what's the opposite of a socialist?
 

with all the debate around socialism/socialist, i got to wondering.

Here's what I have to say to the nutcase right wingers that have been running around flailing their arms crying "Socialism!"....

If you're going to be against socialism, then that's fine... but BE against it all the way.
Give up your Medicare. Give up your Social Security. Stop driving on publicly funded roads. Pull your kids out of public schools. Don't be a hypocrite.... socialism is an evil product of the Devil, right?

So be against it. Denounce everything that has socialist leanings.... not just the ones you decide to cherry pick.

Or get over yourselves, shut up, and move the fuck on with your lives.

:2 cents:

In the US political scene, I gotta go with maverick.

cap·i·tal·ist
   /ˈkæpɪtlɪst/ Show Spelled[kap-i-tl-ist] Show IPA
?noun
1.
a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2.
an advocate of capitalism.
3.
a very wealthy person.

Capitalism definition

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.


so·cial·ist
   /ˈsoʊʃəlɪst/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-list] Show IPA
?noun
1.
an advocate or supporter of socialism.
2.
(initial capital letter) a member of the U.S. Socialist party.

so·cial·ism
   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
?noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Yeah, it would be capitalism

Good post. Most of those moaning about "Socialism" would be screwed without a lot of Government funded services

i figured capitalism too, in the classic sense this is proper, but i guess i wonder if it is true in the current view of socialism.

is it still as cut and dry as socialism or capitalism?

A Libertarian

And the U.S. is really neither of those. The U.S. is a Republic.

re·pub·lic
   /rɪˈpʌblɪk/ Show Spelled[ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
?noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2.
any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3.
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.


Q: Can you have such a thing as Capitalistic Communism?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you have such a thing as a Socialist Republic?
A: Yes, the U.S. is one.

Q: Can you have pure Socialism?
A: No, pure socialism doesn't work.

Q: Are we soon to become a Communist State?
A: Of course not. Don't be retarded. Stop drinking the "tea" at the Tea Parties.

Look at Tila Tequila, Paris Hilton and the morons in Jersey Shore. That is the opposite of socialists.

That doesn't even make sense...

anti-socialist ??

lolz

It's absolutely amazing to see how abysmally uneducated 90% of the people who try to debate politics are. This is not at all a partisan post, but since the topic of Socialism is at hand, I must say as a general message:

1. Stop confusing Socialism with Communism. They are NOT the same thing.

2. Stop branding anything you don't like as <insert a party name or epithet for that party here>, and really take the time to understand those who you think are your political opponents as much as those that you think you support. You might be surprised at the results.

I love healthy debate, but come on people. :helpme

to whom are you referring?

I'm serious a Libertarian is pretty much the opposite of a Socialist ... as close as you'll find anyway...

It is nor cut and dried in the minds of some people...it is subjective...depending upon ones perspective. In my mind it is cut and dried. We are a nation that primarily practices capitalism...but also practices socialism in the sense that we have social programs. In my mind the introduction of a new social program does not mean that we are becoming socialist. If the practice of private enterprise were to be slowly but surely eliminated by the government then this would indicate that the country is turning away from capitalism to socialism and this is not currently the situation.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

This is what wikipedia says:

"Look at the political spectrum.

Communism and socialism are usually regarded as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right."

I found a song of Karen O on youtube and before they started playing music, someone on the stage screams "Hitler party." I just want to say I like the Karen O music just because of nice sounding melodies. I do not want to get involved in politics about this.

I am just going to say that Hitler killed some of my Russian family members in World War II, so I do not like Hitler I would say.

was it the media that latched on to the socialism term? did the whole socialism craze begin with the healthcare initiative?

No,,,you cannot have Capitalistic Communism.

Yes..there can be a Socialist Republic...but the U.S. is not one...the U.S. is a Democratic Republic.

No...pure Socialism hasn't worked.

I think the right has been crying about socialism off & on for a long time.

Interestingly, I recently had a die hard republican in my home a month ago who did their usual thing... raised his fist, shook his head and said, "It's Socialism!" about the topic of the health care issue. He could not however, explain his position on it beyond that word. He had no foundation, principles, stance, take-on-it, opinion or otherwise that made any sense whatsoever. This person is also retired, receiving Medicare & Social Security. He saw no hypocrisy at all in collecting from the socialist pool. He only has issues with paying into it.

His argument was, "We don't need to give all these people health care, they can go to the ER."

I asked, when they have no insurance and can't pay for it, what happens?

He said, "It's free, you don't have to pay."

Free indeed. More like, they bill you until they send you to collections, destroying your credit and possibly landing you in bankruptcy, OR.... we, the masses PAY for it. And how is that any different (read: better) than simply providing everyone with health care to begin with.

Anyway.... there was much more dialog of course, but you get the jist. The person was utterly without a compelling debate of any kind, but was militant about that word: "Socialism!" because it had been drilled into his head over and over and over by the crazed right propaganda machine.

an anarchist is the opposite

It has been the media in the sense that they over hype right wing rhetoric..who cry socialism. No...the initial hype about the current cry of socialism began with the bailouts of private enterprise because with the loans to the various companies the government took a certain amount of control over the companies to help insure the loans were managed properly and to help see that the loans are repaid. Of course the introduction of health care...which as proposed is a semi socialist program (semi because it requires one to buy insurance from private enterprise)...added fuel to the right wing cries of socialism.

Right wingers...historically speaking...have pretty much always opposed the introduction of any new social program.

I like how people quote a conversation they had with someone that had no clue what they were talking about and then use that as evidence as to why their point of view is more correct ...

An anarcho-capitalist.

BestXXXPorn told you the right answer but you morons ignore it just so you can argue.

no wonder your politics is a world joke and your empire is going down the toilet.

it's quite an impressive accomplish eh. define the opponent in one *horrible* word.

like the star trek episode where they were on some planet which was fighting some civil war between the blue guys and the purple guys.

i guess i don't know enough about libertarianism then. i'll have to read up on it:thumbsup

No? Mainland China is still run by the communist party. However, their economic practices are about as capitalistic as they can be. This alone qualifies as Capitalistic Communism.

Mincing words doesn't change the second point. That socialist programs exist here is simply a fact, (that you don't need me to tell you). If you wanna be picky, how about "Democratic Republic With Socialist Programs"?

It's not really a "point of view". It's blatant hypocrisy. Simply was pointing out the personal encounter with one of the hypocrites, rather than some news story on tv.
I apologize if I've offended your delicate sensibilities.

The USSR was an example of a socialist government. He who hurries can not walk with dignity.

Factually China has never been a Communist country...just as the Soviet Union was never a Communist country. China is a Socialist country just as the Soviet Union was a Socialist country. There has never been a country that practiced Communism just as there has never been a country that has practiced Democracy.

ok, so libertarians believe in a laissez-faire government. got it.



what's weird to me is that it seems the ones screaming socialism is bad are not all libertarians.

That's what I was going to say :)

Nono, not you bro (I usually love your posts). I meant in general. :thumbsup

right on!


that's really what it seems like to me as well. i mean the socialist finger pointing thing is what strikes me as the most bizarre. amp's friend is a perfect example, someone on medicare finger pointing about socialism, my god man!

Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...olan-chart.svg


I, for the record, am a Libertarian....


:2 cents:.

so is it fair to say that a libertarian is anti-government?

Precisely. Things like Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment benefits all reflect socialistic values, yet they are supported by many staunch conservatives. If only people would stop the name calling and start reading more, they'd see that the US, through its very unique political upbringings, has some very entrenched socialistic programs in place, along with other policies that reflect capitalist values as well. The political world is not a black and white arena of good and evil, people!