• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The biggest straw man

PhantomWolf said:
Except that neither were good examples of Socialism, but rather Authoritarianism, and one was closer to Fascism than Socialism anyways, despite the name.
Click to expand...

I did a paper in college that right wing or left wing that weren't democratic in nature were in practice very very similar.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Except that neither were good examples of Socialism, but rather Authoritarianism, and one was closer to Fascism than Socialism anyways, despite the name.
Click to expand...

Got it. Pick your favorite examples of socialism, and deny all the others as something else.

That's some original **** right there. Eric Blair never woulda thought of that.
 
twinstead said:
Question:

Why does the Right insist on using the problems in Venezuela as an example of why those who want 'socialism' in the US are wrong.

When Norway or Denmark or (insert wealthy, successful Democratic Socialist country here) start having those issues then they will have a point; who in their right mind uses Venezuela as a shining example of 'socialism', and why do those on the right insist on this glaring straw man?
Click to expand...

I agree that 'socialism' (however we define it) can be done 'right' or very, very wrong, with remarkably different results.

Venezuela is the current exhibit #1 of the latter. To the extent that Norway truly is 'socialist', I would call it a great example of the former.

Here's the big difference, and it is very easy to understand. It's so simple that it can be illustrated by an Aesop's Fable: The Ant and the Grasshopper. Norway's policies have been "ant-like" while Venezuela's have been "grasshopper-like". Norway saved and invested surplus money from its oil sector, while Venezuela squandered it and allowed other sectors of the economy to go to rot, so that when oil prices plunged, they had nothing to fall back on.

It would help though if people like Bernie Sanders didn't say things like this:

These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?
Click to expand...

Venezuela, alas, remains very much a "banana republic").
 
PhantomWolf said:
How does supporting your country and your society "sap human dignity"?
Click to expand...
Because it weakens your ability to be selfish.

Actually what is truly funny is that it's not the left that get scared by this. It's the Right.
Click to expand...
It's not funny when you know the cause. The fact is that differences between 'left' and 'right' are much more fundamental than mere politics. Psychological experiments have shown that conservatives lack empathy, resist change, and are driven by fear. It's a fundamental difference in brain chemistry that is virtually impossible to change.

Like other human behavioral traits which cover a broad spectrum, people have a wide range of political beliefs no matter where they live or what their upbringing. Most of us have little control over what we think, but conservatives are worse because their brains actively prevent them from accepting new ideas. This also explains why people tend to become more conservative as they get older.

Because political orientation is a result of brain chemistry, you cannot change the mind of a 'rightist' with logic or emotion. About the only thing you might be able to convince them of is that everyone should have an equal say - and therefore compromise is essential. However this hasn't worked in the US. The only solution that could make everyone happy would be to split the country into independent states that people of like mind could move to - which is already happening! The next logical step is dissolution of the union.
 
John Jones said:
Got it. Pick your favorite examples of socialism, and deny all the others as something else.

That's some original **** right there. Eric Blair never woulda thought of that.
Click to expand...
Just like North Korea is a democratic republic...
 
TraneWreck said:
I do love how easily people are confused.

China is a republic, right? It's the People's Republic. Free elections and whatnot.

Is it just possible that "National Socialism" means something different than "socialism"?
Click to expand...

The thread title is "the biggest straw man" so those do fit in with that.
 
logger said:
Norway doesn't have anything close to what Venezuela has and yes they have what socialists would call well regulated capitalism. Lately of course it's a mess, seems folks don't want to have your precious socialism. :rolleyes:

Too bad, it could be so wonderful. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Norway has one of the biggest sovereign oil funds on the planet.
 
ddt said:
No.
Click to expand...

I don't know about other developed countries but I have never had 50% of my income taken off me in tax. Maybe that's just another right wing nutjob boogieman claim from our less well developed countries.
 
Sweden in the 1980s did have a silly marginal top rate of tax.
 
Very high taxation is not unheard of. I clearly remember from James Herriot's biography that he paid the top rate of tax - around 85%, and was glad to do it, he still lived very comfortably.
 
The point of very high top tax rates is not to generate taxes but to create a social norm for an income ceiling.
 
Worm said:
Very high taxation is not unheard of. I clearly remember from James Herriot's biography that he paid the top rate of tax - around 85%, and was glad to do it, he still lived very comfortably.
Click to expand...

But it wasn't on his entire income. Only on that income above the arbitrary high tax rate band at the time. That's where a lot of people get it totally wrong. They think it is on the full amount. I even had an argument with a Canadian who didn't even understand the tax bands in his country and thought he was paying full high tax rate on every single penny he earned.
 
Absolutely, though I'm not sure what the banding was like at the time - it's entirely possible that a reasonable proportion of his income was above the high rate band.
 
Worm said:
Absolutely, though I'm not sure what the banding was like at the time - it's entirely possible that a reasonable proportion of his income was above the high rate band.
Click to expand...

And to be fair it was more an ideological thing. I think it was close to 99p in the pound at one point hence a large exit of many millionaires for tax reasons.
 
Is it a common theory in right wing u.s. Groups to believe that Australians pays 50% taxes? I have lost count of the amount of nutters who have assured me of this fact. When I try to point out to then that I am fairly SURE I would know if I was paying that much they apparently know I am lying.

The average American attitude to socialism is rather baffling to many other people
 
PhantomWolf said:
Back at the start of the 80's NZ's top tax rate was for secondary income on an income over $56,000. It was 99c in the $1!
Click to expand...

I believe that the marginal top rate in Sweden was a couple of percentage points higher than that*... Astrid Lindgren complained about it (IIRC).


*Yes, I can add up to 101...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom