The problem with ideologies

[John V]

I think and perhaps I’ll attract criticism here, but generally many Americans have a harder time understanding practicalities than Europeans because they’ve never seen the results of theories that sound nice put into practice. Communism, Nazism, Socialism, Fascism . . . Europe’s had it all and the place is one big graveyard as a result. In the 20th century particularly, Europeans slaughtered each other with ideas they got from the same books the Democrat progressives are getting their ideas from now.


We talk of communism and there follows a series of quotes. “Yes, but what about the dictatorship that follows and the 100’s of millions in mass graves and the concentration camp Gulags . . . ?“ There’s follows a silence and quotes again telling us how wonderful it would be – next time.

Anarchism is the same. Abolish authority with its rules and regulations and it will be replaced by, nothing. Out of nothing, will arise new rules and regulations, which will produce the survival of the fittest. “ No it won’t because it says in a book I read . . . “ Even when presented with examples, there’s still a reluctance to believe. Take the police off the streets of America for one week and see what happens without any authority and rules.

You’ve now got Socialism. Yet what happens when there comes a time that there are more people are on welfare than those paying for them and the government starts to cut back as they are doing across Europe? “We’ll take it off the rich”, they say. Good idea and what happens when they’ve spent it all and there’s no one left to produce more, because those with wealth have run off to other countries taking their wealth that they now pay taxes on with them? The ‘books’ the socialists are reading don’t mention that – they presume and assume, because the ideas, when written, hadn’t yet been put into practice.


Capitalism and the freedom inherent within it produces inequalities, it doesn’t distribute wealth fairly and it doesn’t promise a Utopia. What it does do is allow you to own the computer you’re now on and prevents others from taking it from you. It also prevents you from taking it off others. It feeds you, whether you’re working or on welfare, because it allows you or others to produce a profit to pay for it. It allows you to buy medical care if you work, or provides it free for you if you can’t . . . .

Under Communism someone else will decide how you live. Under Socialism someone else will also decide your quality of life and under Anarchism, no one could care less whether you live or die. A little bit of Socialism then, a lot less rules and regulations and the use of Capitalism to fund it? That's Utopia. :)

[Perianne]

John, your posts are always interesting. It is good to have you here.

[Kipper]

Ted Cruz wanted anarchism in America if he won preis ??! He are actually A anarchists ???

[fj1200]

Ted Cruz wanted anarchism in America if he won preis ??! He are actually A anarchists ???

No.

[Kipper]

In english forum they saying Cruz are conservative anarchist. Are true ??


:salute:

[Kipper]

Cruz are conservative anarchist.


:beer: :beer: :beer:

[fj1200]

^No.

[Kipper]

Yes he are !!

[fj1200]

:dunno:

[Gunny]

Yes he are !!

When did this happen? Cruz is part of the government. Anarchists believe in no government. Care to rectify that?

[jimnyc]

:dunno:

:popcorn:

[Drummond]

When did this happen? Cruz is part of the government. Anarchists believe in no government. Care to rectify that?

Ditto the above comment, to put it mildly ..

Kipper, what form of reasoning led you to such a conclusion ? Please explain.

[Drummond]

In english forum they saying Cruz are conservative anarchist. Are true ??


:salute:

... ah. Just seen this. OK, you're being guided by whatever forum that is ? What is THEIR reasoning, then ?

And maybe more appropriately .. what is their agenda in claiming such a thing ? Are they Left wingers, by any chance, looking for a chance to smear their ideological opposition ?

[danielle]

The fewer rules and regulations that you have, the closer you are to anarchy. North Korea views itself as a "socialist republic."
What the original poster wants is closer to idealism than anything else.

[fj1200]

The fewer rules and regulations that you have, the closer you are to anarchy. North Korea views itself as a "socialist republic."
What the original poster wants is closer to idealism than anything else.

That's a bit simplistic IMO. Nobody, of any consequence, is suggesting anything close to anarchy.

[Kipper]

Ted Cruz are conservative capitalist ?!

[Drummond]

The fewer rules and regulations that you have, the closer you are to anarchy. North Korea views itself as a "socialist republic."
What the original poster wants is closer to idealism than anything else.

I'm close to agreeing with FJ again, which definitely gets me to Twilight Zone territory ! He's right in saying your statement is simplistic. That said ... context can be relevant. Libertarianism, for example, definitely veers towards the 'anarchistic', indeed, there are some who think of themselves as anarchistic Libertarians !! AND YET ... Socialism, which in its application is invariably about centralised all-suffocating control (complete with the rules, regulations and dictated PC directives to prove it), nonetheless manages to also be Libertarian, too (we in Britain know it to be Leftie in nature).

WHY ? HOW ?? Simple .. CONTEXT applies. In Britain, the harder-line SOCIALIST Unions are also the harder line LEFT WING ones. When they swing into action, all that they do is intended to be disruptive, even anarchistic.

Ideologies, however well constructed, are subject to human nature. Communism broke up in the old Soviet Union, indeed, the Soviet Union itself fractured itself to oblivion, because its ideology was incompatible with human nature. It's like the sea, eroding a coastline .. the coastline may appear solid, but all the while, the sea's waves erode it. Given enough time and opportunity, the coastline is changed by an irresistible force it cannot escape.

And this is why Socialism is doomed to fail, one day to be consigned to the dustbin of history. It doesn't interknit with human nature. In its application, certainly .. IT DEFIES IT.

If I were wrong, you'd never see Socialistic dictatorships .. yet, the worst ones we've seen are based on an application of Socialism. Stalin's Russia, the Soviet Union itself. China, especially in the Mao era. And what about Pol Pot ??

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:popcorn:

FJ AND KIPPER. This could get very entertaining, both are vague and leave so many outs..:laugh:
:popcorn:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm close to agreeing with FJ again, which definitely gets me to Twilight Zone territory ! He's right in saying your statement is simplistic. That said ... context can be relevant. Libertarianism, for example, definitely veers towards the 'anarchistic', indeed, there are some who think of themselves as anarchistic Libertarians !! AND YET ... Socialism, which in its application is invariably about centralised all-suffocating control (complete with the rules, regulations and dictated PC directives to prove it), nonetheless manages to also be Libertarian, too (we in Britain know it to be Leftie in nature).

WHY ? HOW ?? Simple .. CONTEXT applies. In Britain, the harder-line SOCIALIST Unions are also the harder line LEFT WING ones. When they swing into action, all that they do is intended to be disruptive, even anarchistic.

Ideologies, however well constructed, are subject to human nature. Communism broke up in the old Soviet Union, indeed, the Soviet Union itself fractured itself to oblivion, because its ideology was incompatible with human nature. It's like the sea, eroding a coastline .. the coastline may appear solid, but all the while, the sea's waves erode it. Given enough time and opportunity, the coastline is changed by an irresistible force it cannot escape.

And this is why Socialism is doomed to fail, one day to be consigned to the dustbin of history. It doesn't interknit with human nature. In its application, certainly .. IT DEFIES IT.

If I were wrong, you'd never see Socialistic dictatorships .. yet, the worst ones we've seen are based on an application of Socialism. Stalin's Russia, the Soviet Union itself. China, especially in the Mao era. And what about Pol Pot ??


I'm close to agreeing with FJ again,

Seven words I thought I'd never read you having written.
Are your meds ok??
You know something --jest gotz ta bez wrong whin ya say crap like dat!!!! :laugh:-Tyr

[Drummond]

FJ AND KIPPER. This could get very entertaining, both are vague and leave so many outs..:laugh:
:popcorn::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::omg:: laugh:

[fj1200]

FJ AND KIPPER. This could get very entertaining, both are vague and leave so many outs..:laugh:
:popcorn:

Perhaps if you could actually understand the written word you might have a better understanding. kipper though is a google translators nightmare.

[Kipper]

Google translation(Swedish to English) is good in long or difficult word or text !!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Perhaps if you could actually understand the written word you might have a better understanding. kipper though is a google translators nightmare.

You got your new friend thanking you.
Seems he/she(?) understands your one liners and agrees with you.
Like I said, could get very entertaining.
:popcorn:

[Drummond]

Seven words I thought I'd never read you having written.
Are your meds ok??
You know something --jest gotz ta bez wrong whin ya say crap like dat!!!! :laugh:-Tyr:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Let's say I've had a brief visit to The Twilight Zone, Tyr .. and yes, I'm worried about my meds, I can hardly NOT be !!!! ... but never mind, I've just seen FJ fail to explain away his willingness to believe everything a Leftie tells him, so I know we're back in the land of reality ...... whew !!!!

[fj1200]

You got your new friend thanking you.

Because I'm awesome. Or he appreciates my little one-liner about google translators. :dunno: You'd have to ask him but you'd probably rather make ignorant assumptions... that seems to be more up your ally.


... but never mind, I've just seen FJ fail to explain away his willingness to believe everything a Leftie tells him, so I know we're back in the land of reality ...... whew !!!!

Believe what someone tells the board complete with pictures or believe your ignorant imagination? I already know your ignorant imagination has no clue to reality and makes up what it doesn't understand.

[Drummond]

Believe what someone tells the board complete with pictures or believe your ignorant imagination? I already know your ignorant imagination has no clue to reality and makes up what it doesn't understand.

Not following this at all, FJ ... I'm to understand that everything your friendly Leftie leads you to believe, is something you've definite proof of ? REALLY ? So, how - & with pictures, apparently ? - did your friendly Leftie manage to gain your faith and confidence so completely ?

Perhaps you've a far more detailed dialogue going on that any of us are aware of, and this is your source of such 'faith' .. ? You know .. comrades working together, that sort of thing ? Otherwise, I'm really failing to see what you can be talking about ...

[fj1200]

Not following this at all, FJ ...

I'm not surprised.

[Drummond]

I'm not surprised.

It would help if what you posted made sense. Or was credible.

You've shown faith in what a Leftie posts, apparently 'without supportable cause'. The one way I have of explaining it is to believe that you accept what Lefties tell you because you're inclined to, automatically, and / or because you feel a comradeship with them that lends itself to automatic support.

Prove otherwise if you can.

[fj1200]

It would help if what you posted made sense.

You sure come up with the stupidest arguments when you're shown to be clueless.

[tailfins]

I won't get bogged down in the banter. What I will say is that Ted Cruz as a lifelong Evangelical Christian, is guided by Biblical principles.