Ok.

Show me how all kibbutzim are about power and/or show me a fascist society that isn't.

That is all very dishonest.

After asking for the motives you finally compiled a list that essentially says that the opponents are evil.

I gave you several motives for the Con side and you didn't add any of them. Plus you filed taking other people's money under "altruism" and the refusal to give such money under "selfishness", despite the fact that you don't even know what people would want to spend the money on instead. Someone who prefers to give to his favourite charity rather than pay for the healthcare of somebody who could work and pay for it himself is not selfish and neither is someone who demand that others pay for his healthcare an altruist.

I think from the examples we have seen here, we can file "dishonesty" as a motive or at least a strategy for the Pro side.

I am not against a public healthcare system, and neither do I believe that all who are for such a system (myself included) are evil. But it is very apparent that at least here in the forum one side is incapable of even acknowledging that the other side might not be evil and that taking other people's money is not altruism.

There are many good arguments for a public healthcare system but _altruism_ is not one of them. Altruism would make a person contribute, not take. And you can already contribute to other people's medical bills if you so choose. The best reason for a public healthcare system is a lack of altruism among those who want it!

If the 52% of Americans who voted for Obama and perhaps support his public healthcare system would simply pool together and pay for a healthcare system, they would have ithe healthcare system and they wouldn't need legislation to bring it about. But they don't. And that's called "altruism" these days.

There are historic examples of people who wanted to bring about change and believed that such change would be altruistic or good. But there are two ways to go about it. One is to do it. The other is to demand that somebody else do it.

Are you a doer or a demander? Are your motives altruistic? Would you profit from such a healthcare system? In that case, how are your motives altruistic? Or would such a system cost you more than you currently pay? In that case, why don't you already give the difference to charity?

Being an altruist is easy. But it costs money.

Calling oneself an altruist is even easier. And it's free.

(Guess who in America gives the most to charity? Is it altruistic liberals or selfish conservatives? Do you know?)

I'm not claiming that there is a fascist society that isn't concerned with power. In fact, quite the opposite. The claim is that both fascism and socialism are concerned with power. Fascism conceives of power in terms of the state, ie. the political group; socialism, the social group.

Obviously, there are important differences in the way this power is articulated. Fascist states are generally concerned with the subordination of individuals, collectives, etc. to the interests of the state, usually to maximize the power of the state in relation to other states. Socialist organizations, by contrast, are concerned with the subordination of individuals, and sometimes even states, to the collective. The definition of the collective and the collective interest is power, just not the same sort of statist power that characterizes fascist states. Of course, we can disagree about the definition of power -- you might think that power is limited to purely state-centric power -- but I think that you'd be willing to agree that socialism exercises something at least analogous to power.

It's difficult to make generalizations about the kibbutzim because not all of them were classically socialist, and even those that were defined the social group, the collective, along different lines. For example, many of them were defined more by their nationalist/religious identifications than by class. Some of them were even directly tied to Israel. Nevertheless, all were concerned with advancing some notion of collective identity, and, as a result, some notion of the political, which is what I mean by power.

That's the point.

If you claim that both both fascism and socialism are as a rule concerned with power, you have to disprove every single instance of a socialist system that isn't about power.

Since I am aware of at least one kibbutz that is socialist but not about power, I know you are wrong.

Yes, I'm aware of the implications of my claim. However, I could claim that any system which isn't concerned with power isn't a socialist system, and that therefore your claim that there is a socialist system which is not concerned with power must be false.  We can both play this game, since your modus ponens is my modus tollens.

Honestly, I don't see this disagreement going anywhere since we have different understandings of power -- mine is considerably wider than yours (as explained in the previous post), so I see power where you don't.

What's the point of talking about socialism when you redefine its meaning to fit your conclusions?

What's the point of talking about socialism when you define it so that its meaning is constantly shifting to include systems which share few or no theoretical similarities to other 'socialist' systems? Socialism is a category -- it's definition, unlike say, a list of systems claiming to be socialist, shouldn't be subject to empirical determination.

When exactly did I shift the meaning of "socialism"?

The Zionist socialist movement is not exactly a new ideology. It developed directly among German Jews, just like Marxism.

Not in a case where, for example, some specific national interests seek to offer alternative leverage over other's industrial infrastructures; as in, Boeing vs Airbus "competitiveness" at international levels that gives economic advantages (including employment ratios in any given country) against other manufacturers such as Ambraer(Brazil) or Bombardier(Canada) or Tupolev(Russia), etc.

Simply said, the power of "productivity" can impact development worldwide (in some areas, negatively) while free-market principles tend to favor workforce outsourcing; aka - globalization.

Domination, as a result & from within the context we discussed earlier, is a level of *increasing* control that aims to simply eliminate competition. Or as some would put it; trade wars.

A couple of points:

1. I'm not accusing you of shifting the meaning of socialism. I argued that an empirical definition of socialism would be conceptually incoherent (quoted text).

2. I've already addressed the point about the kibbutzim (see the third paragraph in reply #512). However, more importantly, I think that this misses the point.

3. My claim is that:

and

If you accept this definition of power, then you accept that socialist systems are concerned with power. If you don't, I'm not going to shove it down your throat. But I think  that you can at least appreciate that socialist systems are concerned with a theory of collective identity, which is analogous to fascist system's concern with state identity which sometimes --although perhaps not always -- results in similar consequences.

I'm not interested in dragging this out further. Can we at least agree that i) the conclusion above is true or ii) either I don't understand your argument or you don't understand my argument (or both). 

The only claim contained within the quoted text is that unipolarists, ie. the school within international relations which believes that the international system is characterized by a single hyperpower, doesn't define dominance that way. Well, in fact, they don't. 

Ok.

Kibbutzim aren't Marxist to begin with.  Communal living predates socialism, it's the root philosophy.

It's also voluntary, which is something you're conveniently ignoring.  You choose to join a Kibbutz, it's an alternative to working on your own, not a mandate.  Socialism is involuntary, you are compelled to live in equality, or what passes for it anyway.  Hence the whole power problem.  Little c communists only become scary stupid marxist people when they start forcing others to join the commune.  Force requires an exercise of power, and only those interested in power would ever do such a thing.

The Kibbutz is a dying institution as well, no one likes socialism when the alternative is so mind numbingly obvious as it is with the modern, rich lifestyle of the individuals right next door.  Nearly all of them have privatized.

Who said they were?

That's what "socialism" is.

No, that was my main point.

Is it possible that you have read the entire exchange and didn't get that I used kibbutzim as an example SPECIFICALLY because they are voluntary?

Har har:

http://www.thehill.com/homenews/house/57033-hoyer-gets-earful-at-volatile-town-hall

Gem from the end: "On top of that, the Maryland chapter of Health Care for America Now, had counted on filling 1,300 of the 1,500 seats with health reform supporters.  Matthew Weinstein, the Maryland chapter director, said before the meeting began that he estimated a thousand supporters had showed up."

Attempting to stack the deck with your hired thugs, yet still losing out to actual constituents who oppose HR 3200? Priceless.

Fanatics on both sides have no time to waste as proven by which had an early start at spreading out THEIR own coordinated attacks. For or against, and like any civilized dialog, arguments rain on the parade... gotta love how America deals with serious issues. Collective delirium, unfocused, hysterical, paid up & down - from extremists to moderates, it's weird how truth is never revealed for all to cope with or even forge a valid opinion for themselves.

I'd recommend a good overdose of rationality & emotional restraint; but that is most probably too late either.