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
 
2012-11-29 02:27:58 PM  
Everybody loves socialism as long as you get more than you're giving.
 
2012-11-29 02:30:28 PM  
So, that's like 75% of America, right? Why not just declare a socialist victory, and we can all go back to hating the French.
 
2012-11-29 02:34:49 PM  
This just in: Some people still don't understand the difference between Socialism and Communism.
 
2012-11-29 02:35:05 PM  
Imagine what the numbers would be like if more Americans knew what socialism is.
 
2012-11-29 02:38:48 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 02:40:17 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-29 02:40:17 PM  
Two bogus Gallup "survey" greens? No thanks.
 
2012-11-29 02:47:13 PM  
So old people like Social Security? Shocking.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-29 02:49:51 PM  

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


It's pretty much the same with capitalism, unless by "getting" you mean "getting it in the rear". The people who get to rob the middle class and poor live capitalism.
 
2012-11-29 02:56:20 PM  

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."
 
2012-11-29 02:58:06 PM  
You could get 25% of Republicans to say Elvis is still alive, milk comes from cats or that they like the taste of bleach.

The fact that 94% were for Free Enterprise and only 72% were for Capitalism shows that you aren't dealing with Rhode Scholars or that 22% were Trekkies hoping for their own space ship.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-29 02:58:12 PM  

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

It's pretty much the same with capitalism, unless by "getting" you mean "getting it in the rear". The people who get to rob the middle class and poor live capitalism.


Love I mean.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-29 03:06:02 PM  
GOP definition of socialisim: Any system that seeks to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.  See: bad.
 
2012-11-29 03:25:05 PM  

vpb: GOP definition of socialisim: Any system that seeks to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for someone other than me.  See: bad.


Fixed.
 
2012-11-29 03:30:49 PM  
Being a liberal in the Infantry (which is actually a dirty word to some guys I work with...), I'm often called on to try to defend "Obama's Socialist Takeover" of America. Here's my argument as to why some socialism is good, but all or none is bad:

"Look, you obviously don't actually know what socialism *IS*. The definition of socialism is, basically, 'government control of a certain industry.' That's not a perfect definition, but it's pretty close. That doesn't have to mean federal government. That can mean local, like city, county or state government. Now, an example of national socialism is actually our Army/Navy/Air Force, etc... We as a country have decided that it's better for government to control the method of national defense than to contract it out to mercenary groups (or at least we used to).

"An example of local socialism, such as city or county would be our fire department. You pay property taxes in some form, if you live off post. It's either part of your mortgage, like mine is, or it's calculated in the rent that you pay. Property taxes help pay for the fire department because the local government, of which we are a part, has decided that it is better for everyone to pay into a general fund, which is then used to run a city-wide fire fighting service. This is much better than a pure capitalistic model which has you needing to decide if you want Fire Fighting Company A, which is stationed closer to your house, but costs more, or Company B, which is a bit farther away, but costs less. Plus, you need to figure out which company has the better record of saving the house of fire vs. just keeping it contained and kept away from other houses. Is it worth the extra money for Company A? Does Company B have a better safety record?

"All that stuff is something that is basic to our security and way of life. What happens if the person living next to you decides that he will just be extra careful and not spend the extra 150-200 a month for fire fighting insurance. So when his house catches fire, he has no one to call. There's no 911 for fires. He doesn't have a contract with any fire fighting company, so now your house is in danger because you might not even know that his house is on fire until it's too big to fight. Now that fire can spread to your house, through no fault of your own.

Instead, a socialistic model is used to ensure that each homeowner pays towards the cost of operating a fire department. That way, everyone is covered in case of emergency, and your house is safer than it would be if you were dealing with a neighbor that refuses to spend the extra money because he doesn't think his house will catch fire.

"Now, an example of a BAD idea for socialism is McDonalds. Them, Wendy's, Burger King, Taco Bell, etc... they ALL are a good example of capitalism providing non-essential services, fast food specifically. Government absolutely should NOT try to take control of fast food production and sales, setting all the prices, control all the supply, etc... Gov't wouldn't be able to run any of those businesses as efficiently as each franchise or corporation that controls the stores. It might not run a fire fighting company as efficiently as a private venture either, but the little bit of waste that results isn't enough to justify dismantling and essential service and giving it to private enterprise the way it does with something non-essential like fast food.

There's already socialism in our country. It's part of what makes us great, coming together to ensure social safety and security. Military, Police, Fire Fighting, it's all socialist. The main point of argument is whether or not health care is essential enough to justify a socialistic model. I believe it does, because, once again, take your neighbor who didn't want to buy fire fighting insurance. He doesn't want to buy health insurance because he just doesn't have the money and he's healthy anyways, right? What happens when he gets sick with something minor, yet bad enough that he should go to the doctor? Well, it costs too much to do that out of pocket, so he's just going to keep working. Now he's spread a bad strain of the flu through all the workers in his company, the majority of which ALSO don't have health insurance because it costs too much right now. This adds up to lost productivity, possible health hazards depending on where they work, generally a bad situation. Socialized health care would help prevent this because he wouldn't have to worry about going to a doctor right when he gets sick, and is able to find out that his strain is pretty virulent, so he should stay home for a few days to rest up. He doesn't pay out of pocket expenses for the doctor's visit, maybe a little bit of money for the medicine, but now the company doesn't have the cascading effect of workers getting sick and unable to work as well for a week or two at least. They don't have to worry about potential health hazards from a large number of people working together suddenly having a virulent strain of the flu. Plus, with socialized health care, everyone pays in, the whole country, but not everyone is going to need it at one time. Therefore, they'll save money in the long run, paying a little bit higher in their tax percentage, but not having lost revenue or productivity from sick workers."

If they haven't fallen asleep by this point, most people will admit that I have a good point. Hopefully, I've changed a few minds, but I'm not too optimistic.
 
2012-11-29 03:32:19 PM  
img546.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-29 03:32:48 PM  
Sorry, Gallup could tell me that 99% of Americans say the sky is blue, and I would have trouble believing it. Gallup has some credibility to restore.
 
2012-11-29 03:46:08 PM  

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


Fark you. I'm definitely in the giver camp given my tax bracket and I'm all for investing in improvements to the general welfare.

I find that making the country, as a whole, better improves my life, too and that you need to be a special kind of short-sighted asshole not to see that.

/ And you misspelled "enlightened self-interest". It doesn't start with an S.
 
2012-11-29 03:46:57 PM  
Well, DUH, they're called RINOs.
 
2012-11-29 03:47:08 PM  

Lansydyr: If they haven't fallen asleep by this point, most people will admit that I have a good point. Hopefully, I've changed a few minds, but I'm not too optimistic.


Most of your hard work can be undone pretty quickly by Rush Limbaugh.

Daily doses of "GRRRR! SOSHULISM BAAAAAD!!" is tough to counter with logic. 

But, who knows... I've found that giving examples of existing socialism (military, cops, firefighters) is a good way to go. We don't want a Walmart Army competing with a Costco Army.
 
2012-11-29 03:54:45 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: [img546.imageshack.us image 500x412]


This is how the GOP dies. With thunderous lulz.
 
2012-11-29 03:55:08 PM  
We already have a mix of socialism and capitalism, now we're just arguing over ratios.
 
2012-11-29 03:57:08 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Lansydyr: If they haven't fallen asleep by this point, most people will admit that I have a good point. Hopefully, I've changed a few minds, but I'm not too optimistic.

Most of your hard work can be undone pretty quickly by Rush Limbaugh.

Daily doses of "GRRRR! SOSHULISM BAAAAAD!!" is tough to counter with logic. 

But, who knows... I've found that giving examples of existing socialism (military, cops, firefighters) is a good way to go. We don't want a Walmart Army competing with a Costco Army.


I don't mind admitting that I am a little optimistic that facts will hold sway if they only learn them. Most of them just aren't exposed to actual facts, ever. Take the Hostess situation for instance. Most people that only hear on Facebook that the unions drove the company to the ground had NEVER heard that the CEO's pay was raised from 750 thousand to 2.25 million! That many other executive pay raises and bonuses were handed out. Once they hear that, one guy said, "I can't even argue with that. You did your research." (actual quote, btw)
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-29 04:02:37 PM  

Lansydyr: Being a liberal in the Infantry (which is actually a dirty word to some guys I work with...), I'm often called on to try to defend "Obama's Socialist Takeover" of America. Here's my argument as to why some socialism is good, but all or none is bad:

"Look, you obviously don't actually know what socialism *IS*. The definition of socialism is, basically, 'government control of a certain industry.' That's not a perfect definition, but it's pretty close. That doesn't have to mean federal government. That can mean local, like city, county or state government. Now, an example of national socialism is actually our Army/Navy/Air Force, etc... We as a country have decided that it's better for government to control the method of national defense than to contract it out to mercenary groups (or at least we used to).
......


There are different types of socialist with different ideas of what it means. Tony Blair is socialist, for instance.

Sometimes I think that Republicans and socialists have the same definition of socialism; anything that works for public good.
 
2012-11-29 04:16:31 PM  

mrshowrules: milk comes from cats


Why, yes. Yes, it does.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-29 04:17:12 PM  

Diogenes: Two bogus Gallup "survey" greens? No thanks.

 
2012-11-29 04:17:23 PM  
Socialism is AWESOMO, take it from one who knows.
 
2012-11-29 04:17:31 PM  

Diogenes: Two bogus Gallup "survey" greens? No thanks.


Drew needs bourbon.
Something something server upgrades.
 
2012-11-29 04:17:33 PM  

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


It's hard to put a monetary value on the benefits of living in a society where the government makes sure your kids get an education, thereby making it more likely that they will end up as productive taxpayers instead of someone who might mug you. And then there's the whole "not having to worry about medical bills" thing and knowing that the govt will help you for a while should you lose your job for some reason.
 
2012-11-29 04:18:27 PM  

mrshowrules: You could get 25% of Republicans to say Elvis is still alive, milk comes from cats or that they like the taste of bleach.

The fact that 94% were for Free Enterprise and only 72% were for Capitalism shows that you aren't dealing with Rhode Scholars or that 22% were Trekkies hoping for their own space ship.


Gettin' pretty sick of all the spaceship bashing around here
 
2012-11-29 04:19:42 PM  

GAT_00: So old people like Social Security? Shocking.


I'm really not sure what Americans associate with socialism, but social security and medicaid/medicare don't seem to be a part of it.
 
2012-11-29 04:23:02 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: We already have a mix of socialism and capitalism, now we're just arguing over ratios.


In terms of health care insurance, you are only really debating the flavour of the collectivism for the portion not already socialized.
 
2012-11-29 04:23:58 PM  

Lansydyr: Being a liberal in the Infantry (which is actually a dirty word to some guys I work with...), I'm often called on to try to defend "Obama's Socialist Takeover" of America. Here's my argument as to why some socialism is good, but all or none is bad:

"Look, you obviously don't actually know what socialism *IS*. The definition of socialism is, basically, 'government control of a certain industry.' That's not a perfect definition, but it's pretty close. That doesn't have to mean federal government. That can mean local, like city, county or state government. Now, an example of national socialism is actually our Army/Navy/Air Force, etc... We as a country have decided that it's better for government to control the method of national defense than to contract it out to mercenary groups (or at least we used to).

"An example of local socialism, such as city or county would be our fire department. You pay property taxes in some form, if you live off post. It's either part of your mortgage, like mine is, or it's calculated in the rent that you pay. Property taxes help pay for the fire department because the local government, of which we are a part, has decided that it is better for everyone to pay into a general fund, which is then used to run a city-wide fire fighting service. This is much better than a pure capitalistic model which has you needing to decide if you want Fire Fighting Company A, which is stationed closer to your house, but costs more, or Company B, which is a bit farther away, but costs less. Plus, you need to figure out which company has the better record of saving the house of fire vs. just keeping it contained and kept away from other houses. Is it worth the extra money for Company A? Does Company B have a better safety record?

"All that stuff is something that is basic to our security and way of life. What happens if the person living next to you decides that he will just be extra careful and not spend the extra 150-200 a month for fire fi ...


heehee
 
2012-11-29 04:25:08 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-29 04:26:01 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm really not sure what Americans associate with socialism,


"Some n-word is getting something for FREE" = socialism
"Welfare (be it SS, UI, whatever) check is here" = not socialism. Unless a black guy is getting it.
 
2012-11-29 04:27:19 PM  

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


You know, some people would be embarrassed, to lie constantly and be wrong constantly and be called out about it constantly. But not you. You proudly herp the derp. A True American Hero.
 
2012-11-29 04:28:59 PM  
On Capitalism

Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Finkel

Noam Chomsky: To begin with, I think terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" have been so evacuated of any substantive meaning that I don't even like to use them. There's nothing remotely like capitalism in existence. To the extent there ever was, it had disappeared by the 1920s or '30s. Every industrial society is one form or another of state capitalism. But we'll use the term "capitalism," since that is more or less its present meaning.
 
2012-11-29 04:29:48 PM  
Republicans have never had a problem with socialism for the rich.
 
2012-11-29 04:30:16 PM  

GoodyearPimp: "Some n-word is getting something for FREE" = socialism
"Welfare (be it SS, UI, whatever) check is here" = not socialism. Unless a black guy is getting it.


You don't seem to be far off, except they don't tend to be too upset about white wall street bankers get a couple trillion.

I guess thats socialism...
 
2012-11-29 04:30:55 PM  

mrshowrules: You could get 25% of Republicans to say Elvis is still alive, milk comes from cats or that they like the taste of bleach.

The fact that 94% were for Free Enterprise and only 72% were for Capitalism shows that you aren't dealing with Rhode Scholars or that 22% were Trekkies hoping for their own space ship.


cdn.hark.com
Could you milk me?
 
2012-11-29 04:31:32 PM  
3/4ths of Republicans don't know what socialism is......or fascism.
 
2012-11-29 04:33:05 PM  
I like socialism where it matters. Why DON'T we all own the natural resources of our country as citizens? Alaska has the right idea about that.

Same thing with health care. In the end, privatized health care is more concerned with a profit line than with giving care. Unless there is a better idea out there, we should let the state take care of it. Hell, WE ARE THE STATE, which is what I don't get about people who are so fearful of the government.

Where government control makes more sense, we should DO IT, and where it doesn't, let the free market work things out.
 
2012-11-29 04:33:46 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.


Actually, most probably still wouldn't. (My Ethical Abortion and what not)
 
2012-11-29 04:33:49 PM  

Lansydyr: The definition of socialism is, basically, 'government control of a certain industry.'


Socialism is a system where distribution of goods and services are controlled by the people. The best example of actual socialism in our society would be corporate shareholders. They all pitch in to varying degrees, all have a say in what the company does, and all share in the dividends.
 
2012-11-29 04:35:35 PM  
When you tell republicans about how the police, fire, roads, medicare and social security checks are all socialism, then they realized they've loved it all along.
 
2012-11-29 04:37:32 PM  

Surool: When you tell republicans about how the police, fire, roads, medicare and social security checks are all socialism, then they realized they've loved it all along.


No, no, no, those things are like trees and grass they just grow out of the ground.
 
2012-11-29 04:38:27 PM  

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


apparently this is an affliction shared by many.

How else can both groups be overwhelmingly in favor of free enterprise, small business and entrepreneurs while still having a positive impression of socialism? I don't think most people think of the Fire Department off the top of their head when they hear the word socialism.
 
2012-11-29 04:38:59 PM  
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
 
2012-11-29 04:39:47 PM  
Remember the Republican mantra "It's not socialism when we do it!"
 
2012-11-29 04:39:59 PM  
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.
 
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.
 
2012-11-29 05:48:14 PM  
This is the downside of the right's "call Obama a socialist and let 50 years of anti-socialist propaganda do the rest.". The problem is that most people not born in the 50's or 60's haven't been conditioned to hate the word "socialism"...so to them...a "socialist" does what Obama does....which is act like a pragmatic centrist.

The danger is that *a real socialist* (a la Chavez) could, sometime in the future, exploit this brand re-awakening, and all of a sudden the constant cries of "WOLF!!" would fall on deaf ears.
 
2012-11-29 05:48:23 PM  
The best laid plans are shat on by people.
Communism and socialism would be wonderful if everyone was honest and perfect already.
I feel like communism and socialism and even dictatorships would be perfectly reasonable in Utopias.
 
2012-11-29 05:51:20 PM  

seniorgato: The best laid plans are shat on by people.
Communism and socialism Capitalism would be wonderful if everyone was honest and perfect already.
I feel like communism and socialism capitalism and even dictatorships would be perfectly reasonable in Utopias.

 
2012-11-29 05:52:55 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


The modern equivalent of a 5 and 10 is the dollar store. They still have those right? They had plenty of 5 and 10 stores back in the day, but very few grew into megacorps and only one grew into megamegacorp.

Besides, there are all sorts of employee owned companies. There's no need to use force and coercion to achieve this and you don't need to drive a megacorp out of business to sustain it.
 
2012-11-29 05:54:06 PM  

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: 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.

The modern equivalent of a 5 and 10 is the dollar store. They still have those right? They had plenty of 5 and 10 stores back in the day, but very few grew into megacorps and only one grew into megamegacorp.

Besides, there are all sorts of employee owned companies. There's no need to use force and coercion to achieve this and you don't need to drive a megacorp out of business to sustain it.


I agree. By what token, however, is it okay to use force and coercion to protect big business or enforce that model?
 
2012-11-29 05:54:09 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


Costco was started in 1983 America
Target expanded nationwide in 1982 America
Amazon was incorporated in 1994 America as an online bookstore and now makes about $60,000,000,000 a year in revenue selling the same shiat Wal-Mart does.

But why won't someone just give a company like this to workers?
 
2012-11-29 05:54:27 PM  

skullkrusher: Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.


Google and Apple started in garages.
 
2012-11-29 05:55:26 PM  

skullkrusher: 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.


Sure, it happens. It happens every day. Smart people start successful businesses on shoestrings. But here's the thing - it doesn't happen nearly as readily as it used to, because capitalism is all about making sure that capital is concentrated in just a few hands. That's the point. Capitalism is anathema to an efficient market, and it slowly corrodes both the economy and the culture.
 
2012-11-29 05:56:13 PM  

jigger: skullkrusher: Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.

Google and Apple started in garages.


and Microsoft and Joe Schmoe's Computer Repair Shop that he started as a side project when he wasn't working in Best Buy's Geek Squad and now provides a nice living for Joe and his family.
 
2012-11-29 05:57:01 PM  

jigger: Google and Apple started in garages.


And entered a completely new market, the same as Wal-Mart did in the 40's and 50's. You could create the next big thing, and create a brand new market, but in this environment, in our system, the end result will be the same, a global conglomerate with barriers to entry too high for it initial success to be reproduced.
 
2012-11-29 05:58:07 PM  

BMulligan: Sure, it happens. It happens every day. Smart people start successful businesses on shoestrings. But here's the thing - it doesn't happen nearly as readily as it used to, because capitalism is all about making sure that capital is concentrated in just a few hands. That's the point. Capitalism is anathema to an efficient market, and it slowly corrodes both the economy and the culture.


yeah, our problem has been that people are too stingy with loans...
 
2012-11-29 05:58:49 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: I agree. By what token, however, is it okay to use force and coercion to protect big business or enforce that model?


Well, I'm not going to defend the current model of highly regulated, protectionist, intellectual property, etc. fascistic style of capitalism we have in the US today. I know there's initiation of force used these days, but we probably have different things in mind. What kind of force or coercion did you have in mind?
 
2012-11-29 05:59:33 PM  

jigger: skullkrusher: Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.

Google and Apple started in garages.


Ultimately, you can't use extraordinary exceptions as examples of the model "working". It is no more reasonable to hold up Sam Walton or Bill Gates to show offthe wonders of capitalism than it is to hold up Toyotomi Hideyoshi as an example of the beneficence of feudal warlordism or Nicolai Ceaușescu as an example of the wonders of Soviet Communism.
 
2012-11-29 06:02:08 PM  

skullkrusher: But why won't someone just give a company like this to workers?


Socialists aren't asking for companies to be given to them. We're threatening to take over what we in fact built and rightly own-to re-appropriate what's been appropriated from us. Get it straight, SK! Sheesh.
 
2012-11-29 06:02:26 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jigger: Google and Apple started in garages.

And entered a completely new market, the same as Wal-Mart did in the 40's and 50's. You could create the next big thing, and create a brand new market, but in this environment, in our system, the end result will be the same, a global conglomerate with barriers to entry too high for it initial success to be reproduced.


There were plenty of search engines around before Google and there are still plenty around.

There were many computer companies around before Apple and there are a hell of a lot around today.

A worker's collective could start one of these things. They don't have to put Google and Apple out of business to be successful.
 
2012-11-29 06:03:45 PM  

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: I agree. By what token, however, is it okay to use force and coercion to protect big business or enforce that model?

Well, I'm not going to defend the current model of highly regulated, protectionist, intellectual property, etc. fascistic style of capitalism we have in the US today. I know there's initiation of force used these days, but we probably have different things in mind. What kind of force or coercion did you have in mind?


The very underpinnings of capitalism, the hierarchical corporate model and capitalist ideas of property. The state creates and enforces both. Do you support eliminating the limited liability corporation? If not, you support use of state force to enforce the capitalist model. Do you support eliminating unnatural conceptions of property, like "intellectual property" law? If not, you support use of state force to enforce the capitalist model.

Capitalism is a product of the coercive state; even in the hazy "golden age" of capitalism it was more true than ever, with powerful landowners being dictatorial governmental powers in the own right. It cannot exist without it.
 
2012-11-29 06:04:29 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Ultimately, you can't use extraordinary exceptions as examples of the model "working".


but it is utterly valid to complain that workers cannot start companies to compete with these extraordinary examples, of course.
 
2012-11-29 06:05:54 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: skullkrusher: Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.

Google and Apple started in garages.

Ultimately, you can't use extraordinary exceptions as examples of the model "working". It is no more reasonable to hold up Sam Walton or Bill Gates to show offthe wonders of capitalism than it is to hold up Toyotomi Hideyoshi as an example of the beneficence of feudal warlordism or Nicolai Ceaușescu as an example of the wonders of Soviet Communism.


I'm using those examples to counter the claim that a small company started by a worker's collective can never compete with "the big boys." Once upon a time those "big boys" were small potatoes. They were small potatoes in a world where giant megacorps existed. How can Apple ever compete with IBM? How can Google ever compete with Yahoo or AltaVista?

A worker's collective could start small and one day become huge and there's no need to force a large corporation into that situation.
 
2012-11-29 06:07:08 PM  

Renart: Socialists aren't asking for companies to be given to them. We're threatening to take over what we in fact built and rightly own-to re-appropriate what's been appropriated from us. Get it straight, SK! Sheesh.


The people that built your house and sodded your lawn are coming to claim their property tonight.
 
2012-11-29 06:09:12 PM  
Half of Democrats and THREE quarters of 'Pubs couldn't define the word "socialism" if you gave them a forty-word head start.
 
2012-11-29 06:09:17 PM  

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: skullkrusher: Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.

Google and Apple started in garages.

Ultimately, you can't use extraordinary exceptions as examples of the model "working". It is no more reasonable to hold up Sam Walton or Bill Gates to show offthe wonders of capitalism than it is to hold up Toyotomi Hideyoshi as an example of the beneficence of feudal warlordism or Nicolai Ceaușescu as an example of the wonders of Soviet Communism.

I'm using those examples to counter the claim that a small company started by a worker's collective can never compete with "the big boys." Once upon a time those "big boys" were small potatoes. They were small potatoes in a world where giant megacorps existed. How can Apple ever compete with IBM? How can Google ever compete with Yahoo or AltaVista?

A worker's collective could start small and one day become huge and there's no need to force a large corporation into that situation.


You're using those examples to distract from the fact that the odds are vastly against anyone acceding to the aristocracy with structures in place to prevent it. No different than in Communist Romania or feudal Japan.
 
2012-11-29 06:13:14 PM  

jigger: The people that built your house and sodded your lawn are coming to claim their property tonight.


My house and lawn are not a means of production. They do not generate surplus value. Your argument is invalid.
 
2012-11-29 06:13:58 PM  
Many conservatives/libertarians hold that "promote the general welfare" only means fund police and military to protect against people who want their stuff.
 
2012-11-29 06:14:13 PM  

jigger: They don't have to put Google and Apple out of business to be successful.


But the existence of Apple and Google makes success much less likely.
 
2012-11-29 06:14:31 PM  

skullkrusher: BMulligan: Sure, it happens. It happens every day. Smart people start successful businesses on shoestrings. But here's the thing - it doesn't happen nearly as readily as it used to, because capitalism is all about making sure that capital is concentrated in just a few hands. That's the point. Capitalism is anathema to an efficient market, and it slowly corrodes both the economy and the culture.

yeah, our problem has been that people are too stingy with loans...


But who gets the loans? Years ago, I was working for a law firm that represented one of the parties to a divorce in which a $1.3 billion estate was at issue. The husband came from an old money family (the local opera house is named after the guy's mother) that had fallen on hard times but, apparently, managed to bounce back. Our job - there were six rookie lawyers set up in a conference room for this - was to go through 5,000 boxes of documents looking for anything relevant. We found a copy of a memo from a junior officer at the bank, stating that the husband had already borrowed way more money than he could possibly repay to invest in his company. There was only one, slim chance of ever seeing any of that money ever again - loan him another $100 million. Sure, it was probably going to get pissed away, but it was the only thing that might salvage the original loans.

So that's what the bank did. The business turned around (on paper, anyway - the accountants working on the divorce were unimpressed, once all the nonsense had been cleared off the balance sheet), the husband sold the company to a huge corporation for about a billion and a half bucks, and the bank got paid off. Within a couple of years the original business was in disarray and the purchaser sold it at a substantial loss. The husband managed to lose about $300 million in misguided business ventures - but that left him with over a billion bucks, so banks were still lining up to lend him money (he hasn't had a business success in over a decade - his latest venture is deep in the red). But he still has his private island, he still has his 400-foot yacht with the helipad on the stern, and he still has no problem borrowing money. He was born into the capitalist class (why do you think the bank lent him all that money in the first place?), and even though his career has consisted of failure after failure aside from his one lucky break, he's still a member of the club. He still gets to host lavish fundraisers for Republican presidential candidates, and he's still a very wealthy man.

Meanwhile, no one is going to lend you or I $100 million to invest in our speculative ventures. But then again, our mothers' names aren't engraved over the door at the local opera house.
 
2012-11-29 06:18:04 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: The very underpinnings of capitalism, the hierarchical corporate model and capitalist ideas of property.


So you don't believe in property? You don't own anything?

A Dark Evil Omen: The state creates and enforces both.


The state does not create property and is not necessary to enforce property.

A Dark Evil Omen: Do you support eliminating the limited liability corporation?


A distant investor that has no control on the actual operation of the company should have no more liability than his investment. If there were no state and no limit to liability, how would you claim your damages? How would you seize the assets/property of every passive investor in a corporation?

Let's say OilCorp spills oil in the lake next to where you live and ruins your crops (or whatever). By what method would you extract restitution from every single passive investor?

A Dark Evil Omen: Do you support eliminating unnatural conceptions of property, like "intellectual property" law?


Yes, with a few exceptions. Copyright and patents should be abolished. I see a place for trademarks, because the fraud involved would create actual harm with victims and such. It's not necessarily that an idea is someone's "property." It's more in the idea of protecting the consumer from harm due to fraud.

A Dark Evil Omen: Capitalism is a product of the coercive state


No, it's just not. Capitalism is a method. Whether someone incorporates that method within the framework of a coercive state is another matter.
 
2012-11-29 06:19:22 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: You're using those examples to distract from the fact that the odds are vastly against anyone acceding to the aristocracy with structures in place to prevent it. No different than in Communist Romania or feudal Japan.


Who said anything about "acceding to the aristocracy"? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
 
2012-11-29 06:21:44 PM  

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: The very underpinnings of capitalism, the hierarchical corporate model and capitalist ideas of property.

So you don't believe in property? You don't own anything?


I don't believe in unnatural conceptions of property, no. I don't own any patents or trademarks or hold any copyright. I don't own any stocks. I don't have an unoccupied second home or own a factory that I never see but expect the workers to pay me to use it.

A Dark Evil Omen: The state creates and enforces both.

The state does not create property and is not necessary to enforce property.


Okay, then I'm taking your shiat. No need to enforce that, right, so I'm sure we won't see the cops showing up.

A Dark Evil Omen: Do you support eliminating the limited liability corporation?

A distant investor that has no control on the actual operation of the company should have no more liability than his investment. If there were no state and no limit to liability, how would you claim your damages? How would you seize the assets/property of every passive investor in a corporation?

Let's say OilCorp spills oil in the lake next to where you live and ruins your crops (or whatever). By what method would you extract restitution from every single passive investor?


So, yes, you support unnatural conceptions of property and coercion to protect it.

A Dark Evil Omen: Do you support eliminating unnatural conceptions of property, like "intellectual property" law?

Yes, with a few exceptions. Copyright and patents should be abolished. I see a place for trademarks, because the fraud involved would create actual harm with victims and such. It's not necessarily that an idea is someone's "property." It's more in the idea of protecting the consumer from harm due to fraud.


So, yes, you support unnatural conceptions of property and coercion to protect it.

A Dark Evil Omen: Capitalism is a product of the coercive state

No, it's just not. Capitalism is a method. Whether someone incorporates that method within the framework of a coercive state is another matter.

What "method"? It's a system of hierarchy created and enforced with violence.
 
2012-11-29 06:21:58 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: jigger: They don't have to put Google and Apple out of business to be successful.

But the existence of Apple and Google makes success much less likely.


Oh no it's too hard. We'll never have a giant computer company because it's 1976 and IBM exists.

Are you saying a worker's collective can't compete? They can't sell higher quality at a lower price?
 
2012-11-29 06:25:50 PM  

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

It's pretty much the same with capitalism, unless by "getting" you mean "getting it in the rear". The people who get to rob the middle class and poor live capitalism.

Love I mean.


I love capitalism and I'm not rich or ass raping anyone. A little socialism is nice too, provided you work to balance collective wants with individual rights. One group that does not like capitalism would be people who spent their younger years ignoring everyone who told them education, hard work, and not quitting leads to success. If you are a loser, you probably will be against whatever ISM you perceive to be in place in the area where you have managed to be such a failure. In my early twenties I was quite receptive to arguments that placed blame for my situation in life on things other than myself.
 
2012-11-29 06:29:33 PM  

BMulligan: skullkrusher: BMulligan: Sure, it happens. It happens every day. Smart people start successful businesses on shoestrings. But here's the thing - it doesn't happen nearly as readily as it used to, because capitalism is all about making sure that capital is concentrated in just a few hands. That's the point. Capitalism is anathema to an efficient market, and it slowly corrodes both the economy and the culture.

yeah, our problem has been that people are too stingy with loans...

But who gets the loans? Years ago, I was working for a law firm that represented one of the parties to a divorce in which a $1.3 billion estate was at issue. The husband came from an old money family (the local opera house is named after the guy's mother) that had fallen on hard times but, apparently, managed to bounce back. Our job - there were six rookie lawyers set up in a conference room for this - was to go through 5,000 boxes of documents looking for anything relevant. We found a copy of a memo from a junior officer at the bank, stating that the husband had already borrowed way more money than he could possibly repay to invest in his company. There was only one, slim chance of ever seeing any of that money ever again - loan him another $100 million. Sure, it was probably going to get pissed away, but it was the only thing that might salvage the original loans.

So that's what the bank did. The business turned around (on paper, anyway - the accountants working on the divorce were unimpressed, once all the nonsense had been cleared off the balance sheet), the husband sold the company to a huge corporation for about a billion and a half bucks, and the bank got paid off. Within a couple of years the original business was in disarray and the purchaser sold it at a substantial loss. The husband managed to lose about $300 million in misguided business ventures - but that left him with over a billion bucks, so banks were still lining up to lend him money (he hasn't had a business success in over a decade - his latest venture is deep in the red). But he still has his private island, he still has his 400-foot yacht with the helipad on the stern, and he still has no problem borrowing money. He was born into the capitalist class (why do you think the bank lent him all that money in the first place?), and even though his career has consisted of failure after failure aside from his one lucky break, he's still a member of the club. He still gets to host lavish fundraisers for Republican presidential candidates, and he's still a very wealthy man.

Meanwhile, no one is going to lend you or I $100 million to invest in our speculative ventures. But then again, our mothers' names aren't engraved over the door at the local opera house.


What does any of that have to do with obtaining a small business loan?
 
2012-11-29 06:30:20 PM  

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

How did Wal Mart start?


They started when there was no WalMart
 
2012-11-29 06:30:43 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: I don't believe in unnatural conceptions of property, no. I don't own any patents or trademarks or hold any copyright. I don't own any stocks. I don't have an unoccupied second home or own a factory that I never see but expect the workers to pay me to use it.


Stocks are contracts, agreements. If you don't believe in enforcing contracts, then I don't see how a worker's collective can ever get off the ground.

A Dark Evil Omen: I don't have an unoccupied second home or own a factory that I never see but expect the workers to pay me to use it.


I'll bet you have "unoccupied property." You don't use all of your possessions at all times, do you?

I'm not getting the second part. Workers are paying you to use a factory? Is this the whole Marxist BS about stealing the workers' labor?

A Dark Evil Omen: Okay, then I'm taking your shiat. No need to enforce that, right, so I'm sure we won't see the cops showing up.


The cops will probably come get me after what I do to enforce my property rights.

A Dark Evil Omen: So, yes, you support unnatural conceptions of property and coercion to protect it.


You can't defend your system because it's obvious you haven't thought it out. You don't have to have a state to limit liability. You have to have some sort of arbitration (or court if you prefer) to hammer out who owes what to whom in a dispute, unless we're all just going to act like raving mobs of monkeys with pitchforks.

In your system, would there be arbitration of any kind?


A Dark Evil Omen: What "method"? It's a system of hierarchy created and enforced with violence.


The method of investing resources (capital, if you will) in order to produce/multiply those resources. There is no need to initiate force to accomplish this.
 
2012-11-29 06:33:17 PM  

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

How did Wal Mart start?

They started when there was no WalMart


But there was Woolworths, and Sears, etc.
 
2012-11-29 06:33:50 PM  
Socialism in general is actually fine. The union movement's been far more help than harm, even if it is at times corrupt and frustrating (like, well, democracy always is), the rochdale model works very well in certain industries like group housing and banking (that's the model that credit unions follow, roughly speaking), general government restrictions on treatment of workers have actually _increased_ corporate incomes as well as individual well-being, certain industries do... well, all right when socialized, at least better than trying to have it both ways (single-payer health care is significantly cheaper per capita while providing more treatment per capita than our insurance-driven + emergency rooms free model).

What _hasn't_ worked is Marxist socialism. Actual industry takeovers by the workers and attempts to remove intermediate central control and private ownership of companies have been an absolute and unmitigated disaster for everyone that has tried it. Even the most successful go at Marxism, China, essentially nuked its own economy entirely and is only recovering because they've given up on the whole thing and gone full autocracy instead.

Making sure this is mentioned, because some people up-thread seem to be mistaking socialism in general for marxist socialism specifically. The latter is a very, very specific policy theory which is demonstrably incorrect. The former is a broader "movement" consisting of basically every single democratic policy innovation introduced between 1880 and 1940.

Lucky LaRue: So, that's like 75% of America, right? Why not just declare a socialist victory, and we can all go back to hating the French.


if you're serious, 50% * 1/2 + 25% * 1/2 = roughly 37% of the total population. I figure you're probably referencing a meme I'm unfamiliar with, but you can never tell, so just sticking that out there.
 
2012-11-29 06:38:21 PM  
Wow.

Its nice to see my red-tagged favorite squad all together.

/Lurker
//Wobbly
 
2012-11-29 06:39:27 PM  
So? There are "republicans" who like socialism. After all, there were "republicans" who voted for 0bama.
 
2012-11-29 06:43:12 PM  

skullkrusher: What does any of that have to do with obtaining a small business loan?


If you think you're going to go toe-to-toe with WalMart, Comcast, Boeing, General Motors, or JP Morgan Chase with a small business loan, have at it.
 
2012-11-29 06:44:12 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: So? There are "republicans" who like socialism. After all, there were "republicans" who voted for 0bama.


And there are "Reagan Democrats" but I'm guessing you're OK with that.
 
2012-11-29 06:48:57 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: So? There are "republicans" who like socialism. After all, there were "republicans" who voted for 0bama.

And there are "Reagan Democrats" but I'm guessing you're OK with that.


yeah, why not?

good to see that about a third of democrats fit that category.
 
2012-11-29 06:51:02 PM  
jealousy and envy are not good character traits.
be a man. take control of your own life.
 
2012-11-29 06:52:48 PM  

jigger: Oh no it's too hard. We'll never have a giant computer company because it's 1976 and IBM exists.

Are you saying a worker's collective can't compete? They can't sell higher quality at a lower price?


What part of barriers to entry do you not understand?
Apple exploited new markets to get where they are, markets that they now dominate and close off to others. They sold desktop computers when they were some of the first players on the market. They marketed and sold iPods when the portable digital media market was tiny.
Workers' collectives can't compete, not because socialism, but because they don't have a huge market share and supply chain reaching back into China for maximum profitability. Either Apple screws the pooch, as IBM did, or there's little they can't do to crush a startup offering iPod clones.
Just because success is possible doesn't mean it's likely, nor does it mean things are working to everyone's benefit.
 
2012-11-29 06:58:50 PM  

colon_pow: jealousy and envy are not good character traits.
be a man. take control of your own life.


Fight your own wars, keep track of your own penis and if you are afraid of change stay in bed and hide under the covers. The be a man stuff swings both ways.
 
2012-11-29 07:00:17 PM  
Since this is Gallup, that means that most Americans hate socialism with a fiery passion.
 
2012-11-29 07:02:35 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Lionel Mandrake: tenpoundsofcheese: So? There are "republicans" who like socialism. After all, there were "republicans" who voted for 0bama.

And there are "Reagan Democrats" but I'm guessing you're OK with that.

yeah, why not?



That's cool. I like Obama Republicans.
 
2012-11-29 07:05:32 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: What part of barriers to entry do you not understand?
Apple exploited new markets to get where they are, markets that they now dominate and close off to others. They sold desktop computers when they were some of the first players on the market.


I've repeatedly brought up that they were not the only player in the PC market. They went up against IBM. And farking won. There were other, larger PC companies besides IBM. Where are they now? Where's your new Tandy? Where's your new Commodore?

Google went up against well established search engines. And farking won. They became the big boy. Then they went up against Facebook (who went up against MySpace and won) and lost (or are still losing badly).


Sergeant Grumbles: They marketed and sold iPods when the portable digital media market was tiny.


And the market got huge BECAUSE OF the iPod.

Sergeant Grumbles: Workers' collectives can't compete, not because socialism, but because they don't have a huge market share and supply chain reaching back into China for maximum profitability.


You don't have to start big to compete. I've never purchased an Apple product in my life. There's a big huge market out there for non-Apple products. You don't have to put Apple out of business to sustain your business model. You just have to sell shiat that people want at a price they're willing to pay. That's it.

Sergeant Grumbles: Either Apple screws the pooch, as IBM did, or there's little they can't do to crush a startup offering iPod clones. Just because success is possible doesn't mean it's likely, nor does it mean things are working to everyone's benefit.


Huh? There are plenty of different mp3 players out there to buy.
 
2012-11-29 07:12:38 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


I was going to say "by starting in an economy where there was no Wal Mart to crush it."
 
2012-11-29 07:13:45 PM  

robotpirateninja: This is the downside of the right's "call Obama a socialist and let 50 years of anti-socialist propaganda do the rest.". The problem is that most people not born in the 50's or 60's haven't been conditioned to hate the word "socialism"...so to them...a "socialist" does what Obama does....which is act like a pragmatic centrist.


Made me chuckle.
 
2012-11-29 07:15:48 PM  

impaler: I was going to say "by starting in an economy where there was no Wal Mart to crush it."


Argh! There were giant national retail chains then too. Wal Mart did not invent discount retail.
 
2012-11-29 07:23:10 PM  

jigger: Argh! There were giant national retail chains then too. Wal Mart did not invent discount retail.


And at that time there were mom and pop shops as well.

In 2006, the big-box retailer promised to bring jobs to the cash-strapped community. But according to a landmark study by Loyola University, the company's rhetoric didn't match reality: Within two years of Walmart's opening its doors, 82 local stores went out of business.
 
2012-11-29 07:39:47 PM  

impaler: jigger: Argh! There were giant national retail chains then too. Wal Mart did not invent discount retail.

And at that time there were mom and pop shops as well.

In 2006, the big-box retailer promised to bring jobs to the cash-strapped community. But according to a landmark study by Loyola University, the company's rhetoric didn't match reality: Within two years of Walmart's opening its doors, 82 local stores went out of business.


That same article talks about small businesses going out of business and struggling to survive during the recession even though NYC has kept Walmart out. And it's basically an OpEd written by Steven Barrison is executive vice president of the Small Business Congress of New York City, a federation of more than 75 small-business associations advocating for the rights of small enterprises across the five boroughs. 

Walmart grew up when there were other large retailers. Kmart started only a couple of years before Walmart, but they spread way more quickly. Now they have a much lower market share because they're basically a shiattier version of Walmart and people would rather go to Walmart or Target. Costco competes directly with Sam's Club (Walmart) and is killing them.
 
2012-11-29 07:51:53 PM  
The NFL is the leading socialist organization in America.
 
2012-11-29 07:56:06 PM  

pete1729: The NFL is the leading socialist organization in America.


they own ESPN and the networks (distribution)?

I didn't know that.
 
2012-11-29 08:08:16 PM  
100 of all americans love socialism when they realize the program whose teat they are currently sucking is socialism too. NOW GET YOUR DEMORAT GOV HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE
 
2012-11-29 08:20:31 PM  

pete1729: The NFL is the leading socialist organization in America.


Alaska is the leading socialist state in the US, something that all the independent rugged individuals there don't really understand.
 
2012-11-29 08:24:18 PM  
michaelgreenwell.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-29 08:24:56 PM  
Why should I believe gallup?
 
2012-11-29 08:38:43 PM  
Who doesn't like free stuff?
 
2012-11-29 08:40:14 PM  

jigger: That same article talks about small businesses going out of business and struggling to survive during the recession


Walmart was killing off mom and pops long before the recession.

Mom and pops are rare now. They weren't when walmart started.
 
2012-11-29 08:49:57 PM  

jigger: I've repeatedly brought up that they were not the only player in the PC market. They went up against IBM. And farking won. There were other, larger PC companies besides IBM. Where are they now? Where's your new Tandy? Where's your new Commodore?


I don't even have to say anything because you're making my argument for me. You just really don't grasp what the rest of us are trying to say.

That competition exists at all is not a validation of your argument. We're not saying competition doesn't exist. We're saying that large megacorps throw up large barriers to entry, making competition less likely, and a sufficiently large entity can and does corner the market. We're not saying these are monolithic entities that stomp out all competition and stand for all time, we're saying they suffocate competition, usually by economies of scale that start-ups can't match, and under the current system if it's not one company, it will be another, and IBM will be replaced by Apple will be replaced by Spacely Space Sprockets, Inc.

The easiest out is to create a market, but once established, the new market suffers from all of the same problems.
 
2012-11-29 09:05:06 PM  

impaler: jigger: That same article talks about small businesses going out of business and struggling to survive during the recession

Walmart was killing off mom and pops long before the recession.

Mom and pops are rare now. They weren't when walmart started.


And now Mom and Pop have to compete with Dollar General and Family Dollar. Maybe the customers are to blame for shopping at places with lower prices.
 
2012-11-29 09:41:30 PM  

GoodyearPimp: Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm really not sure what Americans associate with socialism,

"Some n-word is getting something for FREE" = socialism
"Welfare (be it SS, UI, whatever) check is here" = not socialism. Unless a black guy is getting it.


I think the more general formulation is:

"THEY are getting something for FREE" = socialism
"WE are getting what we need to live on" = not socialism.

Race is a popular way to delineate the us/them divide, but it's hardly the only one, and some of them are even not racist dog whistles. Unions are often THEM, for example.
 
2012-11-29 10:08:32 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


It also helped that Walton's father-in-law loaned him $20,000 (almost $250,000 in today's dollars) to buy his first store. So another secret to starting a successful business - be born to rich parents or marry well.
 
2012-11-29 10:28:01 PM  

BMulligan: skullkrusher: What does any of that have to do with obtaining a small business loan?

If you think you're going to go toe-to-toe with WalMart, Comcast, Boeing, General Motors, or JP Morgan Chase with a small business loan, have at it.


that was never the point. In fact, I am arguing that that is a bullshiat metric to use.
 
2012-11-30 12:51:40 AM  

mrshowrules: You could get 25% of Republicans to say Elvis is still alive, milk comes from cats or that they like the taste of bleach.

The fact that 94% were for Free Enterprise and only 72% were for Capitalism shows that you aren't dealing with Rhode Scholars or that 22% were Trekkies hoping for their own space ship.


I could get 25% of Farkers to agree Elvis is still alive, if you gave me time to write the survey correctly. "Given that cells never actually die, but continue reproducing asexually..."
 
2012-11-30 01:43:54 AM  

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

apparently this is an affliction shared by many.

How else can both groups be overwhelmingly in favor of free enterprise, small business and entrepreneurs while still having a positive impression of socialism? I don't think most people think of the Fire Department off the top of their head when they hear the word socialism.


What makes free enterprise incompatible with socialism? All free enterprise is about, is the ability to start a new business. Most of the regulations today come from business groups purchasing laws restricting new startups in their respective industries. I point to the ADA trying to get cosmetic teeth whitening treatments listed as a medical treatment in state regulations as the most recent example. Free market capitalism includes regulations, which hamper free enterprise on Main Street and has a tendency toward cartels and monopolies.
 
2012-11-30 02:22:54 AM  

Lansydyr: An example of local socialism, such as city or county would be our fire department.


70% of the fire departments in the US are volunteer. Counties will pay for equipment via donations or short-term bonds via elections and leave the citizens up to the rest.

You should get a new argument, because you chose the one profession that isn't fully supported by the government throughout the vast majority of the US.

BTW - military is a socialist program. If you're actually in the military, you should start with that. You'll win friends.
 
2012-11-30 03:15:36 AM  

Lsherm: Lansydyr: An example of local socialism, such as city or county would be our fire department.

70% of the fire departments in the US are volunteer. Counties will pay for equipment via donations or short-term bonds via elections and leave the citizens up to the rest.

You should get a new argument, because you chose the one profession that isn't fully supported by the government throughout the vast majority of the US.

BTW - military is a socialist program. If you're actually in the military, you should start with that. You'll win friends.


And attract bullets.
 
2012-11-30 03:30:08 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Lsherm: Lansydyr: An example of local socialism, such as city or county would be our fire department.

70% of the fire departments in the US are volunteer. Counties will pay for equipment via donations or short-term bonds via elections and leave the citizens up to the rest.

You should get a new argument, because you chose the one profession that isn't fully supported by the government throughout the vast majority of the US.

BTW - military is a socialist program. If you're actually in the military, you should start with that. You'll win friends.

And attract bullets.


He claims to be a liberal "infrantry" member of the military, at least according to his post. Direct your ire towards him.
 
2012-11-30 06:00:57 AM  
i like farmer co-ops

worker controlling the means of production, doncha know
 
2012-11-30 07:13:00 AM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Lsherm: Everybody loves socialism as long as you get more than you're giving.

Fark you. I'm definitely in the giver camp given my tax bracket and I'm all for investing in improvements to the general welfare.

I find that making the country, as a whole, better improves my life, too and that you need to be a special kind of short-sighted asshole not to see that.

/ And you misspelled "enlightened self-interest". It doesn't start with an S.


This.
 
2012-11-30 07:51:56 AM  
Even more people would be for it if it was called something other then socialism. Much of the opposition to socialism is really just knee-jerk reaction to the term and not to the concept.
 
2012-11-30 08:38:45 AM  

jigger: A Dark Evil Omen: jigger: skullkrusher: Amazon did take a significant chunk from retailers though.

Google and Apple started in garages.

Ultimately, you can't use extraordinary exceptions as examples of the model "working". It is no more reasonable to hold up Sam Walton or Bill Gates to show offthe wonders of capitalism than it is to hold up Toyotomi Hideyoshi as an example of the beneficence of feudal warlordism or Nicolai Ceaușescu as an example of the wonders of Soviet Communism.

I'm using those examples to counter the claim that a small company started by a worker's collective can never compete with "the big boys." Once upon a time those "big boys" were small potatoes. They were small potatoes in a world where giant megacorps existed. How can Apple ever compete with IBM? How can Google ever compete with Yahoo or AltaVista?

A worker's collective could start small and one day become huge and there's no need to force a large corporation into that situation.


the people who owned shares in IBM are the same as the ones who own shares in Apple...
With what money are the chines Apple-workers going to buy shares?
It all comes to the same : you need capital. You can start a buisness without, but the people who have the capital (banks or shareholders) are the ones making the money.
 
2012-11-30 09:11:59 AM  

mrshowrules: The fact that 94% were for Free Enterprise and only 72% were for Capitalism shows that you aren't dealing with Rhode Scholars or that 22% were Trekkies hoping for their own space ship.


Are they the Heralds of Free Enterprise?
 
2012-11-30 09:23:08 AM  

BMulligan: I was unable to come with Margaret Thatcher within the time allotted


I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to do that in any length of time. *shudder*
 
2012-11-30 10:42:31 AM  
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it may be a teensy bit more than one in four Republicans.

i48.tinypic.com

brightlightsfilm.com

Teensy bit.
 
2012-11-30 11:00:51 AM  

BolloxReader: What makes free enterprise incompatible with socialism? All free enterprise is about, is the ability to start a new business. Most of the regulations today come from business groups purchasing laws restricting new startups in their respective industries. I point to the ADA trying to get cosmetic teeth whitening treatments listed as a medical treatment in state regulations as the most recent example. Free market capitalism includes regulations, which hamper free enterprise on Main Street and has a tendency toward cartels and monopolies.


how does one start a new business if one is unable to individually own capital?
 
2012-11-30 11:34:58 AM  

Jackpot777: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it may be a teensy bit more than one in four Republicans.

[i48.tinypic.com image 800x588]

[brightlightsfilm.com image 250x153]

Teensy bit.


still sucks to live in a red state, fark you Rick Perry. still Texan thru and thru. This is what you people that live in the other forty-nine will never understand We don't all walk around with cowboy hats and crappy accents. I'm looking at you New England. it's not a farking pocketbook, it's a purse.

/bitter liberal living in Texas
//Ann Richards
 
2012-11-30 11:45:45 AM  

skullkrusher: BolloxReader: What makes free enterprise incompatible with socialism? All free enterprise is about, is the ability to start a new business. Most of the regulations today come from business groups purchasing laws restricting new startups in their respective industries. I point to the ADA trying to get cosmetic teeth whitening treatments listed as a medical treatment in state regulations as the most recent example. Free market capitalism includes regulations, which hamper free enterprise on Main Street and has a tendency toward cartels and monopolies.

how does one start a new business if one is unable to individually own capital?


What part of the ACA forbids individuals from owning capital?
 
2012-11-30 01:52:41 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: skullkrusher: BolloxReader: What makes free enterprise incompatible with socialism? All free enterprise is about, is the ability to start a new business. Most of the regulations today come from business groups purchasing laws restricting new startups in their respective industries. I point to the ADA trying to get cosmetic teeth whitening treatments listed as a medical treatment in state regulations as the most recent example. Free market capitalism includes regulations, which hamper free enterprise on Main Street and has a tendency toward cartels and monopolies.

how does one start a new business if one is unable to individually own capital?

What part of the ACA forbids individuals from owning capital?


ACA was a massive give away to the insurance companies. If anything the ACA perpetuates capitalism by making healthcare a commodity rather than a human right.
 
2012-11-30 03:29:49 PM  
Things like healthcare pretty much have to be socialized if you want to avoid some really farked up situations that arise when you apply capitalism to it. Capitalism gets pretty evil when some of the participants are left with the choice of paying or dying.
 
2012-12-01 10:23:08 AM  
Only a quarter? The Democrats are Fabian-esque socialists while the Republicans are national socialists. How is this news?
 
2012-12-01 11:47:24 AM  

Jarhead_h: Only a quarter? The Democrats are Fabian-esque socialists while the Republicans are national socialists. How is this news?


What a Democrat might look like:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
Displayed 183 of 183 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report