• Please register and login and join us. Registered members may block ads while they are logged in.

In response to, 'crying red (socialism).'


Well-known member
Sep 3, 2011
Reaction score
Sweet, sweet, U S of A.
Nobody really wants a free market; very few people who say they do, could actually swallow it.  The Republicans and Democrats; probably to equal degrees, have been pushing, 'social,' programs for some time.  Corporate well-fare is historically a republican thing.  To the best of my knowledge though, the wealthiest of the wealthy have acquired increasingly progressive views and means; and as a guess, I would say, they are doing so because it is in their best interest; it supports the bottom line.

Is it possible, that if a Republican president presided over the disaster bush left us with in 2008, that he/she would have NOT bailed out the banks?  I'd say probably not.  But, to say that the democrats are 100% responsible for, 'well-fare,' style programs is absolutely ludicrous.  If the sentiment is anger towards those who refuse work and seek handouts; then, I'd wager the persons you are most angry at are corporations.  Corporations, their bailouts, their tax loop holes, and the army of accountants and lawyers they have, are more than happy to avoid giving back to the community in the form of labor of some kind; not to mention the hedge fund managers, money movers, spread sheet fillers, etc.. etc..

So, to cry, 'socialism,' is really kind of absurd if you voted for George W. Bush; the architect of stimulus, corporate wellfare, and foreign wars to arguably shape the landscape of a major oil producing region; if not, 'THE,' 'REIGNING,' oil producing region.

Socialism, as a concept, is difficult to understand; I'm not sure I could accurately explain it myself, and I consider myself an intellectual.  Sadly, it is the intellectual who is arguably, not the enemy of socialism; but, the enemy of conformity, which, is an essential ingredient to rule by fear, oppression, and power (tyranny.)  And, unfortunately, tyranny, by definition, and practice, is insidious.  It has a creeping, stalking, quality to it; not unlike how a snake hunts it's prey; but, that may not be the only way it operates.  I believe tyranny also has the ability to operate in the open, be seen by all and yet witnessed by very few; heard by everyone, but understood by only too few.  Tyranny, to the best of my knowledge, has always succeeded when it was welcomed as the savior by a majority.

There is nothing inherently wrong OR right with socialism and or communism.  The biggest complaint one would have against socialism and communism is when it is forced on the wealthy; so that, they are equalized.  If I had one million dollars and some one said to me, "you didn't work for that money; you didn't earn it; and I'm going to take it from you and distribute among all of us equally," I would most likely be rather upset.  Further more, if people came banging on my doors with rocks and clubs to physically take that money from me and do me grave harm; I can't say I'd be too happy about.  So, IF, taxation is theft, it stands to reason theft is also theft.  Now, if you steal my dog and I steal it back; yet for some reason you were convinced it was YOUR dog; then, we have a much more deeper and fundamental problem.

To me, the biggest problem, that these United States of America faces, is that, 'fundamental problem.'  And, I believe it's roots are in language.  If we can't agree on the definition of the words we use and we can't agree on what they actually point to, it's very difficult to come to ANY understanding about ANYTHING; except, that we, 'FEEL,' a certain way. *lol*  And that's actually a very funny situation.  It makes me think of two people who don't know any language to express themselves; but, they are both hungry and can't agree on how to go about solving the problem.

The Democrats are not, 'socialist,' though.  If they are anything, they would probably define themselves in terms of what we consider a, 'libertarian,' to be, today (which is very different, to my understanding, to what an ACTUAL libertarian is); and it just so happens, that in seeking their own self-interest, implementing a lot of social programs helps further their self-interest.  Social programs help big-pharma, the insurance companies, the auto-industry even, the health-care industry, the psychiatric institution, the social-media giants, big data companies like google, and even to a lesser degree, Microsoft, and others.  Amazon and Wallmart don't have to pay their employees decent wages if they are receiving food-stamps, the same goes McDonalds, Wendy's, Target, etc.. etc..

The neo-liberal agenda promotes social well-fare as opposed to corporate well-fare; because poor people generally only spend money on 1 thing; shit they can't afford!  lol, and of course food, and shelter.  The conservative agenda has, historically, and to the best of my knoweldge, still is, only interested in corporate well-fare; which, by virture of trickle down, also leaves the poor with a little bit of money to spend on things they can't afford; but, probably not nearly as much as social well-fare; but, what social-wellfare does for the poor, corporate-wellfare does for the affluent.

Currently, my guess, is that the neo-cons are aging and beginning to die out, so they need a new voter base; and they go about building that base by all kinds of various means.  The neo-libs, if I were to guess, aren't so much trying to build a base, so much as by co-opting progressive, socialist, libertarian, and socialist-libertarian would-be movements.  And, again, to guess, and break it down, I think what they are really doing, is finding the worst of the people in these movements, elevating them; and also buying them off to their particular agenda.  To me, I visualize a string, and one half is blue and the other is red; but, the middle, is largely likely purple.  The people in this small region likely have aligning interests as well as place they don't agree; but, largely, I doubt they consider themselves red or blue (or green or yellow for that matter).

So, that's my take.  Essentially, what you have, is rule by persons; and those persons are corporations.  In the corporate world, there is the old guard, and the new guard.  The old guard, is essentially industrial, and has it's base at resource extraction, and it's head at tangibles; such as roads, buildings, infrastructure, fuel, power, energy; and so forth (this also included Internet Service Providers; but, a lot of mergers have happened since the 90's, such that, I think some Media companies now own a lot of ISPs).  The new guard, I would say, is the tech giants; that which sits on top of the head of the old guard; and, also, as defined by me, there is a guard in between those two, and that's the media industry (movies, T.V., etc..); however, they are arguably, also, technically, old guard; they weren't so much the, 'head,' of the old guard as an adjunct.  People need entertainment; especially when so little of their life has time to find any.

Anyway, if I were to make a point; it's that, you can't communicate with some one who knows the same language as you; but, holds different definitions for the words; you can each grunt at each other and make loud noises; but, not until you sit down and, hopefully, go back far enough into history to see what the words you are using actually mean, could you get anywhere.  However, I don't think that will happen; at least it's not what people are doing now; unfortunately, the way things may turn out, is that people come to an agreement on what words mean; having lost all contact with what they actually meant, like a dead language.  History has a way of losing it's impact; and, historians can debate among themselves; and then there is revisionists and the architects of the time may not have given an accurate portrayal of the present, etc.. etc..

What's at stake, is liberty, and freedom; and you'd have to know what that is, to know you you don't have it anymore.  Perhaps I have certain freedoms denied me; freedoms that if I had, you wouldn't make use of, because you have no interest in pursuing happiness that way...

I mean, sorry to say; but, the very locus of oppression in the United States, largely hinges on corporations that benefited from corporate well-fare.  Facebook, Google, Twitter; and the like, are going to decide what is true and what is not true; what is racist and what is sexist; but those corporations can't exist without YOU.  You are the product.  Red social programs (corporate well-fare) is what got us here in the first place.  So to cry socialism now, is to be pissed at your neighbor for their dog shitting in your yard; when in fact, it was your dog, and you just forgot that you weren't feeling great that day and didn't pick up after your dog.  Sure, your neighbor may be bad about that too, maybe worse, maybe not; but, you stepped in your own shit and you're mad at some one else about it and blame them; that doesn't help the situation.

That to me, in my view, is the crux of Red American Socialism; blaming Blue FOR socialism; and neither of it is REALLY socialism; it's exploitation, a con-job, the clever trick that can make a person, extremely wealthy; and ultimately, it's often our own fault, for being fooled so many times...  Some times I'd say we even wanted to be fooled, on some sub-conscious level; because perhaps it was easier and more convenient than the alternative...

I'm not sure I understand what true Liberty and Freedom are (capitalized).  But, I do like words, and ideas; and lately, it seems there is a lot of disagreement on what they actually mean...  I have enjoyed, through out my life, freedom of thought and the freedom to express that through speech.  I have also known times when I was not free to express my thoughts; and times when I shouldn't have expressed them...


Aug 9, 2019
Reaction score
Its interesting when you talk about the free market. I personally don't see being a commodity for businesses as a freedom.

Businesses milk us every which way wanting more money. Our skills and labour. Every business contains a human a human forced to work for their own survival.

When you look at the three economic systems of communism socialism and modern day capitalism, there will always be loosers. Its just on who it is placed.

Communism makes everyone loose as no one but the elite or government own everything. This infers alot of government control into peoples lives.

Socialism is abit like the grandma that tells you to give everyone a slice of cake at your birthday. The problem with giving everyone cake whether they deserve it or not is that the celebrator of the birthday will no longer have cake for themselves.

Capitalism as a system which determines that their will always be losers. There will always be people with worse lives than you. The system is designed to create individual losers and that can destroy many lives.

Its a zero sum game at the moment with a mixture of hybrid socialist states and capitalist states pritty much everywhere even where there are communist governments. Personally I would love to see widespread socailism, however this cannot be achieved in a capitalist world as socialism costs alot of money and human resource. Until we can accept the costs of socialism economically and human resource wise nothing will ever change.

The US is slowly transferring to a hybrid state to focusing on more socialist elements of governing.

Arguably the costs of socialism are significantly less than capitalism and communism. Which is why internationally it is becoming the more favoured economic system
Last edited: