Why the Democratic Party is deeply disappointing and useless in fixing the real problems of the country.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,402
8,038
136
Since you didn't reply to my prior post, let me put it more succinctly. If we suddenly had universal healthcare, aggressive action on climate change, and everything else you wanted, but no one called it socialism, and most people still thought they didn't like whatever they think "socialism" is, would that be bad? Can you explain why it is important to defend a word? Do you imagine that to convince people of the policies, they must first like this word?
The Republicans went to great lengths to disparage a word (social + ist/ism) without defining it in any way I can see. Why not defend it? They likewise targeted "liberal," "progressive", "politically correct" ... "woke" too. They love guns, taking aim at things they hate. Can they justify their hate? I see little evidence of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,014
8,643
136
The Republicans went to great lengths to disparage a word (social + ist/ism) without defining it in any way I can see. Why not defend it?
Oh, they define it alright, as any government expenditure that they don't like, almost entirely those which benefit the general citizenry rather than the 1%. They profess almost erotic love for the Constitution while passing on the "promote the general welfare" part.

"Socialism" has long been used as a bugaboo by the monied class. And it got further poisoned during the cold war, as communism and socialism got conflated.

In the short term, then, defending the term is a decidedly uphill battle, because, as the popular paraphrase of H.L. Mencken's 1926 quote goes, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Neverteless, I am personally partial to the term "democratic socialism."
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Since you didn't reply to my prior post, let me put it more succinctly. If we suddenly had universal healthcare, aggressive action on climate change, and everything else you wanted, but no one called it socialism, and most people still thought they didn't like whatever they think "socialism" is, would that be bad? Can you explain why it is important to defend a word? Do you imagine that to convince people of the policies, they must first like this word?

There was almost nothing in your post that I disagreed with but what I did I felt I responded to in my reply in post 18. As the thread has gone on a number of people have agreed with me that defending terms is worth doing. I would not give a fig what we call universal health care but we won't get it if it is consistently defeated as being socialism. That it is socialism is why it should be supported. In order for that to be possible the term needs to be explained as many are pointing out. The issue with socialism is that the wealthy don't need other people to help them but will need to be tapped to pay the bills. The capacity of a few to manipulate the masses via the imagination of terror needs to be addressed.

If you sell universal health care as an example as capitalism the right will demonize capitalism. People think in words. He who controls the definitions of words controls the universe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,402
8,038
136
Oh, they define it alright, as any government expenditure that they don't like, almost entirely those which benefit the general citizenry rather than the 1%. They profess almost erotic love for the Constitution while passing on the "promote the general welfare" part.

"Socialism" has long been used as a bugaboo by the monied class. And it got further poisoned during the cold war, as communism and socialism got conflated.

In the short term, then, defending the term is a decidedly uphill battle, because, as the popular paraphrase of H.L. Mencken's 1926 quote goes, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Neverteless, I am personally partial to the term "democratic socialism."
I thoroughly agree. Of course, the people who are behind the resolution are cloak and dagger assassins of social (societal) welfare. In my book "socialism" has 1000x the heart of "capitalism."
 
Last edited:

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,963
27,642
136
I think Democrat platforms are socialistic, that they are people oriented, and that because of that, the word itself needs to be defended. Republicans practice 1984 war is peace branding to destroy the meaning of truth and of words. Truth becomes false and false truth, news becomes fake news. In my opinion, this needs to be fought at every level possible. We are where we are today because truth has no meaning, and for too many Democrats as well as most Republicans.

Explain to me in 50 words or less how voting rights are socialistic??

How is police reform socialistic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fanatical Meat

digiram

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2004
3,991
172
106
Next resolution will be against wokeness then saying merry Christmas,etc. All Fox News talking points. Smh
 

akenbennu

Senior member
Jul 24, 2005
677
259
136
Next resolution will be against wokeness then saying merry Christmas,etc. All Fox News talking points. Smh

We had this discussion back in the 90s and it was silly then, it was called "political correctness".
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
Explain to me in 50 words or less how voting rights are socialistic??

How is police reform socialistic?
Explain to me in 50 words or less how voting rights are socialistic??

How is police reform socialistic?

To me socialism is a moral value derived from conscious understanding of our true human nature, the characteristics we would possess if we were absent the delusions of duality. Socialism then, can't be understood without understanding the nature of duality, that opposites are the same at a conscious level that has experienced the a profound experience that to ordinary understanding is an opaque paradox.

Take welfare as an example. Conservatives know that if you give people things they will not value them. There is within gifts no sweat equity as it were. Liberals, however, out of empathy will not let people who can't provide for themselves starve. Thus where is an endless struggle between these two points of view. A progressive of the type I call progressive, someone who has a fundamentally deeper understanding of these opposite points of view can understand that the way out of such a conundrum is to make assistance dependent on something the recipient has to contribute, but in this case something they can. The size or value of the contribution is not the important thing, The important thing is that the person who is helped has a sense that he or she is also the agent of that help, that they have earned help and have done something that provides a feeling it is deserved, that they have earned something of value. Self respect is the result. Poverty is the absence of the feeling of self worth.

In the case of police reform, the opposites are that people follow rules either because they are forced to out of fear, or obey them out of respect for the order they confer to a social existence. Community policing brings some of each to the equation.

As for elections, nothing could be more social than to allow all members of a society the right to vote because the rules of society have to be understood as the will of the people and not the will of a delusional entitled few.

This is my opinion. I forgot to count the words.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
Oh, they define it alright, as any government expenditure that they don't like, almost entirely those which benefit the general citizenry rather than the 1%. They profess almost erotic love for the Constitution while passing on the "promote the general welfare" part.

"Socialism" has long been used as a bugaboo by the monied class. And it got further poisoned during the cold war, as communism and socialism got conflated.

In the short term, then, defending the term is a decidedly uphill battle, because, as the popular paraphrase of H.L. Mencken's 1926 quote goes, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Neverteless, I am personally partial to the term "democratic socialism."

Yes, exactly. The term got conflated with communism during the Cold War, which is why there is no point in defending it now. You can't even do it without discussing with the public what the word is supposed to mean, which is a losing fight because they won't pay any attention. Typical voter reaction to these kinds of words is either "good" or "bad." Understanding goes very little beyond that.

Maybe in 30 years or so when almost everyone who could remember the Cold War is dead, we can talk about rehabilitating the word. Until then, we're better defending the policies we support and not engaging in a pointless argument over semantics.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
To me socialism is a moral value derived from conscious understanding of our true human nature, the characteristics we would possess if we were absent the delusions of duality. Socialism then, can't be understood without understanding the nature of duality, that opposites are the same at a conscious level that has experienced the a profound experience that to ordinary understanding is an opaque paradox.

And you want to defend the word by explaining THAT to voters? That they "just don't understand the nature of duality" and they would really like socialism if they did?

Sometimes when we get lost in the domain of pure thought for too long, the nature of the real world we live in starts to allude us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,327
6,040
126
And you want to defend the word by explaining THAT to voters? That they "just don't understand the nature of duality" and they would really like socialism if they did?

Sometimes when we get lost in the domain of pure thought for too long, the nature of the real world we live in starts to allude us.
Yes but I don't have to think about what the truth is anymore than I had to puzzle about how you had this upside down. People think so they can say they think about things as if there were some benefit in that. Thought is fear. It is the use of words that carry emotional meaning. Thought is always the product of negative past experience.

What is there to think about if the wisdom you have is that you do not know what others imagine that they do. There is a difference to the perception that your tea cup is empty compared to the delusion that it is full.

The things I tell you amount to an effort to say that I do not know what you do. I do my best to defend against assumptions. I do not regard it an assumption that I do not know anything but even though I know it I can also forget that fact or simply express it as my opinion.

None of this changes anything you have said. To be trapped in the world of duality without having experienced personally the oneness of everything, the loss of ego identity is the reason the world is mad. I am not saying that the experience of oneness would make people like socialism. I am saying that in that conscious state there is no thought of anything. Thought is division, naming, categorizing, separating, dividing. Absent that there is only being who you be. Who you be?
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,049
12,719
136
While they’re busy installing fascism they take a vote calling socialism bad.

Bitches needs slapping thats whats up.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,963
27,642
136
While they’re busy installing fascism they take a vote calling socialism bad.

Bitches needs slapping thats whats up.
Which vote would have the biggest potential benefit?

A. Calling socialism bad.
B. Condemning any politician who associates with white nationalist groups as a traitor to American values. Then proceed to name the groups. You are not allowed to name other members of the House on the floor. The media then can report on the associations.

Dems need to call out the Pubs on their stupid shit.

For the record voting on either one isn't going to change anything
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,699
1,448
126
They -- the GOP-- sell the idea that anything representing collective action, if enacted, is a "slippery slope" toward "socialism" and must be stopped. There has never been any historical evidence of this "slippery slope" argument, unless autocratic leftists got themselves elected and merely seized power permanently.

This discussion of "isms" conducted in the political arena is scaremongering and mostly the comfort zone of the colossally ignorant. You can identify these ignorant people by making a joke like this: "After four years of Trump, I've decided to embrace Socialism!" The assholes will go totally ballistic.

We've had a "Mixed Economy" since the Roosevelt era. The purposes of government include reducing risk and chaos, and providing those things collectively which logically cannot be provided by free markets. Further, you cannot have free markets without government regulation or people would merely begin stealing from each other.

At this point, considering the posted news about a congressional vote, it demonstrates the sort of nonsense clattering around in GOP brains. Boogeyman Socialists under their beds.

The logical approach to this, since "Socialism" was a philosophical answer to the evils and pitfalls of capitalistic process, is to consider the collective action to specific kinds of problems as a toolbox of solutions.

They always put their cart of beliefs before the horse of common sense.

I wouldn't give a Republican roadside first-aid if his whole family were in flames inside the car. I'd only grab a cell-phone video to post on You-Tube for chuckles and laughs. Not my fellow human beings; not my fellow Americans.

They are the Enemies of America, and the Enemies of civilization. That has become clear with these latest plots to destroy power plants and bring down civilization to start a race war.