The ineffable quality of socialism....

[Keith&Co.]

Kinda weird.
My coworkers will admit that if there is, say, a cold spike in Texas, then getting food, heat to the tax payers in that emergency is the purpose of gubbmint, the reason we pay taxes.
If the emergency is a hurricane, then food, shelter, clean water is the purpose/reason.
Tornados, brush fires, floods, all emergencies where citizens face threats justifying govt. spending our money on our emergency needs. Food, water, temporary shelter, funds for rebuilding.... Floridz Man tosding rolls of paper towels to the newly homeless....

Somehow, if the emergency is a need for rent money, so they don't add to our homeless problem, that's socialism. For reasons none can detail before suddenly it's time to "get back to work."

And socialism seems to be defined as people with jobs paying for poor people to get free shit. So, rent money for people working three jobs isn't socialism, right?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Socialism is whatever help or aid they think they'll never need.

 

[Politesse]

Kinda weird.
My coworkers will admit that if there is, say, a cold spike in Texas, then getting food, heat to the tax payers in that emergency is the purpose of gubbmint, the reason we pay taxes.
If the emergency is a hurricane, then food, shelter, clean water is the purpose/reason.
Tornados, brush fires, floods, all emergencies where citizens face threats justifying govt. spending our money on our emergency needs. Food, water, temporary shelter, funds for rebuilding.... Floridz Man tosding rolls of paper towels to the newly homeless....

Somehow, if the emergency is a need for rent money, so they don't add to our homeless problem, that's socialism. For reasons none can detail before suddenly it's time to "get back to work."

And socialism seems to be defined as people with jobs paying for poor people to get free shit. So, rent money for people working three jobs isn't socialism, right?

Actually, I remember plenty of Trumpers getting mad about sending any relief money to California after our wildfire season last year.

 

[Elixir]

Socialism is paying for whatever help or aid they think they'll never need.

FIFY

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually, I remember plenty of Trumpers getting mad about sending any relief money to California after our wildfire season last year.

Yeah, but only because Trump said it first. Monkey see,monkey throw doo-doo. He's not shouting about that right now, so my coworkers are free to remember fires in whatevee state they grew up in...

 

[Politesse]

Actually, I remember plenty of Trumpers getting mad about sending any relief money to California after our wildfire season last year.

Yeah, but only because Trump said it first. Monkey see,monkey throw doo-doo. He's not shouting about that right now, so my coworkers are free to remember fires in whatevee state they grew up in...

Just sayin', there's no real basement to what they'll stoop to.

In my experience, if you question a Republican on this, they'll insist that the tax dollars were already "stolen" from them, so they are now "owed" the aid in return when a hurricane hits or what have you. Like, ideally they wouldn't need help, but since the Government has impoverished the country, now it owes them back. That isn't socialism, it's just their fair due, like Ayn Rand's noble pirates looting the Fed to get their honestly earned wealth back at the end of Atlas Shrugged. Whereas, "welfare" in their imagination all or mostly goes to wicked people who don't pay taxes, such as Millions Of Illegals and the mythical Welfare Queen. So that's socialism.

It isn't an eocnomic system they're proposing - Republicans are incapable of higher order thinking such as planning for next year's budget or the outcome of future disasters - but rather the next step in an endless tit for tat game of attrition over a pile of dwindling resources with enemy nations, races, sexualities, and so forth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fundamental difference here is a need for things due to a supply disruption vs a need for things due to not being able to afford them.

(Not that it's a valid reason to distinguish who needs help. The current problem is a supply disruption of safe jobs.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

The fundamental difference here is a need for things due to a supply disruption vs a need for things due to not being able to afford them.

(Not that it's a valid reason to distinguish who needs help. The current problem is a supply disruption of safe jobs.)

so, that's not a difference.
The calamity du jour interrupted my supply of (water/cash/heat) and i do not have a two-month supply set aside like a prepper/rich person/Mormon.

 

[Derec]

Kinda weird.
My coworkers will admit that if there is, say, a cold spike in Texas, then getting food, heat to the tax payers in that emergency is the purpose of gubbmint, the reason we pay taxes.
If the emergency is a hurricane, then food, shelter, clean water is the purpose/reason.

Yes, natural disasters are an emergency affecting most people in a geographical area at the same time, so it requires special assistance.

Somehow, if the emergency is a need for rent money, so they don't add to our homeless problem, that's socialism. For reasons none can detail before suddenly it's time to "get back to work."

There is a difference if that "need for rent money" is due to some emergency, like a health issue or a big ticket item breaking (a new tranny for a car is not cheap), or if it is chronic? And then is it due to too little income or too much spending? If you struggle to pay rent because you have to have the latest iPhoene, or pay a lease on that Benz [not hypothetical; I used to work with a woman who got evicted but drove an R350] or have to have that new LeBron sneaker or dunk NFT, then why should the society be bailing you out all the time?

And socialism seems to be defined as people with jobs paying for poor people to get free shit.

Socialism is defined as the economic system dominated by public ownership of the means of production.

So, rent money for people working three jobs isn't socialism, right?

1. Technically they may be three jobs, but at least some of those will be heavily part time, like Door Dashing for 10 hours a week or something
2. Do you really know anybody working three jobs struggling to pay rent? If they do, I suspect it's because of frivolous spending.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, natural disasters are an emergency affecting most people in a geographical area at the same time, so it requires special assistance.


There is a difference if that "need for rent money" is due to some emergency, like a health issue or a big ticket item breaking (a new tranny for a car is not cheap), or if it is chronic? And then is it due to too little income or too much spending? If you struggle to pay rent because you have to have the latest iPhoene, or pay a lease on that Benz [not hypothetical; I used to work with a woman who got evicted but drove an R350] or have to have that new LeBron sneaker or dunk NFT, then why should the society be bailing you out all the time?

And socialism seems to be defined as people with jobs paying for poor people to get free shit.

Socialism is defined as the economic system dominated by public ownership of the means of production.

So, rent money for people working three jobs isn't socialism, right?

1. Technically they may be three jobs, but at least some of those will be heavily part time, like Door Dashing for 10 hours a week or something
2. Do you really know anybody working three jobs struggling to pay rent? If they do, I suspect it's because of frivolous spending.

I reject your definition.

In the same way that Satanism has different definitions based on context, so to does "socialism".

You are thinking of Marxist Socialism, the "LeVey" version of socialism. Marxist Socialists, like LeVeyan Satanists, are just edgy garbage teens.

I would say a significant, perhaps even a majority of "socialists" are not Marxist Socialists.

There is another socialism. In fact there are probably many. The core of this OTHER socialism is "love thy neighbor as thyself". It has nothing to do with who has what property, but rather is an instruction to NOT BE A SOLIPSISTIC PIECE OF SHIT.

Now, while this doesn't directly speak to economics (it is more a core operational paradigm), it does suggest that the solipsism of capitalism is still right out.

Many such socialists instead see the value in a compromise between the extreme that is ,"solipsistic Randian capitalism" and "Marxist Socialism".

As such, I am absolutely a socialist, but I am also absolutely not a Marxist Socialist. Instead, I recognize that the concepts of "ownership" we use to play this game is shit, and that we need some Errata on that.

How YOU want to define socialism does not matter. You haven't seemed to be able to get over that remarkably low hill in all the years I have known you. People will have their own meanings and intents of usage, and it is not hard to ASK what they mean by it, but enforcing axiomatic definitions is not going to work out well for you

 

[DBT]

Wall street, the bastion of Capitalism, didn't seem to mind a government bailout in 2008.

 

[Politesse]

Wall street, the bastion of Capitalism, didn't seem to mind a government bailout in 2008.

They have never minded looting the Treasury. Giving money to the already-wealthy is not socialism. It's how capitalism, fundamentally, work. Ultimately, all social systems redistribute wealth somehow. The question is how, not whether.

 

[Derec]

I reject your definition.

You can reject until you are blue in the face, but that's what "socialism" means.

You are thinking of Marxist Socialism, the "LeVey" version of socialism. Marxist Socialists, like LeVeyan Satanists, are just edgy garbage teens.

Edgy garbage teens? Wrong. It was Marx and Engels who codified socialism. And it was their teachings that led to "actually existing socialism" as the economic system of numerous countries.
If anything is "garbage teens", it's people who think social programs are "socialism".

I would say a significant, perhaps even a majority of "socialists" are not Marxist Socialists.

Regardless of how they call themselves, unless they believe that most means of production should be publicly owned, they are not really socialist. There is a huge difference between socialism, including  democratic socialism, and  social democracy. Even if many garbage teenage edgelords and -ladies (including overgrown versions thereof like AOC) do not grok the difference.
Btw, Democratic Socialists of America do believe in public ownership of the means of production. That makes them bona fide socialists. At least the leadership cadres. There are a lot of garbage edgy teenage (and older) fellow travelers waving DSA banners without understanding what DSA is about.

There is another socialism. In fact there are probably many. The core of this OTHER socialism is "love thy neighbor as thyself". It has nothing to do with who has what property, but rather is an instruction to NOT BE A SOLIPSISTIC PIECE OF SHIT.

A commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself" is not a prescription for any particular economic order. It's a feel-good statement that doesn't really propose any particular way to order society or economy.

Now, while this doesn't directly speak to economics (it is more a core operational paradigm), it does suggest that the solipsism of capitalism is still right out.

How does it do that? Btw, the same book has the same character tell this story. It's about investing money where the servant who did not invest was told: "For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

As such, I am absolutely a socialist, but I am also absolutely not a Marxist Socialist. Instead, I recognize that the concepts of "ownership" we use to play this game is shit, and that we need some Errata on that.

So, seize the means of production (either by revolution, or by winning elections and passing legislation like democratic socialists prefer) or nah? If "nah", then you are not really a socialist but rather a social democrat or something akin to that.

How YOU want to define socialism does not matter. You haven't seemed to be able to get over that remarkably low hill in all the years I have known you. People will have their own meanings and intents of usage, and it is not hard to ASK what they mean by it, but enforcing axiomatic definitions is not going to work out well for you

Words have meanings. They do not mean whatever you want them to mean.

 

[Derec]

Wall street, the bastion of Capitalism, didn't seem to mind a government bailout in 2008.

The Treasury actually made money on the bank bailouts.
U.S. ends TARP with $15.3 billion profit

Contrary to the Biden's Folly: a $3600/child subsidy (with no # cap, so a family with 10 children could get $36k/year of "free" (to them) money) which will never be repaid and just encourages irresponsible breeding. Which is a better deal for the Treasury?

 

[DBT]

Wall street, the bastion of Capitalism, didn't seem to mind a government bailout in 2008.

The Treasury actually made money on the bank bailouts.
U.S. ends TARP with $15.3 billion profit

Contrary to the Biden's Folly: a $3600/child subsidy (with no # cap, so a family with 10 children could get $36k/year of "free" (to them) money) which will never be repaid and just encourages irresponsible breeding. Which is a better deal for the Treasury?

The point was the Gov giving money where it was or is needed. That was not necessarily done in the expectation of getting a monetary return. The return in terms of aid may come in many forms, social and economic stability, etc.

 

[Derec]

The point was the Gov giving money where it was or is needed. That was not necessarily done in the expectation of getting a monetary return. The return in terms of aid may come in many forms, social and economic stability, etc.

No, it was a response to a real crisis and very much needed. That does not make it socialism or some sort of nefarious grab of Treasury funds by the Wall Street.

By the way, government spending money != socialism. That is either claimed by ignorant "garbage edgy teenagers" wearing Che Guevara T-shirts or is else an attempt at a strawman.

And to go back to OP, assistance to individuals is not socialism either, and neither is it always bad.
But not everybody who struggles to pay rent deserves assistance. Some are just in dire straits because they overspend, not because they are in genuine need.

 

[DBT]

The point was the Gov giving money where it was or is needed. That was not necessarily done in the expectation of getting a monetary return. The return in terms of aid may come in many forms, social and economic stability, etc.

No, it was a response to a real crisis and very much needed. That does not make it socialism or some sort of nefarious grab of Treasury funds by the Wall Street.

By the way, government spending money != socialism. That is either claimed by ignorant "garbage edgy teenagers" wearing Che Guevara T-shirts or is else an attempt at a strawman.

And to go back to OP, assistance to individuals is not socialism either, and neither is it always bad.
But not everybody who struggles to pay rent deserves assistance. Some are just in dire straits because they overspend, not because they are in genuine need.

There are many forms of crisis where collective aid in the form of social policies need to be directed. That is a form of socialism at work.

 

[Jarhyn]

You can reject until you are blue in the face, but that's what "socialism" means.


Edgy garbage teens? Wrong. It was Marx and Engels who codified socialism. And it was their teachings that led to "actually existing socialism" as the economic system of numerous countries.
If anything is "garbage teens", it's people who think social programs are "socialism".

Who was a Marxist way back in the day vs who is a Marxist now is a very different preposition. LeVey was older, as we're all the original LeVeyan Satanists. Doesn't change the fact that afterward, it became the religion exclusively of edgy teens.

I would say a significant, perhaps even a majority of "socialists" are not Marxist Socialists.

Regardless of how they call themselves, unless they believe that most means of production should be publicly owned, they are not really socialist.

No TrUe ScOtSmAn... You with your absolutism about language have always been quite wrong. That's not how language works. People are classified by an utterance when they classify themselves using an utterance because that is how utterances acquire meanings.

There is a huge difference between socialism, including  democratic socialism, and  social democracy.

and here is the admission that your insistence that "socialism" only be one thing is nonsensical. You have already pointed out other "Socialism" that are not "Marxist Socialism" but are rather less specific, derived socialisms and also non-derived socialism.

There is another socialism. In fact there are probably many. The core of this OTHER socialism is "love thy neighbor as thyself". It has nothing to do with who has what property, but rather is an instruction to NOT BE A SOLIPSISTIC PIECE OF SHIT.

A commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself" is not a prescription for any particular economic order.

You're right, it ISN'T a direct description or proscription for social order.

It's a feel-good statement that doesn't really propose any particular way to order society or economy.

only for those who have an inability to intersect two functions in a linear fashion. I can easily APPLY that entreatment economically at the very least to understand that leveraging my neighbor for profit rather than equitable exchange is not loving them as I love myself. See how that works? Honestly, I'd bet not.

Now, while this doesn't directly speak to economics (it is more a core operational paradigm), it does suggest that the solipsism of capitalism is still right out.

How does it do that?

For the same reason that Rand argues, in fact. Perhaps it is her only and her greatest Truth: that capitalism is fundamentally selfish, and pits everyone's intrinsic selfishness against the selfishness of all others, creating a market which drives itself towards the intersection of supply/demand, and drives competition between people.

It is literally a description of massively efficient selfishness. It is pretty much the inverse of loving your neighbor

Btw, the same book has...

you seem to think I came on this from a book, specifically. I mean yes, the first time I saw it was in reading a book of fables. Doesn't mean that's why I retained it. In fact, largely I did not retain it. In fact I completely rejected it and found it again by a different path, anyway. As such, the rest of what it says doesn't really have much sway over me.

As such, I am absolutely a socialist, but I am also absolutely not a Marxist Socialist. Instead, I recognize that the concepts of "ownership" we use to play this game is shit, and that we need some Errata on that.

So, seize the means of production... [or] you are not really a socialist...

Have balls or else you are not really a man...
Have testosterone or you are not really a man...
Wear a kilt or you are not really a Scotsman...

How YOU want to define socialism does not matter. You haven't seemed to be able to get over that remarkably low hill in all the years I have known you. People will have their own meanings and intents of usage, and it is not hard to ASK what they mean by it, but enforcing axiomatic definitions is not going to work out well for you

Words have meanings. They do not mean whatever you want them to mean.

No, people give words meaning. They have whatever meaning the people decide to give them, based on how they use them. Carts don't draw along the horses.

 

[ZiprHead]

It was Marx and Engels who codified socialism.

This is an interesting statement coming from someone who is so rigid in the use of words.

Language is not codified. It is fluid and changes over time. Dictionaries are constantly being updated with new words and definitions of old words. New languages sprang from old.

My contribution to the useless semantics argument in the thread.

 

[Politesse]

For those curious, Marx and Engels were actually second generation adopters of the term "socialism"; it was coined and first defined by Henri Saint-Simon, a utopian social philosopher whose works inspired both Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill. The ideas laid out in his most famous work, the "Declaration of Principles", indeed look very similar to what most people today mean by the word socialism. He was not a tolerator of intentional idleness nor a proponent of a welfare state, but did believe that if those who were working in meaningful industries did not have their most basic of needs met, social collapse or revolution was inevitable. On many topics (not all of course) he was a neoliberal before his time.