• Obama is trying to make the US more socialist
    160 replies, posted
I've never understood why the word "socialist" means a bad thing to people. It doesn't mean we're becoming a communist state or on our way to forming the next Soviet Russia. Some things actually benefit from being socialized.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34452548]After what happened to Glaber, I'm a bit hesitant.[/QUOTE] Glaber posts paranoid fox news bullshit. How about you find something that's reporting on the left being shitty that isn't fox news or still living in the world of the 50's red scare mindset.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;34454624]So can someone give me a clear and simple definition of Socialism? I think the misuse of the word is making me doubt what I think it means.[/QUOTE] An ideology that advocates for cooperative ownership of the means of production. That's about as simple as it gets.
Whats wrong with socialism?
[QUOTE=DB3;34455950]Whats wrong with socialism?[/QUOTE] The CEO and the investors don't get all the cash :downs:
[QUOTE=The Baconator;34456088]The CEO and the investors don't get all the cash :downs:[/QUOTE] oh damn what a shame :*(
so·cial·ism [B]noun[/B] /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ - A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned [B]or[/B] regulated by the community as a whole. A lot of times people miss the [I]or[/I] part. I myself am an advocate of social democracy, which I think is what you guys are getting at. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy[/url]
The key part of the definition of 'socialism' is the bit regarding the means of production and who owns it. That's the main thrust of the socialist principle. What some right-wing pundits apply the term to- welfare programs and taxation- is completely ridiculous. I'm honestly not sure why people keep buying this- what developed countries nowadays don't have developed taxation systems and social services of some sort? I mean by this definition every government would be 'socialist' in some form, regardless of whether the party is 'left' or 'right'.
[QUOTE=MercZ;34456772]The key part of the definition of 'socialism' is the bit regarding the means of production and who owns it. That's the main thrust of the socialist principle. What some right-wing pundits apply the term to- welfare programs and taxation- is completely ridiculous. I'm honestly not sure why people keep buying this- what developed countries nowadays don't have developed taxation systems and social services of some sort? I mean by this definition every government would be 'socialist' in some form, regardless of whether the party is 'left' or 'right'.[/QUOTE] I just love this black and white thinking. It's either laissez-faire or socialism with owning means of production. Nothing in between.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34451223]So your definition is the only thing that can be called "socialism" and there are no other things that can be called that name. And you are the guy who tells the entire world which definition is right based on... thinking that you're right. Okay. [/quote] Yeah, except it's pretty much universally seen as being a SOCIALISED economic system. [quote]It is a bad system in reality.[/quote] yeah mr guy from poland, you have every right to tell us what systems work. Why not take a trip to Norway, go tell them their socialism is a failure. And make sure to ignore their healthcare, justice system, education system and cost of living. [quote]Perfect one in an ideal world. I'd love for it to work and make everyone happy. And yeah there are places it works but a lot depends on the people and their approach. You can't introduce it to a society of individualists and expect that nobody's gonna abuse it and everyone's gonna contribute for the greater good.[/QUOTE] Again, you have yet to fucking point out WHERE in the system, that depends solely on how the people approach it, so much so it fails. Are you going to actually make a point or just slap stupid arguments together? [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34452178]the reason I speak out against criticism of the Republican party is because, well, they're quite demonized here. I mean, it's quite obvious that your average Facepunch user is left-leaning and typically in favor of the Democratic party or its international counterparts, and, by this reasoning, they are typically against conservatism, as they should be, as that's what their ideology typically dictates. Don't get me wrong though, there's nothing wrong with that. [/quote] [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/13/newt-gingrich-attack-ad-war-gives-mitt-romney-french[/url] Or, they realise how fucking insane the Republican party is. There is nothing fucking redeemable about the GOP [quote]I feel that both parties have their obvious flaws and sources of extremism, but in general, I strongly feel that one party is not inherently better than the other.[/quote] Both parties are bad, just in different ways. Democrats have NO ideas while the Republicans have really bad ideas. [quote]And while I am strongly against the concept of a two party system in the first place, I feel that the Republicans are somewhat unfairly represented on the Sensationalist Headlines section. [/quote] YEAH, we're shit for unfairly representing the Republican party and making them look like idiots by letting them talk. [quote]From my standpoint, I see a lot of articles posted which are critical to the American right. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with this, but I've noticed that any shortcomings of the American left are somehow exempt from being displayed here. All I'm asking for is for users to post more balanced topics.[/QUOTE] They are posted, it's just that they do it at a far lesser scale then the American right. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34452548]After what happened to Glaber, I'm a bit hesitant.[/QUOTE] Glaber is in the "insane right wing with a massive persecution complex and a boner for fox news" category. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34452408][img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/repub.png[/img] Here's what I mean about threads not being exactly balanced. This is what happens when you search the keyword 'Republican" in the Sensationalist Headlines section.[/QUOTE] These are just reporting things they actually say. I don't see your problem. Would you like us to ignore posting them for the sake of "fair representation" and to avoid hurting your feelings?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460312]Yeah, except it's pretty much universally seen as being a SOCIALISED economic system. [/QUOTE] Hahaha fucking hypocrite. You base this solely on the fact that you think your definition is right. "a lot of people identify it with commonwealth, but universally it's being seen as socialized economic system and that's the right definition because I agree with it" what? Socialism is both an economic system and ideology. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460312]yeah mr guy from poland, you have every right to tell us what systems work. [/QUOTE] So a guy from poland has a less right to tell people what system works than a glorious guy from glorious us? Okay. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460312]Why not take a trip to Norway, go tell them their socialism is a failure. And make sure to ignore their healthcare, justice system, education system and cost of living. [/QUOTE] You can't read past 2 sentences do you? I actually said "there are places it works". [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460312]Again, you have yet to fucking point out WHERE in the system, that depends solely on how the people approach it, so much so it fails. [/QUOTE] If something depends on cooperation and commonwealth it wont work if majority of people would only want to take from it and not contribute. Now the whole argument comes from the fact that we talk about different things. Tell me how socialism works in your mind and I'll see if what I'm saying applies to that. Because you still haven't said how you think it works. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460312]Are you going to actually make a point or just slap stupid arguments together?[/QUOTE] HAHAHAHAHA don't fucking embarrass yourself. You make the most retarded arguments. Like that american guy has more valid points or that you are the person who tells the whole world which definition is right.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34460460]Hahaha fucking hypocrite. You base this solely on the fact that you think your definition is right. "a lot of people identify it with commonwealth, but universally it's being seen as socialized economic system and that's the right definition because I agree with it" what? Socialism is both an economic system and ideology.[/quote] It's not my definition, it's just basic fucking logic. hmm, what's a socialised economy, one that is socialised perhaps? Even then, every socialist country follow the same model. And to add another layer to that: "The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, a founder of utopian socialism. The term "socialism" was created to contrast against the liberal doctrine of "individualism".[71] The original socialists condemned liberal individualism as failing to address social concerns of poverty, social oppression, and gross inequality of wealth.[71] They viewed liberal individualism as degenerating society into supporting selfish egoism and that harmed community life through promoting a society based on competition.[71] They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism, that advocated a society based on cooperation." So tell me which part i'm getting wrong. [quote]So a guy from poland has a less right to tell people what system works than a glorious guy from glorious us? Okay.[/quote] First, I'm not actually from here, I just live here, second, lets not kid that your economy is a wreck. [quote]You can't read past 2 sentences do you? I actually said "there are places it works".[/quote] "It doesn't work" "There are places it works" What the fuck are you even arguing? NO IT CAN'T WORK, SOMETIMES, BUT IT NEVER WORKS, SOMETIMES. are you this stupid? [quote]If something depends on cooperation and commonwealth it wont work if majority of people would only want to take from it and not contribute. Now the whole argument comes from the fact that we talk about different things. Tell me how socialism works in your mind and I'll see if what I'm saying applies to that. Because you still haven't said how you think it works.[/quote] You're the one arguing against it, why should I tell you how I perceive it works. I can just throw statistics from socialist countries at you and say 'here it works'. [quote]HAHAHAHAHA don't fucking embarrass yourself. You make the most retarded arguments. Like that american guy has more valid points or that you are the person who tells the whole world which definition is right.[/QUOTE] Oh you sure zinged me you said I make retarded arguments oh nooo !
I came in here to say fuck the torygraph but I see theres a childish argument going on so Ill buy some popcorn too
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460776]It's not my definition, it's just basic fucking logic. hmm, what's a socialised economy, one that is socialised perhaps? [/QUOTE] So you created your own definition using your own reasoning and call it the only right one and universal and assume that everyone sees it that way and if not they are retards. Nice. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460776] "The term "socialism" was created by Henri de Saint-Simon, a founder of utopian socialism. The term "socialism" was created to contrast against the liberal doctrine of "individualism".[71] The original socialists condemned liberal individualism as failing to address social concerns of poverty, social oppression, and gross inequality of wealth.[71] They viewed liberal individualism as degenerating society into supporting selfish egoism and that harmed community life through promoting a society based on competition.[71] They presented socialism as an alternative to liberal individualism, that advocated a [B]society based on cooperation[/B]."[/QUOTE] Maybe that's the part I was referring to all the time? Maybe contributing has something to do with it? [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460776]First, I'm not actually from here, I just live here, second, lets not kid that your economy is a wreck.[/QUOTE] So you're implying that the polish economy is a wreck cause of me? Or that someone who comes from a country which has a bad economy can't know which systems work and which do not? [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460776]"It doesn't work" "There are places it works" What the fuck are you even arguing? NO IT CAN'T WORK, SOMETIMES, BUT IT NEVER WORKS, SOMETIMES. are you this stupid?[/QUOTE] I said it multiple times. In order to make it work you need cooperation. That implies it's not going to work in individualistic societies. Therefore there are many countries where it's not going to work. Maybe you missed that. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460776]You're the one arguing against it, why should I tell you how I perceive it works. I can just throw statistics from socialist countries at you and say 'here it works'. [/QUOTE] So you don't know how it works, it just works.
To be fair your experience of government in Poland should be far worse than someone living in, say, Australia, due to the influence of the Soviet Union and the wake of corruption that left (and created). [editline]31st January 2012[/editline] I don't think you can say that cooperation is impossible either, because (at least in theory) the state is maintained by the cooperation of individuals.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34461006]So you created your own definition using your own reasoning and call it the only right one and universal and assume that everyone sees it that way and if not they are retards. Nice.[/quote] You are so pitifully out of touch with this argument. It doesn't matter if everyone sees it differently, it's a system of governing, not a moral philosphy. If it follows the form of socialism, then it's fucking socialist. WHAT part of this do you not understand? [quote]Maybe that's the part I was referring to all the time? Maybe contributing has something to do with it?[/quote] Cooperation includes everyone. You're just talking about if one group doesn't, we're all fucked. [quote]So you're implying that the polish economy is a wreck cause of me?[/quote] Yes, that's exactly my point. you nailed it silly sil. [quote]Or that someone who comes from a country which has a bad economy can't know which systems work and which do not?[/quote] It's like asking your typical shit kicking American conservative what he thinks about Cuba's economy. [quote]I said it multiple times. In order to make it work you need cooperation. That implies it's not going to work in individualistic societies. Therefore there are many countries where it's not going to work. Maybe you missed that.[/quote] To counter your argument, contag raises a good point. The fact the government exists and runs is sign that it is significantly cooperative enough. Society isn't some group of people constantly looking to murder and pillage their neighbour. [quote]So you don't know how it works, it just works.[/QUOTE] Are you illiterate? Like seriously, how did you even mistake that for my argument? That is some powerful autism you have there boyo. so far this entire thread is you trying your very best to avoid going to into detail about your arguments. Specifically how cooperation effects what part of socialism.
[QUOTE=Contag;34461106]To be fair your experience of government in Poland should be far worse than someone living in, say, Australia, due to the influence of the Soviet Union and the wake of corruption that left (and created).[/QUOTE] And I know how people abuse it if they don't want to contribute or because of corruption. [QUOTE=Contag;34461106]I don't think you can say that cooperation is impossible either, because (at least in theory) the state is maintained by the cooperation of individuals.[/QUOTE] It's not impossible. Introducing the system and assuming it's going to work straight away is impossible. You need people who want to cooperate for the good of everyone instead of caring only about themselves. You need to get that first. If you already have it, socialism can work. But in many places it's not like that. At least not here. Fuck, half of the people would take your car if you left it unlocked. More than half wouldn't tell you that you dropped your wallet and just take it. If you have it otherwise, you live in a great place and socialism would work there. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461178]You are so pitifully out of touch with this argument. It doesn't matter if everyone sees it differently, it's a system of governing, not a moral philosphy. If it follows the form of socialism, then it's fucking socialist. WHAT part of this do you not understand?[/QUOTE] Again. According to [U]you[/U] it's only a system of governing, an ideology can't be called like that. Unless it follows the form of socialism? [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461178]Cooperation includes everyone. You're just talking about if one group doesn't, we're all fucked.[/QUOTE] So you're assuming everyone would cooperate? And that it would work even if a large group wouldn't cooperate? [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461178]It's like asking your typical shit kicking American conservative what he thinks about Cuba's economy. [/QUOTE] What the fuck does that have to do with anything. From what you're saying people's points are invalid if they had contact with a negative thing about the subject they're talking about. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461178]To counter your argument, contag raises a good point. The fact the government exists and runs is sign that it is significantly cooperative enough. Society isn't some group of people constantly looking to murder and pillage their neighbour. [/QUOTE] Haha yeah lol. Like everyone in the government is there to care about the society and help people. Not because of ambition, need of power or wealth or pursuing his own agendas. I'm sorry but you must be young or come from a perfect world. I come from the reality, it's not that ideal. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461178]Are you illiterate? Like seriously, how did you even mistake that for my argument? That is some powerful autism you have there boyo. so far this entire thread is you trying your very best to avoid going to into detail about your arguments. Specifically how cooperation effects what part of socialism.[/QUOTE] Didn't you post a definition of socialism which said it's "society based on cooperation". Or you forgot about it? And you call me autistic. And I'm the one avoiding something? I asked you repeatedly how do you think socialism works and you avoided the answer.
If they do not cooperate, we will send to a re-education resort spa, comrade.
I also said, sil, what you're using as "cooperation" is drastically different from what Saint-Simon is using as cooperation. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] you still haven't pointed anything out, this is like the 6th time I've told you this. If you don't know, just say you don't know.
What's so wrong about a more socialist america?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34461761]I also said, sil, what you're using as "cooperation" is drastically different from what Saint-Simon is using as cooperation. [editline]30th January 2012[/editline] you still haven't pointed anything out, this is like the 6th time I've told you this. If you don't know, just say you don't know.[/QUOTE] You don't know how socialism works because it's the 6th time you avoid the question. See I can play that card too. And it would really help if you would because then we would at least be talking about the same thing.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34462121]You don't know how socialism works because it's the 6th time you avoid the question. See I can play that card too. [/quote] uh no i haven't I even fucking posted the definition. Are you this fucking retarded? You're not even annoying any more, you're just pitiful. And why the fuck should I be the one to do it? YOU'RE the guy who made the original argument, burden of proof is on you. You're saying a implemented system is bad, it's up to YOU to prove why it's bad, and after like 6 times of asking why, you still tap dance around the question. [quote]And it would really help if you would because then we would at least be talking about the same thing.[/QUOTE] Sure, let me buy into your shitty little argument. Your argument is basically saying "if society was in a nuclear war, socialism wouldn't work". You're asking for cooperation, you already have that cooperation in a society.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34462937]uh no i haven't[/QUOTE] I can't see you anywhere saying how it works. Only what it is. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34462937]I even fucking posted the definition. Are you this fucking retarded? You're not even annoying any more, you're just pitiful. [/QUOTE] You posted what it is after being asked how it works. And you call me retarded and pitiful. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34462937]And why the fuck should I be the one to do it? YOU'RE the guy who made the original argument, burden of proof is on you. You're saying a implemented system is bad, it's up to YOU to prove why it's bad, and after like 6 times of asking why, you still tap dance around the question. [/QUOTE] Dude you are ridiculous. I say one thing and then you make it look like I said something else and argue against it. There is no point talking with you if you don't respond to what I'm saying but to something you made up. I said it's not going to work without few things and introducing the system without those is not going to work. And that it does work in some places. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34462937]Sure, let me buy into your shitty little argument. Your argument is basically saying "if society was in a nuclear war, socialism wouldn't work". You're asking for cooperation, you already have that cooperation in a society.[/QUOTE] Explaining how socialism works according to you, the definition maker, is buying into my argument. And I don't know where you got this thing about nuclear war, again you are making something up. It's getting dumb. And no in many places that cooperation isn't present. Everyone works for himself not for the benefit of everyone. World is not so perfect. You'll understand when you get older, I hope. I'm sorry but I'm not interested in further discussion with you in both of the threads. I would continue it if you'd refer to what I'm actually saying not to something you imagined. But because of the way you're arguing, replying to something I never said, I just keep repeating myself and the discussion is going nowhere, you just keep on coming with new counterarguments to imaginary arguments. I just see no point talking to you. It's obvious you don't even try to understand what I'm saying. It's like talking to a creationist.
[QUOTE=joes33431;34456618]so·cial·ism [B]noun[/B] /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ - A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned [B]or[/B] regulated by the community as a whole. A lot of times people miss the [I]or[/I] part. I myself am an advocate of social democracy, which I think is what you guys are getting at. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy[/url][/QUOTE] By that definition, USA and Western European countries are NOT Socialists. If you want to take about Socialism, you better start on things like cooperatives and syndicates not taxes and welfare.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34460312]Or, they realise how fucking insane the Republican party is. There is nothing fucking redeemable about the GOP[/QUOTE] That's quite an ignorant thing to say. Even though I'm pretty strong about my ideas, I understand that my opinion is just my opinion. Republicans aren't bad people, they just have a different way of solving the same problem that the Democrats are trying to solve. Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean you should outright hate them.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34467210]That's quite an ignorant thing to say. Even though I'm pretty strong about my ideas, I understand that my opinion is just my opinion. Republicans aren't bad people, they just have a different way of solving the same problem that the Democrats are trying to solve. Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean you should outright hate them.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RichyZ;34467230]except the gop are actually crazy, republicans as a whole aren't something to be able to easily make a comment on, as it varies, but the gop primaries and majority of the members in congress, are insane.[/QUOTE] you're actually both wrong, the republicans know exactly how damaging their policies are for the majority of people. fortunately, they are in the unique position of not being in the majority, and they push laws that benefit them and their rich friends! they are not wrong, or crazy; they are selfish at best and evil at worst, and deserve our contempt regardless.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34467210]That's quite an ignorant thing to say. Even though I'm pretty strong about my ideas, I understand that my opinion is just my opinion. Republicans aren't bad people, they just have a different way of solving the same problem that the Democrats are trying to solve. Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean you should outright hate them.[/QUOTE] I personally prefer the pre-Reagan Republicans over the ones we have now. The ones that believed in lower taxes and less government programs as well as less foreign intervention, which was a working strategy. The current Republicans in government believe in massively unnecessary spending on the military and allowing corporations to fuck people in the ass because of simple supply-demand charts. They also have this distorted view that poor people are [I]only[/I] poor because they [I]want[/I] to be poor and that the rich are these god-like beings of only the finest moral and ethical behavior and Ronald Reagan. That's just their economic views. Their social views are poorly thought-out, prejudiced, and sometimes flat-out illogical in many times.
[QUOTE=joes33431;34467408]I personally prefer the pre-Reagan Republicans over the ones we have now. The ones that believed in lower taxes and less government programs as well as less foreign intervention, which was a working strategy. The current Republicans in government believe in massively unnecessary spending on the military and allowing corporations to fuck people in the ass because of simple supply-demand charts. They also have this distorted view that poor people are [I]only[/I] poor because they [I]want[/I] to be poor and that the rich are these god-like beings of only the finest moral and ethical behavior and Ronald Reagan. That's just their economic views. Their social views are poorly thought-out, prejudiced, and sometimes flat-out illogical in many times.[/QUOTE] I agree with you on the large majority of those issues, but I strongly feel that the Democratic party isn't any better. I'm certainly not a fan of the large-government European model of economics, which makes me more of a right-wing populist.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34467820]I agree with you on the large majority of those issues, but I strongly feel that the Democratic party isn't any better. I'm certainly not a fan of the large-government European model of economics, which makes me more of a right-wing populist.[/QUOTE] That's fine, we've all got our opinions. It angers me when someone dares bring up a discussion as this and it ends up turning into a war of sorts. The kind of bullshit where people feel that they cannot associate with someone and even go so far as to flat-out hate them for simply not agreeing with them politically. Sort of like our political system. An obvious example is how "liberal" is a derogatory term in right-wing circles. They're literally building a populace that hates a certain group solely because they're [I]different[/I]. I mean seriously, politics in the United States has become the inner workings of a daycare center rather than the day-to-day affairs of a government institution.
I don't mind "big government" at all. It just needs proper restrictions and regulations just the same as anything else. "Big Government" is not some evil, horrible thing. Its the people in charge of it that are the problem. But that same problem can arise with a small government, bad people in charge abusing the populace. "Big Government" is not by any means an intrinsically bad system anymore than a limited government is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.