Social Media Outrage/Cancel Culture

[swampfrog]

I am not conflating anything. I provided my definition, in context to what Trump is “supposedly” doing. I did not state a federal government is a prerequisite; that is your word not mine. You are, using Swamps words, a bad actor in this circumstance precisely because you have not offered any definition.

That's not fair. A bad actor is someone who intentionally is using a different definition knowing that the other parties would be unaware of that definition. I don't think that is going on here by anyone involved. I also found your phrasing somewhat awkward but I think I understood the intent.

the very idea of a "federal government" is in fact a socialist idea

That can be parsed quite a few ways, it's not very precise. Pelado asked for a clarification. People are chiming in to help as it's a public discussion.

I read it as any national government is going to have influence on the market. It's unavoidable. Influence does not necessarily mean complete control of. Influence (or regulation) can be considered a tenet of socialist ideas. In order for a free market to exist, something must be in place to uphold its freedom from bad actors both outside and inside that market. That something will influence the market. Intersecting circles in a Venn diagram.

It could also be read as the concept of "federal government" emerges from socialism. One circle fully enclosing the other in a Venn diagram.

Neither one of those may be what was originally intended. So we use dialog to clarify until we reach understanding (but not necessarily agreement).

We should all strive to read one another more charitably.

[Katy Lied]

When did Marx say ya gotta go through a federal government to get to socialism? It seems that most socialist states have sprung up in countries with a dictator and/or oligarchy.

Marx said that countries need to go through late stage capitalism before they can move to socialism. Lenin said that capitalism was not needed and you can proceed straight to communism.

From a game theory perspective, capitalist actors will absolutely act in their own best interest, and in Wuap's term, this unfettered capitalist incentivism will create a more inefficient, less fair society. As in the Tragedy of the Commons, a capitalist society requires a strong central government to overcome all the free riding that individual capitalist actors will do, and in overcoming individual incentives, will create a better (lets just say more pareto optimal) society. Ummm, not really because it is more ethical or moral to preserve the rights of minorities, but so that capitalists don't eat their young.

[tooblue]

Agreed. I feel like tooblue is conflating various topics. I don't think he's doing it intentionally, though.

A federal government is not a socialist idea and is not a prerequisite for socialism. In fact, the countries that have embraced socialism the most have rarely had a government like the one envisioned by Madison. Socialism can be implemented in most any type of governmental structure - monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, and yes, a federal system like in the United States. But the idea of a federal government is not inherently socialist.

I am not conflating anything. I provided my definition, in context to what Trump is “supposedly” doing. I did not state a federal government is a prerequisite; that is your word not mine. You are, using Swamps words, a bad actor in this circumstance precisely because you have not offered any definition.

[wapiti]

Agreed. I feel like tooblue is conflating various topics. I don't think he's doing it intentionally, though.

A federal government is not a socialist idea and is not a prerequisite for socialism. In fact, the countries that have embraced socialism the most have rarely had a government like the one envisioned by Madison. Socialism can be implemented in most any type of governmental structure - monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, and yes, a federal system like in the United States. But the idea of a federal government is not inherently socialist.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I think the original idea behind the federal government was two-fold. 1) National defense. 2) Regulate interstate commerce. I'd venture to say that the commerce clause has been interpreted too broadly.

[wuapinmon]

Socialism defined as the public (government) ownership of the means of production produces a different answer than Socialism defined as a set of economic principles including regulation by government. This game gets played out all of the time. This conversation cannot be had unless the terms surrounding it are defined. This is true of any complex topics, parties desiring to engage in a conversation about them in good faith require a period of time to first understand how the other parties are using specific words or phrases. It is difficult to do even person to person. In writing it can be near impossible if the gap is too wide.

Bad actors do this intentionally--knowing they use different definitions of words or phrases than the common usage--in order to push an agenda.

I find, with my students, that if I ask them to define Socialism, they always give me a definition of Communism. Most people struggle to define Socialism, but the Cold War's legacy means that the word is loaded to anyone old enough to remember the Cold War. My students parents try to inculcate the same values in them, but they are usually only successful if the parents didn't go to college, surprisingly.

[Pelado]

Socialism defined as the public (government) ownership of the means of production produces a different answer than Socialism defined as a set of economic principles including regulation by government. This game gets played out all of the time. This conversation cannot be had unless the terms surrounding it are defined. This is true of any complex topics, parties desiring to engage in a conversation about them in good faith require a period of time to first understand how the other parties are using specific words or phrases. It is difficult to do even person to person. In writing it can be near impossible if the gap is too wide.

Bad actors do this intentionally--knowing they use different definitions of words or phrases than the common usage--in order to push an agenda.

Agreed. I feel like tooblue is conflating various topics. I don't think he's doing it intentionally, though.

A federal government is not a socialist idea and is not a prerequisite for socialism. In fact, the countries that have embraced socialism the most have rarely had a government like the one envisioned by Madison. Socialism can be implemented in most any type of governmental structure - monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, and yes, a federal system like in the United States. But the idea of a federal government is not inherently socialist.

[swampfrog]

Socialism defined as the public (government) ownership of the means of production produces a different answer than Socialism defined as a set of economic principles including regulation by government. This game gets played out all of the time. This conversation cannot be had unless the terms surrounding it are defined. This is true of any complex topics, parties desiring to engage in a conversation about them in good faith require a period of time to first understand how the other parties are using specific words or phrases. It is difficult to do even person to person. In writing it can be near impossible if the gap is too wide.

Bad actors do this intentionally--knowing they use different definitions of words or phrases than the common usage--in order to push an agenda.

[tooblue]

I never made any claim as to what activities the federal government engages in, so I don't feel compelled to present any evidence either way.

You, on the other hand, asserted that the very idea of a federal government is a socialist idea. I have yet to see any evidence for your claim. As it pertains to the federal government in the United States, for the very idea to be a socialist, it seems like socialism would have had to predate at least Madison. Else, how could socialism beget a federal government?

Sorry for making you wait less than an hour. I'm still waiting for the evidence I asked for yesterday.

My statement is self-evident based on the functional purpose of a Federal government. Again, I ask: ... when is the Donald going to eliminate all of the "economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of [the US's] capitalist economy?" When will the federal government, under the charge of the swamp drainer stop "[regulating] ... the [US] economy in general, [and in the interest of] welfare state provisions?"

I live in the Eastern time zone. I went to bed.

[tooblue]

I'm still waiting Pelado ...

While waiting, here's and intriguing read:

But in researching the book, the biggest surprise was that citizen ownership — often stigmatized as “socialist” or pie in the sky — has a pedigree stretching back to the American Revolution. And it wasn’t just James Madison and John Adams. Other be-wigged early presidents of the U.S. and half the crew on Mt. Rushmore — George Washington and Thomas Jefferson — believed that U.S. democracy would work best if citizens had a broad-based ownership stake in the economy. They too feared that extreme property inequality would prevent America from fulfilling its promise.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/what-the-founding-fathers-beli

[Pelado]

Now you are just being willfully obtuse. What evidence do you present to say that the federal government does not engage in a socialist agenda, programs, regulatory actions?

I never made any claim as to what activities the federal government engages in, so I don't feel compelled to present any evidence either way.

You, on the other hand, asserted that the very idea of a federal government is a socialist idea. I have yet to see any evidence for your claim. As it pertains to the federal government in the United States, for the very idea to be a socialist, it seems like socialism would have had to predate at least Madison. Else, how could socialism beget a federal government?

I'm still waiting Pelado ...

Sorry for making you wait less than an hour. I'm still waiting for the evidence I asked for yesterday.

[tooblue]

Now you are just being willfully obtuse. What evidence do you present to say that the federal government does not engage in a socialist agenda, programs, regulatory actions?

I'm still waiting Pelado ...

[Walter Sobchak]

Anyone who wonders what the unfettered, unadulterated belief in laissez faire capitalism causes should examine all of the contributing factors of the Irish Potato Famine. There was plenty of food in Ireland. The abuses of the laissez faire elite (and their selling that doctrine to the European middle class) gave rise to the social conditions that fomented the rise of communism and socialism in Europe in the late 1800s. By the time most nations had internal combustion engines for farm work, the peasants who didn't have horrific factory jobs were left without any means to eat. It's little wonder that both cities and countryside rose up against the landed gentry and industrial tycoons and threatened to overthrow every government in the Western world. Fettered capitalism is great and how I like to live. Unfettered capitalism makes the rich richer and destroys the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Regulate business. Feed the hungry. Heal the sick. Invest in and maintain infrastructure. Protect the environment. Make sure soldiers who are injured or wounded in combat or training for combat enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. Expand opportunities for education (of all types). Give people employment who want it and can't find it (e.g., CCC, WPA). Fund research into every technology that will improve the quality of life. Be patriotic, not jingoistic. That's how you stave off socialism. FDR was a genius.

[tooblue]

When did Marx say ya gotta go through a federal government to get to socialism? It seems that most socialist states have sprung up in countries with a dictator and/or oligarchy.

Now you are just being willfully obtuse. What evidence do you present to say that the federal government does not engage in a socialist agenda, programs, regulatory actions?

[Pelado]

It could be argued that Venzuela went through capitalism to get to socialism.

My question is not and has not been about capitalism, it's about tooblue's earlier assertion that:

the very idea of a "federal government" is in fact a socialist idea

I still don't see any support for that claim.

[wapiti]

It seems that most socialist states have sprung up in countries with a dictator and/or oligarchy.

It could be argued that Venzuela went through capitalism to get to socialism.