Dotard, there are people on the forum who spell it differenly - we also have a different sense of humour. We're British, don't discriminate based on your spelling bee values.

I'm centre - left if I have to define myslef that way. However, I'm more a pragmatist than anything. Responcibility has to come down to the the individual, but individuals have a social responcibility which has to be agreed through democratic government.

(February 9, 2009 at 4:25 pm)leo-rcc Wrote:

(February 9, 2009 at 3:23 pm)bozo Wrote:

(February 9, 2009 at 1:15 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: One flaw in that argument, I am a socialist and not exactly poor. I pay a whopping amount of taxes and do not complain about it. Okay, I am not Bill Gates either, or the sultan of Brunei. But still.

Leo, what flaw?
I don't know you but I guess you will be pretty close to me on the scale of wealth.
Do you not consider yourself nearer the underclass than the mega rich?
As a socialist, do you not have more affinity for the underclass and do you not want to see capitalism replaced eventually?

I guess that depends on what boundary you set for mega-rich. I am closer to zero than a million dollars, sure. I earn about 2 times the standard income in the Netherlands.

More affinity with the underclass, sure, I have been there so I know how hard it can be.

Capitalism replaced, the Netherlands isn't really a capitalist nation like the U.S. so I am not as gung ho to change our national politics as my more left colleagues. I am more the PVDA than the S.P. to coin the phrase.

But I do concede that the most of the socialists would like the distribution of wealth more evenly than is the case now and rightfully so. But I also see that humans do need an incentive to strive to the best of their ability. Rewards do need to come for a job well done, not because it is a given right. But the split between rich and poor is to great at the moment. So in that aspect you are correct and your argument is not flawed.

Thank you Leo!
Regarding " incentive ", in capitalist society what you describe translates into a quest for money, status and " power ".
In a truly socialist society, the incentive would be a fair and equitable, peaceful society/world.

A noble idea, but way to Utopian.

(February 10, 2009 at 1:14 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: A noble idea, but way to Utopian.

If one has a goal, it should be perfection!

Because then when you fall flat on your face you can claim you aimed too high?

Perfection should only be aimed for when it is attainable, and the very nature of nature makes it impossible to obtain.

(February 11, 2009 at 7:14 am)Tiberius Wrote: Because then when you fall flat on your face you can claim you aimed too high?

Perfection should only be aimed for when it is attainable, and the very nature of nature makes it impossible to obtain.

No and the point is that if you don't even aspire to a socialist state, then don't call yourself " left " or indeed " socialist " if you don't really want to believe it can be realised.

So I am not left or a socialist because I find your Utopian view unrealistic? Wow. Things are not that black and white you know?

(February 11, 2009 at 2:19 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: So I am not left or a socialist because I find your Utopian view unrealistic? Wow. Things are not that black and white you know?

It's not really a question of Utopia. It's very much a question of whether you really aspire to the socialist alternative or rather like faith-heads, cherry-picking bits of capitalism that suit you.

The difference between us and the faith-heads is that they are cherry-picking dogma in order to promote hatred. We are cherry-picking the bits of capitalism that are most important and will serve the majority in the long run. This is how society evolves, we scrap the bad ideas and keep the good ones. There is nothing wrong with cherry-picking if the cherries we get are good.

(February 11, 2009 at 4:14 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The difference between us and the faith-heads is that they are cherry-picking dogma in order to promote hatred. We are cherry-picking the bits of capitalism that are most important and will serve the majority in the long run. This is how society evolves, we scrap the bad ideas and keep the good ones. There is nothing wrong with cherry-picking if the cherries we get are good.

I don't quibble over what people take out of capitalism, but for me if you sign on to it then you really can't claim any sort of left-wing credentials. At best you can claim to be " middle-of-the-road " ( we used to joke that that was where you get run over! )