: Ah my comrade, most of the media is influenced by those neo-socialist liberals, we have a wedge to widen for the revolution. Look over the newspapers of today there are stories to agitate the working class. I know several journalists and many are, knowingly or not, on our side.Yes, many journalists are lean a little to the left, at least those within major papers with large scale circulation. Hiowever, the majority of papers, especially the smaller, local ones, are predonminantly conservative. Moreover, while these journalist are left leaning, they are NOT on our side. They seek more to save capitalism from itself, to prevent a "decent" (ascent as I would prefer)into socialism. Moreover, the journalists are not the ones that create the "news"; media companies are large privately owned businesses, held by other, larger holding companies (GE, ADM, Disney, etc.) that create a permanent bias for the current system. NMoreover, this is not the only way the meia is controlled and public opinion is manipulated. For a more in depth approach I refer you to Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent".
: Free speech, so early on in the revolution will allow the weed of capitalism to compete with our socialist future comrade, you must know that.
I understand your point; however, abrogation of the sacred right of free speech, once disallowed, is hard for an incumbent government to reinstitute. Not only is free speech sacred to those of us academically minded, but it also is suppose to guard against tyrrany. I prefer a system where capitalist ideas and socialist (as well as many other isms) can engage in frank discussion. It keeps life engagiung, promotes pluralism, and keeps us socialists honest.
: It is central comrade! If people will value one person over another then egalitarianism is at an end. It is from the tiny seeds of such discrimination that capitalism grows - it is the bud that needs to be nipped. Our socialist future will be an egalitarian one where each person values each other person eqaully or it will fail.
It doesn't have to be egalitarian, at least not in that way. There are valid differences between people and should be accordingly valued in different ways. Now I know that the "family unit" is anything but natural, I however must admit that social engineering on that level will hjave many unforsseable effects, both short and long term. I find the prospect to risky to attempt, much less in an instantaneous revolutionary way.
: I understand your fears but please understand that a revolution takes courage, bold steps to create change. Scientific Socialism.
Revolutions are dangerous because there is a crucial point, in that time of overthrow and chaos, where a tyrant can achieve power and the common people that the socialists have strove to protect and defend will feel the cruel hand of oppression. Oppression with the velvet glove of materialism removed that has so far hidden capitalsit repression.
: You have stated that drug use is personal? Please understand comrade that an egalitarian society does not blame a comrade for "their stupidity" for it threatens the equality of mankind. When each person sees the other as equal he will not be driven to exceed or deprave 'himself' for he will be part of the collective society.
I disagree. This line of arguement is comparable to Ayn Rand's contension that illegal drug use is the result of improper epistemological views (I am not making this up!). While I concur that there are systemic properties of capitalism that result in the alienantion and dislocation of indivivduals, that does contribute to drug use. However, even in socialist minded countries like the Netherlands , Swededn etc. that have delt with their drug problenm, still have a small percentage of the population that abuses drugs.
: You make fine points, religion has no place in a collective - it discriminates. I must contend your idea of private charity - we are thoroughly against it! What would you have? one man helping another more than a stranger? One man choosing whom to help? This is not egalitarian - it is capitalist!
Hey, there's nothing wrong with lending the occassional helping hand! However, i see charity as peerforming only a very minor role, a role that government should fill.
: : But a socialist future that I don't want to live in, at least not taht socialist future.
: This saddens me comrade for you seem to have understood many points - perhaps now you are clearer?
I prefer a pluralistic society, one that is fractured not by socio economic, racial, alienation, or other factors. I prefer one divided by ideas, cultures, and creeds. While I am a bit of a euro-centrist, an atheist, and a socialist I would prefer to have a loyal and valiant opposition, many oppositions in fact. That is why we should value some one like Gee for toting the lassie faire line; it keeps us honest and life interesting.
: --
: McSpotlight: To my (somewhat fuzzy) mind; it seems a little unrealistic to value all people equally; egalitarianism is the realisation that all people are equal; not that all people are identical...
None.
