: : And you excuse me too friend, I can understand your views when all you get is this irrational impassioned rage but dont go of generalising and stamping us all. This isnt an elaborate show, I genuinely think that this guys statist and institutionalising thought is out of sink with empathic humanism, which is the heart and soul of socialism.: CP Lark you are referring to what comrade Marcos wrote not me.
No this is a reply to you CP I think your lumping together socialism with murderous fanaticism or statism is indicative of a lack of any empathy for your ideological opponent and as a result irrational. I have come to appreciate that you convince no one of your position if you start from a stand point that their position is totally invalid and only a numbskull or madman would adopt it, that is, as opposed to considering their position valid, even with good points (Gee and I are in aggreement in our rejection of bloated governmentalism and the rule of corporates) but that your position is better.
I have then went on to try and make clear how you can not continue generalising in this fashion because low and behold their are people of opinion like me, even if I am the exception not the rule.
: : What? Look what your doing "scientist" your giving ammunition to the capitalist generalisers.
: CP: Lark Marcos thinks he is the scientist, again I think your confused as to who wrote what.
Well, I have responded to you both in the course of this post.
: : :Socialism means giving up your individuality and any personal property. To Pol Pot this meant even tooth brushes. How would you feel about that?
: : I wouldnt be on for it at all but then I'm not that sort of socialist, come on there are many versions of capitalism too and some of them involve state, party and loss of individuality what about
: facism?
: CP: Facism is not free market capitalism. Socialism in each national "experiment" has degenerated into a loss of private property, freedom and in some cases millions of lives, and an economy in complete shambles. Quite a track record
Facism is not FMC, I know that and I wasnt trying to suggest that but it is none the less a version of capitalism not socialism. If we where to consider the national experiments in Free Market Capitalism they would not have faired well by your judgement either friend consider pinochet but aside from that what you say is of such truth, I would have fought such machinations in the name of socialism alongside capitalists such as yourself.
: : :Using a state owned tooth brush, how many would you have to share it with? You wouldn't decide, the state would of course and it migh be someone like the character who posted the above message and as he says "come the revolution you will learn".
: : Now everyone sees me a socialist in disagreement with the "you will learn" material.
: CP: How will you take private property from its owners? All socialists despise private property in one form or another.
Really? Consider the Socialist John Stuart Mill who suggested that socialism built from the ground up and subverting the profoundly unliberal competition that had materalised (I dont consider any of the classical liberals, with the possible exception of Herbert Spencer, where "bad" for championing competition, they considered it to be done my socially disposed, co-operative individuals competiting in prices to do thier community a service) would be the best means of organising property.
This isnt a clever move at historical revisionism either I read all this in the some university press book call on political economy with chapters on socialism. Mill's wife was more of a socialist than he was but his libertarianism and her socialism make for a motoely socialism i can appreciate.
This anti-property argument thing is severly dated in my opinion but the absolute sanctity of property, EG Land owners depriving rabblers of freedom of movement or assembly or a power plant filling the air with poisonous smoke freely, now that truely is worthy of an attack.
: : : It is not hard to see why socialist governments have been the most murderous, form of totalitarian govenment we have seen this century.
: : Irony, I see we're learning.
: CP: Good i am glad you are not trying to defend socialisms vicious past.
Why would I do that it would be insane, like you trying to justify pinochet style violence against anti-capitalist dissent or shell's funnelling of money to dictatorships in Nigeria or Coca-cola hiring mercenary governments to assasinate trade unionists (all of which is current events check it out with with Amnesty International if I am a dubious source).
I might contest though that these horrors where actually socialism me thinks it was regimes trying to bag the moral "capital" associated with the terminology.
: No Mcsputnik I am indicting your entire school of thought by its long disastrous history of implementation. Why don't you come off your elitist ivory tower and admit that socialism and communism should relegated to the dustbin of history before it costs millions of more lives.
Interesting here you call socialists and anarchists (for that is what McSpotlight is an aggregate of) to attack institutionalism, eliteism, authoritarian totalitarianism and empathise with the victims of oppression I believed this to be socialism not the opposite.
: "A loss of one life is a tradgedy, a loss of many is a statistic."
: -Lenin (responsible for 50,000,000 murders of his own countrymen.) Which I suppose is a lesser sin than making Big Macs in your eyes.
I might answer for McSpotlight and say definitely not Lenin isnt popular around here either as the traitor who rebuilt tsarism after the collapse of the enthusiasim of the workers synidcates and local government style committees or as an opportunist who made treat with state power.
None.
