....and at a far more expedited rate. Only took a couple decades for Marxism to devolve into communism and dictatorship in pretty much every country that has attempted it thus far.

16 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Exactly. We have seen violence emerge from the left in the cases of Antifa and BLM (just as a small microcosm of recent times) and then free speech being halted by the far left on many university campuses around North America. There is danger to our freedoms and violence on both ends of the political extreme and it really makes no difference what anyone's intentions were once it devolves to that level.

 

I'm going to suggest that you haven't been on many campuses and are getting this drivel from alt-right sites and blogs. It isn't happening.

1 minute ago, JCon said:

I'm going to suggest that you haven't been on many campuses and are getting this drivel from alt-right sites and blogs. It isn't happening.

Really? The Toronto Globe and Mail is an alt right site/blog? 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/academic-extremism-comes-to-canada/article33185073/

...and that is just in Canada. The US has become far, far more of a campus leftist powder keg. 

2 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Really? The Toronto Globe and Mail is an alt right site/blog? 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/academic-extremism-comes-to-canada/article33185073/

...and that is just in Canada. The US has become far, far more of a campus leftist powder keg. 

Oh, yeah, schools don't allow hate speech. That's always been the case. Left or right, hate speech is not allowed on campus. 

18 minutes ago, JCon said:

Oh, yeah, schools don't allow hate speech. That's always been the case. Left or right, hate speech is not allowed on campus. 

https://www.aei.org/articles/are-colleges-and-universities-too-liberal-what-the-research-says-about-the-political-composition-of-campuses-and-campus-climate/

Hate speech? What hate speech are you referencing in that article? That's the problem with the left right now, they are trying to define opposing view points as hate speech and that's just garbage. What we are seeing in academia is an indoctrination of leftist principles on a massive scale in our halls of upper learning. What is problematic about it is that in order to stifle debate the far left has claimed the right to define what is politically acceptable to discuss and labelled any conversation that disagrees with them as hate speech. I don't disagree that their are true examples of hate speech that shouldn't be tolerated that emanate from the far right, what I disagree with is the shutting down of all dissenting conversation under a universal labelling of hate speech when it is not. 

Edited August 23, 20214 yr by GCn20

1 minute ago, GCn20 said:

https://www.aei.org/articles/are-colleges-and-universities-too-liberal-what-the-research-says-about-the-political-composition-of-campuses-and-campus-climate/

Hate speech? What hate speech are you referencing in that article? That's the problem with the left right now, they are trying to define opposing view points as hate speech and that's just garbage.

That link has absolutely nothing to do with university campuses in Canada. Nor does it further substantiate whatever feeble arguments are being made in an opinion piece from G&M dating back nearly five years.

8 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

https://www.aei.org/articles/are-colleges-and-universities-too-liberal-what-the-research-says-about-the-political-composition-of-campuses-and-campus-climate/

Hate speech? What hate speech are you referencing in that article? That's the problem with the left right now, they are trying to define opposing view points as hate speech and that's just garbage.

That's an opinion piece by an alt-right think tank. 

1 minute ago, blue_gold_84 said:

That link has absolutely nothing to do with university campuses in Canada. Nor does it further substantiate whatever feeble arguments are being made in an opinion piece from G&M dating back nearly five years.

This is not an opinion piece. Unless, of course, you don't understand the representations of the numerous studies that were referenced. But keep being you.

1 minute ago, JCon said:

That's an opinion piece by an alt-right think tank. 

It cites numerous studies and facts. Do you dispute the validity of them? It is compiled within the confines of an op/ed but the numbers being shown are pretty staggering. I will let you draw your own conclusions though, as is your right.

Just now, GCn20 said:

This is not an opinion piece. Unless, of course, you don't understand the representations of the numerous studies that were referenced. But keep being you.

The link you shared from The Globe and Mail is literally an opinion piece (it says opinion right in the URL). The link you shared from the American Enterprise Institute has absolutely nothing to do with university campuses in Canada.

Is it a negative thing that people who have completed advanced degrees are often more liberally-minded? Those who have studied many different aspects of our society tend to come to more liberal conclusions. To me that's more an indication that conservative beliefs generally don't hold up to intense study by those with advanced degrees. There is obviously some selection bias (some conservatives are really scared of advanced learning and cast negative light on those with degrees), so they would also be less likely to go to university.

 

1 hour ago, GCn20 said:

What we are seeing in academia is an indoctrination of leftist principles on a massive scale in our halls of upper learning

No that is such bullshit. It's not indoctrination, it's that people who are educated see through the bullshit of conservatism. Education is bad for the current form of conservatism not because of indoctrination but because a lot of the things that conservatives push for are bad for society as a whole.

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

No that is such bullshit. It's not indoctrination, it's that people who are educated see through the bullshit of conservatism. Education is bad for the current form of conservatism not because of indoctrination but because a lot of the things that conservatives push for are bad for society as a whole.

That is certainly your opinion, and I respect your right to have it.

2 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

The link you shared from The Globe and Mail is literally an opinion piece (it says opinion right in the URL). The link you shared from the American Enterprise Institute has absolutely nothing to do with university campuses in Canada.

The Globe and Mail is an editorial by an award winning journalist that has been in their employ for many, many years. Again, where did I mention the left extremism on campuses to be a uniquely Canadian thing?

"left extremism."

 

-universal healthcare

- environmental concerns

- living wage concern

- minority rights concern

- womens rights concerns

right to form a union concern

these, in some circles, would be extreme left wing.

last time there were violent left winger..... black,panthers, they ere all shot, killed, and jailed

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 20214 yr by Mark F