Just Say No to Socialism?

[mikoyan29]

Not quite sure where to put this but....

Tonight I was at a State Park in downtown Detroit because it is one of the spots that I normally go shipwatching. As I was moving through the parking lot, I noticed a bumper sticker that said, "Just say No to Socialism". So I have to ask the question, does a State Park constitute socialism since it is a state owned entity? And if so, is the person not heeding his own advice?

Next thing. A couple years ago, instead of selling park passes, there is an option to pay 10 extra bucks when you renew your license plate. This constitutes a park pass and is good to any of our State Parks. This is mostly how our parks are paid for. This particular vehicle did not have that or a park pass. So is he abusing the system?

[Nekojin]

Most people who rave about "Socialism" don't actually know what it is.

[Rapscallion]

A huge amount of politics and other social structures, such as religion, are held together by having an enemy they can demonise. The followers don't necessarily need to know what the demon actually is, but they need to know it's there.

From there, they make up their own stuff. Who cares about the facts as long as it's a good tale?

Rapscallion

[TheHuckster]

Every government has some element of "socialism", whether it's a welfare program (which the US has), public schools (which the US has), or state/national parks (which the US has). The post office is probably the most socialist thing the US has because it's a strict, governed, monopoly on letter delivery services.

Just because there exist elements of socialism that's beneficial to society doesn't mean it's the end-all-be-all system of government. Personally, if they made the education system "more socialist" by prohibiting private education, I'd have a problem with it. I'd also have a problem if the welfare program became a revolving door of entitlements to people who truly can find a job but find their government-sponsored life posh enough not to bother to find one.

Socialism has, however, become one of those trigger words that has lost a lot of meaning. However, one can have certain degrees of socialist policy that differs vastly from another "socialist" person. It's too vague of a concept that can really apply to just about anyone besides the most extreme libertarian or anarchist.

[mikoyan29]

Well it's interesting because what they are really railing against is Communism and not necessarily Communism itself but the totalitarian aspect of it. But whatever....I just found it amusing.

[Andara Bledin]

Don't forget our roads. Those are one of the most socialist things we have and everybody benefits from them.

^-.-^

[TheHuckster]

Well it's interesting because what they are really railing against is Communism and not necessarily Communism itself but the totalitarian aspect of it. But whatever....I just found it amusing.

How do you know they're railing against Communism and not Socialism? The two are different, for sure, but that doesn't mean one cannot be against Socialism. And some socialist systems can be just as totalitarian as communist societies.

Again, socialism is a very broad concept which encompasses a lot of policies. One can be socialist in the sense that everyone should earn an income directly proportional to their production. One can be socialist in the sense that the government is controlling over the production of goods and services (either on a environmental basis, a strategic basis, or a price-control basis). One can be socialist in the sense that the rich should be taxed more proportionally than the poor.

One can be "socialist" by adopting any of these policies, but it's the extent at which these policies are applied which can be debated. People might be in favor of a progressive tax where the rich pay more proportionally to the poor, but maybe not above a certain amount. People might approve of certain environmental policies such as banning certain chemicals, requiring certain disposal methods, or capping emissions, but might not approve of more intrusive policies such as penalizing people who wash their dishes too often or buy inorganic dish soap, to embellish the point.

My point is socialism can have a lot of controlling aspects that people more commonly associate with communism. That doesn't mean everything that's socialist is bad, it just means, just like a lot of things including capitalism, if it's taken to an extreme level, it can be detrimental to society.

So, "Say No to Socialism" is a very broad and useless statement because it doesn't define which socialist policies one might be against. But, what I get from the bumper sticker is the owner of that car is more wary of "extreme" socialist policies. Whether or not that wariness has any bearing in today's America is another debate altogether.

[Andara Bledin]

But, what I get from the bumper sticker is the owner of that car is more wary of "extreme" socialist policies.

What I get from that bumper sticker is that the owner is most likely the type to bark when subjected to dog-whistle politics.

Most people talking about "socialism" aren't actually talking about socialism. Hell, I'd be surprised if most of them could actually give a rational definition of socialism, to be honest.

It's one of those buzz words, like "states' rights" that's used for more than just it's literal meaning, but can always be waved away as being really no more than what it sounds like because, sometimes, that's all it is.

^-.-^

[TheHuckster]

Most people talking about "socialism" aren't actually talking about socialism. Hell, I'd be surprised if most of them could actually give a rational definition of socialism, to be honest.

It's one of those buzz words, like "states' rights" that's used for more than just it's literal meaning, but can always be waved away as being really no more than what it sounds like because, sometimes, that's all it is.

Agreed 100%. The worst thing about using oversimplified buzzwords like these is it doesn't allow people to actually think about the topic at hand. Someone brings up a solution to a problem, whether it's economic, social, or whatever, and people wait for the first pundit to label it either "socialist" or "patriotic" to form an opinion on it. It totally undermines the discussion and makes debate useless.

[guywithashovel]

A public park could probably be considered some form of socialism.

Sometimes the Tea Party chose to have their rallies/protests at city parks. I thought it was kind of amusing, though I'm sure most of the Tea Partiers would fail to see the irony if someone pointed it out to them.

[Andara Bledin]

Yes, public parks are absolutely socialist.

^-.-^