Explaining Socialism

[BaneTheBrawler]

All I can say is "LOL@SWAMPY". Carry on.

[Lucavi]

This is why the "political rhetoric" in our country will never improve. Elizabeth Warren was a law professor at Harvard. Presumably she's in the 1% intellectually. Yet she sounds like a pyromaniac in a field of straw men. Not only that, but she says the rich didn't pay for any of that. Last I checked the rich paid taxes to.

Not even a Harvard Law Professor can recognize a straw man argument. We're fucked.

They pay a lot less, percentage-wise, than the rest of us.

[Xantavia]

Swampys right guys tax cuts are great the economy. Remember when we did that huge tax cut and we went into a recession anyway?

Agreed. I believe the correct response is that without huge tax cuts, the recession would have been even worse. Or at least that's what my redneck brother in law says would have happened, and he's a Fox News kind of guy so I'm sure its the truth.

[Demosthenes11]

The first problem in that reply is not just a quote, and not just a picture of a quote, but a picture of a quote from a woman who went from Academia (being paid to lie to yourself) to Politics (being paid to lie to others).

you said a bunch of words without saying anything...

This is why the "political rhetoric" in our country will never improve. Elizabeth Warren was a law professor at Harvard. Presumably she's in the 1% intellectually. Yet she sounds like a pyromaniac in a field of straw men. Not only that, but she says the rich didn't pay for any of that. Last I checked the rich paid taxes to.

Not even a Harvard Law Professor can recognize a straw man argument. We're fucked.

...you miss the point a lot don't you?

[Sera]

This fucking thread...

[Coren]

This is why the "political rhetoric" in our country will never improve. Elizabeth Warren was a law professor at Harvard. Presumably she's in the 1% intellectually. Yet she sounds like a pyromaniac in a field of straw men. Not only that, but she says the rich didn't pay for any of that. Last I checked the rich paid taxes to.

Not even a Harvard Law Professor can recognize a straw man argument. We're fucked.

The original question posed to her regarded "class warfare". She explained that asking the rich to pay taxes is not class warfare, and that since nobody gets rich in a bubble, people that have immense amounts of money are simply paying back into the system that helped build their fortunes. In other words, a "straw man" is something you read about in a philosophy 101 book, but otherwise don't understand.

To further her statement, I would argue that the "rich" benefit disproportionally more from our current system, while fighting to pay less on a yearly basis and fighting to keep more for themselves (from estate taxes, etc). There is not a single person that made a ton of money literally all by themselves (short of inheriting, which I'm obviously not talking about).

Take the bit about roads. Do you know how much wear and tear my car causes on a road versus 80k, 100k, and 120k lb trucks? What about the police forces? I don't have a lot worth stealing. But a company, or a bank, on the other hand has plenty to protect.

I think republicans are scared shitless of Warren. I hope she runs for pres in 4 years.

[Ashmada]

I used to explain the difference between socialism and communism was just a question of degree, of moderation - and to a certain extent, it is.


But watching old Trek movies made me come up with a way to explain said difference:

Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan tell us "the good of many outweigh the good of the few/of one".

Star Trek III - The Search for Spock rectifies it to "the good of the one outweighs the good of the many".

Obviously, in the movies it's highlighting the noble sacrifices of all the crew. But it's a good illustration of the difference between socialism and (theoretical, not the dictatorships it spawned) communism:
- In the latter, the individual works for the collectivity's wellbeing and everyone is a slave to the system.
- In the former, the collectivity works for the unlucky individuals, who eventually improve on their luck and contribute to the collectivity, whereas they wouldn't have hadn't they received help when they needed it.

At least, that's the idealistic versions. I leave it to the cynics to dismiss it as naïve (even though it's my own explanation, it sounds cheesy even to my ears, so I can understand the cynics on this).

[Greatguardian]

I used to explain the difference between socialism and communism was just a question of degree, of moderation - and to a certain extent, it is.

But watching old Trek movies made me come up with a way to explain said difference:

Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan tell us "the good of many outweigh the good of the few/of one".

Star Trek III - The Search for Spock rectifies it to "the good of the one outweighs the good of the many".

Obviously, in the movies it's highlighting the noble sacrifices of all the crew. But it's a good illustration of the difference between socialism and (theoretical, not the dictatorships it spawned) communism:
- In the latter, the individual works for the collectivity's wellbeing and everyone is a slave to the system.
- In the former, the collectivity works for the unlucky individuals, who eventually improve on their luck and contribute to the collectivity, whereas they wouldn't have hadn't they received help when they needed it.

At least, that's the idealistic versions. I leave it to the cynics to dismiss it as naïve (even though it's my own explanation, it sounds cheesy even to my ears, so I can understand the cynics on this).

Star Trek is one of the best examples of optimistic socialism in modern media, hands down. I have a different take on the themes of those two movies personally, but that's what they're there for.

As for naivety, that's only true today because we live in a post-modern society riddled with backlash against modernist ideals. When those movies were made, they were not considered naive at all.

This is something I can (and have) write several term papers about though, so I'll spare this thread the massive derail.

[Coren]

Star Trek is one of the best examples of optimistic socialism in modern media, hands down. I have a different take on the themes of those two movies personally, but that's what they're there for.

As for naivety, that's only true today because we live in a post-modern society riddled with backlash against modernist ideals. When those movies were made, they were not considered naive at all.

This is something I can (and have) write several term papers about though, so I'll spare this thread the massive derail.

Given the current direction of the thread, I'm not so sure a derail would be that bad.

[Ikarys]

You genuinely think that people should have to pay out of pocket for police, fire departments, and the like?

Why not? Does paying for people who never learn from their mistakes really account to "social responsibility?" If a jobless pyromaniac sets their house ablaze four times, and someone comes by each time to save them from burning to death, does anyone really benefit? The answer is no. This person has done nothing to contribute to society, but the liberal mindset of shame and self-loathing paints this person as a part of our beautiful social rainbow, to be paid for like a national park, when all that "pooling the wealth" does is prolong social ills.

The minute that fire spreads to the house of someone who actually paid for a fire department? Put that sucker out! Better yet, multiple fire departments could compete for your business; the team with the fastest response time would see an increase in customers, and make the other departments more competitive just to stay in business.

[Ikarys]

To be serious though, who decided socialism was going to be such a dirty word? Was "Communist" too incendiary / farfetched? Was there some kind of memo where they said "sure, call the president a muslim terrorist, that can't be argued, but if we say he's a communist, the backlash will somehow be worse"? Secular and Socialist aren't words that somehow go against the grain of Democracy, and indeed, don't go against the Constitution. There are way better words to use as ammunition.

[Dimmauk]

I always laugh at the free loader image people paint when the subject of socialism comes up. Nevermind the large group of people(children) that would benefit, lets focus on that one free loader.

[Kanriel]

Why not? Does paying for people who never learn from their mistakes really account to "social responsibility?" If a jobless pyromaniac sets their house ablaze four times, and someone comes by each time to save them from burning to death, does anyone really benefit? The answer is no. This person has done nothing to contribute to society, but the liberal mindset of shame and self-loathing paints this person as a part of our beautiful social rainbow, to be paid for like a national park, when all that "pooling the wealth" does is prolong social ills.

The minute that fire spreads to the house of someone who actually paid for a fire department? Put that sucker out! Better yet, multiple fire departments could compete for your business; the team with the fastest response time would see an increase in business, and make the other departments more competitive just to stay in business!

And how would you do this with police departments? How could you possibly keep all these businesses in-line with what people wish for them to do without a situation far worse than say the Super Troopers scenario of "my jurisdiction, no mine!" BS with corruption all over the place?

As well, after spent some time delivering pizza back in the day there are times where you're always on time, and some nights, due to a variety of circumstances (how many drivers there are, how busy carryout/dine-in is, how many people are calling for delivery, etc.) where you're slow. What happens in this fire department scenario if you call one fire department and they're backed up and can't get there for an hour? Do you call another? Do you call multiple and first one gets the business, the others eat the loss of not getting there in time? You'd quickly have fire businesses running out of money and out of business...

Not to mention I'd wager the fire department, and likely the police department as well, spend a lot more money than they can possibly take in. It would turn into a health insurance scenario where everyone needs insurance to possibly pay for the fire department to show up or police to investigate a crime. And so anyone who doesn't have good money won't get any service at all. Not seeing how that works for the good of...anyone. At minimum the rich people paying less taxes will likely be spending that money on their own private security, so all it does is fuck poor people.

[ronin sparthos]

I always laugh at the free loader image people paint when the subject of socialism comes up. Nevermind the large group of people(children) that would benefit, lets focus on that one free loader.

The freeloaders are dirty, filthy minorities that's why.

[Jeryhn]

It is utterly impossible to simultaneously love a country and hate its people.

Dunno about this one. Ever been to France?

[Jeryhn]

The freeloaders are dirty, filthy minorities that's why.

Buying skittles and iced tea with dat welfare check.

[Arelian]

Why not? Does paying for people who never learn from their mistakes really account to "social responsibility?" If a jobless pyromaniac sets their house ablaze four times, and someone comes by each time to save them from burning to death, does anyone really benefit? The answer is no. This person has done nothing to contribute to society, but the liberal mindset of shame and self-loathing paints this person as a part of our beautiful social rainbow, to be paid for like a national park, when all that "pooling the wealth" does is prolong social ills.

The minute that fire spreads to the house of someone who actually paid for a fire department? Put that sucker out! Better yet, multiple fire departments could compete for your business; the team with the fastest response time would see an increase in customers, and make the other departments more competitive just to stay in business.

Wait, so... When the arsonist in my town burned my house down last summer, I should've been allowed to die in said fire and the arsonist not brought to justice if I were to be a poor college student making an attempt to better myself but not having nearly enough income to afford "good" fire safety/police force coverage?

[Greatguardian]

Pretty sure Ikarys was just trolling the lot of you.

[Arelian]

Even if he is, there's still far too many people who think that way.

[Dimmauk]

Maybe we should privatize police, fire department, and the roads?