7 ms·

This is a direct testament to: > Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embar

This is a direct testament to: > Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

patrickaljord 9y ago
This is assuming that socialism helps the poor, which is something anyone who has even very basic knowledge of 20th century history knows could not be farther from true.
- bhaak 9y ago
  I think you and the OP have a clash of definition and are looking at different models of socialism. You look at the socialism how it was conducted in the USSR and Eastern Europe where OP is probably looking at Western Europe. Socialism isn't well defined and ranges from far left to Democratic socialism. Discussions with an American POV often neglect to acknowledge that in Europe lots of governments in Europe have socialist parties in them.
  - patrickaljord 9y ago
    I'm French, I use the definition of socialism other French thinkers have such as Tocqueville, Jean-Baptiste Say or Bastiat. This definition includes all the kinds of socialism you described and as these thinkers say they are all bad and since the 20th century we also know they are criminal the more they are enforced.
    - bhaak 9y ago
      Whereas we already know since the 19th century that capitalism is criminal the more it is enforced? If your government is criminal it doesn't matter if you're living in a capitalist, socialist, communist, or pastafarian state. I fail to see how the mixture of socialism and capitalism as it was implemented in most of Western Europe in the second half of the last century could be used as an argument for the hypothesis that "all kinds of socialism are bad".
      - patrickaljord 9y ago
        Capitalism doesn't need to be enforced, people willingly exchanging things happens naturally, regulating and taxing these exchanges requires initiation of force though (socialism). > I fail to see how the mixture of socialism and capitalism as it was implemented in most of Western Europe in the second half of the last century could be used as an argument for the hypothesis that "all kinds of socialism are bad". And there lies the problem. Just Google issues of Keynesianism and why it's bad or have a blast and go read some Tocqueville, Jean-Baptiste Say or Bastiat.
        copyright_sux 9y ago
        Of course full capitalism needs to be enforced. People using the resources they need happens naturally. Protecting private property requires initiation of force. Just Google issues of Libertarianism.
        patrickaljord 9y ago
        If your body is your private property, then anyone trying to trespass without your consent is initiating force and enforcing is not initiation of force. I consider the fruit of my labor to be, like my body, my private property and anyone trespassing it without my consent is initiating force.
        copyright_sux 9y ago
        Most people protect their body, because they have instinct for self-preservation, regardless of their beliefs about property. You presented no argument why we should treat natural resources or fruit of labor the same as human body. You just assume Libertarian definitions. It's a bit like fundamentalist religious person saying "I consider love to be a product of a god, so you feeling love confirms gods existence." There is no interesting argument in that statement.
        patrickaljord 9y ago
oh_sigh 9y ago
Or, common morality among working class is that you shouldn't take what isn't yours and you didn't work for. So, they are taking a moral stand on the matter, even though they could make out materially better by taking a little bit of their rich neighbors earnings.

This is a direct testament to: > Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

patrickaljord 9y ago

This is assuming that socialism helps the poor, which is something anyone who has even very basic knowledge of 20th century history knows could not be farther from true.

bhaak 9y ago
I think you and the OP have a clash of definition and are looking at different models of socialism. You look at the socialism how it was conducted in the USSR and Eastern Europe where OP is probably looking at Western Europe. Socialism isn't well defined and ranges from far left to Democratic socialism. Discussions with an American POV often neglect to acknowledge that in Europe lots of governments in Europe have socialist parties in them.
- patrickaljord 9y ago
  I'm French, I use the definition of socialism other French thinkers have such as Tocqueville, Jean-Baptiste Say or Bastiat. This definition includes all the kinds of socialism you described and as these thinkers say they are all bad and since the 20th century we also know they are criminal the more they are enforced.
  - bhaak 9y ago
    Whereas we already know since the 19th century that capitalism is criminal the more it is enforced? If your government is criminal it doesn't matter if you're living in a capitalist, socialist, communist, or pastafarian state. I fail to see how the mixture of socialism and capitalism as it was implemented in most of Western Europe in the second half of the last century could be used as an argument for the hypothesis that "all kinds of socialism are bad".
    - patrickaljord 9y ago
      Capitalism doesn't need to be enforced, people willingly exchanging things happens naturally, regulating and taxing these exchanges requires initiation of force though (socialism). > I fail to see how the mixture of socialism and capitalism as it was implemented in most of Western Europe in the second half of the last century could be used as an argument for the hypothesis that "all kinds of socialism are bad". And there lies the problem. Just Google issues of Keynesianism and why it's bad or have a blast and go read some Tocqueville, Jean-Baptiste Say or Bastiat.
      - copyright_sux 9y ago
        Of course full capitalism needs to be enforced. People using the resources they need happens naturally. Protecting private property requires initiation of force. Just Google issues of Libertarianism.
        patrickaljord 9y ago
        If your body is your private property, then anyone trying to trespass without your consent is initiating force and enforcing is not initiation of force. I consider the fruit of my labor to be, like my body, my private property and anyone trespassing it without my consent is initiating force.
        copyright_sux 9y ago
        Most people protect their body, because they have instinct for self-preservation, regardless of their beliefs about property. You presented no argument why we should treat natural resources or fruit of labor the same as human body. You just assume Libertarian definitions. It's a bit like fundamentalist religious person saying "I consider love to be a product of a god, so you feeling love confirms gods existence." There is no interesting argument in that statement.
        patrickaljord 9y ago

oh_sigh 9y ago

Or, common morality among working class is that you shouldn't take what isn't yours and you didn't work for. So, they are taking a moral stand on the matter, even though they could make out materially better by taking a little bit of their rich neighbors earnings.