Skeptic Project

"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."

Doesn't really seem like it's describing the bailouts at all. Unless you interpret any form of government intervention (financial or otherwise) as socialism.

No, it doesn't. Not even "pretty much."

What does "pretty much" even mean?

You act like a tax was passed that suddenly made the citizens pay for the bailouts. That's not how it works.

"Pretty much. Taking something from some one (tax) to give to somebody else (banks, GM, healthcare) that is in a 'worse' state that 'needs' it. "

Yeah, I'm not seeing it.

Oh bother. I've got stuff to say but I'm not never gonna get this essay on Run Lola Run if I sit here and argue. I'll be back late tonight.

Sil, pretty much is a colloquialism for yes/that's about right and it was in reference to the comment right before I said it. I did not realise that YOU PEOPLE didn't use the term over there.

Your mother should be jailed for life for committing a crime against humanity.

"Sil, pretty much is a colloquialism for yes/that's about right"

Weeelll, shucks! I guess my tiny American brain couldn't figure that out on it's own.

Yes Sil, I realise that you were educated in the NWO run American education system... To Matt, that's bigotry. To me (and my fellow countrymen), that is being an insensitive smartarse (btw arse is english for ass in american)

"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."

Doesn't really seem like it's describing the bailouts at all. Unless you interpret any form of government intervention (financial or otherwise) as socialism.

Well as I clearly said, that's not my definition. What is allegedly socialistic, for example, about the bailout is the idea behind it - that the State can and will intervene in private enterprise to 'prop it up' if need be. Whereas, pure free-market ideology would be allow the company to fail and call it a 'natural consequence' of bad market practices (pretty much what Ron Paul would say).

I should probably point out that I'm not alleging society is much more socialistic than most would think because I think that's a bad thing. I consider social democratic policies to be the bedrock of our present societies. Without them, I probably wouldn't have got an education. Without social democracy, I'd have to work a full-time job to be able to afford to go to university. Without social democratic policies, I wouldn't be able to afford medicine - for example I have to take Imuran every day, and if I had to pay the full price for it I'd be paying $57 per box which is something I simply couldn't afford. There was one other medication I used to have to take and if I had to pay the full price it was over $100 per box. If it wasn't for social democracy, the majority of people in the world would likely still not be vaccinated against deadly diseases - especially those in the third world, which have received this life-saving health care largely as a result of the United Nations (which is, at it's philosophical core, a socialist organisation). Without social democracy, one can only imagine how expensive public transport would be. I guess I'll stop there, because if I haven't made some sort of point by now then I am probably not going to succeed within this discussion at all.

Why would you write an essay about Run Lola Run?

Because I'm studying a Bachelor of Film Production.

How could you say that it is not? It's like the cornerstone of social democracy. I mean every single one of it's major stated goals are social democratic aims.

Yes, but social democracy wouldn't exist without (you know) socialism. It's notion is to take the ideas of socialism, and basically use Capitalism for their implementation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy</p>

In other words it's about slowly moving into socialism using 'the present system', instead of a bloody revolution.

egalitarianism is not just a socialist ideal. Goddamnit.

egalitarianism predates socialism. World history much?

egalitarianism predates socialism. World history much?

I was addressing Sil when I said "Disagree to the max. It's a direct child of socialism, and it's eventual goal IS socialism," not you...That response was related to Sil's comments on social democracy, not your comments on egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism is a result of us trying to reconcile our "new" humanistic values with Capitalism, but I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't work well enough. Nowhere near as well as it ought.

I didn't claim that, so stop pretending that I did. Read my posts properly, I'm distinguishing Egal./Soc. quite clearly...

I'm agreeing that Egalitarianism came before socialism, but I am NOT agreeing that that's the basis for our progress today. We have outdone egalitarianism with our attempts to combine socialist thought with capitalist management (social democracy). Nobody considers inalienable rights enough anymore, our social policies clearly go far beyond just guaranteed protections - and that is because of socialism, one step further than egalitarianism.