IS SOCIALISM OUR UNAVOIDABLE FATE?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on February 17, 2009 at 4:20pm

I sure hope not :o{

Permalink Reply by William "Leland" Luster on February 17, 2009 at 5:34pm

We have been turned into straw people controlled by straw financial institutions and what ever you call the man with the match, he can't destroy those faithful unto The Eternal Law Of Righteous Love For God And Man. I myself shall continue to Trust Creator/Christ, and choose not to live in fear or hopelessness. Your friend Leland.02-17-09

Permalink Reply by Chris Tidman on February 17, 2009 at 9:59pm

With a dial up connection Monte you don't get out much. You could join some groups outside of the PP like the energyparty.ning.com and the onlinenap.ning.com and seadog8278.ning.com (SEE) These outside groups are growing. With a large enough network we can use AlertPay ( which everyone can open an account) to transfer a few $ from 1000s of people to one or more persons who can build something to generate electricity or house a family. Socialism can not survive when a community is busy looking after itself.

Permalink Reply by Luane Todd on February 18, 2009 at 7:36pm

Bravo, Dan,

You have eloquently stated some of my pet theories/projects and it is a pleasure to read your entry. In my mind, these 'commons' you list also suggest the places where we might profitably invest our time and energies as we try to rebuild a cooperative mindset.

I particularly like this statement:

"I personally have turned stones in my mind that I had set in mortar many years ago. Concepts that I have held sacred for a very long time have been shifted by these simple questions and if you have not looked at them in a while, I want to encourage you to. (remember courage is the root word there)."

To that I would add the quote I have on my business card, to remind myself of this very mindset:

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought to be otherwise."
Benjamin Franklin (my birthday twin).

Thank you for your input.

Lu

Permalink Reply by Monte Smith on February 17, 2009 at 11:50pm

In view of the topic of this discussion, I am posting the following. And, because of its length, I will probably have to make two entries. What I am posting has been excerpted from Chapter Four in the book, The Unseen Hand - An Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of History, written by A. Ralph Epperson. First copyrighted (co) in 1985.

..............

As always, my motive is increased understanding that will lead to a better overall condition of survival for EVERYONE

..............

The title of Chapter Four is, Economic Terms.

Consumption Good: goods aquired for consumption purposes (food, drink, etc.)

Capital Good: goods utilized for producing consumption goods

The distinction between these two economic terms can be illustrated by the use of a simple example, such as a primitive tribesman living in a remote jungle. His diet consists of the rabbit (a consumption Good) which first must be caught before it can be consumed. The tribesman quickly learns that the rabbit is exceptionally quick and that catching it for a daily meal is rather difficult. But, by using his intelligence, the tribesman fashions a crude blow gun to assist him in acquiring the Consumption Good. The moment that the tribesman builds the blow-gun, he becomes a Capitalist, because the blow-gun is a Capital Good: it is created to assist the tribesman in acquiring Consumption Goods.

Therefore, it is now possible to define Capitalism as:

Capitalism: any economic system that utilizes Capital Goods in acquiring or producing Consumption Goods

Notice that by this definition even the most primitive economic systems are Capitalist if they choose to utilize Capital Goods in meeting their Consumption Good needs.

It follows logically, then, that the blow-gun is only effective when the tribesman agrees to use it, and that without his efforts the blow-gun is a meaningless wooden tube. The tribesman gives utility to the blow-gun only by using it.

It follows, then, that the acquisition of Consumption Goods is not dependent on Capital Goods alone, but by someone using the Capital Goods. Human effort is the key ingredient in any Capitalistic economy. Without human effort, there will be no Consumption Goods produced.

The ultimate Capitalist society is one, then, where all things become Capital Goods, including the individual efforts of all of the individual workers who comprise the society. the individual himself becomes the ultimate Capital Good, for without his efforts, there will be no consumption Goods produced.

It follows logically for some, unfortunately, that the society has the right to make certain that efforts are made towards the production of Consumption Goods, even if the individual members of the society do not wish to produce any.

.............

Since each society needs Consumption Goods to survive, it follows that the society needs the productive efforts of all members of that society, or it will fail.

There are only two ways by which these goods can be produced: either through the use of force against the producing individuals, or through the creation of an economic environment wherein the individual is encouraged to produce the maximum quantity of Consumption Goods.

All Capitalist societies soon discover that all Capital Goods tend to deteriorate through time and usage and therefore lose their utility. the blow-gun in the primitive society breaks or bends and becomes worthless. When this occurs, the tribesman must discard the useless Capital Good and construct a replacement.

But other Capital Goods, humans themselves, also lose their utility. They grow tired, old or become injured. There are societies today that also discard tired, old and injured human Capital Goods as well as old, tired or broken Capital Goods such as a broken blow-gun. Once such a society is the nation of Russia.

...............

If Capitalism, then, is an economic system that utilizes Capital Goods to produce Consumption Goods, what is the difference between the Communist system and the Capitalist system in the United States? Both systems utilize the same type of Capital Goods: the factories, the railroads, and the other factors of production.

The difference is not in the existence of these Capital Goods, it is the ownership of the goods. In the Communist system, the state owns the Capital Goods, and in the Free Enterprise system, a better name for America's economic system, the individuals own the Capital Goods.

In a Free Enterprise system the Capital Goods are owned and controlled by private owners.

In Communism the Capital Goods are owned and controlled by the state.

Control of the factors of production is equally as important as ownership: of an automobile is meaningless if someone else drives (controls) it.

But there is another economic system not included in the above definitions: the system where the individual private owner owns the factors of production, but the state controls them. This system is called Fascism. It cam be added to the above summary as follows

In a Fascism the Capital Goods are privately owned but controlled by the state.

In a Socialism the Capital Goods are owned and controlled by the state.

...............

Those who advocate that the Capital Goods should be owned or controlled by the state frequently justify their position by declaring that they are doing so in the name of the poor, the workers, the aged, or any other minority deemed to be voiceless in the society and hence unable to be in a position to own any Capital Goods. However, those who lose sight of man's God-given right to own property also fail to see the connection between the right to private property and the right to one's own life. It is the Socialists/Communists who support the state's right to own all Capital Goods. In addition, they also support the right of the state to divide the property between those who have varying amounts of goods. Once this process starts the state must decide who is to receive the society's surplus. It then logically follows that the state has the right to terminate the lives of those that the state feels are not worthy of receiving their share of the surplus.

............

Obviously, this type of government is not popular with the working class, the supposed benefactor of the economic philosophy of Socialism, so the strategy became one of deceiving the worker so that the Socialism that the worker is induced to support in theory is different from the Socialism that the worker would experience once the Socialists came to power. The problem exists in how to conceal this truth from the worker. Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party presidential candidate for about twenty years, and the leading Socialist in the United States prior to his death, said: "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened."

Mr. Thomas was never successful in his quest for the Presidency as an identified Socialist, but he was extremely pleased with Socialist progress nevertheless. The American people were buying his Socialist ideas by electing others not publicly identified as Socialists, but who supported the economic and political ideas of the Socialist Party. Thomas wrote: "...Here in America more measures once praised or denounced as socialist have been adopted than once I should have thought possible short of a socialist victory at the polls." "The United States is making greater strides towards Socialism under Eisenhower than even under Roosevelt." Most people would agree that President Roosevelt gave the American government more control over and ownership of the factors of production than any other president, but few would feel that President Eisenhower did more than Roosevelt. Yet the Socialist candidate for President praised the "non-socialist, pro free enterprise" Dwight Eisenhower for his support of socialist programs. This means that socialism has been concealed from the American people. That the American people are being lied to by those who could be called "closet socialists." Someone once described the deception as: "one way they look, another way they steer." the strategy is to promise the American people one thing and to deliver another. Never make it appear that you, the candidate, are supporting socialism or are a Socialist, even though the platforms you will support after your election are indeed socialist in nature. And you must never deliver so much socialism that the American people will discover the exact nature of the game and remove you from office.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr., a noted historian, outlined the program of giving the American people their socialism in gradual doses: "If socialism is to preserve democracy, it must be brought about step by step in a way which will not disrupt the fabric of custom, law and mutual confidence....There weeks no inherent obstacle in the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of new deals...."

The reason the Socialist must deceive the unsuspecting citizen was made clear by the London, England, Sunday Times which stated that Socialism was defined as: "competition without prizes, boredom without hope, war without victory, and statistics without end."

In other words, most people don't want Socialism and they don't wish to live under the Socialist economy, so the Socailists must resort to trickery and deception, by a series of lies offered to the people by lying politicians.

...........

For the sake of the purist, is there any difference between Socialism and Communism? The absence of any essential differences was explained thus: "There is no economic difference between socialism and communism. Both terms...denote the same system...public control of the means of production as distinct from private control. The two terms, socialism and communism, are synonyms."

This position was confirmed by no less a Communist luminary than Marshal Tito, the now deceased dictator of the Yugoslavian Communist government, who said: "Communism is simply state capitalism in which the state has absolute ownership of everything including all the efforts of the people."

Permalink Reply by Luane Todd on February 18, 2009 at 7:52pm

Dan,

As a retired herdsman I would posit that a true herdsman works to optimize his gain, not maximise it. Therefore, when you are dealing with a commons situation (or a private situation for that matter) it is counterproductive to disregard actions which you know will be self destructive in the end. True master landsmen are quite aware of the limits of the land under certain conditions. I think, based on my studies, that when there was a true commons, both in land use and community commitment, you did not see the kind of tragedy you suggest. We have become so brainwashed to the notion of everyman for himself we have forgotten, if we ever knew, that communities are the sum of their parts (members) and the plunderer is disciplined to prevent permanent damage to the whole. In fact, I think you alluded to the necessity of protecting those things which are essential to all life in your earlier post.

I think we need to reexamine the term 'freedom' to remove the notion that it means a license to ignore anything or anyone else.

Permalink Reply by Luane Todd on February 18, 2009 at 8:53pm

Dan,

I have heard all the juve about how the bad old ranchers turned their destructive cattle onto the public lands and ruined them....Yeah, sometimes, just like everything else.

For balance check out the two articles attached.

Allan Savory is dead on, I know, I did what he talks about for 12 years and it works like a charm. His work is implemented on some public lands, where you can get the local government employee to put aside his biases and give it a try.

I'll put up some other interesting implementations of the concept when I have more time.

Then there is Wendell Berry...what can I say except this man is a delight and a treasure. I think, personally, that his work should be required reading in history and sociology as well as English classes.

Enjoy.

Have you read "The World Without Us"? PBS had an hour presentation capturing the highlights back sometime in 2008 I think.

Enjoy

Attachments:

• Savory-A Global Strategy for Addressing Global Climate Change.doc, 110 KB
• W Berry on small farms, local wisdon and the folly of greed..digging_in.htm, 60 KB

Permalink Reply by Luane Todd on February 18, 2009 at 8:57pm

O and by the way, I am doing my part to help retrain cattlemen and women to the potential represented by Savory's approach. Maybe we can redevelop the next generation of herdsmen.

Permalink Reply by South Dakota Wind Energy on February 18, 2009 at 8:53pm

WOW,

We are getting DEEP in here.

Monty

Permalink Reply by Chris Tidman on April 16, 2009 at 8:59pm

In all the forms of Government described in this discussion, we have been told who owns the Capital Goods and who controls the Capital Goods, but we apparently don't need to know who owns the money, and who controls the money.

Control of the money provides control of the businesses and control of the Government. Heck, if you control the money you can decide whatever form of Government you want.

We will never have socialism as long as the people in charge own and control the money. They will keep it for themselves. If you need money they will loan it to you and charge you interest.

Nothing will change for the better until all money is owned by the Government/public. Money does not have to be taken away from the people who now have money. They can spend it but since they do not own it, they can not set the interest rate when loaning it out. The Government, should set the interest rate for all borrowed money. Same for everybody. Maybe lower rate for the more you borrow - sliding scale right down to Zero interest.

Permalink Reply by DubleDeuce on June 18, 2009 at 5:19am

I guess I'll take ONE shot across the bow here. Dan Burbank is suffering from that most righteous of human ailments, OLD AGE.

He has lived LONG enough to maybe have buried more loved one than many of us. The pain of life can FOCUS one mind to try to alleviate that pain. A million little "what ifs" along the way would go far to have changed his outlook on life.

He looks at suffering and asks me to check my own morality. As if my ability to empathize is inversely proportional to my morality.

It has been said that once a democracy finds out that it can vote itself all the goodies that it wants, it will soon cease to be a democracy. Couple Obamas "Emergency" wailing on every economic front and his cannon full of hundret dollar bills as the remedy coupled with the admonition that we do not have time to READ the damn bill, only enough time to vote on it leads me to the conclusion along with dans WISH LIST of inalienable right to food, clothing, shelter, cars, medical care, whores, jewlery, stump juice, condoms, needles, pot, and a pot to pee in, that we are just about there in that fantasy utopia called socialism, fascism, or communism. Remember this, the term Commons is a derivative of the idea of communism.

While dan does not want to set up a board using all of these "divisive" terms he does like to slip in those benign ideas like The Commons to help us to dose off to LA LA land.

Back to dans aging problem. It is said that in youth you are a DEMOCRAT/Liberal and in the middle years you become a Republican Conservative. And finally in your older years you revert back to your childhood days only with out much of your faculties intact. Hence the rush to put all of the NEEDS and WANTS of life under the guise of "rights". It makes those of us too busy working to really check our REAL political leanings and as such let this nonsense pick our pockets.

This country had adopted, for better or worse, a capitalist form of business. As such we have also adopted a form of government that recognizes a capitalist form of operation. You can see it through out history, the evolution hand in hand, from the 1800's to now. The Commerce Clause in the Constitution sat quietly for nearly 100 years until finally it was needed to spur on the idea of manifest destiny. The bounty of this country and its people is truly a remarkable thing. It is based on the radical idea work and the division of labor. As effort became o more and more divided, more and more people were able to take advantage of the surplus of this country. But NEVER in all of its history has it ever been EASY. Only the dreamer and the Sunday Supplement writer would have you believe otherwise.

But the uneven distribution of money, effort, needs, and wants around the world have set us one against the other. Wars, like recessions and depressions, are the natural relief valves of such repetitious cycles. We are prosperous, and than we are not. A country gets envious and wants to control others. We have wars.

The facts of the matter are this, the ability to remain productively employed ACROSS the world is now in jeapordy. Technology has seen to that fact. What once was 5 workers in a factory assembling wooden wheels was replaced with 2 people feeding a giant stamping machine to produce a much stronger and less expensive wheel. Soon, the idea of laboring over such a task master was farmed out to other more populace lands. People who would do it for a fraction of the amount of money. Then, before you knew it, some computer controlled machine would grab a chunk of aluminum from a bin, chew on it for maybe 8-10 minutes and spit it out onto an assembly line and onto a car axle.

We as a country have become complacent with out wealth over the last 60 years. We think that we can buy anything and HAVE anything. we have been raised on this idea with the credit card and the home equity loan. We have been estranged from the idea of value and effort of living within our means. We have sent trillions to the Chinese and the Arabs in exchange for oil and manufactured goods and now those dollars come back to us in the form of a loan and the idea of interest. Can you image the comedy and disbelief of a 25 year old today seeing the movie "Grapes of Rath" and see the old man trying to get out of that diner with only a few pennies to spare for the necessities of life and the little girl eying a piece of candy.

Dans surrogate was there in that movie at that time and gave the little girl the candy (and the old man his dignity) when the proprietor said that the candy was 5 for a penny. Bless her heart. The thought was certainly in the right place, but the reality of the situation is a LIE. She HAD nothing much more to give that girl. that family needs a lot more than a few pieces of candy but that proprietor was not about to let them hang around and sponge off of them. They too had problems.

The point it this, using this country as a metaphor for the elephant, it is a BIG animal and as such is needs a LOT of care and feeding. We as a people have not done to well in that department. As an example, the idea of home ownership is a strong one but in a capitalist society all or not able to OWN their own home. I am sorry, call it my moral failing but it is the truth. But it is NOT the truth of a dan burbank. His legions think that because I have a home that ALL people should have a home. Nice sentiment but highly impractical. But that didn't stop the left from doing something about it. As soon as the demand was out their the excess money sent overseas for oil and manufactured goods came right to us in the form of leveraged debt disguised as AAA mortgages. So far so good. But once the fuel crisis hit, those who were JUST BARELY getting by on their con artist structured ARMS, fell off the wagon. than car sales DIPPED due to the fuel prices THAN the money markets froze up when the Chinese and the Arabs found out that there was a dollop of s*** in every 1 lb bag of mortgages they had bought.

EVERYBODY out of the pool. And NOW we have as a solution for this situation, a laundry list of "rights" that the government should dole out to all who want it.

WILL SOME SOB PLEASE TELL ME HOW THIS WILL BE PAID FOR? Perhaps with them Obama bucks? i don't think so

So, before we sit down and recite a list of 21st century rights that some bleeding heart thinks we should provide for under the guise or MORALITY, may I respectfully request that we sit down and make out a 21st century list of OBLIGATIONS that we as a people should be subscribing to.

We can start with maintaining jobs for those in this country. We can ADD to that by seeing to it that jobs and local community resources are not wasted on people from other countries looking to snag a piece of Gringo dollars for them selves and their families back home. You don't see us Americans sneaking into Saudi Arabia and setting ourselves up as finance ministers so that we can skip off those petro bucks and send them back home do you?

Ever since last September I have heard the call of the wolf as they declare this institution too big to fail or that company too big to fail. I will ask you all a very sobering question, do you think the United States of American is too big to fail. Do you think there is a consortium of debtor nations out their that would grieve over our demise? Don't be stupid. But that is EXACTLY where we are headed.

So before we 'ask what this country can do for the partons of dan burbank', let us ask what WE can do for the country.

We are common only in our nationhood, not in our social affectations. I and my family come first. All you other Joes out there, stand in line. I know it sounds hard, but that is the way life has been in this country for well over 200 years. ain't no pollyanna communist going to come in and change that.

The Deuceman

Permalink Reply by Luane Todd on June 24, 2009 at 11:44pm

Dan,
Interesting that you would note that you are becoming less risk adverse with age. I thought I was the only one who had that feeling. I had thought it would be the other way around.

There is so much to learn and so much to try to accomplish that I too find myself impatient with the majority of people I meet. It would be easier if there was not so much repair work to do before we could actually move forward.

7 generations...that is a favorite model for me.

I like your thoughts on the constitutional convention...when will you be calling it?

Enjoy your thoughts...stay around and rattle our cages once in a while.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page