• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The new socialism

Good4Nothin

Good4Nothin

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
13,199
Reaction score
2,896
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Lately I often hear this new definition of socialism:

Having police and fire departments, public education, sanitation systems, roads, etc., etc.

These things are NOT socialism. For one thing, they are mostly handled locally. Socialism depends on central government control. And for another thing, all societies have these things, or something similar.

I have seen "socialism" defined as being social, caring about people, as opposed to being selfish and greedy. No, that is not what "socialism" means.

People are taking this word and redefining it to mean everything good and sensible. So if you believe in capitalism, that means you don't care about people, are not social, don't want police or fire departments, etc.

Playing games with words. Framing. Creating avalanches of confusion. So much fun.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Lately I often hear this new definition of socialism:

Having police and fire departments, public education, sanitation systems, roads, etc., etc.

These things are NOT socialism. For one thing, they are mostly handled locally. Socialism depends on central government control. And for another thing, all societies have these things, or something similar.

I have seen "socialism" defined as being social, caring about people, as opposed to being selfish and greedy. No, that is not what "socialism" means.

People are taking this word and redefining it to mean everything good and sensible. So if you believe in capitalism, that means you don't care about people, are not social, don't want police or fire departments, etc.

Playing games with words. Framing. Creating avalanches of confusion. So much fun.
Click to expand...

Like conflating Fascism with Communism? Like referring to migrating asylum seekers as Caravans? No one part of the political spectrum has a monopoly on the smearing of terms for their own purposes often unscrupulously. It is one of the most troubling aspects of modern American Society. The meaning of defined terms and even simple words is being smeared as if somebody was pouring molasses over them.

The truth is there has not been a new political doctrine that has come into being for decades. All we have is nitwits, many of them unscrupulous smearing terms into something they want them to mean for their own purposes.
 
Bernie Bros (ie Internet trolls) are desperately trying to convince people that Bernie Sanders has been lying for over half a century when he said he's a socialist.

"Believe me when I tell you that Bernie Sanders is a pathological liar. He's not a socialist like he has always claimed. So vote for him because he's not what he says he is" isn't convincing.
 
The lure of free **** is very strong. As long as someone else pays for it.
 
Socialism does not depend on central government control. That is just the most realistic avenue to creating large scale social programs. Co-ops exist outside of a central government and are a much more literal kind of socialism since it involves worker ownership. If you are offended that socialism is being redefined as social programs you must've been absolutely livid over the past several decades, and still currently on the right, when it has been used interchangeably with authoritarian communism.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Lately I often hear this new definition of socialism:

Having police and fire departments, public education, sanitation systems, roads, etc., etc.

These things are NOT socialism. For one thing, they are mostly handled locally. Socialism depends on central government control. And for another thing, all societies have these things, or something similar.

I have seen "socialism" defined as being social, caring about people, as opposed to being selfish and greedy. No, that is not what "socialism" means.

People are taking this word and redefining it to mean everything good and sensible. So if you believe in capitalism, that means you don't care about people, are not social, don't want police or fire departments, etc.

Playing games with words. Framing. Creating avalanches of confusion. So much fun.
Click to expand...

You're right, they're not socialism.

But neither is the right's casual misuse of it that seems to encompass everything left of the Republican party, which started close to the beginning of the Cold War when the GOP cynically leaned into McCarthyism and red scare tactics as a political tool of convenience.

The right started this perversion of meaning to fulfill their political objectives, and we on the left, intend to finish it; turn about is fair play, after all.
 
jnug said:
Like conflating Fascism with Communism? Like referring to migrating asylum seekers as Caravans? No one part of the political spectrum has a monopoly on the smearing of terms for their own purposes often unscrupulously. It is one of the most troubling aspects of modern American Society. The meaning of defined terms and even simple words is being smeared as if somebody was pouring molasses over them.

The truth is there has not been a new political doctrine that has come into being for decades. All we have is nitwits, many of them unscrupulous smearing terms into something they want them to mean for their own purposes.
Click to expand...

I know it isn't just the "left," it's all political factions. No respect for the agreed on meanings of words.
 
If we want to know the real meaning of "socialism," or any word, we have to trace its historical origins and evolution. Socialism has never meant having police and fire departments and roads managed by local governments. But I hear this frequently now.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Lately I often hear this new definition of socialism:

Having police and fire departments, public education, sanitation systems, roads, etc., etc.

These things are NOT socialism. For one thing, they are mostly handled locally. Socialism depends on central government control. And for another thing, all societies have these things, or something similar.

I have seen "socialism" defined as being social, caring about people, as opposed to being selfish and greedy. No, that is not what "socialism" means.

People are taking this word and redefining it to mean everything good and sensible. So if you believe in capitalism, that means you don't care about people, are not social, don't want police or fire departments, etc.

Playing games with words. Framing. Creating avalanches of confusion. So much fun.
Click to expand...

People have been using the word socialism to mean government programs going all the way back to FDR.


Republicans have been calling Democrats socialists ever since I can remember.

If they want to associate socialism with government programs, okay, then that's what the new socialism is. Since they succeeded in redefining it then Bernie comes out and declares him a Democrat socialist.

But only when a Democrat declares him a socialist according to the new definitions Republicans have deemed it then they declare this socialism Is the same kind of socialism being practiced by the USSR..

This is the kind of gaslighting that the Republicans do they are weasels by any reasonable standard.
 
Good4Nothin said:
If we want to know the real meaning of "socialism," or any word, we have to trace its historical origins and evolution. Socialism has never meant having police and fire departments and roads managed by local governments. But I hear this frequently now.
Click to expand...

Nor has it ever meant increasing taxes on the wealthy or expanding the role of the government outside of nationalizing the economy, but do go on.
 
MrPeanut said:
Socialism does not depend on central government control. That is just the most realistic avenue to creating large scale social programs. Co-ops exist outside of a central government and are a much more literal kind of socialism since it involves worker ownership. If you are offended that socialism is being redefined as social programs you must've been absolutely livid over the past several decades, and still currently on the right, when it has been used interchangeably with authoritarian communism.
Click to expand...

A free society allows communes and worker coops. A socialist society does NOT allow free enterprise and private ownership.

You are just wrong.

And I did NOT say socialism is being redefined as social programs. See if you can read it more accurately.
 
Surrealistik said:
You're right, they're not socialism.

But neither is the right's casual misuse of it that seems to encompass everything left of the Republican party, which started close to the beginning of the Cold War when the GOP cynically leaned into McCarthyism and red scare tactics as a political tool of convenience.

The right started this perversion of meaning to fulfill their political objectives, and we on the left, intend to finish it; turn about is fair play, after all.
Click to expand...

What do two wrongs make?

"They started it" is not how adults normally argue, by the way.
 
Good4Nothin said:
What do two wrongs make?

"They started it" is not how adults normally argue, by the way.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we live in the real world, and as with nukes, unilateral disarmament just isn't going to happen; so long as they insist on continuing this game, we'll play to win it and make them regret ever pursuing such a strategy.
 
For a Finn like me it's fun to watch how people are afraid of any socialistic aspects in US. I'm not sure what's the root cause of this "horror".

I have some doubts that people in US don't really know what social democracy is about. Here is some info from Social Democratic Party's web-page: Social Democracy (Principles)

I'm not fan of SDP (Social Democracy Party) in Finland. Reason is pretty simple: SDP isn't progressive enough. They are lacking in some areas, but I'm not saying that absolutely everything is bad. I wonder how US folks think about those principles. Maybe our standards are a bit lower here as our mentality differs a lot from typical US folks.

Just wanna ask, if you guys follow those principles (SDP) in US - do you think US society is getting worse by doing so?

And when it comes to values: SDP values - how bad/weird those are in eyes of American people?

Maybe Right Wing can provide way better ideas for American people, so it's better know what you can avoid by voting Trump (like those value/principles when they are harmful for you?). Socialism is OK only when you don't let it grow to full blown communism - but most of folks in US can't see it and I'm perfectly fine with it. It's your society and you have way better understanding what's good for you in US. I'm just a Finn and my knowledge about US is really limited. For those who think US is now great, good news for you: there's nothing to fix, no need to bring up any new policies - keep going with same crap :)
 
Good4Nothin said:
A free society allows communes and worker coops. A socialist society does NOT allow free enterprise and private ownership.

You are just wrong.

And I did NOT say socialism is being redefined as social programs. See if you can read it more accurately.
Click to expand...

America has a history of socialism that often found its way into different movements that advocated for things like social programs and labor regulations. Socialism does not automatically refer to a socialist state which is where I think there is confusion. You are trying to put the term in a box for whatever reason, but our own history will tell you a different story. I'm not sure what you are referring to as a "free" society.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Lately I often hear this new definition of socialism:

Having police and fire departments, public education, sanitation systems, roads, etc., etc.

These things are NOT socialism. For one thing, they are mostly handled locally. Socialism depends on central government control. And for another thing, all societies have these things, or something similar.

I have seen "socialism" defined as being social, caring about people, as opposed to being selfish and greedy. No, that is not what "socialism" means.

People are taking this word and redefining it to mean everything good and sensible. So if you believe in capitalism, that means you don't care about people, are not social, don't want police or fire departments, etc.

Playing games with words. Framing. Creating avalanches of confusion. So much fun.
Click to expand...

...He says to himself as he's driving to work on socialist paved roads.
 
Grandpappy said:
The lure of free **** is very strong. As long as someone else pays for it.
Click to expand...

Right? Just ask all those corporations who pay zero in taxes yet excessively use the commons more than everyone else.
 
poweRob said:
...He says to himself as he's driving to work on socialist paved roads.
Click to expand...

The roads were paved by local agencies. And road paving is not a socialist program anyway.
 
Good4Nothin said:
The roads were paved by local agencies. And road paving is not a socialist program anyway.
Click to expand...

Government agencies. Taxed you. Government employees paved them socialist roads buddy boy.
 
By "socialism" we usually mean an alternative to capitalism. We do NOT mean a capitalist system where local government agencies pave the roads, put up traffic signs, put out fires, enforce laws, etc.

It is NOT socialist to have a military owned and managed by the central government.

Why are socialists redefining the word in these ways? To make socialism sound normal I guess. But if you were ok with capitalism, you wouldn't call yourself a socialist.

Go to the socialist websites and see what they have to say about capitalism. They are NOT ok with it. They want it to end. And capitalism is the only way to have a free society. A free society means you can own things, you can start a business. You can live on a commune, or whatever. The central government is NOT allowed to control your personal life.

Read anything that any socialist writes, and you will see they do NOT think it's important to have a free society. To them, it is much more important to have "fairness" and "equality."

If you stop playing those word games, you might see why so many Americans are not ok with socialism.
 
Good4Nothin said:
By "socialism" we usually mean an alternative to capitalism. We do NOT mean a capitalist system where local government agencies pave the roads, put up traffic signs, put out fires, enforce laws, etc.

It is NOT socialist to have a military owned and managed by the central government.

Why are socialists redefining the word in these ways? To make socialism sound normal I guess. But if you were ok with capitalism, you wouldn't call yourself a socialist.

Go to the socialist websites and see what they have to say about capitalism. They are NOT ok with it. They want it to end. And capitalism is the only way to have a free society. A free society means you can own things, you can start a business. You can live on a commune, or whatever. The central government is NOT allowed to control your personal life.

Read anything that any socialist writes, and you will see they do NOT think it's important to have a free society. To them, it is much more important to have "fairness" and "equality."

If you stop playing those word games, you might see why so many Americans are not ok with socialism.
Click to expand...

Government is socialism. Hoover Dam is owned and operated as a public sector means of production. Just because everything isn't a public sector means of production doesn't mean we don't have socialism in our mixed-market economy.
 
danielpalos said:
Government is socialism. Hoover Dam is owned and operated as a public sector means of production. Just because everything isn't a public sector means of production doesn't mean we don't have socialism in our mixed-market economy.
Click to expand...

No its not.

Government is:
the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization

Socialism is:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Just because governments by their nature have to provide for a common good and have to collect taxes in order to sustain the elements of that common good does not make all Government a Socialist structure.

We are a Social Democracy with a Capitalist financial and economic system and certainly have been since FDR. That is the nature of our mixed market system. We were not a Social Democracy at inception but it would be hard to call us anything else at this point. Pure Capitalists whine about our not being a "purely" Capitalist financial and economic system any longer. But if they don't like where we are they should not have brought the economy and our financial system down around our ears with such regularity. In one instance it took a God Damned World War to get us out of the mess their greed and speculation got us into.

But of course, now that we are on our way to blowing right through Autocracy to an Imperial Executive complete with succession plan none of this discourse really much matters until we get rid of the Imperial Executive.
 
danielpalos said:
Government is socialism. Hoover Dam is owned and operated as a public sector means of production. Just because everything isn't a public sector means of production doesn't mean we don't have socialism in our mixed-market economy.
Click to expand...

Government is NOT socialism! There were governments long before anyone thought about socialism. Socialism is an economic system where private ownership is not allowed.

Mixed economies have some socialist programs. But they are not socialist.
 
jnug said:
No its not.

Government is:
the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization

Socialism is:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Just because governments by their nature have to provide for a common good and have to collect taxes in order to sustain the elements of that common good does not make all Government a Socialist structure.

We are a Social Democracy with a Capitalist financial and economic system and certainly have been since FDR. That is the nature of our mixed market system. We were not a Social Democracy at inception but it would be hard to call us anything else at this point. Pure Capitalists whine about our not being a "purely" Capitalist financial and economic system any longer. But if they don't like where we are they should not have brought the economy and our financial system down around our ears with such regularity. In one instance it took a God Damned World War to get us out of the mess their greed and speculation got us into.

But of course, now that we are on our way to blowing right through Autocracy to an Imperial Executive complete with succession plan none of this discourse really much matters until we get rid of the Imperial Executive.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. The public sector handles public sector means of production. Government is social-ism. Everything must be accounted for in economics. The public sector is socialism.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Government is NOT socialism! There were governments long before anyone thought about socialism. Socialism is an economic system where private ownership is not allowed.

Mixed economies have some socialist programs. But they are not socialist.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Government is social-ism. And, yes they are. Mixed market economies are part socialism and part capitalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom