True, there are various forms of socialism. I myself favor more non-statist forms of socialism. I follow in the footsteps of men like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, William Morris, George Orwell, and of course Charles Peguy - among many others.
Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
You can certainly argue that, but it's still debatable.
I'd argue that FDR had circumstances well on his side either way.
I always like to see the greater context in which such statements are made. Anyways, thank you, this certainly brings Eisenhower's comments in more perpsective.
In case you want to nitpick, I know that I paraphrased, and I also know that Eisenhower disliked a great deal of the concepts of large government, in a very Republican way, but the point was acknowledging that FDR brought about things that should not reasonably be undone.
Here you go.
snopes.com: Eisenhower on Social Security
Even here Eisenhower is warning about the over-concentration of power in the Federal government; which is a grave concern on my part. I'm not here to defend "Texas oil billionaires", but rather the dignity of the common man and his ability to stand on his own feet.
Does that mean I'm against welfare in toto? No, but I believe it should implemented in accordance with the principles of Federalism and subsidiarity. That means welfare programs are first and foremost managed and implemented at the lowest levels: in the private sectors and/or local governments. The main task of the Federal government should be to mainly supplmenent these endeavors.
See I believe in welfare programs and "socialism" that flows from the grassroots up, not imposed from the top down. That's why I am against the welfare state and FDR's legacy.
So in many ways I can now accuse you of misusing Eisenhower to set up a strawman.
No, actually I would firstly suggest you're using sophistry to try to paint FDR's welfare state as an inevitable and unalterable fact; which is it not. Appeals to inevitability is often the last resort to failed ideas.
I suppose you would firstly suggest that I was committing a fallacious appeal to authority?
Secondly, we could bring up the larger argument about FDR's policies fitting perfectly well with the nature of mass society, and how the masses often enjoy their bread and circuses. The Roman mob loved Caesar as he usurped power and destroyed the foundations of the Roman Republic.
Of course, this need not lead one to upholding an elitist attitude like that José Ortega y Gasset, author of Revolt of the Masses. I take a similar position as Proudhon and Kierkegaard, of critiquing the nature of mass-society for the way it destroys any geniune sense of human individuality and community. Democracy and socialism can only built upon a firm foundation of actual concrete communities. The mass welfare state firmly wishes to destroy this foundation, and govern over a mass of atomized people.
As Carl Jung himself stated:
"The mass State has no intention of promoting mutual understanding and the relationship of man to man; it strives, rather, for atomization, for the psychic isolation of the individual. The more unrelated individuals are, the more consolidated the State becomes, and vice versa...The question of human relationship and of the inner cohesion of our society is an urgent one in view of the atomization of the pent-up mass man, whose personal relationships are undermined by general mistrust."This viewpoint is also addressed by numerous other accross the spectrum, including but certainly not limited to: Ferdinand Tönnies, Robert Nisbet, Michael J. Sandel, Christopher Lasch, Hilaire Belloc, GK Chesterton, Ernst Jünger, Georges Bernanos, Jacques Maritain, Emmanuel Mounier, Martin Buber, Wilhelm Röpke, and numerous others. I'll be more than happy to present the particular views of many of these writers in this discussion if you wish.
--cited in The Knowledge of Man: Selected Essays, pg. 16
There's plenty of legitimate arguments against the welfare state that delve deep into issues concerning political and social theory.
You brought Bismarck up as an example of state socialism, not me. I agree Bismarck is a good example of such, and also a good example of what often happens with such a system. Of course there are many factors involved here, but right now we're touching on the general facts here.
Way, way too many factors there. I think it would be a severe case of questionable cause to use Bismarck's whole career, and perhaps even the effects of his career, as an example of things that happen because of Socialism.
Nevertheless, the ethical and moral implications of such policies need to be addressed in order to gain a more comprehensive perspective on the issues.
I did not bring up if he was good or bad. I said his policies were popular at the time, which does not imply good, nor would it imply that his policies are necessarily right or effective.
That's very cute. You've already made numerous false claims and assumptions about me; in this particular case claiming I'm impatient for change. Then you decide to go on a lecturing tour of why gradual change is better, all of which of course is a strawman since I never argued otherwise. Then here, when it becomes clear I'm in favor of gradual changes, you claim "Well see, I was right all along."
Well there you have it. As I said, many small changes.
Very dishonest on your part.
Discussions often take unintended directions, and you need to be able to go with the flow. The larger implications of the welfare state have not given the proper attention they deserve, and I wish to address them.
Anyway, I think this thread is being taken in the incorrect direction.