Who is like God arbour wrote:Narsil, your arguments are so utterly stupid, I don't really know, where to begin.
Really, well
I know where to begin. I know that I shall begin with the statement that you haven't been listening and obviously don't know your subject matter very well.
[*]You can contest what you want. Fact is, that not all entries in wikipedia are wrong. Fact is, that you can see the history of an entry and can see, how it is changed. Fact is, that sometimes people, who know, from what they are speaking, are making the entries. You are correct, that one should accept wikipedia only with reservation. But one should not discount it at all. If you can show, where it is wrong, do it. But as fas as I could see, the entries, to which I have linked, were not wrong.
But that's not the issue. I could have abstained from linking to wikipedia. As you can see, my arguments don't depend on it. And you have not given a plausible objection to it.
That it is the single most unreliable source on practically anything political, scientific, or even fictional in the whole fucking world, I think, is a plausible objection to it. Or at least, it's a plausible academic and educative objection and you people here have obviously had problems with 'elitist' education in the past, have you not? For god's sake, WILGA, my whole point revolved around the fact that Socialism is not a simple ideology that you can say is precisely this or precisely that. You could quite well argue that the Federation is a Socialist or Communist nation, as I have
actually agreed with by labelling it more similar to a
Stalinist regime, which is a type of Communism.
That you have been too ignorant to notice this is no fault of mine.
[*]You can redefine socialism all you want. But if you want debate, why people hate it, you should try to understand, from which socialism they are speaking. If you have a new-age definition that does not meet the classical definition, you will talk at cross-purposes. Please explain, why your understanding of socialism as well as the summary of some characteristics, you have quoted, don't not meet the definition of socialism, you can usually find in each encyclopaedia:
Democratic Socialism is new age now? Wow. An age that is well over a hundred years old being defined as
new... damn, everything is a bit old.
What I offered was the fact that Socialism, throughout its history, has always been beset by the fact that it is a wide-ranging series of ideologies (and still is) and that a lot of what was being done in the thread was an oversimplification as, both in theory and in practice, the ideologies of Communism do differ from the ideologies of Socialism in some respect and there are many sub-ideologies of both. This thread is, I think, therefore using far too much of an oversimplification for the purposes of a proper political debate as to the Federation's socialism being a bad thing because it fails to ask the question;
Which type of Socialism?
MSN Encarta wrote:- Socialism, economic and social system under which essential industries and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all. The term socialism also refers to the doctrine behind this system and the political movement inspired by it.
Socialism was originally based in the working class and has generally been opposed to capitalism, which is based on private ownership and a free-market economy. Socialists have advocated nationalization (government ownership and control) of natural resources, basic industries, banking and credit institutions, and public utilities. Although the ultimate aim of early socialists was a communist or classless society (see Communism), later socialists have increasingly concentrated on social reforms within capitalism.
Again, it fails to mention the history of socialism, which stretches as far back as the Elizabethan era with Thomas More's
Utopia, and it seems to indicate that early Socialists were aiming for a
Communist state, when it was
Karl Marx who was aiming for a Communist state, and he didn't come about for a century or so, and often criticised many Socialists of the time for being 'Utopian'. The fact that you've ignored everything I've actually said would render this argument moot, anyway.
Merriam Webster wrote:- any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
- a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
- a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
- a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
This one bears into account my argument;
Socialism is not a single ideology. As such, you're oversimplifying again.
- A political theory advocating state ownership of industry.
- An economic system based on state ownership of capital.
Which doesn't disprove my statement. You are merely an idiot.
Encyclopædia Britannica wrote:- social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.
This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made this point in Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) when they proclaimed that in a socialist society “the condition for the free development of each is the free development of all.â€
This fundamental conviction nevertheless leaves room for socialists to disagree among themselves with regard to two key points. The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property; this is true, for example, of the society envisioned by the English humanist Sir Thomas More in his Utopia (1516). Other socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.
The second disagreement concerns the way in which society is to exercise its control of property and other resources. In this case the main camps consist of loosely defined groups of centralists and decentralists. On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance of a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe that decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or lowest-possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This conflict has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement.
Emphasis is mine. Socialism is not a single ideology. That is the only point I have been making throughout my entire argument, and you have been far too ignorant to listen to that.
It's interessting, how all these definitions and explanations from sites, which are not wikis, are contradicting you. And how they confirm accidentally exactly what I have said.
But it's okay. You argue with your understanding of socialism and I argue with my understanding of socialism. But don't wonder, why all the other people do disagree with you because they aren't thinking at a new-age definition of socialism but at the classical definition.
Funny how Democratic Socialism has been around for well over a century, and how it is one of the two most widely used regimes of Socialism. The other one being Communism.
[*]It's not absolutely unusual, that civilians are tried by military courts. That's possible when the crime, they have commited, was done, while they were still military or have worked for the military. It's also possible, if the crime is considered a war crime or a crime against military.
But it is not as though as we haven't seen ordinary courts. The judge of the Federation Tribunal, that has decided, if the Doctor has rights, was, if memory serves right, a civilian.
Insofar, your complain is anchorless.
He was a Starfleet Admiral wearing a Starfleet Uniform. Rear Admiral Bennett, in fact.
[*]We have seen the president of the UfP in only a few situations. And that were military tense situations. That he has at such a moment military advisors is absolutely normal.
Insofar, your complain is again anchorless.
And yet the military was able to take over the government within minutes. Funny, that.
[*]You know, that we are speaking of Star Trek. We usually see only, what happens on a military ship. That there are no big political discourses should be obviously. But even there, they argued sometimes. In Pen Pals, they have argued, if they should help the people of Drema IV - although it would have been a violation of the prime directive. That was an alternative political viewpoint.
Picard has argued with Nechayev several times about political aspects as for example how one should treat the maquis or if one should relocate descendants of Native Americans.
But in the end, as an officer, he has followed his orders.
But in Insurrection, he has not even done that. And the UfP council was divided after Riker has reported what should happen with the Ba'ku. They have stopped the relocation of them.
Don't say, that there are not different political opinions. That's a wrong and baseless claim.
Those aren't political opinions, those are decisions. Many people holding the same political opinion can hold a different opinion on a single decision, and the Federation was mostly unaware of much of what was actually going on in the film.
[*]Nearly every nation has a secret service. And, as I have said already, that does not disqualify the UfP as socialist or communist state (if one would think, that the UfP is such a state at all). And a secret service, fom which nearly nobody knows, is no real danger for democracy. It can not suppress political opinions. Maybe you should study the relation of the KGB or Stasi to their people. Everyone has known about them and everyone has feared them.
That section 31 is not known by everyone should tell you, how big their everyday influence is.
And as Jedi Master Spock has said, one could argue, how far one could count section 31 to the UfP at all. I think, it is more a criminal organization than an official service of the UfP. Fact is, that the UfP has no controll over section 31. Insofar, it is no tool for the government. They can't use it, to do anything. Nobody but section 31 has power over section 31.[/list]
I said Section 31 makes the UFP rather Stalinist. If you'll notice,
Stalinism is a Communist system, as used by Joseph Stalin. For god's sake... Your entire argument has revolved around ignoring my point and substituting your own. It's called Strawmanning, I think.
