Was Gene Roddenberry a Marxist/Socialist? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15038695
Truth To Power wrote:
As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"



Not at all.

You are afraid of social programs. But the reality is that all modern economies are a mix of private and public.

And the reality in the West is that countries with those strong social programs, like a good education, do better in a lot of ways. For example, they get good health care to more people for a lot less money. Their education gives them an economic advantage. During the crash, a decade ago, those programs helped those countries get through the downturn.

IOW, your schtick is meaningless. The real question is what sorts of programs would work best for this country.
#15038742
Truth To Power wrote:They do. Google "University of Minnesota Twins Study" and start reading.

The "University of Minnesota Twins Study" was conducted under a society that conditioned cultural and psychological capitalism. This study was done in the United States, which is a highly capitalist country. This study was done years after the Second World War, this is when the United States purposefully set up its infrastructures, privately, and publicly, to psychologically and subconsciously raise and condition children to hate socialism. Since the Second World War, the United States set up itself like that to prevent their population from having any socialist support, any gain of real consciousness, and having support for the rivaling Soviet Union.

Many adopted children in the United States - American born/nationality, or non-American born/national origin, that have been born since the 1950's, have capitalist politics because of how the States set itself up for to prevent their populace from gaining socialist support. If this "Minnesota Twin Study" was conducted in a socialist, or pro socialist country like the DDR, then the results would of been different.
No, it was caused by implementing socialism.

Socialism cannot be implemented from a non socialist population. In order for pure socialism to be implemented, its implementers must be socialists.
Garbage. The socialist state exercised absolute control over them.

This is because the Chinese population was a very strict, patriarchal society that had strict following standards. The only way to have the Chinese people to support socialism at this more strict, patriarchal time, is to have more psychological control, because that was the only way to lead the majority of the Chinese people. Many of the people there did not care about politics. They only cared about their families, religions, communities, and social drama. They were also even MORE controlled BEFORE Maoist socialism, with the older Chinese dynasties. People were even more controlled with forced marriages, severe patriarchy, and the extreme control from the oppressive family institutions.
You mean they weren't delusional socialist know-nothings.

This is an opinionated statement about socialists. It is like claiming that Objectivists are delusional anti socialist "know-nothings."
That is an absurd and delusional load of ahistorical nonsense.

You are not willing to explain how or why in your opinion, my example is "ahistorical nonsense."
It can and does. There are no counter-examples.

There are counter examples:

- Before the DDR joined Western Deutschland, women had more rights. It was less concerning because women mostly did not have to worry about relying on a husband or his involved family. Divorces were easier and quicker to get and obtain. There was less stress about paying bills. There was less crime. It was cleaner - No graffiti, no hyper sexual culture, no gangster related symbolism. The Trabant automobiles were first made in 1957. When it was first produced, its simple design was advanced compared to many other common cars. It was among the first mass produced car to be made out of recycled material. And its design was so advanced, that Trabant cars had a similar design until the enterprise ceased to exist in the early 1990's!

- The Soviet Union launched the first spacecraft into outer space - The Sputnik, in 1957. They had the first human to get into outer space - Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin, in April 1961. They had the first Woman in outer space - Valentina Tereshkova, in June 1963. Women had more liberation. Women fought in the military during the Second World War. Women were more independent. The Soviet Union also had more alcohol than many capitalist nations. By the late 1970's, some elements of the education in the Soviet Union were more advanced than the United States. The Soviet Union also had a very large army, full of lots of tanks and aircraft (MiG 21 was the most mass produced jet as of 2019) that they exchanged and donated to various nations around the world.

- Yugoslavia was one of the most stable modern states in the Balkans during the 20th century. There were many western cars. Their people were bigger, fatter, and ate a lot of food. Some people I have talked to on the internet that are from Yugoslavia, and had parents or grandparents who lived there from the 1940's-1970's, told me that they had free houses, nice free apartments, easy to get Western cars, and easy good credited occupations.

- The Pyramid of Tirana, which was completed in 1988, as to date, Is the MOST EXPENSIVE and Valuable structure in Albania. It was built to be dedicated to Enver Hoxha.

- Poland was a very nice industrial country that had parts to it that are more luxurious than Switzerland. When Poland turned to capitalism by the end of the 20th century, capitalism destroyed Poland for decades.
Nope. Objectivism is not a system of ownership. Socialism is.

Objectivism is a system of ownership because Objectivism believes in private property, currency, and the concepts of debt and value.
<yawn>

Claiming that something you do not support is "mismanagement" has no political, nor scientific context.
I.e., being rational and informed human beings, and not naked mole rats.

People supporting arranged or even forced marriages (Muslim parts of Russia, Bosnia), people loving money, people believing in the family institution, people supporting manipulative religion, and people supporting oppressive social constructs like hyper masculinity for men, or submission for women, is NOT "rational" nor "informed."
#15038925
late wrote:Not at all.

Wrong.
You are afraid of social programs.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Try not to make a fool of yourself. I'm Canadian.
But the reality is that all modern economies are a mix of private and public.

That is completely irrelevant to the definition of socialism.
And the reality in the West is that countries with those strong social programs, like a good education, do better in a lot of ways. For example, they get good health care to more people for a lot less money. Their education gives them an economic advantage. During the crash, a decade ago, those programs helped those countries get through the downturn.

How does that alter the definition of socialism?
IOW, your schtick is meaningless.

Misusing words is meaningless.
The real question is what sorts of programs would work best for this country.

That's just one real question. But we can't discuss real questions if we can't agree on what words mean.
#15038962
Truth To Power wrote:
But we can't discuss real questions if we can't agree on what words mean.



In this country, when someone says socialism, it's code for communism.

The reason I think you are doing that is simple enough, there are no old school socialist countries. Russian and China have markets. NK is the only candidate, and as I said before, they get called communist, although the accuracy of that is also dubious.

Which brings us back around to the beginning, if you're not lost in an obsolete fantasy, what are you banging on about???
#15038974
Complete cobblers. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah

Face facts; Capitalism caused those wars, they're inseperable from the root cause and you should compare things accurately; not just in peacetime.

Then again, you already knew that..so my whole post, as yours, was a waste of time.
#15038982
late wrote:In this country, when someone says socialism, it's code for communism.

I prefer to use words correctly.
The reason I think you are doing that is simple enough, there are no old school socialist countries.

In North Korea, Cuba and Laos the majority of land and capital are collectively owned.
Russian and China have markets.

Russia is capitalist (they privatized pretty much everything in the 90s); China is closer to geoist (private ownership of capital, public ownership of land and other natural resources).
NK is the only candidate, and as I said before, they get called communist, although the accuracy of that is also dubious.

NK is socialist.
Which brings us back around to the beginning, if you're not lost in an obsolete fantasy, what are you banging on about???

The characteristics and relative merits of different economic systems.
#15039008
Truth To Power wrote:
I prefer to use words correctly.

NK is socialist.



Most call Denmark socialist and NK either totalitarian or communist (or both). This is hardly new, the Right has been trying to have it both ways for generations.

Which could be another branch of the discussion. There has never been communism the way Marx envisioned it. You either get a dictator like Stalin, or rule by bureaucrats like the Politburo. Which is to say calling a country communist is irony raised to a level close to schizophrenia.

As previously noted, usage determines meaning.
#15039362
Truth To Power wrote:
Most of whom? American conservatives? I doubt that most Danes do.

It is totalitarian socialist, not communist.



I have watched the American right call Denmark (and other, similar countries) socialist my entire life. I am 68...

Now that they've been called on their BS, suddenly it's not Socialist.
#15040115
late wrote:I have watched the American right call Denmark (and other, similar countries) socialist my entire life. I am 68...

So what? I have watched ninnies call Biblical creationism "science" my entire life. That doesn't mean they are right.
Now that they've been called on their BS, suddenly it's not Socialist.

It was never socialist.
#15040128
late wrote:I have watched the American right call Denmark (and other, similar countries) socialist my entire life. I am 68...

Now that they've been called on their BS, suddenly it's not Socialist.

Suddenly you believe the propaganda of American libertarians? How very selective you are in your credulity.

Denmark is a hybrid of free-market liberalism and national Keynesianism, just like many European countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark
#15040131
SolarCross wrote:
Suddenly you believe the propaganda of American libertarians? How very selective you are in your credulity.



Sigh.

It has been called that, in a lot of the popular press for most of my life, not just the delusional.

You might have asked what I think, since clearly your analytic powers have limits.
#15040159
late wrote:Sigh.

It has been called that, in a lot of the popular press for most of my life, not just the delusional.

You might have asked what I think, since clearly your analytic powers have limits.

Everybody's analytical powers have limits...

Okay, so what do you think?
#15040188
SolarCross wrote:
Everybody's analytical powers have limits...

Okay, so what do you think?



True, that.

As I see it, the word is corrupted and useless. The original meaning is the state owns the means of production, now it just means robust social programs.

We have a better language now for the first meaning, dictator, autocracy (not a word I am fond of) or despotism.

I feel the same way about communism. No system yet devised is capable of creating a communist state. What you wind up with is one of the versions described above.

I knew a guy that had an interest in it, who thought it was possible. I didn't pursue the thought, and he has since died.

But I have thinking about that sort of thing lately. The pressure Trump has applied has degraded and deformed institutions I thought were solid as rock.

I have no answers, but that's a hell of a nasty problem.
#15040196
late wrote:True, that.

As I see it, the word is corrupted and useless. The original meaning is the state owns the means of production, now it just means robust social programs.

We have a better language now for the first meaning, dictator, autocracy (not a word I am fond of) or despotism.

I feel the same way about communism. No system yet devised is capable of creating a communist state. What you wind up with is one of the versions described above.

I knew a guy that had an interest in it, who thought it was possible. I didn't pursue the thought, and he has since died.

But I have thinking about that sort of thing lately. The pressure Trump has applied has degraded and deformed institutions I thought were solid as rock.

I have no answers, but that's a hell of a nasty problem.

I am not sure "state ownership" was quite the original meaning of the word. I think the original socialists were more or less (left) anarchists. The "state ownership" thing was started by Marx, I think.
#15041294
Truth To Power wrote:Irrelevant. If it's not forcible, it's not slavery.

We will continue this discussion in this forum, since its topic is changing directions.

The definition of slavery according to non socialist online English Wikipedia is:

"Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property."

If a human is owned by another human, they are a slave, whether it is forced or not. It being forced or not has nothing to do with the definition of slavery, thus making your statement useless.

"In other areas, slavery (or unfree labour) continues through practices such as debt bondage, the most widespread form of slavery today, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children are forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage."

Debt bondage is a form of slavery. It is the most widespread form of slavery in the 21st century.
So what?

If a slave who supported slavery to their heart fought for slavery on a pro slavery side of a war, it is not forced for them to be a slave, since they support it and they volunteer to support it. This is because they lack real consciousness.
And your point would be....?

Religions tend to manipulate people into supporting slavery, especially Islam and the Roman Catholic Church. Since many religious pro slavery slaves were into religion - They used religion to motivate them into supporting slavery without the need of any force.
No force, no slavery.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sklaverei
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Bonded_labour
#15042516
SSDR wrote:The definition of slavery according to non socialist online English Wikipedia is:

"Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property."

That's chattel slavery; there are other forms of slavery such as penal slavery in which people are forced to work but are not property. There are also forms of slavery that are not de jure, such as forcible sex work. So that definition is inaccurate.
If a human is owned by another human, they are a slave, whether it is forced or not. It being forced or not has nothing to do with the definition of slavery, thus making your statement useless.

False. If we look at how the word is actually used, it is clear that the definition you cite is wrong.
"In other areas, slavery (or[i] unfree labour) continues through practices such as debt bondage, the most widespread form of slavery today, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children are forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.[/i]"

Forced to work. Not just work. FORCED marriage. Not just marriage.

GET IT??
Debt bondage is a form of slavery. It is the most widespread form of slavery in the 21st century.

Bondage implies force.
#15042519
SolarCross wrote:I am not sure "state ownership" was quite the original meaning of the word. I think the original socialists were more or less (left) anarchists.


State ownership is not socialism, it's oligarchical collectivism.

"The new class is used to describe the privileged ruling class of bureaucrats and Party functionaries which arose under state socialism. Generally, the group known in the Soviet Union as the nomenklatura conforms to the theory of the new class.

the new class' specific relationship to the means of production was one of collective political control, and that the new class' property form was political control. The new class not only seeks expanded material reproduction to politically justify its existence to the working class, but it also seeks expanded reproduction of political control as a form of property in itself. This can be compared to the capitalist who seeks expanded value through increased sharemarket values, even though the sharemarket itself does not necessarily reflect an increase in the value of commodities produced."
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

I am not inclined to debate someone on a yellow c[…]

Ukrainegate

Because she doesn't have to, Congress has Constit[…]

@Truth To Power Either sunspot activity is co[…]

"There are only a limited number of concepts […]