Page 3 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#40563 - 07/20/10 05:39 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
To be fair The Satanic Reds do not use the same definition of socialist as every other socialist does. They do have their own spin on things. The basics are covered in their FAQ: http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/faq.html

For me personally I don't care for the politics in particular but the metaphysical writings (the dark doctrines) of some of the members of the group are indeed very good (even if Tani tends to rant to much).

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17

And in all fairness, the "S.R." crowd do espouse the same ethical root (egoism) that I've seen most all Satanists support. Given that assertion, though, I don't see how it meshes with the rest of what they say. If we remove the word "Satanic" and just call them what they call themselves, "Egoist Socialists," I still can't wrap my mind around it.


A Satanic Reds member position on egoism: http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/egoism.html

 Quote:

You do seem to be a bit more articulate than the Satanic Reds, and I'd like to be able to understand why a Satanist would support a more controlled economy. A lot of other people here have explained their reasoning behind their position, and I'd be interested to hear yours, especially since it's unique.


Well, I am not in agreement with The Satanic Reds, nor am I a socialist, and it was a long time since I read their political material so I cant relate my views to it. My basic critique of a free economy has already been discussed in this thread: http://www.the600club.com/topic35106.html No need to start the same discussion here again.

But my basic critique of a too free economical system is that money becomes the new god and for me personally I wish to live in a society that shifts the focus on income and concentrates on other things which I deem more important for the well being of me, my friends and the enviroment.


Edited by TheInsane (07/20/10 05:47 PM)

Top
#40568 - 07/20/10 07:14 PM The Satanic Reds [Re: TheInsane]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
To be fair The Satanic Reds do not use the same definition of socialist as every other socialist does. They do have their own spin on things. The basics are covered in their FAQ: http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/faq.html


 Originally Posted By: The Satanic Reds

6) Is the SR capitalist, socialist, or communist?
==================================================
We are sort of both. Dirigist capitalism is a form of Socialism!...Anyone who is TOLERANT is labeled a Red! Anyone who is in favor of women's rights, feminism, gay rights, and against racism is called a Red! In fact, anyone in favor of tolerance toward alternative religions is called a Red or a "pinko commie." This is not new! And so, we call ourselves REDS!


I do understand the concept of "Dirigist capitalism" (Dirigisme or socialism-lite). But social issues (gay rights, feminism, non-racism, religious tolerance) have nothing to do with being a "red." The fact that other people ignorantly fling around a term without understanding its meaning doesn't mean it actually means that.

 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
A Satanic Reds member position on egoism: http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/egoism.html


When I refer to egoism, I'm referring to an ethical stance. The best I can glean from this word salad is that he sees egoism as some sort of epistemological position. :? Obviously they aren't on the same wavelength I am, so it would be difficult to have any sort of discussion about it.

 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
But my basic critique of a too free economical system is that money becomes the new god and for me personally I wish to live in a society that shifts the focus on income and concentrates on other things which I deem more important for the well being of me, my friends and the environment.


I went over your posts in that thread. It seems regarding social issues, you talk about the problems caused by various factors (individual ownership of firearms, drug use, etc) and thus say they should be legally limited or prohibited. My issue with that is that history shows prohibition and gun control don't work. It's only great in theory to ban things; in reality, bans are ineffective and often counterproductive. Just because there's a problem with one system doesn't mean the other system has the solution.

As for the economy, a free market is a system in which the government interferes minimally (if at all) with the economy. You go on about how such a system values money and profit over human and environmental interests. But a free market is a POLICY, not a value system. You seem to have equated capitalism with consumerism. They're not the same thing at all.

You also mention how, in a free market, sometimes companies do unethical things (exploit their workers, pollute, deceive the public, etc). This is true, but again, that doesn't mean that implementing regulation is going to solve these problems. Again, history has demonstrated that attempts at interference inevitably result in corruption.

Simply put, you've demonstrated that capitalism and individual liberty are imperfect/flawed, i.e. they fall short of realizing a utopia. But all of the proposed "solutions" to this problem end up creating a bigger mess than the original problem in question. The "cure" is worse than the disease. I don't think my policy preferences would result in a perfect world; simply the lesser of two evils.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40571 - 07/20/10 08:17 PM Re: The Satanic Reds [Re: XiaoGui17]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I will not try t defend The Satanic Reds. I am not a member and I do not agree with them politically.

On politics, I'd rather not go in deeper into the topic again since it's already been done. But I would like to comment on some things.

1. Gun control does work. Statistics show that less murders and accidents caused by guns occur in countries where it is illegal or restricted to own/carry a gun.

2. The policy of a free market does create a certain value system automatically even if it may not be part of the original policy. A free market capitalism creates consumerism. There is no way around it if the market is free.

3. Yes, government interference can result in corruption. I never said it was without faults. I do however believe it is better that it can be controlled rather than having it free and thus out of control for everyone.

4. I am not surprised that you consider "the cure worse than the disease". Its only natural. I think the same way but about your system. Its called having different opinions \:\)

Basically I've been through this discussion before on this board and unless there are new perspectives to add to it I feel no need to comment much further on it. We would have to agree to disagree.

Top
#40574 - 07/20/10 08:46 PM Re: The Satanic Reds [Re: TheInsane]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
I've always though of some of my political ideas as being somewhat socialist but due to socialism not really having one standard definition and it's more commonly accepted definition really doesn't fit my ideas I'm not sure what to call it.

I am not at all for interference with private business. I don't feel the state providing some of its own production is a form interfering with private business. I don't see how it is at all anti-capitalist for the government to produce, give jobs, and distribute resources to its workers. All socialist/communist ideologies that I've heard in support of these ideas pair it with the abolition or regulation of private business but I can't at all see why that's necessary.

When the problem is not enough jobs for the people isn't it logical to address the problem with the state creating jobs to assist with the situation? When the problem is a fucked up healthcare system it makes sense to me for government to try and provide a better alternative without interfering with the private. If the state options are truly better than private ones then they'll beat them out. I think the state should be able to produce in the interests of its people. If the "socialist" option doesn't work it'll die off like any other business.

I'm not as knowledgeable in politics or history as others so I don't take my ideas in the field that seriously but I do think on them a lot.


Edited by TV is God (07/20/10 08:46 PM)

Top
#40577 - 07/20/10 10:05 PM Re: The Satanic Reds [Re: TV is God]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I was a member of the Communist Party years ago when I was interested in trying new things out and acquiring a stronger awareness of the political and economic.

Let me just say the Communist Party and I didn’t really make much sense together and I left, but I did spend a long time studying Marx, Engels and Lenin etc.

One thing I will say about the Communists: they never really got over Stalin, and over the collapse of the USSR.

The “iron laws of history” haven’t exactly played out as Marx thought they would. The relegation of all human beings into either the camp of the bourgeoisie or the camp of the proletariat hasn’t really happened, and the necessary collapse of the capitalist mode of production hasn’t happened either.

I am interested in Dialectical and Historical Materialism, but one has to be careful with these concepts.

There is very little which is Satanic in Communism.

The whole premise of the thing is based on controlling and stopping water from seeking its own level.

The whole national productive apparatus is coordinated and controlled from a central point. What will be produced, how much will be produced, who will get what and how much is all determined by some faceless bureaucrat in some grey building somewhere else.

It reminds me of the sort of world Kafka wrote about in The Trial, it’s just a nightmare.

The Communists attempted to put an end to classes, but instead they merely put the bureaucracy and the engineers in charge. It was and is a clanking, grinding machine with everybody in their assigned place and ready to take orders, and the whole economy and society is orchestrated by a handful of bureaucrats in some bureau somewhere. It’s a nightmare.

Top
#40599 - 07/21/10 02:38 AM Re: The Satanic Reds [Re: TV is God]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: TV is God
I don't feel the state providing some of its own production is a form interfering with private business.


OK, I can try and take this one on. What you're essentially talking about is the state providing a "public option" within a particular industry, whether it's shipping (U.S. postal service), education (public schools), or healthcare.

Here's why I would take issue with that.

In sectors with a "public option," the government can subsidize its businesses with taxes, thus artificially lowering prices to levels that private businesses simply can't compete with, and driving its competitors out of business. The public option monopolizes the lower-income demographic. Think of the school system; only the rich and picky can afford to go to private schools.

Why is this a problem?

Well, compare it to a sector that's exclusively private, like the restaurant industry. Even if you're poor, there are still a variety of options available; there's competition. Don't like McDonald's? Go to Burger King, or White Castle, or Jack in the Box, or Wendy's. When you have a public option, however, there's only one option available at the low income level. It's like prison food; you take what's available or you simply go without. The reason all private schools are outlandishly expensive nowadays is because a cheap private school wouldn't be able to compete with FREE public schools.

 Originally Posted By: TV is God
I think the state should be able to produce in the interests of its people. If the "socialist" option doesn't work it'll die off like any other business.


That's just the thing; it won't. It's supported by taxes and thus prevented from going out of business. It's got its own built-in bailout system. Look at what a mess Amtrak is. It can't turn a profit, it can't get business, and it keeps getting millions in government money.

 Originally Posted By: TV is God
When the problem is a fucked up healthcare system it makes sense to me for government to try and provide a better alternative without interfering with the private.


The problems with our health care system stem from government interference in the first place. Because tax incentives make it far cheaper to get health care through one's employer instead of independently, people just take whatever their employer offers instead of "shopping around" for the best deal. If people bought their health care directly from the company instead of getting it via their employers, companies would be made to compete, and consumers would get better deals. It would certainly be simpler and easier to phase out government interference in the health care industry than to implement a "public option," but I'm not holding my breath.

Another issue I mentioned before in this thread (see quote below) is the fact that health insurance isn't really insurance; it's a buffer system for health care costs. Insurance covers unexpected expenses. Your car insurance covers things like wrecks or engine failure, not routine costs like car washes or gasoline. Theoretically, health insurance would cover unexpected illness or injury, not routine check-ups, vaccinations, and the like.

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
If I buy an item, I have to write out all the 0's on the check myself, or put down each bill myself, and make note of how much lighter my wallet is because of it. That stings, and it makes me be more careful to ensure that I'm spending wisely. But part of the reason people abuse credit cards more than cash is because they don't directly feel the impact; it's like anesthetic...it's this very same "buffer" effect that drives up the cost of private health insurance. If healthcare covers a certain percentage of the cost of an item, people are more likely to get more expensive drugs and procedures because "they're covered" than they would if they were paying directly out of pocket. Then they bitch about how much their coverage costs... gee, I wonder why?



P.S. I could address TheInsane's points, but I think you've made it pretty clear you don't wanna debate the issue any further, so I'll let it slide for now.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40601 - 07/21/10 03:29 AM Re: The Satanic Reds [Re: XiaoGui17]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
Okay I can understand that. But if the reason a free option of anything would be low quality and monopolized is due to taxes then what if there were no taxes? If the state were to not to charge taxes to begin with and instead try and use state business as the production of necessities couldn't this problem be avoided?

I think if it's done right there's no reason for state production to deal with money at all. As an example I could see a network of public farms. You put so many hours doing work for farm near where you live and you're entitled to a reasonable amount of all the produce from the whole network of farms. Entirely voluntary and no money exchanged. This would of course drive private farmers out of business but the product would not be any lower quality. And there would be more than enough to go around because to receive you must produce.

Now maybe this would cause the private food industry to charge more but I can't see that necessarily as a bad thing. You have high quality product just from working for it. I could see a more mid-level market where you bring ingredients in exchange for prepared food. Just a thought.

I see money has become an obstacle. Money is supposed to be a means to exchange any resource for another resource. Now money has become some strange entity all its own. Banks will lend you money because you already have money. Somehow money has become more important and valuable than the resources it buys. An effort to directly compensate work with resources when possible is an interesting idea to me.

The big criticisms of socialism and communism are the egalitarian aspects which I don't see at all necessary. If carefully planned I can see public production coexisting with private production in a way where both progress.


As for insurance I absolutely agree with you about the buffer concept. I purposely avoid modern politics as much as possible (I don't pretend this doesn't makes me much less aware of what's going on, it's just a matter of personal disgust for being told what I'm supposed to care about and debate for) but I hear talk of requiring health care? I feel the state has no right to force anyone to use a private business. The state telling me I have no choice but to have car insurance is already the biggest plate of bullshit uncle sam has made me eat. I have to pay a private business almost $100 a month (a lucky price at my age) to do absolutely nothing. So about $1200 a year for a service that by no miracle or stretch of the imagination would ever pay me near that much if anything happens. Oh yeah and they're the ones that get to decide if they want to pay anything.

Excuse me for straying from the point a bit.

Top
#41256 - 08/02/10 02:12 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: Fnord]
spinosaurus01 Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/10
Posts: 14
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.33

I didn't bother really reading all the stuff so Im guessing that means National Socialist? If not the test was wrong.

Top
#41257 - 08/02/10 02:41 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: spinosaurus01]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
National Socialist? Are you a member of the original German Worker's Party or a member of the incarnation that had Adolph at the helm? Or maybe you are one of those confused individuals who didn't get the memo that WWII is over and are therefore still holding out false hope for a 1,000 year reich that will never come. Or perhaps you are just out for a laugh. I suppose any one answer is just as likely as the next, though I am genuinely curious.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#41333 - 08/02/10 07:43 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: ta2zz]
SODOMIZER Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 61
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
It is shit like this that truly smells of Facebook or Myspace.


Yeah, it didn't make any sense to me. Trying to cherrypick items makes little sense because at some point, there's a type of society (much less political system) you desire.

Even more, those questions are horribly leading. "Women should stay at home and be homemakers: yes or no" is far too simple. It doesn't give you the ability to address related conditions or exceptions.

And of course, many political viewpoints aren't represented. Where do you put monarchists/feudalists/traditionalists?
_________________________
SC / O9A

Top
#41347 - 08/02/10 11:09 PM Re: Political Compass [Re: SODOMIZER]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: SODOMIZER
Yeah, it didn't make any sense to me. Trying to cherrypick items makes little sense because at some point, there's a type of society (much less political system) you desire.


Yes, I recognize the deficiencies of the quiz, as I've noted before. It's bound to be simplistic by attempting to reduce political opinions to a numerical scale. I suppose a more qualitative approach, asking open-ended questions issue by issue, would be far more accurate, but it would also be tougher to demonstrate a concrete trend.

My main point in trying to use something objective (if weak) is the frequent disconnect between people's personal meanings of labels. Case in point: I know a "Latter Day Saint" who drinks, fornicates, and does goodness knows what else they aren't supposed to be doing. Ask him if he agrees with this or that quote from J. Smith (Eden in Missouri, origins of Native Americans) and he'll wriggle around about how that's not "official doctrine." Apparently, nothing Mormons believe is "official doctrine." So when someone tells me he's a "Republican," what am I supposed to make of that? Who knows if his meaning of the term in any way conforms to my understanding of it?
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41365 - 08/03/10 09:15 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: XiaoGui17]
SODOMIZER Offline
pledge


Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 61
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
My main point in trying to use something objective (if weak) is the frequent disconnect between people's personal meanings of labels.


I agree that this is a big confusion.

It seems to me that people view political outlooks as labels or categories, and don't realize that each has a core idea -- the big picture -- which determines what its viewpoint will be on each detail.

For example, why the right necessarily opposes gay marriage and protected political groups -- it's a Social Darwinist philosophy.

For another example, why leftist topics like gay rights, anti-racism, etc. tend to cluster with socialist or communist views -- the left is primarily an egalitarian philosophy.

When you look at it from the highest level of organization, things become clear that are invisible when you're comparing labels.
_________________________
SC / O9A

Top
#41403 - 08/04/10 12:35 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: SODOMIZER]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: SODOMIZER
For example, why the right necessarily opposes gay marriage and protected political groups -- it's a Social Darwinist philosophy.


I get the general idea of Social Darwinist philosophy, but I don't see how it relates to traditional conservatives or opposing gay marriage. As a libertarian, I can definitely see how libertarianism is philosophically social darwinist: leave everyone to their own devices with minimal government intervention and let those who so well for themselves prosper!

But where liberals feel the need to protect people from society (anti-discrimination laws, state benefits), *social* conservatives feel the need to protect people from themselves. Banning allegedly "dangerous" or "immoral" activities is one of their favorite social policies. I say, let people do dangerous/immoral things so long as they're only risking their own lives; that's Social Darwinism in progress right there.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41758 - 08/11/10 05:04 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
spinosaurus01 Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/24/10
Posts: 14
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
National Socialist? Are you a member of the original German Worker's Party or a member of the incarnation that had Adolph at the helm? Or maybe you are one of those confused individuals who didn't get the memo that WWII is over and are therefore still holding out false hope for a 1,000 year reich that will never come. Or perhaps you are just out for a laugh. I suppose any one answer is just as likely as the next, though I am genuinely curious.



http://www.666blacksun.com/Main.html

Top
#41762 - 08/11/10 05:43 AM Re: Political Compass [Re: spinosaurus01]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
Not going to pass off a whole bunch of information about the history of the black sun symbol and its significance or meaning..
But that one particular site has been multiple times flagged as conspiracy-theory source. While I am all in to take a closer skeptical look at some holocaust numbers and claims, the site bulks out of inconsistencies and historical mistakes. It is a fun thing to read, but to use it as a claim for validation?

I think you'll have to do better and at least take a critical look at your sources before turning them in.


Edited by Dimitri (08/11/10 05:45 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
Page 3 of 5 <12345>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.