Re: Student vs. teacher debate

by Guest 2017-01-09, 16:48

Robert J Sakimano wrote:Republicans know that if they are more likely to gain power when they keep the electorate uneducated.

lol, I love this old saw. Only dummies vote R. What does that say about the D dominated education field? Both High school and Kullidge?

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-01-09, 16:49

LooseGoose wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

This is why it's hard to anything you say on this board seriously.

I don't know why, it's what I believe. If you think it's not true why not get me surveys, polls ofr article refuting that?? something that show the overwhelming conservative bent of the education establishment in the US?? I'll wait. A loooooong time.

First off, I'm not arguing that there is a conservative lean to education. Not everything in the world has a political bias. Secondly, I'm not the one making the accusation. You provide some reputable proof of your stance.

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-09, 17:01

Women have evolved to be nurturers. My wife has endless patience with our little one where I get frustrated much sooner. Not to say there aren't some men who are fantastic nurturers or some women that are horrible at it. Again, averages.

I don't think we're falling into misogyny. We're making observations based on our personal experiences. If there was a tinge of contempt for women trying to do what men believe goes against biology then I think we would be strolling dangerously close to those weeds.

The bigger picture is that if a woman wants to work in logging or be a police officer and can meet all the physical as well as mental requirements, there should be no issue and if anyone vocalizes an issue it needs to be dealt with. That hasn't always been the case in the past and that was wrong. I think it's equally wrong to make those requirements lesser for women in a bid to meet a quota... because it's not fair to the crew nor the woman.

by Guest 2017-01-09, 19:48

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

I don't know why, it's what I believe. If you think it's not true why not get me surveys, polls ofr article refuting that?? something that show the overwhelming conservative bent of the education establishment in the US?? I'll wait. A loooooong time.

First off, I'm not arguing that there is a conservative lean to education. Not everything in the world has a political bias. Secondly, I'm not the one making the accusation. You provide some reputable proof of your stance.

It's not just a tilt. It's not just a lean. It's overwhelming. Now you go ahead and argue that it's because all the the smart people work in education. Reality is that they've gotten the levers of power and driven out the conservatives - or the conservatives have chosen to leave and make a living another way.

I'll make it easy for you:

Education

Political donations from the education industry largely come from individuals associated with various institutions, as universities and schools typically cannot form PACs.

The industry's mark on politics reached new heights in the 2008 and 2012 election cycles, when individuals involved in education contributed more than $60 million to federal candidates. They've typically favored liberals; over the past decade, the worst year for Democrats was a cycle in which their party received 73 percent of the cash.

99% of top liberal arts professor campaign donations go to Democrats: report

Guess which political party gets nearly all of college professors’ donations?

When the Federal Election Commission released its reports for the third quarter of 2015, Campus Reform (CR) — as it has done in the past — perused the information to see if it could confirm a suspected trend.

Sure enough, there it was: Among the top 50 U.S. liberal arts colleges (as determined by the U.S. News and World report ratings guide), a staggering 99.51 percent of all professors with a reported presidential campaign contribution gave their money to the Democratic candidate. That leaves .49 percent — in this case, a single person — who gave money to a Republican candidate.

REPORT: 84% of Harvard scholars’ political donations went to Democrats

by **Turtleneck** 2017-01-09, 19:52

Some of these posts Student vs. teacher debate - Page 2 502811600

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-01-09, 20:29

LooseGoose wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

First off, I'm not arguing that there is a conservative lean to education. Not everything in the world has a political bias. Secondly, I'm not the one making the accusation. You provide some reputable proof of your stance.

It's not just a tilt. It's not just a lean. It's overwhelming. Now you go ahead and argue that it's because all the the smart people work in education. Reality is that they've gotten the levers of power and driven out the conservatives - or the conservatives have chosen to leave and make a living another way.

I'll make it easy for you:

Education
Political donations from the education industry largely come from individuals associated with various institutions, as universities and schools typically cannot form PACs.

The industry's mark on politics reached new heights in the 2008 and 2012 election cycles, when individuals involved in education contributed more than $60 million to federal candidates. They've typically favored liberals; over the past decade, the worst year for Democrats was a cycle in which their party received 73 percent of the cash.

99% of top liberal arts professor campaign donations go to Democrats: report

Guess which political party gets nearly all of college professors’ donations?
When the Federal Election Commission released its reports for the third quarter of 2015, Campus Reform (CR) — as it has done in the past — perused the information to see if it could confirm a suspected trend.

Sure enough, there it was: Among the top 50 U.S. liberal arts colleges (as determined by the U.S. News and World report ratings guide), a staggering 99.51 percent of all professors with a reported presidential campaign contribution gave their money to the Democratic candidate. That leaves .49 percent — in this case, a single person — who gave money to a Republican candidate.

REPORT: 84% of Harvard scholars’ political donations went to Democrats

Aaaaaand yet another tangent. Care to get back on topic or...?

by Guest 2017-01-09, 20:52

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

It's not just a tilt. It's not just a lean. It's overwhelming. Now you go ahead and argue that it's because all the the smart people work in education. Reality is that they've gotten the levers of power and driven out the conservatives - or the conservatives have chosen to leave and make a living another way.

I'll make it easy for you:

Education

99% of top liberal arts professor campaign donations go to Democrats: report

Guess which political party gets nearly all of college professors’ donations?

REPORT: 84% of Harvard scholars’ political donations went to Democrats

Aaaaaand yet another tangent. Care to get back on topic or...?

So you don't like the "reputable proof provided"?

by **Turtleneck** 2017-01-09, 21:13

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

It's not just a tilt. It's not just a lean. It's overwhelming. Now you go ahead and argue that it's because all the the smart people work in education. Reality is that they've gotten the levers of power and driven out the conservatives - or the conservatives have chosen to leave and make a living another way.

I'll make it easy for you:

Education

99% of top liberal arts professor campaign donations go to Democrats: report

Guess which political party gets nearly all of college professors’ donations?

REPORT: 84% of Harvard scholars’ political donations went to Democrats

Aaaaaand yet another tangent. Care to get back on topic or...?

Do donations establish bias? Is a math professor that rarely, if ever, mentions politics in his/her classroom bias? They might be bias outside of the classroom, but is this not a conversation about what takes place in the classroom?

by Guest 2017-01-09, 23:16

Turtleneck wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Aaaaaand yet another tangent. Care to get back on topic or...?

Do donations establish bias? Is a math professor that rarely, if ever, mentions politics in his/her classroom bias? They might be bias outside of the classroom, but is this not a conversation about that takes place in the classroom?

You're right. People often donate to causes they don't support. My bad.

by **WhiteBoyHatcher** 2017-01-09, 23:17

LooseGoose wrote:
Cameron wrote:

How close to the truth? I know you hate it when people put words in your mouth, so I'll try not to do that here. Is it "most teachers lean left and tend to vote Democrat" close, or is it "most teachers try to influence their students to vote Democrat once they're of age" close?

I think it's both. Most teachers vote Dem because that's been their Union's alignment for decades. I believe they then try to influence their students that "progressive" policies are more enlightened. That's human nature.

My wife teaches in Macomb County. This is complete bullshit on both ends. She is in the extreme minority on her political views and she pushes zero agenda on her students.

It's not a contest. Most rational people aren't concerned with winning a contest.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-01-09, 23:32

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

I think it's both. Most teachers vote Dem because that's been their Union's alignment for decades. I believe they then try to influence their students that "progressive" policies are more enlightened. That's human nature.

My wife teaches in Macomb County. This is complete bullshit on both ends. She is in the extreme minority on her political views and she pushes zero agenda on her students.

It's not a contest. Most rational people aren't concerned with winning a contest.

Loose's evidence does not support his conclusion. Donations by themselves do not establish bias in the classroom. A teacher or professor can give 100% of their donations to one party, go to party meetings, and attend rallies for that party's candidates, but that does not prove they attempt to indoctrinate their students.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-01-09, 23:51

LooseGoose wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Aaaaaand yet another tangent. Care to get back on topic or...?

So you don't like the "reputable proof provided"?

What proof? I wish you would stop spewing bullshit so I could stop calling you on it. It gets old.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-10, 07:06

LooseGoose wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:Republicans know that if they are more likely to gain power when they keep the electorate uneducated.

lol, I love this old saw. Only dummies vote R. What does that say about the D dominated education field? Both High school and Kullidge?

I'm sorry that my opinion makes you upset.

Enjoy your day in Mio.. tell the gals at Curl-n-Chat I said "hello".

by AnomanderRake 2017-01-10, 08:45

Fact: Teachers and Professors are overwhelmingly Democratic.

Fact: I made it through 4 years at MSU without any of my professors pushing their political beliefs on me.

People's political beliefs are more or less set in stone by the time they get to college so I can't imagine any widespread conspiracy by college professors to brain wash our students would be very effective.

by Guest 2017-01-10, 09:44

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

So you don't like the "reputable proof provided"?

What proof? I wish you would stop spewing bullshit so I could stop calling you on it. It gets old.

So 80%+ of donations is bullshit? OK. That seems like a level headed response.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-01-10, 10:08

LooseGoose wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

What proof? I wish you would stop spewing bullshit so I could stop calling you on it. It gets old.

So 80%+ of donations is bullshit? OK. That seems like a level headed response.

Nothing you have said in this thread backs up the statement you made that public schools are "Democtratic Party vote farms". I don't typically get into long drawn out discussions with you on most of the topics on this board because you never give a straight answer on anything. Everything is steered back to your constant false equivalencies.

The fact that you only responded to my post when others have asked you to explain your rationale is telling.

by AnomanderRake 2017-01-10, 11:07

http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/

Goose if we're going by donations/campaign contributions...there are a lot of fields that are apparently political farms for one side or the other.

My only question for you is why do you think there aren't more conservatives working in education?

by **Tim Wakefield** 2017-01-10, 13:09

I disagree with you when you say people's beliefs are set in stone when they arrive. Ideally, people would know what they believe and who to vote for in order to keep their best interests in mind, but it's not the case with most people my age. Fuck, kids were saying "Feel the Bern!!!" and didn't even know what democratic socialism was. Even now, if you ask someone why they hate Trump, most college kids would say because he's racist and sexist, without naming anything specific that he said or mentioning any of his policies that they disagree with (side note: does he actually have any policies? Student vs. teacher debate - Page 2 502811600

)

Add in the fact that these IAH profs are super left-leaning liberals and those are often the first classes someone takes when they get on campus... There's your perfect storm for creating more liberals. Would they be lefties anyway? Probably. And you shouldn't let anyone else's opinions affect your beliefs. But there's definitely some bias on college campuses and if often presents itself when the students are most malleable.

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-10, 13:28

Democratic socialism is just a nicer way of saying socialism.

by **Tim Wakefield** 2017-01-10, 13:35

They don't know what that is, either Wink

by AnomanderRake 2017-01-10, 14:47

xsanguine wrote:Democratic socialism is just a nicer way of saying socialism.

That's not true and quite ignorant X. There are varying shades of Anarchism are there not?

Incoming government design rant

Good governance borrows the best concepts from varying ideologies. Strict ideology is not nearly as effective as hybrid approaches. Pure democracy and pure socialism are not as effective as they are when combined. The trick is incorporating the best aspects of different ideologies, while mitigating their pitfalls. Ideally, a perfect government is designed with varying ideologies in mind and making intelligent, calculated trade-offs.

The US Government is designed with this concept in mind. We're a democratic republic/representative democracy. The founding fathers knew pure democracy had its limitations and pitfalls and they sought to hedge against them.

The US is already and has been a democratic republic with socialist policies for decades (Social Security and Medicare for 65+, Medicaid for the poor, unemployment, various tax credits etc.)

Unfortunately we have also been corrupted by a powerful Oligarchy that has distorted all aspects of our government and society for their own benefit.

What we're left with is the current state, often referred to as the Corporatocracy. It's essentially an oligarchy masquerading as a democratic republic, with just enough socialism to keep the peasants complacent enough to not cause too much of a ruckus.

The modern left vs right debate in US politics ironically boils down to, just how much and what socialist policies should we incorporate into our oligarchic democratic republic? Take it all away and you have civil unrest, let socialism get out of hand and you go broke. This is a gross oversimplification but you get the idea.

I hope we can one day kick the special interests out of government and find a balance that leads to prosperity for all of us.

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-10, 15:20

AnomanderRake wrote:
xsanguine wrote:Democratic socialism is just a nicer way of saying socialism.

That's not true and quite ignorant X. There are varying shades of Anarchism are there not?

Incoming government design rant

Good governance borrows the best concepts from varying ideologies. Strict ideology is not nearly as effective as hybrid approaches. Pure democracy and pure socialism are not as effective as they are when combined. The trick is incorporating the best aspects of different ideologies, while mitigating their pitfalls. Ideally, a perfect government is designed with varying ideologies in mind and making intelligent, calculated trade-offs.

The US Government is designed with this concept in mind. We're a democratic republic/representative democracy. The founding fathers knew pure democracy had its limitations and pitfalls and they sought to hedge against them.

The US is already and has been a democratic republic with socialist policies for decades (Social Security and Medicare for 65+, Medicaid for the poor, unemployment, various tax credits etc.)

Unfortunately we have also been corrupted by a powerful Oligarchy that has distorted all aspects of our government and society for their own benefit.

What we're left with is the current state, often referred to as the Corporatocracy. It's essentially an oligarchy masquerading as a democratic republic, with just enough socialism to keep the peasants complacent enough to not cause too much of a ruckus.

The modern left vs right debate in US politics ironically boils down to, just how much and what socialist policies should we incorporate into our oligarchic democratic republic? Take it all away and you have civil unrest, let socialism get out of hand and you go broke. This is a gross oversimplification but you get the idea.

I hope we can one day kick the special interests out of government and find a balance that leads to prosperity for all of us.

I agree with all of that. We have a hybrid system.

What are the differences between democratic socialism and socialism?

Is it like the difference between democratic authoritarianism and authoritarianism?

Turtleneck and I have gone on about anarchism at length. He has a very specific view of what anarchism is based on the first individual to describe himself in that way, something that I've seen described as 'classical anarchism'. The etymology of the word simply means 'without rulers' and from there I've found several dozen different schools of thought, anarcho-syndalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, etc. etc.... which all seem to fall under the umbrella (at least as far as the internet is concerned) of libertarianism. So there's certainly a tree. But the differences between those thoughts of anarchism are defined clearly. Since I asked this question originally, I've done some googling without finding a clear definition other than 'democratic socialism is socialism that is voted in democratically.'

I know my posting style is very flippant, but I am always interested in learning. So if there's some articulation between the two that I haven't found on my own, I'd be curious what it is.

by AnomanderRake 2017-01-10, 17:08

xsanguine wrote:
I agree with all of that. We have a hybrid system.

What are the differences between democratic socialism and socialism?

Is it like the difference between democratic authoritarianism and authoritarianism?

Turtleneck and I have gone on about anarchism at length. He has a very specific view of what anarchism is based on the first individual to describe himself in that way, something that I've seen described as 'classical anarchism'. The etymology of the word simply means 'without rulers' and from there I've found several dozen different schools of thought, anarcho-syndalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, etc. etc.... which all seem to fall under the umbrella (at least as far as the internet is concerned) of libertarianism. So there's certainly a tree. But the differences between those thoughts of anarchism are defined clearly. Since I asked this question originally, I've done some googling without finding a clear definition other than 'democratic socialism is socialism that is voted in democratically.'

I know my posting style is very flippant, but I am always interested in learning. So if there's some articulation between the two that I haven't found on my own, I'd be curious what it is.

The important distinction is that a true socialist state derives its power and mandate for socialism from its constitution.

Many modern "socialist" states have varying degrees of socialism incorporated and it has been done by Democratic means, not mandated by their constitution. At any point should the socialist policies fail, a non-socialist party could rise to power by democratic means and reverse whatever social policies they see fit. For example, the Republican party in the US would love to reign in/eliminate some of our more expensive, and in their view ineffective social policies. It's perfectly within their power to do so, because the US constitution does not prevent it.

That would be more or less impossible without revolution in a true socialist state which would not have any political parties other than the socialist party, a socialist constitution etc.

It's really kind of pointless to discuss such extreme governing ideologies since few if any practical examples exist in the real world. There are quite a few dictatorships still hanging in there, but for the most part every other form of government is a hybrid at this point.

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-10, 18:34

AnomanderRake wrote:
xsanguine wrote:
I agree with all of that. We have a hybrid system.

What are the differences between democratic socialism and socialism?

Is it like the difference between democratic authoritarianism and authoritarianism?

Turtleneck and I have gone on about anarchism at length. He has a very specific view of what anarchism is based on the first individual to describe himself in that way, something that I've seen described as 'classical anarchism'. The etymology of the word simply means 'without rulers' and from there I've found several dozen different schools of thought, anarcho-syndalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, etc. etc.... which all seem to fall under the umbrella (at least as far as the internet is concerned) of libertarianism. So there's certainly a tree. But the differences between those thoughts of anarchism are defined clearly. Since I asked this question originally, I've done some googling without finding a clear definition other than 'democratic socialism is socialism that is voted in democratically.'

I know my posting style is very flippant, but I am always interested in learning. So if there's some articulation between the two that I haven't found on my own, I'd be curious what it is.

The important distinction is that a true socialist state derives its power and mandate for socialism from its constitution.

Many modern "socialist" states have varying degrees of socialism incorporated and it has been done by Democratic means, not mandated by their constitution. At any point should the socialist policies fail, a non-socialist party could rise to power by democratic means and reverse whatever social policies they see fit. For example, the Republican party in the US would love to reign in/eliminate some of our more expensive, and in their view ineffective social policies. It's perfectly within their power to do so, because the US constitution does not prevent it.

That would be more or less impossible without revolution in a true socialist state which would not have any political parties other than the socialist party, a socialist constitution etc.

It's really kind of pointless to discuss such extreme governing ideologies since few if any practical examples exist in the real world. There are quite a few dictatorships still hanging in there, but for the most part every other form of government is a hybrid at this point.

So when Bernie Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist (and has described himself as just a socialist)... and says there's "huge difference" between democratic socialism and socialism... this is what he means by it? That he wants to implement socialism but not modify the constitution?

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-11, 01:00

Bernie getting Crowder so worked up his voice cracks. #puberty

I noticed this same tactic Bernie uses whenever pressed on specifics. Although the guy never specified a new tax or regulation, either. It's curious Bernie didn't start by asking the guy this question in the first place; "What, specifically, are you talking about, Mr. Small Business Owner?", probably because he didn't want to get into it or his answer wouldn't be very popular (he's on CNN, though, for crying out loud).

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-01-11, 08:24

xsanguine wrote:Bernie getting Crowder so worked up his voice cracks. #puberty

I noticed this same tactic Bernie uses whenever pressed on specifics. Although the guy never specified a new tax or regulation, either. It's curious Bernie didn't start by asking the guy this question in the first place; "What, specifically, are you talking about, Mr. Small Business Owner?", probably because he didn't want to get into it or his answer wouldn't be very popular (he's on CNN, though, for crying out loud).

Sounds like a typical angry right wing talk show and political speak to me. That's why I don't put much stock in these types of shows as well as what most politicians say. Show me what you've actually done and I'll judge for myself.

by AnomanderRake 2017-01-11, 09:04

Honestly X I slugged through that video despite how horribly biased and annoying the hosts are. The hosts blabbered on about Bernie's tax policies and views without ever referencing his actual tax platform which was publicly posted on his campaign website and could be found in 2 minutes.

What was Bernie supposed to say to the guy asking the question exactly? He never mentioned a single specific unfair regulation for Bernie to respond to.

With that said I am well aware that regulations put small businesses at a competitive disadvantage, especially in the manufacturing sector where regulatory costs per employee are about double that of a medium or large firm. Small businesses could be given tax credits to offset this disadvantage if the regulations are deemed necessary, or some of the regulations could be eased/removed.

Anyway I think we've gotten way too far off topic in this thread. If you'd like to have a more detailed discussion on socialism in general we should probably make a new thread.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-01-11, 14:50

AnomanderRake wrote:Honestly X I slugged through that video despite how horribly biased and annoying the hosts are. The hosts blabbered on about Bernie's tax policies and views without ever referencing his actual tax platform which was publicly posted on his campaign website and could be found in 2 minutes.

What was Bernie supposed to say to the guy asking the question exactly? He never mentioned a single specific unfair regulation for Bernie to respond to.

With that said I am well aware that regulations put small businesses at a competitive disadvantage, especially in the manufacturing sector where regulatory costs per employee are about double that of a medium or large firm. Small businesses could be given tax credits to offset this disadvantage if the regulations are deemed necessary, or some of the regulations could be eased/removed.

Anyway I think we've gotten way too far off topic in this thread. If you'd like to have a more detailed discussion on socialism in general we should probably make a new thread.

That would be a good thread.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-01-11, 14:55

xsanguine wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:

That's not true and quite ignorant X. There are varying shades of Anarchism are there not?

Incoming government design rant

Good governance borrows the best concepts from varying ideologies. Strict ideology is not nearly as effective as hybrid approaches. Pure democracy and pure socialism are not as effective as they are when combined. The trick is incorporating the best aspects of different ideologies, while mitigating their pitfalls. Ideally, a perfect government is designed with varying ideologies in mind and making intelligent, calculated trade-offs.

The US Government is designed with this concept in mind. We're a democratic republic/representative democracy. The founding fathers knew pure democracy had its limitations and pitfalls and they sought to hedge against them.

The US is already and has been a democratic republic with socialist policies for decades (Social Security and Medicare for 65+, Medicaid for the poor, unemployment, various tax credits etc.)

Unfortunately we have also been corrupted by a powerful Oligarchy that has distorted all aspects of our government and society for their own benefit.

What we're left with is the current state, often referred to as the Corporatocracy. It's essentially an oligarchy masquerading as a democratic republic, with just enough socialism to keep the peasants complacent enough to not cause too much of a ruckus.

The modern left vs right debate in US politics ironically boils down to, just how much and what socialist policies should we incorporate into our oligarchic democratic republic? Take it all away and you have civil unrest, let socialism get out of hand and you go broke. This is a gross oversimplification but you get the idea.

I hope we can one day kick the special interests out of government and find a balance that leads to prosperity for all of us.

I agree with all of that. We have a hybrid system.

What are the differences between democratic socialism and socialism?

Is it like the difference between democratic authoritarianism and authoritarianism?

Turtleneck and I have gone on about anarchism at length. He has a very specific view of what anarchism is based on the first individual to describe himself in that way, something that I've seen described as 'classical anarchism'. The etymology of the word simply means 'without rulers' and from there I've found several dozen different schools of thought, anarcho-syndalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, etc. etc.... which all seem to fall under the umbrella (at least as far as the internet is concerned) of libertarianism. So there's certainly a tree. But the differences between those thoughts of anarchism are defined clearly. Since I asked this question originally, I've done some googling without finding a clear definition other than 'democratic socialism is socialism that is voted in democratically.'

I know my posting style is very flippant, but I am always interested in learning. So if there's some articulation between the two that I haven't found on my own, I'd be curious what it is.

Not limited to one individual, X. There were several, and they cultivated and grew the anarchist philosophy.

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-11, 15:06

Turtleneck wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

I agree with all of that. We have a hybrid system.

What are the differences between democratic socialism and socialism?

Is it like the difference between democratic authoritarianism and authoritarianism?

Turtleneck and I have gone on about anarchism at length. He has a very specific view of what anarchism is based on the first individual to describe himself in that way, something that I've seen described as 'classical anarchism'. The etymology of the word simply means 'without rulers' and from there I've found several dozen different schools of thought, anarcho-syndalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism, etc. etc.... which all seem to fall under the umbrella (at least as far as the internet is concerned) of libertarianism. So there's certainly a tree. But the differences between those thoughts of anarchism are defined clearly. Since I asked this question originally, I've done some googling without finding a clear definition other than 'democratic socialism is socialism that is voted in democratically.'

I know my posting style is very flippant, but I am always interested in learning. So if there's some articulation between the two that I haven't found on my own, I'd be curious what it is.

Not limited to one individual, X. There were several, and they cultivated and grew the anarchist philosophy.

For sure and I didn't mean for that to sound like a slight. My only point was the word had been around for at least a couple of hundred years prior to Proudhon And that the etymology is basic relative to the philosophy he and the others established. I'm probably just proving Mr Rake right in that someone can call themselves an anarchist and it could mean several different things. I'm just not sure what the difference between socialism and democratic socialism is and I haven't been able to find anything that articulates it well enough for a pea-brain like me to understand.

Anomander, I tend to hijack threads (often unintentionally) simply because I'm fascinated with a peripheral discussion taking place within the broader topic. I know people that unashamedly describe themselves as socialist but when Bernie made it very clear there's a "huge difference" between socialism and democratic socialism it makes me think he's running from the pejorative but he has to then explain the differences and if there's a huge difference, it shouldn't be difficult to articulate.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-01-11, 16:27

You may even further divide the conversation between socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracy. Some people will argue that democratic socialism and social democracy are not the same thing.

As for socialism in practice, maybe we can say it is best represented by Leninism. Here a single vanguard party represents the workers and seizes power through revolution. That party is responsible for planning the economy, which includes state owned enterprises, and embedding the country within socialist principles. To protect the socialist revolution and socialist principles, the political power of the vanguard party goes unchallenged.

From my understanding, democratic socialism buys into socialist principles but disregards the consolidation of political power within a single party. What this really means is central planning and state ownership embedded in a democratic system of governance. For example, the famous American socialist Norman Thomas said:

What socialists advocate, let me again insist, is not nationalization, but socialization. A thousand times I have said that the virtue of government ownership depends upon who owns the government. It would be more accurate to say that government must be democratic, that it should act only as a trustee of society, and that consumers as a whole and workers in a particular industry should be directly concerned in the management of any publicly owned industry.

Social democracy eases up on state ownership and instead focuses on a generous welfare state. Social democracies promote liberal democratic politics - your civil liberties and rights - but expand the state to offset the inequalities created by capitalism. They seek to decommodify labor and attack inequality through the redistribution of wealth.

by AnomanderRake 2017-01-11, 16:46

^ Basically the term democratic socialism came about because opponents of socialism falsely equated it to communism to scare people away. Most Americans to this day still see socialism as a "bad" word, even though a vast majority benefit from socialist policies, and probably couldn't define socialism if you offered them $1,000 to do it on the spot.

Maybe this quote from the Socialism Wiki will help.

While all tendencies of socialism consider themselves democratic, the term "democratic socialism" is often used to highlight its advocates' high value for democratic processes in the economy and democratic political systems,[30] usually to draw contrast to tendencies they may perceive to be undemocratic in their approach. The term is frequently used to draw contrast to the political system of the Soviet Union, which operated in an authoritarian fashion

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-11, 19:53

I hate to sound let down, heh. For some reason Bernie seemed to really amp it up as radically different than socialism. The philosophy/worldview seems virtually identical with the differences being in how they're implemented. And if I'm understand that right, it doesn't really seem like much of a retort to those that are suspicious of it because of the socialism angle.

So, for example, in that clip where Bernie Sanders and Larry David are talking about 'socialism' and Bernie cuts in and says...."no, no, no... look, it's democratic socialism." Larry asks "What's the difference?" And Bernie amusingly says "yuuuuuge difference".... he's attempting to quell the uneasiness about people thinking what he's talking about is socialism, which we can only assume means they're very different. But the things that people don't like about socialism from a philosophical standpoint are still apart of 'democratic socialism', regardless of how things are implemented. Coercion, force, and violence plays an integral role no matter what.

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-11, 19:54

I get that I'm repeating myself. I'm not qualified to start a thread on socialism (hasn't stopped me before), but I'll try my best to participate sans trolling if one is created.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-01-11, 20:10

xsanguine wrote:I hate to sound let down, heh. For some reason Bernie seemed to really amp it up as radically different than socialism. The philosophy/worldview seems virtually identical with the differences being in how they're implemented. And if I'm understand that right, it doesn't really seem like much of a retort to those that are suspicious of it because of the socialism angle.

So, for example, in that clip where Bernie Sanders and Larry David are talking about 'socialism' and Bernie cuts in and says...."no, no, no... look, it's democratic socialism." Larry asks "What's the difference?" And Bernie amusingly says "yuuuuuge difference".... he's attempting to quell the uneasiness about people thinking what he's talking about is socialism, which we can only assume means they're very different. But the things that people don't like about socialism from a philosophical standpoint are still apart of 'democratic socialism', regardless of how things are implemented. Coercion, force, and violence plays an integral role no matter what.

It plays a role in capitalism, too. A socialist would argue that in a capitalist economy, the state acts as an agent of powerful private sector interests.

Overall you are not wrong. Democratic socialism is a socialist economy embedded in a system of democratic governance. What you are missing is that socialism is not embedded in a system of democratic governance, and instead embedded in a system of one-party rule where the people are intentionally divorced from politics.

I will say this much, I think Bernie is conflicted. In his heart he is a democratic socialist, but he often referred to social democracies as models for the U.S. He rarely does anything to define either and often conflates the two. In the the first Democratic debate he was asked to define democratic socialism and he gave a terrible response.

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-11, 20:29

Turtleneck wrote:
xsanguine wrote:I hate to sound let down, heh. For some reason Bernie seemed to really amp it up as radically different than socialism. The philosophy/worldview seems virtually identical with the differences being in how they're implemented. And if I'm understand that right, it doesn't really seem like much of a retort to those that are suspicious of it because of the socialism angle.

So, for example, in that clip where Bernie Sanders and Larry David are talking about 'socialism' and Bernie cuts in and says...."no, no, no... look, it's democratic socialism." Larry asks "What's the difference?" And Bernie amusingly says "yuuuuuge difference".... he's attempting to quell the uneasiness about people thinking what he's talking about is socialism, which we can only assume means they're very different. But the things that people don't like about socialism from a philosophical standpoint are still apart of 'democratic socialism', regardless of how things are implemented. Coercion, force, and violence plays an integral role no matter what.

It plays a role in capitalism, too. A socialist would argue that in a capitalist economy, the state acts as an agent of powerful private sector interests.

Definitely, and my response to that would be that that's inevitable whenever you have a state... hence why I lean towards anarcho-capitalism or at the very least night watchman libertarianism as philosophies in a theoretical world. There are certainly problems that would arise there, too. In fact no matter what system, serious problems are going to arise.

Anyways, I don't want to hijack the hijack of the thread. I kind of want to save questions for this hypothetical 'socialism thread' that work off of the rest of your post, TN.

by **xsanguine** 2017-01-12, 00:11

DWags wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Well the 77/78 cent thing is certainly legit as far as I've read. But like that study from Cornell, they're factoring in things to bring it to the 90+ cent figure.

Hazardous jobs pay more, jobs where you have to travel 3 1/2 out of 4 weeks pay more. You don't see a lot of women in fishing or in logging. There's a biological factor at play. If you read some of the studies, women excel at certain jobs moreso than men. It may be seen a misogynist these days but biology can explain why women are better at certain types of work than men, and why men are better at other types of work than women. It's not a bad thing and it's not evil... we're just built and wired a bit differently and it goes without saying that the sexes need each other equally as much. I don't think it's wrong to suggest that physically demanding jobs are going to be a better fit for men due to their build, muscle mass and testosterone... on average. Women seem to excel in positions where organizational skills are paramount. Men, on average, don't seem to enjoy that kind of work as much and aren't as good at it for whatever reason. Again.... we're talking about averages/generalities.

yeah, we're both walking a misogynistic line here, so I'll jump in deeper. My wife and I would drop our two kids off at daycare in a building down by the ren cen in detroit 16 years ago. Her office was in the building she was lobbying for a Natural Gas company that was based in the 500 tower. On days or weeks she was out of town, I'd drop the kids off and they'd cry a bit but I was out the door and knew I'd come back to get them. Well, when she dropped them off and they cried, it made her day miserable. Hated work etc. She would try to get out of travel more and more and would only really plan trips if she had to testify in court or various state legislatures. She was definitely cutting hours that I know males with or without kids weren't doing. Then, one day, I dropped the kids off, she said she was flying in from Atlanta and she'd pick them up. Well, I guess when the daycare worker handed the youngest to her, the youngest clinged to the daycare workers neck and didn't want to go. That was it. Wife hated her job. The Nurture part in her took over. She would do everythng she could to get out of entertaining clients at the Joe or the palace or going to dinner or the fox. My point is, I don't think she was doing the hours she had when we were childless. I don't know promotions or whatever would have followed as rapidly. Me? I'd have been bummed if the kid cried with the daycare worker but I wouldn't have blamed my job. Does't mean I don't love the kids dearly,but I think the biological thing you speak of is a real factor in this. Women are way better at nurturing than men are. (of course that isn't an absolute and I'm sure there are plenty of examples of the opposite.). Anyway, the study does take into account amount of working hours for companies. I believe that those figures follow a biological line but wouldn't ever defend it as I'm just guessing. So, besides the risk takers you bring up as far as biology, I think there is a "nurture" factor involved as to amount of work a woman will do. I'm not married to that and am only using my personal life example of why I believe it's so. I'm sure someone could destroy me on this.

This guy is kind of boring, but I find the topic interesting... Dr. Warren Farrell got some things to say about the male vs. female parenting thing we were talking about and it's only 12 mins long.

by **DWags** 2017-01-12, 11:16

This started with what I saw as a thirteen minute asinine film that many wanted to judge a teacher on. A whole career on one 13 minute film. Knowing nothing of that guy how he runs his classroom or what the lesson was. He was villified in the comments. He was called a social warrior.

It's why we won't have a school system to talk about in 25 years. It's my point in jumping in. We devalued teachers and now our state and many others are about to pay a huge price. I enjoyed being an administrator and coach and teacher in a different life. Still have great relationships with 100's of former students and players. I have begged my kids not to consider the profession. To look elsewhere because of these type of threads and stories. Now Devos will end it. 25 years.

From a great opinion piece:

The report examines why they’re leaving. In Michigan, the No. 1 reason is frustration. Teachers overwhelmingly feel that their futures, their salaries, their respect, their security have no relationship to their performance in the classroom.
Michigan teachers are also feeling a bit cornered. While Lansing politicians dismantle their unions, take away their pensions, deny their abilities and denigrate their contributions, those surveyed don’t believe they have the support of their administrators or communities.

Major teaching shortage becoming a crisis

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-01-12, 11:32

I'm going to withdraw my daughter (sorry For bin) from East Lansing HS and enroll her in the DeVos School of Learning and Big Government Oversight - Mio Campus.

She's going to really enjoy her new curriculum.. including lessons on jesus and why he supports a sexual predator who has 5 children by 3 different women.. not to mention the diversity that the Greater Mio area has to offer.

by Guest 2017-12-29, 08:47

I wonder when they'll debunk the "there is no money in education" line?

Jenna Fischer Is Right…We Need To Have A Conversation About Teachers And Spending

From 1950 to 2009 the student population increased by 95% while school personnel grew by 386%. In contrast, teacher hirings increased by just 252% while administrators and other school staff increased by a shocking 702%.

Let that sink in for a minute. While your school district is telling you there’s no money to increase teacher salaries or even pay for their classroom art supplies, they’ve been hiring non-teacher employees at a rate that is 451% higher than teacher acquisitions.

Student vs. teacher debate - Page 2 School-growth

by Sponsored content