London Riots

[hypehat]

I don't care if he was fucking Satan. You don't just shoot him. Or anyone. He's entitled to a trial, not to be gunned down on sight.

[OBLiO]

What's your point? As of now all I see is a bunch of rambling. Where did I even give any kind of reference to anything related to Judaism beyond the use of the word "Nazi"? I use the term "crypto-Nazi" the same way Gore Vidal did. Perhaps I should have used "crypto-fascism."

Perhaps. But I see fascism, naziism, socialism, marxism, statism, and communism as the same thing. Using the term Nazi does evoke an emotional response, but I used that quote to illustrate that it wasn't about the Jews. It was about socialists targeting a group of capitalists. You could replace Jews with "businessman" or "corporation" or "little kids selling lemonade in their front yard". "As socialists, we are opponents of little kids selling lemonade in their front yard, because we see, in these kids, the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods."

Yeah that was an interesting exchange during that Buckley/Vidal debate.

I watched the vid of the Mr. Rogers thing. The news station was only reporting the story and in an almost sarcastic fashion. They camped it up. It was a Louisiana college professor that created the study and made the statement regarding Mr. Rogers, the news station only reported it.

Here is a story that popped up a few months earlier that year. Talk about messed up.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3553475
An example of leveling the playing field.

[Jason]

Nazism and fascism cannot and are not to be equated with socialism, communism, or Marxist theory; countries that are known to be "communist" or "socialist" or "Marxist" are none of the above, but rather totalitarian single-party dictatorships. Nazism was NOT socialism by any stretch of the imagination and if you think that way I'd suggest that you actually support your theories with grounded research.

Socialism is not some boogeyman, like certain plutocratic state-capitalist governments would have you believe. These same governments cite such horrible examples as the Soviet Union, East Germany, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Laos as "socialist" countries. None of these were or are true socialist nations.

[OBLiO]

Can you give me an example of a true socialist nation?

[Alex]

There has yet to be one. Lenin and Trotsky tried, but it didn`t really turn out too well.

[Dunderhead]

Nazism and fascism cannot and are not to be equated with socialism, communism, or Marxist theory; countries that are known to be "communist" or "socialist" or "Marxist" are none of the above, but rather totalitarian single-party dictatorships. Nazism was NOT socialism by any stretch of the imagination and if you think that way I'd suggest that you actually support your theories with grounded research.

Socialism is not some boogeyman, like certain plutocratic state-capitalist governments would have you believe. These same governments cite such horrible examples as the Soviet Union, East Germany, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Laos as "socialist" countries. None of these were or are true socialist nations.

Socialism and fascism go hand in hand. The United States today isn't really very capitalist, we have corporatism or social-fascism or whatever you want to call it. Of course we don't have genocide in the United States, so we aren't "Nazi"s per-say, but the United States is about a conglomeration of power, collusion between the State and Corporations. That same relationship was at the heart of the rise of European fascism, and the business leaders in Germany and Italy were very pleased at the time when over the rise of corporate-fascism. Oblio is perfectly right to point out that the Nazi's were National Socialists, because that's exactly what they were, they were socialists thru and thru.
Economically, there is no reason to believe that the Government can direct the economy or fix prices. Price fixing is never good, and the market will always do a better job of allocating resources via the price mechanism than Government will.
When someone says that the United States is socialist, most liberals will be angry at that assertion, mostly because it's very fashionable to blame all our woes on "capitalism", but in reality we are farther on the spectrum towards socialism/corporatism than we are free market capitalism. Government policy is what has so badly affected the housing markets and post-secondary education system. Liberals rarely recognize the link though, which is unfortunate. The federal government pumps money into the system, they say "everyone has a right to own a home" so they guarantee loans and give out gobs on money to banks for that purpose. Of course these programs are specifically designed to increase demand for housing, that's really their goal. What happens when demand goes up for a good and supply stays the same? Price goes up. And then you have the housing bubble forming right before your eyes. The government knew what banks were doing, and that's exactly what they wanted, and then when things broke down everyone points the finger at the banks, but it was really the fault of government policy. The same thing has been happening in health care and the college industry. That's socialism, and who benefits the most? The corporations. Who gets stuck with the bill? The people.

That's just my 2 cents, my formal education is in Econ, so I thought I'd chime in.

[Mahalo]

AMEN.Thanx for writing that, it was well said Sgt. Unfortunately, that knowledge is too often ignored.

My philosophy is simple: FREEDOM FIRST. Above all, Freedom. When the government steps into the market freedom automatically gets distorted.

[Jason]

A true socialist nation does not exist because none has ever been built on a proper socialist principle - the state has no place in socialism. Left anarchists (aka libertarian socialists) believe that all authority, regardless of importance, is inherently illegitimate and due to its refusal to be questioned or criticized (let alone made to be accountable), it must be dismantled. Socialism is supposed to be a movement with people first; why the hell would we want the STATE overseeing a socialist nation? State socialism is a dangerous thing. The state doesn't give a damn about you or me or anyone else beyond their own pocketbooks. Libertarian socialism means we're all in it together or we're not in it at all.

Of course, 99% of Americans looking at this thread are gonna balk at the phrase "libertarian socialism" and especially balk at how anyone could juxtapose those two terms together; how convenient for them that greedy white American conservative penguins have completely misused and abused the term "libertarian". If the same greedy white American conservative penguins actually read a book (quite a daunting undertaking for Americans in general), the true definition of the word "libertarian" would strike fear in their hearts.

[Mahalo]

...in a perfect world.

Kind sir, please understand that calling someonelike myself a Christian Fascist or a Greedy White American conservative penguin who never read a book only exposes a certain kind of hatred directed to your fellow man. I'm not rich. I don't really care one way or another about who you worship, sleep with, or feel the urge to say. I care about Freedom.

When you say, "The state doesn't give a damn about you or me or anyone else beyond their own pocketbooks", I say substitute "people" for the word "state". That is how it is in our world. We should have the Freedom to help out others who we feel deserve it before the taxman decides for us, and I think we can agreeon that point.

Still, to the many of us "Christian Fascists or a Greedy White American conservatives " who bust our butts working well over 40 hours a week struggling to make ends meet we do not need to be told we are greedy and stupid as we warn people of the dangers of losing our individual freedoms those who are smarterand know better than us with what to do with our time and money.

[Jason]

I will admit that the "Christian fascist" label was meant to antagonize, nothing further. I honestly could care less about religion. I could have easily used any religious denomination preceding the word "fascist" and my argument would have held just as much weight.

However, on the topic of beliefs, this is something that Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists believe - I agree with them that we should strive to make life a better place for all of humanity; we all strive for a world where humanity can develop in such a way to fulfill all of its capabilities and still keep its dignity. I'm an atheist (another word that frightens Americans). The life of Jesus is more worthy of study than fairytales about a man in the sky. Jesus was the greatest revolutionary of all time. He argued that we should give our love to other human beings. Socialists believe in that, as well.

You and I occupy opposite ends of the political spectrum but I have also been told that I am greedy and stupid by people who disagree with my own warnings the dangers of losing our individual freedoms. I also work over 40 hours a week so that argument is not flying.

[OBLiO]

To Sgt Smile: I don't have a formal education in Econ, but that is exactly what I saw happen. And then to make matters worse, so-called stimulus money was pumped into the housing situation to prop it up, but that only prolonged the problem. In some cases, banks were punished for not taking the stimulus money. The market was not allowed to reset.

I had to seek out the truth about who the Nazi's really were and yes they were socialists, in their own words, yet.

To noname: "...in a perfect world" - exactly. The world is not perfect and never will be. There is no such thing as perfection to begin with. The nature of this world is "dog eat dog" but we do our best to rise above it in spirit. Individual choice how to behave. Agreed. I had come to a conclusion about the song "Imagine". The title speaks for itself... the song isn't called Reality.
But, it is a song that delivers how a person can behave to make the effort worth it, but only if a person chooses that path in their own life and not a doctrine forced and enforced on a grand social level.

To Thought Police: Jesus was revolutionary in that he said individual salvation, not collective salvation, was the key to making it to heaven. What is heaven? What ever you want it to be, I suppose. I remember reading Yogananda's take on it and that the goal is to become part of the creative and positive force in the universe. You choose between light or dark. Again, an individual choice. Jesus also said that everyone makes it eventually by trial. By bearing your cross, making your mistakes(sin), and learning from it. Again, as an individual. You have to have something to bring to the table, not by force, but by choice. You can only do that by accumulating through experience and then you have something to offer. Can't squeeze blood from a sugarcube, right? Or a turnip... or whatever that saying is.

Based on your description of Libertarian Socialism, I suppose striking fear in the hearts of your fellow man will be the trend. I see that people who have money will be determined as greedy and what they have must be taken and spread around to those who do nothing to earn it. White people are out, too. If you are from the USA or believe in what the people of the country actually believe in, which has nothing to do with how it has been corrupted btw,.... these people are out too. If you are conservative, forget about it, even though conservative just means frugal and thoughtful about how you live your life. And if you are a penguin, I don't even want to think about what will happen to the penguins. Poor little guys ...or is it girls... maybe just the gay penguins will be allowed to thrive. Not sure. It's too confusing because there just seems to be too many rules who will be allowed to be in this new system. A system that has never existed other than in theory only. And when it is implemented or an attempt at implementation, the results are always the same no matter what -ism is chosen to describe it. People die. So you are correct in that it is about people - dead people and that has been proven time and time again throughout history. It's just not something I want to be involved in, but thanks for your thoughts on the subject. I was curious where you were coming from. I have one more question, though... what is the hidden agenda of Fox News? I see so many people saying they have a hidden agenda, but the agenda is never actually stated. Thanks.

I saw another interview with some of the looters in England... one guy got a whole Johnson Set for his kids and another guy got a High Definition TV. One kid even said it was just like any other day for him.

[Dunderhead]

I don't really believe in the endless little pedantic attempts to differentiate political philosophies, it seems that's always just wishful thinking. In reality there are only two real philosophies when it comes to government, a government with more control or with less control. When you have a government with less control, you can make up all different names for it, anarcho-socialism or whatever, but it would likely just be capitalist. Capitalism has been going on for thousands of years, it's a very neutral process that represents more or less the natural state of things. Socialism with Government is no good, and Socialism without Government would just end up being free-market capitalism in practice, so I don't really get people who want to endlessly try to define their precise political position by some convoluted term.

[Jason]

Based on your description of Libertarian Socialism, I suppose striking fear in the hearts of your fellow man will be the trend. I see that people who have money will be determined as greedy and what they have must be taken and spread around to those who do nothing to earn it. White people are out, too. If you are from the USA or believe in what the people of the country actually believe in, which has nothing to do with how it has been corrupted btw,.... these people are out too. If you are conservative, forget about it, even though conservative just means frugal and thoughtful about how you live your life. And if you are a penguin, I don't even want to think about what will happen to the penguins. Poor little guys ...or is it girls... maybe just the gay penguins will be allowed to thrive. Not sure. It's too confusing because there just seems to be too many rules who will be allowed to be in this new system. A system that has never existed other than in theory only. And when it is implemented or an attempt at implementation, the results are always the same no matter what -ism is chosen to describe it. People die. So you are correct in that it is about people - dead people and that has been proven time and time again throughout history. It's just not something I want to be involved in, but thanks for your thoughts on the subject. I was curious where you were coming from. I have one more question, though... what is the hidden agenda of Fox News? I see so many people saying they have a hidden agenda, but the agenda is never actually stated. Thanks.

I refuse to dignify the quoted passage with a response.

With all due respect, I charge that it is abundantly clear that you have no real interest in even providing a non-patronizing response; I would reconsider if a proper response was forthcoming. And that, for your information, IS the hidden agenda of Fox News. You disagree with them, you are patronized and bullied into phony agreement. I'll not have that, thank you very much.

[Alex]

I`ve always thought Fox`s agenda was pretty loud and clear. Parrot the Republican party line, dismiss moderate centrists as radical communists, and line Rupert Murdoch`s pockets.

[SMiLE Brian]

I`ve always thought Fox`s agenda was pretty loud and clear. Parrot the Republican party line, dismiss moderate centrists as radical communists, and line Rupert Murdoch`s pockets.

Welcome to my world as a moderate centrist dealing with my fox-brainwashed family and extended family.

[Dunderhead]

It's really too bad, I think fox news deserves better than it gets. That's not to say they're good, but they're just the same as all punditry from the left, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart etc. "Moderate Centrist" doesn't mean much, there's been a trend in recent years with people like Jon Stewart basically wanting to paint their own leftist opinions as being "moderate", making those on the so-called "right" nothing more than lunatics. Really democrats and republicans are the same. The voters, the pawns, think that they're representing different positions, but all the politicians from either party are more or less identical. "Democracy" in the United States is nothing more than a delusion. They're all in the same bag as far as I'm concerned, they all want more government, the only difference is what special interests they favor.

[Mike's Beard]

Pretty much. The only question on voting day is do you go for the evil party or the really evil party.

[Jason]

It's really too bad, I think fox news deserves better than it gets. That's not to say they're good, but they're just the same as all punditry from the left, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart etc. "Moderate Centrist" doesn't mean much, there's been a trend in recent years with people like Jon Stewart basically wanting to paint their own leftist opinions as being "moderate", making those on the so-called "right" nothing more than lunatics. Really democrats and republicans are the same. The voters, the pawns, think that they're representing different positions, but all the politicians from either party are more or less identical. "Democracy" in the United States is nothing more than a delusion. They're all in the same bag as far as I'm concerned, they all want more government, the only difference is what special interests they favor.

Agreed; the liberal media is just as bad.

[hypehat]

Lumping Jon Stewart in there is grasping, surely? Does anyone actually watch The Daily Show for the politics of the thing? It'd be like saying Have I Got News For You is serious journalism in Britain.

The whole 'more government' phobia america has is really insane. Sure, maybe it might be justfied if you already had things like a universal healthcare system that the bureaucrats in DC could run amok with. Can someone phrase it better for me? All I hear is people claiming that they want 'less'  government. The cynic in me translates that as less taxes, selfish gits.

[OBLiO]

To Thought Police:
That bit was in response to this:  "greedy white American conservative penguins actually read a book (quite a daunting undertaking for Americans in general), the true definition of the word "libertarian" would strike fear in their hearts." ...and that statement actually illustrated my point regarding the targeting of a specific group or stereotype. You must admit, it is a bit of a harsh generalization. What is the proper response? Is there one?

Just so I have it straight... Rupert Murdoch is lining his pockets by using his news station to brainwash people using patronizing and bullying tactics to coerce people into phony agreements. Brainwashing techniques include parroting Republican talking points and dismissing moderate centrists as radical communists. .... Seriously? Think about that for a second. Deep down inside, do you really believe this?

Agreed all media could do a better job at remaining neutral.
Agreed the party system has become a distraction. The whole left vs. right thing takes attention away from the subject matter.

Also, Sgt Smile pointed out that free market is the natural order of things. Agreed.

John Stewart is a comedian. I liked the Daily Show with Craig Kilborn. The show was hilarious. The show now is just about John Stewart and his cheerleaders. Bill Maher is the same thing. It's Bill Maher and his cheerleaders. It just isn't very funny to me.

Less Government = productive happy lives. The US government was set-up with a basic set of rules. Like a message board. You have a community. A set of basic rules to determine etiquette. Moderators to govern. The Constitution starts out with "We the People..." not sure how much more social you can get than that.
 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Socialism and fascism go hand in hand. The United States today isn't really very capitalist, we have corporatism or social-fascism or whatever you want to call it. Of course we don't have genocide in the United States, so we aren't "Nazi"s per-say, but the United States is about a conglomeration of power, collusion between the State and Corporations. That same relationship was at the heart of the rise of European fascism, and the business leaders in Germany and Italy were very pleased at the time when over the rise of corporate-fascism. Oblio is perfectly right to point out that the Nazi's were National Socialists, because that's exactly what they were, they were socialists thru and thru.

No they weren't. Socialism means that proletariat have control of the means of production - period. In absolutely NO WAY was that the case in Nazi Germany. So to say that the Nazis "were socialists thru and thru" is either being purposefully disingenuous or incredibly ignorant in regards to both economics and politics. The fact that you are simply stopping short at looking only at the name of the party rather than the party's actions (which is a true measure of what someone is politically - we can call ourselves anything we'd like, but it what we do that actually determines our place on the political spectrum) speaks volumes. There were lots of reasons why the Nazi party came be named what it was - and none of those reasons had to do with Hitler's desire to hand the means of production over to labor. Hitler, in fact, disagreed with the title and then continued to use the name as it later became fashionable in the post-Depression era to associate one's self with labor.

When someone says that the United States is socialist, most liberals will be angry at that assertion, mostly because it's very fashionable to blame all our woes on "capitalism", but in reality we are farther on the spectrum towards socialism/corporatism than we are free market capitalism.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. First of all - to conflate socialialism and corporatism as you have done here is a prime example that you don't seem to know what socialism is at all. The very structure that a corporation depends on to exist is entirely opposite to socialist aims. In that sense, the statement that "we are farther on the specturm towards socialism/corporatism" is so bizarrely confused and entirely impossible in the realm of reality that it is, in fact, impossible to deal with it. You might as well try aguing for the existence of invisible fairies that swirl around our heads that only you can see - it's about as meaningful.

Government policy is what has so badly affected the housing markets and post-secondary education system. Liberals rarely recognize the link though, which is unfortunate. The federal government pumps money into the system, they say "everyone has a right to own a home" so they guarantee loans and give out gobs on money to banks for that purpose. Of course these programs are specifically designed to increase demand for housing, that's really their goal. What happens when demand goes up for a good and supply stays the same? Price goes up. And then you have the housing bubble forming right before your eyes. The government knew what banks were doing, and that's exactly what they wanted, and then when things broke down everyone points the finger at the banks, but it was really the fault of government policy. The same thing has been happening in health care and the college industry. That's socialism, and who benefits the most? The corporations. Who gets stuck with the bill? The people.

Again, you don't know what socialism is - and that undermines everything that you say as a consequence.

That's just my 2 cents, my formal education is in Econ, so I thought I'd chime in.

I think you need to go back for a tune-up.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I don't really believe in the endless little pedantic attempts to differentiate political philosophies

Given what you've said on this board, what you really mean is that you don't believe in considering what actual political philosophies mean because that gets in the way of your tragically reductive worldview and your ability to concoct political situations that don't actually exist.

In reality there are only two real philosophies when it comes to government, a government with more control or with less control.

According to who? You? Thanks, but I'm not going to take your word for it.

When you have a government with less control, you can make up all different names for it, anarcho-socialism or whatever

Yeah, or whatever. A government "with less control" could never be called anarcho-socialism, which a quick look in an encyclopedia would tell you.

but it would likely just be capitalist.

Speculative.

Capitalism has been going on for thousands of years,

No it hasn't.

it's a very neutral process that represents more or less the natural state of things.

Which explains why it has been violently forced on just about every society where it exists. Right?  

Socialism with Government is no good,

Meaningless value judgement.

and Socialism without Government would just end up being free-market capitalism in practice,

Speculative.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Agreed all media could do a better job at remaining neutral.

What does that even mean? How does one "remain neutral"?

Agreed the party system has become a distraction. The whole left vs. right thing takes attention away from the subject matter.

The left has been utterly disenfranchised in the United States. In fact, it is an illegitimate political position to take.

Also, Sgt Smile pointed out that free market is the natural order of things. Agreed.

So once again, explain why it has been violently forced on just about every culture that has it.

Less Government = productive happy lives.

That's interesting, because you can have less government on the far left - in fact, that's really the only place where you can have no government at all, in the usual sense.

The US government was set-up with a basic set of rules. Like a message board. You have a community. A set of basic rules to determine etiquette. Moderators to govern. The Constitution starts out with "We the People..." not sure how much more social you can get than that.

Except that even then only certain people constitued "people" in the eyes of the founding fathers.

[Dunderhead]

Two words, anger management.

[hypehat]

I'm afraid we fundamentally disagree on a lot, my roundheaded chum. But you can never win an argument about politics, but what the hell.

I can't believe you can look at the sheer economic shithole America is barely creeping out of and tell me that not only is the free market right, it is 'the natural order of things'. It may be natural, but it is fundamentally unfair to huge swathes of the population. Bank bonuses in face of recession. Government conceding to Wall Street or The City in spite of their sheer stupidity in trading. Then they tell us normal folk to be austere (Twas the line of the British govt not so long ago). I mean, yeah that's nice. How can you say that's the point of government - bending spinelessly to monied interests who are only looking after profit lines?

(I know, I know. This is all getting a little rhetorical)

Am curious. What do you do for a living, Oblio? Or indeed, Sgt Smile? Myself, I'm a student, in spirit of full disclosure. Disgustingly middle class, btw.

How in the absolute hell does less of a government equate to a happier life?! Do less benefits equate to happier lives? Does your lack of a healthcare system equate to a happier life? Do less taxes- Oh wait, see your point.

I do think Americans lack a real sense of social responsibility in that regard. I'm happy to pay taxes even off my meagre wage packet (and I know the government gives me student loan - it just about covers rent and books, btw) - It pays for my grandmas rest home, my cousins jobs in education, my sisters school, my mums medication, the police (who you kinda appreciate in South London, despite it all), and benefits for those who need them. I don't think anyone of those is mooching off my hard work. It just seems really self centred and tight-fisted.