UK to lower voting age to 16

[Gary Childress]

Well, you're American. Judge for yourself. Is PBS or NPR Leftist or right wing? In your view, what is the level of their interest in diversity of opinion? What is their commitment to providing neutral coverage and clear information to the general community?

You know.

They are excellent quality,

Okay, maybe you don't know.

So, am I to take it that you know PBS and NPR better than I do? Or if you don't, what is the give away that they are poor quality? Is it that they don't shun the LGBTQ community? Is it that they don't feature white supremacists like the Ku Klux Klan on their shows? We should give a voice to people who are ardent racists but suppress sexual deviants?

I've always been taught that racism is a bad thing because it involves unfair discrimination of others based solely on their race and I've always been taught that suppressing or marginalizing people for sexual deviance is unfair and harmful to others who don't deserve to be ostracized. Am I wrong? Have I been indoctrinated with untrue beliefs?

[Immanuel Can]

Ummm...yeah...okay...I guess you think they're lying...

Politicians, Large corporations, crazed billionaires lying?? No, can't be. Well, sure. Is it controversial that these people lie?

Not to me. I'm certain they're lying. What they want is to use Socialism, not to experience it. Unfortunately, far too many people are believing their lies.

But that's Socialism. The elites always control it, because everything is centralized and not subject anymore to the vote of the "little guy". The "little guy" gets wiped out.

No way they want collective or social ownership of the means of production

They want government control of EVERYTHING. And that's always done "in the name of The People."

They have ALL reduced government control of corporations and the finance sector (and thus billionaires).

They aren't socialist. They will never let the people have control of the production. And all of them have led to greater concentrations of power and more freedom for the elite.

But they ARE Socialist...for you. Just not for them. They'll just tell you that they represent "The People." And because Socialism has centralized the government for them, and done away with things like private ownership, free markets, competition for consumers, innovation, political rivals, votes and human rights, they use their alleged position as the spokemen of "The People" to beat you into submission and drain your bank account into theirs.

Again, don't listen to what they say. They're liars, as you rightly point out; but not quite in the way you point out. They talk Socialism, but aim at oligarchy. Socialism makes you think they're on your side, every time they eliminate their own competition and centralize power further, or when they raise your taxes and kick back pennies to you in inefficient "social programs" that are themselves broadly fraudulent and allow more of your money to be stolen.

They use the trappings and ideological rhetoric of Socialism to cloak and justify the oligarchy. And of the tools Socialism puts in their hands, universal control of government is the biggest. Why else do you think a rich schmuck like Soros or Schwab or Saunders is funding and plugging for things like BLM, The Dem Party and Antifa? They don't do that stuff because they hate Leftism. And they're not doing it because they've given away all their own money and have devoted their lives to the common good.

The "rich" the Left claims to want "to eat" are the ones running the Socialist program. More money for them, less for you.

[Impenitent]

...The "rich" the Left claims to want "to eat" are the ones running the Socialist program. More money for them, less for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh3t49NsWBA

the left?!? no, that's Lemmy!!

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

Not to me. I'm certain they're lying.

What they want is to use Socialism, not to experience it.

Well, some facets of socialism they are willing to use. But workers are not going to be getting to own the means of production.

Unfortunately, far too many people are believing their lies.

And the biggest lie is that one of the two official teams is the good one.

But that's Socialism.

There's no socialism. The liberals regulate capitalism more than the right. That's as close to socialism as anything will get.

The elites always control it, because everything is centralized and not subject anymore to the vote of the "little guy". The "little guy" gets wiped out.

That could be all sorts of tyrannical realms. Could be fascism. Could be an oligarchy which is what we really have. There no general experience of socialism.

They want government control of EVERYTHING.

No, they do not. The banks, especially the central ones, the financial sector corps like Blackrock, then the huge corporations, they have the power. And they are not under the control of the government.

I'm looking at an oligarchy. You want to hang onto the model: Left Bad/Right Good. Well, you do that. And they like that. And they like the opposite also. Because that keeps you pointing figures at lefties and the lefties pointing fingers at you.

Good luck with that. I know you won't believe me, but the people with power love that.

[Immanuel Can]

Not to me. I'm certain they're lying.

What they want is to use Socialism, not to experience it.

Well, some facets of socialism they are willing to use. But workers are not going to be getting to own the means of production.

Of course not! Silly us, imagining that Socialism was about the ordinary folks. What were we thinking?

Unfortunately, far too many people are believing their lies.

And the biggest lie is that one of the two official teams is the good one.

I have to agree with you there. But it's not exactly equal, because one side is campaigning to create government control of everything, and that's exactly what the elites want. The other is still at least nominally aiming at a more limited government, so they might be bad, but they're not going the bad direction quite so fast.

But that's Socialism.

There's no socialism.

Well, there is an ideology called "Socialism." But yeah, it doesn't deliver in the real world what it promises in its promotional material, for sure.

The elites always control it, because everything is centralized and not subject anymore to the vote of the "little guy". The "little guy" gets wiped out.

That could be all sorts of tyrannical realms. Could be fascism.

Fascism is a Socialism: "National Socialism". If you read a founding document, like Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism," a lot of it is stolen word-for-word from the Communist Manifesto and other Socialist writings. That's not terribly surprising, since Mussolini began as a member of the Communist Party. Fascism and Communism hate each other; but they hate each other like brother-rivals hate each other; because they both want the same thing...Socialism, plus control of the populace.

They want government control of EVERYTHING.

No, they do not.

Actually, they do. The Fascists want it only slightly less than the Communists do. And that's because the government is nothing other than their instrument. The oligarchs are immune to government, because they have international mobility and the means to put money anywhere. No government can control them, but they sure can control a centralized government. It dances to their tune.

And that's why they're pushing for Socialism for you and me -- they know it can't touch them, but it sure can be used to force us into line. And we're the "cows" they're lining up to be "milked," obviously; because you can be sure of one thing, and that is that they're not going to get poor out of this.

[Iwannaplato]

Of course not! Silly us, imagining that Socialism was about the ordinary folks. What were we thinking?

You're now defining socialism in some bizarre way.

Socialism is a specific economic system. The rich are not living in Socialism. What's left of the middle class isn't. The workers don't own the means of production. You just keep telling yourself it's socialism so you can keep hating the people you hate.

You're always telling people what they believe. You're always telling people that your idiosyncratic definitions are the real ones. For you an oligarchy and socialism are the same.

But it's not worth talking to you about it. I'll leave it here.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course not! Silly us, imagining that Socialism was about the ordinary folks. What were we thinking?

You're now defining socialism in some bizarre way.

Just the usual...the actual elimination of private property, and the attempt to render the means of production to the public...a thing which has never resulted in history, and most likely never will. But corrupt Socialisms are rife.

Socialism is a specific economic system.

It's not really "economic," in that no economic theory, achievement or data underlies it. It's ideological, rather. It's a utopian religious belief, actually.

The rich are not living in Socialism.

Yes, I said that: but they want us to. They don't plan to do it to themselves. They just want to do it to us.

...you can keep hating the people you hate.

I don't hate anybody. I just realize that Socialism destroys economies and kills people, and don't want either to happen. It actually seems more "hateful" to me to let people keep making the old Socialist mistakes. It seems to me a rather nice thing to do to alert them to the problems they're walking straight into. Either way, I have no emotional state about that; it's a very calm sort of realization, actually. I feel no ill will to anybody, yourself included.

You're always telling people what they believe.

Actually, you'll find I never do that. I don't talk about the "people" who believe things. I talk about their ideas, and what particular belief systems will warrant, or are conducive to. If people take that personally, I'm sorry for them...they're making a mistake. One's ideology is not the same as one's person.

Anyway, that's philosophy, mon ami.

[Gary Childress]

Of course not! Silly us, imagining that Socialism was about the ordinary folks. What were we thinking?

You're now defining socialism in some bizarre way.

Just the usual...the actual elimination of private property, and the attempt to render the means of production to the public...a thing which has never resulted in history, and most likely never will. But corrupt Socialisms are rife.

So is it the case that our current "non-socialist" (your stated belief) societies are as good as it gets? There's nothing greater we can aspire to in the hopes of making the world a better place than it currently is?

[phyllo]

Of course not! Silly us, imagining that Socialism was about the ordinary folks. What were we thinking?

You're now defining socialism in some bizarre way.

Socialism is a specific economic system. The rich are not living in Socialism. What's left of the middle class isn't. The workers don't own the means of production. You just keep telling yourself it's socialism so you can keep hating the people you hate.

You're always telling people what they believe. You're always telling people that your idiosyncratic definitions are the real ones. For you an oligarchy and socialism are the same.

But it's not worth talking to you about it. I'll leave it here.

He always defines 'socialism ' as Stalin communism, Pol Pot communism and Mao communism.

The systems in places like Sweden, don't qualify as 'socialism'.

[phyllo]

You're now defining socialism in some bizarre way.

Just the usual...the actual elimination of private property, and the attempt to render the means of production to the public...a thing which has never resulted in history, and most likely never will. But corrupt Socialisms are rife.

So is it the case that our current "non-socialist" (your stated belief) societies are as good as it gets? There's nothing greater we can aspire to in the hopes of making the world a better place than it currently is?

A Christian theocracy

[Gary Childress]

Just the usual...the actual elimination of private property, and the attempt to render the means of production to the public...a thing which has never resulted in history, and most likely never will. But corrupt Socialisms are rife.

So is it the case that our current "non-socialist" (your stated belief) societies are as good as it gets? There's nothing greater we can aspire to in the hopes of making the world a better place than it currently is?

A Christian theocracy

How would a Christian theocracy make the world a better place? Wasn't that tried in the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church? It seems like some people used theology at the time to persecute non-believers. Would that make things any better than they are now?

[phyllo]

Wasn't that tried in the Middle Ages by the Catholic Church?

The church of the antichrist.

Would that make things any better than they are now?

It would end decadence and decline.

It would take power away from immoral leaders and put it in the hands of the righteous.

All would live according to God's will and God's laws.

[Iwannaplato]

He always defines 'socialism ' as Stalin communism, Pol Pot communism and Mao communism.
The systems in places like Sweden, don't qualify as 'socialism'.

Which is actually interesting since they have been far to the left of, say, the Clintons economically.
I don't understand how he could think that Amazon and Blackrock are socialist. That they promote progressive social values seems quite possible - I haven't looked into it. But that they are struggling to turn the means of production over to the workers......nah. His response has been that of course the elites don't live under the socialism - which could possibly make sense. It wouldn't be socialism, but if a small elite had vast power and all other companies were run by workers. There's also been increasing privatization, not nationalization. There's no class living in socialism (except potentially those on welfare). I think he means that the government is getting more involved in people's lives or something like that. But that can happen in any economic systems. It's a category error. He wants to call it Socialism because then it is the left's fault. But it's not socialist. It's an oligarchy which fits really well with: large institutions (corporations + government + finance) are tightly interconnected, ordinary citizens have less agency, rules seem asymmetric, elites appear insulated from consequences. Oligarchies don't give a shit about left or right. They would use any propaganda to shift more power to themselves.

[Immanuel Can]

You're now defining socialism in some bizarre way.

Just the usual...the actual elimination of private property, and the attempt to render the means of production to the public...a thing which has never resulted in history, and most likely never will. But corrupt Socialisms are rife.

So is it the case that our current "non-socialist" (your stated belief) societies are as good as it gets? There's nothing greater we can aspire to in the hopes of making the world a better place than it currently is?

This is the old Socialist mistake, Gary: to want to compare what we have now with an ideal we've never had and never could, rather than looking back and saying, "Look how far we've come; thank God."

That doesn't mean we don't try to do better: it means we realize two things Socialists always seem to forget. One is that we currently live in the most free, most wealthy, most privileged, most well-fed and provisioned, most equitable and technologically-advanced kind of society in all of human history. For all its faults, it's much, much better than all the societies that came before it. And we should be grateful for that, before we go about busting it up for some pie-in-the-sky project of idealized Socialism. Improvements should be made, to be sure; but incrementally, rationally, and without harming people -- not by destruction and social revolution. While moving into the future, we should always remain grateful for all that previous generations have enabled us to enjoy. And we have to remain realistic: there will be no ideal societies on this earth. But if we are kind to each other, and build non-destructively and gratefully on the legacy of the past, we can make a better society than we have now.

But a word of caution: we humans find it much easier to destroy than to create. Those who hate America, or the UK, or the West as a whole are counselling us to envy, ingratitude and destruction. They don't know how to be thankful, and they don't know how to take us forward, because they don't recognize any benefits when they get them. They demand perpetual "revolution": yet they do not have a way of taking us forward; they just resent the present, and feel entitled to more. This is the road to misery...to perpetual feelings of grievance, and to total inability to enjoy or utilize the benefits of the most privileged and advanced society that has ever existed so far.

So we need to have a good conversation about what we've got now, what we've achieved, and what we want to keep, before we talk about moving into the future. Socialist revolution will only bring us misery, poverty and death, as it has done 100% of the time in the past. But careful cultivation of our benefits will allow us to move forward more rationally and humanely than revolution ever would -- and without losing the incredible blessings we now have.

[MikeNovack]

You really don't see that it is your insistence on controlling the definition of socialism AND then insisting that all who identify as socialists are what you define as socialist that is causing the problem.

I assure you, there are plenty of socialists who advocate exactly the same sort of gradual improvement you seem to think OK. But you are denying them their self identification as socialist because not what YOU say socialists are. If this had not been a bone of contention at the time (within socialism) why do you think Lenin wrote "Left wing communism; an infantile disorder". That division between the "revolutionaries" and the "democratic gradualists" still exists.

OK then, if you don't want to use the term "socialist" to include the "democratic socialists" what do you want to call them?