Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep. The people who fling it around clearly don't have a specific definition for it. Most often, their definition appears to be "anything to the Left of me".The primary use of the word "socialism" has been to use it as a fear word.
But, as with myriad other examples, we've devolved into blurting intellectually lazy, simplistic hyperbole at every opportunity.
.
Oh great, thanks!Yep. The people who fling it around clearly don't have a specific definition for it. Most often, their definition appears to be "anything to the Left of me".The primary use of the word "socialism" has been to use it as a fear word.
But, as with myriad other examples, we've devolved into blurting intellectually lazy, simplistic hyperbole at every opportunity.
.
Socialism is central economic planning. It's not a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, guys. Sure, there are a lot of variations of it. Full socialist ownership of industry, fascism (token private ownership but companies must follow government economic plan and get major decisions approved), crony capitalism (companies pay off politicians to pick market winners). But in the end, either government controls the economy (socialism) or we make our own choices (capitalism).
It's not that hard
Oh great, thanks!Yep. The people who fling it around clearly don't have a specific definition for it. Most often, their definition appears to be "anything to the Left of me".The primary use of the word "socialism" has been to use it as a fear word.
But, as with myriad other examples, we've devolved into blurting intellectually lazy, simplistic hyperbole at every opportunity.
.
Socialism is central economic planning. It's not a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, guys. Sure, there are a lot of variations of it. Full socialist ownership of industry, fascism (token private ownership but companies must follow government economic plan and get major decisions approved), crony capitalism (companies pay off politicians to pick market winners). But in the end, either government controls the economy (socialism) or we make our own choices (capitalism).
It's not that hard
Now tell the right wing to start using the word properly, see how that works.
.
Oh, sorry. The only time I read your posts is when you're posting to me.Oh great, thanks!Yep. The people who fling it around clearly don't have a specific definition for it. Most often, their definition appears to be "anything to the Left of me".The primary use of the word "socialism" has been to use it as a fear word.
But, as with myriad other examples, we've devolved into blurting intellectually lazy, simplistic hyperbole at every opportunity.
.
Socialism is central economic planning. It's not a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, guys. Sure, there are a lot of variations of it. Full socialist ownership of industry, fascism (token private ownership but companies must follow government economic plan and get major decisions approved), crony capitalism (companies pay off politicians to pick market winners). But in the end, either government controls the economy (socialism) or we make our own choices (capitalism).
It's not that hard
Now tell the right wing to start using the word properly, see how that works.
.
If you don't see me telling them that, then you're even a bigger idiot than I already thought. You're constantly in these threads. Seriously, what is wrong with you?
Oh, sorry. The only time I read your posts is when you're posting to me.Oh great, thanks!Yep. The people who fling it around clearly don't have a specific definition for it. Most often, their definition appears to be "anything to the Left of me".The primary use of the word "socialism" has been to use it as a fear word.
But, as with myriad other examples, we've devolved into blurting intellectually lazy, simplistic hyperbole at every opportunity.
.
Socialism is central economic planning. It's not a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, guys. Sure, there are a lot of variations of it. Full socialist ownership of industry, fascism (token private ownership but companies must follow government economic plan and get major decisions approved), crony capitalism (companies pay off politicians to pick market winners). But in the end, either government controls the economy (socialism) or we make our own choices (capitalism).
It's not that hard
Now tell the right wing to start using the word properly, see how that works.
.
If you don't see me telling them that, then you're even a bigger idiot than I already thought. You're constantly in these threads. Seriously, what is wrong with you?
Libertarian thought is pretty predictable.
I'll certainly try harder in the future!
.
Yes. That's your favorite insult. Doesn't mean much coming from you though.
You're consistently supporting politicians who devalue our currency and rob taxpayers of wealth with deficit spending.
No. I'm advocating fiscal responsibility. You must have been absent that day.
Wtf? When did gary johnson do that?
And taxing and spending is the least fiscallly responsible choice, which is why you want it
Nope. Spending money we don't have is more irresponsible. It also lets voters off the hook. They can vote for overreaching, overspending federal programs without paying for them. That's the reason the whole show keeps rolling along. If voters had to actually pay for the government they vote for, they might think twice. But with Trump just racking up debt, no one gives a shit about spending. Good call!
The American people have been up to their necks in debt for the past 50 years. Get what you want now and worry about paying for it later.
Why would you expect them to have a government that's any different?
I don't. But Republicans like to pretend they are all about fiscal responsibility. They are not.
No, they're not, which is why I left the Republican party in 1990.
I know you have libertarian thoughts, I believe that. But you always chicken out and back socialism in the end. Like here where you're arguing for tax and spend fiscal policy, the worst of all possible worlds
Libertarian thought is pretty predictable.
'Tax and spend' is a whole lot better than 'Not Tax, and Spend'!
Yep. The people who fling it around clearly don't have a specific definition for it. Most often, their definition appears to be "anything to the Left of me".The primary use of the word "socialism" has been to use it as a fear word.
But, as with myriad other examples, we've devolved into blurting intellectually lazy, simplistic hyperbole at every opportunity.
.
Socialism is central economic planning. It's not a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, guys. Sure, there are a lot of variations of it. Full socialist ownership of industry, fascism (token private ownership but companies must follow government economic plan and get major decisions approved), crony capitalism (companies pay off politicians to pick market winners). But in the end, either government controls the economy (socialism) or we make our own choices (capitalism).
It's not that hard
Correct.So the reason why so many people think that socialism is O.K. is that their concept of 'socialism' is really liberal/progressive programs, not the government owning and controlling type of 'socialism' that your talking about.
Liberal/progressive programs that are NOT socialist, but have been declared to be 'socialist' by conservatives include:
-Industrial and commercial regulations
-Social Security
-Welfare (i.e. Government assistance programs)
-Medicare and 'Obamacare' (i.e. 'Socialized medicine')
-Guaranteed minimum income (Brain child of Thomas Paine, not Karl Marx)
-Minimum wage
-The EPA
-Taxation
-Unions
Liberal/progressive programs that are NOT socialist, but have been declared to be 'socialist' by conservatives include:
-Industrial and commercial regulations
-Social Security
-Welfare (i.e. Government assistance programs)
-Medicare and 'Obamacare' (i.e. 'Socialized medicine')
-Guaranteed minimum income (Brain child of Thomas Paine, not Karl Marx)
-Minimum wage
-The EPA
-Taxation
-Unions
I think that part of the reason these are seen as "socialist" in nature is because they are inroads to socialism. They introduce the basic precepts of socialism and lay the foundations for broader socialist "reforms".
I think that part of the reason these are seen as "socialist" in nature is because they are inroads to socialism. They introduce the basic precepts of socialism and lay the foundations for broader socialist "reforms".
Only in the eyes of a paranoid delusional.
Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production ...
'Tax and spend' is a whole lot better than 'Not Tax, and Spend'!
I agree. This is a longstanding debate between myself and kaz. He thinks tax cuts are always good - even if they aren't equally applied, even if there is no corresponding cut in spending. I think that's irresponsible. Equal protection and a balanced budget are more important than reducing taxes.
Yep. The people who fling it around clearly don't have a specific definition for it. Most often, their definition appears to be "anything to the Left of me".The primary use of the word "socialism" has been to use it as a fear word.
But, as with myriad other examples, we've devolved into blurting intellectually lazy, simplistic hyperbole at every opportunity.
.
Socialism is central economic planning. It's not a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, guys. Sure, there are a lot of variations of it. Full socialist ownership of industry, fascism (token private ownership but companies must follow government economic plan and get major decisions approved), crony capitalism (companies pay off politicians to pick market winners). But in the end, either government controls the economy (socialism) or we make our own choices (capitalism).
It's not that hard
You've exemplified what I said earlier in this thread:
Conservatives have successfully linked any government program that they don't like with the term 'socialism'.
As you said socialism is 'central economic planning', which implies central economic control and government ownership. That is NOT what liberals and progressives want at all. But in order to defeat liberalism conservatives have broadened the meaning of 'socialism', declared liberal programs to be 'socialist' then condemned socialism according to the narrowest definition - absolute government ownership and control.
Liberal/progressive programs that are NOT socialist, but have been declared to be 'socialist' by conservatives include:
-Industrial and commercial regulations
-Social Security
-Welfare (i.e. Government assistance programs)
-Medicare and 'Obamacare' (i.e. 'Socialized medicine')
-Guaranteed minimum income (Brain child of Thomas Paine, not Karl Marx)
-Minimum wage
-The EPA
-Taxation
-Unions
In fact the one category of government spending that Conservatives wholeheartedly approve of and which is ABSOLUTELY socialist is defense spending. If you've ever worked in the military industries you'd know that it's all just socialism with a great big fat middle-man milking the tax payer.
So the reason why so many people think that socialism is O.K. is that their concept of 'socialism' is really liberal/progressive programs, not the government owning and controlling type of 'socialism' that your talking about.
Correct.So the reason why so many people think that socialism is O.K. is that their concept of 'socialism' is really liberal/progressive programs, not the government owning and controlling type of 'socialism' that your talking about.
It still hasn't occurred to the Right that the word no longer scares people, nor do they realize why: They've so over-used the word that it means nothing. Or anything. So people no longer freak out when they hear it, and they're more willing to look at it (Euro-socialism in particular).
This is exactly what the Left did to the word "racism", once again illustrating how similar the behaviors of the two ends of the spectrum can be.
.
Unless we're talking about either pure communism or pure anarchy, government control and distribution exists on a continuum.Correct.So the reason why so many people think that socialism is O.K. is that their concept of 'socialism' is really liberal/progressive programs, not the government owning and controlling type of 'socialism' that your talking about.
It still hasn't occurred to the Right that the word no longer scares people, nor do they realize why: They've so over-used the word that it means nothing. Or anything. So people no longer freak out when they hear it, and they're more willing to look at it (Euro-socialism in particular).
This is exactly what the Left did to the word "racism", once again illustrating how similar the behaviors of the two ends of the spectrum can be.
.
It's hilarious how you two geniuses don't grasp the connection between government control of the economy and government redistributing money. But then if you didn't know shit about shit, you wouldn't be leftists
Unless we're talking about either pure communism or pure anarchy, government control and distribution exists on a continuum.Correct.So the reason why so many people think that socialism is O.K. is that their concept of 'socialism' is really liberal/progressive programs, not the government owning and controlling type of 'socialism' that your talking about.
It still hasn't occurred to the Right that the word no longer scares people, nor do they realize why: They've so over-used the word that it means nothing. Or anything. So people no longer freak out when they hear it, and they're more willing to look at it (Euro-socialism in particular).
This is exactly what the Left did to the word "racism", once again illustrating how similar the behaviors of the two ends of the spectrum can be.
.
It's hilarious how you two geniuses don't grasp the connection between government control of the economy and government redistributing money. But then if you didn't know shit about shit, you wouldn't be leftists
You would know this if you were not intellectually trapped in your funny little binary libertarian vacuum.
.
