Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:14 PM
limpyhobbler (8,244 posts)
"Socialism" the most looked up word of 2012
Merriam-Webster Inc., America's leading dictionary publisher, has announced the Top Ten Words of the Year. Based on the volume of user lookups at Merriam-Webster.com, this list sheds light on topics and ideas that sparked the nation's interest in 2012.from http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/2012words.htm
Two words, socialism and capitalism, share the top spot due to discussion and debate around the presidential election. Socialism saw its largest lookup spikes during coverage of healthcare but also saw peaks in the days following both conventions and each of the presidential debates. Capitalism, although looked up somewhat less often, rode the same waves of interest.
"We saw a huge spike for socialism on Election Day itself, but interest in both words was very high all year," says Peter Sokolowski, Editor at Large at Merriam-Webster. "Lookups of one word often led to lookups of the other."
The word socialism refers to governmental ownership and administration of the production and distribution of goods. Capitalism refers to private or corporate ownership of the tools used to make and transport products whose prices are set by competition on the free market.
Probably just the o'reilly Factor audience was looking it up to see what they were in for after Obama got re-elected.
PS I don't really like this definition of socialism so much.
15 replies, 2078 views
"Socialism" the most looked up word of 2012 (Original post)
|Joe Shlabotnik||Jan 2013||#2|
|Starry Messenger||Jan 2013||#6|
|Starry Messenger||Jan 2013||#8|
|Starry Messenger||Jan 2013||#10|
|Starry Messenger||Jan 2013||#12|
Response to jtuck004 (Reply #1)
Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:33 PM
limpyhobbler (8,244 posts)
3. I don't know
Something that emphasized more the idea of workers' self-management. Democratic control of the workplaces and productive surplus in a classless society. Maybe something along those lines. Their actual definition in the dictionary was better I guess. The brief definition in the article made it sound like the gov't runs everything, and that's not necessarily the case.
Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #3)
Mon Jan 21, 2013, 11:35 AM
dotymed (5,610 posts)
13. I wonder if the term "Democratic Socialism" was searched much.
I know I researched it and and I really don't understand (well I guess I do...fascism) why more average Americans are not interested in this form of governance. It is a much more equitable system.
Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #8)
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:09 AM
Kurovski (34,575 posts)
if you must.
Then I guess it's back to promising "pot in every chicken" on the campaign trail once I bail Bill out of the drunk tank.
Response to Kurovski (Reply #9)
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:12 AM
Starry Messenger (29,178 posts)
10. That's the kind of transparency in government this country has been waiting for.
I'm also sucking up early to get Court Artist status in your joint administration. I've been interviewing with Bill, but he keeps mumbling "Olivia Wilde" and then bursting into tears.
Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #10)
Wed Jan 9, 2013, 12:18 AM
Kurovski (34,575 posts)
11. I've always said
the White House needs a panoramic mural to break-up the nuetral space.
Bill is a very sensitive man. He only APPEARS unhinged.
Response to limpyhobbler (Original post)
Sun May 12, 2013, 01:16 PM
Stopbiblebullies (2 posts)
14. Some more thoughts on Socialism
1. Good that Fox viewers are actually using the dictionary. This is encouraging.
2. Pure socialism, as pure capitalism, has never survived in the long-run. A blend is probably the healthiest solution, with private industry and government working together. Of course, this is a bit like trying to get Democrats and Republicans to work together, and we all know how that ends up most of the time.
3. The problem with pure socialism is that it's emphasis is on need, rather than ability to supply the goods and services to satisfy those needs. The problem with capitalism, on the other hand, is that it's emphasis is on profit, without regard for the human factor.
As a business owner who is also very concerned about those who are in need in our society, I became caught up in the 2012 election to the extent that I devoted an entire chapter to social programs in my book, Bible Bullies: How Fundamentalists Got The Good Book So Wrong. I was tired of Republicans using "moral" arguments against everything from social programs to women's rights, so I researched each issue, identified their arguments, and rebutted each of them in a logical fashion with much documentation.
It is difficult for those of us who use fact-based reasoning to deal with folks who reason based on their belief or faith alone, and who are convinced that 47% of the public are "takers." But I suppose we have to keep in trying.
Response to Stopbiblebullies (Reply #14)
Mon May 13, 2013, 05:44 PM
socialist_n_TN (10,802 posts)
15. Interesting. And welcome to DU AND to SP........
As to #1 LOL . As to your second point, as a Trotskyist, I'd agree that pure socialism has never been tried. Or rather pure Marxism. I'm willing to give it a shot. On #3, I'm not sure that focusing on needs is a bad thing. At least they do get taken care of that way.
I'm pretty hard core Bolshevik and even I would say to start with the commanding heights of industries of NEED and allow a tightly regulated market for wants. Even in a partially market system, I'd give preference and subsidize the "want" industries that are owned co-operatively by the employees.
Once again, welcome to our little Classic Red corner of DU.