POLL: The GOP and "Socialism"

[dblack]

Many on the Right appear to REALLY NOT understand the difference between real socialism and Democratic socialism. It's all over this thread. It's not really all that complicated, but they don't see it. Okay. I know why that is, because talk radio purposely doesn't make the distinction, but pretty soon they'll need a better plan than to just scream the word.
.

Of course it's possible they just don't care about the difference, rejecting both for the same reasons. I know the point of the thread is to write off opposition to socialism as fear and ignorance, but there's more to it than that.

 

[Mac1958]

Many on the Right appear to REALLY NOT understand the difference between real socialism and Democratic socialism. It's all over this thread. It's not really all that complicated, but they don't see it. Okay. I know why that is, because talk radio purposely doesn't make the distinction, but pretty soon they'll need a better plan than to just scream the word.
.

Of course it's possible they just don't care about the difference, rejecting both for the same reasons. I know the point of the thread is to write off opposition to socialism as fear and ignorance, but there's more to it than that.

Well, unfortunately that's not the point of the thread. The real point is that the Right doesn't seem to see that the term "socialism" is scaring fewer and fewer people.

It has been made pretty clear here that the Right regularly conflates the socialism of Venezuela with the democratic socialism of Canada, and I have little doubt that it's because talk radio purposely conflates the two.

It appears these people are simply incapable of recognizing the difference between government ownership and control of all means of production and distribution (as in Venezuela), and a government that has a higher level of social/economic involvement, such as Canada, Germany, Australia. There's no middle area for them, there is only one or the other - Venezuela or libertarianism.

And about that, they also seem largely unwilling to admit the obvious, that all of this exists on a continuum, that's you're not "socialist" or "not socialist", and I suspect it's for precisely the same reason.
.

 

[dblack]

Many on the Right appear to REALLY NOT understand the difference between real socialism and Democratic socialism. It's all over this thread. It's not really all that complicated, but they don't see it. Okay. I know why that is, because talk radio purposely doesn't make the distinction, but pretty soon they'll need a better plan than to just scream the word.
.

Of course it's possible they just don't care about the difference, rejecting both for the same reasons. I know the point of the thread is to write off opposition to socialism as fear and ignorance, but there's more to it than that.

Well, unfortunately that's not the point of the thread. The real point is that the Right doesn't seem to see that the term "socialism" is scaring fewer and fewer people.

I'm sure they see it. I certainly do. I've met millennials that told me there were big Ron Paul supporters. Then when I talked to them further they told me they were socialists. They don't have a fucking clue what Ron Paul stands for, nor what socialism means. To them it's just something hip that scares the old guard.

It has been made pretty clear here that the Right regularly conflates the socialism of Venezuela with the democratic socialism of Canada, and I have little doubt that it's because talk radio purposely conflates the two.

I conflate the two because socialism is socialism. It doesn't matter, to me, whether it's "democratic", or whether it's only partially implemented. Outside the populist misunderstanding on both sides, socialism boils down to the question of who will control capital in society: government or "we the people". I don't think government needs this power to do its job, and I think it's a mistake to grant it.

 

[Mac1958]

I conflate the two because socialism is socialism.

Well, that's my point.
.

 

[dblack]

I conflate the two because socialism is socialism.

Well, that's my point.
.

No, your point is that Republicans are too stupid to recognize the difference between the various kinds of socialism.

 

[Mac1958]

No, your point is that Republicans are too stupid to recognize the difference between the various kinds of socialism.

Nope, I never make that characterization. What I actually say, all the time, is that being lost in an ideology is not a function of intelligence; it's more of an affliction.

The ideological closed circuit that has been created on the Right simply doesn't allow for distinctions like this to be made, so they're just foreign to many. "More government than I would like = socialism = Venezuela = evil, miserable failure". That's where it is. I hear that kind of "reasoning" all the time on talk radio.

Look at the posts all the way through this thread. How many of them indicate anything other than that? 2? 3? How many are examples like the one used in the previous paragraph? It's all right there. You yourself just admitted that you conflate the two, even though you should know that Canada is not the same as Venezuela.
.

 

[dblack]

No, your point is that Republicans are too stupid to recognize the difference between the various kinds of socialism.

Nope, I never make that characterization. What I actually say, all the time, is that being lost in an ideology is not a function of intelligence; it's more of an affliction.

The ideological closed circuit that has been created on the Right simply doesn't allow for distinctions like this to be made, so they're just foreign to many. "More government than I would like = socialism = Venezuela = evil, miserable failure". That's where it is. I hear that kind of "reasoning" all the time on talk radio.

Look at the posts all the way through this thread. How many of them indicate anything other than that? 2? 3? How many are examples like the one used in the previous paragraph? It's all right there.

There's plenty of stupidity to go around. But my observation is that ignorance about socialism is just as rampant with its supporters as with its detractors.

You yourself just admitted that you conflate the two, even though you should know that Canada is not the same as Venezuela.

Because the question isn't whether I want to live in Canada or Venezuela. The question is whether the US should have more socialism or less.

 

[Mac1958]

No, your point is that Republicans are too stupid to recognize the difference between the various kinds of socialism.

Nope, I never make that characterization. What I actually say, all the time, is that being lost in an ideology is not a function of intelligence; it's more of an affliction.

The ideological closed circuit that has been created on the Right simply doesn't allow for distinctions like this to be made, so they're just foreign to many. "More government than I would like = socialism = Venezuela = evil, miserable failure". That's where it is. I hear that kind of "reasoning" all the time on talk radio.

Look at the posts all the way through this thread. How many of them indicate anything other than that? 2? 3? How many are examples like the one used in the previous paragraph? It's all right there.

There's plenty of stupidity to go around. But my observation is that ignorance about socialism is just as rampant with its supporters as with its detractors.

You yourself just admitted that you conflate the two, even though you should know that Canada is not the same as Venezuela.

Because the question isn't whether I want to live in Canada or Venezuela. The question is whether the US should have more socialism or less.

Sure, lots of kids have no idea what they're asking for or talking about.

I never hear the Right talking about "more" or "less", and I have a helluva time getting any to admit that this all lies along a continuum. It may be some kind of partisan tactic to not admit the obvious, and I admit that I'm not very good at recognizing that.

I just can't tell if people on the Right really can't tell the difference between Venezuela and Canada, and it's tough as hell to get an answer to that.
.

 

[dblack]

I just can't tell if people on the Right really can't tell the difference between Venezuela and Canada, and it's tough as hell to get an answer to that.
.

Because no one cares. The debate is over whether we want more socialism here. We're discussion what the goal should be. Do we want capital to be controlled by government or the people?

 

[Mac1958]

I just can't tell if people on the Right really can't tell the difference between Venezuela and Canada, and it's tough as hell to get an answer to that.
.

Because no one cares. The debate is over whether we want more socialism here. We're discussion what the goal should be. Do we want capital to be controlled by government or the people?

I can't imagine not caring about where we exist on the spectrum, but okay.

There will always be some government, so the question is how much.
.

 

[dblack]

I just can't tell if people on the Right really can't tell the difference between Venezuela and Canada, and it's tough as hell to get an answer to that.
.

Because no one cares. The debate is over whether we want more socialism here. We're discussion what the goal should be. Do we want capital to be controlled by government or the people?

I can't imagine not caring about where we exist on the spectrum, but okay.

There will always be some government, so the question is how much.
.

Exactly. That's that's the salient question regarding socialism. Do we want government to dictate more of our economic decisions, or less.

Joe was going on in another thread with the usual line about how capitalists are just leeches - how they produce nothing and simply profit off the backs of employees. But that's clearly bunk. Capitalists make the most important decisions in our economy. And the premise of socialism is that government should make those decisions rather than individuals. I think it's a bad idea. Unless there is wide consensus that a given service should be considered part of "the commons", government shouldn't be given the power to control it.

 

[Mac1958]

I just can't tell if people on the Right really can't tell the difference between Venezuela and Canada, and it's tough as hell to get an answer to that.
.

Because no one cares. The debate is over whether we want more socialism here. We're discussion what the goal should be. Do we want capital to be controlled by government or the people?

I can't imagine not caring about where we exist on the spectrum, but okay.

There will always be some government, so the question is how much.
.

Exactly. That's that's the salient question regarding socialism. Do we want government to dictate more of our economic decisions, or less.

Joe was going on in another thread with the usual line about how capitalists are just leeches - how they produce nothing and simply profit off the backs of employees. But that's clearly bunk. Capitalists make the most important decisions in our economy. And the premise of socialism is that government should make those decisions rather than individuals. I think it's a bad idea. Unless there is wide consensus that a given service should be considered part of "the commons", government shouldn't be given the power to control it.

That's why I think we can't restrict ourselves to "government" or "not government" across the board.

I think there are places for it, and places that are better off left to private interests. So it's not a "Cuba vs. Liberty" issue. It's far more complicated than that, and requires reason, collaboration and open minds. It also means that sometimes we don't get what we want.
.

 

[ScorpioRising007]

Our conservative posters continue to start thread after thread pertaining to "socialism". And even though their exact definitions are fairly unclear, it's obvious they think that screaming SOCIALISM is, by itself, enough to win a debate.

As most of us can see, more and more people are becoming perfectly comfortable with the word - in part, no doubt, because the Right has completely over-used and diluted it.

How long before the Right realizes the term "socialism" no longer scares people?
.

The word socialism actually makes me very happy, if the US abandoned Capitalism in favor of Socialism that would be my dream come true. Even Communism I think sounds a whole lot better to me now then Capitalism.

We were brainwashed in school and taught how bad Socialism was and how even worse Communism was, but after I have really studied both and listened to lectures at colleges from professors supporting Socialism and Communism I am convinced they are better alternatives to Capitalism and will lead to better happiness for the greatest good in the long run.

 

[OODA_Loop]

We were brainwashed in school and taught how bad Socialism was and how even worse Communism was, but after I have really studied both and listened to lectures at colleges from professors supporting Socialism and Communism I am convinced they are better alternatives to Capitalism and will lead to better happiness for the greatest good in the long run.

Where do you feel is the shining example, the most successful application of Socialism/Communism?

 

[ScorpioRising007]

We were brainwashed in school and taught how bad Socialism was and how even worse Communism was, but after I have really studied both and listened to lectures at colleges from professors supporting Socialism and Communism I am convinced they are better alternatives to Capitalism and will lead to better happiness for the greatest good in the long run.

Where do you feel is the shining example, the most successful application of Socialism/Communism?

Well I have listened to lectures from some brilliant college professors with incredible credentials and if they say Socialism must work and be better for us in the long run it must be so. After all they have P.h.D's and are a whole lot smarter than the majority of the population. They seemed very smart and really convinced me Socialism in the long run in the United States would be a better system than our current system of Capitalism.

 

[dblack]

I just can't tell if people on the Right really can't tell the difference between Venezuela and Canada, and it's tough as hell to get an answer to that.
.

Because no one cares. The debate is over whether we want more socialism here. We're discussion what the goal should be. Do we want capital to be controlled by government or the people?

I can't imagine not caring about where we exist on the spectrum, but okay.

There will always be some government, so the question is how much.
.

Exactly. That's that's the salient question regarding socialism. Do we want government to dictate more of our economic decisions, or less.

Joe was going on in another thread with the usual line about how capitalists are just leeches - how they produce nothing and simply profit off the backs of employees. But that's clearly bunk. Capitalists make the most important decisions in our economy. And the premise of socialism is that government should make those decisions rather than individuals. I think it's a bad idea. Unless there is wide consensus that a given service should be considered part of "the commons", government shouldn't be given the power to control it.

That's why I think we can't restrict ourselves to "government" or "not government" across the board.

That's why we must. Limitations on government power make democracy viable. Without them, no person can sanely consent to majority rule.

 

[JoeB131]

The 2008 thing was not due to market forces of capitalism.

Market forces do not allow the issuance of untenable loans to unqualified individuals

Which isn't what caused the recession.

The banks lending to poor people who lived in "red lined" neighborhoods has been the law since the 1970's. That didn't cause the recession.

What caused the recession was the banks selling McMansions to middle class people as 'investments' hoping to flip them in a couple of years, and then taking a bath when the bubble popped, and you had a glut of these buildings nobody wanted. This was made worse when those same banks took these bad loans, and sold them as investments, telling people that they were worth a lot more than they were.

Shit, I bought a sensible condo in 2004, and found it was worth half what I paid for it by 2009. NOthing to do with Poor people at all.

Just now starting to see my mortgage come out from underwater.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sure they see it. I certainly do. I've met millennials that told me there were big Ron Paul supporters. Then when I talked to them further they told me they were socialists. They don't have a fucking clue what Ron Paul stands for, nor what socialism means. To them it's just something hip that scares the old guard.

Or they just supported Ron Paul because he wanted to legalize pot.

These Millennials probably support socialism because they look at their parents working themselves to death to make someone else rich, and say, "Fuck that!"

Because no one cares. The debate is over whether we want more socialism here. We're discussion what the goal should be. Do we want capital to be controlled by government or the people?

The flaw of your argument. The government is the people.

The real question is, do we want capital to be controlled by big corporations of rich people, or governments voting in by working people.

I'd be for the latter, if so many of the people were clueless dumb white people who vote for the rich to keep taking more from them, so long as they have a little more than the darkies!

I conflate the two because socialism is socialism. It doesn't matter, to me, whether it's "democratic", or whether it's only partially implemented. Outside the populist misunderstanding on both sides, socialism boils down to the question of who will control capital in society: government or "we the people". I don't think government needs this power to do its job, and I think it's a mistake to grant it.

DBlack thinks the government is mysterious cabals of lizard people who are against us.

The biggest problem with government is that they are us, and the try to give us everything we want.

What we want is for government to do a lot of stuff for us, and we don't want to pay for it.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe was going on in another thread with the usual line about how capitalists are just leeches - how they produce nothing and simply profit off the backs of employees. But that's clearly bunk. Capitalists make the most important decisions in our economy. And the premise of socialism is that government should make those decisions rather than individuals. I think it's a bad idea. Unless there is wide consensus that a given service should be considered part of "the commons", government shouldn't be given the power to control it.

Uh, guy, Capitalists are leeches living off the hard work of the rest of us.

And they DO make the most important decisions in our economy. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

That's why we have the top 400 people in the country who have more wealth than the bottom 40%. Because those are the people we let make the decisions.

Again, you'd understand this if your Billionaire Sugar Daddies didn't spend so much time spreading Libertard propaganda.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The 2008 thing was not due to market forces of capitalism.

Market forces do not allow the issuance of untenable loans to unqualified individuals

Which isn't what caused the recession.

The banks lending to poor people who lived in "red lined" neighborhoods has been the law since the 1970's. That didn't cause the recession.

What caused the recession was the banks selling McMansions to middle class people as 'investments' hoping to flip them in a couple of years, and then taking a bath when the bubble popped, and you had a glut of these buildings nobody wanted. This was made worse when those same banks took these bad loans, and sold them as investments, telling people that they were worth a lot more than they were.

Shit, I bought a sensible condo in 2004, and found it was worth half what I paid for it by 2009. NOthing to do with Poor people at all.

Just now starting to see my mortgage come out from underwater.

Poor people were not mentioned in my statement.