Political correctness means
you have a bad attitude.
Take the title of Mal's latest blog - What the Hell Is a Black Caucus and Why Are They Allowed to Exist? - there's a bad 'tude going on there. It's like with the opponents of the GZ Mosque, pc is not interested in arguing the merits of the case, it's YOU have a bad attitude. No other possibility exists. IT permeates politics, the workplace, Life in general. IF you rebel against it you're a dark force. Stop hating. If you work with a dickhead or a getover smile and love your brother. PC means we won't hire you to slice bologna if you smoke a doobie in your downtime. It means if you ask a woman out more than once you're a stalker. It means you can't even say the word nigger even if you're only reporting that Chris Rock likes to say the word nigger but somehow he can joke about when he goes to the ATM he looks over his shoulder for niggers but you can't. Don't hate, participate. PC means love your chemo even if you look like an Auschwitz survivor afterwords. PC means The Customer Is Always Right, it means if you're a Muslim then we'll overlook your hatred of gays but not if you're an evangelical Christian. I saw a bumper sticker the other day - WW2 Vet, I Served My Country, Did You? WTF is that???
lose the 'tude!
Excellent blog Z-man.. We are seeing the demise of the US Constitution right before our eyes.
ReplyDeleteBut there are still Americans that can think freely and make conclusion, deduction, and make their own conclusions without the inference of these PC or these morons that got were they are not from hard work but from affirmative action. Both of the Obamas are the poster children of affirmative action and political correctness!
And especially today, people are struggling like never before, working harder than ever before, and believing that their hard work will lead to somewhere and get the big payoff they deserve from working hard, not from affirmative action .I don't respect people that get whatever they can from entitlements and/or from handouts. I call them the "Thank you sir may I have another" people!
By the way, I heard a man on the radio this morning being interviewed on the streets of Harlem.
ReplyDeleteWhen the interviewer asked im ehat he thought of Mark Zuckerberg, the 26 year old founder of Face-book giving $100 million to the Newark Public Schools, his reply was..
"well that's fine but why don't he give the people of Newark some of that also"
So much for these ungrateful SOB's, who live on handouts..
See that is the mentality that drives me crazy, Mal, and shows why socialism doesn't work.
ReplyDeletePolitical correctness is just one of the idiotic facets to the leftists wet dream, we need their socialist orgasm to come to an end already!
I wish people in this country could learn one thing and that's the fact that we are not and will never be a socialist country.
ReplyDelete'Socialist' in the United States is a catchall insult and denigration that's used in whatever way suits the emotional content of the speaker's diatribe best.
Reality has nothing to do with it; it's all about pushing buttons in the hearers.
This dates from McCarthyism.
Generational ignorance.
Satyavati devi dasi said...
ReplyDelete"I wish people in this country could learn one thing and that's the fact that we are not and will never be a socialist country"
It is truly unbelievably remarkable that everyone else must be wrong and of course you are right.
What is truly unbelievable is that we have a president that MOST people think IS a Socialist!
"Generational ignorance"? The only Generational ignorance that I see is the ignorance of the people that put this anti everything about America in the White House is Generational ignorance!
What is truly unbelievable is that we have a president that MOST people think IS a Socialist!
ReplyDeleteAt one time MOST people thought the world was flat, too, and they were equally wrong.
The average American has no idea what Socialism is, because they hear about it from people who make it mean what they want it to mean, and who aren't interested in the truth, but in swaying people to their own personal view for their own personal agenda.
Mal,
ReplyDeleteIf you'd like to know what nuclear physics is about, wouldn't you ask a nuclear physicist?
If you'd like to know what brain surgery is about, wouldn't you ask a brain surgery?
If you'd like to know what Socialism is about, ask a Socialist.
They will uniformly and without hesitation tell you that what you believe is Socialism in this country bears no relationship to Socialism in reality.
But I'm sure you'd rather believe Fox News, Beck and Limbaugh, none of whom espouse Socialism as a political philosophy and are therefore no more qualified to speak about it than I am about nuclear physics.
If you don't go to the source to get your information, you have no guarantee your information is accurate... which in this case it isn't. In fact, it's grossly inaccurate.
Who the hell are you to tell me or anyone else here anything about The Average American
ReplyDeleteYOU certainly AREN'T an Average American!
You wouldn't know a Average American if you tripped over one.
Mal,
ReplyDeleteAre you the Average American?
Are most people here Average Americans?
I've been listening to all yall for a year now go on about what you think is Socialism.
And you're all grossly deluded.
Taking yall as a microcosm of Average America, I can extrapolate that the rest of the country is as ignorant of it as all yall appear to be.
And was that the best you could come up with in reply?
How about actually trying to go to the source and get yourself some accurate information about what Socialism is and isn't instead of believing everything you hear from people who aren't Socialists and have never even heard of Eugene Debs?
Instead, you always fall back to insults and ad hominem, and quite honestly, it just makes your argument that much more weak when you do that.
ReplyDeleteYou aren't a socialist Saty, remember?
ReplyDeleteSatyavati devi dasi said...
ReplyDelete"Mal,
Are you the Average American?
Are most people here Average Americans?
I've been listening to all yall for a year now go on about what you think is Socialism."
The difference is that I don't claim to be an Average anything. Just a GOOD and Patriotic American who LOVES my country the way it has been since I was born. Not a Socialistic America.
So get used to it because I'm going to be talking about it for as many years as I'm able too. And your BS is not going to stop me.
Yes, that's what I think of it, you may think that I'm grossly deluded, but it's funny because that's exactly what I think you are!.
Beth:
ReplyDeleteI've been a member of the SP-USA since 1985.
And before that, the YPSL.
So I have no idea what, precisely, you're talking about.
Mal:
Until you can get away from the ad hominem, and present a cogent, decent, reality-and-logic based argument, you can argue with yourself.
I don't have the time or energy to waste putting together a rational debate just to have it be ignored in favor of insults and things that have nothing to do with anything I've said.
Just because you belong to those groups does not make you an actual socialist, if you don't think that the current administration is socialistic, then you are no socialist. Plus, I forget the exact thing you wrote at your blog that was not a socialistic way of thinking and made me declare you not a socialist. It's a good thing, really, it is a compliment that I don't think you are!
ReplyDeleteif you don't think that the current administration is socialistic, then you are no socialist. Plus, I forget the exact thing you wrote at your blog that was not a socialistic way of thinking and made me declare you not a socialist.
ReplyDeleteLMAO!!!!!
Because someone who's espoused socialism for 25 years doesn't think the current centrist administration is socialist.. means that they're not a socialist?
That's the second most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You're not a Socialist, but you think you know better than one what is and isn't Socialism?
The MOST ridiculous thing I've ever heard is you saying that you've 'declared I'm not a Socialist'.
Like your approval is what makes it real?
Like you're an authority on what is and isn't Socialism?
Like the fact that I've been championing Socialism and Socialist causes for 25 years means nothing because it doesn't fit your Beckinbaugh definition of Socialism?
What I had said at my blog, Beth, and let's be accurate here, is that there are different theories in the Socialist worldview (just as in any political worldview) and that I do not subscribe to equality of outcome, but to equality of opportunity. Somehow you find that to be unSocialist, but that's because your knowledge of Socialist theory comes from people who don't know anything about it. It's not your fault.
This whole comment you wrote was priceless. I mean, really priceless.
equality of opportunity is not socialism, it is what our founding fathers founded our country on, and I am so happy that you believe in it and not socialism! Be happy, it is a good day! Help us fight against the gross imposition of the government in our lives! Yes, we can!
ReplyDeleteWhy would you want to be a socialist anyway? Just like to be contrary?
ReplyDeleteBeth,
ReplyDeleteDo yourself a favour and read this.
http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html
You just don't know what Socialism is.
I can assure you that I have been supporting and working for the fulfillment of every one of these principles for the past 25 years.
Do you want to declare the entire SPUSA non-Socialist?
There IS NO EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY in this country. There never has been. Under a capitalist system, there never will be.
There is equality of opportunity, sad that you don't think there is, probably because the leftists have made you believe otherwise.
ReplyDeleteJust because there isn't equal outcome does not mean there isn't equal opportunity.
ReplyDeleteYou know what, Beth..
ReplyDeleteI gave the link. Do some quality research, from the actual source, on the principles of the Socialist Party of the USA.
Until then, I'm done with this argument. You want to argue about something you don't understand and don't want to learn about. You prefer to learn about Socialism from people who don't know what Socialism is, and who desperately want you to believe it's something totally untrue, that they've constructed in their paranoid minds.
The argument is pointless unless you're willing to obtain some actual accurate information from the actual sources.
Satyavati devi dasi said...
ReplyDelete"You know what, Beth..
Until then, I'm done with this argument"
Do you promise?
Well then maybe you should let your friends who run that website know that they aren't real socialists, Saty.
ReplyDeleteHere is the definition of socialism by the dictionary:
ReplyDeleteNOUN:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
That definition has nothing to say about equal opportunity and everything to do with collectivism and control, which is the opposite of the freedom that we are supposed to have.
ReplyDeletePolitical correctness is just one the tools of the leftists who want this control us use to divide us, well some of us are sick of it!
ReplyDeleteJust can't bring yourself to go direct to the source, huh, Beth? Do you always research a topic by going to everything but the actual source?
ReplyDeleteEquality of opportunity versus equality of outcome
Proponents of equality of opportunity advocate a society in which there are equal opportunities and life chances for all individuals to maximise their potentials and attain positions in society. This would be made possible by equal access to the necessities of life. This position is held by technocratic socialists, Marxists and social democrats.
Equality of outcome refers to a state where everyone receives equal amounts of rewards and an equal level of power in decision-making, with the belief that all roles in society are necessary and therefore none should be rewarded more than others. This view is shared by some communal utopian socialists and anarcho-communists.
I did go to your link and I didn't see anything that said anything about equal opportunity. Plus we have equal opportunity and equal access already and that does not result in equal outcome. Being rewarded more than others is a great motivator to push oneself and work hard, just giving people things they didn't work for tends to make people lazy because there is no motivation to work hard, makes sense to normal people.
ReplyDeleteSocialists take advantage of people's sense of fairness to try to make something good (capitalism) into something evil because they want power, and again normal people see that, I am trying to help you Saty.
Funny thing happened on the way to the opera. I read this:
ReplyDelete"The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position."
With all due respect Saty, it is completely ridiculous to state that the commentators herein don't understand socialism or understand it and then read that aforementioned passage from the Socialist Party's website.
That passage makes it abundantly clear that the Socialist Party USA doesn't themselves understand Capitalism.
When the owners of the businesses, factories, et al. collude with government for the sake of " maintain[ing] their privileged position" this is NOT Capitalism!
This is Corporatism. Unless of course you intend to redefine Capitalism to mean what it is you want it to mean to suit your own agenda. Surely you wouldn't think of doing such a thing after chastising others for the practice.
Capitalism's historical origins are based on the funadamental basis of laissez-faire (A French phrase which literally means "let do", but it broadly implies "let it be", or "leave it alone"). In practice, it describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.
When an individual or business colludes with government in a blatant attempt to stifle their competitor, any definition of free-market/laissez-faire Capitalism ceases to exist.
What's more, and let's be perfectly clear about this because I get absolutely sick and tired of hearing it day in and day out (even from self described "conservatives" at times), workers/employees are not slaves. They are not "forced" to sell their abilities and skills.
ReplyDeleteIn fact that very sentence implies as much. If you have abilities and skills to offer, what do you receive in return? Hmmm....let me think here.......oh yeah that'd be money (which in this day and age is a means of trading productivity). So a worker, with abilities and skills to offer does what???
They sell those abilities and skills to the highest bidder.
Were they truly forced, they'd get nothing save for possibly enough food to eat to give them the necessary energy to continue as slaves to their master(s).
Well said, Soapie, but my guess is that Saty will not reply because there is nothing she can say to refute it.
ReplyDelete(another fun outing)
ReplyDelete. In practice, it describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.
ReplyDeleteIs this happening in the US? I must have missed it.
They are not "forced" to sell their abilities and skills.
What are your options?
And Beth: I can do without your "help" and I can do even more without your condescension. I don't ask you to give up worship at the Beckinaugh altar: don't try to "reeducate" me according to your political whims.
And I posted above about equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome with the various factions of Socialists that espouse each approach. Is that not good enough for you?
Where did you get your degree in Political Science? I'd love to read your dissertation on Socialism... as you claim to be such an authority.
And maybe in YOUR neighbourhood you have 'equal access'.... but you might want to check in with the poor folks, and the nonwhite folks, and the gay folks, and the disabled folks, and ask them if they'd agree.
ReplyDeleteThere is no 'equal access', nor is there 'equal opportunity' in the United States. There never has been.
And there never will be until we can ensure that EVERY PERSON has the EXACT SAME PLAYING FIELD to begin with. And that will never happen as long as the folks with money have a breath in their body to prevent it with.
We haven't ever even had equal access to HEALTHCARE in this country, let alone equal access to education.
Is this happening in the US? I must have missed it.
ReplyDeleteSoapie's point is that it is NOT happening, pay attention!
You do need to be re-educated, your arguments make that abundantly obvious. As long as you think that equal opportunity is the same as equal outcome, then maybe you need more help than I can give you.
"You do need to be re-educated, your arguments make that abundantly obvious."
ReplyDeleteYikes! Re-education camps.
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge
all over again?
If you don't recall that, perhaps you need 're-education'...
Ok, I meant she needs to be educated, didn't mean to give you the yikes BB.
ReplyDeleteOh... I'm so sorry... I thought he was describing the practice of capitalism:
ReplyDeleteCapitalism's historical origins are based on the funadamental basis of laissez-faire (A French phrase which literally means "let do", but it broadly implies "let it be", or "leave it alone"). In practice, it describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies.
Must have been my mistake.
As long as you think that equal opportunity is the same as equal outcome, then maybe you need more help than I can give you.
Uh.. I don't think this. What I have been trying, desperately, to explain is that what I believe in, as a Socialist, is equality of opportunity.. NOT equality of outcome. For some reason, you can't deal with this, and so you've tried everything in the world to convince yourself I'm not a Socialist.
Of course, I am and always will be a Socialist.
So I apologize most sincerely for thinking that Soapie was describing the historical practice of laissez-faire capitalism... (which isn't practiced in the US today that I can see)... I somehow must have misread what he'd written. Although, now I'm not really sure what his point means, if what he was trying to say is that it DOESN'T happen here (which is what I said). So now I'm confused even more...
A thousand pardons for my ignorance.
Soapie's point is that it is NOT happening, pay attention!
ReplyDeleteOh, now that I've had a good breakfast fortified with all essential vitamins and minerals I think I get it...
...Soapie's trying to say that the US is corporatist, not capitalist?
Beth, I so need your help here. I just so don't understand....
But equal opportunity is not a socialistic idea, so if you believe in equal opportunity you are not a socialist. Really, it is OKAY not to be a socialist!
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what Soapie is saying and yet all we hear from the folks over here (Dems) is that Capitalism has failed us and all we here from the folks over there (Repubs) is rhetoric without action.
ReplyDeleteCorporatist/Fascist take your pic.
ReplyDeleteBeth: "Political correctness is just one of the idiotic facets to the leftists' wet dream, we need their socialist orgasm to come to an end already!"
ReplyDeleteI'm lovin' it.
Saty re Mal: "You always fall back to insults and ad hominem."
Nothing I've read in his comments so far are ad hominem, slightly Malish to be sure but not ad hominem.
Once Again, my Comment is too long, so I'm going to break it down.
ReplyDeletePeople define Socialism in ways that fit best with their own Agendas. There are Degrees of Socialism and Republicans and Democrats disagree on what amount of such is Acceptable.
I guess some Democrats do not really believe that a Program is Socialistic until it is Practically Communistic and naturally a True Socialist is not Going to be Satisfied with any form of Partial Socialism, for to them, that is not really Socialism, even though it may be a step towards their Goals, they are not Satisfied that it is Socialism, because what they want is more.
I guess it's possible that Satyavati believes in a Particular "Theory in Socialist Worldview" that is not as offensive as other forms of Socialism, that is a World View that is "Equality of Opportunity", but not "Equality of Outcome". If this is less offensive than other forms of "Socialism", though, then why not call it by a different name, since the word "Socialism" is so Emotionally Charged?
I might actually be siding with Sayavati more than with the Extreme Libertarians that frequent this Blog, yet I do not like the Title Socialism. It stirs up too much Emotion and it's better to avoid that.
"Socialism" is just a word and if it's Offensive, then let's find another one to describe the belief system that being presented.
Another Question that is coming to my mind is whether the Definition of Socialism is distorted by Socialists in order to recruit more followers. Remember, the "Actual Source" is not an Unbiased Source. To find the answer to this question and present it in an educated manner, it may be necessary to do some research.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, Life does Force us to enter the Work Place in order to Survive. Unless a person has leadership abilities, they have no Choice but to be who they are and Submit to another who does have leadership abilities and occasionally those with leadership abilities take advantage of this situation and pay very minimal amounts for the labor of those they hire.
Actually, I think that the word "Re-Education" fits because when a person learns something one way, according to one point of view, to learn the same thing according to another point of view is sort of like "Re-Education", but then again, let's not get technical about words. Perhaps we all need to be "Re-Educated" and exposed to other ways of looking at things besides the ways we are used to.
Libertarians are striving for a purer form of Capitalism that does not currently exist in this country and Socialists are striving for a purer form of Socialism that does not currently exist in this country. What we currently have is a Combination of both.
I don't think that Pure Capitalism ever worked, though, even before various regulations have been added over the years. The original rising of the Unions happened because of the Severe Mistreatment of Factory Workers and this happened because Capitalism wasn't working.
so if you believe in equal opportunity you are not a socialist.
ReplyDeleteBeth,
Which part of the below is unclear to you?
Proponents of equality of opportunity advocate a society in which there are equal opportunities and life chances for all individuals to maximise their potentials and attain positions in society. This would be made possible by equal access to the necessities of life. THIS POSITION IS HELD BY TECHNOCRATIC SOCIALISTS, MARXISTS AND SOCIAL DEMOCRATS.
Why do you keep trying to insist I'm not a Socialist and that Socialists don't believe in equality of opportunity? Does it hurt you that badly to agree with a Socialist belief? Tell me, where did you get your degree in Socialist Political Theory?
whether the Definition of Socialism is distorted by Socialists
ReplyDeleteSocialism, like any political theory, has a spectrum. Just like there are neo-cons, palaeo-cons, etc., who all have different emphases and priorities in their political views (yet all adhere to some basic 'conservative' principles), not all Socialists are the same.
Therefore, you can't really expect that one 'definition' out of a dictionary is going to cover in exactness, for example, every person in the spectrum.
Differing groups of Socialists hold different views on various issues. Some hold to a government-run economy; others believe a combination of government and free-market is best. Some are more radical, some less so. This is why it's impossible to fit all of them into one single 'definition'.
Every group, of which there are many, (and it's good at this point to remember that Socialism is and has always been an international political movement in that 'Workers Of The World Unite!' sense) have different methodologies and priorities.
The Socialism of the Netherlands is not necessarily the Socialism of the UK, nor the Socialism of Latin America nor anywhere else.
Even in the United States the many Socialist groups differ in opinions on how best to engage and implement Socialist ideals, and often have widely differing priorities between them. There are technocratic, utopian, Marxist, democratic, communal.. many types of Socialists in both the United States and the world.
So I think it is an inaccurate statement to say that Socialist groups 'distort' Socialism; they promote and teach the Socialism that they espouse, which can be different than that of another Socialist group yet no less valid.
If this is less offensive than other forms of "Socialism", though, then why not call it by a different name, since the word "Socialism" is so Emotionally Charged?
ReplyDeleteYou may certainly call it whatever you like, but it's still the Socialist Party of the USA, and always will be.
Satyavati,
ReplyDeleteThe last thing that you quoted was a bit of Marketing Advice, yet you are free to ignore it, just as it looks like you are going to. I, however, would never associate myself with any group bearing that name.
As to distorting the definition, the broader the definition is, the more Democrats they will be able to recruit.
Socialism has nothing to do with equal access, either, did you read the definition? Now you can try to redefine socialism, I know, some people try to redefine conservatism, and I hate it when they try to, but you will just have to think of a new name for yourself, maybe like the Pushy Party or something like that.
ReplyDeleteFor Chrissake, Beth, who knows more what people believe, Webster's Dictionary or the people who believe it?!! A book or the people who live the term and work with the theory?!
ReplyDeleteAnd Lista: I have been a proud, committed Socialist with the SP-USA since 1985 and would never dream of affiliating myself with another group and certainly not under another name.
If I wasn't proud of who I was and what I believe it wouldn't be worth believing in it, would it?
the more Democrats they will be able to recruit.
ReplyDeleteI have never in 25 years witnessed any kind of 'recruitment' effort. The closest thing I can see to it comes at the bottom of the Principles and runs thus:
If you agree with these principles, then we would encourage you to join the Socialist Party.
Or the occasional 'Join Us' at the bottom of the varying webpages.
I'd hardly call that a 'recruitment' effort. Have you seen any TV commercials lately (I don't watch TV so I don't know) from the SP-USA trying to get people to defect from whatever party they're otherwise affiliated with and become Socialists?
Basically we put it out there. If you agree, come on. If you don't, peace out. It's kinda that simple. I know it's hard to understand because it runs basically counter to the status quo of American politics, but that's the way it is.
You will occasionally see a rally. These are generally done to bring a specific issue (things like labour injustices, false imprisonment, immigration) into the public eye and to demonstrate support for these causes. They're not 'recruitment' efforts in that the focus is on the issue.
If people find that they agree with what we believe they are more than welcome to join.
Saty: "Socialism, like any political theory, has a spectrum."
ReplyDeleteSo where does Obama fall on this spectrum?
We get so caught up in the definitions of words. I tend to like to go with Websters because I dislike it when People Change the Original Definitions of Words. I'm sure Websters has defined the word in accordance with it's Original Meaning. If the Socialist Party has accepted a Broader Spectrum, then they have changed the Original Meaning of the word. If that is so, then so be it, but if the new meaning is misunderstood, then it is understandable and not the fault of the one who misunderstands.
ReplyDeleteAll Political Parties Recruit, Salyavati. Even if a rally is focused on an issue, the goal is to persuade and recruit agreement with the issue, as it is presented. It's pointless to argue the subtle difference between the words persuade and recruit, for if persuasion is successful enough, recruitment will be the natural result.
ReplyDeleteWell as I said once if you make a straight line with capitalism at one end and socialism on the other Obama clearly falls somewhere past the 1/2-way mark and yet it's somehow fringe to call him one. Nobody seems to agree what the guy is.
ReplyDeleteOh Obama is way Past the Half Way Mark. He is Far Enough Over, that there are even some Democrats that don't Like him.
ReplyDeleteThat's my whole point. I was in a Barnes & Noble with my friend yesterday perusing the latest issue of MAD magazine, yes a guilty pleasure of mine and they made the Tea Partiers out to be some mindless radicals who call Obama a socialist merely because Sarah Palin tells them to. UM no, it's just because he's way over the halfway mark on the line guys. This is Stephen Colbert stuff, I expect better.
ReplyDeleteSo where does Obama fall on this spectrum?
ReplyDeleteObama's not on the Socialist spectrum, because he's a Centrist.
"UM no, it's just because he's way over the halfway mark on the line guys."
ReplyDeleteDepends on the issue I suppose. Take the "War on Terror" for example. By hawkish standards, he's not even close to being left of center. I wouldn't equate ratcheting up arial drone attacks, covert assasinations, suspending the writ of habeus corpus, etc. anywhere even close to left of center.
I'm sure Websters has defined the word in accordance with it's Original Meaning.
ReplyDeletePhilology is a constantly evolving thing. If you go back just a couple of decades you'll find words mean completely different things, or have adopted completely different meanings in today's usage. A good example that springs to mind is the word 'gay', which was once strictly a term for 'being happy'. That's no longer the principal or most generally understood definition.
If you go back further, to King James' day, and try to read the original KJV, you'll find that it is seriously difficult in spots due to the fact that words mean different things than they used to.
This is the evolution of language. English especially is a very quickly evolving language because it so readily adopts words from other cultures. I could sit here and name lots of words that are originally from European, Asian or African descent that have become part of the English language.
So we have to view language in its context.
One can also consult multiple dictionaries:
socialism definition
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.
There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
If you prefer, as Lista does, the 'original' meaning, you can look up its etymology:
socialism
1832, from Fr. socialisme or from social + -ism. Cf. socialist. Apparently first in reference to Robert Owen's communes. "Pierre Leroux (1797-1871), idealistic social reformer and Saint-Simonian publicist, expressly claims to be the originator of the word socialisme " [Klein].
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Or, you can look in a standard dictionary and note that the first definition deals with an ECONOMIC system and the second definition deals with a POLITICAL THEORY.
socialism (ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm)
1. an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels
2. any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3. (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
So as you can see, 'definitions' vary.
I still don't see anything about equal access.....
ReplyDeleteBut whatever, if real socialists tolerate you among them, who am I to question it?
2. any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
ReplyDeleteThey also didn't mention that we celebrate May Day... does this mean that people who celebrate May Day aren't Socialists?
It DOES say 'various social or political theories or movements'. It DOESN'T outline every belief of any of them.
Does it?
Would YOU say, then, that equality of access is a viewpoint held by conservatives?
ReplyDeleteConservatism is about conserving the principles this country was founded upon, one of them being equal opportunity, so if you equate equal access with equal opportunity then yes, that is a conservative viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteNot according to the dictionary. It doesn't mention a thing about 'equal opportunity' or 'equality of access'. Would this make you something less than a 'real' conservative then?
ReplyDeleteConservatives, apparently, don't believe in equality of access OR equal opportunity. It's not mentioned here in any one of these definitions.
Glad we got that straight.
con·serv·a·tism
1. the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.
2. the principles and practices of political conservatives.
Definition of CONSERVATISM
1
capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial
responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
We traditionally have equal opportunity and my tendency is not to change it and you also want equal opportunity and I presume then that you also don't want to change things, so we are both conservative!
ReplyDeleteIsn't it grand when we can find common ground?
I am not Ignorant to what you are saying, Satyavati, about how words change. It's just that when we get ahead of Webster, we should not be surprised if people do not Understand what we mean.
ReplyDeleteAlso, sometimes words are changed for Political Reasons. The word marriage is a good example. It Originally Meant a union between a man and a woman, but the Gays have pushed the issue so Hard that Webster has actually redefined it, in spite the Political Protests.
To Broaden the definition of Socialism can achieve the Political Objective of persuading more people to join, as well as to make the Term "Socialism" more acceptable to the Public, so that has a Political Objective as well.
Beth,
ReplyDeleteIf we 'traditionally' had equal opportunity we would never have had a necessity for the Civil Rights Act.
I can give you numerous examples, actually, of the 'tradition' of personal and institutional intolerance in the United States.
So let's just look at the definition, like you did with the definition of Socialism.
I don't see a word about 'equal opportunity' in it.
This is playing the game by YOUR rules... not mine. You've repeated several times that you haven't seen anything about equality of access (despite me posting about how this is the position taken by technocratic socialists, etc)... so I'm saying here that the definition of conservatism also doesn't contain a single thing about equality of access OR equal opportunity.
And like I said, the United States has a history of intolerance and institutionalized discrimination that actually PREDATES the Constitution and goes back to Peter Stuyvesant. And continues today, regardless of what you'd like to claim. 'All men are created equal' referred to white Protestant men. The institutionalized intolerance and discrimination was not made illegal until over 100 years and a war later, and still continues to this day.
So to claim that 'equal opportunity' in this country is 'traditional' is pretty much a nonsense.
The definition in the dictionary should have mentioned it if it was so important. Don't you think?
Beth,
ReplyDeleteAs you can see by the below quotes, the 'tradition' of equal rights and opportunity of access is more completely a Socialist tradition than anyone else's. By supporting equal rights and opportunity of access, you are adding your support to the struggle that the Socialist Party has been fighting for the better part of the last hundred years.
Congratulations! You're upholding values that have been core to the Socialist movement since its very inception.
---
The Socialist Party was calling for equal rights for African-Americans as early as 1932 —
long before equal rights became acceptable to the Democrats or Republicans. When black and white share croppers banded together in the first biracial labor union, Socialist H.L. Mitchell organized it.
In World War II, when U.S. citizens were put in concentration camps, just for having Japanese ancestors, the Socialist Party raised its voice in opposition while the Democrats
and Republicans kept silent. When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made his famous “I Have A Dream” speech, he shared the platform with two prominent Socialists: African- American
labor leader A. Philip Randolph, and Socialist Presidential candidate Norman Thomas.
Just because the premise of socialism is wrong and it doesn't actually work doesn't mean that all socialists are wrong all the time. It seems to me that some socialist ideas are in line with our Constitution, so that is a good thing. It's when they promote things that take away individual freedoms that bother me, since as I mention they don't work and are against the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteCommon ground, right? :-)
"ARTICLE II: Purpose
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the Party is to establish by democratic means a new society based on democratic socialism in which democracy is extended from politics to the economy and where production of goods and services is based on human need instead of private profit, a society in which all exploitation has been abolished and where human rights will come before property rights."
[insert major eye rolling]
Re the definition of conservatism as not including the concept of equal opportunity or access perhaps it's a faulty definition to begin with. Since language is constantly changing I think the next edition of Webster's should reflect the change. Socialism and individual rights are incompatible. If government is to control the economy and to set prices etc. how can you be a free businessman?
ReplyDeleteI think that Equal Opportunity was presented as an Ideal or a Goal for which to strive for, yet Pure Capitalism, with Zero Regulation does not accomplish it.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that "Equal Opportunity" does not appear in the Definition of Conservatism is indicative of the fact that it is not in reality the Main Focus of many Conservatives, even though they may Claim that it is. The Real Focus is that which is Described in the Dictionary.
Actually, though, both Parties are striving for the same goal of Equal Access or Opportunity, but have differing Opinions of how to get there. My own personal opinion is that the Extreme Conservatives, including Libertarians, are in Denial about the Fact that Pure, Unregulated Capitalism does not Result in Equal Opportunity.
You know, Satyavati, when you are not talking about Abortion, you argue your points very well.
Soap,
Your Eye Rolling generally just makes me Laugh. I don't know if that is your Intended Effect or not. It just so happens, though, that you are Rolling your Eyes at someone who is presenting a rather good argument.
Z,
you make a good point as well.
In reality, a person can't truly be "Free" without Access to the Basic Essentials of Life. Those who have the ability to possess some things have a larger number of options to choose from and therefore, more Freedom. How can a person who Only has enough Money to purchase Food, Clothing and Shelter be Free? Poverty is not Freedom.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm glad that Satyavati has used the word "Access", for it is quite a Different Focus than the word "Choice". Without Access, there is no Choice and therefore, no Freedom.
To Claim that Everyone has the Same ability to Choose is a Denial of what is actually True in Reality and without Choice, there is no Freedom, for the two ideas are Connected. Freedom can not Exist without Choice and Choice can not Exist without Access.
Freedom can not Exist without Choice and Choice can not Exist without Access.
ReplyDeleteAnd that right there is the entire point. Well said.
[insert major eye rolling]
ReplyDeleteCareful with that. If the cats get hold of them you'll never get them back.
Socialism and individual rights are incompatible. If government is to control the economy and to set prices etc. how can you be a free businessman?
ReplyDeleteThere are various economic theories of Socialism as well as political theories.
From Wiki, who explains it better than I can:
Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[11]
Libertarian socialists (including social anarchists and libertarian Marxists) reject state control and ownership of the economy altogether, and advocate direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.
Contemporary social democrats propose selective nationalisation of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise.
So as you can see, there are options on how to reach the goal.
Socialism never ends with individual freedoms, so it short, it sucks, no matter how you dress it up or what brand of socialism you are trying to come up with.
ReplyDeleteAND it doesn't work either.
ReplyDeleteLibertarian socialists, I didn't know there was such an animal.
ReplyDeleteI'd say Obama is one of those socialists who wants government control of certain things but within the context of free-market capitalism. That's where I'd place him on the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteThat is the Only type of Socialism that he can get away with in the Country and even that is Pushing it.
ReplyDeleteSocialism-"it sucks, no matter how you dress it up or what brand of socialism you are trying to come up with."
ReplyDeleteYes, there are brands. In a few places, some brands seem to work..if you think
GDP per capita is an indicator of economic well-being and believe the CIA world facebook...
Norway $79,100
USA $ 46,400