It should say CASH IF YOU SUPPORT SOCIALISM

so many people complain about socialism but are now 1st in line to take free money from the government.

Uh, that's not socialism. That's welfare. It would be nice if everyone was using the same terminology.

---

It should say CASH IF YOU SUPPORT SOCIALISM

so many people complain about socialism but are now 1st in line to take free money from the government.

Uh, that's not socialism. That's welfare. It would be nice if everyone was using the same terminology.

Correct, welfare is Communism, Socialism bigger, meaner, older brother.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Uh, that's not socialism. That's welfare. It would be nice if everyone was using the same terminology.

Correct, welfare is Communism, Socialism bigger, meaner, older brother.

Ok, then what you are really saying is that all of you cashing your stimulus checks are not Socialists but rather welfare Communists.   

Sorry about my incorrect terminology that you corrected.

---

It should say CASH IF YOU SUPPORT SOCIALISM

so many people complain about socialism but are now 1st in line to take free money from the government.

Uh, that's not socialism. That's welfare. It would be nice if everyone was using the same terminology.

The modern definition of socialism is that the government controls some of the means of production.
I've certainly nit picked people for not using this definition in the past.
But, I'm learning more about European history between Napoleon and WWI, and it looks like a lot of people used the word "socialism" in those years and very few of them had today's dictionary definition in mind. In fact, socialists in the past were for some things that are not very controversial today: unemployment insurance, workmen's comp, work safety regulations, time and a half for overtime, etc.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Correct, welfare is Communism, Socialism bigger, meaner, older brother.

Ok, then what you are really saying is that all of you cashing your stimulus checks are not Socialists but rather welfare Communists.   

Sorry about my incorrect terminology that you corrected.

No, I'm in the group that pays taxes so I am theoretically getting "my" money back. The poors like Amazon and Wal-Mart who don't pay taxes are the welfare communists.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I’m continually baffled by the left’s desire to paint any government assistance as “socialism”. The difference being, of course, is socialists want government assistance on a continuing basis rather than in just difficult times. Seems pretty simple.

---

I keep reading comments about folks who don't pay any taxes getting stimulus checks. My husband's aunt and uncle are retired and living on a tight pension (he's a retired firefighter) and social security.  According to my FIL they didn't make enough to file a tax return the last two years and won't be getting a check. So tell me, how are folks who don't file returns getting checks?

---

I keep reading comments about folks who don't pay any taxes getting stimulus checks. My husband's aunt and uncle are retired and living on a tight pension (he's a retired firefighter) and social security.  According to my FIL they didn't make enough to file a tax return the last two years and won't be getting a check. So tell me, how are folks who don't file returns getting checks?

Here you go:

https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/non-file...-info-here

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Uh, that's not socialism. That's welfare. It would be nice if everyone was using the same terminology.

Correct, welfare is Communism, Socialism bigger, meaner, older brother.

I can't agree by that definition, either. You can have capitalist welfare. You can have socialist welfare. You can't have capitalist socialism. That is because welfare relies on the redistribution of wealth, which can be created in both systems (in theory at least). Conservatives argue against involuntarily taking from someone to give to another, but this can and does exist in a capitalist system. Until the means of production is seized, the argument is really about the morality of wealth redistribution, which, in my opinion, should be a stand alone issue. Democratic socialists not only want to redistribute wealth, but ultimately want to control the means of production. This gets muddied by the fact that they are not honest about their end goal, with a few exceptions. 

I know Glenn Beck through out that line the other day, but I disagree with him entirely. Communism not only concerns itself with the means of production, but also has other tenants that define it. It's stateless, classless, and money-less... this is all in addition to controlling the means of production. Other versions of communism took it a step further: controlling the way you think, worship, interact with your neighbors, etc. In theory a socialist country could just control the means of production and leave the population free to do what it wants (which is kind of like anarchy). I personally don't believe that is possible, because anyone with the power to control the economy would have to have the discipline from refraining in social interactions, which has not played out in any socialist nation. You'd have to figure out how to stop corruption before I think any of this is remotely viable, but that's a different discussion.

Anyone who wants to use the terms correctly should watch the following video. It breaks this down more clearly than any other video I have watched on the differences between capitalism and socialism, and the difference between socialist nations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs

To Glenn Beck's credit, he did say that socialism was communism's older, bigger, meaner brother because it is the transition stage to communism, which can include revolutionaries. The video above references this in multiple spots. However, I am not sure his average listener would be able to make the distinction as to why he made that claim. Quick aside, I think it's interesting that Bernie Sanders uses the democratic socialist tag instead of the social democrat tag. He's either too stupid to know the difference, or his end goals are socialist in nature. I don't think he's stupid.

---

Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably, he didn't really bother to define them. Remember, in his time, a "commune" was a political unit, usually a city, sometimes a village, that had its own walls and its own rules but often got overruled by an absolutist central government. Paris was a commune. Most dots on the map in Germany were communes. The urban workers Marx hoped to organize were all in these communes. In a sense, Marx was trying to say that in the future, cities with factories would be the seats of power, not rural palaces, when he talked about the future being "communist".
People who came after Marx have mostly agreed that communism is something more extreme and more pure, that has never been attained. So debating about communism is kind of like debating about if x wings can defeat b wings, or other stuff from fantasy and science fiction. Socialism, on the other hand, people have experienced that in many different places and times by now, and that is worth discussing.
I think homebiscuit gets closest to the right answer. Everyone agrees that the government should step into an economic crisis from time to time. One way to define socialist is, someone who wants that government intervention to be a permanent, all the time, arrangement.
But we're all sort of socialist now! All of us want an unemployment system that automatically pays out when you qualify. All of us want food stamps that automatically pay out when your income gets low. We want these programs to be permanent and automatic. Sometimes that's totally rational and scientific, but sometimes it's not.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably, he didn't really bother to define them. Remember, in his time, a "commune" was a political unit, usually a city, sometimes a village, that had its own walls and its own rules but often got overruled by an absolutist central government. Paris was a commune.  Most dots on the map in Germany were communes.  The urban workers Marx hoped to organize were all in these communes.  In a sense, Marx was trying to say that in the future, cities with factories would be the seats of power, not rural palaces, when he talked about the future being "communist".
People who came after Marx have mostly agreed that communism is something more extreme and more pure, that has never been attained. So debating about communism is kind of like debating about if x wings can defeat b wings, or other stuff from fantasy and science fiction.  Socialism, on the other hand, people have experienced that in many different places and times by now, and that is worth discussing.
I think homebiscuit gets closest to the right answer.  Everyone agrees that the government should step into an economic crisis from time to time.  One way to define socialist is, someone who wants that government intervention to be a permanent, all the time, arrangement.
But we're all sort of socialist now! All of us want an unemployment system that automatically pays out when you qualify. All of us want food stamps that automatically pay out when your income gets low. We want these programs to be permanent and automatic. Sometimes that's totally rational and scientific, but sometimes it's not.

your minor premise is thus disproven and as such, your syllogism fell apart.  As a budding libertarian (still strange to say) I don't want or need your nanny state.

---

Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably, he didn't really bother to define them. Remember, in his time, a "commune" was a political unit, usually a city, sometimes a village, that had its own walls and its own rules but often got overruled by an absolutist central government. Paris was a commune.  Most dots on the map in Germany were communes.  The urban workers Marx hoped to organize were all in these communes.  In a sense, Marx was trying to say that in the future, cities with factories would be the seats of power, not rural palaces, when he talked about the future being "communist".
People who came after Marx have mostly agreed that communism is something more extreme and more pure, that has never been attained. So debating about communism is kind of like debating about if x wings can defeat b wings, or other stuff from fantasy and science fiction.  Socialism, on the other hand, people have experienced that in many different places and times by now, and that is worth discussing.
I think homebiscuit gets closest to the right answer.  Everyone agrees that the government should step into an economic crisis from time to time.  One way to define socialist is, someone who wants that government intervention to be a permanent, all the time, arrangement.
But we're all sort of socialist now! All of us want an unemployment system that automatically pays out when you qualify. All of us want food stamps that automatically pay out when your income gets low. We want these programs to be permanent and automatic. Sometimes that's totally rational and scientific, but sometimes it's not.

your minor premise is thus disproven and as such, your syllogism fell apart.  As a budding libertarian (still strange to say) I don't want or need your nanny state.

---

I keep reading comments about folks who don't pay any taxes getting stimulus checks. My husband's aunt and uncle are retired and living on a tight pension (he's a retired firefighter) and social security.  According to my FIL they didn't make enough to file a tax return the last two years and won't be getting a check. So tell me, how are folks who don't file returns getting checks?

Here you go:

https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/non-file...-info-here

Thanks!

---

Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably, he didn't really bother to define them. Remember, in his time, a "commune" was a political unit, usually a city, sometimes a village, that had its own walls and its own rules but often got overruled by an absolutist central government. Paris was a commune.  Most dots on the map in Germany were communes.  The urban workers Marx hoped to organize were all in these communes.  In a sense, Marx was trying to say that in the future, cities with factories would be the seats of power, not rural palaces, when he talked about the future being "communist".
People who came after Marx have mostly agreed that communism is something more extreme and more pure, that has never been attained. So debating about communism is kind of like debating about if x wings can defeat b wings, or other stuff from fantasy and science fiction.  Socialism, on the other hand, people have experienced that in many different places and times by now, and that is worth discussing.
I think homebiscuit gets closest to the right answer.  Everyone agrees that the government should step into an economic crisis from time to time.  One way to define socialist is, someone who wants that government intervention to be a permanent, all the time, arrangement.
But we're all sort of socialist now! All of us want an unemployment system that automatically pays out when you qualify. All of us want food stamps that automatically pay out when your income gets low. We want these programs to be permanent and automatic. Sometimes that's totally rational and scientific, but sometimes it's not.

No, dummy. We're not all socialists. Did you even watch the video I posted? 

Your points are so poorly articulated, I had to look up socialism on Wikipedia, just so I would get your point of reference. I bet I could point out all the passages you misinterpreted to arrive at your stupid conclusion.

---

Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably, he didn't really bother to define them. Remember, in his time, a "commune" was a political unit, usually a city, sometimes a village, that had its own walls and its own rules but often got overruled by an absolutist central government. Paris was a commune.  Most dots on the map in Germany were communes.  The urban workers Marx hoped to organize were all in these communes.  In a sense, Marx was trying to say that in the future, cities with factories would be the seats of power, not rural palaces, when he talked about the future being "communist".
People who came after Marx have mostly agreed that communism is something more extreme and more pure, that has never been attained. So debating about communism is kind of like debating about if x wings can defeat b wings, or other stuff from fantasy and science fiction.  Socialism, on the other hand, people have experienced that in many different places and times by now, and that is worth discussing.
I think homebiscuit gets closest to the right answer.  Everyone agrees that the government should step into an economic crisis from time to time.  One way to define socialist is, someone who wants that government intervention to be a permanent, all the time, arrangement.
But we're all sort of socialist now! All of us want an unemployment system that automatically pays out when you qualify. All of us want food stamps that automatically pay out when your income gets low. We want these programs to be permanent and automatic. Sometimes that's totally rational and scientific, but sometimes it's not.

No, dummy. We're not all socialists. Did you even watch the video I posted? 

Your points are so poorly articulated, I had to look up socialism on Wikipedia, just so I would get your point of reference. I bet I could point out all the passages you misinterpreted to arrive at your stupid conclusion.

I'm not here to watch videos.
By the definition of socialism that you offered, you're right, most people are not socialists. 
But as I explained, I think homebiscuit's definition is better. Homebiscuit's definition is closer to how the word is typically used today in America. But most people are sort of socialist under that definition. And that's okay! Maybe we can stop using a philosophy as a pejorative...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You're not here to learn anything. Got it.

This is the problem with people like you talking politics. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you think it's ok to just use words however you want. Socialism is a clearly defined term with certain objectives. You don't get to change it, conveniently, because it suits your purpose. Americans often use the term socialism incorrectly, because we don't have an honest discussion about it, and people are too lazy to learn the truth about it. I take the time to explain it to you, and you admittedly don't even consider what was written. You should stand corrected and move forward with a renewed understanding, but you are too arrogant to change. Instead, you try to justify your ignorance by pointing to the uninformed masses and misinterpreting Wikipedia articles. Good job, moron.

Look, dude... I'll throw you a bone, even though it will probably just bounce off your thick skull. Language is constantly changing, so I concede that you can't always expect a word to stay the same throughout time. The term socialism, in its infancy, was all over the place for about 10 years but was eventually co-opted, then settled down into a pretty rigid definition for over 150 years. In the last 5 years, people have been using it incorrectly America, thanks to Bernie Sanders. I can assure you Bernie knows the difference between a social democrat and democratic socialist. He is not being honest with it, and since he is not challenged, people just adopt his talking points. This results in people from both sides of the aisle misusing the term. You're no exception. If you think we should cast aside that definition that's been perfectly acceptable for so long, just because some people are lying and others are too stupid to question it, you're dumber than I thought.

Watch a video and learn something.

---

If it helps, it was made by a Marxist, so you don't even have to sacrifice any of your values.

---

Correct, welfare is Communism, Socialism bigger, meaner, older brother.

Quick aside, I think it's interesting that Bernie Sanders uses the democratic socialist tag instead of the social democrat tag. He's either too stupid to know the difference, or his end goals are socialist in nature. I don't think he's stupid.

I try to limit how often I whip out the whole, "Political science major with a focus in political theory", but I do have a pretty good idea of why:

1. By the time you get that far left to one side of the scale, things start jumbling together. First with each other, then with the farthest fringes starting to reach across and connect dots with the other side. "Social democrat" and "democratic socialist" are close to being the same thing. I don't remember the exact differences, but I would guess it's mostly centered around little bits and pieces of capitalism left in social democracy that aren't there in democratic socialism. A couple of ideologies that are so far to one side that they pull from the other would be Stalin-style communism (drew heavily from fascism despite placement on the left) and Nazism (drew from socialism and communism despite being far right...I know I'm going to hurt the feelings of a few by saying that).

2. One of the key identifiers of most of Sanders' supporters is a rejection of both parties, not just of Republicans and those right of center. The term "social democrat" suggests that Sanders is still tied to the concepts of the Democratic Party, because most of his supporters wouldn't know a political horseshoe if it hit them in the face. By using "democratic socialist", it's a break from being a "Democrat" while still differentiating it from further right ideas, and true democratic socialism isn't far enough out there to draw over from the right.

or 3. He doesn't actually know the difference, or doesn't care that there is one, and just went with what sounds better on the evening news.

---

You're not here to learn anything. Got it.

This is the problem with people like you talking politics. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you think it's ok to just use words however you want. Socialism is a clearly defined term with certain objectives. You don't get to change it, conveniently, because it suits your purpose. Americans often use the term socialism incorrectly, because we don't have an honest discussion about it, and people are too lazy to learn the truth about it. I take the time to explain it to you, and you admittedly don't even consider what was written. You should stand corrected and move forward with a renewed understanding, but you are too arrogant to change. Instead, you try to justify your ignorance by pointing to the uninformed masses and misinterpreting Wikipedia articles. Good job, moron.

Look, dude... I'll throw you a bone, even though it will probably just bounce off your thick skull. Language is constantly changing, so I concede that you can't always expect a word to stay the same throughout time. The term socialism, in its infancy, was all over the place for about 10 years but was eventually co-opted, then settled down into a pretty rigid definition for over 150 years. In the last 5 years, people have been using it incorrectly America, thanks to Bernie Sanders. I can assure you Bernie knows the difference between a social democrat and democratic socialist. He is not being honest with it, and since he is not challenged, people just adopt his talking points. This results in people from both sides of the aisle misusing the term. You're no exception. If you think we should cast aside that definition that's been perfectly acceptable for so long, just because some people are lying and others are too stupid to question it, you're dumber than I thought.

Watch a video and learn something.

---

If it helps, it was made by a Marxist, so you don't even have to sacrifice any of your values.

The word has been abused in America for much longer than just 5 years.
Members of the Republican Party have been calling members of the Democratic Party socialists for longer than both of us have been alive.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You're not here to learn anything. Got it.

This is the problem with people like you talking politics. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you think it's ok to just use words however you want. Socialism is a clearly defined term with certain objectives. You don't get to change it, conveniently, because it suits your purpose. Americans often use the term socialism incorrectly, because we don't have an honest discussion about it, and people are too lazy to learn the truth about it. I take the time to explain it to you, and you admittedly don't even consider what was written. You should stand corrected and move forward with a renewed understanding, but you are too arrogant to change. Instead, you try to justify your ignorance by pointing to the uninformed masses and misinterpreting Wikipedia articles. Good job, moron.

Look, dude... I'll throw you a bone, even though it will probably just bounce off your thick skull. Language is constantly changing, so I concede that you can't always expect a word to stay the same throughout time. The term socialism, in its infancy, was all over the place for about 10 years but was eventually co-opted, then settled down into a pretty rigid definition for over 150 years. In the last 5 years, people have been using it incorrectly America, thanks to Bernie Sanders. I can assure you Bernie knows the difference between a social democrat and democratic socialist. He is not being honest with it, and since he is not challenged, people just adopt his talking points. This results in people from both sides of the aisle misusing the term. You're no exception. If you think we should cast aside that definition that's been perfectly acceptable for so long, just because some people are lying and others are too stupid to question it, you're dumber than I thought.

Watch a video and learn something.

---

If it helps, it was made by a Marxist, so you don't even have to sacrifice any of your values.

The word has been abused in America for much longer than just 5 years.
Members of the Republican Party have been calling members of the Democratic Party socialists for longer than both of us have been alive.

It's an attempt to soften the criticism, when the correct term is Marxist.

BTW, yesterday was the birthday of that Socialist/Marxist/Communist theologian beloved by the Leftist politicians in the San Francisco Bay area. 


....


Yes, I'm referring to the great humanitarian Jim Jones.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The accusation was still rooted in the belief that many democrats had socialism as their end goal, which was arguably true in the 50's, 60's and 70's. They weren't attempting to change the word, but it did water it down. It was a rhetorical use, but I'll concede.

---

Quick aside, I think it's interesting that Bernie Sanders uses the democratic socialist tag instead of the social democrat tag. He's either too stupid to know the difference, or his end goals are socialist in nature. I don't think he's stupid.

I try to limit how often I whip out the whole, "Political science major with a focus in political theory", but I do have a pretty good idea of why:

1. By the time you get that far left to one side of the scale, things start jumbling together. First with each other, then with the farthest fringes starting to reach across and connect dots with the other side. "Social democrat" and "democratic socialist" are close to being the same thing. I don't remember the exact differences, but I would guess it's mostly centered around little bits and pieces of capitalism left in social democracy that aren't there in democratic socialism. A couple of ideologies that are so far to one side that they pull from the other would be Stalin-style communism (drew heavily from fascism despite placement on the left) and Nazism (drew from socialism and communism despite being far right...I know I'm going to hurt the feelings of a few by saying that).

2. One of the key identifiers of most of Sanders' supporters is a rejection of both parties, not just of Republicans and those right of center. The term "social democrat" suggests that Sanders is still tied to the concepts of the Democratic Party, because most of his supporters wouldn't know a political horseshoe if it hit them in the face. By using "democratic socialist", it's a break from being a "Democrat" while still differentiating it from further right ideas, and true democratic socialism isn't far enough out there to draw over from the right.

or 3. He doesn't actually know the difference, or doesn't care that there is one, and just went with what sounds better on the evening news.

It's cool. It was my major also. I disagreed with most my professors and half of my peers, so it's possible to have an honest discussion about the subject. I just lose my patience with a person like Mikel who likes to read Wikipedia, then present himself as an expert here. 

You nailed the bolded part. Social democrats are largely pro-capitalist with an emphasis on a large social safety net, but Democratic socialists are pro-socialist (in that they think the means of production should be run by the state), but think decisions should be made via the people through a democratic process. Social democrats are as far to the left as you can get in a capitalist system, while democratic socialists are as far as you can get to the right in a socialist system. While there is some overlap with regards to welfare, the big difference goes back to who controls the means of production. Let me address some of your points. 

1. I do understand that there is confusion, even at the undergrad level. I don't think this is due to a lack of clarity of the terminology, but rather the institutions' fixation on Marxism, Communism, and Fascism. There is a terrible bias in academia with regards to socialism, and I feel this tends to soften the role it has played in tyrannical governments. I will admit that I didn't even have a solid grasp of the systems until many years after graduating from college, as I continued to educate myself about history and philosophy. I am ok with people confusing these terms, but not after it's been explained. 

2. This distinction between terms exacerbated by the rhetoric rampant in our political system, and I've already conceded that point in my previous post. I don't think this justifies using the more extreme of two terms, though. I could see why someone might use the justification you presented here, but it just seems like a terrible strategy. 

3. It's a possibility, certainly. I just find it hard to believe he doesn't know the difference. 

4. You left out 4. He wants a socialist society and is ok with misleading the public until it's a realistic possibility. One of the problems I have with Marxism is that it was literally designed to usher in a communist society (we would say Marxist) using a socialist society to destroy a capitalist society. People who study his works and those that follow, know the blueprint. Depending on the author, this could be achieved through revolutionary means or democratic means. Because of this, it is actually very hard to believe that anyone that reads and values Marx would like to stop anywhere short of Marxism.

---