peter11937 Loc: NYS

You are partially misreading my note or misunderstanding that socialism need not conform to you exact specifications. THAT would be pontification. That is my view of the history, not that of a socialist trying to justify their position by insisting only their definitions are correct.
I think were done here, you interpret your history as you chose to, and vice versa. Feel free to get the last word, Goodbye

straightUp Loc: California

I've noticed and I'm pretty sure it will get worse. The pattern that seems to repeat itself throughout history is that economic depression breeds extremism. I think we still have some time to enjoy relative calm, the American middle-class is declining but it's still far better off that some other places we see today. People in the middle-east and Africa suffer far more than we do and their extreme reactions reflect that. Meanwhile, I think political forums like OPP attract the early birds of extremism in America. So... "objects may appear closer than they really are." Still, I consider it a preview of the type of extremism that will eventually become violent.

Another disheartening pattern I see here is the lack of literacy and hostility toward our education system. Education is the most critical tool we have as a people and yet I see all this nonsense about c*******ts infiltrating our education system. Instead of using the system to develop our ability to think for ourselves, these people are already resigned to the idea that we CAN'T think for ourselves and that education is meant to program us. Only under this assumption can the idea of c*******t infiltration of our schools, true or not, even appear as a threat.

straightUp Loc: California

There is a core definition of socialism that you can find in any dictionary. That is the ONLY specification I have suggested and you have demonstrated a complete disagreement with that core definition. You may as well call democracy a pasta dish.


I never said I was a socialist. I just happen to have at least a basic understanding of what socialism is. You're assumption that I AM a socialist indicates a lack of observational accuracy and suggests that you are more focused on ideological battle than you are intelligent discussion.


Agreed. (Thank you for the last word ;) )

Anigav6969

You must have learned all this from one of your liberal professors !!....lol...you've been programmed......I wonder when intelligence and advanced education became something to downgrade? I would always want the smartest guy in the room to run things......I've also wondered, maybe all these professors are liberal because they are more educated and they've studied the subjects and came to the conclusions that make sense....just a thought

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Since you asked...when you take away all the fluff and really good rhetoric, all you really said was, that while Hitler professed to be a l*****t liberal it turned out he was a far right-winger because he was bad. You've already accepted that left-wing=good and right-wing=bad as a given.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

While I agree about the lack of literacy I wonder if you realize how much worse illiterates are at math than English? Compared to their math sk**ls they are geniuses at language.

I do find your first sentence humorous though. Do you wonder why there is hostility towards 'our educational system' that caused the illiteracy? Do you think illiteracy is a good thing, because the masses don't need to be able to read to pick crops anyway?

The rest of your paragraph demonstrates the lengths progressive liberals will go to deny reality. With very few exceptions, most people can be brainwashed and children, teenagers and young adults are the most susceptible. Whether or not the schools are actually brainwashing children may be debatable, but claiming it's impossible for them to do so is indicative of the lunacy to which the left will go to dissemble.

straightUp Loc: California

Hitler never professed to be a l*****t liberal and I certainly never said he did. Hitler was a pronounced right-winger from the time he started to express himself to the day he died. I agreed that he offered some forms of socialism but that's not the same thing as being a l*****t. I did try to minimize the confusion by explaining that "left" and "right" are political orientations that can mix and match with economic systems such as socialism. In other words, the political orientation does NOT determine the economic system (and vise versa). If it did, c*******t China wouldn't be the world champions of capitalism today.

So, you could say the N**is were right-wing socialists. Their economic call for socialism did NOT put them on the left-wing of the political spectrum but their political call for exclusion (militant nationalism and hardcore patriotism) DID put them on the right-wing.

There are several reasons I can think of why conservatives on this forum have such a difficult time understanding this (aside from being unwilling to learn from someone they think is a socialist) I think the most probable is the influence of cold war propaganda... I know, I got a good dose of that myself in school back in the 60's. Years later, after a LOT of my own research, I came to realize that the point of cold war propaganda was to attack socialism in America and they did this by presenting socialism as a "gateway drug" to c*******m while showing us images of Stalin's tyranny as an example of what c*******m looks like.

Now, please bear with me as I break this down, because I'm not trying to bulls**t you here. Of course you can disagree with me, but at least hear me out.

C*******m = (a socialist economic system) + (an extreme left-wing political system)... Left-wing because it's part of an international vision... so "inclusive". I don't know if you got my "gateway drug" reference but it's a way of explaining two things at the same time... First, c*******m DOES prescribe a socialist economic system (junkies often do start off by smoking pot) and secondly, just because c*******m prescribes a socialist economic system, it doesn't mean that all forms of socialism lead to c*******m (not every pot smoker is going to wind up shooting heroin).

So... I am suggesting that cold war propaganda may have conditioned you to believe that socialism is intrinsically linked to left-wing politics which would make right-wing socialism impossible and my ability to see socialism as an economic "free-agent" that can apply to political systems on the left or the right will seem like lunacy.

Disclaimer: I've already exposed myself as one of those people who thinks large-scale c*******m is untested. When we think of Stalin and his brutality, I think you will agree that what we see is tyranny not democracy. My personal understanding of c*******m is based on the expressions of c*******t philosophers like Marx and Camus who describe c*******m as a democratic system, not on the images of strongmen like Stalin and Mao.

BTW...
N**ism = (a socialist/capitalist mix economy) + (an extreme right-wing political system).
American progressive movement = (a socialist/capitalist mix economy) + (a moderate left-wing political system)



Haven't you accepted that right-wing=good and left-wing=bad?

As for me, I'm a relativist so I try not to make absolute conclusions like that. I see the world in grayscale and in constant motion, not black and white and static so for me it's just not that simple.

I suppose from an idealistic stand-point I do favor the left-wing because it represents inclusion... the idea that all people are equal and all people are welcomed and I *do* consider myself a citizen of the human race. But I also find that such lofty ideas can be unrealistic seeing how dirty and fucked up the world really is and the insecurity I feel from that is what makes me a potential patriot.

straightUp Loc: California

I haven't really noticed... I guess miscalculations are easy to see and correct, where poor language sk**ls result in such confusion I often don't even respond simply because I don't even understand what they are saying.


Actually, I do agree that our elementary education system is one of the worst in the world but the hostility I am referring to seems more concerned about liberal arts where matters of perception and critical thinking comes in.


I don't know if you realize how appropriate that question is. I've written about this before. Compared to other countries our education priority is very low. The lack of funding is downright embarrassing but there is a reason for this and your statement is not far off. Most countries invest heavily in their education system as a way to feed their industries and infrastructures with new generations of top notch engineers, scientists and doctors. But the U.S. has a different approach. Ever since the paper clip scientists, U.S. industry has relied more on importing brains from overseas than on growing them domestically.

One possible reason for this, is the better return on investment when companies import ready-made brains from other countries. When you invest in your own brain factory there is a loss for every drop-out and every failure. 9 times out 10, if you want to know the reason for the way things are done in America, you can find out by looking at the business case. We are first and foremost a corporate driven country. State governments aren't going to raise the cash for education if corporations don't want to pay for it.

So I don't know if anyone actually thinks illiteracy is a good thing. But most major corporations aren't going to care if Americans wind up picking cotton as long as they can get literacy from somewhere else.


I never claimed it was impossible for schools to brainwash students. I said that the only way "c*******t infiltration" of our schools can even appear as a threat is if people are resigned to the idea that they can't think for themselves...

In other words, if you CAN think for yourself, then you shouldn't feel threatened by propaganda. A mind that is sufficiently trained in critical thinking should be able to read in ANY information from ANY source without being brainwashed.

There is a HUGE schism between conservatives and liberals on this matter and it's probably the most definitive contrast there is between them. To put it crudely, liberals want students to learn critical thinking and the flow of information to be free. Conservatives DON'T want students to learn critical thinking and the flow of information to be censored. If censorship and the discouragement of critical thinking is not the actual intention of conservatives, it is certainly the result of their political agenda.

Critical thinking falls into the category of liberal arts and it was the soul objective of the the earliest universities. The Harvard orientation page states that liberal arts is the most critical aspect of all universities today.

That moron governor of Texas, Rick Perry has initiated a plan to remove liberal arts completely from Texas A&M and that's just a pilot program for a much larger initiative to remove liberal arts (which he calls a waste of time) from ALL schools so that funding can be reallocated to basics and more useful vocational tracks. Let me ask you... if a student doesn't have the basics down after 12 frickin' years, what the hell is he doing in college?

I think it just gets back to not wanting students to think for themselves but to consume censored information instead - making them safe and useful citizens. This is what religion has been doing for centuries and I am pretty darned sure that conservative culture is largely inherited from the shepherd and flock system of the church and well... sheep... lets just say they're more susceptible to programming.

Safe and useful... But not if c*******ts infiltrate the system and take over the programming!

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Do you think that stating something makes it true? Nobody is openly against critical thinking, and claiming it's a l*****t attribute is beyond silly, it shows (like before) your denial. Also, there is a difference between critical thinking and convoluted thinking, which I don't think you've quite grasped yet.

According to Dictionary.com critical thinking is: disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.

Now, with that in mind, think about "The science is settled, the debate is over." That's what l*****t g****l w*****g alarmists say. Forget about open-minded, forget about evidence. Consensus is what matters. And you call that critical thinking.

Then you go on to claim it is the right that wants censorship, ignoring the hundreds of postings right here on this site calling for the elimination of Fox News. But those are nothing compared to the l*****t speech codes, h**e-speech laws and rules, and other censorship prevalent at most colleges and universities, the very places you're claiming are champions of open-minded, rational and informed thinking. All of which are staffed and run by l*****ts.

I'm sorry StraightUp, but I just don't have the energy or the desire to get into another long series of debates with anybody in such denial of reality, especially knowing in advance neither of us will convince the other of anything. That is why I only quoted this one part of your messages, it's simply not worth my time or effort to bother refuting the rest.

I do hope you continue to post here, and I hope you eventually learn to actually open your mind and perform true critical thinking. It is obvious that you are basically intelligent and know how to use your mind. Also, as I said before, you are a good writer. (not to mention it's refreshing to see someone who can actually spell) I hope someday you'll realize most of what the left espouses is lies and if you look at their deeds instead of listening to their words you'll get it.

Maybe at some point in the future I'll change my mind and decide to spend the required energy to debate you again, but until then I wish you the best...

straightUp Loc: California

No, but true things can be stated.


Maybe not openly... Maybe not when using lofty terms like "critical thinking". But conservatives are the ones consistently pushing for laws that do in effect censor information. Many conservatives who are just v****g for their side don't even realize it. This is why I said "If censorship and the discouragement of critical thinking is not the actual intention of conservatives, it is certainly the result of their political agenda."


It's a generalization, but not without plenty of evidence.


Yes, I have... any critical thinking that results in conclusions you don't like is convoluted.


I'm glad you went to the dictionary for a basic understanding... It's a start.


No. Scientific consensus and critical thinking are NOT the same thing, but the former DOES depend on the later.


First of all, I am basing my claim on a history of legal battles and laws that actually affect censorship. That's not the same thing as a website where Internet users hiding behind avatars can vent their opinions. Secondly, even here, I don't see any call for the "elimination of Fox News". What I see here are opinions about Fox News and how full of s**t they are. Again the typical liberal position is to NOT censor Fox News but to inform people about their bulls**t, which ultimately leaves the decision to subscribe or deny up to the individual. So again, education (information on) - not censorship (information off).


You are referring to rules that universities create for themselves in order to preserve stable environments for students that want to be there. If you actually look at any of these rules instead of just blabbering about them you might actually notice two things.. First, unlike federal and state laws, there is no political affiliation connected to the sponsors of these rules, so you are only assuming that they are all created by liberals (and yes, there ARE conservatives in the universities). And secondly, these rules tend to be more about intention than actual information. From ANY of the speeches that violate these rules, ALL of the information can be released through other means. Maybe you need to go back to that dictionary to look up "censorship".


I didn't realize it took that much energy to simply deny conclusions that you don't agree with by calling them denials of reality. But you're right... I don't see any agreement ahead for us either.


That's good advise... look at the deeds instead of listening to the words... That's why I said "the result of the political agenda proves the deeds". So, I'll do my best to follow that advise - I hope you do the same.


Thanks Voice - I appreciate the courtesy.