Bud Struggle
1st December 2008, 21:34
I moved this from Unfair Restrictions--me and Plague have a bit of a discussion here, and I rather not abuse the thread in question. (As a guest here I prefer to obey the house rules.) (Except sometimes on Friday nights when I have a couple of beers get into arguements with Sentinal :rolleyes::lol:)
The rebutals are by Plague:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomK http://www.revleft.com/vb/unfair-restrictions-ii-t87501/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unfair-restrictions-ii-t87501/showthread.php?p=1298381#post1298381)
I see the bail out as essentially a socialist thing--I lost ownership in a bit of Lehman Bros and I got ownership in a bit of other Wall street Firms. AND SO DID EVERYONE ELSE. If you could have seen how tight a community that was and now it's owned by EVERYBODY. That's a change. I think it is the beginning of a trend townard Socialism--it ISN'T something written about in Das Kapital--but from the inside world of private money--it was a HUGE step.
Funny, I have yet to see any cash or stocks. I must have done something wrong.
:
So that's the "Social" part.
The burden of those losses being on my child's head when he gets older?
And one of the bigger failings of Communism/Marxism is not to see the trend toward Democracy--and I know it's not perfect by a longshot but it has become the definive STANDARD in the real world over who is "free" and who is "not." Marxism was foolish--even for only propaganda terms, to turn it's back on democracy.]
Marxism never turned its back on democracy. Leninism perhaps, but not Marxism.
So, from all that I get Social Democracy. I don't have your "faith" in Marx or the proletariat or anyone else.
You seem to confuse my understanding of sociology and rejection of non- teleological structural functionalism as faith. Marxism is a foundation and not a blueprint (but then, I /facepalm'd on the last thread where you and JimmyJazz rejected the notion of social sciences)[/quote]
What I see is a "new" "improved" brand of Social Democracy on the move--all top down.
Social Democracy will not be a historical end-game. I give it a few more years before everything either settles or crumbles and we get our next Ronald Reagan to try and take back whatever tiny breadcrumbs people get handed...well, people in first world countries at least, since Social Dems don't seem to give a damn about anyone but their own.
The rebutals are by Plague:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomK http://www.revleft.com/vb/unfair-restrictions-ii-t87501/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unfair-restrictions-ii-t87501/showthread.php?p=1298381#post1298381)
I see the bail out as essentially a socialist thing--I lost ownership in a bit of Lehman Bros and I got ownership in a bit of other Wall street Firms. AND SO DID EVERYONE ELSE. If you could have seen how tight a community that was and now it's owned by EVERYBODY. That's a change. I think it is the beginning of a trend townard Socialism--it ISN'T something written about in Das Kapital--but from the inside world of private money--it was a HUGE step.
Funny, I have yet to see any cash or stocks. I must have done something wrong.
:
So that's the "Social" part.
The burden of those losses being on my child's head when he gets older?
And one of the bigger failings of Communism/Marxism is not to see the trend toward Democracy--and I know it's not perfect by a longshot but it has become the definive STANDARD in the real world over who is "free" and who is "not." Marxism was foolish--even for only propaganda terms, to turn it's back on democracy.]
Marxism never turned its back on democracy. Leninism perhaps, but not Marxism.
So, from all that I get Social Democracy. I don't have your "faith" in Marx or the proletariat or anyone else.
You seem to confuse my understanding of sociology and rejection of non- teleological structural functionalism as faith. Marxism is a foundation and not a blueprint (but then, I /facepalm'd on the last thread where you and JimmyJazz rejected the notion of social sciences)[/quote]
What I see is a "new" "improved" brand of Social Democracy on the move--all top down.
Social Democracy will not be a historical end-game. I give it a few more years before everything either settles or crumbles and we get our next Ronald Reagan to try and take back whatever tiny breadcrumbs people get handed...well, people in first world countries at least, since Social Dems don't seem to give a damn about anyone but their own.