: : And I've never read 'Das Kapital'. Big deal.
: : OK, there ya go.
: Fine you are coming to your conclusions about these materials by reading second or third hand sources which may be classified as propaganda. Why dont you read them? If they confirm your prejudices and invented notions then fine what have you to lose?
: : Here's what I do know; no matter how you slice it, dice it, or shread it, the socialist/communist/liberal/green ideals that many of you propose are simply wrong-headed.
: OK it has been said before that you shouldnt lump those categories of political ideals together, the only reason you could be doing this is that you perceive the "Left" as an organised homogenious unit, it isnt and I would appreciate it if you ceased in your allegations to this effect, I mean would you appreciate it if I refered to all opposition to my views as nazi/facist/republican/neo-liberal conservative/capitalist? No I dont think you would.
: Now tell me why it is simply wrong headed, what do you mean by this? Perhaps you have no real reason for hating the left other than a gut feeling or ingrained prejudice or perhaps a sinister empathy with people like the freikorps?
The Weimar Republic (heavy social programs) lead to Hitler. Marxism led to Stalin. Marxism led to Mao. Aren't these examples of wrong-headedness?
I understand that there are other forms of Socialism that lefties love to point to as 'sucessful', like Sweden. But many of those countries are able to provide the sorts of social programs that they do because of revenues from their North Sea oil platforms. Besides building some mighty fine weapons systems, a strange enterprize for 'humanists' to engage in. Not only that, but it turns out that this is a very specific form of socialism; it does not apply to any others except themselves. Immigration is a no-no. This is a policy which keeps their country as white as the driven snow. I personally don't find anything wrong with it, if that's what the people vote for, but if I voice that opinion, I'm invariably linked to David Duke, not to the Socialists of the Nordic countries.
Isn't that wrong-headed?
Here in the States social engineering programs have had devastating effects, particularly by those segments of the population that have bought into them; blacks.
Generations of black families have become totally dependant on Welfare, thanks to a 'benevolent' government and it's social programs.
Isn't that wrong-headed?
As I say, I've never read Bakunin et al. But tell me, do any of these writers advocate 'redistribution'? In any form? Collective ownership? Atheism?
: :The only way they work is when they are forced on people.
: I dont think that's necessarily the case but if you wish to debate force, left wing thought by no means has the monopoly in this field, to such an extent that perhaps it is best to leave allegations of violence aside and discuss the ideologies, views and opinions instead.
Force and Socialism are inseperable. Here in the States bussing was forced on the nation in the name of our own Socialists. What violence has the Right here used to oppose that?
: : Here's my solution, one I've proposed many times; When you see a homeless guy, or someone that is makeing lousy wages and can't support himself according to your standards, take him in, give him your food, share your soap, allow him equal use of your gas range.
: That is fine as far as it goes, admirable even, but I can't perform such acts on a global, national or even more than local scale. Charity is fine but it eventually leads to dependency and then it degrades both parties.
Of course it does, but these are the concerns that are often raised. The unfairness of this economic condition, or the unfairness of that social condition. Isn't the aim to help alleviate those conditions via taxes?
: : Do you guys care about the man, or do you really care about power?
: This is a very sound question citizen, you are perhaps used to dealing with a different calibre of socialist etc. the sort that is more concerned with fousting a monolithic superstructure upon everyone else, the type of person who finds it easier to empathise with institutions, parties, leadership or abstract theories than people.
But look, when I brought up a concrete example of people I know who suceeded in the very system that according to some weren't supposed to suceed, I was roundly castigated for not sticking to abstract theories and instead relying on anecdotal experiences.
: However that view is unpopular in this debate room, the socialists here are of an entirely different calibre altogether, in fact I would recommend that that sort of Zealot find God in some format because what they really want is the domination of reactionary religion.
Not sure about your comments here. Care to clarify?
: I think that you are no doubt sincere and believe that the views about socialism etc. that have been conveyed to you by whoever are correct, I hope that by debating, and I mean debating which requires a relatively open mind and a reluctance to digress to libel or defamation, I can prove to you that we are sincere about our ideas too and dont want to construct a totalitarianism we can empathise with inorder to tyrannise over others.
Sounds reasonable to me. I will engage in pointed questioning though.
: : PS. Was Solzhenitsyn another fraud like David Horowitz? A rabble-rouser who just wanted to get into print?
: I dont know who these people are but right wing literature in my experience has a great tendency towards self-importance, lack of critical empathy and tolerance of difference.
Are you serious? You've never heard of 'The Gulag Archipeligo'?