Rich Socialist

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

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.

Did you forget to include the reasons that Catholicism is based on a socialist concept that one only should have what one needs, and Protestantism is based on success (wealth) is a divine sign of being chosen for Salvation?

When you use the term "less fortunate" above, the inference is that only the less fortunate (aka, bad luck like being born with a congenital malformation) are the beneficiaries of a socialist economy. I think "less fortunate" could be used as a euphemism for those that are lazy, slothful, slow-learners, and any assortment of what might be labeled "trash" in the vernacular of those that subscribe to societal classes.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

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.

You didn't want to use the word "invincible," I would guess. I believe it would have been more to your point to use the word, "intractable." However, as a secular Jew, and aspiring WASP novitiate, I cannot be concerned with the teeming masses left over from the pre-Reformation era.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Not only are you invincibly ignorant, you're too stupid to understand why that is just exactly the word to be used.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

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").

I disagree with your "regardless"
Additionally - you may look it up yourself - most, if not all Socialist parties don't 'promulgate the class warfare mythology". And that not only since 'recently' but for decades.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

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.

The wealthy are wealthy because someone, themselves or family, risked capital. The poor risked no capital, yet believe that because they were born, they deserve as much input into the direction of a society as the wealthy. I call that arrogance.

And, the rich are not hurting the bulk of society, since they pay salaries to many that serve their needs. The real poor just begrudge the rich, in my opinion, since it apologizes for the poor being poor, due to their own inabilities. The old class warfare mythology.

By taxing the rich, so it can be redistributed to the poor, the Golden Goose (aka, the rich) will eventually not have anymore golden eggs for the poor. So, at that point the truth might come out that the poor are poor based on their own inabilities. Unless of course, the poor will be paid a livable wage for sweeping a street, and the dentist will get a few cents more for getting through dental school.

Socialism is just a disincentive to achieve.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Not only are you invincibly ignorant, you're too stupid to understand why that is just exactly the word to be used.

Are you grateful for the British in promulgating a command of the English language to your ancestors?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:

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").

I disagree with your "regardless"
Additionally - you may look it up yourself - most, if not all Socialist parties don't 'promulgate the class warfare mythology". And that not only since 'recently' but for decades.

Perhaps in Europe. It is the bread and butter, in my opinion, of socialist propaganda in the U.S.

Let us not forget that socialism in Europe has a longer history, and more people looked upon it, I believe, as the final cure for the many inequities of European society, the economy only being one inequity.

3 Replies

@Foofie,

Now there's a wonderful example of another of your pathetic attempts to pick a fight through a clumsy effort based on your ignorance. Not only is your ignorance invincible, it apparently knows no bounds.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Did you forget to include the reasons that Catholicism is based on a socialist concept that one only should have what one needs, and Protestantism is based on success (wealth) is a divine sign of being chosen for Salvation?

Okay, if you use the "Weber thesis". But then, you should narrow it to Calvinism and 'Protestantism' in general. Especially Martin Luther was preaching against "Capitalism":
"Christian life consists of faith and charity."
"Wealth is a minor thing on earth and the smallest gift that God gave us. Thus, our Lord usually gives riches only to the coarsest asses whom he allows to have nothing else."

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Perhaps in Europe. It is the bread and butter, in my opinion, of socialist propaganda in the U.S.

Sorry. I didn't know that was a Socialist propaganda in the U.S.A. .

Foofie wrote:

Let us not forget that socialism in Europe has a longer history, ...

I am sure that some here do know a lot more about the history of Socialism than others ... But you don't seem to know a lot about it, too.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

It is the bread and butter, in my opinion, of socialist propaganda in the U.S.

I've looked it up: you must refer to the propaganda of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
But really never noticed that they have such an influence. Nor that they stuck on this antique idea. My bad. (But I've looked up their leaflets, brochures without anything similar to what you quote.)

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Anyone who regards less fortunate people as 'trash' is nothing but a fascist.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Your point bears repeating: Calivinism does not equal protestantism, and some protestant denominations are profoundly anti-capitalist.

In addition, Catholic Social Teachings do not claim that people shouldn't have more than they need. They are indifferent to the welfare of rich people. What they care about, and what they measure the success of a society by, is the welfare of its poorest members. Consequently, they envision the good society as a welfare state grafted onto capitalistic roots. The optimal size of that welfare state is the point where the gain to the poor from increased redistribution just outweighs the loss to the poor from decreased production.

The closest American equivalent to this ideology is Rawlesian liberalism, which reaches similar conclusions from different premises. Socialism has nothing to do with Catholic Social Teaching.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

At least they were both sufficiently professional so as not to use their own money.

1 Reply

@roger,

That's the wonderful thing about national politics--not having to spend one's own money, and still make yourself out to be a nice guy.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
It is the bread and butter, in my opinion, of socialist propaganda in the U.S.

I've looked it up: you must refer to the propaganda of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
But really never noticed that they have such an influence. Nor that they stuck on this antique idea. My bad. (But I've looked up their leaflets, brochures without anything similar to what you quote.)

I am talking about the popular culture, not the official writings of any political party.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Anyone who regards less fortunate people as 'trash' is nothing but a fascist.

The needy might be "less fortunate," due to bad luck, or "less fortunate" by their own indolent nature. I only think of the indolent as parasites. Those with bad luck (in life) do need a hand up, so to speak.

And, a fascist is one who believes in the government and corporations to work together.

Perhaps, you meant an elitist? Anything wrong with being an elitist? But, elitist based on what you ask? Oh, how long one's family have been Americans. I defer to the descendants of the early immigrants, as opposed to deference to the people that came here in my lifetime. Too few of them, in my opinion, came here for anything but the "good times."

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Perhaps in Europe. It is the bread and butter, in my opinion, of socialist propaganda in the U.S.

Sorry. I didn't know that was a Socialist propaganda in the U.S.A. .

Foofie wrote:
Let us not forget that socialism in Europe has a longer history, ...

I am sure that some here do know a lot more about the history of Socialism than others ... But you don't seem to know a lot about it, too.

What I know about socialism is that this country was not built on socialism, and since I have no desire to disenfranchise the descendants of those that were here first, and did the proverbial heavy lifting to make the U.S. what it is today, I do not have any concerns that the wealth of those descendants should be more equitably distributed to those whose families may have come here a century or two later. To me socialism is just an intellectual euphemism for thievery.

We are talking across a wide gulf of understanding, since you as a European might not relate to the feeling of what being an American means to some. It means to some an "exceptionalism" that Europeans do not like to feel, since in the past it may have led to wars. But, an "exceptionalism" that is based on rewarding effort, and not watering down effort through taxing for social programs for the mediocre masses.

Don't tell me about socialism. Tell your government, since little Greece might want a hand-out quite soon from wealthy Germany.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Idiot. The slaves did no heavy lifting? Their descendants are not capitalist in the sense of having significant capital to invest. So i guess, in your selfish, perverted world view, no amount of the heavy lifting done by the first Africans who were brought, very much against their will, would justify the descendants getting a break.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Idiot. The slaves did no heavy lifting? Their descendants are not capitalist in the sense of having significant capital to invest. So i guess, in your selfish, perverted world view, no amount of the heavy lifting done by the first Africans who were brought, very much against their will, would justify the descendants getting a break.

I do not believe in the proverbial "do over." The U.S. was, and is, a capitalist society. Since the slaves could not participate in the capitalistic society, they were unethically, and immorally, exploited. That does not cheapen the early immigrants contributions that had included family deaths due to this or that fever or mosquito caused disease, that did not even exist in Europe. Or, the fighting with native Americans. Or, the dangers going west. So, you should not rail against my Anglophilism, since that is just where I am in the whirlpool of diversity that others seem to pander to (yes, do not end a sentence with a preposition).

My attitude relates to my thinking that, analogous to Israeli Jews getting a small recompense for what they lost in the Final Solution, and Germany becoming Juden Frei (aka, not having to compete with a group that had lived there for possibly 500 years), I say "O.K., no 'do overs.'" And that would go for the Palestineans too."

I am just trying to work within some standard concepts of how the game is played. Rules for Jews after WWII, are fine, if they are the rules for others too.

0 Replies

Rich Socialist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know