djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2011 18:43:24 GMT -5
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. i don't think that is our current trajectory, tex. we have been moving away from social systems for about 30 years now.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2011 18:44:28 GMT -5
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. that's interesting. i view it as 100% economic. how odd.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 30, 2011 19:17:44 GMT -5
DJ: I think we are both correct. Socialism is a program of total control of the masses to achieve the total financial control of said same. We take control of all and distribute the proceeds as we deem fit. The Achilles heal in past history has been that there was no even handedness in how the proceeds were shared among the masses. Patronage was rampent and destructive to the concept.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 30, 2011 19:22:43 GMT -5
... We take control of all and distribute the proceeds as we deem fit.... And in a properly designed social democracy, "we" would be "we".
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 30, 2011 19:58:23 GMT -5
Don't forget George Orwells "Animal Farm" all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Nice work of fiction.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 30, 2011 20:04:23 GMT -5
And fact too. George Orwell was inspired by the schism between the idealist Trotsky and the pragmatic Stalin. The best part of that book is that you read it at 12 or at 20 and the point still comes across. Russia in the early twentieth century was a lousy place to attempt communism.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 30, 2011 21:18:41 GMT -5
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? Agreed.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jul 30, 2011 22:23:54 GMT -5
What has happened is that socialists, once they have achieved one of their goals, deny that what they have achieved is socialist, but is just good old fashioned American capitalism. Then they move to take over more of the private sector. Less regulation equals Fascism. If that's how it's perceived, no wonder we can't agree on a definition of socialism
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2011 22:34:24 GMT -5
DJ: I think we are both correct. Socialism is a program of total control of the masses to achieve the total financial control of said same. We take control of all and distribute the proceeds as we deem fit. The Achilles heal in past history has been that there was no even handedness in how the proceeds were shared among the masses. Patronage was rampent and destructive to the concept. socialism has never really been implemented. but where it has been partially implemented, it has failed to create a level class structure, as promised. power is a thorny thing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2011 22:37:30 GMT -5
What has happened is that socialists, once they have achieved one of their goals, deny that what they have achieved is socialist, but is just good old fashioned American capitalism. Then they move to take over more of the private sector. Less regulation equals Fascism. If that's how it's perceived, no wonder we can't agree on a definition of socialism i don't think that is what was said. what was said was that less regulation leads to a concentration of wealth and power which leads to a feudal state, which is fascism. it is not as simple as this = that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2011 22:38:53 GMT -5
lots of interesting posts, guys. thanks for the input, so far.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jul 30, 2011 23:03:24 GMT -5
It's ok dj, apparently, all your liberal friends like being called "butt-buddies", so you still have that...
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 30, 2011 23:20:03 GMT -5
Some things will just never change.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jul 30, 2011 23:32:37 GMT -5
Socialism fully [really] implemented is totalitarianism. As I stated before, socialism and capitalism are extremes on a continuum so there's almost always a significant amount of either in any economy ~ only totalitarians have complete control [completely regulate] and only in anarchy is there complete freedom.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 31, 2011 9:43:29 GMT -5
It's ok dj, apparently, all your liberal friends like being called "butt-buddies", so you still have that... i don't have too many liberal friends. and none of them are gay. so far as i know, anyway.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 31, 2011 9:45:35 GMT -5
Socialism fully [really] implemented is totalitarianism. not really. the stated goal of socialism is to create economic egalitarianism through shared resources. this has never happened in totalizing regimes. instead, the state apparatus has hoarded the resources, and created a two tier society. this is actually what happens in feudal capitalist states, as well.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 31, 2011 9:48:42 GMT -5
only totalitarians have complete control [completely regulate] and only in anarchy is there complete freedom. the VonMises definition of anarchism is more rightly called anarchocapitalism. most anarchists believe that this form of "anarchism" will lead to a feudal state, which is hardly a desirable end result for your average anarchist. most anarchists are interested in maximizing freedom for the majority, not the few. anarchism has nothing to do with "complete freedom". it has to do with the absence of government, or, if you prefer (i do), the absence of illegitimate authority. the few small scale experiments in anarchism have required a huge amount of personal and social responsibility, sacrifice, and organization. they are not "completely free" but they ARE "completely absent of illegitimate authority".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 8:42:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2011 9:58:20 GMT -5
i don't think that is our current trajectory, tex. we have been moving away from social systems for about 30 years now.
Djlungrot I have no idea how you could even think that. Just look at all the "for the masses" programs that have been started since FDR's time. Did we have unemployment? How about welfare? Now we have Obamacare (unless we can repeal it)? All of those programs are roughly based off of redistributing wealth. Oh & of course we can't leave out the big one...taxes. Take from the working class & give to the poor.
The U.S. has probably the largest middle class on earth & probably the largest middle class that has ever existed. Yet it won't be big enough to support a non working lower class forever. Taking from the rich is just a stupid plan (the numbers don't add up). Now it's possible that we could extend the time that the system works IF we could cut out corruption & graft, but nobody but conservatives seems interested in that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 31, 2011 10:08:47 GMT -5
i don't think that is our current trajectory, tex. we have been moving away from social systems for about 30 years now.Djlungrot I have no idea how you could even think that. Just look at all the "for the masses" programs that have been started since FDR's time. . FDR was 70 years ago, tex, not 30.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 31, 2011 10:11:29 GMT -5
Now we have Obamacare (unless we can repeal it)? All of those programs are roughly based off of redistributing wealth. "Obamacare" has absolutely NOTHING to do with wealth redistribution, since there is no collectivization of resources. it is entirely a private insurance system. only the collection mechanism is federal. but perhaps i am misunderstanding you. if so, please clarify.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 31, 2011 10:14:24 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 31, 2011 10:19:54 GMT -5
The U.S. has probably the largest middle class on earth & probably the largest middle class that has ever existed. Yet it won't be big enough to support a non working lower class forever.
given that the middle class is not growing in terms of wealth, i completely agree. the age wave is also a serious problem.
Taking from the rich is just a stupid plan (the numbers don't add up).
what numbers?
Now it's possible that we could extend the time that the system works IF we could cut out corruption & graft, but nobody but conservatives seems interested in that.i disagree. i think everyone is interested in limiting graft. everyone other than those engaged in it, anyway.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jul 31, 2011 10:39:44 GMT -5
Completely wrong. The reason why those with some socialist tendencies avoid the word "socialism" is because it HAS become a pejorative term. If you were to approach most conservatives by saying, "Hey, what do you think about these socialist ideas ..." how far do you think you'll get? Before it's all over, the conservative will be accusing you of hating America and wanting the entire capitalist system abolished - even if all you want is one very specific segment socialized.
The immediate jump to flagrant hyperbole so often used by the conservatives to bolster a weak argument is reason enough to avoid a term like "socialism." If you mistakenly use it, you'll be arguing points you never even mentioned: "Why bother going to work then? I can just stay home and collect my government check!"
Huh? When did I say anything about that?!
But it happens. Perhaps not on this particular board, but it happens, and it becomes quickly tiresome when suddenly the debate is making references to the USSR or making claims that there will be no incentive to work.
(I remember someone on this board actually DID take the hyperbole route by claiming socialized health care would lower the incentive to work. I asked if this person only worked to pay for health care costs, to which I never received an answer).
It has nothing to do with "deception" used by the "other side" and everything to do with knowing full well the kind of kneejerk reactions some people exhibit when that word is even mentioned in a political context.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 8:42:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2011 10:46:26 GMT -5
FDR was 70 years ago, tex, not 30. Yes but FDR started the ball rolling with SS. In the last 30 years the "idea" of socialism type programs has caught on & is now the excepted agenda of the left. (with "save that baby" as the battle cry". .
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 31, 2011 10:46:29 GMT -5
that is pretty much my position, Shrina. i could back it up with videos, if anyone likes, where people are using the term in the same way they would utter the word "evil".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 31, 2011 10:48:08 GMT -5
FDR was 70 years ago, tex, not 30. Yes but FDR started the ball rolling with SS. In the last 30 years the "idea" of socialism type programs has caught on & is now the excepted agenda of the left. (with "save that baby" as the battle cry". . i would argue that the height of the FDR mission was obtained in 1973, and that by every measure, the fabric of social services has been slowly unraveling since then. but there is no point in debating perceptions, is there?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 8:42:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2011 10:53:41 GMT -5
"Obamacare" has absolutely NOTHING to do with wealth redistribution, since there is no collectivization of resources. it is entirely a private insurance system. only the collection mechanism is federal.
but perhaps i am misunderstanding you. if so, please clarify.
Obamacare has EVERYTHING to do with wealth redistribution. It's a wealth redistribution program dealing in health care. When it first came out that's what it was billed as. Did you really think that everybody would be paying equal amounts of premiums? The whole point of the program is that the poor who can't afford health insurance will get it. Well if they can't afford it who is going to pay for it? The rich, & middle class will pay for the bulk (probably all) of the program. Wealth redistribution plain & simple, just like welfare.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 31, 2011 11:11:48 GMT -5
"Obamacare" has absolutely NOTHING to do with wealth redistribution, since there is no collectivization of resources. it is entirely a private insurance system. only the collection mechanism is federal.
but perhaps i am misunderstanding you. if so, please clarify. Obamacare has EVERYTHING to do with wealth redistribution. It's a wealth redistribution program dealing in health care. When it first came out that's what it was billed as. Did you really think that everybody would be paying equal amounts of premiums? The whole point of the program is that the poor who can't afford health insurance will get it. Well if they can't afford it who is going to pay for it? The rich, & middle class will pay for the bulk (probably all) of the program. Wealth redistribution plain & simple, just like welfare. if you say so.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 31, 2011 11:31:32 GMT -5
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? Nah, you're just whining because we see you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 31, 2011 11:43:16 GMT -5
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? Nah, you're just whining because we see you. you think you see me? ok, pop quiz: 1) to what party do i belong? 2) who did i vote for in the primary in the last presidential election? 3) who did i end up voting for in the general election? i am betting you don't see me at all. prove me wrong.
|
|