Given the blitzkrieg of Trump and his cronies, I'm expecting this to be just the beginning. Given all the chaos, and federal government hiring crunching, and inflation bound to be increasing, I'm...
Given the blitzkrieg of Trump and his cronies, I'm expecting this to be just the beginning. Given all the chaos, and federal government hiring crunching, and inflation bound to be increasing, I'm expecting SMEs in particular to struggle a lot... which can benefit the billionaires at his side.
Despite all the anti-communist propaganda unleashed during the cold war, I really have to wonder how much inequality American society can endure.
Most Trump supporters are totally fine with socialism as long as it isn't called that, and as long as it doesn't benefit groups they don't like. I know some people who constantly complain about...
Most Trump supporters are totally fine with socialism as long as it isn't called that, and as long as it doesn't benefit groups they don't like. I know some people who constantly complain about what immigrants are up to, and about how that money should go to homeless citizens or something. But they would never really want a penny to go to homeless citizens and they don't care what happens to farmers unless the price of eggs goes up again.
The whole socialism vs capitalism thing is so stupid. Nobody wants privatized roads, electricity or firefighters and nobody wants socialized farms, corner shops or startups. The terms "socialism"...
The whole socialism vs capitalism thing is so stupid. Nobody wants privatized roads, electricity or firefighters and nobody wants socialized farms, corner shops or startups.
The terms "socialism" and "capitalism" are almost exclusively used to divide and entrench. Anyone who wants to abolish one of them completely has obviously never thought this through, because it would be a dystopian nightmare.
Speak for yourself, some of us absolutely do want this. Co-ops for agriculture and grocery stores aren't even a particularly radical or far-left idea -- plenty of both exist in today's US!
nobody wants socialized farms, corner shops or startups.
Speak for yourself, some of us absolutely do want this. Co-ops for agriculture and grocery stores aren't even a particularly radical or far-left idea -- plenty of both exist in today's US!
Sure, but socialism isn't explicitly about government control of the means of production, but about community control. Co-ops are inherently socialist. What qob is likely actually decrying is...
Sure, but socialism isn't explicitly about government control of the means of production, but about community control. Co-ops are inherently socialist. What qob is likely actually decrying is authoritarian command economics, where control is held at the top instead of relegating local decisions to local groups.
Sure, but since socialist can refer to cooperative or government ownership it is worth disambiguating. Otherwise people just talk past each other. It's a rather disappointing ambiguity of the...
Sure, but since socialist can refer to cooperative or government ownership it is worth disambiguating. Otherwise people just talk past each other. It's a rather disappointing ambiguity of the definition, given that many strongly oppose state ownership but are just fine with a member owned food co-op.
Sure, but co-ops are socialist even if they are not state-run. Equating state-run command economies with socialism betrays a very low level of knowledge about socialism and socialization. (eta:...
Sure, but co-ops are socialist even if they are not state-run. Equating state-run command economies with socialism betrays a very low level of knowledge about socialism and socialization.
(eta: lmao @MimicSquid I swear I wasn't trying to copy your opening, you just said the same thing but better)
Sure, but since socialist can refer to cooperative or government ownership it is worth disambiguating. Otherwise people just talk past each other. It's a rather disappointing ambiguity of the definition, given that many strongly oppose state ownership but are just fine with a member owned good co-op.
I don't think that reply makes any sense when you consider the context of the comment I was replying to in the first place, which was worded "nobody wants socialist farms, corner stores, etc."
I don't think that reply makes any sense when you consider the context of the comment I was replying to in the first place, which was worded "nobody wants socialist farms, corner stores, etc."
I mean, I said I suspected they were referring to state ownership. You can ask them yourself. Otherwise I'm not sure why someone would intentionally describe a food co-op or CSA as a dystopian...
I mean, I said I suspected they were referring to state ownership. You can ask them yourself. Otherwise I'm not sure why someone would intentionally describe a food co-op or CSA as a dystopian nightmare. Unless they hate the crunchy granola crowd just that much. I've often seen people disagree about socialism with different versions of it in mind, so it is usually worth more specifically clarifying what is meant with respect to ownership, state vs community, and to what extent, promoting community owned vs outlawing private ownership.
From Merriam Webster's definition of socialism:
any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
That leaves a lot of room for confusion to simply use the word "socialist."
My comment amounted to correcting an inaccurately narrow definition of socialism. I did not introduce the word "socialist" to the conversation and merely was accurately pointing out that things...
My comment amounted to correcting an inaccurately narrow definition of socialism. I did not introduce the word "socialist" to the conversation and merely was accurately pointing out that things like co-ops, which are widely popular, count as "socialist" and thus saying "no one wants socialist farms" and such isn't accurate. The fact that "socialism" describes a variety of different related political theories regarding collective or government ownership as stated in the definition you quote, was precisely my point.
The person who wrote the comment I initially replied to responded positively, fwiw, and didn't even claim that they were initially talking exclusively about state ownership, so it's unclear to me why you need to quote the dictionary at me -- especially a definition that backs up the way I used the term, at that. It comes across as extremely condescending, especially when compared with the response from the actual author of the comment I replied to.
This doesn't feel like a productive discussion. Either you are looking to argue what someone else was thinking, which I have no interest in and isn't productive; Or you are trying to make the...
This doesn't feel like a productive discussion. Either you are looking to argue what someone else was thinking, which I have no interest in and isn't productive; Or you are trying to make the point that I shouldn't have suggested there was confusion on the use of socialism between you and qob, which feels weird and unproductive; Or you are looking to debate some aspect of socialism, which I've fairly carefully avoided expressing an opinion on; or something completely different that is unproductive by nature of me not knowing what it is.
The only reason I brought in the definition of socialism was to show how it can contribute to confusion if you aren't clear about what type is being discussed. That qob never clarified one way or another, or responded congenialy, etc isn't really the point, at least for me, because I never said anyone was right or wrong, never laid criticism on anyone's post, etc. All I did was drop in a point about a possible different use of socialism. I never said any one use was right or wrong, etc.
There was potential confusion in the intended meaning of a word between two people, and I pointed that out. That is the beginning and the end of my intent and interest in this matter.
You successfully pointed out the potential source of confusion in your first reply to my comment. My reply to that comment was intended not to "debate the definition of socialism", but to clarify...
You successfully pointed out the potential source of confusion in your first reply to my comment. My reply to that comment was intended not to "debate the definition of socialism", but to clarify the purpose of my original comment, since you seemed under the impression that I was unaware that conflation of socialism with state-ownership is common. All the comments beyond that have been you assuming I still did not understand your first reply to me and me being frustrated by that (especially given that your assumption of confusion was wrong, given the follow up from the person I replied to).
I gave you a copy pasted response since you and mimic both replied to me with similar comments. Do you think I had any personally directed intent in a copy-paste? I'm sorry you feel slighted or...
since you seemed under the impression that I was unaware that conflation of socialism with state-ownership is common.
I gave you a copy pasted response since you and mimic both replied to me with similar comments. Do you think I had any personally directed intent in a copy-paste?
I'm sorry you feel slighted or that I gave the impression that you don't know that socialism has a broad and ambiguous definition.
All the comments beyond that have been you assuming I still did not understand your first reply to me and me being frustrated by that (especially given that your assumption of confusion was wrong, given the follow up from the person I replied to).
Actually, no. The main reason I've made any of my replies beyond the copy-paste is because of what I perceived as rudeness in your reply, not confusion. The first thing you said after my copy-paste (which I hope in hindsight is self evident not to have had any personally directed intent since I said it to multiple people) was:
I don't think that reply makes any sense when you consider the context of the comment I was replying to in the first place, which was worded "nobody wants socialist farms, corner stores, etc."
Which came across as rude, though maybe it wasn't intended as such. Also, I'm not sure how to read it as anything other than disagreeing with me on the ambiguity of the definition, since that's really all my copy pasted comment said.
This whole thing really feels like you interpreted my first and second (copy-paste) reply to you as some sort of criticism. That wasn't my intent. Afterwards I responded to the perceived rudeness and, ironically, criticism of my disambiguating.
Perhaps we both need to learn to let go of perceived slights on the Internet and give a more generous reading to others posts?
Yeah, I have to admit, I had to think a lot harder to come up with good aspects of capitalism compared to good aspects of socialism. Maybe I'm wrong and socialism is good all the way, and...
Yeah, I have to admit, I had to think a lot harder to come up with good aspects of capitalism compared to good aspects of socialism. Maybe I'm wrong and socialism is good all the way, and capitalism is bad all the way. I would actually love that!
But it's like taking shrooms and telling everyone they should be bees. Could be pure and objective truth, but nothing is gained from that if you are institutionalized for not taking yer damn pills.
I think that's where the comment you initially replied to becomes salient, though -- a lot of socialist policies are pretty damn popular in the US, as long as you don't call them that. Maybe...
I think that's where the comment you initially replied to becomes salient, though -- a lot of socialist policies are pretty damn popular in the US, as long as you don't call them that. Maybe they'll never hear about being bees, but they'll get on board with honey.
Given the blitzkrieg of Trump and his cronies, I'm expecting this to be just the beginning. Given all the chaos, and federal government hiring crunching, and inflation bound to be increasing, I'm expecting SMEs in particular to struggle a lot... which can benefit the billionaires at his side.
Despite all the anti-communist propaganda unleashed during the cold war, I really have to wonder how much inequality American society can endure.
Most Trump supporters are totally fine with socialism as long as it isn't called that, and as long as it doesn't benefit groups they don't like. I know some people who constantly complain about what immigrants are up to, and about how that money should go to homeless citizens or something. But they would never really want a penny to go to homeless citizens and they don't care what happens to farmers unless the price of eggs goes up again.
The whole socialism vs capitalism thing is so stupid. Nobody wants privatized roads, electricity or firefighters and nobody wants socialized farms, corner shops or startups.
The terms "socialism" and "capitalism" are almost exclusively used to divide and entrench. Anyone who wants to abolish one of them completely has obviously never thought this through, because it would be a dystopian nightmare.
Speak for yourself, some of us absolutely do want this. Co-ops for agriculture and grocery stores aren't even a particularly radical or far-left idea -- plenty of both exist in today's US!
A member owned co-op or member owned CSA isn't the same as state run grocery stores, which is what I think qob was referencing.
Sure, but socialism isn't explicitly about government control of the means of production, but about community control. Co-ops are inherently socialist. What qob is likely actually decrying is authoritarian command economics, where control is held at the top instead of relegating local decisions to local groups.
Sure, but since socialist can refer to cooperative or government ownership it is worth disambiguating. Otherwise people just talk past each other. It's a rather disappointing ambiguity of the definition, given that many strongly oppose state ownership but are just fine with a member owned food co-op.
Sure, but co-ops are socialist even if they are not state-run. Equating state-run command economies with socialism betrays a very low level of knowledge about socialism and socialization.
(eta: lmao @MimicSquid I swear I wasn't trying to copy your opening, you just said the same thing but better)
See my response to mimic squid:
I don't think that reply makes any sense when you consider the context of the comment I was replying to in the first place, which was worded "nobody wants socialist farms, corner stores, etc."
I mean, I said I suspected they were referring to state ownership. You can ask them yourself. Otherwise I'm not sure why someone would intentionally describe a food co-op or CSA as a dystopian nightmare. Unless they hate the crunchy granola crowd just that much. I've often seen people disagree about socialism with different versions of it in mind, so it is usually worth more specifically clarifying what is meant with respect to ownership, state vs community, and to what extent, promoting community owned vs outlawing private ownership.
From Merriam Webster's definition of socialism:
That leaves a lot of room for confusion to simply use the word "socialist."
My comment amounted to correcting an inaccurately narrow definition of socialism. I did not introduce the word "socialist" to the conversation and merely was accurately pointing out that things like co-ops, which are widely popular, count as "socialist" and thus saying "no one wants socialist farms" and such isn't accurate. The fact that "socialism" describes a variety of different related political theories regarding collective or government ownership as stated in the definition you quote, was precisely my point.
The person who wrote the comment I initially replied to responded positively, fwiw, and didn't even claim that they were initially talking exclusively about state ownership, so it's unclear to me why you need to quote the dictionary at me -- especially a definition that backs up the way I used the term, at that. It comes across as extremely condescending, especially when compared with the response from the actual author of the comment I replied to.
This doesn't feel like a productive discussion. Either you are looking to argue what someone else was thinking, which I have no interest in and isn't productive; Or you are trying to make the point that I shouldn't have suggested there was confusion on the use of socialism between you and qob, which feels weird and unproductive; Or you are looking to debate some aspect of socialism, which I've fairly carefully avoided expressing an opinion on; or something completely different that is unproductive by nature of me not knowing what it is.
The only reason I brought in the definition of socialism was to show how it can contribute to confusion if you aren't clear about what type is being discussed. That qob never clarified one way or another, or responded congenialy, etc isn't really the point, at least for me, because I never said anyone was right or wrong, never laid criticism on anyone's post, etc. All I did was drop in a point about a possible different use of socialism. I never said any one use was right or wrong, etc.
There was potential confusion in the intended meaning of a word between two people, and I pointed that out. That is the beginning and the end of my intent and interest in this matter.
You successfully pointed out the potential source of confusion in your first reply to my comment. My reply to that comment was intended not to "debate the definition of socialism", but to clarify the purpose of my original comment, since you seemed under the impression that I was unaware that conflation of socialism with state-ownership is common. All the comments beyond that have been you assuming I still did not understand your first reply to me and me being frustrated by that (especially given that your assumption of confusion was wrong, given the follow up from the person I replied to).
I gave you a copy pasted response since you and mimic both replied to me with similar comments. Do you think I had any personally directed intent in a copy-paste?
I'm sorry you feel slighted or that I gave the impression that you don't know that socialism has a broad and ambiguous definition.
Actually, no. The main reason I've made any of my replies beyond the copy-paste is because of what I perceived as rudeness in your reply, not confusion. The first thing you said after my copy-paste (which I hope in hindsight is self evident not to have had any personally directed intent since I said it to multiple people) was:
Which came across as rude, though maybe it wasn't intended as such. Also, I'm not sure how to read it as anything other than disagreeing with me on the ambiguity of the definition, since that's really all my copy pasted comment said.
This whole thing really feels like you interpreted my first and second (copy-paste) reply to you as some sort of criticism. That wasn't my intent. Afterwards I responded to the perceived rudeness and, ironically, criticism of my disambiguating.
Perhaps we both need to learn to let go of perceived slights on the Internet and give a more generous reading to others posts?
Yeah, I have to admit, I had to think a lot harder to come up with good aspects of capitalism compared to good aspects of socialism. Maybe I'm wrong and socialism is good all the way, and capitalism is bad all the way. I would actually love that!
But it's like taking shrooms and telling everyone they should be bees. Could be pure and objective truth, but nothing is gained from that if you are institutionalized for not taking yer damn pills.
I think that's where the comment you initially replied to becomes salient, though -- a lot of socialist policies are pretty damn popular in the US, as long as you don't call them that. Maybe they'll never hear about being bees, but they'll get on board with honey.
Revenge of the dumb, entitled suburbanite.
On a tangent, I'm very annoyed that these source links are facebook redirects.
Maybe they shouldn't have voted for a known liar and cheat who was allied with techno feudal oligarchs.
More detail from the New York times
Gift link