What's the deal with red being the colour of socialism everywhere

democrat/republicans party don't exist within the capitalism/monarchism/socialism dynamic. Democrats also weren't socialist until a few years ago

Neither of the two major parties had official colors until after the 2000 election, where the media started using "red state" and "blue state" as terms based on whether they voted for Bush or Gore.

Though keep in mind that actual socialist organizations in the US tend to use the color red in their logos. The Democratic Party (which is a centrist/social liberal party with a social-democratic wing) uses the color blue.

>>3215604
Why did they decide on the colours opposite to those that would make sense though? Even loosely speaking, the Democrats being in favour of a greater social safety net, and the Republicans being less so, would mean the Democrats would be more deserving of red than the republicans?

>>3215604
Fun fact, it went back even before that, somewhere around the 1970's.
>>3215621
Another fun fact, it also used to be red was dems, blue was reps, but somewhere along the line it switched, and by somewhere red being reps and blue being dems became the standard.

>>3215631
I should clarify that the media has had map graphics with coloring in states since the 1970s, but the consistent red=Republican and blue=Democratic key only dates to 2000. I remember watching a recording of election night 1980 and Reagan was blue and Carter was red.

The Democrats aren't socialist you fool, that's why

Why are Americans so politically illiterate that they mistake liberals for socialists?

>>3215656
>

>>3215597
No one in the US is socialist or communist, both are the same shit, the difference is how much will either spend on war.

>>3215656
>berncuck saunders isnt socials
ok

>>3215621
>Why did they decide on the colours opposite to those that would make sense though?

Colors were decided on randomly, and different conventions existed between different companies. In 2000, however, because of the election debacle, news orgs informally coalesced around the current color scheme to aid in viewer comprehension due to the complexity of the situation.

>>3215662
All-around illiterate is more accurate.
>>3215666
Do you see that motherfucker seizing the means of production and distributing it to the proletariat?

>>3215671
That motherfucker wanted a 90% tax rate on the rich, that isn't fucking socialism to you? Are you retarded?

>>3215681
No, because that isn't explicitly seizing the means of production. It's stupid to call it anything than "high taxes" but because Americans are so woefully unread about politics they associate things they don't like with things they think is bad with no actual correlation between the two.

>>3215681
First of all he never had that in his platform, he merely noted that during World War II and all the way into the Eisenhower administration you had a 90% tax rate on certain brackets (note: that doesn't mean the government takes 90% of your income, that's not how tax brackets work).

>>3215681

It isn't socialism. Full stop.

>>3215740
>being taxed 90% of your income isn't socialism
Really forces one to contemplate.

>>3215597
It kinda fits since poor white people vote republican.

>>3215764
>something not fitting the definition of a word makes it not that word

Everything seems in order here.

>>3215764
What is your definition of socialism?

>>3215764
Socialism has literally nothing to do with taxation.

>>3215787
>

>>3215681
So,>>3215692
USA was socialist in the 50s? The top marginal tax rate was 91%.

>>3215790
What? It literally doesn't. Are you American or do you have some other mental defect?

>>3215796
Fucking cell phone I only wanted to quote the ignorant who doesn't know what Socialism is.

>>3215796
No, it's just that /pol/acks are the bastard child of Stormies and American Conservatives, with less intelligence.

>>3215800
So having a fucking tax rate of 90%+ isn't just socialism is disguise? Where do you think all that money is going you shithouse?

>>3215809
Socialism means no private means of production. Nigger I'm a monarchist and even I know that.

>>3215809
Into the government jackass. From there it is spent based upon the current budget set by the congress. Now can you please at least google search this shit?

>>3215784

Anything which doesn't involve bombing, shooting or otherwise killing people that do not look, sound and think like me is socialism.

If you disagree you're a socialist.

>>3215787
Well, I mean, systems like taxation, regulation, bankruptcy, and so forth are admissions that private property isn't really an absolute and so are stepping stones to socialism in a sense.

>>3215812
>>3215816
>dude 10% means of production = capitalist
Fucking /his/ is overrun by dirty commies these days, fucking disgusting.

>>3215825
>means of production = income
Apex kek

>>3215825
They didn't seize 90% of the means of production, they taxed the profit made from those means of production, and only those at the top of society to begin with. At no point did they have the means they used to produce those profits seized, therefore they can continue using those means to produce similar profits, thus continuing their exploitation of the proletariat.

>>3215825
If the means of production are in control of the capitalists is a capitalistic system, what's so difficult to understand? Don't tell my you're actually a libtard.

>>3215844
Please don't tell me you're a dirty commie and think that taking home 10% of your earning is a viable economic system.

>>3215863
Oh no, what ever will I do with $10 million of my original billion in earnings? How will I afford another yacht or vacation home with these earnings?

Like, anon. You are talking about the "so rich you only collect more money to get a high score" rich.

>>3215825
I already said I'm a monarchist you nigger ape. You're closer to being a communist than I am.

>>3215840
>>3215841
>>3215844
In a hypothetical society where capital flight was totally preventable, the state (and thereby the people, if the state was a democracy) would have total control over that capital because there's not a damn thing the owners could do if the state suddenly decided to shift regulation around in such a way to make what they wanted the only legal option. Thus, even though private property is nominally preserved it would be utterly at the whim of the state/people and thus be public in the sense socialism demands.

>>3215863
If people derive pleasure from the amount of material goods they own, how do you explain things like monasteries? What about the educated going into research instead of finance/engineering/surgery? What about those artists who actually refuse to sell out?

>>3215906
State capitalism is not Socialism.

>>3215951
Anarchism might be Socialism but it's also completely retarded and worse than most strains of Capitalism proper.

File: only 10 int.jpg (28KB, 303x311px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 303x311px

>>3215962
>Anarchism might be Socialism

>>3215962
Anarchism, at least Anarcho-communism, is not Socialism, is Communism. Man, I'm not even Commie but you should do some basic research, maybe try reading a book.

>>3215962
>Anarchism might be Socialism
It most definitely is not. Dictatorship of the Proletariat is Socialism.

>>3215972
Google "anarcho-socialism"
It's really not that complicated

>>3216123
except that ensuring equitable distribution of resources is impossible without the use of force, given differences in value placed on different types of work by the community.

>>3216135
>except that ensuring equitable distribution of resources is impossible without the use of force, given differences in value placed on different types of work by the community.


Maybe you will find this book interesting about the matter, is like a holy book in leftypol.

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

>>3215597
It's only the US thats screwed up, everywhere else the Republicans are left and Democrats are right
Red is the color of socialism because red is the color of progressiveness

>>3215604
>>3215631
>>3215648
I thought it was that Red was used for the incumbent party and Blue for the out of power party, for the presidency anyway.

>>3215600
>Democrats also weren't socialist until a few years ago
They still aren't, stop drinking koolaid.

>>3216798

Not him but the ones in power certainly aren't, the Dems are a corporatist party that pays lip service to progressives so that they'll turn the other way when they get fucked financially.

>>3215666
>one demsoc, among a party filled to the brim with neoliberals, and whose voters were marginalized within the party and pushed out of the discussion
How about actually looking at what kind of candidates Democrats commonly push instead of being some /pol/-tier retard. Also fyi, Sanders never actually a member of the party, he only primaried under them.

>>3216802
If dems are corporations, god knows what republicans are. Corporations in human form?

>>3216802
it really gets on my nerves when people misinterpret the world "corporatism"

corporatism is social democracy. the democrats aren't social democrats, they're neoliberals, and they'd have to move to the LEFT to be corporatists, not to the right.