Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 104
Like Tree110Likes

Thread: Socialism defined by the World Socialist Movement

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Lismore, Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    It looks like to me that they would be relying on people to behave in a most Democratic way possible I guess it will depend on the Educational System of this type of Economy. If it doesn't implant in them the Importance of Science, Reason, Natural Law etc... then it might not have the best population to be making these crucial decisions that will affect the Sustainability of this System. Where I think a NLRBE differs is that these decisions would be done Directly with Scientific/Logical approaches reducing the need for people to make these decisions themselves. I don't have too much confidence that people can make the best decisions so I'm happy to let other more well-informed arrangements assist us in making the most beneficial decisions possible.
    Sure but I think for TZM to remain credible it would have to be expressed that these Scientific/Logical approach decisions are specific and that it was democratically decided that they happen. For example such as beachside living, would people decide if humans can live there or do we let the science decide?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    A difference between the two looks like the process of how we produce these wants/needs. I'm not sure how much Technology/Automation would be working in this System but it does seem like they would still want to keep many jobs. How many? Which ones? How much work? While I think a NLRBE would be trying to replace as many jobs as possible with Technology/Automation. So it seems to me that we have differing degrees of jobs done by People between the two ?
    Not sure I've seen anything in the link that promotes keeping jobs, so i'm not sure why you think this. I did find this though; 'The World Socialist Movement claims that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution.'

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    650
    Quote Originally Posted by Spinout View Post

    One line of thought that they take which I think lacks in TZM literature is their focus on democracy. Democracy should be the fundamental point of focus for creating any kind of change in the world because it is the majority of the people who will create the change, not the policy of government. The policy in government is implemented by the persons who represent communities (people). If the majority of persons in government represent communities that want a social or economic system change, it will happen.

    The focus of educating people in TZM does not really link to the mechanism of democracy or more to the point voting because this is seen as political. However I can see no other avenue for getting people to see if any of this theory will work (socialism or TZM's theories) except by forcing it on to them. And once this is done it contradicts the theory, therefore it no longer holds true (this is what has happened with socialism since it was theorised by Marx some 175yrs ago) Basically the majority of people would have to see the logic in a RBE or socialist community to be able to support it. And this will take time and some good planning and leadership.
    Are you talking about the greek meaning of the word democracy, or how it is in practice?

    Because in practice it's very different from the dictionary. in practice a democracy is a way for the elite to rule over people while giving them the illusion that they're in charge. is it a surprise they want to "spread democracy" so much?
    please explain why they are so eager to spread democracy?

    there was never a true democracy practiced anywhere in the world. picking your leader every 4 years is a democracy? first of all i don't want a leader, never voted in my life. second the elite is choosing our leaders, all you can do is pick between the two, and even then
    the minute they're in office they do what they want without asking for your permission.

    TZM is not against a true democracy providing that it isn't corrupted by money and propaganda.
    In long run though, TZM agenda is to assign decision making to machines or other form of objective metric using the scientific method, therefore to bypass humans altogether,
    Ernest and droneBEE like this.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    820
    Quote Originally Posted by Spinout View Post
    Sure but I think for TZM to remain credible it would have to be expressed that these Scientific/Logical approach decisions are specific and that it was democratically decided that they happen. For example such as beachside living, would people decide if humans can live there or do we let the science decide?

    Not sure I've seen anything in the link that promotes keeping jobs, so i'm not sure why you think this. I did find this though; 'The World Socialist Movement claims that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution.'
    Right. I agree that humans will be making decisions Democratically but the question is where to apply this in Society. I guess it will come down to what process produces the better outcomes for Everyone. In some we will find that the Scientific/Logical method works best while in other Humans democratically deciding will be good enough. For instance, I envision Scientific/Logical methods producing the best results in lets say Shoes. But still deciding on the Color/Style can be made directly by Humans. And things like that where the decision to produce the most optimal goods is made Scientifically but we would still have input in some way. And I'm sure there are many other instances where Human input is mostly only needed. Society would just be trying to find that right balance of Optimal decision making guided by what our choices produce and how much they improve our lives.

    As far as the Jobs question goes. It sounded to me like they were planning on having a lot of Human involvement in the production of Goods/Services. I was thinking that it might look like Coop's in these places where the workers "own" these places producing the goods themselves. It didn't sound like they were investing heavily in Automation & such. But if they are then maybe it just might actually match what a NLRBE would be trying to do so that would be Awesome of course.
    HAL9000 likes this.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    117
    I have nuthin agenst "owning"[ in a filosofical sence i dont think 1 coud own anythin hence things r inpermanent n dont belong 2 any 1] together if its done freely but d thing is with ppl dat call demselvs socialists like Berny Sanders tend do wanning 2 do it with force by Taking from sumbody else in order 2 give 2 Others n as mutch as i likd robin hood as a child i dont like him anymore tho i hate life has 2 b a constant struggel where ppl have 2 die in order 4 others 2 survive no good no evil just plain life living without conditions is my melody. Besides sanders want 2 prohibit things like guns n prolly other " non"- gun related "issues" i just wanna b free n b abal 2 do everything i like

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Lifee View Post
    I have nuthin agenst "owning"[ in a filosofical sence i dont think 1 coud own anythin hence things r inpermanent n dont belong 2 any 1] together if its done freely but d thing is with ppl dat call demselvs socialists like Berny Sanders tend do wanning 2 do it with force by Taking from sumbody else in order 2 give 2 Others n as mutch as i likd robin hood as a child i dont like him anymore tho i hate life has 2 b a constant struggel where ppl have 2 die in order 4 others 2 survive no good no evil just plain life living without conditions is my melody. Besides sanders want 2 prohibit things like guns n prolly other " non"- gun related "issues" i just wanna b free n b abal 2 do everything i like

    Kings and their minions have been 'taking' from the people, with the people just 'going along' for long enough IMO.... Historically speaking its been a reign of 10 or 15,000 years or so, right?....

    Have we not learned anything regarding our duty as human beings to respond accordingly whenever 'Authority Runs Amok'...

    My only optimism for the future rests with the newest generation of increasingly tolerant people....and a 'belief' that modern technology can still take us around the 'proverbial' corner.....IF we don't become too complacent.

    Hopefully, Its getting to the point where and when the People start getting their Backbone's straight...and begin recognizing the historical power in collectiveness and community, as opposed to this 'Individual First Trend' that we all know in our hearts and minds is just a House of Cards....waiting to blow us and our world over, so the Kings/Landlords and speculators can clean up, and the SOS starts all over again....AKA; Par, SOS, Business As Usual, Bend over and Take it People....etc....

    BTW; I'm pretty sure Bernie wants to limit idiot's, or the mentally incompetent and convicted violent criminals from having guns, and may want to restrict certain types of 'assault weapons'. He currently represents a relatively 'gun friendly' State....donchakno?

    He's got a website that spells out his opinions on many issues pretty clearly, for those interested in what his message truly is.... I did send him a copy of TZM Defined right at the beginning of his campaign, but can excuse him if he still hasn't read it..(those things can get lost in the shuffle, no?, and besides, there's a number of folks posting in these very pages that have never read the BOOK)....I may send him another??
    Last edited by droneBEE; 03-12-2017 at 08:39 AM.
    Ernest and HAL9000 like this.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    > You might want to be careful what you do here on the forum.

    What you mean there is actually a real moderator on the forum and it hasn't just been left to rot because no one can be bothered to actually do any work moderating here, because I haven't seen anyone moderate a lot of very extreme posts here which would normally see countless folk banned immediately if the forum had an active moderation team. ( Unless.. we have a more sympathetic moderation team than we have ever had before.. But I think its more likely there is just no one at the helm of the ship as we drift in the ocean of the internet. Lets hope we don't hit an iceberg ! )
    I've actually seen signs of life of moderator or administrator activity. There have been some cases of persistent spamming on a few occasions that were cleaned up. In fact I think there was some within the past couple weeks, I think it has been removed, as well. Just keep an eye out the next time someone posts spam; it'll linger for a few days then eventually goes away & I think that someone has reported it as spam and the mod or admin probably checks this forum on a weekly basis, or something to that effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    > Bumping threads goes against the forum rules.

    One persons bumping is another person adding debate to a discussion. ( Really is a lame rule that as countless other forums don't have that, folk can just add comments whenever they want to a thread, even if its a decade old and on one throws a hissy fit, or tries to make an excuse that we should stop talking about subject because its uncomfortable.. )
    Well, spinout has been on this forum for a while and I think I'm familiar enough with his temperament & I would imagine that things have become a little more apparent to you ever since you posted this.

    Quote Originally Posted by YouTuber View Post
    Next your be calling them a troll no doubt.

    "Quick ban them, they are disagreeing with me!"

    I guess until anyone bothers to admin this forum, anyone is free to post anything they like.

    Well, until the payment for running the server runs out and it just stops working one day. :-(
    There are some high profile folks within the original TZM community who some would refer to as trolls, who were banned from the original TZM forum. I personally don't really get into labeling anyone trolls & in fact I didn't really mind seeing that they came back, on to this current TZM forum. At least one of them got banned repeatedly by trying to return with a sock puppet & I suppose he gave up after a couple tries. Another one didn't seem interested in wanting to hang around & I guess it's because he wasn't able to get into the same in-your-face screaming matches with some of the original TZM members in this current forum.

    These days, the TZM forum has a rather quaint & "boring" attribute (for lack of better term or better way to describe it), and I guess the mods or admins like it this way and are keeping it like this. In the earlier days of TZM, there used to be some real soap opera calibre drama & activity. There were some very interesting characters, personalities, and activities going on back then. I basically liked it that way, because to me all that activity (good, bad, and ugly) meant there was some real momentum going on with the movement and it appeared to be headed somewhere.

    Spinout actually reminds me of how some of the old TZM forum members had some rather interesting idiosyncrasies. They weren't what would conventionally be referred to as trolls; they were just some of the typical forum members. I also notice that those who lean towards having an affinity for socialism typically have rather surly personalities.

    I also used to be an active forum member on a ron paul forum, where the typical member was libertarian. Libertarians seem to come across as having happier, more pleasant personalities.

    Why is it that libertarians seem to tend to be enthusiastic smilers who know how to enjoy life and are constantly in a good mood, while socialists seem to tend to be rather miserable grouchy frowners?

    If nothing else, those things make me want to seek out libertarian societies and avoid a socialist societies.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    117
    Ru claiming dat politicians r not fomenting laws every year n dat dat doesnt just go 4 any perticulor political party but r now n has been 4 many years a common thing in ppls home to take ppls freedoms away n prohibit things rather den 2 create mo' freedom n remove all laws bit by bit every year
    HAL9000 likes this.

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Lismore, Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Lifee View Post
    I have nuthin agenst "owning"[ in a filosofical sence i dont think 1 coud own anythin hence things r inpermanent n dont belong 2 any 1] together if its done freely but d thing is with ppl dat call demselvs socialists like Berny Sanders tend do wanning 2 do it with force by Taking from sumbody else in order 2 give 2 Others n as mutch as i likd robin hood as a child i dont like him anymore tho i hate life has 2 b a constant struggel where ppl have 2 die in order 4 others 2 survive no good no evil just plain life living without conditions is my melody. Besides sanders want 2 prohibit things like guns n prolly other " non"- gun related "issues" i just wanna b free n b abal 2 do everything i like
    How the WSM Is Different From Other Groups

    The World Socialist Movement

    claims that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution.
    claims that socialism will be a sharp break with capitalism with no "transition period" or gradual implementation of socialism (although socialism will be a dynamic, changing society once it is established).
    claims that there can be no state in a socialist society.
    claims that there can be no classes in a socialist society.
    promotes only socialism, and as an immediate goal.
    claims that only the vast majority, acting consciously in its own interests, for itself, by itself, can create socialism.
    opposes any vanguardist approach, minority-led movements, and leadership, as inherently undemocratic (among other negative things).
    promotes a peaceful democratic revolution, achieved through force of numbers and understanding.
    neither promotes, nor opposes, reforms to capitalism.
    claims that there is one working class, worldwide.
    lays out the fundamentals of what a socialist society must be, but does not presume to tell the future socialist society how to go about its business.
    promotes an historical materialist approach—real understanding.
    claims that religion is a social, not personal, matter and that religion is incompatible with socialist understanding.
    seeks election to facilitate the elimination of capitalism by the vast majority of socialists, not to govern capitalism.
    claims that Leninism is a distortion of Marxian analysis.
    opposes all war and claims that socialism will inherently end war, including the "war" between classes.
    noted, in 1918, that the Bolshevik Revolution was not socialist. Had earlier, long noted that Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution.
    was the first to recognize that the former USSR, China, Cuba and other so-called "socialist countries" were not socialist, but instead, state capitalist.
    claims a very accurate, consistent analysis since 1904 when the first Companion Party was founded.
    YouTuber, HAL9000 and droneBEE like this.

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Lismore, Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Kings and their minions have been 'taking' from the people, with the people just 'going along' for long enough IMO.... Historically speaking its been a reign of 10 or 15,000 years or so, right?....

    Have we not learned anything regarding our duty as human beings to respond accordingly whenever 'Authority Runs Amok'...

    My only optimism for the future rests with the newest generation of increasingly tolerant people....and a 'belief' that modern technology can still take us around the 'proverbial' corner.....IF we don't become too complacent.

    Hopefully, Its getting to the point where and when the People start getting their Backbone's straight...and begin recognizing the historical power in collectiveness and community, as opposed to this 'Individual First Trend' that we all know in our hearts and minds is just a House of Cards....waiting to blow us and our world over, so the Kings/Landlords and speculators can clean up, and the SOS starts all over again....AKA; Par, SOS, Business As Usual, Bend over and Take it People....etc....

    BTW; I'm pretty sure Bernie wants to limit idiot's, or the mentally incompetent and convicted violent criminals from having guns, and may want to restrict certain types of 'assault weapons'. He currently represents a relatively 'gun friendly' State....donchakno?

    He's got a website that spells out his opinions on many issues pretty clearly, for those interested in what his message truly is.... I did send him a copy of TZM Defined right at the beginning of his campaign, but can excuse him if he still hasn't read it..(those things can get lost in the shuffle, no?, and besides, there's a number of folks posting in these very pages that have never read the BOOK)....I may send him another??
    Other "socialist" parties and groups

    We don't want to go into a long rant against these groups, but we are occasionally asked what makes the World Socialist Movement (WSM) different from them. The intent here is to list some organizations of which we are aware, and the reasons we oppose them.

    Some members of the organizations we criticize have the best of intentions, but good intentions do not change the nature of those organizations, and membership carries the responsibility for the actions of those organizations.

    First we list some specific points which we think are important and differentiate the World Socialist Movement from the others listed. Our ideas are listed, and under each point some comments on the other "socialist" parties and groups. After this we list, in four categories, some parties and groups which claim to be socialist, with some specific comments on the parties and groups in each category.

    Clearly this is a "broad brush" approach. If this results in minor errors in our assignment of ideas to these groups, we apologize and are willing to make corrections. Overall, however, the comments will give a good perspective of how they differ from the World Socialist Movement (WSM):

    We believe that socialism will be a wageless, moneyless, free-access society.
    None agree with this.
    Most support a market system. Some suggest that a non-capitalist market is possible. These suggestions show a lack of understanding of market economics. While non-capitalist market systems have existed, they are impractical in a modern world. If a "non-capitalist" market system was established it would eventually become a capitalist market system.
    We believe that leaders are inherently undemocratic; socialists oppose leadership.
    All support leadership.
    We believe that socialists shouldn't work for reforms to capitalism, because only a movement for socialism itself can establish socialism.
    Those which work for reforms hold either that reforms to capitalism will eventually result in socialism, or that supporting reforms is an appropriate way to convince workers to support socialism.
    Some put forward a reasonable analysis of capitalism, but then work to give capitalism a "human face". Some claim that they want to end capitalism. Their bottom line is, however, just capitalism with reforms. Democratic Socialists of America is a good example of this.
    We believe that socialism will be a cooperative, world wide system, and it has clearly not yet been established.
    Most, perhaps all, of them support nationalism, which is closely akin to racism (which they explicitly claim to oppose), and in any case hinders worldwide working class solidarity. Nationalism is a concept only useful to separate people, and is therefore anti-working class.
    We believe that a scientific approach and understanding by the working class are necessary to establish socialism.
    Generally support emotionalistic campaigns, in which logic and rational analysis are ignored.
    Any group which wants people to follow their leadership is unlikely to promote real understanding. What needs to be understood if one is just following the leader and doing what one is told?
    We believe that democratically capturing the state through parliamentary elections is the safest, surest method for the working class to enable itself to establish socialism.
    Most seem to support this, parliamentary, approach at some level. But their commitment varies so that some support both parliamentarism and anti-parliamentarism at the same time.
    droneBEE likes this.

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Lismore, Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    I've actually seen signs of life of moderator or administrator activity. There have been some cases of persistent spamming on a few occasions that were cleaned up. In fact I think there was some within the past couple weeks, I think it has been removed, as well. Just keep an eye out the next time someone posts spam; it'll linger for a few days then eventually goes away & I think that someone has reported it as spam and the mod or admin probably checks this forum on a weekly basis, or something to that effect.
    What is Capitalism?

    The word capitalism is now quite commonly used to describe the social system in which we now live. It is also often assumed that it has existed, if not forever, then for most of human history. In fact, capitalism is a relatively new social system. For a brief historical account of how capitalism came into existence a couple of hundred years ago, see Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto.

    But what exactly does 'capitalism' mean?

    Class division

    Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)

    The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labour market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth.

    This is what we mean when we say there are two classes in society. It is a claim based upon simple facts about the society we live in today. This class division is the essential feature of capitalism. It may be popular to talk (usually vaguely) about various other 'classes' existing such as the 'middle class', but it is the two classes defined here that are the key to understanding capitalism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Well, spinout has been on this forum for a while and I think I'm familiar enough with his temperament & I would imagine that things have become a little more apparent to you ever since you posted this.
    Capitalism = free market?

    It is widely assumed that capitalism means a free market economy. But it is possible to have capitalism without a free market. The systems that existed in the U.S.S.R and exist in China and Cuba demonstrate this. These class-divided societies are widely called 'socialist'. A cursory glance at what in fact existed there reveals that these countries were simply 'state capitalist'. In supposedly 'socialist' Russia, for example, there still existed wage slavery, commodity production, buying, selling and exchange, with production only taking place when it was viable to do so. 'Socialist' Russia continued to trade according to the dictates of international capital and, like every other capitalist, state, was prepared to go to war to defend its economic interests. The role of the Soviet state became simply to act as the functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour, setting targets for production and largely controlling what could or could not be produced. We therefore feel justified in asserting that such countries had nothing to do with socialism as we define it. In fact, socialism as we define it could not exist in one country alone—like capitalism it must be a global system of society.


    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    There are some high profile folks within the original TZM community who some would refer to as trolls, who were banned from the original TZM forum. I personally don't really get into labeling anyone trolls & in fact I didn't really mind seeing that they came back, on to this current TZM forum. At least one of them got banned repeatedly by trying to return with a sock puppet & I suppose he gave up after a couple tries. Another one didn't seem interested in wanting to hang around & I guess it's because he wasn't able to get into the same in-your-face screaming matches with some of the original TZM members in this current forum.
    Object and Declaration of Principles

    This declaration is the basis of our organization and, because it is also an important historical document dating from the formation of the first Socialist Party in 1904, its original language has been retained. An annotated version of the Object and Declaration of Principles, including explanations of what the Object and each Principle means to us, is also available.

    Object

    The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.


    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    These days, the TZM forum has a rather quaint & "boring" attribute (for lack of better term or better way to describe it), and I guess the mods or admins like it this way and are keeping it like this. In the earlier days of TZM, there used to be some real soap opera calibre drama & activity. There were some very interesting characters, personalities, and activities going on back then. I basically liked it that way, because to me all that activity (good, bad, and ugly) meant there was some real momentum going on with the movement and it appeared to be headed somewhere.
    Declaration of Principles

    The Companion Parties of the World Socialist Movement hold

    That society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living (i.e., land, factories, railways, etc.) by the capitalist or master class, and the consequent enslavement of the working class, by whose labor alone wealth is produced.
    That in society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle between those who possess but do not produce and those who produce but do not possess.
    That this antagonism can be abolished only by the emancipation of the working class from the domination of the master class, by the conversion into the common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people.
    That as in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex.
    That this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself.
    That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.
    That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Spinout actually reminds me of how some of the old TZM forum members had some rather interesting idiosyncrasies. They weren't what would conventionally be referred to as trolls; they were just some of the typical forum members. I also notice that those who lean towards having an affinity for socialism typically have rather surly personalities.
    Revolution or Reform?

    Given all that we have said so far about capitalism, it seems obvious that something must be done. But what? Can capitalism be made to work differently? Or must there be a social revolution to replace capitalism with some other society? This is a debate that has raged for over a century.

    The route of trying to change capitalism, or 'reform,' is the one that has been taken by most people who have wanted to improve society. We do not deny that certain reforms won by the working class have helped to improve our general living and working conditions. Indeed, we see little wrong with people campaigning for reforms that bring essential improvements and enhance the quality of their lives, and some reforms do indeed make a difference to the lives of millions and can be viewed as 'successful'. There are examples of this in such fields as education, housing, child employment, work conditions and social security.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    I also used to be an active forum member on a ron paul forum, where the typical member was libertarian. Libertarians seem to come across as having happier, more pleasant personalities.
    Ignorance is bliss!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Why is it that libertarians seem to tend to be enthusiastic smilers who know how to enjoy life and are constantly in a good mood, while socialists seem to tend to be rather miserable grouchy frowners?
    Childhood trauma maybe. Some could have been raped by the local libertarian priest! There could be a range of factors, it would be an interesting study to do, might even end up showing the opposite to what you think is the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    If nothing else, those things make me want to seek out libertarian societies and avoid a socialist societies.
    Interesting!!
    YouTuber, HAL9000 and droneBEE like this.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1