Playing the Socialist Card Is Weak Sauce

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I have seen so many `This person is a evil Socialist/Communist` arguments that is gets to the point in which it becomes almost impossible to work out solutions to modern day problems. Any solution which involves even the slightest amount of collectivism or standing united with the common person in order to benefit everyone is labeled as `evil socialism` meant to take away everyone`s freedom.

Like it or not, socialist solutions do in fact work. I have seen people who are in desperate need of healthcare, but cannot afford it, flat out refuse universal healthcare. I have seen people who live in really sub-standard housing refuse to support increased funding for safe proper public housing. I have even seen people who don`t know where their next meal will come from refuse to support community food centers.

I think they are truly being lead by people who have lied to them so much and used the socialist card so often that they are now unable to vote, think or work in their own best interest. You almost cannot not even have a logical conversation with them about how to solve some of our serious problems in modern society. They will refuse anything which involves giving up a little to gain so much more in return. It is almost as if they enjoy being poor, hungry and in bad health.

There are a lot of people who have had it beaten into their heads that `If it involves sharing your money with others in order to get something you need then it must be evil communism and thus something you don`t want.` It is sad that so many people will allow themselves to go without basic needs in order to not support anything remotely socialist/communist.

Brainwashing by the hands of the rich elite. That is the only reason I can come up with to explain why people are so anti-socialist.

Playing the socialist card is indeed weak sauce. If someone cannot come up with a better counter argument to say no to a solution other than `It`s socialist` then maybe they are a little uneducated and a bit too brainwashed. In the end, people are people and they only want what is best for them; which is sad because everyone pretty much wants the same things.




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Meh it's the lure of the low hanging fruit in a buzzword obsessed culture.

I'm a moderately liberal guy with some conservative leanings. It just so happens I don't mind paying taxes to help the indigent and poor get food and medical care.

For this I get labeled as a communist, leftist, socialist, Marxist, etc. pretty often. I don't let it get under my skin though and I even laugh because Americans and most Europeans seem to be clueless as to what a truly socialist nation is.

Ironically the right tends to call the left "socialist" and the left retorts by calling the right "Nazi's"... I chuckle to no end about this.

Long story short? Labels are just ad homs by a different name.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I find the word "socialist" used as a ripost to class warfare memes.

Just my humble opine. . . .



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Socialism/Communism are misunderstood concepts. In America, imo, they have been equated by some to the USSR and similar governments. There's plenty of socialism in the West. Unemployment insurance. Welfare. Food banks. Hell, even property taxes are communist. Pooling community funds for infrastructure and services, like garbage collection. That said, Heff pointed it out. Any label is a weak argument.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
labels are not weak arguments in my opinion

If someone believes in redistribution of wealth/services then they are a socialist i'm sorry
And socialism may work for small countries but it could never work for the UK or North America

Now once that's said you can debate on socialism as opposed to calling him a socialist with a tone infering its almost a curse word.

But Socialism does not work!

Proof?
Just look around you!



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I would argue that the failure we see around us is not socialism at all, but oligarchy masquerading as socialism. We dole out a few benefits to the poor, elderly, sick, and disabled - a pittance in reality, all while subsidizing Corporate interests on a far greater scale.

Do some Googling and see the truth... a world in turmoil and most major Conglomerates and corporations recording literal record profits.

It's the greatest slight of hand / confidence trick in the history of the world and it's working. The middle class, for the most part, does want to blame the disenfranchised without bothering to look upwards at the ones who are truly reaping the rewards of a planet gone haywire.

~Heff



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

I would argue that the failure we see around us is not socialism at all, but oligarchy masquerading as socialism.

You are right and wrong

You are correct, it's not socialism, it's corporatism

But ask yourself, how did we get here?
We got here through socialism

That's why I said socialism may work in small countries but not in the UK or north america
There's too many special interest groups and socialism coupled with corruption will result in corporatism with a fascist economy.

Alot of what is going on today would not be possible without socialism.

Hey mobsters over there, can you help me resdistribute my wealth?
I can trust you right?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomwv
 


Have you ever been to East Germany (BTW the way it don’t exist no more), Poland, Hungary or Nicaragua? China?

Heck even China doesn't practice Socialism anymore.

It's a great theory that doesn't work so well in practice.

We've seen that proven time and time again.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
Have you ever been to East Germany (BTW the way it don’t exist no more), Poland, Hungary or Nicaragua? China?

East Germany???


That was not socialism

You are weakening valid arguments against socialism



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by TDawgRex
Have you ever been to East Germany (BTW the way it don’t exist no more), Poland, Hungary or Nicaragua? China?

East Germany???


That was not socialism

You are weakening valid arguments against socialism


I welcome you to educate me.

I've always seen communism and socialism as hand in hand.

Even after reading many books on it, it still strikes me as true.

I don't see it as a failed argument, considering that most Communist or Socialist nations have failed over history.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomwv
 


Actually you are talking more about liberalism than socialism. Liberalism is the state with a social-safety net.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, not government hand-outs.

Modern liberalism, as we know it now, came from the privileged classes as a way to quell the anger of the working classes. Prior to WWII the working class was very organized, and posed a real threat the capitalist class. The war decimated the working classes.

Post WWII liberalism was sold as socialism, and the workers pushed into social climbing instead of worker solidarity. Revolutionary change to worker ownership was replaced with government hand-outs. The true left was replaced by a pseudo-left, that didn't pose a real threat to the capitalist class.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Liberalism...now we are getting to the root of the problem. Yes, liberalism is the closest thing we have to socialism in the first world these days. Liberalism is so far removed from socialism what it is hard to say they are similar at all. Socialism was very strong before the end of WW2. Workers all over the world were standing up and taking over the means of production. The common people were taking direct control of their nations and their communities.

Yet, the capitalist class finally figured out how to derail socialism; the social safety net. The social safety net is something I support but it simply does not go far enough. The safety net does not solve the contradiction between owners of production and the producers. It is pretty much saying, `I will give you a few nice things, which us ruling capitalist class get by default, if all of you shut up and work more.`

Liberalism causes a mindset in which it is okay to turn a blind third eye to the serious problems in society as long as you get what you want. Liberalism allows people to hide their true feelings and beliefs in order to carry out an agenda which is not in the interest of everyone involved. Mao suggested that we practice Combat Liberalism as a way to prevent liberals from eroding the agenda the workers from the inside.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomwv
reply to post by ANOK
 


Liberalism...now we are getting to the root of the problem. Yes, liberalism is the closest thing we have to socialism in the first world these days. Liberalism is so far removed from socialism what it is hard to say they are similar at all. Socialism was very strong before the end of WW2. Workers all over the world were standing up and taking over the means of production. The common people were taking direct control of their nations and their communities.


Yes socialism was very strong pre-WWII, when working people knew what it was. The revolution in Spain in '36 was massive, with workers from all over the world participating. I believe that had more to do with the war in Europe starting, than it did Hitler invading Poland. It gave TPTB the excuse to send the working class to war to fight against each other, to end their solidarity and the revolution that could have spread across Europe.


Yet, the capitalist class finally figured out how to derail socialism; the social safety net. The social safety net is something I support but it simply does not go far enough. The safety net does not solve the contradiction between owners of production and the producers. It is pretty much saying, `I will give you a few nice things, which us ruling capitalist class get by default, if all of you shut up and work more.


Exactly, and it didn't cost the capitalist class anything, the workers pay for their own safety-net. It's not free.


Liberalism causes a mindset in which it is okay to turn a blind third eye to the serious problems in society as long as you get what you want. Liberalism allows people to hide their true feelings and beliefs in order to carry out an agenda which is not in the interest of everyone involved. Mao suggested that we practice Combat Liberalism as a way to prevent liberals from eroding the agenda the workers from the inside.


I agree. It also destroys worker solidarity because it keeps workers appeased enough not to take changing it seriously. It has created a society of people reliant on the state, making it even harder to get rid of.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Socialism/Communism are misunderstood concepts. In America, imo, they have been equated by some to the USSR and similar governments. There's plenty of socialism in the West. Unemployment insurance. Welfare. Food banks. Hell, even property taxes are communist. Pooling community funds for infrastructure and services, like garbage collection. That said, Heff pointed it out. Any label is a weak argument.


Again they are liberal concepts not socialism.

Unless the workers own the means of production it is not socialism/communism.

Socialism/communism is an economic system whereby the workers own the means of production. The difference in all the various socialist/communism movements, Marxism Anarchism etc., is the path leading to worker ownership. Marxism is the best known of the political paths to socialism. Anarchism is the direct action path circumventing the political system.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


It is a long process to achieve socialism and even longer process to reach communism. I believe that we must first achieve socialism before communism; so I am in the political revolution camp of Marxist. I also believe that worker Unions are key to taking over the means of production. A two front effort, in my mind, is needed to reach socialism; the political front and the worker front.

Liberalism has for a while now frustrated me to no end. It is as of such mindset comes really close to understanding the real problem but at the moment when such a mindset should reach the conclusion that workers controlling the means of production will solve the contradictions of capitalism; liberalism simply drops the ball.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
So what checks and balances are there in socialism to prevent the state from taking over the money and being corrupted?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


In a socialist system money is totally different. In fact, the entire currency is structured different. It would take a long time to explain it in detail so I will attempt to cover one system of currency in a socialist system(as there are several to choose from) briefly.

A labor backed currency.

In a labor backed currency system, currency is based on the amount of hours worked. Labor becomes direct capital. A person is given a wage based only on the amount of hours they have worked. Their labor is equal to currency. So, when the worker gets paid he/she is simply transferring their total time spent laboring into a receipt which proves they have given that much time of labor to the economy. The worker can now take those receipts and exchange them for goods which carry the exact same time of labor needed to produce them. The receipts can only be used once and are non-transferable. After each receipt is used it is destroyed because the earned labor has been used and now the worker needs to put more time into laboring in the economy in order to get more receipts(a.k.a. currency).

There is much more to it than what I have just explained but this is a very basic overview.

So, explain to me how `the government` could control the money supply in a socialist system?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomwv
 


Very easily, if you don't have any protections in place.

What you explained to me does not seem to have any protections.

Because it seems to me, there is no protections against those who would take advantage of the system.

I of course, wouldn't know how. I'm sure some enterprising person could figure a way to take advantage and gain more power.

Also, why should socialism be forced on to an entire country that just doesn't want it? I have no problems with people who want to do it completely voluntarily within their own society, but often, you guys want to force an entire country to change from capitalism to socialism.

Why can't you guys just accept that most people in America just don't want it?



edit on 24-9-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


First of all, I don`t live in America. I was born in America. I was raised in America. But America is not my home. In fact, you could not pay me to live in the United States.

Socialism is the natural evolution of human society. It cannot be planned to happen. At some point it starts to happen and a class war starts. America, for example, has been in a class war for a very long time. The ruling capitalist class will be overthrown; it is only a matter of time.

There are so many different aspects to Socialism that it really takes time and effort to fully understand it. The common person will resist socialism because they are told to hate it. The capitalist class, who own the means of production, will go to great lengths to convince the workers that capitalism is good for them. I am fully aware that capitalism is not good for me. In fact, unless the workers own the means of production and the workers are running the nation, I am a slave of the capitalist class.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomwv
 


I see no difference in being a slave to the workers or a slave to the corporations. At least in a corporation and in capitalism, there is upward mobility, you just have to work for it.

I, for one, hate collectivism and am a strong individualist. That's why I hate society, because society does not believe in the right of the individual. It's also why I do not like socialism. I want to be in a society that values the individuals rights and needs above all else. Both society and collectivism tends to turn people into unthinking uncaring robots. Of course, any society is a form of collectivism, even in a Democratic/republic government because they value conformity above all else.

It seems to me socialism doesn't really care for the rights of the individual either.

For example, what happens in a socialist society if a person is incapable of working due to health problems? What then? Are they just thrown out to the street and say sayonara buckaroo we can't help you?





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join