: The Weimar Republic (heavy social programs) lead to Hitler. Marxism led to Stalin. Marxism led to Mao. Aren't these examples of wrong-headedness?
Yes, me a socialist is agreeing with you here, I've surfed to the neo-liberal sites and I've seen the SECONDARY SOURCES of PROPAGANDA which suggest that all these extremes of left and right wing ideology are synominous and that they are synominous with all socialism if this is the case why would I continually reassert civil libertarianism?
: I understand that there are other forms of Socialism that lefties love to point to as 'sucessful', like Sweden.
OK other people, "lefties" as you continue to refer to them are people the same as you and their opinions are as legitimate as yours and due respect, continually dehumanising them in this hostile manner is very intolerant and not conducive to free politics and tolerant democracy.
: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.
They are employing their natural resources for the collective good yes.
:Besides building some mighty fine weapons systems, a strange enterprize for 'humanists' to engage in.
Why? Liberals of the Gee and Frenchy school also view weapons production or similar demand stimulated production as not in contradiction to the humanism of the enlightenment liberal project.
I'm not saying it's right just that it happens.
: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.
Yes but I think you'll find that while you are suggesting that this is a nationalist and racist policy it is in reality a way of preventing welfare tourism. These insinuations, misrepresentations and accusations are not serving to forward the debate at all.
: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.
That is because as I've stated the Socialists arent trying to exercise a racial preference in immigration, just all immigration all together which is going to be counterproductive, which is fine it deprives racists of playing immigration cards at election time.
: Isn't that wrong-headed?
Racism? Yes Racism is always 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.
Yes bad management of socially beneficial initiatives can result in bad results but when they are implemented in such a half hearted and cynical manner as I'm lead to beleive by the very tone of your post it's not going to be very successful now is it?
: 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?
Well dependence upon the government or low paying employers is equally bad in my opinion, I'll bet you have the impression that socialists are keen on dependency that's not the case, whether it's the state or the market.
: 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?
Well I would suggest you do read them, it could be enlightening, I'm essentially a democratic socialist I used to support a really nasty varient of powerful centralised authority until one day I decided that I would read some anarchist socialist books, like Chomsky, becuase I just couldnt fathom how anyone could support such a view, the accounts where quite reasonable and persuasive.
They do advocate the things you mentioned why? Do you think that makes say Marx the State socialist prone to authoritarianism and idealisor of centralism synominous with Bakunin the anarchist collectivist?
: 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?
As I've stated the left arent organising Militias across America or bombing abortion clinics or ATF buildings. I'll bet the 'forcing' of bussing (you mean a bus service?) wasnt as terrible as those incendents I've mentioned, was it genuinely socialists or liberals? Violence is a dead argument the left wing bogey men have no monopoly upon the use of force and the only reason you could be employing it is to deploy an irrational and emotive hatred for socialism.
: 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?
It depends what is done with the money raised through taxation, if it's wasted paying politicians or the militery or NASA or some shit or used to provide employment.
: 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.
I didnt castigate you did I? However I would suggest that where ever people are successful, especially in a class polarised society like america, it is at anothers expense, until redistribution and effective organisation of the economy takes place things are going to remain like this.
: : 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?
These people, the socialist to which you commonly refer and associate with all socialism are religious in their adoration of Stalin etc. insults or questions as to these leaders integraty are like slanders on the virgin mary to a catholic.As a result I would suggest that they remove themselves from the political sphere, worship in peace and provide no excuse for slander on other civil libertarian and genuine socialists.
: Sounds reasonable to me. I will engage in pointed questioning though.
Fine, question at will but dont slander with accusations of violence, generalisations of you believe this, this happened in Russia you all want this etc. it is highly offensive and reactionary. I mean dont you want me to support your position or be 'converted' to your way of thinking rather than merely attack or react to my statements because they're there?
: : : 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'?