Are right wingers irrational? How do we have socialism?

Economics Economics Questions
1

If we had socialism everyone would be equal and the world would be living in a kumbya state and then it would be perfect. There would be a real distribution of wealth. The top 20% of the wealthiest people in America own 80% of the wealth and this hasn’t been by accident. The federal reserve has put all the wealth in the hands of elite power brokers and have given “private” banks a legitimate way to screw the people. If we had free banking more people would have more wealth and we wouldn’t have as many problems.

Secondly, right-wingers and conservatives always say that the government is trying to stick it to the corporations. Maybe that is true in the case of Goldman Sachs and the case of anti-trust funds and the case in BP, but aside from these few bad apples that the government goes after to appease popular anti-corporate sentiment the government is in bed with rich fat cats lobbyists on k-street. If anything we’re a fascist corporatist controlled plutocracy. Remember the 2008 bailouts for the rich anyone?

In response, conservatives say that tax increases are communist or socialistic… but yes it’s true that taxation is theft but the real theft occurs with the federal reserve system and the transference of wealth that occurs when you take the money out of the hands of the people and put it in the hands of the government. The government has taken people’s real money. The only distribution of wealth that’s going on is for the few wealthy elite.

How is this socialism? Are right-wingers truly irrational? Can someone explain it to me? Maybe you could say Fanny-Freddie Mac and the FCC are evil socialist institutions… but even with FCC, FCC claimed that it wanted to bring more balance to cable broadcasting but instead it gives all the corporate channels to the status-quo and shuts out independent channels. So even government agencies that might be perceived to be socialistic are really quite fascistic.

Again, how is this socialism?

2

Socialism is communal or state ownership or control of the means of production and/or the means of distribution. So yes, there are many socialized industries in the United States. Also, fascism advocates heavy government involvement in the economy, so it’s socialism. You don’t need to like the term, but these are just definitions here.

3

Potato. Potaato.

4

MisguidedThoughts, socialism calls for the elimination of the private means of production. The government owning means of production doesn’t mean that the economy is necessarily a socialist ones. All that means is that the government owns certain means of production just like private investors do. What we have here is a mix of private and public ownership of production and when you have joint ownership of the means of production as with the case of the fed, that’s fascism. Saying that socialism is fascism is just terribly wrong and is probably the most stupidest thing that you could say about any subject. Lrn2differentiate between the two.

5

I’m not going to waste much time arguing over definitions. Communal or state ownership or control of the means of production and/or distribution. This is how I, and many others, define socialism. By this criteria, fascism is a form of socialism. Also by this criteria, many sectors of the US economy are socialized. If you have a different definition of socialism fine, but I feel as though my definition is more commonly used and useful when talking about economic systems.

6

If we had socialism everyone would be equal and the world would be living in a kumbya state and then it would be perfect.

Haha. No. But close. Socialism isn’t utopia. It just better reflects a true meritocracy, and is far more practical (in my view).

There would be a real distribution of wealth. The top 20% of the wealthiest people in America own 80% of the wealth and this hasn’t been by accident. The federal reserve has put all the wealth in the hands of elite power brokers and have given “private” banks a legitimate way to screw the people. If we had free banking more people would have more wealth and we wouldn’t have as many problems.

Look into that further and you will find hte top 1% owns 35% of the nations wealth. I agree with the rest, just pointing that out.

Maybe that is true in the case of Goldman Sachs and the case of anti-trust funds and the case in BP, but aside from these few bad apples that the government goes after to appease popular anti-corporate sentiment the government is in bed with rich fat cats lobbyists on k-street.

Sachs? If the government is trying to screw Sachs that means Sachs is trying to screw itself. They pretty much control the government.

In response, conservatives say that tax increases are communist or socialistic

Silly right? How could you have taxes in a stateless society?

real theft occurs with the federal reserve system and the transference of wealth that occurs when you take the money out of the hands of the people and put it in the hands of the government. The government has taken people’s real money. The only distribution of wealth that’s going on is for the few wealthy elite.

Here here! (Tho I would say “the bulk of.” Social security redistributes wealth. But every dollar spent on it is a penny made for the owners of the FED. It also serves as a handy insurance against populist revolution.)

How is this socialism? Are right-wingers truly irrational?

It’s not. Neither was the USSR or China, or Cuba. State capitalism wrapped up in leftist rhetoric =! socialism.

Yes, sometimes they are (and so are leftists sometimes as well) irrational. Like when they try to act like it isn’t rich people that create and maintain states, Or when they try to act as if coercion isn’t a part of human nature as much as altruism or self-interest is. Or as BrainPolice pointed out in another thread; the individualist/collectivist debate (leftists are just as guilty there tho).

You will find irrationality everywhere. Even Einstein refused to believe the universe had a beginning.

7

I feel as though my definition is more commonly used and useful when talking about economic systems

creationism is more common than geology as well. That doesn’t mean it’s right lol.

8

I’m sorry what? Language is determined by an inter-subjective consensus. The inter-subjective consensus determines what socialism means. The criteria for what’s scientifically accurate is determined by whatever sort of guidelines “the scientific community” decides is appropriate to apply to empiricism. A subjective consensus rather than an inter-subjective consensus. When I say, “creationism is scientifically inaccurate”, what I’m doing is appealing to conclusions drawn from empirical observations scrutinized by the criteria of a bunch of “experts”. Not the same things at all buddy. And to really make this point effectively, I’ll say this. No definition of socialism is any more correct than any other. But if I use a non-standard definition of socialism, I’m just confusing people. You can’t argue on that point. The meaning of socialism is dependent on what most people think it means. But if a creationist says he’s right by his standard of proof(in this case, the “because the bible said so”, you actually can argue with his statement. You can argue with his standard of proof. If you convince him is standard of proof is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with reality you can then show how his other positions are inconsistent with reality.

9

You are correct that “right-wingers” (I hold this to be republicans and similar conservatives) often call America socialist, and you are also correct in that this is wrong. However, the reason they do so is because their opposition promotes many socialist principles.

The United States is largely held by two political parties. The Republicans, who tend to tug the US in a direction somewhere between fascism and the modern perception of capitalism (Keynesian-influenced) and the Democrats, who tend to tug in a direction that resembles the social corporatism visible in certain European states. The whole thing ends up somewhere in the middle, with elements of fascism, socialism, corporatism and Keynesian economic principles all rolled up into a large, corrupt, and very bureaucratic state. And it’s very, very ugly. At least socialism has an identity. The result of this amalgamation is that the politicians, bureaucrats, and the corporations and banks tied to them benefit at the expense of everyone else (even a seeming beneficial ‘gift’, such as state-provided healthcare, serves to further empower those already in power at the expense of those who supposedly benefit).

10

^ I couldn’t have said it better myself.

No definition of socialism is any more correct than any other.

Well that’s just ridiculous. I can understand it at least if you want to be consistent and say that Marx’s definition of capitalism is just as valid as Rothbard’s.

But if I use a non-standard definition of socialism, I’m just confusing people.

What is “standard?” If it is merely inter-subjective, and not dependant on the theory behind it, than it is perfectly valid to say modern america is a capitalist nation. As most people define it as such (just check any republicans speeches).

You can’t argue on that point. The meaning of socialism is dependent on what most people think it means.

And why exactly is evolution not dependant upon what most people think it means? Because a bunch of experts made a standard?

But if a creationist says he’s right by his standard of proof(in this case, the “because the bible said so”, you actually can argue with his statement. You can argue with his standard of proof. If you convince him is standard of proof is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with reality you can then show how his other positions are inconsistent with reality

Definitely. But that doesn’t mean creationism is not the viewpoint that the Bible is the accurate explanation of creation.

11

Lol, you think left and right actually exist.

If I make something I should be allowed to sell it for a piece of silver or whatever I consider commodity so long as people are willing to pay it. In a socialist society this would be illegal. What should my punishment be? Should I be thrown into a gulag or just shot in the head on the spot?

12

It is just as valid as Rothbard’s definition. And you’re right, it is valid to say America is a capitalist nation. I generally don’t use the word capitalism for that exact reason. Capitalism, as it’s colloquially used today, does not refer to a free market as most AE would describe it. The meaning of any word is dependent only on what society “thinks”. “They” make an association of a series of sounds or sound with an idea. Now to your next point, let’s assume an objective reality. How do we learn things about this objective reality? We need a standard of proof. Whether or not everyone believes it has no bearing on the effectiveness of a standard of proof at describing the objective reality. WIth language it’s different. There is no objective meaning of the word “socialism”. Whereas there is(at least in my scenario) an objective reality to describe.