what so bad about socialism

[CrusaderFrank]

If Socialism is so great, why aren't our Progressives hopping an inner tube to Fidel and his Progressive Mecca of no WiFi, no jobs, no running water?

because our form of socialism is the best in the world; and, the right proves it every time they complain about the least wealthy buying steak and lobster on their EBT cards.

You're buying steak and lobster while the working Middle class can't, that's called "unsustainable"

It's never worked once any place it's been tried and ALWAYS lead to poverty and in the end mass murder

we have the largest economy in the world to prove it; can the right explain why we are spending social money on bailing out the wealthiest?

We're $18T in the hole and them some, it just took longer for your stupid ideas to hurt us

 

[danielpalos]

If Socialism is so great, why aren't our Progressives hopping an inner tube to Fidel and his Progressive Mecca of no WiFi, no jobs, no running water?

because our form of socialism is the best in the world; and, the right proves it every time they complain about the least wealthy buying steak and lobster on their EBT cards.

You're buying steak and lobster while the working Middle class can't, that's called "unsustainable"

It's never worked once any place it's been tried and ALWAYS lead to poverty and in the end mass murder

we have the largest economy in the world to prove it; can the right explain why we are spending social money on bailing out the wealthiest?

We're $18T in the hole and them some, it just took longer for your stupid ideas to hurt us

it is the right that always insists on those "stupid ideas" that merely bailout the wealthiest and then let it trickle down.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. Twentieth century experience with socialism was failure. Twenty first century experience has been no different ie Venezuela. I am amazed that so many who espouse socialism have no idea what they are espousing.

Do you think that Bernie Sanders' form of socialism espouses is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. ? Or, could it be that all socialism is not the same? Why is it that you and so many others ignore the complexity of what socialism is or might be in different political contexts? Must you always just dumb it down for mass consumption? Either you do it deliberately or, more likely, it is you who has no idea what you are advocating.

 

[Andylusion]

Tax supported state welfare benefits are in fact extorted charity enforced by the power of the state.

Contradiction. Extortion is by definition, not charity. Charity involves a choice.

Otherwise, you can just claim every mugger and burglar, is just engaging in direct charity.

Welfare is legalized theft, pure and simple. Nothing more, and nothing less. Charity is not part of the dynamic in any fashion.

If the state says this is your tax bill and if you refuse to pay it, you will be imprisoned. As justification the state says part of the tax will be used donate living expenses to the citizens who do not support themselves the so called safety net is charity no matter what it is called.
Demanding taxes at the threat of imprisonment is extortion. Government has been in the extortion business since its' inception.

Yes, liberals have no regard for freedom, they don't mind holding a gun on you to make you pay because they are sure they are morally superior to you and doing God's work.

I have one question for all of those who complain about “dependency” and government assistance programs: The question is: Do you believe in capitalism?

Before that question can be answered, I think that we must answer this question: What is the purpose, and what is the effect of public assistance in the context of our political and economic system? Let me try to answer it.

It is well established- although there are those who will not admit it-that poverty, unemployment, and underemployment are built into the capitalist system. Even in a regulated economy, the need for labor expands and contracts as the result of a multitude of factors at home and around the world. When the economy shrinks, excess workers are sidelined. At the same time, the workforce expands and contracts, also as the result of factors t that we can’t control. There is also the issue of matching skills to the available jobs geographically and generally. Rarely is there a perfect match between those seeking jobs and the needs of business and there is usually excess labor.

Yet many believe, or pretend to believe that anyone can go out and get job- a job that pays a living wage anytime they wish if only they were not so lazy and content to be on the dole. They call people who are just trying to survive in a cruel economic environment leaches and parasites. They complain that 47% of people pay no federal income tax but fail to acknowledge that the majority are working but too poor to have an income tax liability, in part due to the earned income tax credit and child care credit supported by Republicans. They also fail to acknowledge that these same people pay other federal taxes, as well as state and local taxes which are highly regressive. In addition you fail to grasp the fact that not only does a free market necessitate a welfare state, but the social safety nets of that welfare state are good for capitalism. When the economy shrinks as it always will from time to time, programs are needed to keep those who are displaced from the workforce from becoming too much of a problem while out of work, and staying healthy enough to be ready to work when the system needs them again to make more profits for the capitalists. In their book “Regulating the Poor: The Function of Public Welfare”, Francis Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward make this argument, and go on to say that relief efforts not only maintain social order, but also reinforce the work ethic by ensuring that people are only given enough to subsist without being to comfortable.

I will submit to you that the only way to eliminate the much maligned dependency is to regulate business to the extent where they must put people before profits and provide a good job for all regardless of the bottom line. I know, most are not going for that one….that would be SOCIALISM. So, to answer the OP question what do we do? I say that we keep people afloat in hard times, not just at a bare subsistence level, but in a way that allows them to maintain their dignity and health, and to keep their homes, knowing that they will again be productive citizens. Indeed, they are more likely to do so. However, we are by no means doing that. We cannot cut back on assistance while singing the praises of the fee market. We have to recognize and deal with the downside of capitalism. Yet so many staunch supporters of lais-sez faire are the same people who decry the cost of assistance for the less fortunate.

The problem I have with the claim that "poverty, unemployment, and underemployment are built into the capitalist system", is the fact there is no alternative that doesn't.

You name for me the economic system, anywhere, at any time, of any age, in which there was 0% poverty, 0% unemployment, and 0% underemployment.

Of course you can't. No such system has ever existed. So saying there is unemployment, underemployment, and poverty under a capitalist based economic system, is both true, and irrelevant.

It's like saying in a free-society, people abuse their freedoms. That's true. But people abuse even the limited freedoms they have, in an authoritarian society too. So.... what difference does it make? That truth, doesn't suddenly make authoritarianism the better system, nor does the existence of poverty and unemployment under capitalism make socialism a better system.

Same thing with matching people, skills, and geography. You don't see socialized systems doing any better of a job. Stalin rounded up thousands, and had them settled in Poland to farm the land. But many were so bad at farming, they starved to death.

And we could talk about many other examples, like lumber jacks in Siberia, or Collective farms in China, or structural engineers under Nazi Germany.

So again, what system has perfect skill matching and geography? None. So what difference does it make to bring that up?

Yes, anyone can earn enough money to live on. And I mean anyone. For you to deny that anyone can earn enough to live on, is either intellectual dishonesty, severe ignorance, or simply using mythical definitions of "living wage".

I've met people that lived on $12,000 a year. I lived one year on just $12,500 a year. You can live on very little. It's a matter of choice.

The reason people complain about the 47% who do not pay tax, has nothing to do with how poor they are. The left wing morons on this thread, and in society, consistently b!tch and moan about how the rich don't pay their fair share. Fact is, the top 6% of wage earners, pay almost 60% of all taxes, and the bottom 50% of wage earners, pay about 3% of all taxes.

Nothing you say changes any of that. The left wing whine fest, is utterly crap. You are all wrong. The wealthy pay far more than their fair share.

Now as to the highly regressive taxes the poor pay... I agree. Stop these social programs that tax the crap out of the poor. The problem is, you demand ever greater social programs, which requires ever greater taxes, which can only come from the poor, because the rich are already paying the vast majority of all taxes... and then you b!tch that we have regressive taxes. Yeah dude... you right bro.. stop that guy in your mirror from causing them.

Regulating business, doesn't cause business to put people before profits. Nothing will. You know what a business without profit is? Called Enron. WorldCom. Hostess. The entire government pushing sub-prime loans which caused the 2008 crash, was all about putting people in front of profits. Funny how that worked out for us.

You would be hard pressed to find a single example where regulation caused anyone anywhere, to put people in front of profits. Let's mandate health care, minimum wage, and employer side taxes...... and this will make McDonald's put people ahead of profits.

Look at all those happy employees. Thank goodness your regulations caused McDs to put people first, instead of profits. See all those happy workers? See them?

Yeah... me neither.

 

[Freiheit]

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. Twentieth century experience with socialism was failure. Twenty first century experience has been no different ie Venezuela. I am amazed that so many who espouse socialism have no idea what they are espousing.

Do you think that Bernie Sanders' form of socialism espouses is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. ? Or, could it be that all socialism is not the same? Why is it that you and so many others ignore the complexity of what socialism is or might be in different political contexts? Must you always just dumb it down for mass consumption? Either you do it deliberately or, more likely, it is you who has no idea what you are advocating.

If you have a new idea let's hear it. Democracy is what it is. Fascism is what it is. Capitalism is what it is. Communism is what it is.
Socialism is what it is. If Mr Sanders has a new system let's hear it otherwise is just the same old same old. What I speak of is defined in language after language, understood by millions and has the substance of countless hours of thought and action devoted to it. It is not some nebulous, unformed, thoughtless wishful thinking there is no magic.

 

[Andylusion]

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. Twentieth century experience with socialism was failure. Twenty first century experience has been no different ie Venezuela. I am amazed that so many who espouse socialism have no idea what they are espousing.

Do you think that Bernie Sanders' form of socialism espouses is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. ? Or, could it be that all socialism is not the same? Why is it that you and so many others ignore the complexity of what socialism is or might be in different political contexts? Must you always just dumb it down for mass consumption? Either you do it deliberately or, more likely, it is you who has no idea what you are advocating.

You are trying to make a distinction which really isn't valid.

Socialism does not require ownership.

Herman Rauschning wrote a book called "Hitler Speaks" in which he wrote up discussions he had with the man. In one such, Hitler is to have said "We don't need to take your cow so long as we own you. Who cares about whether we actually own the firm in name? So long as we have complete control over the people running it, that's good enough."

Now some debate the validity of the book, but regardless the point made is 100% accurate.

If government has control..... it doesn't matter if they own it in law, or not.

If I give you $10... it's your $10... you own it $10. But then I dictate who you can give it to, what you can buy, and what you can't buy, and when you can spend it, and when you can't......... you own it... legally it's yours. But practically speaking, I have control. I don't need to own that $10, as long as I control, regulate, mandate, and limit you.

No Sanders does not yet advocate open direct government ownership of companies.

He does advocate control over companies, from how much they pay, to what they spend, to their investments, to who they fire, and who they hire. That is as socialist as it gets.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. Twentieth century experience with socialism was failure. Twenty first century experience has been no different ie Venezuela. I am amazed that so many who espouse socialism have no idea what they are espousing.

Do you think that Bernie Sanders' form of socialism espouses is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. ? Or, could it be that all socialism is not the same? Why is it that you and so many others ignore the complexity of what socialism is or might be in different political contexts? Must you always just dumb it down for mass consumption? Either you do it deliberately or, more likely, it is you who has no idea what you are advocating.

If you have a new idea let's hear it. Democracy is what it is. Fascism is what it is. Capitalism is what it is. Communism is what it is.
Socialism is what it is. If Mr Sanders has a new system let's hear it otherwise is just the same old same old. What I speak of is defined in language after language, understood by millions and has the substance of countless hours of thought and action devoted to it. It is not some nebulous, unformed, thoughtless wishful thinking there is no magic.

dear; dictionaries don't explain, merely parrot. you need an encyclopedia to acquire and possess a clue and a Cause.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I understand that you paint "socialism" -either out of ignorance or dishonesty -with a broad brush

yes, but only because it slowly starved 120,000,000 human souls to death.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What I understand is that you fail to distinguish between corporate welfare and social safety net programs

100% stupid!! Why is a corporate safety net less important than personal safety net? Better to keep a person working rather than cripple him with morally hazardous welfare??
Isn't thinking fun??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

by a little help in hard times.
.

100% perfect liberal stupidity!!! The Pilgrims came here for freedom, not for a little help in hard times or a safety net. Today, despite the huge wealth of a modern post Pilgrim economy, welfare is used to cripple and buy votes from generation after generation. It offers anything but "a little help in hard times." It offers to cripple and use people for eternity! It's disgusting and perfectly liberal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

tighter regulations to prevent corporate misbehavior

dear, the soviets and Chinese used more and more regulation until 120 million had starved to death. Do you have the IQ to understand?

You believe in magical regulation out of pure stupidity!!

 

[Freiheit]

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. Twentieth century experience with socialism was failure. Twenty first century experience has been no different ie Venezuela. I am amazed that so many who espouse socialism have no idea what they are espousing.

Do you think that Bernie Sanders' form of socialism espouses is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. ? Or, could it be that all socialism is not the same? Why is it that you and so many others ignore the complexity of what socialism is or might be in different political contexts? Must you always just dumb it down for mass consumption? Either you do it deliberately or, more likely, it is you who has no idea what you are advocating.

You are trying to make a distinction which really isn't valid.

Socialism does not require ownership.

Herman Rauschning wrote a book called "Hitler Speaks" in which he wrote up discussions he had with the man. In one such, Hitler is to have said "We don't need to take your cow so long as we own you. Who cares about whether we actually own the firm in name? So long as we have complete control over the people running it, that's good enough."

Now some debate the validity of the book, but regardless the point made is 100% accurate.

If government has control..... it doesn't matter if they own it in law, or not.

If I give you $10... it's your $10... you own it $10. But then I dictate who you can give it to, what you can buy, and what you can't buy, and when you can spend it, and when you can't......... you own it... legally it's yours. But practically speaking, I have control. I don't need to own that $10, as long as I control, regulate, mandate, and limit you.

No Sanders does not yet advocate open direct government ownership of companies.

He does advocate control over companies, from how much they pay, to what they spend, to their investments, to who they fire, and who they hire. That is as socialist as it gets.

Let's see if I have this right " "We don't need to take your cow so long as we own you" quote from your post. Are you seriously proposing slavery? If Sanders proposal is to enslave the producers I can't imagine anything more heinous. I abhor socialism but I hate slavery and anyone who advocates it. Your vision is more heinous than Orwells'. I cannot believe that anyone would advocate slavery. In your world every producer would necessarily be the property of the state and you believe that to be good for people.
I hope you and all those who would enslave their fellow man die a slow and horrendously painful death. I have nothing further to say to you slaver.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Tax supported state welfare benefits are in fact extorted charity enforced by the power of the state.

Contradiction. Extortion is by definition, not charity. Charity involves a choice.

Otherwise, you can just claim every mugger and burglar, is just engaging in direct charity.

Welfare is legalized theft, pure and simple. Nothing more, and nothing less. Charity is not part of the dynamic in any fashion.

If the state says this is your tax bill and if you refuse to pay it, you will be imprisoned. As justification the state says part of the tax will be used donate living expenses to the citizens who do not support themselves the so called safety net is charity no matter what it is called.
Demanding taxes at the threat of imprisonment is extortion. Government has been in the extortion business since its' inception.

Yes, liberals have no regard for freedom, they don't mind holding a gun on you to make you pay because they are sure they are morally superior to you and doing God's work.

I have one question for all of those who complain about “dependency” and government assistance programs: The question is: Do you believe in capitalism?

Before that question can be answered, I think that we must answer this question: What is the purpose, and what is the effect of public assistance in the context of our political and economic system? Let me try to answer it.

It is well established- although there are those who will not admit it-that poverty, unemployment, and underemployment are built into the capitalist system. Even in a regulated economy, the need for labor expands and contracts as the result of a multitude of factors at home and around the world. When the economy shrinks, excess workers are sidelined. At the same time, the workforce expands and contracts, also as the result of factors t that we can’t control. There is also the issue of matching skills to the available jobs geographically and generally. Rarely is there a perfect match between those seeking jobs and the needs of business and there is usually excess labor.

Yet many believe, or pretend to believe that anyone can go out and get job- a job that pays a living wage anytime they wish if only they were not so lazy and content to be on the dole. They call people who are just trying to survive in a cruel economic environment leaches and parasites. They complain that 47% of people pay no federal income tax but fail to acknowledge that the majority are working but too poor to have an income tax liability, in part due to the earned income tax credit and child care credit supported by Republicans. They also fail to acknowledge that these same people pay other federal taxes, as well as state and local taxes which are highly regressive. In addition you fail to grasp the fact that not only does a free market necessitate a welfare state, but the social safety nets of that welfare state are good for capitalism. When the economy shrinks as it always will from time to time, programs are needed to keep those who are displaced from the workforce from becoming too much of a problem while out of work, and staying healthy enough to be ready to work when the system needs them again to make more profits for the capitalists. In their book “Regulating the Poor: The Function of Public Welfare”, Francis Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward make this argument, and go on to say that relief efforts not only maintain social order, but also reinforce the work ethic by ensuring that people are only given enough to subsist without being to comfortable.

I will submit to you that the only way to eliminate the much maligned dependency is to regulate business to the extent where they must put people before profits and provide a good job for all regardless of the bottom line. I know, most are not going for that one….that would be SOCIALISM. So, to answer the OP question what do we do? I say that we keep people afloat in hard times, not just at a bare subsistence level, but in a way that allows them to maintain their dignity and health, and to keep their homes, knowing that they will again be productive citizens. Indeed, they are more likely to do so. However, we are by no means doing that. We cannot cut back on assistance while singing the praises of the fee market. We have to recognize and deal with the downside of capitalism. Yet so many staunch supporters of lais-sez faire are the same people who decry the cost of assistance for the less fortunate.

The problem I have with the claim that "poverty, unemployment, and underemployment are built into the capitalist system", is the fact there is no alternative that doesn't.

You name for me the economic system, anywhere, at any time, of any age, in which there was 0% poverty, 0% unemployment, and 0% underemployment.

Of course you can't. No such system has ever existed. So saying there is unemployment, underemployment, and poverty under a capitalist based economic system, is both true, and irrelevant.

I agree that there is no perfect system. I am not saying that we should end capitalism. My point is that there is a down side to it which public policy must address, if for no other reason than to save capitalism from itself.

It's like saying in a free-society, people abuse their freedoms. That's true. But people abuse even the limited freedoms they have, in an authoritarian society too. So.... what difference does it make? That truth, doesn't suddenly make authoritarianism the better system, nor does the existence of poverty and unemployment under capitalism make socialism a better system.

I am not avocation for an authoritarian system or for socialism unless you believe anything other than compete lais-sez faire is authoritarian and socialist.

Same thing with matching people, skills, and geography. You don't see socialized systems doing any better of a job. Stalin rounded up thousands, and had them settled in Poland to farm the land. But many were so bad at farming, they starved to death.

And we could talk about many other examples, like lumber jacks in Siberia, or Collective farms in China, or structural engineers under Nazi Germany.

So again, what system has perfect skill matching and geography? None. So what difference does it make to bring that up?

Again, I’m not saying that socialism will solve that either. Just pointing out the reality of the situation. You are having the wrong argument here. I don’t see why or how references to Stalin are necessary or helpful.

Yes, anyone can earn enough money to live on. And I mean anyone. For you to deny that anyone can earn enough to live on, is either intellectual dishonesty, severe ignorance, or simply using mythical definitions of "living wage".

I've met people that lived on $12,000 a year. I lived one year on just $12,500 a year. You can live on very little. It's a matter of choice.

Well I don’t know how you live on that, where, how or for that matter when. The reality is that many people have to choose between food, paying rent or buying medicine at that is a disgrace

The reason people complain about the 47% who do not pay tax, has nothing to do with how poor they are.

The left wing morons on this thread, and in society, consistently b!tch and moan about how the rich don't pay their fair share. Fact is, the top 6% of wage earners, pay almost 60% of all taxes, and the bottom 50% of wage earners, pay about 3% of all taxes.

Nothing you say changes any of that. The left wing whine fest, is utterly crap. You are all wrong. The wealthy pay far more than their fair share.

I’ve heard that before. Nice ploy. It does not change the fact that top earners who are already pulling down more than they could possibly contribute often pay a lower effective tax rate that working class people.

Now as to the highly regressive taxes the poor pay... I agree. Stop these social programs that tax the crap out of the poor. The problem is, you demand ever greater social programs, which requires ever greater taxes, which can only come from the poor, because the rich are already paying the vast majority of all taxes... and then you b!tch that we have regressive taxes. Yeah dude... you right bro.. stop that guy in your mirror from causing them.

Tax the hell out of the poor? Stop the social programs? How about “let them eat grass” or was it cake? In any case you know how that went down . Now you are just ranting senselessly.

Regulating business, doesn't cause business to put people before profits. Nothing will. You know what a business without profit is? Called Enron. WorldCom. Hostess. The entire government pushing sub-prime loans which caused the 2008 crash, was all about putting people in front of profits. Funny how that worked out for us.

You would be hard pressed to find a single example where regulation caused anyone anywhere, to put people in front of profits. Let's mandate health care, minimum wage, and employer side taxes...... and this will make McDonald's put people ahead of profits.

Regulations protect workers, they protect consumers they protect the environment and in the case of the financial industry, they can protect the economy. However, it is still capitalism and for that reason business won’t voluntarily put people before profits. That is why we need regulations.

True, they are not going to hire or retain people if doing so does not have the desired effect on their bottom line. But, regulations help in terms of the quality of life for workers and for all of us. Without them we would go back to 80 hour work weeks in sweat shops, child labor, and polluted rivers and air. Is that what you want?


.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, regulations help in terms of the quality of life for workers
.

100% stupid and illiterate!! Capitalism forces a business to offer the best products and jobs just to survive. Do you have the IQ to understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

this will make McDonald's put people ahead of profits.

[/QUOTE]
100% stupid and liberal since it will add to their prices, decrease sales, and force them to fire workers. HOW is firing workers putting people ahead????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I don’t see why or how references to Stalin are necessary or helpful.

dear, Our govt has been growing forever and ever yet when Barry took over all he could think of was growing it far bigger. Now we have Sanders and Clinton who cant think of anything else but growing it far bigger still even when all agree we are on the wrong track. Liberals are too stupid to know they are Stalinist.

Norman Thomas quotes: ( American Socialist candidate for president)

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

, regulations help in terms of the quality of life for workers
.

100% stupid and illiterate!! Capitalism forces a business to offer the best products and jobs just to survive. Do you have the IQ to understand?

Listen nasty ass. Do you want to have a discussion or do you just want to yell at people and insult them? Try to be civil. Your attitude sucks and conveys the sense that your just angry and not all that sure of yourself. Have some respect or shut the fuck up.

Now incase you missed it , I am not against capitalism and in fact recognize that it serves a purpose. I know that healthy competition is good. But I also know, and you should know, that some businesses will try to get away with whatever they can if they think that there will be no consequences. Look at what happened recently with Volkswagen. Ya think that, in the absence of regulations more car companies would not do the same thing? Hell, they would not have to....they could just sell poulting cars. Get real dude.

 

[danielpalos]

What I understand is that you fail to distinguish between corporate welfare and social safety net programs

100% stupid!! Why is a corporate safety net less important than personal safety net? Better to keep a person working rather than cripple him with morally hazardous welfare??
Isn't thinking fun??

still nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost?

 

[danielpalos]

by a little help in hard times.
.

100% perfect liberal stupidity!!! The Pilgrims came here for freedom, not for a little help in hard times or a safety net. Today, despite the huge wealth of a modern post Pilgrim economy, welfare is used to cripple and buy votes from generation after generation. It offers anything but "a little help in hard times." It offers to cripple and use people for eternity! It's disgusting and perfectly liberal.

dear; why not end corporate welfare, first before individual welfare; or is your propaganda and rhetoric that inexpensive.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

. I don’t see why or how references to Stalin are necessary or helpful.

dear, Our govt has been growing forever and ever yet when Barry took over all he could think of was growing it far bigger. Now we have Sanders and Clinton who cant think of anything else but growing it far bigger still even when all agree we are on the wrong track. Liberals are too stupid to know they are Stalinist.

Norman Thomas quotes: ( American Socialist candidate for president)

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

Some people are too stupid to know that difference between an economic system and a political system and that socialism can exist in a variety of political environment and takes many forms. Some people seem to think that you are either a socialist/communist -which they stupidly think are the same thing-or you are not, and that there is no daylight in between. That is call ridged, concert and unsophisticated thinking that is not exactly indicative of a high level intelligence.