9
   

Rich Socialist

Forums: Socialist
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
gollum
 
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 06:12 am
Is a socialist someone who advocates redistributing property toward equality?

How can a rich "jet-setter" type of person be a socialist?

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 9 • Views: 4,814 • Replies: 73

 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 06:15 am
@gollum,
What is wrong with somebody who earns a lot wishing to pay more taxes? Champagne socialists are a lot more palatable than working class tories.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 06:22 am
@gollum,
gollum wrote:

How can a rich "jet-setter" type of person be a socialist?


A "socialist" is someone who advocates or practices socialism.
A "Socialist" is a member of a socialist party or political group.

That has nothing to do with being rich and/or jet-setter.
(Actually, Engels was rich, and Marx wasn't poor either.)
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 09:32 am
You may have to explain who Engels was, Walter. Maybe they're all Fabians, and are secretly hoping it doesn't all go pear-shaped in their own lifetimes.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 09:40 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

gollum wrote:

How can a rich "jet-setter" type of person be a socialist?


A "socialist" is someone who advocates or practices socialism.
A "Socialist" is a member of a socialist party or political group.

That has nothing to do with being rich and/or jet-setter.
(Actually, Engels was rich, and Marx wasn't poor either.)


Both of your definitions above, in my opinion, reflect "circular reasoning." Here in the U.S., many a person with Socialist views has the "class warfare" mindset that makes him/her a Socialist. They many times begrudge the "haves" from having more than some mythical "fair share" of the proverbial pie. They disregard that the wealthy support a small army of "virtual" servants in this capitalistic economy. I am talking about the dry cleaners, personal shoppers, personal assistants, dog walkers, beauty salon personnel, personal gym trainers, etc., etc..

In my opinion, Socialism should make a metamorphosis to capitalism, after the political entity enters into its "mature" stage (i.e., Israel). The fact that some countries require a Socialist government in perpetuity, may be just a comment on the nature of its population. So, perhaps, a Socialist country is required for those countries that commiserate with the mediocre abilities in its midst? Nothing wrong with that, except some want to become the "leaders" of a Socialist party, and therefore promulgate the old class warfare mythology.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 10:06 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Both of your definitions above, in my opinion, reflect "circular reasoning." Here in the U.S., many a person with Socialist views has the "class warfare" mindset that makes him/her a Socialist.


Well, the source of my definition is American:

"socialist." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (3 Jul. 2011).
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 10:08 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
The fact that some countries require a Socialist government in perpetuity, may be just a comment on the nature of its population.


What countries require a Socialist government?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 10:11 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Nothing wrong with that, except some want to become the "leaders" of a Socialist party, and therefore promulgate the old class warfare mythology.

I'm sure, party leaders are elected differently in quite a few countries.
In Germany for instance, they are elected by party members respectively delegates, elected by party members.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 10:59 am
@gollum,
gollum wrote:
Is a socialist someone who advocates redistributing property toward equality?

How can a rich "jet-setter" type of person be a socialist?

Good question. Let's see. Maybe it's . . .
  • because the person cares about the less fortunate, but doesn't want to be the only one to pay for helping them?

  • or because the person expects to have enough money even after paying their redistributive taxes?

  • or because a reputation for stinginess makes a person unpopular, and becoming a socialist helps avert such a reputation?

Just guessing.
gollum
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 11:21 am
@gollum,
If a socialist obtained what he or she wanted, would all people have the same income & wealth?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 02:26 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

  • because the person cares about the less fortunate, but doesn't want to be the only one to pay for helping them?


That's an important point. In '08, I received a nice bonus "tax refund". In '09, there was a check just for being on Social Security. I disapproved of both. Since I suspected most others were taking the money, I cashed the checks.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 05:02 pm
@Thomas,
Socialism is a readjustment of the balance of power. Wealthy people have significant power by virtue of their wealth, and they wish to keep hold of power. They do this by taking control of the media and spreading lies about the nature of power and wealth.

Universal Health Care is an issue that's used to divide. almost every country that has Universal Health Care values it immensely, it is a source of great pride. However, in countries without Universal Health Care, the right portrays it as unaffordable, as giving a hand out to shiftless criminal layabouts who will never be interested in an honest days work.

This attitude keeps the rich very rich. Something like 90% of the population owns 10% of the wealth, and vice versa. Socialism says wouldn't the world be a better place if the gap between the rich and poor were not so great. 90% of the population has 90% of the votes, but they still swallow the lies of the wealthiest 10%.

The right focuses on the worst aspects of humanity, what divides us, but true Socialism looks at what unites us.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2011 04:24 am
@roger,
A most convenient example of logic chopping. Was it real money, or just pocket money?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2011 04:25 am
I heard or read somewhere (can't vouch for it) that the at the Fabian website, they no longer mention that embarrassing word socialism.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2011 04:29 am
@Setanta,
Bush gave me $600. El Cheapo only came up with $200.

I thought they were both trying to buy votes.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2011 04:47 am
@Setanta,
Well, the Fabian Society is a think-tank and engaged "in the development of political ideas and public policy on the left of centre".

The (UK) Labour Party lists the Fabian Society as one of its "affiliated socialist societies": Co-operative party, The Christian Socialist Movement, The Fabian Society, The Jewish Labour movement ... ... and is "a democratic, socialist party".

Sources: Labour Party, Fabian Society
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2011 05:14 am
@roger,
Baby Bush only gave us that cash because he was shamed into it. Obama had to shift through the shards of that broken piggy bank. Of course they were hopin' to buy votes . . . they're just your average thei . . . er, politicians.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2011 08:55 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
The fact that some countries require a Socialist government in perpetuity, may be just a comment on the nature of its population.


What countries require a Socialist government?


"Requires" does not mean any country has to have a Socialist government. "Requires" in the sense, in my opinion, that an argument can be made for the belief that a Socialist government is "ethical" in that it "cares" for those that would find it hard to "survive" in a capitalistic country. However, an argument can be made for the belief that a capitalistic country is quite ethical, since it rewards those that work within the system (produce or risk their capital). A capitalistic country, in my opinion, might just label many of those that would benefit from a socialistic country as parasites. Or, perhaps never matured enough to function in the competitive nature of a capitalistic country.

I do not know which countries would benefit from a socialist economy. Perhaps, more than one would guess, since even western nations have a population within its midst that need to have "opportunity" handed to them in the way of training or jobs. Few might actually have the entrepreneurial bent to survive in a purely capitalistic society? The question may just be whether to maintain a population of marginal contributors (other than their unskilled labor, left to their own devices) to society?

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2011 08:58 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Nothing wrong with that, except some want to become the "leaders" of a Socialist party, and therefore promulgate the old class warfare mythology.

I'm sure, party leaders are elected differently in quite a few countries.
In Germany for instance, they are elected by party members respectively delegates, elected by party members.


Regardless, in my opinion, the socialist concept tends to ensure its continued existence (as a needed concept) by promulgating the class warfare mythology ("the rich are exploiting everyone else").
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2011 08:59 am
I would say that Foofie is the very incarnation of invincible ignorance, were it not for the undeniable fact that there are so many here who deserve that title.
 

Related Topics

Socialist pickpocket Bernie Sanders after your wallet - Discussion by Miller
Bernie Sanders: Unabashedly Irreligious - Discussion by Miller
Impeach Obama - Discussion by cjhsa
I quit - Discussion by cjhsa
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Rich Socialist
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 10:47:18
▲ ▼