Journal snowgirl's Journal: Let's get something straight... 27
EVERY party in the United States has some socialist policies.
This is an undeniable fact.
Labeling the Democrats as "Socialist" however does a number of things:
a) it steps on the toes of the Socialist Party of the United States, and all the other socialist parties. But that's a third party, so who cares.
b) the socialist parties all agree that the Democrats aren't socialist enough.
c) the people who openly call themselves socialists don't consider Democrats socialists.
d) nobody but the people on the right seem to think that Democrats are socialists.
So, defining Democrats as socialists just muddies the waters and makes an already overloaded term even more overloaded, and makes it impossible to keep shit straight.
"But I can quote some obscure French guy who says socialism is blah, which I can shoehorn into applying to blah."
God damn it, you're fucking playing semantics games. The people who proudly wear the term "Socialist" don't think Democrats are socialist enough to be "Socialist". How more clearly can I put this? Ideas and plans, and programs, all of these can be socialist, or at least a part of socialism, and the whole god damn United States is already chock full of socialist programs, many of which the right openly support as well.
The United States is already partly a socialist country. We practice some socialism here. This is again, undeniable fact. Are Democrats pushing us towards more socialism rather than less? Well, yeah, they are. But to those of us standing squarely in the "fucking dissolve all corporations and hand over the reigns to the workers" Socialists are still going to bitch and moan every god damn time you call the Democrats socialists, because either you're making a statement that applies to every god damn politician in the country, or you're equating them to us... and we think they're nearly as bat-shit crazy right-wing as you are.
So, let's stop arguing about people being socialist or not, because the term applies as well to Republicans as to Democrats. Let's label people Socialists when they're part of a Socialist party, and we can get to discussing PROGRAMS and governmental actions that are either socialist or not.
Beyond all of which, WHY WOULD THE RIGHT FUCKING CARE if the Democrats are socialists or not? I only care that people call them socialists, because they're not a fucking Socialist party. You know what? Republicans are also democrats! Because you know, they advocate a form of democratic government. And Democrats are republicans, because you know, they advocate for a republican form of government.
These party terms are so fucking overloaded that they can't be used anymore. And what fucking politician in the United States is not a die hard democrat, republican and socialist? Of course, only some of them are Democrats, Republicans or Socialists. So, we confine our discussion to those party names, not to the generic ideas, because seriously... pudge? You're a fucking democrat, too.
Stop (Score:2)
You must surely have something better to do at Sunday, 3:30 AM than to worry about Pudge. He isn't worth it. Most of his ilk are not worth it.
That said, I'm killing time at work, so there are two things I'd like to mention.
First, your point 'd' above is incomplete. There are also the people the people you mention talk to. The former (the Becks and Gingrichs) have an agenda to push and they can do that with the 'socialist' label. Unfortunately, many who are ignorant rely on the 'teachings' of people such as
Re: (Score:1)
He isn't worth it. Most of his ilk are not worth it... You can and should only waste time with him if it entertains you.
You got it...
However, his new *liberal fascism* book that he's touting, I think it's called "Pudge Shrugged" (He does that a lot), brings up the very valid point that his vote effects us all. Or to misquote somebody else, *We are getting the government that he deserves*. We are being locked up in his prison. Well, those who are playing his game anyway... Man! How he can draw a crowd!
Re: (Score:2)
That sums it up best. It doesn't matter what the facts are, or how poorly worded of a response he's typed, Pudge cannot mentally accept being wrong. He seriously just doesn't have the mental fortitude to admit a mistake. I've gone around and around with him just trying to get him to admit he's wrong about a single small thing. Just to admit that he's not right about every single detail. He simply cannot do it.
It's like trying to argue with a 2 year old, frankly. He simply do
Re: (Score:2)
*nod nod* I know a lot of people like this. They're also in my family. My entire family is wicked smart, and nearly all of us have a compulsion to refuse to be wrong. My mother and I are the only ones who even have a fraction of the ability to admit that we're wrong, and reintegrate empirical fact and such.
Who knows, perhaps I'm getting therapeutic effect from the arguing by being able to lash out with the anger that needs to be expressed to my abusive father, whom I refuse to talk to....
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you can't count on this level of therapy without making a series of sock puppet accounts. I still have no idea what particularly set pudge off about me.
Then again, a large lesson from my divorce was not to try to figure out the motivations of the insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you can't count on this level of therapy without making a series of sock puppet accounts. I still have no idea what particularly set pudge off about me.
Then again, a large lesson from my divorce was not to try to figure out the motivations of the insane.
I don't really expect this to be about figuring out the motivations of the insane, or even pudge, were it the case that he not be insane. However, I think it's more about expressing my anger and vent my personal issues against my dad.
I won't go out of my way to provoke pudge, or communicate with pudge... but if he feels the need to come into my JE and harass me, then I'll make reasonable use of him.
Yep (Score:2)
All these labels being tossed around as derogatory terms is why I don't get involved in politics. People try to turn everything into a two sided argument when as you point out, things really aren't that clear cut here.
I know most humans like to feel part of a group and for some reason ostracise anyone who is not part of that group, but when that ostracism becomes insults or violence is where I stop wanting to be involved. There days this mainly occurs through politics, religion and sports.
I agree with the o
Re: (Score:2)
All these labels being tossed around as derogatory terms is why I don't get involved in politics. People try to turn everything into a two sided argument when as you point out, things really aren't that clear cut here.
That you can avoid these sorts of arguments makes you a better person than I. :) *hugs* You wins an internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh believe me, I still manage to argue over the silliest things sometimes, just I try not to take a stand on the more obvious social divides xD
But I shall cherish this internet and virtual hug in my virtual trophy cabinet, and reply in kind *hug*
moof (Score:1)
Let's label people Socialists when they're part of a Socialist party,
Then what do you suggest we label people who want more socialism than we already have, even if maybe not as much as purists want? Because that's what people like me on the Right really mean (since we don't give a damn about purity on the Left), when we call someone a socialist.
Besides that, the flaw with your proposed convention is the implicit assumption that socialists would only join a party with that word in its name, and would never j
Re: (Score:2)
Let's label people Socialists when they're part of a Socialist party,
Then what do you suggest we label people who want more socialism than we already have, even if maybe not as much as purists want? Because that's what people like me on the Right really mean (since we don't give a damn about purity on the Left), when we call someone a socialist.
I think "progressive" fits here. And there isn't a Progressive Party yet, so the term wouldn't be overloaded. Glenn Beck actually already uses it some, but usually just to point out that it means "insidious socialism, rather than revolutionary socialism".
Or, you could just as easily describe their intentions, "They want to advance socialism." vs. "They want to restrain socialism."
Besides that, the flaw with your proposed convention is the implicit assumption that socialists would only join a party with that word in its name, and would never join the Dem party to take advantage of for example it being a major party and where they'd be more likely to get more socialism implemented than otherwise.
I'll grant you that much like Ron Paul is to the Republicans, there could be a Socialist in the Democratic party simply becaus
Re: (Score:1)
My only hesitancy with that is that I think of "Progressive" as somewhat orthogonal to Left and Right -- I think of it as the elites, of both sides, seeking "progress" towards them controlling more and more of society. Whereby there are certainly plenty in the Republican party who seem to indulge in this idea.
He seems to be convinced
Re: (Score:2)
My only hesitancy with that is that I think of "Progressive" as somewhat orthogonal to Left and Right -- I think of it as the elites, of both sides, seeking "progress" towards them controlling more and more of society. Whereby there are certainly plenty in the Republican party who seem to indulge in this idea.
I see that as more of an authoritarianism.
He seems to be convinced that Leftists originally planned to eventually persuade the non-elites to overthrow the ruling classes in a grand revolution. And when that didn't work, the tactic had since been switched to taking over certain American institutions and destroying others, to slowly implement the desired end result, behind the peoples' backs (i.e. so slowly that they wouldn't notice). I'm convinced as well.
This is what my understanding has been as well. Them being the "insidious" socialists that have eschewed revolution for "corruption".
Of course, the leftist position is that they are receiving a democratic mandate to move the nation to the left. It's not corruption, when it is done by valid mandate.
You can argue all you want about "those who would give up liberty for ... blah blah blah", but if the people want it, then they should have the liberty to get it.
But that has what I think is the serious deficiency of having only a direction, and not a magnitude. Like if in physics or mathematics all vectors could only be unit vectors. I think both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were/are for advancing socialism in their presidencies, but to widely differing amounts, and labels that lose this richness are still very inadequate.
*nod no
Re: (Score:1)
but if the people want it, then they should have the liberty to get it.
I completely agree -- let both sides be open and honest about their intentions, and then let the chips fall where they may. My actual hatred for the Left stems from the switching of strategies from, as Glenn Beck puts, revolutionary to evolutionary. If the Left in this country primarily acted in good faith and respected people's dignity to knowingly steer their own destinies, I wouldn't think your side to be evil, just crazy and wrong.
An
Re: (Score:2)
My actual hatred for the Left stems from the switching of strategies from, as Glenn Beck puts, revolutionary to evolutionary. If the Left in this country primarily acted in good faith and respected people's dignity to knowingly steer their own destinies, I wouldn't think your side to be evil, just crazy and wrong.
I'm confused here. You hate the Left, because they switched from "overthrow the government by force" to following the democratic process?
I suppose perhaps it is a bit from a respect for revolutionary change embodied by the Right's respect for the 2nd amendment? With an additional general dislike of change?
Re: (Score:1)
I hate the tactics of fooling people, and sneaking things by them, against the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate the tactics of fooling people, and sneaking things by them, against the rules.
Well, you know that the Democrats are going to push for more socialistic programs... so, where is the "fooling" in this?
So, are you claiming naïvité?
Progressives... (Score:2)
While there does not appear to be a national Progressive Party [wikipedia.org] at present, Oregon, Vermont, and Missouri seem to have them. Minnesota and Wisconsin did in the past.
Robert M. La Follette, Jr. [wikipedia.org] was (along with his father) a driving force behind the Progressive Party in Wisconsin. Very interesting figure. A Republican, but regarded as a "champion of organized labor". Senior year in college, I wrote a seminar paper about him using his private papers in the Library of Congress.
His father [wikipedia.org] was called "arguably
Re: (Score:2)
There's 2 problems. One is, there's a huge difference between calling a certain policy socialist, and calling a person socialist. Since everyone except for perhaps extreme Ayn Rand fanboys support some policies that are leftist, everyone is a socialist if "supports atleast SOME policies that socialits would like" is a sufficient criteria.
The other problem is that in USA, "socialist" is a swear-word. Thus it derails the discussion. People end up discussing if a certain proposal is socialist or not, when inst
Binary disease (Score:2)
I think the entire discussion is blatantly weird.
The real world is not binary. It rarely makes sense to have prolonged discussions if "X is Y" or not, particularily not about multi-faceted issues. The democratic party has hundreds of policies, and thousands of politicians in it. "Socialist" is also not one single clearly defined issue, but rather a point on a continuum.
Offcourse some policies of the democratic party overlap, more or less, with policies that socialists would support. The same is true for the
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think it's a waste of time to discuss if label X or label Y applies. One should instead discuss if the policies suggested makes sense, and would be a net benefit. If the *suggestion* itself is good -- what does it matter which label it comes with ?
I think this is the perhaps the greatest problem in America... with only the two parties, everything polarizes. "We can't support X, because Y supports it!" sort of mentality. People are bullied into supporting something that they don't really support, because if they don't, then "the other side wins!" or something retarded like that.
I'd like to see a more parliamentarian system working in the US, where multiple parties can actually develop, and get things done. As is, under a presidential system, you ha
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. The tendency to binary-thinking, is one of the biggest and most deep-seated cultural problems in America. The real world isn't that simple.
I'm sure you're right that your election-system and resulting two-party-state is part of the reason for that mode of thinking being so prevalent, but I don't think it's the only reason, you see similar thinking on areas that are far away from politics.
Is it overly paranoid to suggest that your ruling class -likes- it this way ? With a large collection of sheeple
Re: (Score:2)
With every year, I see the usa edging ever closer to a feudal system. And I remember what usa used to be about, and I cry a little, inside.
Nearly every election, I debate leaving America. Fortunately, there haven't been any serious blunders in the elections so far. McCain would have been one of them.
As is, I'm still going to be trying to get out of dodge to at least have a breather somewhere more sane, like Germany... then if the US goes to total crap, I can just kind of turn around and request asylum.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, most places worth going, are immigration-restricted. I realize there's a lot more people wanting to move into usa, than out. But I've also had quite a few friends in usa who'd happily consider atleast trying out scandinavia or other parts of europe for a few years, see if they like it.
But, in practice, that seldom happens because you'd need a work-permit for that to get off the ground, and well, the short version is it's tricky to get, there's a few of the usual ways, but it's distinctly nontr
Re: (Score:2)
I'm about 30, I already have a bachelors in computer science. I'm not working, and have been unemployed for nearly 2 years. I've gotten away with this because of the charity of friends. I have been what I consider rich, but I am currently excessively poor.
As for getting to Germany, as a US citizen, I am allowed a 3 month visitors visa, and can even work that entire time. Sometime during the 3 months though, I have to obtain an Arbeitserlaubnis to stay longer. However, having worked for 3 months with a
Re: (Score:2)
Pleased to meet you :)
Yeah, you're right, speaking German is a huge help. English-knowledge is more spotty in Germany than many other European countries.
3 months is a start, but not enough that one really gets behind the surface. A lot of stuff only became really visible to me after a year or so. Because at first I felt in many ways almost like a tourist, despite having close contact to plenty of natives. It's the entire mentality-thing that it takes longest to sort of "get".
I recommend anyone with a chance
Lame (Score:2)
Labeling the Democrats as "Socialist" however does a number of things:
a) it steps on the toes of the Socialist Party of the United States, and all the other socialist parties. But that's a third party, so who cares.
I don't use the capital-letter term, so no, I don't care. I call myself democratic, and republican, and libertarian, despite only having been a Republican and Libertarian. I do not call Democrats "Socialists," but call many of them "socialists."
b) the socialist parties all agree that the Democrats aren't socialist enough.
I don't care about that, either. Libertarians say I am not libertarian enough, but I call myself libertarian anyway.
c) the people who openly call themselves socialists don't consider Democrats socialists.
Ibid.
d) nobody but the people on the right seem to think that Democrats are socialists.
Don't care at all.
So, defining Democrats as socialists just muddies the waters and makes an already overloaded term even more overloaded
I've already proven this is false. In fact, defining the Democrats as socialists is using the term as it has been used since