|
| Thread: Why is socialism so prevalent in online communities? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 25, 2008 06:22 PM |
|
|
Why is socialism so prevalent in online communities?
I have been a member of several message boards, and I could not help but notice that socialism - or, at least, social democracy - is very popular when it comes to economic system preferences. Has anyone else noticed this? Do you think online communities are a reflection of the general public? I was hoping we could have a tactful discussion about this without actually getting into a debate about socialism vs. capitalism, since it's is usually a touchy subject. I am curious to hear your insights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
kookastar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 06:32 PM |
|
|
I think alot of people that go to online communities are geeks (and I mean that in a good way), are usually educated - either through formal education or self-learning. They therefore have a more open mind about things, are usually more humanitarian, see the big picture, and are socially/environmentally aware. These are obviously generalisations and not true for a percentage of people in these communities, but my guess is that it is the majority. (Socialism is obviously a philosophy held by the enlightened   )
Of course this isn't true for all online communities - I'd say that the ones you go to contain the people above. If you went to a nazi community or some dating communities you may find a completely different opinion.
____________
uhuh
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 07:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Socialism is obviously a philosophy held by the enlightened
lol
I think there is some truth in what you're saying, though. Many people who go to online communities tend to be more socially liberal (because they're educated and more aware). But who are so many people that are socially liberal also economically left-wing?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 08:25 PM |
|
Edited by JoonasTo at 20:25, 25 Dec 2008.
|
Because pure kapitalism is the way of the jackass. Let's take me for example. Five years ago I would have said that socialism sucks. But now as I'm older(wiser perhaps?) and less jackass I must say that socialism rules.
So it is as Kookie stated. Socialism is the way of the enlightened.
Oh and almost everyone thinks socialism is better. (at least here in Finland)
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 08:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because pure kapitalism is the way of the jackass.
So it is as Kookie stated. Socialism is the way of the enlightened.
Oh and almost everyone thinks socialism is better. (at least here in Finland)
i think the same. Capitalism sucks.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 09:11 PM |
|
|
I think it's because the net has a lot of Europeans and Europe is by far the most liberal place on earth.
And Kookie, you can't be serious!!!! I see it as just the opposite. I really truly can't figure out how a person with half a brain in their head could be a liberal. Of course this is from the perspective of liberal "American style" which is different than liberal in the rest of the world.
I see liberalism and clear logical thought being in opposition to each other. Liberalism is mostly emotion based whereas conservatism requires thought to understand. I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US this is one of the reasons Republicans (REAL Republicans not idiots like Bush et. al.) have such a huge obstacle to overcome during elections. Political campaigns are about mass media and short sound bites, catch phrases, photo ops, etc. All of these things evoke emotional responses. To explain something that is contrary to our initial emotional response takes a lot more effort and can not be easily done with the tools at hand.
An example is a homeless hungry man on the street. The liberal emotional response is "oh, poor man, let's feed him and give him shelter". The conservative response is "oh, poor man, let's find out why he's hungry and homeless and see if we can fix the problem".
The liberal socialistic "solution" has the appearance of reinforcing that they are right. Simply feeding the hungry man has concrete easily recognizable results....he is no longer hungry. Whereas the conservative approach has more subtle, less visible results which are more difficult to measure and probably take much longer to have an affect.
This is very much like the difference in medicine between a treatment and a cure. The cure is always preferable to treatment even in the cases when the treatment has more short term visible results.
People always want a simple feel good "solution". But that's not always the best solution and may even perpetuate the problem.
____________
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 09:14 PM |
|
|
Someone has to explain to me how liberalism connects to socialism...
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 09:31 PM |
|
|
Because socialism is normally considered an extreme liberal viewpoint.
But this partly depends on your definition of liberal and conservative. But it's one of those things that if you ask 10 people the definition of liberal or conservative, you'd get 10 answers.
Way back in the dark ages when I learned it, liberal and conservative had more to do with direction and rate of change....liberal being more activist and favoring rapid change, and conservative being slower and taking more of a "let's wait and think this through" approach.
Now it seems like the two terms have taken on the meaning of specific views and policies rather than direction, rate of change, thought process, etc. In this view, socialism is considered to be extreme liberal.
But in the former view, where direction and rate of chage define the terms, it may be just the opposite. For example the communists in ex Soviet Union may be called conservatives because of their opposition to change.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 09:39 PM |
|
|
Joonas:
This thread isn't about capitalism vs. socialism. But, in contrast to your situation, 5 years ago, I would have said that socialism rules. But now that I'm older and wiser, I can now say that capitalism>socialism.
As for Finland, according to Wikipedia, only 18.2% of the voters voted for a socialist or communist party (if you include the Greens as one of them). And while I object to social democracy, I can distinctly say that social democracy is not socialism. But even if you add the Social Democrats' votes to the various socialists, you'd only get 39.6%. Hardly "everybody". 
As regards liberalism vs. socialism, there is a difference between the meaning of "liberalism" in most English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries. In America, liberalism means stronger civil liberties, greater environmental protection, and heavier government intervention in the economy. In Europe, liberals also support stronger civil liberties, but not all (although most) of them are enthusiastic about supporting the environment, and want a decreased government role in the economy. In other words, what is in America called liberalism would in Europe be called social democracy, and what is in Europe called liberalism would in America be called centrism, Third Way, or (moderate) libertarianism, as there is no real equivalent in America to European liberalism.
Binabik:
But there are a few things I'd disagree with. Socialism isn't extreme liberalism. Communists are socialist, but they're hardly liberal.
Both:
I think this may be helpful:
American liberalism would be on the left edge of "social liberalism".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 10:02 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:07, 25 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
But, in contrast to your situation, 5 years ago, I would have said that socialism rules.
lol you were political when you were that young or are you just trying to show off?
Quote:
As for Finland, according to Wikipedia, only 18.2% of the voters voted for a socialist or communist party (if you include the Greens as one of them).
I fail to see the relevance of this. Weren't we talking about the 'online' forums, and the 'educated' people? 
Also I think liberalism has only to do with civil rights.
@Binabik:Quote:
I really truly can't figure out how a person with half a brain in their head could be a liberal.
You know, you're acting on these forums all the time like you're some kind of King and know what a "full brain" means to not be a liberal, etc... Drop that attitude. It's not like it's the first time you use such sarcasm.
I could respond in kind but where would that lead us? (trust me also, I'm somewhat conservative as well, but I don't like attitudes like that).
Quote:
The conservative response is "oh, poor man, let's find out why he's hungry and homeless and see if we can fix the problem".
Yep he's hungry because society failed him, because he had poor conditions to start with. Because of INEVITABLE disadvantage of SITUATION, not of their own doings. So, I think it thorough, and realize that he had no choice COMPARED TO OTHERS (i.e others had it "easy"), so I give him food. Obviously you can't possibly think that a guy who is the son of a millionaire will deserve the same stuff from me as a homeless poor guy.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 10:13 PM |
|
|
Well that explains the mix up then. Thanks.
And our centrist here are pretty much socialists.
But what I meant was that if you go ask people on the street if your current way of social security is good they say yes. That means most people agree to socialism.
And death for christ's sake don't turn this into quote wars. This was about why not who is better.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 10:56 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
lol you were political when you were that young or are you just trying to show off?
Yeah, although it'd be more accurate to say four years ago - during the 2004 election. I backed Kerry, but thought he was far too moderate. I was thinking that he should establish socialized medicine and increase various social benefits. Seriously. I'm glad I know better now.
Quote:
I fail to see the relevance of this. Weren't we talking about the 'online' forums, and the 'educated' people?
Quote:
Oh and almost everyone thinks socialism is better. (at least here in Finland)
Quote:
Also I think liberalism has only to do with civil rights.
This is just another example of confusing terminology. Lowercase-s social liberalism only has to do with civil rights - that is, Classical Liberals, capital-s Social Liberals, Social Democrats, and Socialists are all lowercase-s social liberals. But there is also economic liberalism - and that only has to do with economics. Liberal conservatives (in American terms, conservatives), libertarians, and European liberals are all economic liberals.
So, a general summary:
authoritarianism + economic socialism = communism
(moderate) authoritarianism + economic liberalism = (liberal) conservatism
social liberalism + economic socialism = socialism (the political ideology)
social liberalism + economic liberalism = European liberalism or libertarianism
But this isn't about whether socialism or capitalism is better. It's about why socialism is so popular on the internet.
Joonas:
Quote:
And our centrist here are pretty much socialists.
Nevertheless, the Centrists are a member of the Liberal International, who says, in its Oxford Manifesto:Quote:
The suppression of economic freedom must lead to the disappearance of political freedom. We oppose such suppression, whether brought about by State ownership or control or by private monopolies, cartels and trusts. We admit State ownership only for those undertakings which are beyond the scope of private enterprise or in which competition no longer plays its part.
It's also a member of the European Liberal and Democrat Party, which has this to say:Quote:
A relapse into policies of nationalisation, over-regulation and protectionism would be a major mistake.
Both of these statements are more liberal than socialist.
Plus, regardless of what they people say about the social security system, if most of them aren't advocating public ownership of all the means of production, then they're not socialists.
Plus, if the people are all social democrats, then why aren't they voting for the Social Democrats?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 11:12 PM |
|
|
A brief lesson of finnish politics brought to you by me.
Social democrats = Labours party
Central = Farmers party
Liberals = Bussinessman's party
Finnish are party loyal.
And that concludes the lesson.
Oh and when I'm talking about socialism I'm really talking about social democratism. The social security system and fund transfer being the main thing in it. I apologize for the hassle.
So most people aren't socialists in state owns all kind of thing. They are socialists in state helps the helpless kind of thing. No one left behind is the most humane way so it attracts people who aren't jackasses.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 11:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Social democrats = Labours party
Central = Farmers party
Liberals = Bussinessman's party
While it's obvious what trade unionists want, and what businessmen want, but what do the farmers want, besides subsidies? So there's no difference in the parties' policies? And what about other parties, like the True Finns, Christian Democrats, Greens, and Left? What are their bases?
Quote:
No one left behind is the most humane way so it attracts people who aren't jackasses.
So I'm a jackass?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 25, 2008 11:49 PM |
|
|
By the way, "communism" isn't authoritarian, as per definition -- but obviously we had wrong uses of it. Communism actually implies no government at all.
Stupid example:
You and your neighbor have 1 cow each. In communism, you share the cows. In 'pure socialism', the government owns both cows, and makes them available to you both (publicly).
It is somewhat similar but there's a difference.
Of course that would be using the 'real' definition of communism, but meh.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
While it's obvious what trade unionists want, and what businessmen want, but what do the farmers want, besides subsidies? So there's no difference in the parties' policies? And what about other parties, like the True Finns, Christian Democrats, Greens, and Left? What are their bases?
[british]Obiusly they are somewhere around the bloody cup of tea[/british]
Lets take Norway as an example, simply the current political parties could all have been brought down into several large ones.
We got "Rød Valgalianse"(litteraly: Red Election-alliance), i think its currently the party on the furthest to the left.
I don't remember the section over at the right side, but basicaly the 4-5 of them could have been merged into 1 single partie.......
And as he said: "Loyal voters", someting we had in this country til around the 70's or someting(if the history thaught at schools are to be belived ). Arbeider Partiet(litteraly: Workers Party....) had the majority alone(50%+ of the votes) since after the war, at some point the rightwing parties made one heck of an alliance and tok the power. The 3(i think it was 3, but it could be 4 also <.< parties managed to get a majority but it fell apart after a short time(i think it was 3 weeks after) because each of them was so different that they would not really coporate if it had not been for the situation.
Some point after that we Norwegians was no longer really party loyal except in local elections around the country(i think where i live is an good example, Arbeider Partiet have been in power without a change for about a hundred years. When the next election is they had the dam seat 104 years, so if they win it will add addition 4 years on the stack.)
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:02 AM |
|
|
Actually, it's the other way around. Under "pure socialism" (that is, anarcho-socialism), there would be no government. Under "perfect" communism, there would be a government that would own the cows and makes them available to people.
But I was using communism in the sense of "authoritarian socialism".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:06 AM |
|
|
Internet community people tend to be less competitive in life so they tend to gravitate towards safer, less powerful forms of government. This is also why professors have a strong tendency towards leftism, since the job they are in isn't very competitive and they pretty much go to school from age 5 to the day they retire. Whereas engineers and people in applied sciences (a more competitive field) tend to gravitate more towards rightism.
Plus, internet users are primarily younger people, and younger people are more prone to leftism as well since they misconceive capitalism as selfish.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:12 AM |
|
|
Another finnish democracy lesson by me.
Central used to be named countrysider party. Farmers meaning all small town people. They tend to try to keep jobs in smaller towns too. Currently going through a renovation period. Trying to modernise the party. Probably going to end up being closer to liberals than the somewhat social democrat older style.
True Finns are populists and anti-EU and anti-immigrant. Quickly rising party. Very charismatic leader who is responsilbe for most of their success. Liberals.
Christian democrats are old farts who are on the low. Conservative liberals. (Does that even make sense? Well I dind't come up with that. *shrugs)
Greens are another rising party. Currently in a dead-end because of opposing nuclear, water and fossil fuels. What's left? Nothing that's worth using in Finland. Social democrats.
Left Union is fourth largest party with a solid support. They are the real socialists you speak of. Only notable party to demand for more government regulation in economy.
Then there's the one important party that you are missing. The Swedish party. They represent the half million finland swedes. (Obviously not all vote for them.) Liberals. Customary to take into the government. Not necessary but just a habit.
Goverernment is made from the winning party(Again not necessary but customary. ), another one of the two bigs and some small party(s) to make up for 50%.
Lesson ended.
To tell you the truth you are a jackass. You have no sympathy of whatsoever against the unlucky in life. But jackasses rule this world so don't be ashamed.
Blizz, capitalism isn't misconceived as selfish. It IS selfish.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:13 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:15, 26 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Actually, it's the other way around. Under "pure socialism" (that is, anarcho-socialism), there would be no government. Under "perfect" communism, there would be a government that would own the cows and makes them available to people.
Nope.
Quote:
Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, following a socialist stage, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.
@Joonas:Quote:
To tell you the truth you are a jackass. You have no sympathy of whatsoever against the unlucky in life. But jackasses rule this world so don't be ashamed.
That bold word
but mvass will never get it -- he thinks that the "unlucky" people deserve only public education and police, but in other areas (MUCH more critical to become a millionaire for example) they can't be unlucky, just lazy, in his opinion. That's why he doesn't get it
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
