[Rhodes22-list] Political reply to Ben C. and David B

[Herb Parsons]

I can't speak for Ed, but yes, we are living under a socialist system, 
but I don't think it's been quite 100 years. However, everything has 
varying levels of degree.

Every social program we add, adds another level of socialism. I don't 
think we've quite tipped the balance yet to where we have more socialism 
than we do capitalism, but we're surely moving closer.


David Bradley wrote:
> So, Ed, by your definition we have been living under a Socialist
> system for what, the past 100 years?  I really don't think it's
> anyone's intent, even Nancy Pelosi (to state an extreme), to create a
> single standard of living...
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
>   
>> Ben,
>>
>> Your analysis of my comments is O.K.  Part of the issue is that I think what
>> I want to say much faster than I type.  Even when I proof read what I say, I
>> often read what I say as what I was thinking and miss needed corrections and
>> whole phrases.
>>
>> Secondly, the way you and I use certain terms is not the same.  You apply
>> specific meanings with historical perspective and I apply more general
>> meanings than are being used in current circulation on the street.  The
>> terms used in the 1930's and 1950's have evolved to different usage in
>> current literature and discussion.
>>
>> Often, those changed meanings have been intentional by the authors or
>> speakers to obscure their intent.  Often the terms used today are just
>> evolutionary usage of a term.  I will have to try to keep to historical
>> generic terms rather that the pointed ones used elsewhere on the street to
>> describe concepts.
>>
>> David said, "Ed, et al., a question for you.  What do you call it today when
>> we have a progressive tax rate?  Are we living in a Socialist system
>> already, by your definition?"  The answer is yes. I say yes because of the
>> intent, see below.
>>
>> David said, "I do not view a marginal shift in the progressive tax rates as
>> Socialist…"  But it is.  It uses the power of government to collect money (a
>> form of property) to give to others, again see intent of use below.
>>
>> Are there legitimate reasons to have a progressive tax or taxes at all?  Of
>> course, the Constitution says, "provide for the common defense, promote
>> general welfare," and it further states that "Congress shall have power:  To
>> lay and collect taxes..."  It originally set method and limits, but that was
>> changed thru amendments and court interpretations of that amendment.
>>
>> A contemporary definition of socialism is "a theory of social organization
>> based on government ownership, management, and control of the means of
>> production and the distribution of exchange."  I suggest aspects of that
>> definition are not accurate in today's world. The definition was written by
>> a contemporary media person.  As such it obscures or fails to recognize
>> other aspects of the term such as economic, political and common usage.
>>
>> Socialism is a term developed from Marx, Engels and others writings on
>> 'political economy'.  A contemporary definition is, "The form of government
>> was one where there was no separation between civil society and the state
>> and which directly corresponded to the 'essence of socialized man."  And the
>> definition continues, "Work is shared equally throughout the nation
>> according to ability, and everyone has equal rights, standard of living and
>> class."
>>
>> The equalizing of 'standard of living and class' thru means of taxation and
>> government programs is where the use of the term 'socialist policies' is
>> being derived from in the current political debate.  The above definitions
>> are on the street being used to interchangeably to describe Socialist,
>> Progressives, M'ist, C'ist and other fallows.
>>
>> Current journalist, writers and commentators have comingled the terms.  That
>> is the way it is on the street.  The listeners or readers have to apply
>> current generic definitions to understand what is said.
>>
>> The intent of the taxation and distribution today has become to 'equally
>> share the standard of living", without regard to contribution, risk, etc.
>> This is called Socialism, etc., on the street in 2008.
>>
>> Ed K
>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Political-reply-to-Ben-C.-and-David-B-tp20129731p20129731.html
>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>