How the word "socialism" ends any dicussion of any real reform in America

[Jkid]

From an anonymous 4chan user at the transportation image board (aka /n/)

The word "socialism" in America has become, in the eyes of those who use it, an axiomatic way to end an argument. It's as though by asserting that something is socialist, and thus inherently evil, there is no further need to justify one's position.

This does not work because socialism is a very ill-defined concept with respect to how it is normally used. One can make the argument that based on the historical evidence totalitarian socialist dictatorships do not work, and thus a totalitarian socialist dictatorship is an undesirable form of government. One could also conceivably make the argument that because some publicly funded programs have failed, publicly funded programs are generally undesirable. However the argument that all publicly funded programs are bad because totalitarian socialist dictatorships are bad is a misappropriation of logic. When people play that game with socialism, they are using the same word to describe two vastly different things, which obscures the real issues and serves only to inflame tempers by appeal to emotion.

Source: http://zip.4chan.org/n/res/106701.html#112962

[Toucano]

1. Well put. Rec. n-t

[Rex]

2. Repukes still live back in the 'commie living under the bed' days.

Pathetic, sad and wrong creatures they tend to lump in huge masses when in the dark and have a tendency to get very violent for no apparent reason.

[Billy Burnett]

3. Some DUsers too

Check in to the Cuba/Castro and Venezuela/Chavez threads that show up in LBN, GD, and GDP every now and then.

[imdjh]

6. Meh, there is quite a bit of turnabout there.

The Chavez devotees are quick to brand anyone who has a problem with government theft of property as a Freeper or Republican. There is also a huge difference between socialist and Socialist as it manifests in various locally powerful individuals. There is plenty to find abominable about Castro and Chavez, and room for much valid speculation on the further rise of the latter which is not in and of itself an attack on everything socialist, but is an attack on Socialists and dictatorship.

[Rex]

13. I think people get populists, marxists and socialists

mixed up way too often.

[Cleita]

4. How about another word, like sharing?

We were all taught to share in kindergarten, shouldn't we be doing the same when we are grown up?

[imdjh]

7. Sharing is voluntary.

When your mother says, "Share those M&M's with your cousin Matt." and "or I'll do it for you" is implied it's not really sharing. It's supposed to teach sharing, but often it simply teaches resentful selfishness.

[Cleita]

17. Sharing is part of what sets our species apart. Mom is just recognizing

that way back in her genetic code.

[imdjh]

20. Not really.

Apparently, early humans weren't much better than lions or hyenas , especially males. Yes, mothers tend to see that babies feed, but only after the males have had their fill it seems.

Seriously, I consider it nothing short of a miracle that the human species has survived. Would you really want to fuck someone before good hygiene became the norm? I find nothing sexy about stinky primitive people.

[unblock]

24. primitive people weren't likely stinky all the time.

they did have waterways and flowers and things they might have used for cleaning, even if not actual soap.

besides, your primitive tastes and standards would have been different back then. i find nothing sexy about ants, but if i were one, i suppose i might think otherwise.

[Cleita]

26. So I guess all those primitive tribes that exist today and who lead hunter

and gatherer lives are hyenas by your standards? Amazing what an inability to read brings out of the emptiness of those minds. Try reading some Jared Diamond and get educated about the subject. These are present day tribes who have been studied by anthropologists, who still live like people did in prehistoric times, and they seem to be more civilized that us a lot of the time.

[imdjh]

27. Speaking of reading, try it much?

Early and primitive are not synonymous. Present day tribes are not early humans.

[Cleita]

28. No shit Sherlock. n/t

[imdjh]

29. Apology accepted.

What you lack in intelligence you make up for in a lack of manners, obviously. Todays existing tribes may live in primitive conditions but they are not early humans. However, early humans were also primitive.

[paulsby]

10. ridiculous

sharing is VOLUNTARY

socialism is forced.

that you really can't understand the difference is hard to believe.

taking from somebody to give to another is not an example of that person "sharing"

if i take $100 to distribute to somebody else, at the risk of imprisonment or death if you resist, are you "sharing" with me?

get real

[Cleita]

14. Sorry but it goes back to our basic humanity. Stone Age tribes

and primitive tribes today share. The hunters and gatherers who are physically fit go into the forest or savannah to bring home food. Then the whole village shares with everyone, the young, the old and the disabled. It's only in times of real famine that the old will be starved in favor of the young, the strong in favor of the weak for the survival of the tribe. On the other hand our society grabs from those who are creating the products for living and don't give back in return unless they are threatened. The haves keep grabbing more and try to keep it. Those who don't share or recognize the fact that we are a socialistic species don't get what it takes for us to be successful as a species. Right now the Europeans get it. We don't, and we really won't survive as a nation and maybe even a species until we get it.

[paulsby]

18. sorry, it goes back to your silly analogy

which you are now evading.

there is a huge difference between SHARING, which is voluntary, and forced distribution/takings.

that is why your analogy is ridiculous.

sharing cannot be forced any more than charity can

[Cleita]

25. Sharing in primitive societies like socialism in our society is not

voluntary. It is expected by the tribe and part of their culture. I don't think I was making an analogy but stating something that anthropologists and other scientists who study our species know. I think you are the one being ridiculous. Incidentally, charity was invented by people who didn't want to share. This way they could let the other guy do it. In a true communistic society, there is no need for charity.

[WyLoochka]

5. Providing a choice to people of

buying a for profit insurance policy through a private company focused on maximizing shareholder values by minimizing claim payouts versus buying a non profit insurance policy through the federal government focused on maximizing patient values (i.e their health) is not even remotely close to what I understand as a definition of "socialism."

It doesn't mean the government owns the means of health production - the doctors, hospitals, clinics etc - that would be socialism.

[imdjh]

8. Whenever "socialist" is used in this fashion, one should instantly say "better than fascist."

Don't make a counter argument, simply be rude. When someone says " moving towards a socialist health care system" jump in like Rocky Horror "BETTER THAN FASCIST!"

[ipfilter]

12. Problem is...

Those who blithely use the term socialist probably think fascism is the same thing.

[imdjh]

15. Well then, the rule against arguing with idiots kicks in.

Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

[newtothegame]

9. I could fill in "racist" and "sexist" instead of "socialism." It's become an argument ender. n/t

[imdjh]

16. That's true too.

[Leftist Agitator]

11. How often I forget that there is insight and intellect at 4chan when you wander away from /b/.

[Jkid]

21. Most mainstream media in the US think 4chan= /b/

Sadly, they have not checked out the other imageboards outside of /b/. Even the wikipedia article somewhat reflects it. Although the wikipedia article can be changed.

[MisterP]

19. ask 99% of anti-socialists and -Marxists what those terms mean,

and they won't be able to give you an answer that goes beyond cliches from Invasion USA and Reagone's speeches on how good Apartheid must be if the Reds don't like it
the rest will just give you some long-winded gassing from 1951 or 1834 about how capitalism is freedom

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. Can we amend "Godwins Law"

to include "Socialism"? :shrug: For too many people, unfortunately, Socialism=Communism but I don't think that a lot of people even realize that our country, being both a mixture of government services and private (but regulated) enterprise, is more or less, a "socialist" country. Not nearly as much so as Canada, UK, or pretty much every country in Europe but despite the fact that we have public law enforcement, fire departments, (still mostly) public schools, libraries, as well as regulated (albeit poorly nowadays) capitalism, people don't make the connection that we are, in fact, a "socialist" country. They also fail to realize that "socialist" initiatives that expanded government influence and assistance such as FDR's "New Deal" and LBJ's "Great Society", our country has NEVER devolved our country into tyranny and/or dictatorship. It can actually be argued that the closest we even remotely came close to THAT was under Bushco and its unwavering support for private business and neocon-inspired American imperial ambitions over public welfare and it wasn't even a legitimately elected administration to begin with.

[blindpig]

23. It's a two-fer.

They get to associate Obama with socialism and vice versa, nice propaganda trick for them. Race is always lurking there, partisan politics of course, but a conscious effort at reinforcing the 'socialism is bad' meme is part of the mix.

[troubledamerican]

30. Undifferentiated, amorphous "socialism" ends discussion? Shocking & unforeseeable. For years now.