Democrats edited anti-capitalist, pro-socialist message out of photo in promo image - Polidicks

[QUOTE][IMG]https://thumbs.mic.com/MTY4Yjk1ODdlOSMvTXNJX2ltcVNRRVQ5dkNXNS11ODlfSFZaNjFZPS8yNXg3OToxMTc1eDkwMi82MjF4NDQ1L2ZpbHRlcnM6cXVhbGl0eSg3MCkvaHR0cDovL3MzLmFtYXpvbmF3cy5jb20vcG9saWN5bWljLWltYWdlcy83YzdoMnYwNnplZWJpZTF5N2FyOGU2eTZuc3MxMzIwZHM2ZmE3eXZjMmlwc3d2dGNreXc3eWZyenh2Z3F1bXdoLmpwZw.jpg[/IMG] If you can't rid the Democratic party of socialism by beating it in the primaries, sometimes the only thing left is Photoshop. Democrats edited anti-capitalist, pro-socialist message out of photo in promo image "Capitalism is the disease. Socialism is the cure." The Democratic National Committee acknowledged the mistake, telling Mic in an email the tweet "violated DNC policy and we regret the error." But for Rachel Silang, the PSL's national social media coordinator, this minor snafu is just further proof that Democrats are resisting the pressure from their base to embrace change. "The base of the Democrats are pushing forward and exploring new options," Silang said over the phone, pointing out that socialist Bernie Sanders is now the most popular politician in the country. "For them to edit out the words 'capitalism' and 'socialism' is just so telling about how disconnected they are from young voters, and even older voters." - And although they were able to remove the anti-capitalist messaging from the image, a hammer and sickle still managed to make it through: [IMG]https://thumbs.mic.com/MDcyNmZlZjQwNSMvU0NEbWFHUHViUzNXeGVpT1k5NHpCWDlPM2lnPS84M3gxMTo3NzF4NTA0LzYyMXg0NDUvZmlsdGVyczpxdWFsaXR5KDcwKS9odHRwOi8vczMuYW1hem9uYXdzLmNvbS9wb2xpY3ltaWMtaW1hZ2VzL2RiemgzY2lrYnp3amptc2Vmb2s3MWNyNnNkcmNxM2dqNmV3aW5teGp4NzczbG5manhrOWkxY2VuZGY1Z3pjcXAuanBn.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE] [url]https://mic.com/articles/172257/democrats-edited-anti-capitalist-pro-socialist-message-out-of-photo-in-promo-image#.FnToeDJFO[/url]

To be fair, the solution is actually [I]democratic[/I] socialism, i.e. a mix of capitalist and socialist policies, not full-on socialism. But still...if the DNC didn't want to put the S-word in their promo materials, why not just use another image? Did they really think no one would notice this?

That ain't ethical one bit, just pick a different photo - yeesh.

it's perfectly understandable that they don't wanna push the wrong message, but then why even use the picture at all?

Dumbfucks.

Removing the majority of the sign makes it pointless too. Like, "Trump is the symptom" ...The symptom of what, though?

It's shitty but is it really surprising that a capitalist party wouldn't want to promote socialism in their marketing? Agreed that they should have gone for another photo though, "Trump is the symptom" on it's own doesn't really make any sense and co-opting a leftist demonstration to promote your centrist party sucks.

[QUOTE=mcharest;52024171]To be fair, the solution is actually [I]democratic[/I] socialism, i.e. a mix of capitalist and socialist policies, not full-on socialism. But still...if the DNC didn't want to put the S-word in their promo materials, why not just use another image? Did they really think no one would notice this?[/QUOTE] I'm going to try to be optimistic here and say it's because they want to implement socialism first to get people to love it then say "this was socialism all along, did you like it?" like those blind taste tests they used to have in soda commercials

journalistically speaking the photo is void now, you're not allowed to edit beyond a bit of cropping and clear censorship when deemed necessary. if you didn't want this message visible you'd have to either blur/pixelate/blackbar so the viewer knows it was done, it or find a different pic. an intentional edit to change/remove meaning from something in the photo as if it wasn't edited is a no-go [i]having said that[/i], this wasn't a journalistic report image, it was a promo header and doesn't fall into those regulations. It's silly, but they're within their right to remove conflicting party shenanigans from their promo junk, and to be fair it's a strong photo of crowd+signage from an actual recent event, I don't blame them for wanting to use it over other photos they may have had on hand. Editing to alter meaning into support howerver is still kind of a disingenuous murky grey zone

[QUOTE====;52024230]It's shitty but is it really surprising that a capitalist party wouldn't want to promote socialism in their marketing? Agreed that they should have gone for another photo though, "Trump is the symptom" on it's own doesn't really make any sense and co-opting a leftist demonstration to promote your centrist party sucks.[/QUOTE] I'm more surprised forgot to remove the little bit advertising the "Party for Socialism and Liberation" at the bottom. Whoever edited it is pretty incompetent. No problem with the idea of editing it though, I actually support that, just wish it was done better.

[QUOTE=Octavius;52024305]I'm more surprised forgot to remove the little bit advertising the "Party for Socialism and Liberation" at the bottom. Whoever edited it is pretty incompetent.[/QUOTE] Let's not forget the clearly visible ☭...

[QUOTE=mcharest;52024171]To be fair, the solution is actually [I]democratic[/I] socialism, i.e. a mix of capitalist and socialist policies, not full-on socialism. But still...if the DNC didn't want to put the S-word in their promo materials, why not just use another image? Did they really think no one would notice this?[/QUOTE] But isn't that, social democracy? Isn't democratic socialism just socialism with elected leaders?

[QUOTE=gokiyono;52024423]But isn't that, social democracy? Isn't democratic socialism just socialism with elected leaders?[/QUOTE] Yep, SocDem =/= DemSoc. It's a common misconception, though. Example: Bernie's policies are Social Democratic but he identifies as a Democratic Socialist.

From my understanding socialism tends to only work during times of war like Britain with it's Ration Scheme as any other time the system tends to grow out of control and begin to be corrupted by those attempting to gain power within the controlling party. However that being said, It isn't necessarily bad as things like public schooling and health care are very useful to the society as a whole.

Socialism is great, but Americans aren't going to get to it through sudden democracy. They're an extreme bunch. If you want socialism, it's going to come either through social democracy as an evolution, or a violent reaction to facism that'll probably have a counter revolution. Socialism > Social democracy, but it's not something you can just get up and [I]do[/I]. [editline]28th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sims_doc;52024589]From my understanding socialism tends to only work during times of war like Britain with it's Ration Scheme as any other time the system tends to grow out of control and begin to be corrupted by those attempting to gain power within the controlling party. However that being said, It isn't necessarily bad as things like public schooling and health care are very useful to the society as a whole.[/QUOTE] Most times socialism occurs, every capitalist on the outside shits on it, seeing it as a threat. That said, Vietnam is alright, and china is experimenting a lot. Also, yeah, Stalin was the biggest fuckup in history, and there are a few other examples. According to Marx, the most influential socialist writer, socialism is the form beyond capitalism. You're supposed to go through capitalism to arive at socialism. Issue is a lot of famous socialist countries, like the USSR or the people's republic of china, didn't really go through that phase and went from backwater aristocracies to communists, skipping that capitalist part, and although they managed some impressive feats, like how industrialized they got in a short time, the leadership never naturally occured and it really shows.

[QUOTE=The Jack;52024691]Most times socialism occurs, every capitalist on the outside shits on it[/QUOTE] Charter schools, I would agree with you but then you've got this.

[QUOTE=Sims_doc;52024782]Charter schools, I would agree with you but then you've got this.[/QUOTE] What do you mean?

[QUOTE=The Jack;52024691]Socialism is great, but Americans aren't going to get to it through sudden democracy. They're an extreme bunch. If you want socialism, it's going to come either through social democracy as an evolution, or a violent reaction to facism that'll probably have a counter revolution. Socialism > Social democracy, but it's not something you can just get up and [I]do[/I]. [editline]28th March 2017[/editline] Most times socialism occurs, every capitalist on the outside shits on it, seeing it as a threat. That said, Vietnam is alright, and china is experimenting a lot. Also, yeah, Stalin was the biggest fuckup in history, and there are a few other examples. According to Marx, the most influential socialist writer, socialism is the form beyond capitalism. You're supposed to go through capitalism to arive at socialism. Issue is a lot of famous socialist countries, like the USSR or the people's republic of china, didn't really go through that phase and went from backwater aristocracies to communists, skipping that capitalist part, and although they managed some impressive feats, like how industrialized they got in a short time, the leadership never naturally occured and it really shows.[/QUOTE] No, no system in it's absolute will work. It must be diluted with other ideologies. I know you got the whole revolution spirit in your veins, as do I, but total socialism will never be the way without 100% cooperation.

[QUOTE=Megadave;52025363]No, no system in it's absolute will work. It must be diluted with other ideologies. I know you got the whole revolution spirit in your veins, as do I, but total socialism will never be the way without 100% cooperation.[/QUOTE] What's the logic inherent in this line of thinking? Intuitively it makes sense, as nuance and keeping things in check sounds nice, but if socialism as Marx defines it in his works was, theoretically (not debating whether it is or not, that's a very complex argument in of itself), an entirely sound economic model, why should it be diluted with things that serve no other purpose than to rein it back in to the oppressive system it's trying to break away from?

[QUOTE=mcharest;52024171]To be fair, the solution is actually [I]democratic[/I] socialism, i.e. a mix of capitalist and socialist policies, not full-on socialism. But still...if the DNC didn't want to put the S-word in their promo materials, why not just use another image? Did they really think no one would notice this?[/QUOTE] No. That's social democracy. Democratic socialism is socialism with the people getting to vote. Just because you put democratic in front of it doesn't make it not socialism. If it looks like a dog, barks like one, then it's a dog. Just a dog of a different breed.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52025453]Calling Marx the most influential socialist writer in history :thinking: I mean, I am sure there are a lot of socialists today who will disagree on Marx on almost all topics. [editline]29th March 2017[/editline] What is socialism though? People voted in USSR.[/QUOTE] Good question. Socialism is government (the people) owning the means of production. It doesn't work in practice, because free markets end up being more prosperous basically. But the problem with absolute capitalism is that the unfortunate in society are left to starve. However, with progressive taxation and social democracy, the prosperous can pay their fair share to make sure no one starves, goes homeless, or goes without healthcare in our 21st century modern nation.

It's entirely pointless to apply these models to the world we live in currently. It's not supposed to have competition from countries with different competition based ideologies, it's an international set of ideas intended for a world where the capitalist free market has inevitably folded in on itself.

I wish the "Streisand effect" was a nationally known phenomenon.

[QUOTE=J!NX;52027022]I wish the "Streisand effect" was a nationally known phenomenon.[/QUOTE] it would be more well known if someone tried to cover it up

[QUOTE=Duck M.;52025426]What's the logic inherent in this line of thinking? Intuitively it makes sense, as nuance and keeping things in check sounds nice, but if socialism as Marx defines it in his works was, theoretically (not debating whether it is or not, that's a very complex argument in of itself), an entirely sound economic model, why should it be diluted with things that serve no other purpose than to rein it back in to the oppressive system it's trying to break away from?[/QUOTE] Because The Failing Point in which someone powerful enough almost always takes over, and then becomes another oppressive system [editline]29th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=cis.joshb;52026979]Good question. Socialism is government (the people) owning the means of production. It doesn't work in practice, because free markets end up being more prosperous basically. But the problem with absolute capitalism is that the unfortunate in society are left to starve. However, with progressive taxation and social democracy, the prosperous can pay their fair share to make sure no one starves, goes homeless, or goes without healthcare in our 21st century modern nation.[/QUOTE] Hell according to People from China in Quora, They are also taught to Criticise Marx, because There is an inherent Incentive problem

According to some socialists, social democracy brings contradictions of its own such as disincentivizing investment of production by capitalists at the top due to taxation on profits and eroding labor discipline at the bottom due to increased job security. They also argue that it serves only to "prop up" a contradiction-laden system and doesn't solve exploitation, alienating labor, and business fluctuations (eg. boom-and-bust cycles). Personally, while I would love to see social democracy implemented in the United States, I feel that further democratization of society will still be needed. As we all know, workplaces are generally totalitarian institutions, so placing more control in the hands of the workers via worker's councils or a similar system would be a step in the right direction (eg, electing shareholders, holding plebiscites for major business decisions that affect workers, etc).

the shareholder/board/ceo model of business has proven time and time again to not care about much other than profit, even companies whos expressed goals are enviromental stewartship, they still donate to those that would promote climate denial, anti-enviromental regulation and espouce the messages of ultimate free market.

[QUOTE=HappyCompy;52028468]According to some socialists, social democracy brings contradictions of its own such as disincentivizing investment of production by capitalists at the top due to taxation on profits and eroding labor discipline at the bottom due to increased job security. They also argue that it serves only to "prop up" a contradiction-laden system and doesn't solve exploitation, alienating labor, and business fluctuations (eg. boom-and-bust cycles). Personally, while I would love to see social democracy implemented in the United States, I feel that further democratization of society will still be needed. As we all know, workplaces are generally totalitarian institutions, so placing more control in the hands of the workers via worker's councils or a similar system would be a step in the right direction (eg, electing shareholders, holding plebiscites for major business decisions that affect workers, etc).[/QUOTE] It still seems to me like the better thing to do is push for what we know will: A. Improve our condition and B. Is definitely achievable Coops and whatnot are great, but they have some problems of their own and they are pretty high-risk. In the US they are ESPECIALLY hampered by our unwillingness to do things like even fucking unionizing. And even assuming the contradictions to be true and that they work like my crude knowledge of marx says they do, social democracy still seems like the next best ideal until it falls apart.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52025453]Calling Marx the most influential socialist writer in history :thinking: I mean, I am sure there are a lot of socialists today who will disagree on Marx on almost all topics. [editline]29th March 2017[/editline] What is socialism though? People voted in USSR.[/QUOTE] The USSR having elections was a farce. If voting there mattered at all why did Joseph Stalin remain in power for so long and brutalize its people? There was only ever one candidate to vote for. Command systems also have inherent faults that markets do not, such as the already mentioned incentives and the competition to drive innovation as well as production issues.

There is literally nothing wrong with integrating aspects of socialism into an otherwise capitalist society.