19% of Republicans Have Favorable View of Kim Jong Un

[dismal]

Thanks. I can't imagine what they find favorable. The haircut? Maybe around 20% of Repubs favor weird hair cuts.

What's there to be so unfavorable about? It's not like he turned the country into a socialist hellhole like a Fidel Castro or a Hugo Chavez. It was already messed up when he got there. Perhaps he's taking some steps to liberalize North Korea and reconcile with South Korea. If he did more of that, I'd view him favorably.

From what I understand, Kim Jong-un implicitly permits a black market to exist in the country. And whjile Northt Korea is still dirt poor, living standards have increased.

I doubt that those 19% Republicans know that, though.

But people here hang out on a political discussion board so they should be more knowledgeable, right?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

From what I understand, Kim Jong-un implicitly permits a black market to exist in the country. And whjile Northt Korea is still dirt poor, living standards have increased.

I doubt that those 19% Republicans know that, though.

But people here hang out on a political discussion board so they should be more knowledgeable, right?

Perhaps you overestimate the general level of discussion going on.

 

[funinspace]

Well he did give the world another great nickname: The Dotard

Never mind reviving the understanding of an older English world that had fallen out of fashion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The U.S. can't come back from this.

What do you mean?

One in five people in one of the two major political parties have a favorable view of a person who is rightly almost universally reviled around the globe for his shocking inhumanity.

1. Do you have evidence that he's almost universally reviled around the world for his shocking inhumanity?
Of course, he deserves to be so reviled (and much worse), but is he?
What is the percentage of Chinese, Iranians, Russians, etc., who revile him?
I have no idea. But I see no good reason to assume that the reviling is almost universal (actually, I think most people around the world probably never heard of him, but even if we count only those who have).

2. People who exhibit shocking inhumanity often are viewed favorably by large percentages of the population of some or many countries. We can count Mao, Stalin, Muhammad, and Moses (exitence is not the point: the people who have a favorable view of him believe he does, and further they believe he engaged in the behaviors for which he would deserve to be reviled if he had existed). It's bad but pretty common human behavior. I don't think the percentage of Americans having a favorable view of Kim Jong Un makes them exceptional.

Purely for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Vladimir_Putin

It seems the favorable view of Putin was (2017 Gallup poll) 15% in England, 17% in Ireland, 18% in France, 20% in Germany, 31% in Brazil and in Ecuador, 35% in Italy, 38% in Argentina, 43% in Peru, 46% in Colombia, 52% in Mexico, 53% in India, 72% in Greece, etc.

Twenty percent of one party may not sound like much, because it really only amounts to about 10% of voters (very roughly). But it's like having cancer in 10% of your body. It doesn't mean you're 90% cancer-free, it means you're fucking terminal.

What do you mean by "terminal", in your analogy?

 

[Opoponax]

What do you mean?

What I mean is that the U.S. will never be as united as it was. It will never be the leader it once was. We used to view ourselves as a force for good in the world, and many of us still do. But there is a significant percentage of the population that reviles Europe, the Latin American Nations, and now, even Canada. They see it as America vs. the world. If you want to see someone turn a quick angry red, mention foreign aid to a conservative. Hell, look no farther than what's happening on our southern border now. These people aren't just apathetic about what's happening to immigrants, asylum seekers, and their children; they're gleeful about it. There is a percentage of our population that has become mean spirited and spiteful to a degree that I've never known (I'm 48 for whatever that's worth).

I live in California. I'm an American. Trump supporters hate California. And I don't mean there's just some normal intra-national, cross-cultural differences. Those people fucking hate us. Visit Trump forums. Visit conservative forums in general. Go see for yourself.

It took me about 45 seconds to find this post in a certain conservative forum. The reference is to "crisis actors."

A caller to Rush just made a very interesting point. These kids who are being dragged from their parents arms are crying “daddy” and “mommy”. How is it that little children who were born in El Salvador and Guatemala can only say daddy and mommy in English?????

http://www.conservativesforum.com/cgi-bin/conservatives-forum/YaBB.pl?num=1529136555/10

These fucking people think that those kids are actors being paid by "liberals" to get sympathy from the mainstream media. America's collective intellect is fatally diseased and there's no cure.

Do you have evidence that he's almost universally reviled around the world for his shocking inhumanity?

To be clear, among our strongest allies, he's not respected. And among their populations, he is reviled. What those who respect leaders like Vladimir Putin think is immaterial to me. America shouldn't want support from simpering authoritarian-needing vermin.

What do you mean by "terminal", in your analogy?

Maybe it's a language thing. At least in the U.S., when someone is said to have terminal cancer, it means that death is imminent--there is no hope.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What I mean is that the U.S. will never be as united as it was.

Maybe, but why do you think that's because of support for Kim Jong Un?

It will never be the leader it once was.

Maybe, but I don't see why this would be so because of support of a bad man.

They see it as America vs. the world. If you want to see someone turn a quick angry red, mention foreign aid to a conservative.

Or mention the wall to a leftist, or ask them for the evidence supporting transgender claims, or tell them you see about as much unjust hatred coming from their side as from the other side. Well, actually, not all conservatives and not all leftists would turn red, but it's pretty common.
So, yes, there is a deep divide. I just don't see why support for a bad man is so relevant.

There is a percentage of our population that has become mean spirited and spiteful to a degree that I've never known (I'm 48 for whatever that's worth).

I see that from both sides; it's hard for me to see which one exhibits more of those (in America or over here) towards their opponents. Usually, people on any side classify me as one of the people on the other (or one of the other) side(s), and exhibit hatred at roughly equal levels (more precisely, there are more than two sides, but to simplify).

But that aside, I don't think this is unusual. For example, where I live, public university is dominated by the far left. There are usually posters celebrating Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Now I know some the people who like them, and for the most part, they're not particularly hateful or mean spirited. Just as supporters of Yahweh or Moses or Muhammad, usually and for the most part, aren't hateful. The problem is when their religion gets in the way.

Even those who do not engage much in politics (over here, and around me) when they do talk about it, show their hatred for those they identify as their enemy (the "right", or the people they falsely and without warrant classify as such; I just shut up to avoid being the target of massive hatred, demonization, gross misrepresentation, etc.), and they engage in vilification and demonization of their opponents. For example, they despise and hate Macri and consider him (and his cabinet, etc.) a murderer, a thief, etc., for alleged behavior that either did not happen, or it's not clear whether it happened or not based on available information. So, there is plenty of unjust, misdirected hatred - when they talk about politics. But most of the time, they're not talking about politics, so their ideology does not get in the way. When they're just doing their jobs, or studying, or having fun, or having lunch, or watching the World Cup, etc., they're just generally reasonably nice people. Many of the people on the right - most, in my experience - tend to be like that too, most of the time. Humans are a weird species - or not so much; monkeys attacking other groups of monkeys isn't that weird.

But in any case, I don't think this level of support for Kim Jong Un is anything remarkable. As for the hatred, that looks just like monkeys engaging in in-group/out-group monkey behavior, hating the other monkeys, etc., and seeing red immediately at some suggestion that breaks some of the basic tenets that act as tokens of group identity. Monkey business as usual.

I live in California. I'm an American. Trump supporters hate California.

Trump supporters generally don't hate the millions of Californians who are also Trump supporters. They hate you. More generally, Trump supporters tend to hate leftist Californians, and generally other leftists, pretty much just as leftists tend to hate Trump supporters, or generally conservatives (or just as leftists and conservatives (Trump supporters or otherwise) tend to hate me or others they falsely and with no warrant tend to classify as members of the other group). But again, I'm not sure why support for a very evil man is a sign of anything unusual.

And I don't mean there's just some normal intra-national, cross-cultural differences. Those people fucking hate us. Visit Trump forums. Visit conservative forums in general. Go see for yourself.

I've seen it. Honestly, it's hard to ascertain which side exhibits more hatred towards the other side in on line forums, or just towards people they classify as a member of the other side, for no good reason (as people on both sides nearly always do with me if I tell them what I think about stuff, whether in America or here, or generally, in any place I go where there are two sides going at each other).
But as I mentioned, I don't see why you think support for a very evil man is so remarkable. That's what I wanted to ask about, not the hatred for the other group, which is another matter.

What those who respect leaders like Vladimir Putin think is immaterial to me.

But it seems it's relevant to the matter at hand. My point is that there are plenty of countries - including plenty of democracies - in which support for Putin is greater than support in America for Kim Jong Un. There is also plenty of support in non-democratic countries. And support for pretty bad men, historically, has been extremely common. It did not indicate the dissolution of a country, or even a big divide (e.g., support for Muhammad is almost universal in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.; support for Moses was almost universal in many predominantly Christian countries, support for Mao is probably very common in China, etc.)

Maybe it's a language thing. At least in the U.S., when someone is said to have terminal cancer, it means that death is imminent--there is no hope.

It's not a language thing. I understand the meaning of "terminal". That is precisely why I was asking. You seem to be using "terminal" in a figurative manner. You didn't literally mean that the US was going to die, since it's not a living organism. So, I wanted to ask more precisely what you meant. Civil war? Secession? Military coup? Something else?

But this is also one of the reasons I brought up support for bad people in other countries. There has been such support historically in many places, and that did not seem to indicate that the countries in question (or social groups, etc.) would dissolve, or anything like that. Why do you think it's terminal in the US?
On the other hand, the growing mutual hatred threatens to some extent social cohesion, though I don't see anything like dissolution or a civil war happening any time soon. Still, I would like to ask for more details about what you're predicting by saying it's terminal.

 

[Underseer]

According to the results, 19 percent of Republicans indicated they had a favorable view of Kim with 68 percent saying they had an unfavorable view (12 percent of voters overall had a favorable view of Kim, compared to 75 percent who viewed him unfavorably). That compared slightly better than the perception of Pelosi, who had a 17 percent favorable, 72 percent unfavorable rating among self-identified Republicans.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kim-j...g-republicans-exclusive-poll-results?ref=wrap

The U.S. can't come back from this. One in five people in one of the two major political parties have a favorable view of a person who is rightly almost universally reviled around the globe for his shocking inhumanity.

Twenty percent of one party may not sound like much, because it really only amounts to about 10% of voters (very roughly). But it's like having cancer in 10% of your body. It doesn't mean you're 90% cancer-free, it means you're fucking terminal.

Consider too that 83% of Republicans strongly support Trump, and 63% have a favorable view of Dubbya. For the latter son of a bitch, you would've have a hard time finding anyone who'd admit to ever voting for him ten years ago. By the time he left office his approval rating was below 25%.

I think this can be traced back to a few things, but primarily Rush Limbaugh and the subsequent rise of shameless conservative media. History is going to show that the appeal to a segment of the population who were inclined to authoritarianism is what destroyed the United States. The hatred directed towards women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, higher education, and concepts of common good has been churned out every hour of every day for 30 years. There are no shades of grey, just a thick line of black where everything within that line is good; on the other side is a thick line of white, where everything is bad.

This isn't going to go away. Trump, along with Fox/etc. have already set up not just the base, but nearly everyone who votes Republican, to utterly disregard the results of Mueller's investigation. It won't matter what the conclusions are. On the contrary, GOP politicians will be able to side with Trump and bring out voters because of it.

And here's how it's going to end:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-if-trump-proposed-it/?utm_term=.30e9793f12a6

Trump has primed his supporters for it, and the Democrats, who can't seem to muster up a defense to anything, are too weak to stop it.

Sure, one in five Republicans have a positive opinion of one of the most insane and most brutal dictators on the planet, but liberals are exactly as bad because Killary Clinton had a private email server! The fact that Killary hasn't been impeached yet proves that the media is biased!!!!!!!! Benghazi!!!!!!!! Uranium One!!!!!!!!! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[funinspace]

According to the results, 19 percent of Republicans indicated they had a favorable view of Kim with 68 percent saying they had an unfavorable view (12 percent of voters overall had a favorable view of Kim, compared to 75 percent who viewed him unfavorably). That compared slightly better than the perception of Pelosi, who had a 17 percent favorable, 72 percent unfavorable rating among self-identified Republicans.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kim-j...g-republicans-exclusive-poll-results?ref=wrap

The U.S. can't come back from this. One in five people in one of the two major political parties have a favorable view of a person who is rightly almost universally reviled around the globe for his shocking inhumanity.

Twenty percent of one party may not sound like much, because it really only amounts to about 10% of voters (very roughly). But it's like having cancer in 10% of your body. It doesn't mean you're 90% cancer-free, it means you're fucking terminal.

Over the last few years, the number of people self identifying as republican is only in the mid to high twenty percentage range, so that would only be 20% of at most 30%, which would only no more than 6%...roughly. Analogies can only go so far as comparisons. I would say that comparing the electorate to a body with cancer is pretty silly....

Consider too that 83% of Republicans strongly support Trump, and 63% have a favorable view of Dubbya. For the latter son of a bitch, you would've have a hard time finding anyone who'd admit to ever voting for him ten years ago. By the time he left office his approval rating was below 25%.

I think this can be traced back to a few things, but primarily Rush Limbaugh and the subsequent rise of shameless conservative media. History is going to show that the appeal to a segment of the population who were inclined to authoritarianism is what destroyed the United States. The hatred directed towards women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, higher education, and concepts of common good has been churned out every hour of every day for 30 years. There are no shades of grey, just a thick line of black where everything within that line is good; on the other side is a thick line of white, where everything is bad.

This isn't going to go away. Trump, along with Fox/etc. have already set up not just the base, but nearly everyone who votes Republican, to utterly disregard the results of Mueller's investigation. It won't matter what the conclusions are. On the contrary, GOP politicians will be able to side with Trump and bring out voters because of it.

And here's how it's going to end:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-if-trump-proposed-it/?utm_term=.30e9793f12a6

Trump has primed his supporters for it, and the Democrats, who can't seem to muster up a defense to anything, are too weak to stop it.

Half of the at most 30% of Republicans is only 15%. It is very unlikely that it would end that way. A good example is the current child separate fiasco. Only about 58% of Repugs support that. That is a terrible number, as the independents are disgusted at a 75% rate, never mind the Dums. This shows that there are some limits to even what Repugs can tolerate. Either way, the November elections will be a really good indicator of how FFvC is doing by constantly whipping up his base...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Over the last few years, the number of people self identifying as republican is only in the mid to high twenty percentage range, so that would only be 20% of at most 30%, which would only no more than 6%...roughly. Analogies can only go so far as comparisons. I would say that comparing the electorate to a body with cancer is pretty silly....

Consider too that 83% of Republicans strongly support Trump, and 63% have a favorable view of Dubbya. For the latter son of a bitch, you would've have a hard time finding anyone who'd admit to ever voting for him ten years ago. By the time he left office his approval rating was below 25%.

I think this can be traced back to a few things, but primarily Rush Limbaugh and the subsequent rise of shameless conservative media. History is going to show that the appeal to a segment of the population who were inclined to authoritarianism is what destroyed the United States. The hatred directed towards women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, higher education, and concepts of common good has been churned out every hour of every day for 30 years. There are no shades of grey, just a thick line of black where everything within that line is good; on the other side is a thick line of white, where everything is bad.

This isn't going to go away. Trump, along with Fox/etc. have already set up not just the base, but nearly everyone who votes Republican, to utterly disregard the results of Mueller's investigation. It won't matter what the conclusions are. On the contrary, GOP politicians will be able to side with Trump and bring out voters because of it.

And here's how it's going to end:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-if-trump-proposed-it/?utm_term=.30e9793f12a6

Trump has primed his supporters for it, and the Democrats, who can't seem to muster up a defense to anything, are too weak to stop it.

Half of the at most 30% of Republicans is only 15%. It is very unlikely that it would end that way. A good example is the current child separate fiasco. Only about 58% of Repugs support that. That is a terrible number, as the independents are disgusted at a 75% rate, never mind the Dums. This shows that there are some limits to even what Repugs can tolerate. Either way, the November elections will be a really good indicator of how FFvC is doing by constantly whipping up his base...

Well, it is worth noting that 3 in 5 Republicans support the policy, which while not at Trump approval ratings, is still pretty damn high.

 

[ronburgundy]

Thanks. I can't imagine what they find favorable. The haircut? Maybe around 20% of Repubs favor weird hair cuts.

What's there to be so unfavorable about?

How about having among the worst humans rights violations of any current government including prison gulags and public executions of political opponents without anything close to a fair trial, violent oppression of dissenting speech and media, enslavement, forced abortions, deliberate starvation, and just about everything you can imagine an evil piece of shit would do. (each of which have been documented by UN human rights investigations).

And no, he did not "inherit" any of this. He is a fascist dictator with 100% control whose government only does what he wants. Every day he makes the choice to continue these actions.
So he is personally directly and deliberately responsible for every civil and human rights violation committed by the North Korean government since he took office.

I realize these actions really jive with the core authoritarian values of Trump and his supporters, which is why the elected someone who thinks Jong-Un is "an honorable man". But any remotely decent human being would find Jong-un "unfavorable" as possible and wish him nothing but the most immediate death possible.

And most of the GOP 60% that view him "unfavorably" do not do so because of these human rights violations, but rather because he doesn't prefer to use capitalism as his method of oppression, and because they are racist nationalists.

 

[James Brown]

But people here hang out on a political discussion board so they should be more knowledgeable, right?

Well, you were the one who said, "Perhaps he's taking some steps to liberalize North Korea and reconcile with South Korea."

So don't you know what those steps are? Is he busily crafting a Bill of Rights and outlining plans to step down to a democratically-elected replacement within the next couple of years?

Or is there some good news about North Korea that 19% of Republicans know all about but hasn't been released to the general public?

 

[dismal]

But people here hang out on a political discussion board so they should be more knowledgeable, right?

Well, you were the one who said, "Perhaps he's taking some steps to liberalize North Korea and reconcile with South Korea."

So don't you know what those steps are? Is he busily crafting a Bill of Rights and outlining plans to step down to a democratically-elected replacement within the next couple of years?

Or is there some good news about North Korea that 19% of Republicans know all about but hasn't been released to the general public?

You'll have to ask Republicans about what Republicans think. I've already said what I think.

I don't pay a large amount of attention to what Kim is up to, but I said I don't hold him personally responsible for North Korea being a socialist hellhole and I would view him favorably if he did certain things to reform it. If and when I perceive he has done enough of those things, I'll let you know if it's important to you.

 

[Elixir]

But people here hang out on a political discussion board so they should be more knowledgeable, right?

Well, you were the one who said, "Perhaps he's taking some steps to liberalize North Korea and reconcile with South Korea."

So don't you know what those steps are? Is he busily crafting a Bill of Rights and outlining plans to step down to a democratically-elected replacement within the next couple of years?

Or is there some good news about North Korea that 19% of Republicans know all about but hasn't been released to the general public?

You'll have to ask Republicans about what Republicans think. I've already said what I think.

I don't pay a large amount of attention to what Kim is up to, but I said I don't hold him personally responsible for North Korea being a socialist hellhole and I would view him favorably if he did certain things to reform it. If and when I perceive he has done enough of those things, I'll let you know if it's important to you.

Since when can a country where one person is in control of 100% of its resources be properly referred to as "socialist"? That's about as accurate as Kim calling his territory and captives a "Democratic People's Republic".

 

[dismal]

You'll have to ask Republicans about what Republicans think. I've already said what I think.

I don't pay a large amount of attention to what Kim is up to, but I said I don't hold him personally responsible for North Korea being a socialist hellhole and I would view him favorably if he did certain things to reform it. If and when I perceive he has done enough of those things, I'll let you know if it's important to you.

Since when can a country where one person is in control of 100% of its resources be properly referred to as "socialist"? That's about as accurate as Kim calling his territory and captives a "Democratic People's Republic".

Socialism is when the state controls the means of production. I think that accurately describes North Korea.

 

[ronburgundy]

You'll have to ask Republicans about what Republicans think. I've already said what I think.

I don't pay a large amount of attention to what Kim is up to, but I said I don't hold him personally responsible for North Korea being a socialist hellhole and I would view him favorably if he did certain things to reform it. If and when I perceive he has done enough of those things, I'll let you know if it's important to you.

Since when can a country where one person is in control of 100% of its resources be properly referred to as "socialist"? That's about as accurate as Kim calling his territory and captives a "Democratic People's Republic".

Socialism is when the state controls the means of production.

No, it isn't. It is "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Thus, only when the State itself is regulated and controlled by "the community as a whole" is state-controlled production a form of socialism. IOW, actual socialism requires a real democracy where every citizen has equal influence, unlike Capitalism which can exist quite well in a oligarchy, as is increasingly the case in the US.

North Korea is a fascist dictatorship, which given the inherent tie between right-wing conservatism and fascism, explains why more of them "approve" of Jong-Un.

 

[dismal]

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : 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

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

[ronburgundy]

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : 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

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Nothing reveals how devoid of rational argument a person is than a blind and selective appeal to Webster's dictionary, utterly devoid of historical and sociological context.

Want to play appeal to authority? Here is the Oxford English dictionary "Socialism : A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

And this Oxford Learner's Dictionary says "Socialism: a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country’s wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries."

Note that by this definition, government control is only socialism when the nature of the government is such that it means that "everyone has equal right to share in the countries wealth", which can only exist if everyone has equal say in how the government distributes and uses that money (aka, a true democracy)

Also, note how even in your own cherry picked definition, you cherry picked the parts you liked and did not bold the word "collective", which contradicts your application to a dictatorship. It can be "governmental", ownership but only when that is synonymous with it also being collective ownership, which again requires democratic control of governmental policy.

The word's etymological root is "social" because Marx and Engel discussed "As a set of social relationships, socialism is defined by the degree to which economic activity in society is planned by the associated producers, so that the surplus product produced by socialized assets is controlled by a majority of the population through democratic processes."
They didn't focus at all upon centralized governmental control but mostly talk about control at the local community level which allows the goods produced to be planned according to the actual needs of those doing the physical work of producing.

In fact, Marx's ideal goal was the elimination of the "State" because it only exists as means of one class to subjugate others.
Marx said that "the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule. Thus, it is only in a society which is divided between hostile social classes that the state exists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_mode_of_production#Social_relations

"After a workers' revolution, the state would initially become the instrument of the working class.", which for Marx meant the overwhelming majority of people in a society who under capitalism do almost all the work but have no control.
"The state would become a coordinating economic entity rather than a mechanism of class or political control, and would no longer be a state in a typical sense."

The idea that socialism is simply government control of production is a strawman pushed by rightists to make it seem like it authoritarian and anti-thetical to democracy. And dictionaries include how terms get used, even when used as dishonest propaganda.

 

[dismal]

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : 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

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Nothing reveals how devoid of rational argument a person is than a blind and selective appeal to Webster's dictionary, utterly devoid of historical and sociological context.

Want to play appeal to authority? Here is the Oxford English dictionary "Socialism : A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

And this Oxford Learner's Dictionary says "Socialism: a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country’s wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries."

Note that by this definition, government control is only socialism when the nature of the government is such that it means that "everyone has equal right to share in the countries wealth", which can only exist if everyone has equal say in how the government distributes and uses that money (aka, a true democracy)

Also, note how even in your own cherry picked definition, your cheery picked the parts you liked and did not bold the word "collective", which contradicts your application to a dictatorship. It can be "governmental", ownership but only when that is synonymous with it also being collective ownership, which again requires democratic control of governmental policy.

The word's etymological root is "social" because Marx and Engel discussed "As a set of social relationships, socialism is defined by the degree to which economic activity in society is planned by the associated producers, so that the surplus product produced by socialized assets is controlled by a majority of the population through democratic processes."
They didn't focus at all upon centralized governmental control but mostly talk about control at the local community level which allows the goods produced to be planned according to the actual needs of those doing the physical work of producing.

In fact, Marx's ideal goal was the elimination of the "State" because it only exists as means of one class to subjugate others.
Marx said that "the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule. Thus, it is only in a society which is divided between hostile social classes that the state exists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_mode_of_production#Social_relations

"After a workers' revolution, the state would initially become the instrument of the working class.", which for Marx meant the overwhelming majority of people in a society who under capitalism do almost all the work but have no control.
"The state would become a coordinating economic entity rather than a mechanism of class or political control, and would no longer be a state in a typical sense."

The idea that socialism is simply government control of production is a strawman pushed by rightists to make it seem like it authoritarian and anti-thetical to democracy. And dictionaries include how terms get used, even when used as dishonest propaganda.

No, someone would be revealed as *really* stupid if they wasted time reading a lengthy post arguing with the dictionary about what words mean.

I did not.

 

[ronburgundy]

Nothing reveals how devoid of rational argument a person is than a blind and selective appeal to Webster's dictionary, utterly devoid of historical and sociological context.

Want to play appeal to authority? Here is the Oxford English dictionary "Socialism : A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

And this Oxford Learner's Dictionary says "Socialism: a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country’s wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries."

Note that by this definition, government control is only socialism when the nature of the government is such that it means that "everyone has equal right to share in the countries wealth", which can only exist if everyone has equal say in how the government distributes and uses that money (aka, a true democracy)

Also, note how even in your own cherry picked definition, your cheery picked the parts you liked and did not bold the word "collective", which contradicts your application to a dictatorship. It can be "governmental", ownership but only when that is synonymous with it also being collective ownership, which again requires democratic control of governmental policy.

The word's etymological root is "social" because Marx and Engel discussed "As a set of social relationships, socialism is defined by the degree to which economic activity in society is planned by the associated producers, so that the surplus product produced by socialized assets is controlled by a majority of the population through democratic processes."
They didn't focus at all upon centralized governmental control but mostly talk about control at the local community level which allows the goods produced to be planned according to the actual needs of those doing the physical work of producing.

In fact, Marx's ideal goal was the elimination of the "State" because it only exists as means of one class to subjugate others.
Marx said that "the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule. Thus, it is only in a society which is divided between hostile social classes that the state exists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_mode_of_production#Social_relations

"After a workers' revolution, the state would initially become the instrument of the working class.", which for Marx meant the overwhelming majority of people in a society who under capitalism do almost all the work but have no control.
"The state would become a coordinating economic entity rather than a mechanism of class or political control, and would no longer be a state in a typical sense."

The idea that socialism is simply government control of production is a strawman pushed by rightists to make it seem like it authoritarian and anti-thetical to democracy. And dictionaries include how terms get used, even when used as dishonest propaganda.

No, someone would be revealed as *really* stupid if they wasted time reading a lengthy post arguing with the dictionary about what words mean.

I did not.

No, reading a post that shows your blind and incorrect interpretation of one cherry picked definition does not count as evidence or rational argument would have demonstrated that you had at least a bare minimum of intellectual honesty and interest in engaging in reasoned discourse. Sadly , you do not.

 

[dismal]

Nothing reveals how devoid of rational argument a person is than a blind and selective appeal to Webster's dictionary, utterly devoid of historical and sociological context.

Want to play appeal to authority? Here is the Oxford English dictionary "Socialism : A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

And this Oxford Learner's Dictionary says "Socialism: a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country’s wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries."

Note that by this definition, government control is only socialism when the nature of the government is such that it means that "everyone has equal right to share in the countries wealth", which can only exist if everyone has equal say in how the government distributes and uses that money (aka, a true democracy)

Also, note how even in your own cherry picked definition, your cheery picked the parts you liked and did not bold the word "collective", which contradicts your application to a dictatorship. It can be "governmental", ownership but only when that is synonymous with it also being collective ownership, which again requires democratic control of governmental policy.

The word's etymological root is "social" because Marx and Engel discussed "As a set of social relationships, socialism is defined by the degree to which economic activity in society is planned by the associated producers, so that the surplus product produced by socialized assets is controlled by a majority of the population through democratic processes."
They didn't focus at all upon centralized governmental control but mostly talk about control at the local community level which allows the goods produced to be planned according to the actual needs of those doing the physical work of producing.

In fact, Marx's ideal goal was the elimination of the "State" because it only exists as means of one class to subjugate others.
Marx said that "the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule. Thus, it is only in a society which is divided between hostile social classes that the state exists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_mode_of_production#Social_relations

"After a workers' revolution, the state would initially become the instrument of the working class.", which for Marx meant the overwhelming majority of people in a society who under capitalism do almost all the work but have no control.
"The state would become a coordinating economic entity rather than a mechanism of class or political control, and would no longer be a state in a typical sense."

The idea that socialism is simply government control of production is a strawman pushed by rightists to make it seem like it authoritarian and anti-thetical to democracy. And dictionaries include how terms get used, even when used as dishonest propaganda.

No, someone would be revealed as *really* stupid if they wasted time reading a lengthy post arguing with the dictionary about what words mean.

I did not.

No, reading a post that shows your blind and incorrect interpretation of one cherry picked definition does not count as evidence or rational argument would have demonstrated that you had at least a bare minimum of intellectual honesty and interest in engaging in reasoned discourse. Sadly , you do not.

Recommend you get yourself a street corner and a sign and yell that post at passers-by until you find one that cares.