Who are the "they" of whom you speak? You said that the "essence of socialism" is that "the government" controls everything. Now you say that when "socialists" start with controlling the economy they end up controlling everything.

Now, what you say is not exactly incorrect, but it depends on who you think "they," "the socialists," "the government" are. Under socialism, "the socialists" and "the government" are identical with and inseparable form "the people" and "the workers."

Socialism cannot function outside of a democratic framework. The point is that the people, collectively, control their own lives as individuals and as a society. The government is the people and vice versa: the government is not to be an alien entity separate from and antagonistic toward the people but rather the government is to be the political expression of the people. In that sense, yes -- the government would "control everything" because the government is made up of the people and each individual person would "control everything" about his own life.

Right now, we don't get to control everything about our lives. Our livelihood, the food on our table and the roof over our heads, is dependent on the anarchy of the market and the capricious whim of the Inivisible Hand. The essence of socialism is that the people take control of their own economic destinies.


Whatever. 


Are you suggesting that China is a socialist country?

Then you demonstrate that your arguments and opinions are not based on reality. The USSR wasn't socialist, either, despite what they wanted people to believe.

You are correct that the government in China for the most part controls the economy and the personal lives of the people. But socialism does not equal government control. The "essense of socialism" is control of the means of production by the workers.

You also don't seem to understand what "socialism" and "communism" and "Communism" are and mean, if you think it's some kind of revelation that "socialism" and "communism" are linked. "Socialism" is meant to be the intermediary stage between capitalism and "communism." "Communism" with a capital "C" is the name given to the ideology of state structure and economic organization adopted by the soi-disant "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and its sattelites and the soi-disant "People's Republic of China."

Both instances involved top-down command economies instead of bottom-up syndicalist industrial cooperatives. Both instances created a governmental class separate from and antagonistic toward the people it ruled. Neither the Soviet Union nor the PRC eradicated capitalism and established socialism; rather, they transformed their entire nations and their economies into single, great big corporations with the Party members as share holders and the Politburo as the Board of Directors and the Gensec as the CEO. As a result, the people of the USSR and the PRC have just about as much freedom and liberty as the employees of any major corporation in the US -- IOW, zero.

Like it or not, the present world system is not infinite and eternal. Nothing in history lasts forever and everything that had a beginning will have an end. Capitalism arose out of the ruin of the feudal system and someday the capitalist mode of production will pass away like all of its predecessors. No one planned or chose to create a productive system based on personal dependence relations after the fall of Rome: feudalism arose of its own accord from the bottom-up based on the prevailing economic conditions of the time. Likewise, no one planned or deliberately chose to create the system of investment and extraction of surplus labor that gave rise to capitalism: it evolved from the bottom up in the cracks of the feudal regime and the capitalist class took advantage of the weakness of the feudal nobility to establish itself as the ruling elite.

The point of socialism is that we don't have to sit back and let history happen. We don't have to let the next complex of production relations take us by surprise in the wake of some catastrophe or apocalypse -- the frightening state of technology today makes it questionable whether any life, human or otherwise, could survive such a downfall. Instead, we can learn from history and act for our own benefit to shape our own future -- if we want to.

The USSR and PRC were attempts to do this and, in their beginnings, they were noble attempts that rightly deserve respect and admiration. But they failed. Lenin failed because he miscalculated the imminence of a general economic collapse that would give the international working class the chance to strike; Mao failed because he like Stalin opted for "socialism in one country" which is an impossible and untenable situation. Socialism must be international or not at all. It will probably take a general economic collapse -- and the assorted horrors and cataclysms that will accompany it -- to spur people (assuming there will be people) to take charge of their fate, but it is possible.

But I don't expect you in your lofty seat of omniscience to understand any of this, nor do I really care. You will most like have the good fortune to die before the inevitable end of this present age so go ahead and enjoy your remaining years snug in the cocoon of your own self-anointed superiority.

Capitalism redates government in actuality.  The "money changers" of biblical lore were capitalists, as were all the early farmers and shepherds.

Seeking the "best deal"  as buyer and seller is in our genes, and goes on today from the local flea market to Walgreens.  What balances the greedy seflfishness of the seller is an informed and equally "greedy and selfish buyer.  In our economy the seller reigns.  The dims plead poverty and discrimination, not to help the people, but to gain power for themselves.

VL
Again I appreciate (but don't agree with your point of view


As have all socialist experiments in the modern world.  Your Idealism leads to the idea that what we need is a world government because "socialism in ne country" wont work. 

There is an artile on Beliefcorner saying that Democrats are all Socialists.


http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/06/24/a-socialist-by-any-other-name/


Obviously because he agrees with me, I love his point of view.

Please don't go away, we need the socialist/liberal point of view . . . . if only to refute and make fun  of.

There I didn't specify clearly enough, I suppose.  Among those who supported the Iraq War and appeared on Cspan or various interviews, or as talking heads, he was among who discussed the subject with the seriousness it deserved, with a modicum of respect for discussion, etc.  That was specifically what I respected about him.  Similarly, I respected the way Hitchins discussed the War in Iraq, and Wolfowitz.  I like the way these people speak about their view, the way they handle a discussion.

The subject wasn't conservatism here, the subject was attitude toward discussion/disagreement, the way things were argued, etc.

One thing I find very unbecoming in the quote from the beliefcorner article you mention, AND in Rush Limbaugh programming (I have listened to his program from time to time, which is how I arrived at my evaluation of him), is the arrogant tone and the condescending judgment of liberals "oh, lack of self knowledge is so typical of liberals".

It doesn't look any better on a right-winger than it does on a left-winger.

Rush Limbaugh is arrogant, he's a showman like Rev. Wright.  Again, I could go on.

I am generally not very impressed with rhetoricians, though I do admire those who have command of the language and know how to convey an idea clearly, coherently, succinctly, and intelligently.  I like the way the Socrates of the early Platonic dialogs goes after rhetoricians in Gorgias I think it is, for example.

Re: eloquent spokesmen for conservative views...

I see nothing in him to indicate a particular eloquence for the deeper conservative thought that is out there.  He generally appeals to the rabble-rousing populist right-wing stuff.


I do remember there were some funny little skits like that, yes.

I object to the arrogant wind-baggery and the scapegoating, again on the left or the right.  The right has certainly had QUITE a bit of it for a decade or so now.

Arrogance isn't a virtue, for those who ARE concerned about morality.  Quickness to slander others or distort their viewpoints is also not considered good and spiritual fruit, again for those who are concerned about spirituality.

I try to counter it when I see it on the left, on the right, wherever.


Our culture is often quite cruel and sadistic, and the lampooning can get quite toxic, GENERALLY.  Rush is certainly part of that corrosive culture.  As is Mel Gibson.

SW
I am sure none of our missing liberals have their ears glued to the radio listening to Rush Limbaugh.
As Tenac says Rush is an authentic and well spoken Conservative.  He has the real advantage of not having any economic or political  incentives in commenting.  He is rich beyond our imagining and gets his “vigorish” from the sponsors of his program.  And he has no political ambitions for himself.  He can’t afford the paycut.

TENACS point is illustrative

Republican politicians are reluctant to point out the flaws in Obama’s racial remarks, for fear of being called racist themselves.  That is cleaver tactics from Obama.  Someone needs to discuss this because it portends what will happen in an Obamination administration.

ANYONE WHO OPPOSES AN OBAMA INITIATIVE WILL BE CALLED A RACIST.

I didn't say that Limbaugh wasn't conservative, I said he reeked of toxic rhetoric.

As for being able to make a good degree of sense just by having a few sound principles, that is true of people on either side, to a considerable degree, re: coherence.  But not all that is coherent is beyond criticism; a great sci-fi fiction novel isn't fact no matter how coherent it is; an all encompassing philosophical or theological or political system (read: ideology) is coherent and yet not beyond dispute.

Many 'conservative principles' are shared by people who do not identify with the label/identity 'conservative.  The principles kirk mentions, for example are things that many people agree with.  Similarly with fiscal responsibility (deficit hawks), and with institutional conservatism (classical conservatism, concerns about the disruptiveness of radical change and a preference for gradual/incremental changes)

Does this word have a Latin root associated?


Liberal
Issue:  War on Poverty, LBJ
Result:  Over a trillion dollars spent, still have poverty.

Conservative
Reagan on the other hand cut taxes, made it possible for upward mobility of ALL Americans.  Blacks enjoyed their greatest rise economically, moving from poverty to middle class, business entrepreneurship, home ownership.


Government dependence is expected of socialists


Republican congress brought BCiinton kicking and screaming to sign welfare reform that featured a five year limitation (1994 or 95).  Amazingly as people were dropped off the rolls, they found jobs, much to the chagrin of liberals who predicted doom and gloom to this mean piece of legislation.


No problems here.


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/11/charitable_giving_liberals_vs_conservatives/
http://newsbusters.org/node/9323
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3799/is_20070701/ai_n19369255

Understand, what this points out more highly than anything else is the divide between conservative thought and liberal thought.  Liberals immediately believe government to be the answer to such issues, while conservatives immediately look to themselves or the individual.

This is the great chasm in the two philosophies.  Liberals are more reluctant to give to charities by their nature.  It is something they feel government should be doing.


This is a conservative position, and one I whole heartedly adhere to and agree with.


Why would you choose a group (govt) so ill equipped to administer such a vital program?  There is no government program that is well run, none.  Look at Soc Sec.  It is bankrupt. 
Conservatives deride liberals rightly so.  Conservatives see the pie and want to know who will pay for it.

Before government became everybody's daddy, most charitable work was handled through local churches and synagogues.  It was embarrassing to have to go to a neighbor or your local church when times got tough.  It was stigma. 
Government came in and removed the stigma.  It was much easier to walk to your mailbox and get a check than to your neighbor.


See the above citations.  This is a radical difference between my daddy's USA and yours and mine.  People pay and pay in taxes then read of all the great poverty resolution laws that were passed and feel like we have actually done something for our neighbor.  When we see our neighbor distraught or destitute, ummmm....we gave at the office.

Its like a lot of Christians.  They give their contribution on Sunday and feel so very self righteous about their missionary work when they never left the room.

No.  Let me take care of me and mine first.  Then I can better see to you.  If the government taxes me less, thats more I have for you.


It makes perfect sense.  The democrats have to be very careful not to offend, black Americans, asian Americans, gay Americans, greenie Americans, etc.  how many ways can they slice it?  Literally, the democrats are the  only ones to bring up race ever.  Without their racism, they could never win an election. 



Is there any difference in hearing a single argument that says one should vote for obama because he is black, or they will tell you not to vote for obama because he IS black?

Re: shame about asking for help, government programs/entitlements, etc.

A huge issue here is all the children who may not get medical care, food, shelter, etc.  Then there are people with various conditions/disabilities.

Another issue is that a government program might spend more time/effort/money on job training, etc., with emphasis on transitional assistance, and this would NOT be a permanent entitlement.

And yet another issue is that these aspects of government programs really don't cost as much as a lot of the CORPORATE WELFARE and the WASTE in the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.... for perspective.

I.e., conservatism can certainly be a 'ism', an ideology that puts blinders on minds and abstract notions over human concern or prudence.

On the conservatism vs. liberalism thread I mention the problem of either liberalism or conservatism unchecked.

I prefer to draw out what is BEST from either.