A short story in applied socialism; a big learning experience.

[Diuretic]

I can't do a Ronnie Reagan barnyard metaphor so this will have to do:

Market socialism refers to various economic systems in which the government owns the economic institutions or major industries but operates them according to the rules of supply and demand. In a traditional market socialist economy, prices would be determined by a government planning ministry, and enterprises would either be state-owned or cooperatively-owned and managed by their employees. Libertarian socialists and left-anarchists often promote a form of market socialism in which enterprises are owned and managed collectively by the workers, but compete with each other in the same way private companies compete in a capitalist market. The People's Republic of China currently has a form of market socialism referred to as the socialist market economy, in which most of the industry is state-owned, but prices are not set by the government. Within this model, the state-owned enterprises are free from excessive regulation and function more autonomously in a more decentralized fashion than in other socialist economic systems.

Market socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks pretty good on paper huh? Just throw in the intangibles, like human nature, and such, and there goes the your perfect government. You think that China's works well? Just look at the damn government control it has over the citizens. Look at the poverty level in China. Your ignorant, or naive...only you can answer that. But redistribution of wealth is not healthy for our government...maybe yours...I don't know where you live. Perhaps you do need the barnyard version on socialism...it show more realism than your wikipedia version

Oh human nature, you mean like avarice? The avarice that fucked up the world's economic system? Yes, must remember that.

 

[Bern80]

I agree. The OP also assumes that college students aren't there to learn anything. In other words, college students are paying money and yet not attempting to benefit from the money spent. I think that is a pretty stupid assumption to make...and actually against the free market.

Did you...not....attend college? Plenty of students aren't there to learn. At least that's what their behavior reflects. The reality is the way academia is set up, students are there to get the grade. Acquisition of knowledge is just a by product of that. There aren't that many truly curious minds in academic terms. We do enough to get the job done. College admissions offices depend on grades to determine who is admitted. Admissions into med school are determined by your grades in undergrad. The licensing board determines whether you will get to be a doctor by the grades you receive in grad school and so on. These bodies don't inventory your knowledge when you apply for them. They look at your grades and assume that marks you've received reflect the knowledge you've gained to get to the next step. It's about getting the grade because we all learn pretty quickly that is how we will be measured. In school I was awesome at essay tests, not so great at multiple choice. They don't call it a BS for nothin ya know.

So yes, the OP is a perfect example of human behavior and why socialism (or collectivism, or communism, or whatever Diuretic would like us to call it) fails as a result.

 

[Diuretic]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

This is a pretty weak argument Di. The word socialism is a lot like the work liberal. It's meaning has changed. Classic liberals are rolling over in their graves at the like of Pelosi, Clinton and Gore calling themselves liberal. It may not mean the same thing anymore, but what all know what it means now. The same is true of the term socialism.

What should we call it? Collectivism? Communism? Progressive? I don't really care what term is used and socialism is as good a word as any because we all understand what it means regardless of the definition you would like us to adhere to.

Nope, the core meaning of "socialism" is constant. The fact that some folks regard it as a swear word doesn't change that fact.

Socialism is not just a word, it's a theory that can be traced back to 19th century theorists and its lineage can be traced to today. I gave a reference to Market Socialism. That too has a lineage going back to its theorists. It's not hard to understand. Just as concepts such as the law of demand and the law of supply have remained constant in their workings and people pretty much agree on the concepts, so too has socialism and its various forms remained constant, albeit with some conceptual changes. That propagandists choose to take the word "socialism" (not the concept itself) and fling it around like a kid will fling around shit in a kindy is irrelevant to the concept itself which has remained a constant.

 

[Meister]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

This is a pretty weak argument Di. The word socialism is a lot like the work liberal. It's meaning has changed. Classic liberals are rolling over in their graves at the like of Pelosi, Clinton and Gore calling themselves liberal. It may not mean the same thing anymore, but what all know what it means now. The same is true of the term socialism.

What should we call it? Collectivism? Communism? Progressive? I don't really care what term is used and socialism is as good a word as any because we all understand what it means regardless of the definition you would like us to adhere to.

Nope, the core meaning of "socialism" is constant. The fact that some folks regard it as a swear word doesn't change that fact.

Socialism is not just a word, it's a theory that can be traced back to 19th century theorists and its lineage can be traced to today. I gave a reference to Market Socialism. That too has a lineage going back to its theorists. It's not hard to understand. Just as concepts such as the law of demand and the law of supply have remained constant in their workings and people pretty much agree on the concepts, so too has socialism and its various forms remained constant, albeit with some conceptual changes. That propagandists choose to take the word "socialism" (not the concept itself) and fling it around like a kid will fling around shit in a kindy is irrelevant to the concept itself which has remained a constant.

Yeah whatever dude.

 

[Bern80]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

This is a pretty weak argument Di. The word socialism is a lot like the work liberal. It's meaning has changed. Classic liberals are rolling over in their graves at the like of Pelosi, Clinton and Gore calling themselves liberal. It may not mean the same thing anymore, but what all know what it means now. The same is true of the term socialism.

What should we call it? Collectivism? Communism? Progressive? I don't really care what term is used and socialism is as good a word as any because we all understand what it means regardless of the definition you would like us to adhere to.

Nope, the core meaning of "socialism" is constant. The fact that some folks regard it as a swear word doesn't change that fact.

Socialism is not just a word, it's a theory that can be traced back to 19th century theorists and its lineage can be traced to today. I gave a reference to Market Socialism. That too has a lineage going back to its theorists. It's not hard to understand. Just as concepts such as the law of demand and the law of supply have remained constant in their workings and people pretty much agree on the concepts, so too has socialism and its various forms remained constant, albeit with some conceptual changes. That propagandists choose to take the word "socialism" (not the concept itself) and fling it around like a kid will fling around shit in a kindy is irrelevant to the concept itself which has remained a constant.

Every time you used the word socialism the word liberalism could be substitutd and it shouldn't be any less true. yet knowing what it was and how self proclaimed liberals choose to define it you accept it yet you don't call them out on the carpet for mis0-using the word.

Maybe problem isn't how we use the word. It's YOUR feeling about it that causes you a problem. You said it yourself. Socailism is practically regarded as a swear sword. You know the negative connotation it has. You know that it is described policy in a negative way. You therefore know it isn't good, but you can not reconcile that with the your beliefs which tend to more leftist than not. So to reconcile this 'bad word' and it's allignment with your beliefs you try to make the rest of us define it in a way that is more palatable for you.

 

[neurosport]

No, it's a stupid OP that's why I hammered it.

life is not about getting some kind of a SCORE. the OP story is also probably fake. in THAT sense it IS stupid. but the point being made is valid never the less.

i was born in the USSR and living in the USA today i don't think USA is capitalist ENOUGH.

that said, people DID work in USSR. but attitude towards work was COMPLETELY different from what it is here.

work was mostly about RESPECT not money. you could be a janitor or you could be a doctor and both would live more or less the same ( doctor would have a better apartment but neither one would be starving and neither one would be eating lobsters ) . but everybody would KNOW that you're a doctor and RESPECT you for that.

in US if you want respect you sell drugs until you can afford a Bentley.

in the end we don't need money to EAT it. we need money to IMPRESS our neighbor, or a woman. what Americans don't understand is once money is taken out of the equation completely you still gonna want to impress your neighbor by being a doctor.

i am an engineer because it runs in my family. to me the choice was to be an architect like my parents or engineer like my grandparents. the question who gets paid more never crossed my mind. i became an engineer because i realized that was where my natural talents were. the thought of becoming a janitor was every bit as frightening to me as it would be to any engineer in USA even though in USSR the standard of living of a janitor and engineer were comparable.

people didn't work particularly hard. but why is that bad ? some Americans work 80 hours a week on amphetamines and provigil with no sleep and think this is somehow SUPERIOR to working 40 hours a week while drinking beer and fucking at work.

what Americans don't understand is that without having any car at all you would still have had the same woman in USSR that you have in US only because you drive a BMW.

in America you work 10 times harder as you would have in USSR and the end result is you still get the same woman - where is the efficiency in that ?

i think capitalism is the better system but not working too hard was the GOOD part about socialism.

the bad part is misallocation of resources due to central planning.

all we really need is food, shelter and sex. in USSR you had all of that automatically ( along with education and health care ) .

 

[xsited1]

Socialism - the social as opposed to private ownership of the means of production in a society.

It has nothing to do with what's been posted in this thread, so far.

But it does make you look like fucking idiots so it has entertainment value

Why insult the OP? It has everything to do with socialism. If the public has ownership of the means of production in a society, only a few will want to work. The rest will let others do the work for them until nobody does any work. It was proven quite effectively in the OP example.

No, it's a stupid OP that's why I hammered it. And your theory that no-one will want to work is also ridiculous. If the idea of socialism is going to be critiqued, that's fine, but at make some valid points instead of indulging in flights of fancy.

The valid points are obvious. Productivity will go down and unemployment will go up. Eventually, the economy will come to a grinding halt. That's human nature. You take away incentive, you lose it all. Sorry.

 

[editec]

editec's guide to conducting honest experiments of political theories​

An honest experiment in socialism: the students take over the classroom, shot the professor, and award themselves A's.

An honest experiment in capitalism: the fewer wealthier students have bribe the professor to give them the A's and give the rest of the class average grades, including some failures to keep the rest in line.

An honest experiment in fascism: the student and professors assign grades based on student racial purity (and man! -- there's a test you don't want to fail) then they invade Poland.

An honest experiment in Hippyism: Somebody would break out the bong, a little drumming, then break for munchies.

An honest experiment in Libertarianism: One student is much smarter than everyone else, but the socialist students and professor mock him. He starts his own university and those few productive people would go there, while the socialist masses' university collapses in the dustbin of academic history.

This pattern repeats serveral times until only one lone superman student sits in the classroom of the most elite of all elite universities.

This superman student will probably ascend to Valhalla or something.

Everyone left behind is probably relieved.

 

[neurosport]

editec's guide to conducting honest experiments of political theories​

An honest experiment in socialism: the students take over the classroom, shot the professor, and award themselves A's.

An honest experiment in capitalism: the fewer wealthier students have bribe the professor to give them the A's and give the rest of the class average grades, including some failures to keep the rest in line.

An honest experiment in fascism: the student and professors assign grades based on student racial purity (and man! -- there's a test you don't want to fail) then they invade Poland.

An honest experiment in Hippyism: Somebody would break out the bong, a little drumming, then break for munchies.

An honest experiment in Libertarianism: One student is much smarter than everyone else, but the socialist students and professor mock him. He starts his own university and those few productive people would go there, while the socialist masses' university collapses in the dustbin of academic history.

This pattern repeats serveral times until only one lone superman student sits in the classroom of the most elite of all elite universities.

This superman student will probably ascend to Valhalla or something.

Everyone left behind is probably relieved.

 

[AVG-JOE]

this guy:

A Radical Blackfoot

explained the OPPOSITE point in this video:

A RADICAL BLACKFOOT TEACHES THE ECONOMICS OF GLOBALIZATION

he explained why he never grades on a "curve" in his class. because when a curve is given everybody starts trying to fuck each other over by not sharing notes, excluding others from study groups etc.

capitalism is like that because you profit when your competitor fails. as long as you have any means of "helping" your competitor to fail you will use them.

i am not a liberal though. i am free market.

A free market with easily understood rules that are fairly applied by a police force with teeth. No corporate identities to hide behind while fucking your competition, strong-arming your vendors, cheating your customers and polluting your neighbors for profit - almost like being personally responsible for your own actions...

Sounds like what China is morphing into... Who is it we owe $Trillions and counting to again...?

-Joe

 

[Agnapostate]

Some are relentless in their pursuit of inaccuracy...and flagrant idiocy, for that matter. No matter how many times inaccurate definitions of socialism are corrected, no matter how many times logical fallacies are defeated, a crude understanding of political economy will abound amongst anti-socialists. (I say anti-socialists and not capitalists because legitimate capitalists recognize the irrational nature of advocating free market structure, considering the necessary role of the state as a stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy.) At this point, I suppose I do it more for my amusement than anything else.

someone posted this interesting story at my blog. How true! Read and weep libs!

A short story in applied socialism; a big learning experience.

(irrational and pointless rambling)

First comes the inaccurate reference to "libs." American liberals advocate not even the Rhine capitalism of social democratic Europe, let alone socialism. Indeed, many "libs" arguably support the Anglo-Saxon form of capitalism characterized by the neoliberal expansion of the 1980's more than anything else, in political strategy if not in principle.

We then have the economically ignorant account, which is regurgitated from earlier inaccuracies, and is by no means an original thought on the part of whoever emailed it. Socialism, broadly speaking, seeks to encourage equality of opportunity, despite the inaccurate depiction of its economic framework seeking to ensure equality of outcome. Hence, the entire account is incorrect on those grounds, and represents little more than a crude depiction of socialism that exists only in the feeble minds of ignorant anti-socialists.

What I find astounding today is the leaders of SOCIALIST Western Europe, find Obama's spending and growth of government to be "potentially catastrophic". What does it say when a SOCIALIST claims your policies are "too far left"????

For one thing, it says that the above poster is rather ignorant of the nature of socialism, inasmuch as social democratic Western Europe is referenced. Social democracy is effectively a form of leftist "Rhine" or "Rhenish" capitalism, which must be distinguished from the more rightist "Anglo-Saxon" (or "Anglo-American" variety), but fails to constitute socialism because its economic framework does not include the public ownership of the means of production nor egalitarianism promoted by such.

Why insult the OP? It has everything to do with socialism. If the public has ownership of the means of production in a society, only a few will want to work. The rest will let others do the work for them until nobody does any work. It was proven quite effectively in the OP example.

Since the OP example was fundamentally unsound in its depiction of socialism, so are conclusions drawn from its crudeness. Since legitimate socialism can involve retention of wages and certain markets (market socialism), measurements by fellow workers according to effort (the participatory economic version of collectivism), and compensation differentiations of public services according to shirking by those otherwise able to work (communism), the fallacious depiction of socialism as suffering from incentive problems is heavily inaccurate.

D. this thread is spot on. Ronald Reagan had a story called the "Little Red Rooster," which basically stated the same thing in a farm story. It was to make socialism simple for everyone to understand.

I do sometimes wonder if his Alzheimer's manifested itself long before it was diagnosed.

Dude...just giving you some history from one of our presidents.....keep it real. Don't get your panties in a bunch. Most people don't understand socialism.

We've seen a few of them here.

Clearly outright socialistic societies can't work. I'm not going to try hard to earn money when the government is going to give it to the guy who isn't trying. But at the same time when ceo's are getting 210 million severance packages after they screw up thier company, we definetely need to put the screws to the guys at the top.

Aside from the inaccurate nature of the claim that socialism suffers from incentive problems, raw, hostile class attitudes by themselves lack the ability to harm the financial class.

I agree. The OP also assumes that college students aren't there to learn anything. In other words, college students are paying money and yet not attempting to benefit from the money spent. I think that is a pretty stupid assumption to make...and actually against the free market.

Capitalism itself is against the free market. The establishment of a legitimately free market would effectively result in the collapse of the hierarchical and inefficient social and economic relations necessary for capitalism's continued functioning.

Looks pretty good on paper huh? Just throw in the intangibles, like human nature, and such, and there goes the your perfect government. You think that China's works well? Just look at the damn government control it has over the citizens. Look at the poverty level in China. Your ignorant, or naive...only you can answer that. But redistribution of wealth is not healthy for our government...maybe yours...I don't know where you live. Perhaps you do need the barnyard version on socialism...it show more realism than your wikipedia version

Market socialism consists of decidedly more than "redistribution of wealth," which is simply an element of a crude depiction of socialism that includes everything from the capitalist welfare state to Soviet state capitalism.

This is a pretty weak argument Di. The word socialism is a lot like the work liberal. It's meaning has changed. Classic liberals are rolling over in their graves at the like of Pelosi, Clinton and Gore calling themselves liberal. It may not mean the same thing anymore, but we all know what it means now. The same is true of the term socialism.

Classical liberals themselves stole the term "libertarian" from the anarcho-socialists that initially used it to circumvent French anti-anarchist laws, so it seems a fitting tribute that they should suffer a similar imposition, though they have gained a cult following through their misappropriation of libertarianism.

What should we call it? Collectivism? Communism? Progressive? I don't really care what term is used and socialism is as good a word as any because we all understand what it means regardless of the definition you would like us to adhere to.

Again, such crude conflations and inaccurate depictions can only serve to foster a poor understanding of political economy and related topics. There are necessary distinctions between collectivism and communism, for instance, which are themselves varieties of socialism. "Progressive" is a broad label insufficient for reference to any specific economic school. It's quite clear that most anti-socialists here don't understand what is referred to, given their incapacity to make accurate reference to socialism.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Would it be "socialistic" for the workers to receive stock in the company they work for as well as pay and health care? Would that make the workers a little more concerned about overall profitability?

Would it be "socialistic" for The People of Michigan to buy enough stock in GM so that they could have a voice in the shareholders meeting when plans to move a plant to Mexico are floated?

How would The Peoples treasury in MI look right now if they had been buying dividend paying stock in GM, Ford and Chrysler over the last 80 years?

If The People take some ownership in the means of production, as long as it's done without penalizing the entrepreneurs and investors who built it, what's the harm?

-Joe

 

[Agnapostate]

Would it be "socialistic" for the workers to receive stock in the company they work for as well as pay and health care? Would that make the workers a little more concerned about overall profitability?

Would it be "socialistic" for The People of Michigan to buy enough stock in GM so that they could have a voice in the shareholders meeting when plans to move a plant to Mexico are floated?

How would The Peoples treasury in MI look right now if they had been buying dividend paying stock in GM, Ford and Chrysler over the last 80 years?

If The People take some ownership in the means of production, as long as it's done without penalizing the entrepreneurs and investors who built it, what's the harm?

-Joe

That would be consistent with the empirical data indicating the superior efficiency level of ESOPs, for instance...though though entirely worker owned and democratically managed enterprises should be the norm to strive for, and the same should be true of public control of larger financial institutions.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Would it be "socialistic" for the workers to receive stock in the company they work for as well as pay and health care? Would that make the workers a little more concerned about overall profitability?

Would it be "socialistic" for The People of Michigan to buy enough stock in GM so that they could have a voice in the shareholders meeting when plans to move a plant to Mexico are floated?

How would The Peoples treasury in MI look right now if they had been buying dividend paying stock in GM, Ford and Chrysler over the last 80 years?

If The People take some ownership in the means of production, as long as it's done without penalizing the entrepreneurs and investors who built it, what's the harm?

-Joe

That would be consistent with the empirical data indicating the superior efficiency level of ESOPs, for instance...though though entirely worker owned and democratically managed enterprises should be the norm to strive for, and the same should be true of public control of larger financial institutions.

Dude, you lost me... I'm just a country boy... what the heck are "ESOP's"?

-J

 

[Agnapostate]

Dude, you lost me... I'm just a country boy... what the heck are "ESOP's"?

-J

Employee stock ownership plans. Employee ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AVG-JOE]

Dude, you lost me... I'm just a country boy... what the heck are "ESOP's"?

-J

Employee stock ownership plans. Employee ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I must admit, I know that there are plans out there - do any of the current ESOP's actually give a voice to the employees that is strong enough alter a management decision?

-Joe

 

[Toro]

I can't do a Ronnie Reagan barnyard metaphor so this will have to do:

Market socialism refers to various economic systems in which the government owns the economic institutions or major industries but operates them according to the rules of supply and demand. In a traditional market socialist economy, prices would be determined by a government planning ministry, and enterprises would either be state-owned or cooperatively-owned and managed by their employees. Libertarian socialists and left-anarchists often promote a form of market socialism in which enterprises are owned and managed collectively by the workers, but compete with each other in the same way private companies compete in a capitalist market. The People's Republic of China currently has a form of market socialism referred to as the socialist market economy, in which most of the industry is state-owned, but prices are not set by the government. Within this model, the state-owned enterprises are free from excessive regulation and function more autonomously in a more decentralized fashion than in other socialist economic systems.

Market socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks pretty good on paper huh? Just throw in the intangibles, like human nature, and such, and there goes the your perfect government. You think that China's works well? Just look at the damn government control it has over the citizens. Look at the poverty level in China. Your ignorant, or naive...only you can answer that. But redistribution of wealth is not healthy for our government...maybe yours...I don't know where you live. Perhaps you do need the barnyard version on socialism...it show more realism than your wikipedia version

One of the largest owners of private capital in the world are public pension funds. Public pension funds are a good example of "market socialism" whereby the government owns stock in the company but acts as any private owner would - to maximize profits.

What matters is the motivation of the owner. If the owner wants to maximize profits, no matter who the owner is - private or government - there is no reason to think the outcome would not be the same.

Governments should own at least some part of the private sector, if for any reason to increase the returns for its pension fund. Social security should be at least partially invested in the stock market for example. However, government should set a very large wall between the operation of the fund and politics. It is when you change the motivations of the owners that you get changes in behaviors and outcomes.

I do not think the government should own large swaths of the economy outside of pension funds and when there is market failure to arrive at an optimum outcome, i.e. roads, education, etc., or when society deems outcomes too important to be left to the market, i.e. police, army, etc. Ownership implies risk. Risk should be borne by the individual not the taxpayers. If the government feels it necessary to extract part of the economics from the venture, then they can tax it.

Generally, government has a hard time not injecting politics into the functioning of a venture and should not be involved in the ownership of the economy unless necessary.

 

[mightypeon]

Socialism in a nutshell:

So, did you ever wonder why we have a Democracy?
Thats easy, the only way to have a chance of protecting yourself from the abuses of political power is having a share of it. This share of political power is your vote.
However, ask yourself the question, what does, on average, fuck you more, abuses of political or abuses of economic power? A abuse of political power could be a politician who unilaterally decides that the 2nd Ammendment sucks.
An abuse of economic power is some random Manager deciding that, after nearly grounding his company, he is still entitled to Millions of Bonusses.

The underlying principle of Socialism as I see it, is that protection from such abuses can only be reached if everyone has their own share of the economic power.
Do you think the AIG managers would keep their bonusses if every AIG employee would have a secret vote on the matter?

Why "Socialism" failed in the USSR was easy, in the USSR, it was not like everyone had a real share of economic power, quite the contrary, the "politician class" which already had the political power ended up having all the economic power too. This lead to a total concentration of power, with the resulting total corruption.

The US has dozens of checks and balances to keep political power in check, but very few checks and balances to keep Wealth (and money is power) under control.
My personal goal is that checks and balances for economic power should be installed with the same rgiour as checks and balances for political power.

A practical version of Socialism is not about making everyone equal, it is about protecting the poor from the rich.

To the opening poster: It merely shows that the professor had no idea at all about Socialism.

 

[editec]

Agnapostate,

One of the many concepts that I have come to understand, thanks to coming to places like this one, is the meaning of the adage:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
​

You can attempt to school these people until you are blue in the face, but since they cannot fit the true definition of socialism into their world point of view, they have reassigned its meaning to describe whatever government does which they do not personally approve of.

They must continue to deny the definition of that polticial philosophy in order to reassign blame from the cleptocrary they bow down to and WORK FOR, to some mythical mythical conspiracy of collectivists.​

Remember , you are writing to long time supporters of George Bush II who, upon reading that he was forced to come to the aid of his banking masters to once again save capitalism from its propensity of eating itself, declared Bush II, possibly one of our cleptocracy's most loyal supporters -- a socialist.​

Word magic such as theirs is in the nature of people seeking to delude themselves. Socialism is, to these folks , at least, nothing more than a convenient scapegoat word meaning BAD GOVERNMENT.​

Such circular logic is impenetratble by facts and logic, Agna.​

 

[Meister]

Agnapostate,

One of the many concepts that I have come to understand, thanks to coming to places like this one, is the meaning of the adage:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
​

You can attempt to school these people until you are blue in the face, but since they cannot fit the true definition of socialism into their world point of view, they have reassigned its meaning to describe whatever government does which they do not personally approve of.

They must continue to deny the definition of that polticial philosophy in order to reassign blame from the cleptocrary they bow down to and WORK FOR, to some mythical mythical conspiracy of collectivists.​

Remember , you are writing to long time supporters of George Bush II who, upon reading that he was forced to come to the aid of his banking masters to once again save capitalism from its propensity of eating itself, declared Bush II, possibly one of our cleptocracy's most loyal supporters -- a socialist.​

Word magic such as theirs is in the nature of people seeking to delude themselves. Socialism is, to these folks , at least, nothing more than a convenient scapegoat word meaning BAD GOVERNMENT.​

Such circular logic is impenetratble by facts and logic, Agna.​

I wasn't a big fan of Bush...but I was less a fan of Gore and Kerry....that's simple enough that you can even understand E. Next....most of us on here prefer capitalisim over any other kind of government intervention. Now can you understand THAT? I think you can. I don't know, it may be a stretch for you.