Socialist: n. Any american who receives any government benefit paid for with tax dollars including but not limited to elections, cheap subsidized utilities, public libraries, public education, roads, bridges, sidewalks, public transportation, construction safety and health standards, municipal garbage removal, animal control, the post office, social security retirement, disability or survivor’s insurance, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, disaster relief, VA benefits, clean air, potable water, safe food, cars and prescription drugs, or the protection of the army, navy, air force, coast guard, CIA, state and local police, FBI , highway patrol, border patrol, DEA, US marshals service, Interpol, TSA, federal state and local prisons and the US court system.

Syn: A member of any modern society.

Ant: Cave dweller.


About agnophilo

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Socialist.

  1. Definition of socialist from 1. an advocate or supporter of socialism. 2. ( initial capital letter ) a member of the U.S. Socialist party.  Definition of socialism: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.   You can make up your own definitions if you want to but you can’t make them stick.  Anyways, you got your Marxist socialist leader, against our best wishes, so you should be happy. 

  2. BTW, you are my favorite sparring partner on Xanga.  Just saying.

  3. TheSutraDude says:

    True dat. I often point out the people who don’t want any form of socialism except for the forms that benefit them personally. Don’t touch those. I often point out two tea party legislators as examples. Michelle Bachmann rails against socialism yet in 2009 she asked President Obama not to make cuts to farm subsidies. Her family farm received $800,000 in total before her 2009 request was made. Farm subsidies = socialism. After a devastating hurricane hit the northeast last fall (2011) Eric Cantor attempted to block FEMA assistance but when his State was his by disaster he kept his mouth shut and welcomed FEMA assistance. In other words, when it’s going to make him look good for the next election bring FEMA on but as for his fellow Americans? Not so much. 

  4. PPhilip says:

    Intelligent discussion- A process of presentation of facts and opinions. Some of the ideas are re worked with some reasoning and some of the points validated.One sided presentation- Where the other side is ignored,. slured and presentation has some very biased method of presentation.For example people can give a definition and just let it stand. They might give a biased example or even make up a strawman argument.(I’ll let the first strawman argument be the example)Where is the word socialism used? Is ObamaCare truly a great example of Socialism or is it part of a solution to work against the high costs of health care?The United States has force AT&T to give up their communicative monopoly. However we are seeing that Cell phone service is being concentrated with Sprint, AT&T and Verizon (T-Mobil just wants to bow out). What kind of capitalism allows certain businesses to get too big? Any government action is a sort of socialistic move to control monopolies?So someone uses a sort of adjective “A marxist socialist leader” what does that mean? Basically someone can point to the leader of Venezuela and say that is an example of a Marxist Socialist leader but really it takes someone knowing the history of Venezuela to maybe give more detail what that means.Shorthand definitions is a landmine pure and simple. Some folks would not be able to explain their usage.Yeah that comes down to the blog’s use of cave dweller……AAR probably sticks to his guns and religion for comfort.

  5. UTRow1 says:

    @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Obama is not a socialist in any meaningful capacity according to your own definition of socialism. Let’s go through the various definitions  your provided:(1) Obama does not, has not, and never will advocate for “vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” Obama has, on very rare occasion (e.g., the Auto Bail Out), temporarily vested oversight in certain facets of production in government officials, not “the community as a whole.” Moreover, Obama’s policies have unequivocally strengthened corporate ownership of the means of production and distribution. That has been their intended effect and their actual effect. This is evidenced by the fact that corporate profits are at an all-time high, the manufacturing index is up 84% since he took office, the stock market is approaching all-time highs, etc. There’s literally no evidence to support the notion that Obama is reorienting American in a way that places distribution and production means in the hands of “the community as a whole.” What he has allegedly done is enacted capitalist policies that will concentrate more wealth in middle and lower income families. This is not, in an of itself, socialist.  Furthermore, in order to honestly claim Obama “is a socialist”, you need to, at the very least, prove that the preponderance of his policies have the intended or actual effect of “vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” Can you prove that the majority of his legislative proposals, executive orders, etc. are socialist? Of course not. Because, again, he’s not a socialist. Like Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and W., Obama is some form of capitalist. (2) Conditions not satisfied. See Above.  (3) This definition is so broad that every President’s economic policies arguably fit into it. For instance, Reagan’s economic policies were largely justified by their ability to help everyone in society achieve greater personal wealth. For example, he famously defended upper class and corporate tax cuts with the analogy “A rising tide lifts all ships.” This is patently populist/”collectivist” reasoning. Furthermore, it was “imperfect” collectivism because Reagan’s economic policies had several well-demonstrated failings, including exploding the federal debt to its highest levels in history, exploding interest rates on many consumers goods (e.g., cars), etc. Of course, all economic policies are “imperfect”.  No president in the history of America has, at least publicly, campaigned on policies that would not allegedly benefit the vast majority of Americans. Reagan, Romney, all W. all claimed that their policies would help America, as a whole, succeed. This is just common sense. If you don’t convince the majority of Americans that your policies will help them, you will likely not win enough votes, and thus, electoral votes, to win the presidency. The only difference between the various candidates has been how they would distribute the increased wealth among Americans, the means by which they would achieve increased wealth for the country, etc. Thus, all presidential policies are “collectivist”. Taken together, we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the vast majority of proposed and actual economic policies are imperfect and collectivist, and thus, the vast majority of proposed and actual economic policies are marxist. 

  6. pinktiger335 says:

    This is interesting, I had no idea.

  7. Socialism is what it is.The people who are enslaved by it are not socialists unless they believe in it.

  8. angys_coco says:

    Interesting post. 

  9. agnophilo says:

    @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Words have more than one definition, having a public library does not a marxist state make.@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Thanks I guess.@TheSutraDude – So much seems to be down to selfishness vs giving a damn about others.  Red states are virtually all “taker” states and blue states are virtually all “giver” states.  Republicans love socialism they just don’t want to actually pay for it.@PPhilip – Not sure what your point is here.@pinktiger335 – No idea of what?@angys_coco – Thanks.

  10. I’m going to be the smart ass, and say that I’m a cave dweller. An adorable little Smeagol 

  11. New1E13_15 says:

    Why is it liberals love to play with words?

  12. agnophilo says:

    @New1E13_15 – It’s a blogging site, if you don’t like wordplay then boy are you in the wrong fucking place.

  13. New1E13_15 says:

    A simple question, whatever the forum I believe words mean things.  I wanted to hear your answer because this seemed to be an attempt to rewrite  a definition more than verbal hyperbole.

  14. agnophilo says:

    @New1E13_15 – It was a loaded question, not a serious inquiry.  It’s like saying “why are jews so greedy”.  It was a negative generalization with a question mark at the end.

  15. UTRow1 says:

    @New1E13_15 – Are you under the impression that conservatives don’t “play” with words? Because, in one way or another, that’s what virtually all their political success over the 40 years can be attributed to. When you look at the empirical data, they have been very unsuccessful at governance, particularly on economic issues (e.g., Democrats have created 30 million more jobs over the last 40 years than Republicans, the average GDP of modern Democrat presidents is demonstrably higher, the average federal debt incurred by Democrat presidents is demonstrably lower, etc.).No need to speculate on this, though. Here are some examples: declaring Obama is a “socialist” when he clearly isn’t (see my deconstruction of the definition above); most of their anti-evolution arguments (e.g., misrepresentations of words ranging from “theory” to “mutations”); their refusal to allow the LGBT to get “married” (some of them are willing to permit “civil unions” but not “marriages” for largely symbolic reasons); insisting that Obama failed when he didn’t label the Libya attacks “acts of terrorism” soon enough (even though he did immediately); pretty much all their “pro-life” rhetoric (e.g., declaring that abortion “is murder” when it isn’t, biologically or legally–abortion is a legal term for specific instances of homicide and virtually none of the abortions performed in this country meet that definition); expressly redefining “patriotism” during Bush’s terms to only include people who wholeheartedly supported the War in Iraq; labeling the media “liberally biased” for doing things like fact checking egregious lies; conservative Republicans’ eagerness to classify all secular things as “atheist”; etc. The list goes on and on and on. I’m not saying Democrats don’t play with language too, but Republicans are demonstrably worse. It’s literally one of a handful of things their strategists of things they have managed to do well and stay relevant despite their horrible track record on most major issues, including civil rights and economic issues.  

  16. BobRichter says:

    In song: 

    The problem is that “Socialism” is being used in two senses. One, the dictionary definition, is what we as right-thinking Americans despise — mainly because it doesn’t work well. The other, meaning roughly “anything governments do with public money to help people,” is what “Liberals” are being accused of.And, of course, progressives (“liberals” is inaccurate. Libertarians are liberals, democrats aren’t.) are totally guilty of the second. We find in government a powerful tool for helping people in need, and we find a moral obligation to provide that help.It helps that doing so turns out to be good economic management at least as often as not.What we’re not guilty of is the first. You’ll know when socialism is being implemented because the government will forcibly seize the means of production. As long as nobody’s actually proposing that, you just make yourself look like an idiot pointing at well-meaning progressives and yelling “Socialist!”And, for what it’s worth, Barack Obama is a moderate Republican who ran as a Democrat because Apparently We Can’t Have Those Anymore.

  17. @New1E13_15 – because liberals like doing that all of the time. A good example would be the Obama adminstrations’ policy-speak: “Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act”Might as well get used to it.@BobRichter – “Libertarians are liberals, democrats aren’t.” <<<<THIS

  18. agnophilo says:

    @SlackerSociety – The patriot act.The notion that only liberals name bills with positive sounding names is ridiculous.  You might as well say only democrats poop.

  19. I once had sex with a girl that was a communist. I had to “seize the means of production” with her, if you know what I mean.And I know you know what I mean.I’m talking about my penis.

  20. PPhilip says:

    @ChainBracelets – Thanks for the word Smeagol it has been a while since I have read the Hobbit. People in rural areas tend to not get the same memo that city dwellers get.So perhaps cave dweller is a bit less of a satisfactory definition.

  21. BobRichter says:

    @SlackerSociety – “Both sides do it” has no merit as an argument. It doesn’t matter how many people do something, the merit of an act is in the character of the act itself. In fact, “both sides do it” is usually an example of two logical fallacies at once: Association Fallacy (someone who agrees with you did something bad, therefore you are wrong) and False Equivalence (all acts of a certain broad type are equally bad, regardless of severity or frequency.) On the basis of both of these, your argument is fallacious and invalid. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was not disingenuously named. That is a perfect description of its intent. As it is mostly unimplemented, its actual effect is a matter of speculation.The fact that you don’t know what words mean (or where they come from) doesn’t mean other people are using them disingenuously.”Liberal” is a label that neoconservatives slapped onto their opponents, coming from the New Class Conversation term “Liberal Elite” (read “Uppity Peasant.”) The idea being to paint successful academics as being somehow more out of touch with the working class (as often as not their parents, neighbors, and friends) than the very wealthy. See Also: ElitesLiberal was (and is) the name of a pre-existing school of political thought. In this sense “Liberal” is the opposite of “Authoritarian.” At their origin, Liberals (like John Locke) argued against the Divine Right of Kings. Every honest Libertarian is, by definition, a certain subset of this school, a Classical Liberal.Democrats need not be either kind of liberal. They need not even be progressives. Democrats are a hugely diverse coalition with (sometimes) converging interests. For what it’s worth, I’m neither a liberal (either kind) nor a Democrat. Just so we’re clear

  22. @BobRichter – I’m sorry, what was the question? You seem to be so caught up in political correctness and elitism that your intended message was not received in a proper manner. That is one of many things what is wrong with politics. Too much of this grandiloquent nonsense to say something that could instead be easily communicated and relate to the everyday man.

  23. BobRichter says:

    @SlackerSociety – That isn’t grandiloquence. It’s just how I talk. I have a large vocabulary that allows me to express myself clearly and precisely to those who actually speak English. It’s fairly hard for me to dumb myself down, especially if I don’t have a target. In brief, you’re using the word “Liberal” wrong, because you’re confused about its history and definition. That’s okay, there are a lot of people in that position, I was just stating it for the record.Also, you’re wrong about the title of PPACA being disingenuous, unlike the USA PATRIOT ACT (that’s an acronym, by the way, and it’s about the least patriotic bill I can think of right off.) Cute acronyms like that were a hallmark of the Bush Era.For the rest, in retrospect  I may have mistaken what you were saying. I thought you were saying that “Liberals” are as bad as Republicans about using words in ways intended to confuse and mislead It seems on further reading  that you were saying that this behavior is typical only of “Liberals,” in which case my response would be somewhat different. I apologise for any confusion.We were talking about a specific right-wing abuse of language (inappropriately confusing different meanings of the various forms of “socialism.”) Left-wing abuses of language weren’t really relevant in that context.To be clear, I can think of some great examples of left-wing movements abusing language to influence the public discourse. We just weren’t talking about those.

  24. kusapida says:

    just as Martha implied I’m alarmed that anybody can earn $5917 in a few weeks on the internet. have you seen this site

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s