I say Im a Socialist and people dig it

This coming from a person who (AFAIK anyway) still has yet to prove that they have any idea what socialism even is.

 

I laugh every time I see the title to this thread.

I think you have a hip-hop hit here.

 

There's two really easy ways to tell if someone has no idea what socialism is:

1) You ask them to define it and they say anything but social ownership and cooperative control of the means of production. Those two qualities are the entire sum of socialism.
2) They talk like socialism exists in only one form, and that form is GOVERNMENT GAHHH.

 

This is exactly the reason why I sometimes mention it if it comes up. To see how people react to that word. To see if views about it are changing. Some people talk about politics sometimes and that's when I'll throw it out there along with some solutions to economic problems.

 

His point was people love to use other countries poor because it serves as an excuse to pay people less. The wealthy never compare themselves to other wealthy, because that would be an excuse to pay them less. "People in Nigeria have 3 masters degrees and work for a bag of rice? Well Mr. Gates, a rich person in Nigeria has 3 huts instead of one and 100 goats. Here's your goats and huts, we'll take the rest!!" People need to think before they prattle on with points they think are clever but haven't been thoroughly thought upon. Fact of the matter is, I don't want American poor to be held to the standards of people barely coaxed out of trees, and I can say the same for our rich. They need to hold themselves to our standards.

 

That's because he's 20.

Didn't you just shoot yourself in the foot here? If everyone can afford food, Iphones, and malt liquor, then aren't you admitting that the poor in America have luxuries that are not afforded to real poor people?

Here's the truth. American "poor" only consider themselves poor because they have higher expectations. They compare themselves to what's immediately around them instead of looking at the whole picture. So whatever the average American has is what they think they deserve simply by virtue of living in America. They're not grateful at all for the stuff they actually do have that a lot of poor people would kill for. But they simply want to be part of the status quo. And anything less is reason to complain.

 

You know, there are a lot of overloaded words in the English language. Some you can tell by context, but for many there are dominant definitions. When Ellen said she was gay, I doubt anybody thought "Well, it's nice that she's cheerful but I don't see why she's making a big deal about it." Everyone knew what she meant. When people around here talk about George W Bush nobody asks if they mean the somewhat famous black settler from the 19th century.

I think Stalin and Mao earned their flavor of socialism to be considered the dominant use of the term. If you mean something else, be more specific.

 

I'm working on that. I'm trying to include the two factors that are necessary to have socialism when discussing it, which is social ownership and cooperative control of the means of production.

 

I think both Mao and Stalin euphamistically used roughly those terms (obviously in their own languages) to describe what was going on their their regimes. When you say that people are going to think you mean government ownership and control.

Actually I'm not even sure what you mean other than government control. If an individual actually owned anything they could sell it, and if they controlled something they could choose what to do with it on their own, neither of which you support to my knowledge. From past discussions I think you do mean government control, you just favor highly granular little direct democracies as opposed to a monolithic single party government.

Couldn't you just come up with some new term forwhatever your utopia is supposed to be?

Hurm, I was going to propose something based off your username, but your acronym is RAT... Anyway, I'm sure you could come up with something.

 

That's a bit PC though isn't it?

 

Please provide some facts or statistics to back this ridiculous statement up. As of now it is just rhetoric, so I can only refute it with other rhetoric, which would only devolve to rude statements.

"We have the wealthiest capitalists in the world" Really? http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ Number one is not American. Only 2 out of the top 5, and only 4 out of the top 10...

"Our disparity of wealth rivals many 3rd world countries" Which nations? Is this based on statistical fact or rhetorical ideology? If there is a disparity in the disparity of wealth between the two nations, I would bet good money that it is because the high earners in the USA earn more than the high earners in the third world country. That is a GOOD THING!!! It means that people can achieve higher success here!!! This is something you are against? Are you really suggesting that the poor in the USA are MORE POOR than the poor in the third world countries???

I think the real disparity is the quality of life of the bottom 99% (including the bottom 10%) of the USA and the quality of life in "Third world countries" for the same 99% in the third world nations. There are very very few

Please read an economics or history book, or do something to improve your education because statements like the above do nothing to advance any agendas you may support, they in fact undermine the causes you champion.

Rhetorical ideologists are bad, and should feel bad.

Friends don't let friends pressure their friends into backing a political party.

 

I'm pretty sure they really make fun of you behind your back.

 

Who is "they"? The ludicrously tragic capitalists?

 

So you hang out with losers. Who cares?

 

Not only have I shown you that I understand what socialism is, I have proven how president Obama and most modern day presidents support many socialist principles. Additionally, I am not a lassiez faire capitalist, and I support some socialist policies in an effort to provide infrastructure and defense to protect capitalist ventures.

At the end of the day though, I don't owe you a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing. So whether or not I have validated myself to you is no concern of mine.

 

Sorry, but socialism ain't that "cool" or whatever -- and people who "dig it" -- LMAO!

A social market economy -- well, that is an entire different thing, since you don't take the concept known as "personal responsibility" out of the equation

Anyways, most political parties are "catch-all-parties" -- they are on the right on some issues (e.g. immigration, lower taxes for working people, lower welfare benefitis for lazy (!) bums -- it is one thing to be down on your luck but an entirely different when you've been unemployed for 5 years), and on the left on others (e.g. increased welfare spending for working families, lower prices for medication, etc.).

 

You mean naming your system after yourself? I suppose. I guess that's why people tend to prefir to overload existing terms instead of creating new language until they've successfully pulled their bait-and-switch or at least attained sufficient fame. Still there are plenty of words you can form out of the letters in the english language, you'd think you'd be able to find or come up with some combination that you could use.

Though have you really thought through what your idea is? It seems you're saying you don't want government control, but you actually do want government control, just a different sort of government control.

You know, I think perhaps socialism as a term is coming to imply the common denominator that I think exists amongst all uses of the term. The idea that there are other people out there with more stuff than you and you want to take it from them and still feel moral in the process of doing so. The different types of socialism are the specifics of how to generate that mental construct, and it is not neccessary to have really thought it through or even know what another person means so long as you agree on the common denominator.

 

When you use the term socialist, what do you think people take that to mean? Do you think that there is a universal and generally accepted definition of the word, and if so, what do you think most people think socialism is?

 

Voting democrat.​

 

Good one.

 

Always there is people that is in a worse situation than others, that does not mean that there are people that does not live well in USA, and that is what should be changed.

And what problem do you have with poors? You are one of that extremist that believe that is fault of them for being poor? Nice.

 

I'm curious what he'll say.

However I'm increasingly thinking that most, especially those that view it favorably, simply fall back on the common denominator.

See there are a vast array of variations on how socialism is implemented, from a monolithic totalitarian government owning everything to variations on governmentless anarchy, to direct democracy and bunches of little co-op businesses.

The only common thread is that there are people who have more than you, and you want to take all their stuff away by force and feel good and moral while doing it. Especially in America where it isn't so realistic that any real variation on socialism is going to happen in our lifetime, understanding the specific sort of socialism someone actually advocates isn't so important. Rather I think someone liking a "socialist" simply means they approve of the common denominator.

 

*shrug* Greed, "people have more than me," is the motivating force in every system. Capitalism itself exists for the sole purpose of getting bigger and nicer stuff than the next guy. People having better things than us is the one factor that motivates man more than any other.

 

Socialism has failed in many European countries that invested a lot into social programs, don't get me wrong social programs are good but there comes a point when spending too much on public programs becomes a problem. Moderate Liberalism, moderate Conservatism and more recently the Third Way have resulted in stable and prosperous societies.

 

Me too.

That's my observation as well. I have no problem with groups of people forming worker controlled organizations. It's only the stealing from others part to which I have objections.