Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 98

Thread: The ineffable quality of socialism....

  1. Top | #1
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    20,710
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,210
    Rep Power
    91

    The ineffable quality of socialism....

    Kinda weird.
    My coworkers will admit that if there is, say, a cold spike in Texas, then getting food, heat to the tax payers in that emergency is the purpose of gubbmint, the reason we pay taxes.
    If the emergency is a hurricane, then food, shelter, clean water is the purpose/reason.
    Tornados, brush fires, floods, all emergencies where citizens face threats justifying govt. spending our money on our emergency needs. Food, water, temporary shelter, funds for rebuilding.... Floridz Man tosding rolls of paper towels to the newly homeless....

    Somehow, if the emergency is a need for rent money, so they don't add to our homeless problem, that's socialism. For reasons none can detail before suddenly it's time to "get back to work."

    And socialism seems to be defined as people with jobs paying for poor people to get free shit. So, rent money for people working three jobs isn't socialism, right?
    I am not dead. I am fine.
    Appreciate the concerns expressed.
    I am burned out a bit on the repeated nonsense.

  2. Top | #2
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    31,839
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    74,312
    Rep Power
    100
    Socialism is whatever help or aid they think they'll never need.

  3. Top | #3
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,360
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Kinda weird.
    My coworkers will admit that if there is, say, a cold spike in Texas, then getting food, heat to the tax payers in that emergency is the purpose of gubbmint, the reason we pay taxes.
    If the emergency is a hurricane, then food, shelter, clean water is the purpose/reason.
    Tornados, brush fires, floods, all emergencies where citizens face threats justifying govt. spending our money on our emergency needs. Food, water, temporary shelter, funds for rebuilding.... Floridz Man tosding rolls of paper towels to the newly homeless....

    Somehow, if the emergency is a need for rent money, so they don't add to our homeless problem, that's socialism. For reasons none can detail before suddenly it's time to "get back to work."

    And socialism seems to be defined as people with jobs paying for poor people to get free shit. So, rent money for people working three jobs isn't socialism, right?
    Actually, I remember plenty of Trumpers getting mad about sending any relief money to California after our wildfire season last year.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  4. Top | #4
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    17,159
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    17,866
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Socialism is paying for whatever help or aid they think they'll never need.
    FIFY

  5. Top | #5
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    20,710
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,210
    Rep Power
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Actually, I remember plenty of Trumpers getting mad about sending any relief money to California after our wildfire season last year.
    Yeah, but only because Trump said it first. Monkey see,monkey throw doo-doo. He's not shouting about that right now, so my coworkers are free to remember fires in whatevee state they grew up in...

  6. Top | #6
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,360
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Actually, I remember plenty of Trumpers getting mad about sending any relief money to California after our wildfire season last year.
    Yeah, but only because Trump said it first. Monkey see,monkey throw doo-doo. He's not shouting about that right now, so my coworkers are free to remember fires in whatevee state they grew up in...
    Just sayin', there's no real basement to what they'll stoop to.

    In my experience, if you question a Republican on this, they'll insist that the tax dollars were already "stolen" from them, so they are now "owed" the aid in return when a hurricane hits or what have you. Like, ideally they wouldn't need help, but since the Government has impoverished the country, now it owes them back. That isn't socialism, it's just their fair due, like Ayn Rand's noble pirates looting the Fed to get their honestly earned wealth back at the end of Atlas Shrugged. Whereas, "welfare" in their imagination all or mostly goes to wicked people who don't pay taxes, such as Millions Of Illegals and the mythical Welfare Queen. So that's socialism.

    It isn't an eocnomic system they're proposing - Republicans are incapable of higher order thinking such as planning for next year's budget or the outcome of future disasters - but rather the next step in an endless tit for tat game of attrition over a pile of dwindling resources with enemy nations, races, sexualities, and so forth.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  7. Top | #7
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    32,472
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,224
    Rep Power
    100
    The fundamental difference here is a need for things due to a supply disruption vs a need for things due to not being able to afford them.

    (Not that it's a valid reason to distinguish who needs help. The current problem is a supply disruption of safe jobs.)

  8. Top | #8
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    20,710
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,210
    Rep Power
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    The fundamental difference here is a need for things due to a supply disruption vs a need for things due to not being able to afford them.

    (Not that it's a valid reason to distinguish who needs help. The current problem is a supply disruption of safe jobs.)
    so, that's not a difference.
    The calamity du jour interrupted my supply of (water/cash/heat) and i do not have a two-month supply set aside like a prepper/rich person/Mormon.

  9. Top | #9
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    20,376
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    36,062
    Rep Power
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Kinda weird.
    My coworkers will admit that if there is, say, a cold spike in Texas, then getting food, heat to the tax payers in that emergency is the purpose of gubbmint, the reason we pay taxes.
    If the emergency is a hurricane, then food, shelter, clean water is the purpose/reason.
    Yes, natural disasters are an emergency affecting most people in a geographical area at the same time, so it requires special assistance.

    Somehow, if the emergency is a need for rent money, so they don't add to our homeless problem, that's socialism. For reasons none can detail before suddenly it's time to "get back to work."
    There is a difference if that "need for rent money" is due to some emergency, like a health issue or a big ticket item breaking (a new tranny for a car is not cheap), or if it is chronic? And then is it due to too little income or too much spending? If you struggle to pay rent because you have to have the latest iPhoene, or pay a lease on that Benz [not hypothetical; I used to work with a woman who got evicted but drove an R350] or have to have that new LeBron sneaker or dunk NFT, then why should the society be bailing you out all the time?

    And socialism seems to be defined as people with jobs paying for poor people to get free shit.
    Socialism is defined as the economic system dominated by public ownership of the means of production.

    So, rent money for people working three jobs isn't socialism, right?
    1. Technically they may be three jobs, but at least some of those will be heavily part time, like Door Dashing for 10 hours a week or something
    2. Do you really know anybody working three jobs struggling to pay rent? If they do, I suspect it's because of frivolous spending.

  10. Top | #10
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    6,129
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    9,040
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Yes, natural disasters are an emergency affecting most people in a geographical area at the same time, so it requires special assistance.


    There is a difference if that "need for rent money" is due to some emergency, like a health issue or a big ticket item breaking (a new tranny for a car is not cheap), or if it is chronic? And then is it due to too little income or too much spending? If you struggle to pay rent because you have to have the latest iPhoene, or pay a lease on that Benz [not hypothetical; I used to work with a woman who got evicted but drove an R350] or have to have that new LeBron sneaker or dunk NFT, then why should the society be bailing you out all the time?

    And socialism seems to be defined as people with jobs paying for poor people to get free shit.
    Socialism is defined as the economic system dominated by public ownership of the means of production.

    So, rent money for people working three jobs isn't socialism, right?
    1. Technically they may be three jobs, but at least some of those will be heavily part time, like Door Dashing for 10 hours a week or something
    2. Do you really know anybody working three jobs struggling to pay rent? If they do, I suspect it's because of frivolous spending.
    I reject your definition.

    In the same way that Satanism has different definitions based on context, so to does "socialism".

    You are thinking of Marxist Socialism, the "LeVey" version of socialism. Marxist Socialists, like LeVeyan Satanists, are just edgy garbage teens.

    I would say a significant, perhaps even a majority of "socialists" are not Marxist Socialists.

    There is another socialism. In fact there are probably many. The core of this OTHER socialism is "love thy neighbor as thyself". It has nothing to do with who has what property, but rather is an instruction to NOT BE A SOLIPSISTIC PIECE OF SHIT.

    Now, while this doesn't directly speak to economics (it is more a core operational paradigm), it does suggest that the solipsism of capitalism is still right out.

    Many such socialists instead see the value in a compromise between the extreme that is ,"solipsistic Randian capitalism" and "Marxist Socialism".

    As such, I am absolutely a socialist, but I am also absolutely not a Marxist Socialist. Instead, I recognize that the concepts of "ownership" we use to play this game is shit, and that we need some Errata on that.

    How YOU want to define socialism does not matter. You haven't seemed to be able to get over that remarkably low hill in all the years I have known you. People will have their own meanings and intents of usage, and it is not hard to ASK what they mean by it, but enforcing axiomatic definitions is not going to work out well for you

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •