Does the term "socialism" have an unfairly bad connotation?

Posted by: gabep

  • Yes

  • No

52% 12 votes
48% 11 votes
  • way too many people seem to confuse communism with socialism.

  • Yea, it has a flavor with the right that is based on misunderstanding. I doubt that the right will budge, but they are not going to vote for Sanders anyway. It's the middle and moderate that have to be educated about the term.

    Posted by: TBR
  • People get Marxist communism mixed up with it way too often. I do find it kind of odd supporters of Capitalism think they are standing on moral high ground with those wild assumptions too.

  • As a democratic socialistI I am often unfairly judged. People think I support government owning everything, when I don't. I believe that a government of, by and for the people should guarantee people basic security and human rights and I believe that businesses should be democratically controlled by their employees.

  • I don't really understand what this poll is about. What is the bad connotation you're talking about?

  • This depends strictly on your location and cultural norms. In my case, I live in America in a free, capitalist society which even during the worst of the worst points, I have absolutely loved. I would never give it up for anything. Socialism is the second dirtiest word your can say to a true American; Communism is the dirtiest word.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
gabep says2015-10-11T17:44:42.3456787Z
@Stefanwaal - people use socialism as a main argument against electing Bernie Sanders, and other things like that.
Haroush says2015-10-11T19:26:13.3614789Z
No one is confused we understand completely the domino effects of socialist ideas in a capitalist government. Ever since socialism has crept into the United States we have accumulated more debt and higher taxes on the middle class because even 50% socialism doesn't work with an economy that is supported mainly by the private business industry.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-11T19:32:43.5717828Z
@TBR & @UtherPenguin -- I agree that there are SMALL misunderstandings; however, in my experience, for the overall premise and direction of Socialism, I see that Conservative Americans understand the ideology, even if it is just as its most basic principals. To my surprise though, I find that Liberal Americans on both sides of the ideological isle that support Socialism in some way tend NOT to understand Socialism or its direction; even laughing at the person who tells them what it is. I watch this group try and cherry-pick components of Socialism that make logical sense to everyone, from the ideology as a whole, even attempting at times to micro-describe (yes I made that phrase up just now LOL) what Socialism is by using these very specific components; stumbling over definition and explanations as they are presented with a wider scope encompassing more of what Socialism truly is. But I digress. Let's define the most basic aspects of Socialism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution." Meaning you perform services or provide products to the community as a whole to which your abilities can competently perform; in return, each CONTRIBUTOR (each person with a job) receives products and services equivalent to his contributions. Once each CONTRIBUTOR is compensated, the individuals who for one reason or another cannot contribute (injury, age, disease, etc.) to the community are then rationed out whatever products are leftover as surplus; services on the other hand...You may NEVER see some of those, specially if they are in high demand with low supply ability as CONTRIBUTORS get first dibs. If no surplus is leftover, if there is a food shortage, shortage of clean drinking water, etc., non-contributors must hope that the contributors are both able AND willing to shorten their EARNED rations in order to share with the non-contributors...Else they may be SOL. || Now, the attentive reader will stop at this point and begin to ask questions like "Well, who decides what each individual contributes to the community? For instance, what if the entire community is a farming community, who decides which individual will no longer farm and instead perform a different service or product?" or they will ask "Who decides what each contribution is worth in return?" or even "Who decides if an individual 'qualifies' as a non-contributor versus a lazy individual?" and so on. I know what you're about to say here: "Basic living necessities are provided to everybody no matter what." Who decides what a basic living necessity is as well as how much is required per person? Well, remembering that the community shares everything and owns an equal share of everything "according to each his ability", somebody has to make the tough decisions so people are slowly appointed rule over this. You eventually will get a greedy individual who expands and expands power and influence, assuming control of more and more power and influence; this eventually leads to Communism; for example, as we recently see government assuming control of the health care industry, expanding EPA and IRS influence and power, increasing government dependence of the individual by way of government subsidies and handouts such as food stamps and welfare; we are currently seeing our nation increasingly rapidly transforming closer to a Communist nation. However, Socialism can ALSO turn the other direction, leading to Capitalism, which can be seen by studying the country of China starting about the year 1900 and moving to present day. This is the MOST IMPORTANT component of Socialism: Socialism is a TRANSITIONAL ideology, it is NOT a permanent ideology in respects to modern day globalized society especially. No matter how hard you look around, you will NOT find a long-term stable Socialist nation that is flourishing in the world as they remain stagnant as a Socialist nation. There is one very specific, very limited scope situation in which this rule does not apply at ALL points and that would be with very small communities which for the most part, segregate themselves from the rest of the world...Like a self-sufficient cult or a hippie community in the middle of nowhere; however this does NOT apply. Since this comment is becoming very long, I will finish here by stating the MOST IMPORTANT of ALL important facts: The three major ideologies of Communism, Socialism and Capitalism; as HARD as you try, as much as you wish and pray, can NEVER coexist and be indefinitely sustainable. These are three completely separate ideologies and ways of life. A community can slide back and forth on the scale throughout it's existence, but it can never be equally utilized or rest stagnantly upon more than one of the three parts of the spectrum at one time; Socialism can NEVER be used singularly as an indefinite ideology either. Think of it as a triangle, Socialism on the left bottom, Capitalism on the Right bottom and Socialism on the high angle: One can never stay resting upon the high angle of a triangle. || Sorry I stretched this out so far.
TBR says2015-10-11T19:33:45.2241684Z
Well Haroush, keep pushing Trump and the general pandemonium in the GOP - we will get our wish and elect Sanders. You will assimilate. We will re-educate you.
Haroush says2015-10-11T19:41:42.3125430Z
Sure.. What a laugh @ TBR.
ButterCatX says2015-10-11T21:41:29.5918259Z
Sanders isn't a socialist, because I like him and I don't like socialists. You people who say Bernie is a socialist have just been beaten.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T00:17:06.8829749Z
@ButterCatX -- LOL, I hope that was sarcasm....However, just in case and for anyone that DOES think like that: Bernie self-identifies as a Socialist, even did on a TV interview. In fact, Bernie is recorded in the record books as the first Socialist ever elected to the U.S. Senate.
1994XF04 says2015-10-13T02:56:19.3039418Z
Freedumbs at its finest...Love how no one understands capitalism and Marxist communism are a distraction from what Socialism really is.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.