Am I?

[Prozerran]

Simple question. Tonight, I was called a Socialist. I replied, "I'm not a socialist." I was then asked what I am. I did not reply.

The truth is, there is no reply to the question. I'm not a socialist, the descriptive nature of the word 'socialist' doesn't even apply to one person. It does however apply to a structure of society.

Not that I'm trying to split hairs here, but I wonder if I haven't stumbled onto a paradox here. Obviously, we're talking about what system I would prefer, advocate, or otherwise encourage. The problem is that the question doesn't really address the nature of someone's view on what said structure should be.

So when someone asks me if I'm a capitalist, I reply no. If I were asked what kind of society I believe I live in, I would respond that I live in a capitalist society. Even so, that still does not make me a capitalist. What then does that actually make me?

The question, being what it is, seems somewhat lacking in actually ascertaining the preference of societal structure from my viewpoint. Would it not be much more effective to stop drawing such broad distinctions over something that otherwise would never apply to us as individuals? Aren't there much more important questions to answer than one that can never really be argued on a reasonable basis?

For instance, if someone is arguing that communism is better, my first question is, "Are you hungry?" Because I would wonder how someone that prefers Communism over Capitalism would actually be able to fund feeding themselves. Obviously, you're feeding yourself and you're functioning in a Capitalist system of society. If you're not happy about it, move to Russia before it's too late.

That's why the hunt for Communists in the 70's really never made much sense to me. People who supported communist ideals but actually made a living in a Capitalist society were complaining that that system doesn't work and want it to change. Uh, I'm confused.

When you get down to the nitty gritty, people complain too much. We should all just chill out. Chill out, or move out - to a country with the societal system they'll be happy living in. If it really takes someone three different successful ventures of life in society to figure out how frickin' easy it is for us to live and to sustain our needs in each society, we realize they're all designed to be easy.

I mean really, why even draw a distinction anymore? We're so far away from the question, we aren't even aware that we're answering a question we can't possibly have an answer to. For everyone that says, "I'm capitalist all the way, baby!" please get a clue. If you live in America and pay rent, eat, work, go home after work, and sleep in a bed with sheets and blankets, you're not a communist.

Moreover, if you live in America and pay rent, eat, work, go home after work, and sleep in a bed with sheets and blankets, you're not a capitalist either. You are a person who lives in a capitalist society. Key word in that statement - lives. If any system of society doesn't provide all that you need, you would be dead.

And that's why I find it so absurd that people complain about the society they 'live' in and call themselves something they obviously are not. I'm going to go to bed in my comfy sheets, pillows, and down-comforter. Goodnight Warboards.

[Yoda]

Simple question. Tonight, I was called a Socialist. I replied, "I'm not a socialist." I was then asked what I am. I did not reply.

The truth is, there is no reply to the question. I'm not a socialist, the descriptive nature of the word 'socialist' doesn't even apply to one person. It does however apply to a structure of society.

Not that I'm trying to split hairs here, but I wonder if I haven't stumbled onto a paradox here. Obviously, we're talking about what system I would prefer, advocate, or otherwise encourage. The problem is that the question doesn't really address the nature of someone's view on what said structure should be.

So when someone asks me if I'm a capitalist, I reply no. If I were asked what kind of society I believe I live in, I would respond that I live in a capitalist society. Even so, that still does not make me a capitalist. What then does that actually make me?

The question, being what it is, seems somewhat lacking in actually ascertaining the preference of societal structure from my viewpoint. Would it not be much more effective to stop drawing such broad distinctions over something that otherwise would never apply to us as individuals? Aren't there much more important questions to answer than one that can never really be argued on a reasonable basis?

For instance, if someone is arguing that communism is better, my first question is, "Are you hungry?" Because I would wonder how someone that prefers Communism over Capitalism would actually be able to fund feeding themselves. Obviously, you're feeding yourself and you're functioning in a Capitalist system of society. If you're not happy about it, move to Russia before it's too late.

That's why the hunt for Communists in the 70's really never made much sense to me. People who supported communist ideals but actually made a living in a Capitalist society were complaining that that system doesn't work and want it to change. Uh, I'm confused.

When you get down to the nitty gritty, people complain too much. We should all just chill out. Chill out, or move out - to a country with the societal system they'll be happy living in. If it really takes someone three different successful ventures of life in society to figure out how frickin' easy it is for us to live and to sustain our needs in each society, we realize they're all designed to be easy.

I mean really, why even draw a distinction anymore? We're so far away from the question, we aren't even aware that we're answering a question we can't possibly have an answer to. For everyone that says, "I'm capitalist all the way, baby!" please get a clue. If you live in America and pay rent, eat, work, go home after work, and sleep in a bed with sheets and blankets, you're not a communist.

Moreover, if you live in America and pay rent, eat, work, go home after work, and sleep in a bed with sheets and blankets, you're not a capitalist either. You are a person who lives in a capitalist society. Key word in that statement - lives. If any system of society doesn't provide all that you need, you would be dead.

And that's why I find it so absurd that people complain about the society they 'live' in and call themselves something they obviously are not. I'm going to go to bed in my comfy sheets, pillows, and down-comforter. Goodnight Warboards.

People who support a certain idea are called supporters of that ideal, namely "Communists" or "Capitalists," even if what they want is yet to happen. And people can be paying rent, sleeping etc and still be a Communist. Communist meaning "someone who supports Communism!"

You would still call Lenin and Trotsky and their tragic partner "revolutionaries" even before the revolution had worked.

People can still make a living in either society, except that (in ideals only, not in practice), in a capitalism the rich find it much easier, and in a communism everyone is meant to find it as easy as everyone else.

You are what you are, not what you are in.

[GenocideAlive]

People who support a certain idea are called supporters of that ideal, namely "Communists" or "Capitalists," even if what they want is yet to happen. And people can be paying rent, sleeping etc and still be a Communist. Communist meaning "someone who supports Communism!"
Please figure out how to quote pertinent lines of text, rather than clicking "quote" and including the entirety of his two-page blob. It makes your post very difficult to parse (read: interpret) and it triples the size of responses.

In regard to Proz's quote, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask if you're being facetious, Proz. Am I white? Or am I Native American? Well, I could legally classify as either, but that's no determination. Ultimately, I'm going to count as whatever I want and a sort of hybrid of both at the same time. There's no denying my participation in certain aspects of my life, but it'd be pretty hard to argue with someone in regards to their "true" alignments.

That is, of course, unless you're ProtossChick99; if such is the case, I'm afraid it's pretty much an uphill battle. It's rare to find anybody so shallow and transparent.

[Neo]

Lets try to leave personal comments out of this ok?

Personally I would just respond with something moronic, I mean, what the hell business is it of thiers what I am?

I mean, that you can be one thing, but believe in something opposite on a certain issue.

I think our society is to ready to label everything, What am I? I am me...

-Neo

[Morkeliph]

It seems to be that you are just complaining against labels. When someone asks you if your socialist it is the same as asking: Do you support socialism? What's objectionable about that? Some people really despise the use of labels in classifying people, but I'm afraid its inevitable, and even necessary. Image what life would be life if you had to discover every individual trait in ever person you meet before you knew how to respond to them. Labels and stereotypes solve this problem, when they are accurate, allowing you to know a great deal about someone or something without direct exposure to its entirety each and every time. The problem is that many stereotypes are inaccurate or cause discrimination. If this is what you object to, then I feel you, but if not, then what exactly are you complaining about?

[Mindslaver]

Socialists (especially communists) believe that their system can emerge only through the full development of capitalism, and that capitalism is a necessary stage in the evolution of society. It is akin to institutional education - some may hate it, but they realize that they need it to survive.

America has grown on the toil of its corporations. Whereas other nations were founded on the ideal of government intervention in the economy (i.e. Scandinavian countries), America was built on the idea of laissez-faire, or the separate of state and economy. This ideal has been upheld surprisingly well.

Now, after the "communist" Soviet bloc has fallen, there are pockets of people who call themselves "communists", or socialists. Realize that most of them are blind followers of something that can be called a religion, with Marx as its prophet. However, most does not mean all, and there are certainly some who truly believe and understand the ideal of socialism as penned by Marx and his derivative authors.

Let's get this straight - a capitalist is a person who owns capital, and invests it to create (you guessed it!) more capital. The cycle continues, and the plot thickens. What is capital, you ask? Capital is any object (especially money) that one could expect to use to start a company. Unless one is an investor (and there are many forms of investment out there), one cannot truly be called a capitalist. However, calling someone a capitalist means that they support the ideal, but not that they necessarily invest. It is odd, though, to see a "capitalist" who does not invest.

The ideal of the communist can be summed up "in a word", as Marx and Engels put it: Abolition of private property. Whereas Emerson praised property as the key to happiness, Marx and Engels (and many, many philosophers throughout history) denounced it as the scourge of the earth. But what is philosophy without action? Private property has proven its usefulness, with capitalist nations forging ahead in the world, leaving self-nominated "communist" nations in the dust.

However, do not be quick to judge communism due to its past failures. There is always the chance, however slight, that the future holds a society of no private property, where people take only what they need from the plenty vault. "From each according to their ability; to each according to their needs." The death of capitalism will be overproduction. Overproduction is as much a problem as underproduction under capitalism, as evidenced by the stock market crashes.

In short, the labels "capitalist" and "communist" are vestiges of a bygone era. The time to worry about communism and the destruction of capitalism is in the future, and the distant future at that.

[Neo]

It seems to be that you are just complaining against labels. When someone asks you if your socialist it is the same as asking: Do you support socialism? What's objectionable about that? Some people really despise the use of labels in classifying people, but I'm afraid its inevitable, and even necessary. Image what life would be life if you had to discover every individual trait in ever person you meet before you knew how to respond to them. Labels and stereotypes solve this problem, when they are accurate, allowing you to know a great deal about someone or something without direct exposure to its entirety each and every time. The problem is that many stereotypes are inaccurate or cause discrimination. If this is what you object to, then I feel you, but if not, then what exactly are you complaining about?
Thats the thing though. One could support some things that are communist, while supporting other things that are deemed capitalistic (these are examples...) so then what would that person be now?

I only ment that if you can find a label that fits you... then good for you, but there arent many people that fall strictly into one label or another.

-Neo