If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gallup)   Not news: Half of Democrats have favorable impressions of socialism. Fark: So do a quarter of Republicans   (gallup.com) divider line 183
    More: Amusing, Democrats, Republican, socialism, capitalism  
•       •       •

1273 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Nov 2012 at 4:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



183 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-29 04:40:01 PM
Some days I want to be called by Gallup just to give troll answers. The problem is, that'd probably make Gallup polls more accurate...
 
2012-11-29 04:40:27 PM

Citrate1007: 3/4ths of Republicans don't know what socialism is......or fascism.


Forbes does.

// spoiler alert: only Democrats do them both, and the GOP are stalwart defenders of the Free Market
 
2012-11-29 04:40:53 PM

impaler: Lionel Mandrake: unlikely: This just in: Some people still don't understand the difference between Socialism and Communism.

Hell, a significant number of douchebags don't know the difference between Stalinism and socialism. Or fascism and socialism.

Or capitalism and corporate oligarchy.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" - Adam Smith, "Communist Mani.. err um. "Wealth of Nations."


You're not confusing capitalism with a market-based economy, are you? Because they're totally different things.
 
2012-11-29 04:41:15 PM

Lsherm: Everybody loves socialism as long as you get more than you're giving.


wall street sure did love those bailouts. I guess capitalists love socialism too then.
 
2012-11-29 04:42:36 PM

PanicMan: Lionel Mandrake: unlikely: This just in: Some people still don't understand the difference between Socialism and Communism.

Hell, a significant number of douchebags don't know the difference between Stalinism and socialism. Or fascism and socialism.

A significant number of Americans don't understand the difference between socialism and health insurance reform.

/Hell, let's be honest. A significant number of Americans don't understand the difference between socialism and puff pastry.


Mmmmm, means of puff pastry production.....
 
2012-11-29 04:45:14 PM

gilgigamesh: Ask them like this:

"Should we keep or abolish Medicare?"

I would guess that close to 100% of republicans over 65 would answer that they love this form of socialism.

Or ask drivers:

"Would you prefer public roads remain as they are, or would you prefer a system wherein drivers pay a per-use fee to drive on them?

You get the idea.


You already pay per use for the roads via gas tax.
 
2012-11-29 04:45:35 PM

Jacobin: Um we've lived in a "socialst" country since the income tax constitutional amendment passed 90 years ago. The alternative is pure free market Great Gatsby booms and busts, far worse than the current economic fluctuations

Deal with reality. It make you a more functional human being


Actually we had taxes that were not fees for service paying for government since George Washington.
 
2012-11-29 04:47:10 PM

BMulligan: impaler: Lionel Mandrake: unlikely: This just in: Some people still don't understand the difference between Socialism and Communism.

Hell, a significant number of douchebags don't know the difference between Stalinism and socialism. Or fascism and socialism.

Or capitalism and corporate oligarchy.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" - Adam Smith, "Communist Mani.. err um. "Wealth of Nations."

You're not confusing capitalism with a market-based economy, are you? Because they're totally different things.


b-b-b-but isn't raising taxes 3% on the wealth make us into a socialist nation? I was told that. are they not right? *smirk*
 
2012-11-29 04:48:07 PM

Corvus: BMulligan: impaler: Lionel Mandrake: unlikely: This just in: Some people still don't understand the difference between Socialism and Communism.

Hell, a significant number of douchebags don't know the difference between Stalinism and socialism. Or fascism and socialism.

Or capitalism and corporate oligarchy.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" - Adam Smith, "Communist Mani.. err um. "Wealth of Nations."

You're not confusing capitalism with a market-based economy, are you? Because they're totally different things.

b-b-b-but isn't raising taxes 3% on the wealth make us into a socialist nation? I was told that. are they not right? *smirk*


what does that have to do with what he said? *smirk*
 
2012-11-29 04:48:18 PM

FarkedOver: If you want a better understanding of Socialism go to open meeting. I know the Socialist branch that I am member of has open meetings constantly about a wide range of economic and/or social issues. We encourage people to attend.

DO NOT go to ISO meetings or CPUSA meetings.


Splitter
 
2012-11-29 04:48:36 PM

Weaver95: Lsherm: Everybody loves socialism as long as you get more than you're giving.

wall street sure did love those bailouts. I guess capitalists love socialism too then.


I have never once seen a libertarian refuse to let a fire truck put out their house on fire.
 
2012-11-29 04:49:18 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: BMulligan: impaler: Lionel Mandrake: unlikely: This just in: Some people still don't understand the difference between Socialism and Communism.

Hell, a significant number of douchebags don't know the difference between Stalinism and socialism. Or fascism and socialism.

Or capitalism and corporate oligarchy.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion" - Adam Smith, "Communist Mani.. err um. "Wealth of Nations."

You're not confusing capitalism with a market-based economy, are you? Because they're totally different things.

b-b-b-but isn't raising taxes 3% on the wealth make us into a socialist nation? I was told that. are they not right? *smirk*

what does that have to do with what he said? *smirk*


Nothing. It was a just a joke.
 
2012-11-29 04:50:14 PM
A good overview of what the ends goals of Socialism are on the link below:

Link

Socialists strive for Communism, but believe that there is a transition period between the "State" as we know it and the eventuality of a Communist society.

Anarchists don't typically agree with this assessment, but at the end of the day anarchists, socialists and communists want the same thing. Where you fall ideologically depends on what an individual believes will happen in the immediate aftermath of a workers revolution.
 
2012-11-29 04:51:08 PM
Not news: Half of Democrats have favorable impressions of socialism. Fark: So do a quarter of Republicans

Only 25% of Republicans support the US Military?
 
2012-11-29 04:52:14 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: FarkedOver: If you want a better understanding of Socialism go to open meeting. I know the Socialist branch that I am member of has open meetings constantly about a wide range of economic and/or social issues. We encourage people to attend.

DO NOT go to ISO meetings or CPUSA meetings.

Splitter


I know it sounds sectarian lol but the CPUSA endorsed Obama.... they cannot claim to be an anti-capitalist group if they endorse capitalist candidates. The ISO will not work with anyone unless it was their idea to begin with, or if they don't have total control over an action.
 
2012-11-29 04:52:33 PM

FarkedOver: Anarchists don't typically agree with this assessment, but at the end of the day anarchists, socialists and communists want the same thing


No. No they don't. Hence, the distinctions.
 
2012-11-29 04:53:52 PM

Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: Anarchists don't typically agree with this assessment, but at the end of the day anarchists, socialists and communists want the same thing

No. No they don't. Hence, the distinctions.


I know, but I think a little more left unity would be good for all the collective causes of each faction.
 
2012-11-29 04:54:49 PM

Epoch_Zero: Not news: Half of Democrats have favorable impressions of socialism. Fark: So do a quarter of Republicans

Only 25% of Republicans support the US Military?


Well, we're talking real support. (As opposed to those magnetic yellow stickers, flapping Chinese-made flags, er jingoistic calls for bombing Iraqn. )
 
2012-11-29 04:56:51 PM

FarkedOver: Holocaust Agnostic: FarkedOver: If you want a better understanding of Socialism go to open meeting. I know the Socialist branch that I am member of has open meetings constantly about a wide range of economic and/or social issues. We encourage people to attend.

DO NOT go to ISO meetings or CPUSA meetings.

Splitter

I know it sounds sectarian lol but the CPUSA endorsed Obama.... they cannot claim to be an anti-capitalist group if they endorse capitalist candidates. The ISO will not work with anyone unless it was their idea to begin with, or if they don't have total control over an action.


you just go for the free vegan gingersnaps. Don't lie.
 
2012-11-29 04:57:05 PM

FarkedOver: Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: Anarchists don't typically agree with this assessment, but at the end of the day anarchists, socialists and communists want the same thing

No. No they don't. Hence, the distinctions.

I know, but I think a little more left unity would be good for all the collective causes of each faction.


I too support Anarcholisnism.
 
2012-11-29 04:58:31 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: You already pay per use for the roads via gas tax.


See if your state's willing to give up that federal transportation money.
 
2012-11-29 04:59:19 PM

skullkrusher: FarkedOver: Holocaust Agnostic: FarkedOver: If you want a better understanding of Socialism go to open meeting. I know the Socialist branch that I am member of has open meetings constantly about a wide range of economic and/or social issues. We encourage people to attend.

DO NOT go to ISO meetings or CPUSA meetings.

Splitter

I know it sounds sectarian lol but the CPUSA endorsed Obama.... they cannot claim to be an anti-capitalist group if they endorse capitalist candidates. The ISO will not work with anyone unless it was their idea to begin with, or if they don't have total control over an action.

you just go for the free vegan gingersnaps. Don't lie.


I would rather die than be a vegan... haha. If I had one complaint about my Socialist group it would be that they are to PC. If I want to call my girlfriend my main biatch, well that's my farking business.....
 
2012-11-29 04:59:26 PM

Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: Anarchists don't typically agree with this assessment, but at the end of the day anarchists, socialists and communists want the same thing

No. No they don't. Hence, the distinctions.

I know, but I think a little more left unity would be good for all the collective causes of each faction.

I too support Anarcholisnism.


Fear of Ann Frank flying an airplane because she's blind?
 
2012-11-29 05:00:04 PM

skullkrusher: Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: Anarchists don't typically agree with this assessment, but at the end of the day anarchists, socialists and communists want the same thing

No. No they don't. Hence, the distinctions.

I know, but I think a little more left unity would be good for all the collective causes of each faction.

I too support Anarcholisnism.

Fear of Ann Frank flying an airplane because she's blind?


Dude leave the deaf blind and dumb biatch alone.
 
2012-11-29 05:00:22 PM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: FarkedOver: Holocaust Agnostic: FarkedOver: If you want a better understanding of Socialism go to open meeting. I know the Socialist branch that I am member of has open meetings constantly about a wide range of economic and/or social issues. We encourage people to attend.

DO NOT go to ISO meetings or CPUSA meetings.

Splitter

I know it sounds sectarian lol but the CPUSA endorsed Obama.... they cannot claim to be an anti-capitalist group if they endorse capitalist candidates. The ISO will not work with anyone unless it was their idea to begin with, or if they don't have total control over an action.

you just go for the free vegan gingersnaps. Don't lie.

I would rather die than be a vegan... haha. If I had one complaint about my Socialist group it would be that they are to PC. If I want to call my girlfriend my main biatch, well that's my farking business.....


I knew there was a reason why I had one of Fark's must unabashed socialists favorited. Thanks for the reminder
 
2012-11-29 05:01:03 PM

skullkrusher: Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: Anarchists don't typically agree with this assessment, but at the end of the day anarchists, socialists and communists want the same thing

No. No they don't. Hence, the distinctions.

I know, but I think a little more left unity would be good for all the collective causes of each faction.

I too support Anarcholisnism.

Fear of Ann Frank flying an airplane because she's blind?


Fear of Margaret Thatcher discovering your skin disorder.
 
2012-11-29 05:01:23 PM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: Anarchists don't typically agree with this assessment, but at the end of the day anarchists, socialists and communists want the same thing

No. No they don't. Hence, the distinctions.

I know, but I think a little more left unity would be good for all the collective causes of each faction.

I too support Anarcholisnism.

Fear of Ann Frank flying an airplane because she's blind?

Dude leave the deaf blind and dumb biatch alone.


she sure flays a mean left ball
 
2012-11-29 05:02:35 PM

FarkedOver: Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: Anarchists don't typically agree with this assessment, but at the end of the day anarchists, socialists and communists want the same thing

No. No they don't. Hence, the distinctions.

I know, but I think a little more left unity would be good for all the collective causes of each faction.


Meh. Unity shmunity. Best have as many methods of organizing people and creating solutions going on as possible. Blocing up hardly helps if after you bloc up you'd still have trouble filling a mid sized auditorium.
 
2012-11-29 05:02:42 PM

Epoch_Zero: Fear of Margaret Thatcher discovering your skin disorder.


foreskins are natural, dummy
 
2012-11-29 05:12:25 PM

Epoch_Zero: I too support Anarcholisnism.


I think if people are confused about actual Socialism and Communism, they're even more confused about Anarchism.
They think it means something to do with punk rock and complete disregard for all laws, in my experience.
 
2012-11-29 05:16:52 PM
Huh, real strange when people lose faith in capitalism. It's not like there was this recent, massive, financial cataclysm caused in no small part by unrestrained capitalism, right? Right?

Seriously, you have to treat capitalism like a cult to not think the meltdown would shake people's faith in it. Of course, years of "Blargh!! Fannie! Freddie! CRA! Barney Frank!" might have something to do with that. The Invisible Hand cannot fail. It can only be failed.
 
2012-11-29 05:17:36 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Epoch_Zero: I too support Anarcholisnism.

I think if people are confused about actual Socialism and Communism, they're even more confused about Anarchism.
They think it means something to do with punk rock and complete disregard for all laws, in my experience.


Essentially. And when one tries to discuss it, the same "conversation" always happens, which boils down to, "the things you are saying don't jibe with my prejudices, so they must be untrue. Furthermore, things that actually exist in the real world (like workplace democracy and effective horizontal organization) can't possibly exist because they don't jibe with the aforementioned prejudices. You're a dumb stupidhead and I won't listen to you until you can present utopian solutions to all problems that can also be implemented instantaneously and won't disrupt the stock market."

Say the word "anarchism" and everyone turns into a Republican.
 
2012-11-29 05:23:46 PM

Epoch_Zero: FarkedOver: Anarchists don't typically agree with this assessment, but at the end of the day anarchists, socialists and communists want the same thing

No. No they don't. Hence, the distinctions.


Mmm... Similar enough in many respects (given that the number of people in the movement Left in North America that still support the concept of a totalitarian Stalinist-style state can be counted on one hand) that while goals are not identical, they are certainly compatible enough that we can and do all make common cause.
 
2012-11-29 05:24:09 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Sergeant Grumbles: Epoch_Zero: I too support Anarcholisnism.

I think if people are confused about actual Socialism and Communism, they're even more confused about Anarchism.
They think it means something to do with punk rock and complete disregard for all laws, in my experience.

Essentially. And when one tries to discuss it, the same "conversation" always happens, which boils down to, "the things you are saying don't jibe with my prejudices, so they must be untrue. Furthermore, things that actually exist in the real world (like workplace democracy and effective horizontal organization) can't possibly exist because they don't jibe with the aforementioned prejudices. You're a dumb stupidhead and I won't listen to you until you can present utopian solutions to all problems that can also be implemented instantaneously and won't disrupt the stock market."

Say the word "anarchism" and everyone turns into a Republican.


The guy espousing anarchism is complaining about others wanting utopian solutions...

soundslegit.jpg
 
2012-11-29 05:24:55 PM
Well the GOP is more into National Socialism.

/Okay, they are no where near as bad as that.

//Yet?
 
2012-11-29 05:25:04 PM
I like to get people on the socialist side by asking if they think owning shares in the company they would motivate them to do a better job. Most agree that it would, rationalizing by saying that of course they would work harder because their fate is now more directly tied to how well the firm does. Socialism doesn't sound scary when it's described as workers owning shares in the companies they work in.
 
2012-11-29 05:27:03 PM

FarkedOver: If you want a better understanding of Socialism go to open meeting. I know the Socialist branch that I am member of has open meetings constantly about a wide range of economic and/or social issues. We encourage people to attend.

DO NOT go to ISO meetings or CPUSA meetings.


So which group do you attend? DSA?

I have several friends in the ISO. They're very enthusiastic and, contrary to your experience, I find they work well with others (unions, community and student groups, etc.). My main criticism of that group is that they seem more interested in holding rallies and yelling than doing the harder work of community organizing. There's a very mild cultish vibe, too, though nothing as bad as some other lefty groups I've encountered, like the Sparts.

Anyway, the return of positive connotations for the word socialism is interesting. We've deregulated capitalism for the past thirty years or so, and it's concentrated wealth, impoverished workers, and caused speculative bubbles and booms and busts, so people are interested in alternatives, or at least reining it in.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

/Hot.
//Freelance socialist
 
2012-11-29 05:27:49 PM

Communist_Manifesto: I like to get people on the socialist side by asking if they think owning shares in the company they would motivate them to do a better job. Most agree that it would, rationalizing by saying that of course they would work harder because their fate is now more directly tied to how well the firm does. Socialism doesn't sound scary when it's described as workers owning shares in the companies they work in.


that's because voluntary socialism - employee owned companies, for example - isn't scary. It's a perfectly cromulent outcome in a capitalist society that does not hinder progress or the desire of others to strike out on their own.

Forced socialism sucks monkey nuts, however.
 
2012-11-29 05:31:49 PM

Communist_Manifesto: Socialism doesn't sound scary when it's described as workers owning shares in the companies they work in.


It does when you're an executive.
 
2012-11-29 05:34:16 PM
I wonder if, for the 2016 election, we find out that the GOP is suddenly working frantically to ensure every Latino votes, instead of trying to ensure that they can't or don't.

Imagine the epoch-shattering butthurt when they once again get their hats handed to them by people who aren't even fractionally as stupid as they take them to be. "Sure, amigo, I take your van to the voting place, gracias."
 
2012-11-29 05:34:22 PM

skullkrusher: Communist_Manifesto: I like to get people on the socialist side by asking if they think owning shares in the company they would motivate them to do a better job. Most agree that it would, rationalizing by saying that of course they would work harder because their fate is now more directly tied to how well the firm does. Socialism doesn't sound scary when it's described as workers owning shares in the companies they work in.

that's because voluntary socialism - employee owned companies, for example - isn't scary. It's a perfectly cromulent outcome in a capitalist society that does not hinder progress or the desire of others to strike out on their own.

Forced socialism sucks monkey nuts, however.


Unfortunately you have to coerce people in some way to accept that proposition because all to often the glorious leaders of a corporation will want to hoard all the money/shares they can get away with. The workers should own the things they mix their labor with.
 
2012-11-29 05:36:45 PM

Communist_Manifesto: Unfortunately you have to coerce people in some way to accept that proposition because all to often the glorious leaders of a corporation will want to hoard all the money/shares they can get away with. The workers should own the things they mix their labor with.


are workers not capable of starting from scratch? Why can't 10 (or 50 or 500) construction workers pool their resources and start a contracting company? Why does it always have to be "these fat cats won't give it to us" - why can't laborers use their collective financial resources to create it themselves?
 
2012-11-29 05:37:26 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: gas


Generally speaking, it does not cover the entire cost of roads and highways. An increasing chunk of the money still comes out of the general funds of state and federal governments because we haven't raised the tax since 1993.
 
2012-11-29 05:39:45 PM

skullkrusher: Communist_Manifesto: Unfortunately you have to coerce people in some way to accept that proposition because all to often the glorious leaders of a corporation will want to hoard all the money/shares they can get away with. The workers should own the things they mix their labor with.

are workers not capable of starting from scratch? Why can't 10 (or 50 or 500) construction workers pool their resources and start a contracting company? Why does it always have to be "these fat cats won't give it to us" - why can't laborers use their collective financial resources to create it themselves?


Because capital has captured the means to acquire capital and workers don't make nearly the amount of money that it would take to compete with them now. Seriously, how would I start a company that competes with Wal Mart? Or GM? Or any mega corp? There are barriers to entry that cannot be overcome in the manner you describe.
 
2012-11-29 05:40:12 PM

Epoch_Zero: Fear of Margaret Thatcher discovering your skin disorder.


I don't fear Margaret Thatcher; I loathe her. And now I'll tell you why.

Fifteen or so years ago, I appeared on Jeopardy. I was in second place going into Final Jeopardy, with the leader in reach. The Final Jeopardy category was "Political Anagrams." The answer was, "this 20th century world leader's name is an anagram for that great charmer'." The leader had no idea so I could have beaten her, but I was unable to come with Margaret Thatcher within the time allotted (in fairness, they probably could have given me all the time in the world and I still wouldn't have gotten it - I suck at anagrams).

Thus, I blame Margaret Thatcher for my loss on Jeopardy. On the other hand, I give her credit for my trip to Hawaii.
 
2012-11-29 05:42:38 PM

Lsherm: Everybody loves socialism as long as you get more than you're giving call it something else.


I mean seriously, people seem to LOOOOOOOVE it right up until someone uses the word.
 
2012-11-29 05:43:31 PM

Communist_Manifesto: Seriously, how would I start a company that competes with Wal Mart?


How did Wal Mart start?
 
2012-11-29 05:43:45 PM

Communist_Manifesto: skullkrusher: Communist_Manifesto: Unfortunately you have to coerce people in some way to accept that proposition because all to often the glorious leaders of a corporation will want to hoard all the money/shares they can get away with. The workers should own the things they mix their labor with.

are workers not capable of starting from scratch? Why can't 10 (or 50 or 500) construction workers pool their resources and start a contracting company? Why does it always have to be "these fat cats won't give it to us" - why can't laborers use their collective financial resources to create it themselves?

Because capital has captured the means to acquire capital and workers don't make nearly the amount of money that it would take to compete with them now. Seriously, how would I start a company that competes with Wal Mart? Or GM? Or any mega corp? There are barriers to entry that cannot be overcome in the manner you describe.


There are also rafts of incentives in place - legally enforced ones that are the underpinnings of capitalism, "libertarian" nonsense aside - that make it specifically difficult to build and keep operational a co-operative workplace of any sort, from the absurd regulations that keep financial coops from competing with banks to the essential legal structures in place for basic licensure that require and demand business hierarchy.

Capitalists have created this environment that they now "decry". It's the same as other civil rights struggles: The privileged have stomped on everyone else and then pulled the ladder up after them.
 
2012-11-29 05:46:14 PM

jigger: Communist_Manifesto: Seriously, how would I start a company that competes with Wal Mart?

How did Wal Mart start?


By occupying a business niche that could only exist in 1940s America. Unless you intend to depopulate the world, destroy most mass communications and transportation infrastructure and then obliterate much of the world's production ability through thirty years of near-apocalyptic warfare, no one has the ability to create a Wal-Mart that way anymore.
 
2012-11-29 05:47:06 PM

Communist_Manifesto: Because capital has captured the means to acquire capital and workers don't make nearly the amount of money that it would take to compete with them now. Seriously, how would I start a company that competes with Wal Mart? Or GM? Or any mega corp? There are barriers to entry that cannot be overcome in the manner you describe.


People start businesses every day without a huge amount of capital. What you're asking for is for the reigns of a huge, established company to be handed to the workers just because.

Why must a worker compete against the megacorp they work for? Sure, for poorly paid workers getting enough money together would be extremely difficult. Fry cooks aren't going to form a fast food collective to compete against McDonald's. Extremely well capitalized groups don't start new companies to compete with Wal-Mart on a level playing field. Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.
 
Displayed 50 of 183 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report