His counterargument is that corruption is caused by governments given too much power. That's actually the first quite sensible thing he's said so far.

Honestly, Socialism is not a clearly defined term. No one can say where it starts and ends. Debating it's merits is still valid, but needs to be specified. Are we talking centralized omniscient omnipotent state power which hands out money to those it deems worthy? Or are we talking elected government taking control of important resources (basic food, water, medical care, medicine and housing) and distributing to those that lack them? The first I would define as totalitarianism, in other words, so left wing it's right-wing. That is what Central Europe had during the Cold War period. The latter is what France, Germany, and other European states seem to be trying to do.

Need any more proof that free market ideology is nothing but a religion? Nothing can touch it. It cannot be criticized. Anything that happens wrong in free market capitalism is blamed on government. Much like anything bad that happens in the world is blamed on the devil.

Exactly. You'll have a much harder time defending what Mao did compared to what Mitterand did.

By the way, with the corrupt government thing. Yes, the state creating a monopoly is dangerous, and Socialism has pitfalls, but is far preferable to the alternative. Also, the free-ish market can survive under Socialism. It is taxed, and lightly regulated, and doesn't mess with things that it shouldn't mess with, and it is happy.

Now Putin33, let's not get started on who's ideology is nothing but a religion. Glass houses, and all that.

A welfare state is not 'socialism'. And Mitterand privatized the French welfare state. We haven't gotten a single post that adds clarity. It's just a series of strawmen so far.

Quite a few no true Scotsmen too.

"Now Putin33, let's not get started on who's ideology is nothing but a religion. "

Socialists have a long record of self-criticism. Free market ideologues have a long record of pretending that anything wrong with their system is somebody else's fault.

^As much as I hate to do so I have to agree with Putin there:

I don't see nearly as much apologetics going on for Randian free market idealism than for Marxist ideals...

Perhaps we need a capitalist Stalin before that'll happen? (Cue Putin's defense of the tyrant...)

I suppose the hair-splitting and navel-gazing of leftist movements is defined as "self-criticism" now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHitXxH-us

Right, the free market cult have a lot in common with Obiwan. They duck and hide whenever somebody tries to hold them accountable for their ideology. Like when Obi refuses to answer for the crimes of Napoleon, his hero.

Trite. No wonder there are no rightwing comedians. They recycle the same 'joke', and usually from the leftists who invented it.

I shall add CLARITY my friends.

Mitterrand has two Rs.

I love you all.

This may have already been said, but it's worth noting that "the idea that "government" can produce a better society by diminishing individual freedom in exchange for increased imposition of government power on the individual?" is not actually socialism.

Why should a twenty-something living in California today have to answer for what Napoleon did two hundred years ago?


"No wonder there are no rightwing comedians."

That's actually not true, but also not worth fighting over either.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-03/china-president-xi-jinping-revives-self-criticism-sessions-in-maoism-lite

"Why should a twenty-something living in California today have to answer for what Napoleon did two hundred years ago?"

Because if the guy is going to bring up Stalin every 3 seconds and act sanctimonious about human rights, he should have to answer for why Napoleon gets a pass.

But if that's your new line on historical leaders then you can kindly shut up about them, too.

"Because if the guy is going to bring up Stalin every 3 seconds and act sanctimonious about human rights, he should have to answer for why Napoleon gets a pass."

Why?

Why? Because otherwise he's not serious and his redbaiting is just empty hypocritical rhetoric.

But it's two completely separate issues.

But we know it's just empty rhetoric and we know he's a hypocrite, so it doesn't matter.

"But it's two completely separate issues."

What are two separate issues?

Someone who holds the entire Republican party to be illegitimate due to its opposition to gay marriage but still supports Vladimir Putin despite Russia's harsh anti-gay laws isn't really in the position to call others a hypocrite.

putin hates gays

Somebody who backs the Republican Party despite its support for the Kill the Gays bill in Uganda and its harboring of the most wretched anti-gay zealots isn't in position to criticize Vladimir Putin or Russia on anything related to the issue.

PE discovered he loved gays right after reading Ron Paul's newsletters.

I suppose United Russia doesn't have any people like that in it.

Why do you care? Have you ever voted Democrat out of concern for the gays?

No of course not. You're just an imperialist who appropriates liberal causes to advance American military power.

This was a nice cozy thread with hearty debate and now it's this after a few hours...

Seems like a good time for: http://collectionofawesome.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/tumblr_m5fbe6pcbg1qcb58yo1_500.gif?w=562