is "socialist" a pejorative?

[djAdvocate]

i maintain that the word "socialist" used in a political context is a pejorative. it is rarely used accurately, and virtually always intended as an insult.

agree or disagree?

[billisonboard]

Jul 30, 2011 14:45:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i maintain that the word "socialist" used in an American political context is a pejorative. it is rarely used accurately, and virtually always intended as an insult.

agree or disagree?

With the caveat added, agree.

[mmhmm]

I think, for the most part, in this day and age it's used as a pejorative. However, I don't believe it to be such. It's simply a word referring to a societal theory. It's the connotation placed upon it by the user, and the hearer, that gives it a negative (or, positive, for that matter) meaning. If you read enough with regard to the different societal theories advanced through the years, you realize that, IMO.

Afternoon, dj. Hope your day is going well. Preparing dinner, then it's work for me for the night.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...ignorance is bliss...

[safeharbor37]

Disagree:
Socialist is mostly used accurately. That it is used as a pejorative is an defense of those who wish to deny their socialist tendencies.
There is nothing wrong with socialism if that's your preference, but it seems that people who desire socialist programs want to pretend that what they want is not "socialist."
There are two alternatives: Socialism and free markets. If it's not free markets, it's socialism ~ and vice-versa. Now, many will argue that a little regulation is a good thing, which is true, but it is also, in effect, socialism ~ and still not a bad thing. The thing is on a continuum with socialism on one end and free market capitalism on the other.
The reason that "socialism" has taken on a negative connotation is that those who espouse it are ashamed of doing so. It is very similar with the terms "progressive," "liberal," etc. As the ideas promoted by those who so label themselves show themselves to be flawed or downright wrong, they change their name and deny their inclinations.
This is not, for the moment, true of those who oppose excessive socialism, liberalism and Progressivism, but, if their ideas prove as flawed as those of the promoters of increased government control, it probably will be. The difference is that those who promote individual responsibility over dependence on government tend to be as honest as they can be, eschewing the deceptive practices of those on the other side.

[Deleted]

i maintain that the word "socialist" used in a political context is a pejorative. it is rarely used accurately, and virtually always intended as an insult.

agree or disagree?

I think that it depends on what political party your a member of. I feel that it's a insult. Democrats might (or at least should) feel that it's a goal achieved.

The term socialist can mean many things. I basically use it to describe anyone that believes it's fair to take from the producers of society & give to the non producers. People that believe that just because you do nothing, work at nothing & contribute nothing to society, you still should enjoy all the benefits of society.

Of course the term has changed over the years. A Russian socialist is nothing like a European socialist. I think the term is still evolving. One day (maybe in 10 or 15 years) it may simply mean a person that is overly generous with someone else's money.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 15:04:50 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

Disagree:
Socialist is mostly used accurately. That it is used as a pejorative is an defense of those who wish to deny their socialist tendencies.

this is a circular argument, safe. you are basically saying that denying you are a socialist proves you are a socialist.

There is nothing wrong with socialism if that's your preference, but it seems that people who desire socialist programs want to pretend that what they want is not "socialist."
There are two alternatives: Socialism and free markets.

i fervently disagree. there are 100 shades of gray between these two choices- varying from true socialist states like China to states where there is virtually no economic control such as Chile or Iraq. teh failure to see these shades of gray is part of the problem, imo.

If it's not free markets, it's socialism ~ and vice-versa. Now, many will argue that a little regulation is a good thing, which is true, but it is also, in effect, socialism ~ and still not a bad thing. The thing is on a continuum with socialism on one end and free market capitalism on the other.
The reason that "socialism" has taken on a negative connotation is that those who espouse it are ashamed of doing so.

of course they are. that is because for 50 years they have been told they are godless communists and Anti-American. any time that this term is used politically, it is to say what is wrong with America. ironically, by the same folks who think that insist that the pledge of allegiance is somehow important to our nation.

It is very similar with the terms "progressive," "liberal," etc. As the ideas promoted by those who so label themselves show themselves to be flawed or downright wrong, they change their name and deny their inclinations.
This is not, for the moment, true of those who oppose excessive socialism, liberalism and Progressivism, but, if their ideas prove as flawed as those of the promoters of increased government control, it probably will be. The difference is that those who promote individual responsibility over dependence on government tend to be as honest as they can be, eschewing the deceptive practices of those on the other side.

i disagree that the difference is between "pro government" and "anti government". after all, social anarchists are against the government, but they are not really what most people would call socialists. the crucial difference is between collectivism and individualism.

you can have a tribal culture that is non-governmental, but highly socialistic, if it works off shared property and common interest. you can have a highly nationalistic and authoritarian structure that is very "pro government" and pro-capitalistic, as well.

most modern democracies are somewhere between these two poles. the US is very far to the individualistic side. Europe is more towards the collectivist side. but neither are "pure" in the sense that would allow one to make blanket distinctions. they are MIXED ECONOMIES. and i happen to think that is a good thing.

does that make me a socialist?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 15:19:34 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

i maintain that the word "socialist" used in a political context is a pejorative. it is rarely used accurately, and virtually always intended as an insult.

agree or disagree?

I think that it depends on what political party your a member of. I feel that it's a insult. Democrats might (or at least should) feel that it's a goal achieved.

for the record, i know of nobody in the US who would consider this description a compliment. but i will fully admit that i have not met anywhere close to all 300M Americans.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 15:19:34 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

i maintain that the word "socialist" used in a political context is a pejorative. it is rarely used accurately, and virtually always intended as an insult.

agree or disagree?

I think that it depends on what political party your a member of. I feel that it's a insult. Democrats might (or at least should) feel that it's a goal achieved.

The term socialist can mean many things. I basically use it to describe anyone that believes it's fair to take from the producers of society & give to the non producers. People that believe that just because you do nothing, work at nothing & contribute nothing to society, you still should enjoy all the benefits of society.

Of course the term has changed over the years. A Russian socialist is nothing like a European socialist. I think the term is still evolving. One day (maybe in 10 or 15 years) it may simply mean a person that is overly generous with someone else's money.

do you think there is any difference between the terms "liberal" and "socialist" in common political parlance?

[billisonboard]

Jul 30, 2011 15:04:50 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

...There are two alternatives: Socialism and free markets. If it's not free markets, it's socialism ~ and vice-versa. Now, many will argue that a little regulation is a good thing, which is true, but it is also, in effect, socialism ~ and still not a bad thing. The thing is on a continuum with socialism on one end and free market capitalism on the other.
...

Let me see if I have this right:

If there is any governmental regulation of any business activity it is socialism.

but wait: "and vice-versa"

So if there is any business activity that isn't regulated by government it is free market capitalism.

Right?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 15:27:19 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Half the people on this board think that Franco, Mussolini and Hitler were socialists. Totalitarian yes, but Fascist.

i think that people have a tendency to conflate authoritarianism, socialism with liberalism. i am puzzled by how that works. liberal authoritarianism is actually an oxymoron. but at least one author apparently thought it was a sound enough idea to use for a book title.

[Deleted]

for the record, i know of nobody in the US who would consider this description a compliment. but i will fully admit that i have not met anywhere close to all 300M Americans.

Just to point out djlungrot I'm betting that you haven't been in school lately (& neither have I). We don't know what is being taught in school & what the younger generation thinks about different forms of government. When I was a kid socialism was a bad word because a LOT of emphases was put on it. If you put less emphases on it & coat the theory a little it sounds both reasonable & humane. Who knows what this generation thinks?

[Deleted]

do you think there is any difference between the terms "liberal" and "socialist" in common political parlance?

Some in practice. In a real socialist country most people will produce less (because there is no incentive) but just about everybody produces something (those that don't produce anything & are a drain on society tend to disappear). In our "copy" of it people don't need to produce because there are no repercussions.

In applying the term politically there is a lot of difference but it's mostly nit picking terms. We are still made up of mostly generations where socialism was a bad word & if any political party were to admit or even hint that some part of their platform was socialist, that party would die quickly. So basically you can do it, you can believe it, but you can't say it. A great example is that no liberal on these board (& I have to guess that they have an IQ greater than the norm in this country) See's any connection from socialism where the producers support those that produce less & our current welfare system or Obamacare. Welfare one could argue that it's a limited system (even though 20% of those that get it are on it for more than 5 years). Obamacare is forever so you can't even argue that it's temporary.

[billisonboard]

Jul 30, 2011 16:36:19 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Properly speaking Tex, professors are not supposed to tell anyone what to "like" but to put the objective facts out there so people can decide. That is the meaning of academic freedom. ...

Disagree. I had a professor point out once that the base word in professor is "profess". He indicated that he had studied for years and years his subject and come to many conclusions (i.e. his truth). He was there to "profess" his truth (which for this excellent professor including uncertainty on some things) and that our job was listen to that, do our own research to find our truth. The "meaning of academic freedom" is that the government can't fire someone for professing their "truth".

[formerexpat]

liberal authoritarianism is actually an oxymoron.

I thought it was the freedom of speech, and democratic society but leaves the ability for the state to distribute wealth, terminate business, seize assets, etc, in the name of the good of society?

I'll be the first to admit I don't know the nuances but I can never be convinced that taking from one to give to another is a good form of government. It leaves us all at risk to being the loser at some point in time, depending on when it fits the politicians agenda. It also always ensures there is a permanent ruling elite that never has to worry about that issue.

[verrip1]

Jul 30, 2011 14:45:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i maintain that the word "socialist" used in a political context is a pejorative. it is rarely used accurately, and virtually always intended as an insult.

agree or disagree?

Disagree.

First, consider the common usage, "Obama is a socialist". I would consider that to be inaccurate. Second, consider "Obama has supported socialist ideals". That might have more merit, though I can't say I've ever researched quotes of his to verify one way or the other.

However, consider the distinction between the two. The first might simply be a slightly lazy approach to saying what is more appropriately portrayed in the second.

Whether or not it is used as a pejorative requires entry into the mind of the speaker/writer. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong. It's not like the word "asshole", for which I see no non-pejorative use beyond an anatomical description.

That leaves us with distinguishing the many from the few. We can no more read the minds of the many or the few than we can the individual speaker/writer. All we are left with is for each of us to form our own opinion and live with it, possibly stretching to support an opinion via interpretation of polling data or worse, taking individual quotes and extrapolating them to support our generalization, which we have already predetermined to be true.

[verrip1]

Short version: If you don't like it, it's a pejorative. No matter what the speaker/writer really meant.

Pejorative is defined by the receiver, not by the pitcher. ;D

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 16:26:19 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

for the record, i know of nobody in the US who would consider this description a compliment. but i will fully admit that i have not met anywhere close to all 300M Americans.

Just to point out djlungrot I'm betting that you haven't been in school lately (& neither have I).

not unless you count my son's

We don't know what is being taught in school & what the younger generation thinks about different forms of government. When I was a kid socialism was a bad word because a LOT of emphases was put on it. If you put less emphases on it & coat the theory a little it sounds both reasonable & humane. Who knows what this generation thinks?

well, i will get to see in a few years, i guess as my son moves on from middle school.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 17:01:40 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Short version: If you don't like it, it's a pejorative. No matter what the speaker/writer really meant.

Pejorative is defined by the receiver, not by the pitcher. ;D

i don't think so at all. i think that all labels are what i call "transactional". if a white guy calls a black stranger a n_____, he is asking for trouble. the only thing that absolves him of it is if he is somehow unaware that it is a pejorative. after he gets his ass stomped, he will likely not repeat the mistake. likewise of a man calls a woman who is a stranger a bitch. there are certain expressions that you ONLY do with an expectation that they will be taken badly.

i think "socialist" is one of those expressions.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 16:58:05 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Jul 30, 2011 14:45:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i maintain that the word "socialist" used in a political context is a pejorative. it is rarely used accurately, and virtually always intended as an insult.

agree or disagree?

Disagree.

First, consider the common usage, "Obama is a socialist". I would consider that to be inaccurate. Second, consider "Obama has supported socialist ideals". That might have more merit, though I can't say I've ever researched quotes of his to verify one way or the other.

However, consider the distinction between the two. The first might simply be a slightly lazy approach to saying what is more appropriately portrayed in the second.

Whether or not it is used as a pejorative requires entry into the mind of the speaker/writer. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong. It's not like the word "asshole", for which I see no non-pejorative use beyond an anatomical description.

That leaves us with distinguishing the many from the few. We can no more read the minds of the many or the few than we can the individual speaker/writer. All we are left with is for each of us to form our own opinion and live with it, possibly stretching to support an opinion via interpretation of polling data or worse, taking individual quotes and extrapolating them to support our generalization, which we have already predetermined to be true.

this is a really good reply, verrip. thanks very much.

i guess i am wondering what the average person thinks that word means. you seem to think that it is more neutral than i do, and i have no choice but to accept that, because i don't actually associate with many people that use that term. however, i can tell you that the one guy i DO hang out with that uses that term uses it the same way that a person would use the word "evil". but again, that is just one example.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 17:37:52 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

What I find dangerous in conflating the terms "socialist" and "totalitarian" is that it has led our country to embrace some of the most terrible monsters of the world, like certain nun-killing dictators, all in the name of "anti-communism." How ridiculous that in World War II people who early on spotted the dangers of the rising Fascist threat were deemed "Premature Anti-Fascists" and tormented instead of being hailed for their prescience. I wish some of those PAFs had been more successful, perhaps a bullet would have found Hitler in time to save millions.

Extremism and anti-democratic leanings are the primary dangers to our way of life, not "labels."

true enough. but if we can't even get past the labels, what hope do we have?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

>>> anti-democratic leanings "is a primary danger" to our way of life <<<

...hmm... wonder what some of the parents on this forum think about that...

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 17:46:54 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

>>> anti-democratic leanings "is a primary danger" to our way of life <<<

...hmm... wonder what some of the parents on this forum think about that...

the relationships between parent and child are legitimately authoritarian. but the relationship between the electorate and their government is not. therefore, a parent may be of one mind with regard to his or her kids, and of a completely different mind with regard to Harry, John and Barack.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 30, 2011 17:51:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 30, 2011 17:46:54 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

>>> anti-democratic leanings "is a primary danger" to our way of life <<<

...hmm... wonder what some of the parents on this forum think about that...

the relationships between parent and child are legitimately authoritarian. but the relationship between the electorate and their government is not. therefore, a parent may be of one mind with regard to his or her kids, and of a completely different mind with regard to Harry, John and Barack.

...would you agree that "we the people" might think otherwise in many respects?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 30, 2011 17:53:51 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

When I learned my traditional catechism age 12 was called, "the age of reason." For this reason it is the age of confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church and a similar concept is behind the Bar Mitzvah of a Jewish boy at not much older.

Now we treat screaming toddlers as if they were fully-functional adults and deny men old enough to enlist the right to have a beer in a bar. The world has become a strange place.

...true, that...

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 17:54:45 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jul 30, 2011 17:51:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the relationships between parent and child are legitimately authoritarian. but the relationship between the electorate and their government is not. therefore, a parent may be of one mind with regard to his or her kids, and of a completely different mind with regard to Harry, John and Barack.

...would you agree that "we the people" might think otherwise in many respects?

there were two subjects in that paragraph. i will presume you were talking about the political one.

i was talking about the proper relationship, Been- NOT the subjective one. i don't know of anyone that thinks that the proper (or legitimate, as i expressed it above) relationship between the electorate and the governed is a dictatorship, and i would be surprised if you were one of them.

but no, i have little doubt that many feel they are living under a dictatorship, now. i certainly felt that way under Bush. and as you can probably imagine, i got LOADS of sympathy for that.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...well, maybe this is just a good illustration that the message pitched might not be the message batted...

...your use of the word, "legitimate," didn't convey the same connotation you intended, it seems... fwiw, I consider it proper for our government to "answer to" us... just as I think it's proper for us to "listen to" government officials... but there is a distinct social contract herein that must be honored... and, it seems, many of "us" are displeased with "them" and their adherence to said contract...

[handyman2]

I view socialist or socialism as a political philosophy. It is used many times in a negitive to describe those who many do not know how else to describe a person who does not agree with them.

[Deleted]

First, consider the common usage, "Obama is a socialist". I would consider that to be inaccurate. Second, consider "Obama has supported socialist ideals". That might have more merit,

I think most democrats would disagree with Obama is a socialist. They expect that if one says that there has to be a full blown socialist government in place. When socialism was discussed in school it was always in it's mature form, long after the government changed. We aren't in that stage yet but are going into the programs at a fairly fast rate (& away from capitalism). There is a huge amount of people even here that constantly talk about those bad businesses that make so much money. Duh, that kind of the point of Capitalism, to make money. Just to point out that:

A puppy is a young dog but is generally called or refereed to as a puppy. It grows into a "dog" & being a puppy is just an early stage. Our country is doing the same with socialism, ie growing into it.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2011 18:06:49 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...well, maybe this is just a good illustration that the message pitched might not be the message batted...

...your use of the word, "legitimate," didn't convey the same connotation you intended, it seems... fwiw, I consider it proper for our government to "answer to" us... just as I think it's proper for us to "listen to" government officials... but there is a distinct social contract herein that must be honored... and, it seems, many of "us" are displeased with "them" and their adherence to said contract...

hahaha. the term legitimate is closely tied with authority FOR ME. i use them in the same sentence often, as in:

the job of a free citizen is to seek out authority and challenge it's legitimacy. most authority is illegitimate, and it deserves to be contested.