Why is socialism called socialism?

Why.

People should this that it's social.

>>2
grammar pls

damn, something swallowed my words
anyways, why don't you just look it up in a book?

socialism is government that favors the workers, everybody gets what they need and work for what they want.
So I guess socialism=social justice?

>>5

in b4 excessive cappy flaming

politics on the internets is greatest retardation ever
/newpol/ should be an imageboard

>>6
I'm not a socialists, in fact, I fucking hate them, their so fucking smug and call themselves intellectuals

>>8
Don't worry. The intellectuals get eaten in the first purge. Poetic justice.

>>9
The scary thing is you are a socialist.

Socialism, as in Social. It refers to government that functions as an integral part of society, economic micro-management.

Socius is latin for comrade.

>>8
Im a socialist and i love it. Im not smug nor arrogant, yet im an intellectual (i have a degree to prove it) and to my knowledge there are more socialist intellectuals than capitalist intellectuals. Its not my fault that idiots tend to be drawn to right wing views, i guess you should complain to your mother, i will tell her that you need a diaper change.

>>13 There are not more intelligent socialists but there are more socialists who are members of the intellectual class. This is because members of the intellectual class became as such when they became dissatisfied with the tastes and priorities of a society that formed by the collective buying power of the general masses. It creates a disdain for the general masses and thereby, for the idea of liberty, because the system they then try to implement is one that will allow them control. You should read some of the works of Milton Friedman and Dr. Steven Yates, I've never read them myself but I am told they share similar views to mine and have well supported works.

>>13 Oh, and if your degree is the standard you provide for your intellect, then you're probably fucking stupid. What's your major?

>>13

Your degree certainly isn't in economics, that's for sure.

This is because members of the intellectual class.

intellectual views are not restricted to just socialists.

[INTELLECTUAL] tendencies are present in [ALL] facets of life

get over your socialist self, you commie (lawl @ myself)

>>14
I wouldn't call intellectuals a class, but thats because of my crazy commie definition of class that it is based on ownership and control but whatever. Lol at grand conspiracy theory though, i didnt know that friedman proposed such obvious ludicrousness. I will read Friedman when you will read Chomsky or Marx or Zimm or Neri or Gramsci or Trotsky or Huberman etc.

>>15
You should try to eat more humor medicine, it will give you the ability to detect irony. My major is environmental science at Lunds U in Sweden.

look up what the word intellectual stands for, dumbass

wait, here's a link from commiepedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual

>>19
I wouldn't call people who don't expect to be given something for nothing, choose to get an education and work a class based on ownership and control, but that's because of my crazy freedom loving definition of class based on scientific observation of trends in society. Lol at grand conspiracy theory though, I didnt know that some people think Marx, a tit for tat philosopher, matches up to Friedman, a renowned major in mathematics (kind of important in economics... how marx slipped that one by and why commutards never notice this I have never figured out) and nobel prize winning modern economist. I will read Marx when you will read Friedman or Kennedy or Adam Smith or Patrick Henry or Churchill or John Stuart Mill or Hobbes or Hayek or Rothbard or Thatcher.

>>19
>>21

I GUESS NONE OF US WILL EVER READ ANYTHING WE DON'T AGREE ON THEN! SUCCESS!

>>22
>>19 didn't say he would not read Kennedy or Adam Smith or Patrick Henry or Churchill or John Stuart Mill or Hobbes or Hayek or Rothbard or Thatcher.

I have a socialist disease. It causes insanity.

Funny how socialist/communist/liberal intellectuals all worship marx and use exactly the same terminology and philosophy but claim they don't have anything to do with each other.

>>25
Funy idiots like you are able to learn to read and write, yet are unable to formulate anything remotly coherent. Thanks for the war lady!

>>26
FUNNY HOW people (I don't use bigotry as I am superior) like you think you are proving someone wrong without REMOTELY addressing the issue at hand.

>>26
Funy? Is i remotly coherent? Funny how socialist/communist/liberal intellectuals hate war but wear pictures of Che on their shirts. Wonkers of the world ignite!

>>25

so if i don't agree with a guy i'm not allowed to use his terminology? guess we won't ever get any research done in social studies because everybody have to come up with their own terms for... well... everything.

Funny how socialist/communist/liberal intellectuals hate war but wear pictures of Che on their shirts.
People like that aren't "intellectuals". They're artsy-fartsy types putting on airs.

If you think a drooling moron is intelligent, what does that make you?

Just read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
actually, don't even read it, just listen to what was consider his most notable concept.
The "Invisible Hand" is the idea that people do things in there self-interest.
Now before you say anything about morality, just remember, morals are relative, and people donate things to the needy because it makes them feel good, its basically a drug(really, its a hormone)
Lets imply self interest to paying for your grocerys
You pick the shortest line because its faster, but everybody else wants a short line too, so all the people look for shorter lines. This will eventually create equilibriums.
Now replace lines with investments 

People often say to read Adam Smith but few do.

He also argued that labour is not a commodity like other commodities. He argues for pensions, good working conditions, the organization of labour (his term for what would later ammount to a labour union) and a government guarantee of critical services to the populace like medical treatment, national defense and regulation of the private sphere to reduce the natural tendency towards consolidation in anarchistic systems.

You really have strayed far into the realm of predatory capitalism when Adam fuckin' SMITH would have been called a commie in today's political climate.

>>32
I could agree on medical care, healthy=harder working
The thing about monopolys however, is that monopolys are either good or bad
a good one is great, cheap shit under a reliable name
a bad one can either be undercut or boycotted 

Monopolies and cartels are the cancers of the free market. It is the chief duty of the public to intervene in the free market so as to keep it free. Oligarchies and libertarian corporate rule is just as dangerous to the free market as socialism.

We do this with redistribution of forcibly collected means through direct and indirect taxation as well as defining the rules the private actors are allowed to operate under.

Adam Smith understood this. People claiming to have read what he wrote, usually do not.

The goal of any public policy should be to maximize the opportunities for the citizenry to seek fulfillment. The countries that achieve this the best, like in modern day Scandinavia for example, do so with a combination of free markets and publicly guaranteed services.

Libertarians are fucking clueless morons. Check out my thread just two threads above this one.

>>29
We're not talking about words, we are talking about definitions. Marx's definitions are pointlessly abstract, if you had intelligence exceeding that of a shortbread cheese cake you would realise this and if what you were studying was truly a science you would not use his definitions just as people studying chemistry do not use the term "phlogiston".

>>30
I'm sorry to say, but you are also an "artsy fartsy" type. You are no where near being an intellectual otherwise your line of thought would have gone directly towards proving the validity of marx's concepts instead of whining incessantly.

>>31
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/there
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/their
Morality actually hasa scientific basis, since we are all sentient and that fact is automatically important to a sentient being, whether they have emotions or not.

>>32
Note the distinction between the free market as envisaged by Adam Smith and the fantasy realm of capitalism envisaged by Karl Marx. Anarcho-capitalists have an equally tyrant loving economic system as socialists and communists.

>>33
A small number of monopolies can exist under criticism from a democracy enough to reduce corruption. Too many and many go from "good ones" to "bad ones".

>>34
Wrong. Adam Smith said nothing about redistribution, he revealed that redistributing wealth only leads to the corruption and waste of that money in an inefficient manner. Every unit of currency must be allocated to the upmost efficiency by people who have the incentive to do so. Redistribution makes the market less competetive and corrupts the value system capitalism depends on.

I have to go now brb

>>36

sorry, but >>25 was talking about terminologies, not definitions.

"Terminology also refers to a more formal discipline which systematically studies the labelling or designating of concepts particular to one or more subject fields or domains of human activity, through research and analysis of terms in context, for the purpose of documenting and promoting correct usage. This study can be limited to one language or can cover more than one language at the same time (multilingual terminology, bilingual terminology, and so forth)."

this is what most philosophers and scientists and whatever do, and i don't think it's fair to discard a term set by a persons analyses and research simply because you disagree with that persons conclusions (which i do in the case of marx). You can argue that they are out of context today, or that the original research and analyses were incorrect or whatever, but just saying "you're dumb, all you say is wrong" is pretty, well, retarded.

>>37
Regardless, Marx's concepts are primitive and useless. A historical oddity that has been corrected, though not by those who maintain their faith in the tenets of the holy prophet Marx.

>>36
You are no where near being an intellectual otherwise your line of thought would have gone directly towards proving the validity of marx's concepts instead of whining incessantly.
That's assuming:
a) I'm liberal
b) I agree with Marx.
c) I post a lot about it.
d) I claim to be an intellectual.

Three of the above are false. I really can't think of a way to fail harder than you just did.

Morality ... is automatically important to a sentient being, whether they have emotions or not.

Not true.
Sociopaths by nature are people who have no morals or empathy, looking out only for themselves and would stab anyone in the back if they get in their way. This lack of compassion or regret gives them a huge advantage in the rat race.
They are still 'sentient', and still have emotions.
Morality is a weakness in the individual, at least that's how they see it.

Since when have any factions really given a shit about society as a whole?

>>39
Do you ever stop whining??? Holy fuck!

>>40
Someone who is truly intent on gaining power by any means necessary does not act like a sociopath, because sociopaths are slaves to their overpowerring emotions. Sociopaths are not stupid and are capable of devising complex plots, it is just that they focus their efforts on fulfilling their warped emotional needs and control over their small social environment rather than real power. To your hypothetical sentient person with abstolutely no care for other sentient beings, the sociopath would be weak for fulfilling his emotional needs rather than to gain power. Hedonism is as much of a weakness as morality.

what's this morality we all talkin' about?

>>38

Karl Marx's concepts are about as "primitive and useless" as Adam Smith's concepts are, assuming that either are considered such. Neither Smith's nor Marx's ideas work correctly when applied and practiced in their pure form, due to the fact that human nature will always pervert their ideologies.

>>42
Do you ever stop whining??? Holy fuck!
Not as long as it pisses you off, you presumptuous fuck.

Do you ever stop throwing ad hominem??? Holy fuck! lol

>>44
Adam Smith's concepts are not primitive or useless. If they were the entire western world would be as poor as Russia in the 20s.

>>45
When you have a logical criticism of clearly defined concepts instead of the strawman you are jerking off over I will respond.

>>47
Ah, so not only do you fail, you're illiterate. What part of >>39 did you not understand?

But I guess this is to be expected from the poster of >>25 (and if you're not him, what are you babbling about?).

>>46

yeah, because adam smith invented all economic thinking, without him noone would've noticed any patterns in anything. all hail the god-emperor adam smith.

>>40
Morality is only a weakness if its slave-morality.
Sociopaths and skeptics have master-morality.

>>42
To your hypothetical sentient person with abstolutely no care for other sentient beings, the sociopath would be weak for fulfilling his emotional needs rather than to gain power. Hedonism is as much of a weakness as morality.

Not sure what your saying here, I made no hypothesis.
A sociopath is impossible to just pick out of a crowd, being they are more than capable at feigning compassion, empathy and morality. They can exploit these things in others, and will do so as long as they can without being caught. This is the inherent advantage they have over everyone else.
If the sociopath's strong desires include power over others, then they have the advantage of not being constricted by a conscience.

>>51
But they are not totally determinned to gain power. Like I said they suffer from emotional problems and only want to gain only a certain type and amount of powr to quench their emotional needs.

>>49
The patterns Adam Smith noticed were correct. If they were incorrect then either 100s of years of accounts and decisions based on Adam Smith's fundaments by pure chance were correct or the west's economic system was as inefficient as soviet russia's and we must now get back to the state owned shops and queue for tap water before we dehydrate.

>>52
Sociopaths all have different desires, like everyone else.
Some want money.
Some want sex.
Some want to make others feel pain.
Some just want to drift through life as easily as possible.
And some want absolute power.