The Problem I have with Conservatives - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15118192
Godstud wrote:
:lol: Wow.




Communism vs. Socialism
In a way, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Many countries have dominant socialist political parties but very few are truly communist. In fact, most countries - including staunch capitalist bastions like the U.S. and U.K. - have government programs that borrow from socialist principles. "Socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism" but the two philosophies have some stark differences. Most notably, while communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism




Capitalism, Socialism and Communism
Most people have only a vague understanding of the differences between communism and socialism and, incorrectly, these two terms are often used interchangeably. Marx and Engels in their critique of capitalism pointed out that ruthless competition and heartless pursuit of money are immoral as they create exploitation of the masses by the very few privileged ones. As an alternative, they envisioned a classless society, without hierarchy, without currency, without personal property, where people would work in harmony, resolve their problems in friendly discussions, produce enough goods and services, and where each would contribute according to his abilities and receive according to his needs. This community-centered form of social order is called communism.

In the classic view of communism, a communist society was the ultimate goal and destination for humankind. Followers of classic communism realized that it would be impossible to switch to communism directly from a capitalistic system they deemed immoral.



They believed that society needed time for transition. During that transition, called socialism, the representatives of people should be in charge of the means of production, and guide the society toward communism.



Being a revolutionary leftist, I'd like to *clarify* one part here -- it would be representatives of *workers*, *specifically*, and not 'people' in general, in charge of the means of mass industrial production since it's the *workers* who are doing the work.

This is the orthodox treatment. (I prefer a 'communist gift economy' structure myself.)



In a soviet democracy, voters are organized in basic units, for example the workers of a company, the inhabitants of a district, or the soldiers of a barracks. They directly send the delegates as public functionaries, which act as legislators, government and courts in one. In contrast to earlier democracy models according to Locke and Montesquieu, there is no separation of powers.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy



---



This was the essence of the very existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They had their Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but the longer they were in power, the less they talked about transition to communism. In China, their communist party ended up leading the transition to capitalism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/henryk-a- ... 23486.html



In each respective country, the system was *Stalinism* / *Maoism*, by that point, and not workers-of-the-world socialism.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Truth To Power wrote:
:roll: Seriously, Godstud?? The context of my post makes it clear I meant socialists and communists are the same AS conservatives in their unwillingness to compromise -- or, for that matter, to know facts that prove their beliefs are false.

< irrelevancies snipped >



The revolutionary leftist 'unwillingness to compromise' is for *technical* reasons, ultimately, because the economic systems of capitalism and workers-of-the-world socialism are *mutually contradictory* -- either economics is done according to *exchange values* (capitalism), or else it's done according to *use values* (socialism), with intentional conscious decision-making over what goes where, and why.


Trajan wrote:
The problem I have with conservatism is the realization that it advocate tough love and so will never be popular with the masses, who want things like blood, sex and bread.



Oh. I thought you said 'bloody sex, and bread'.


= )


Random American wrote:
The main problem with modern day conservatives in my view is they're too kleptocratic and seem to only care about protecting corporate power and influence.



Their touchstone is the bourgeois American Revolution, and they see those emergent conditions -- including the use of slave labor -- as being *acceptable*, along with what grew out of it, which already existed in Britain's empire -- *corporations*.

It's *ironic* that the original American revolutionaries had *protested* corporate goods-dumping, but today's conservatives are *fine* with corporate monopolies now that they're *American* corporate monopolies. Go figure.



The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act because they believed that it violated their rights as Englishmen to "no taxation without representation", that is, to be taxed only by their own elected representatives and not by a British parliament in which they were not represented. In addition, the well-connected East India Company had been granted competitive advantages over colonial tea importers, who resented the move and feared additional infringement on their business.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
#15118193
Ummon wrote:The problem I have with conservatives is that they don't seem willing to compromise. They cannot be happy with being one among many, but rather must be THE one and if you give them an inch (out of kindness) they will try to take a mile. In other words, they are unreasonable. They seem like bullies, it is "my way or the highway." Often, the worst thing is that they are JUST PLAIN WRONG. In a sense a lot of their reasoning could be understood IF it were correct, but it just seems disconnected from reality a philosophy of words that is meaningless because it doesn't predict accurately.

You just described most people on the right and the left. In other words, most people behave like this.
#15118198
mikema63 wrote:
The problem with political discussions is how readily the devolve into petty bickering and name calling.

What ever happened to the great intellectual discussions people used to have when I joined.



The problem with your political commentary is that it's *stupid*, shithead.


= D
#15137945
Ummon wrote:The problem I have with conservatives is that they don't seem willing to compromise. They cannot be happy with being one among many, but rather must be THE one and if you give them an inch (out of kindness) they will try to take a mile. In other words, they are unreasonable. They seem like bullies, it is "my way or the highway." Often, the worst thing is that they are JUST PLAIN WRONG. In a sense a lot of their reasoning could be understood IF it were correct, but it just seems disconnected from reality a philosophy of words that is meaningless because it doesn't predict accurately.


Conservatives are the king of compromise...When financial interests are involved.
This is why I'm a Nationalist, not a conservative.
#15169819
The problem I have with conservatives is American conservatives aren't conservatives. It's just sad to look how the whole country is busy with deciding who is better: kleptocrats sleeping with oil companies or kleptocrats sleeping with IT giants, the ones who think you should be plundered for medicine through bills and the ones who think you should be plundered for medicine through taxes, a pathetic senile rapist involved in incest or a pathetic senile rapist involved in incest. You see, there are only two colors and your favorite one determines everything about your personality and your position about everything (there's only two possible positions about anything).
#15169901
Ganeshas Rat wrote:The problem I have with conservatives is American conservatives aren't conservatives.

It depends what you (or they) think they are conserving. They aren't 'conservatives' in the British sense, since British conservatives wish to conserve a semi-feudal political system based on inherited class privilege. And they aren't 'conservatives' in the Russian sense, since Russian conservatives usually march through the streets carrying portraits of Josef Stalin. Lol. But in the sense that they are seeking to conserve their own position in American society, then they can indeed be called "conservatives" without any qualms.

It's just sad to look how the whole country is busy with deciding who is better: kleptocrats sleeping with oil companies or kleptocrats sleeping with IT giants, the ones who think you should be plundered for medicine through bills and the ones who think you should be plundered for medicine through taxes, a pathetic senile rapist involved in incest or a pathetic senile rapist involved in incest. You see, there are only two colors and your favorite one determines everything about your personality and your position about everything (there's only two possible positions about anything).

America is a society of hucksters, and always has been. This goes hand in hand with its birth as a radical bourgeois republic which defined itself by rejected feudalism in all its forms, social and economic. As a certain Captain Hamilton, an observer in early 19th century America, put it: "The devout and politically free inhabitant of New England is a kind of Laocoön who makes not the least effort to escape from the serpents which are crushing him. Mammon is his idol which he adores not only with his lips but with the whole force of his body and mind. In his view the world is no more than a Stock Exchange, and he is convinced that he has no other destiny here below than to become richer than his neighbor. Trade has seized upon all his thoughts, and he has no other recreation than to exchange objects. When he travels he carries, so to speak, his goods and his counter on his back and talks only of interest and profit. If he loses sight of his own business for an instant it is only in order to pry into the business of his competitors." Nothing has fundamentally changed since then. Given this fact, it is entirely possible and consistent for an (American) conservative to be an outrageously selfish huckster, out to bilk the people he claims to represent.
#15169937
Ganeshas Rat wrote:You see, there are only two colors and your favorite one determines everything about your personality and your position about everything (there's only two possible positions about anything).

The problem with having a problem with anyone is ably illustrated in your final sentence.

In our current political landscape, as you intimate, everyone can be classified and labeled. The fact that no two individuals will think alike, or hold exactly the same views or values is subordinated to the political expediency of labelling. Potemkin paints a caricature of the American conservative, just as some of the forum's ardent right-wingers will paint a no more complementary caricature of him. Neither is true, but truth has no political capital. How does one motivate one's own 'side' or indeed preserve and strengthen one's own resolve, without recourse to characterising one's enemy as the worst of humanity?

Tribal instinct and confirmation bias at work. :hmm:
#15169966
Cartertonian wrote:The problem with having a problem with anyone is ably illustrated in your final sentence.

In our current political landscape, as you intimate, everyone can be classified and labeled. The fact that no two individuals will think alike, or hold exactly the same views or values is subordinated to the political expediency of labelling. Potemkin paints a caricature of the American conservative, just as some of the forum's ardent right-wingers will paint a no more complementary caricature of him. Neither is true, but truth has no political capital. How does one motivate one's own 'side' or indeed preserve and strengthen one's own resolve, without recourse to characterising one's enemy as the worst of humanity?

Tribal instinct and confirmation bias at work. :hmm:

Two words, @Cartertonian: Donald Trump. :)
#15169990
Potemkin wrote:Two words, @Cartertonian: Donald Trump. :)

As a walking, talking caricature of the worst of humanity? Yeah, I'd say the Orange former Occupant of the Oval Office ticks the boxes! :lol:

Of course, I recognise and acknowledge my own bias on two fronts. How much one is influenced by the other is indeterminate. I am, as you have observed, a moderate...but much as I bemoan the failings of the overly-simplistic left-right spectrum, I'm probably left of the centre-line, so Trump's politics offended me. But I am also a mental health professional and everything I observed of Trump suggested he was a narcissistic psychopath. Babiak and Hare's seminal Snakes in Suits shows how such people are over-represented in business and finance.

But in spite of all that, he's also a hero to an awful lot of people. That doesn't alter my impression of him, but rather serves to illustrate Ganeshas Rat's point further.

Both in the US and the UK, our very political system itself forces us to choose between only two options - as if the world really were divided into two opposing hive-minds and there were no other ideas. We have a choice between muck or nettles, shit or bust, the Devil or the Deep Blue Sea. In my view Biden would never have been elected had it not been for Trump and his ability to further polarise US society. Core vote aside, the floating voters probably asked themselves what the fuck they were doing as they cast a vote for Biden, but at that stage they would have voted for a stuffed moose just to get rid of Trump.
#15170003
@Cartertonian what it means for me? Is that people need to get rid of money influencing political parties. You need a lot of options and all should have the same amount of money. They need to earn the public trust. Take away money and influence that is based on money? You might have a shot at decent politics again.
CRT

"Virtually all school districts insist they […]

June 16, Tuesday By mid-June, more than 200 Un[…]

Uh, no, it wasn't, actually. You need a str[…]

If you actually knew anything about the subject y[…]