• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The ineffable quality of socialism....

Look up 'different forms of socialism' - educate yourself. The word is not as rigid in its meaning as you would like to believe.

Buddy: Derec isn't the problem. <sigh> I just don't understand why the left is so dumb regarding language. Why use the right's definitions? The right started calling any increase in the safety net as socialism 50 years ago. They knew that most people don't like socialism (for good reason); so naming all politicians just slightly left of George Bush hurts the left. You are helping the right wing by calling everything socialist.

The hard right tend to see anything they happen to disagree with as a socialist or communist plot to take over the world. ;)

It's more that some very savvy people on the right who oppose government spending on programs that help people; label these programs as socialist in order to drum up support against the programs. I'm used to being called a socialist by those on the right. But I'm boggled as to why some on them left allow this deceit from the right.
 
The hard right tend to see anything they happen to disagree with as a socialist or communist plot to take over the world. ;)

It's more that some very savvy people on the right who oppose government spending on programs that help people; label these programs as socialist in order to drum up support against the programs. I'm used to being called a socialist by those on the right. But I'm boggled as to why some on them left allow this deceit from the right.

So, there is something I wish to make a popular idea: opposition of "socialism" is opposition to the idea that we ought love out neighbors. I think we need to claim back this term and do what they do: pervert their language.

Often, as certain terms that the right does not want to have to contend with become bothersome, they attempt to pervert those terms, using them as mockeries, or even conflating them against other things that have gone by the same utterance.

"Socialism" is a conjugate word. It's an insult to our respect for the idea of society, of loving each other, to allow such perversion via a hijacked conjugate.

The the word is (social)(-ism). The belief in social. Why would we let anyone shit on that.

Derec wonders why I bring up satanism...

I have a friend. He is a person of the Catholic faith. He thought that The Satanic Temple was an organization that literally workshops Satan, as in the devil all because of the idea of LeVeyan satanism, which is a stupid edgelord libertarianism hoodoo spinoff from before Ayn Rand made it trendy.

The difference is stark. Just like the difference is stark between socialism and marxism.

My response to "THAT'S SOCIALISM!" Is "Social. -Ism. Belief in being social. Yeah. So, your point? That I believe in being a good neighbor? I just don't get where you're going with that."
 
It's more that some very savvy people on the right who oppose government spending on programs that help people; label these programs as socialist in order to drum up support against the programs. I'm used to being called a socialist by those on the right. But I'm boggled as to why some on them left allow this deceit from the right.
Well, anyone whose actual goal is collective ownership of the means of production is even more likely to benefit from the deceit than the right is. It's a bait-and-switch. If you get millennials to approve of "socialism" by encouraging them to equate it with a government safety net, but you also use the same word for collective ownership of the means of production, you're making it more likely that all the public's positive associations with the word "socialism" will by osmosis rub off on what you're really going for. Using correct definitions and avoiding equivocation fallacies is a practice that benefits only the moderates.
 
So, there is something I wish to make a popular idea: opposition of "socialism" is opposition to the idea that we ought love out neighbors. I think we need to claim back this term and do what they do: pervert their language.

So you admit that what you are doing in this thread is perverting the language?
 
So, there is something I wish to make a popular idea: opposition of "socialism" is opposition to the idea that we ought love out neighbors. I think we need to claim back this term and do what they do: pervert their language.
Great. Just when we thought it was finally safe to come out*, we get a whole new swarm of self-righteous religious whackos feeling entitled to use the power of the state to tell the rest of us who we're supposed to love.

Is getting them to crawl back under their rock going to take us two thousand years again?

(* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges )
 
It's more that some very savvy people on the right who oppose government spending on programs that help people; label these programs as socialist in order to drum up support against the programs. I'm used to being called a socialist by those on the right. But I'm boggled as to why some on them left allow this deceit from the right.
Well, anyone whose actual goal is collective ownership of the means of production is even more likely to benefit from the deceit than the right is. It's a bait-and-switch. If you get millennials to approve of "socialism" by encouraging them to equate it with a government safety net, but you also use the same word for collective ownership of the means of production, you're making it more likely that all the public's positive associations with the word "socialism" will by osmosis rub off on what you're really going for. Using correct definitions and avoiding equivocation fallacies is a practice that benefits only the moderates.

Well, that's a good point. But I still think that the majority of the "benefit" will flow to the republicans because most people are against socialism. The vast majority of Americans want a good economy and don't want to live the life of a slave to the collective. But at the same time many in the middle do want people to have a safety net, do want government action where the private sector fails and etc. IMO, moderates voting for republican's mostly due to religion, fear of socialism (that would wreck the economy), and guns (in descending order).
 
The hard right tend to see anything they happen to disagree with as a socialist or communist plot to take over the world. ;)

It's more that some very savvy people on the right who oppose government spending on programs that help people; label these programs as socialist in order to drum up support against the programs. I'm used to being called a socialist by those on the right. But I'm boggled as to why some on them left allow this deceit from the right.

Perhaps both the far left and far right go too far with their ideology? Both being too rigidly fixed in their own politics and their own definitions, one extreme being as bad as the other.....
 
So, there is something I wish to make a popular idea: opposition of "socialism" is opposition to the idea that we ought love out neighbors. I think we need to claim back this term and do what they do: pervert their language.

So you admit that what you are doing in this thread is perverting the language?

The world is not as simple or black and white as some would wish. Which makes it kind of hard to stick black and white labels onto things that have tone and colour.
 
Over the years the right has done a good job of conflating socialisms with Russian and Soviet communism.

I listen to a republican who orchestrated the smear campaign against Canadians health care associating socialized health care with poor service. He said he knew it was wrong at the time and thought it was good way to argume against socialism in general. He has since recanted his views on health care.

Would someone attempt to define socialism? I see the difference between communisms, socialism, and capitalisms as mostly economic.

Communion is common on ownership of means of production and no profit based enterprise. The general idea everybody shares equally. In the planned Soviet economy you were not free to just change jobs and location.

Socialism a mixed economy of free enterprise and govt control of business. I believe after divestiture the French govt owns major stock in the bigger companies. At least through the 80s French companies had a hard time laying off people without approval.

Capitalism is the USA. Business free to do business with little social responsibility. If you loose a job due to automation tough luck. On the positive side at any time you can take another job and move where you like. Max freedom of action but not a lot of support if it goes bad for you. It is a los of freedom of action that conservatives are fearful of when they hear the word socialism To them communism and socialism are synonymous, with Russia and China examples of communism.

If we are to maintain social and civil stability some form of socialism is inevitable. The BLM and capitol riots are an indicator of what may come.

Conservatives insist the free market will solve all problems, it obviously does not.
 
Words are often an impediment to understanding. Communism isn't bad because it's "communism" — it's bad because the details don't work.

The parts of a "democratic socialist" agenda may be good or bad, but tagging them with the word "socialism" doesn't make them bad.

Efforts by the GOP and its supporters to tag simplistic labels on progressive thought just shows how bereft of intellect the GOP is.

But American voters are not very smart. It behooves the D's to adopt a vocabulary that doesn't turn off low-intellect voters. I think progressives do try to do just that, but must cope with the raucous right-wing Lie machine. I still wonder if more effort should be spent demonstrating to citizens that the GOP, FoxNews etc. are nothing but Lie Machines these days.

For me, that is the big picture of present-day American politics. One side is trying to solve problems: their solutions may not be optimal, but they're willing to listen. The other side has no ideas; they no longer have any agenda except fomenting hatred, and lying in the service of their multi-millionaire masters.


It's more that some very savvy people on the right who oppose government spending on programs that help people; label these programs as socialist in order to drum up support against the programs. I'm used to being called a socialist by those on the right. But I'm boggled as to why some on them left allow this deceit from the right.

Perhaps both the far left and far right go too far with their ideology? Both being too rigidly fixed in their own politics and their own definitions, one extreme being as bad as the other.....

Location: ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
Mr. Bosch has it right.

DBT: I guess from your location, that you're somewhat distanced from American politics, so it's quite understandable that you have a totally wrong view.

I know nothing of Australian politics, but I guess there's a Left and a Right. Does one side do NOTHING but foment hatreds, obstruct, and lie?

It's easy to assume that both sides exaggerate. But when you pursue details you find that the GOP really is as bad as its detractors say. The GOP is now 100% behind an agenda to prevent likely Democratic voters from even voting, or to ignore their votes if they do manage to vote! Is that happening in Australia?
 
The conservatives define socialism as the negation of rights to do as one pleases. Toitalitarianism.

To me socialism is a mixed economy with structural supports at the bottom and enforced to a degree economic stability. Compred to the USA which is a wide open free marjet take no prisoners get all you can for yourself economy.

Note that COTUS says govt must provide for the common good. From what I read the question of govt support for the peole goes back to the early days.

We emphasize the individual over the group more thn anywhere else. Any collectives rights are attacked as burdensome and limiting the individual.

Russian and Chinese collectisatiob faild catastrophically. There was no room for personal initiative and no reward. Just unvesal sameness.

I read that when China allowed farmers to grow more than govt required quota and sell for profit production went up.

The Soviets had some of the best science in the world, but there was no allowance for initiative to transfer it to manufacturing. They never provide a reasonable standard of living despite plenty of natural resources.

While it is still the CCP in China they have a mixed economy. Overall central control at the top along with allowance for individual enterprise and profit. Major business decagons are made at the top.

If everybody has some level of guaranteed comfort then that can lead to an atrophy of sorts, a lessoning of initiative.

Conservatives are always straw manning about socialism.

Jordan Petersen's 12 Rules for life is a non-stop diatribe against non sequiturs.

I also love how Conservatives always No True Scotsman about Scandinavian socialism that is working just fine. Sweden is the best country in Europe to start a company.

My favourite is.

"Socialism is for equal outcome. I'm for equal opportunity."

No, it isn't. It's for equal opportunity only. No, you're not. You're for unequal opportunities. That's the whole point of conservatism.

Conservativism is the idea that superior people are so superior that if they would compete on equal terms with poor people they risk losing, and the government should get involved to prevent this. Its so backward
 
Well, anyone whose actual goal is collective ownership of the means of production is even more likely to benefit from the deceit than the right is. It's a bait-and-switch. ...
Well, that's a good point. But I still think that the majority of the "benefit" will flow to the republicans because most people are against socialism. The vast majority of Americans want a good economy and don't want to live the life of a slave to the collective. ...
You may well be right for now, but it's a short-sighted strategy. Most people are against socialism because most people are old enough to remember the Iron Curtain. We're only getting older; new generations are growing up who don't know what happens when governments control production.
 
DBT: I guess from your location, that you're somewhat distanced from American politics, so it's quite understandable that you have a totally wrong view.

I know nothing of Australian politics, but I guess there's a Left and a Right. Does one side do NOTHING but foment hatreds, obstruct, and lie?

It's easy to assume that both sides exaggerate. But when you pursue details you find that the GOP really is as bad as its detractors say. The GOP is now 100% behind an agenda to prevent likely Democratic voters from even voting, or to ignore their votes if they do manage to vote! Is that happening in Australia?

Are you sure that you understood what I meant? Which was; that both extremes in politics, left and right tend to react to each others policies, thereby go too far down the path to extremism?

This doesn't mean that they go too far in the same way...it doesn't mean that I deny that the ultra right, the GOP, are not as bad as its detractors say. No doubt it is, there are plenty of examples.

Which does not mean the far left speak from a position of purity and good will to human kind, freedom from oppression ....and, just perhaps, it is the middle path that holds the answers:

The Answer to Extremism Isn’t More Extremism

America’s left and right are radicalizing each other, and the precedents from overseas are deeply unsettling.

''Dangerous intellectual fashions are sweeping through some American universities—the humanities departments of the elite ones in particular. Some radical students and professors do try to restrict what others can teach, think, and say. Left-wing Twitter mobs do attack people who have deviated from their party line, trying not just to silence them but to get them fired. A few months ago, I signed a group letter deploring the growing censoriousness in our culture: “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.” A part of the left—admittedly the part most addicted to social media—reacted to this letter with what can only be described as censoriousness, intolerance, and a determination to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.

''Radicalism of all kinds will spread, on the right as well as the left, because America will find itself deeply enmeshed in the same kind of death spiral that the country experienced in the 1850s, a form of negative politics that the British political scientist Roger Eatwell has called “cumulative extremism.” Eatwell described this phenomenon in an article about northern England in 2001, a moment when groups of radicalized white British men physically clashed with groups of radicalized British Muslims. At that time, there were deep economic, religious, and sociological sources for the violence. People in the far right felt themselves to be outside of politics, alienated from the Labour Party that most had once supported. The neighborhoods where both groups lived were poor and getting poorer.''
 
Here's an interesting interview with one of the world's leading investment capitalists, Eric Weinstein, defending Socialism.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ric-weinstein-capitalism-socialism-revolution

His argument can be boiled down to that unrestrained capitalism creates social instability. We need socialism to prevent society falling apart into anarchy. Which is what we see when market forces are let to run free in a culture.
 
So, there is something I wish to make a popular idea: opposition of "socialism" is opposition to the idea that we ought love out neighbors. I think we need to claim back this term and do what they do: pervert their language.

So you admit that what you are doing in this thread is perverting the language?

'perversion' is in the eye of the beholder here. It's 'perversion' merely because 'derec doesn't like it being used that way' and in that respect AND ONLY THAT RESPECT, yes.
 
A balance is called for. A middle path.
Yeah, and parts of Europe already got there. The US is half-way, but very stubbornly wanting to reverse course.

Capitalism is dangerous because money clots together and when money clots together, more and more of it is removed from circulation which is bad for the economic health of a system. It also is susceptible to terrible crime or greed which can (has) collapse(d) the system.

Socialism on its own overstates the capacity of compassion of humans to do the right thing.

American Socialism was closer to the sweet spot of recognizing the need for worker rights and reducing the pilfering of management, the importance of public utilities, and the DH rule (Eugene V. Debs wouldn't shut up about the DH rule in his later years!).

The US is at an odd position right now. Never has so much been available for so little. But in being available for so little, the cost is the deprivation of income for the average American. With most households having both spouses working to make things meet in the end, America made an odd trade for cheaper goods, but less ability to attain them.
 
A middle path is getting rid of all the capitalist bosses.

But not harming them.

Allowing them to be part of a worker run business.
 
Back
Top Bottom