Question for Socialists [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

RyanWoj

04-05-2005, 10:02 PM

Socialism: Government ownership of the means of production.

Socialism is a means, not an end. The typical answer I get from self described socialists discusses only their desired ends, eg equality, social justice, peace, etc. I'm convinced that at least fewer than 70% of socialists actually know what socialism is.

My point is, the people most apt to consider themselves enlightened and intelligent, and the people most likely to call anyone that disagrees with them ignorant, are in favor of completely overhauling society as we know it, in order to replace it with something they know nothing about.

In fairness to socialists, anarchists are even worse. I'll post about that in a minute.

RyanWoj

04-05-2005, 10:11 PM

Classical liberalism espouses free market capitalism with only very limited government intervention. This is what most of America's founding fathers were, along with all the great free market thinkers of the seventeenth century. This is pretty much what I am.

Sometime last century liberalism came to mean just the opposite. Modern liberalism espouses, if not outright socialism, at least a great deal of government control and/or intervention in the economic sphere.

Stan the man

04-05-2005, 10:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Modern liberalism espouses, if not outright socialism, at least a great deal of government control and/or intervention in the economic sphere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, wrong and one more time wrong. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Liberalism and socialism are complete opposites!

RyanWoj

04-05-2005, 10:52 PM

Are you from France? The French have it right, they call liberal what we call conservative. Here in the States a liberal is basically someone that hates capitalism. The French correctly imply what we call "classical liberal" when they use the word liberal.

Stan the man

04-05-2005, 11:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you from France?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Liberalism and socialism are complete opposites, everywhere in Europe.

RyanWoj

04-05-2005, 11:14 PM

OK; didnt know about the rest of Europe. So is the opposite true, are socialists considered conservative in europe?

Stan the man

04-05-2005, 11:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So is the opposite true, are socialists considered conservative in europe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly yes.

bholdr

04-06-2005, 12:24 AM

using the classical definitions of political terms, though it may make you feel good to know more than those you are attempting to belittle, is generally useless. as stan has pointed out (somewhat innaccuratley and ham-handedly, IMO) the dictionary definitions for various political terms- socialism, conservative, liberal, etc... are unimportant compared to the modern idiomatic definitions- the republican's use of the word 'liberal' for example, the connotations behind terms like 'liberal democracy' vs 'liberal economic beliefs' as another. etc, etc...

you're clearly trying to sound smart. nice try, but no dice. sry.

sam h

04-06-2005, 12:39 AM

"There are concepts which are essentially contested, concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users."

- W. B. Gallie, "Essentially Contested Concepts" (1964)

natedogg

04-06-2005, 01:09 AM

The term is social democrat. The european countries like France are considered to be social democracies. The US democratic party, often referred to as liberals, are pretty much social democrats.

It's a nice way of saying "closet communist" or "completely ignorant of the most basic economic principles..."

In a recent new story, France and Germany protested vociferously that recent eastern bloc entries to the EU were not "playing fair" because they have instituted flat tax and low corporate taxes. The result? Their GDP growth is fantastic.

Most people would look at a good result and say, "hey they must be on to something here" but if you're France and Germany, it's a sign that they're not playing "FAIR". I guess FAIR means : shooting yourself in the foot with asinine and misguided economic policies...

natedogg

Cyrus

04-06-2005, 02:48 AM

1. Confusion

The political terms have lost much of their meaning. The party that ruled Mexico for almost all the 20th century is called Party of Revolutionary Institutionalism, which pretty much establishes an oxymoron. In advertising we hear about this revolutionary deodorant or that revolution in shaving. You are right to be confused. We have to be defining terms every day, as we go along.

2 Socialism and other notions that once moved the world.

Einstein believed that Socialism was not just a good idea, it was the only way mankind could forge ahead. In the 18th and 19th centuries, political minds of note in both western Europe and America posited that society can no longer function as the pleasure dome of a god-appointed individual and the need for the emancipation of the people is paramount. Revolutions followed. In the 19th century, the Industrial Age re-introduced quite forcefully the question of social power, through the question of who should own the means of (industrial) production. The idea propagated by Marx et al suggested that society at large, rather than individuals should own the means of production. Revolutions followed.

In the early 20th century, the advent of World War I radicalised European thought towards both extremes, the Right and the Left, resulting in violent socialist uprisings in Germany and Russia (the latter succeeding in forcing out the Czar in February 1917) and fascism in Italy and later Germany. The moderate middle proposed a less violent and more humanitarian policy that was never rigidly defined, but included the gamut from Keynesians (although Keynes was not a socialist or even a social-democrat!) to the post-exile Trotskyites. Revolutions followed.

--Part 2 will continue after these messages--

SNOWBALL138

04-06-2005, 06:36 AM

I'm sorry, but your description of socialism is very simplistic.

thatpfunk

04-06-2005, 07:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's a nice way of saying "closet communist" or "completely ignorant of the most basic economic principles..."

[/ QUOTE ]

After some great recent posts, dissapointed by this poor generalization.

nicky g

04-06-2005, 09:16 AM

"In a recent new story, France and Germany protested vociferously that recent eastern bloc entries to the EU were not "playing fair" because they have instituted flat tax and low corporate taxes. The result? Their GDP growth is fantastic."

GDP growth is fantastic pretty much across emerging markets at the moment. Furthermore these countries are starting from a low base, have EU accession to thank for a lot of investor interest, and the policies you refer to have seen enormous rises in poverty (measured in absolute levels) and inequality (although you don;t see that as a necessarily bad thing). Indeed Eastern Europe is one of the few regions to have seen large rises in poverty since the early 1990s.

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 09:26 AM

Its not a description, it is the definition used by economists on both sides.

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 09:34 AM

Socialism is not a contested concept. Socialist economists use the same definition as free marketeers; government ownership of the means of production. Its not that the definition is contested, its that most people who say they like socialism do not know what it is.

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 09:56 AM

"you are right to be confused"

Who's confused?

"In the early 20th century, the advent of World War I radicalised European thought towards both extremes, the Right and the Left, resulting in violent socialist uprisings in Germany and Russia (the latter succeeding in forcing out the Czar in February 1917) and fascism in Italy and later Germany."

I disagree. Fascism is entirely left wing, not right. Only relative to communism is fascism to the right. Take the bigotry out of a Hitler speech and modern lefties will love everything they hear. Actually, leave in the anti-semitism and anti-catholicism and lefties will still love it.

BTW, does anyone know why so many europeans dislike Jews, in the past and present? Its not for religious reasons, but because Jews are thought to be "greedy" middlemen and speculators. Only a modern liberal (or conservative in europe) would consider this a bad thing. People that support capitalism understand the usefullness of middlemen and speculators and thus would congratulate anyone for being successfull in these endeavors.

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 10:20 AM

Regarding the terms liberal and conservative you are right. However, the meaning of socialism has never changed. Just because most self-identified socialists do not know what socialism is does not mean the meaning of socialism has changed. Seems most of these people are really what we call Statists or Welfare Statists.

Cyrus

04-06-2005, 10:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Who's confused?

[/ QUOTE ]

You. And here's an example of why:

[ QUOTE ]
Fascism is entirely left wing, not right. Only relative to communism is fascism to the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the Republicans, for instance, are more to the Right than Hitler, huh? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Take the bigotry out of a Hitler speech and modern lefties will love everything they hear.

[/ QUOTE ]

So.. Lefties are people without bigotry, correct? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know why so many europeans dislike Jews, in the past and present? Its not for religious reasons, but because Jews are thought to be "greedy" middlemen and speculators.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not wrong, but this is not the "reason". It is a perception that flows naturally from the basic religious prejudice of the Jew being the traitor and hangman of Jesus Christ --> an evil person --> good for nothing! --> good only for "non-productive" work --> good only for "parasitical" work --> good only to be a banker or a loan shark. That's how the logic goes, roughly.

Add to the mix, the fact that the Jews were officially prohibited from owning land (i.e. from joining the upper, land-owning classes), hence they were forced to deploy their efforts to what was left, i.e. affairs of money. (Not all of the Jews, of course, and this is a gross generalization but it is more accurate than you think.)

[ QUOTE ]
...a modern liberal (or conservative in Europe) would consider [greedy bankers and middlemen] a bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

A modern liberal and a European conservative love capitalism! And they love capitalism's servants such as bankers and middle-men. You are thoroughly confised...

The once and future king

04-06-2005, 10:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
However, the meaning of socialism has never changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just incorrect. I would advise agianst bothering to debate with someone who would make such a statement.

Public Information Posts.

Chris Alger

04-06-2005, 10:39 AM

It's old fashioned and under-inclusive. You've grafted an old Marxist term onto the Soviet experience. Virtually all of the European social democrats, the DSA and even most of the trots no longer insist that state ownership of the economy is necessary for a tolerably "socialist" political economy. They've never said that state ownership by itself is either the means or end which they seek.

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 11:14 AM

If they don't insist on state ownership of the economy then they are not socialists. In reality, they do insist on state ownership of certain industries only, thus they are to that extent socialist.

The big debate in Trotsky's time was whether or not to potentially "save capitalism from itself" with govt. intervention. One side favored this on grounds that it would approach socialism gradually. The other side opposed it because they wanted capitalism to collapse upon itself. Trotskyites tolerated govt. intervention as a transition state leading to eventual socialism.

If current day trotskyites and other "socialists" have moved away from demanding govt. ownership of the means of production (a very wise move on their part) then they are not socialists anymore. Which would be astounding because that would mean the debate is finally over, socialists lose. Unfortunately that is not the case, there are still many socialists, especially in academia, who understand what socialism really is and defend it on those grounds alone. Again, these socialists would agree with my definition of socialism.

sam h

04-06-2005, 11:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Socialism is not a contested concept. Socialist economists use the same definition as free marketeers; government ownership of the means of production.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely wrong and clearly do not understand (a) the history of socialist thought or (b) how unstable complex concepts are in their usage.

Here is a question: What is democracy?

mackthefork

04-06-2005, 11:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, does anyone know why so many europeans dislike Jews, in the past and present? Its not for religious reasons, but because Jews are thought to be "greedy" middlemen and speculators. Only a modern liberal (or conservative in europe) would consider this a bad thing. People that support capitalism understand the usefullness of middlemen and speculators and thus would congratulate anyone for being successfull in these endeavors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mass extermination goes beyond "dislike", as does desecration of jewish graves, I can never understand this kind of hatred or where it comes from, I can certainly never justify it.

Your argument seems to suggest parallels between Bin Ladens hatred of the US (or West, whatever) and WWII Germanys hatred for the Jewish peoples (and others), in that you say reasons are of a financial nature Capitalism etc. This falls down however, Jews rich and poor were killed by the Germans and their Allies, as were other peoples such as the Romany travellers, money was just a spurious argument and was nothing of the truth. Everyone should rightly be ashamed that it was allowed to happen, none are blameless.

Mack in the UK

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 11:40 AM

You're relaying to me the "official" version that we were all taught in school. I'm telling you the official version is wrong.

I know everyone thinks Hitler was a right winger, but the only thing right wing about the guy is he disliked perverted art. He despised capitalism and that alone rules him out from being a right winger. To a lesser extent, the fact that he was an atheist, vegetarian, animal loving artist is also pretty indicative of a lefty.

I used to think lefties were not bigots but I'm not sure anymore. They still can't seem to leave the Jews alone, at least in europe.

Let me get this straight, you beleive that the modern american left loves capitalism? Have you taken a college literature course, or any humanities course for that matter? These people worship Marx, does that make them right wing in your mind?

nicky g

04-06-2005, 11:52 AM

Ownership of the means of production is a central tenet of classical socialism but it is a broad movement, and started out as much as a critique (of inequality) as set of specific measures, and in that sense can be assumed to advocate certain ends as much as it does certain means. Treating words, especially ones that describe political movements, like their definitions are written in stone, is pointless; movements, words, connotations evolve.

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 12:10 PM

I've answered this before; the second a socialist stops advocating government ownership of the means of production, he ceases to be a socialist. He is then a capitalist advocating varying degrees of government intervention. If a person advocating a great deal of government intervention persists in calling himself a socialist, he does so in error. It doesnt change the meaning of socialism.

What is your notion of socialism?

sam h

04-06-2005, 12:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What is your notion of socialism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe socialism is a concept that can be traced back to several radical 19th century social thinkers, most notably Marx, who defined it as the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism in which government took control of the means of production. Since then, the meaning of the term has morphed with the times, being adopted throughout the 20th century by countless thinkers and politicians who did not necessarily advocate complete government control of the means of production. Big deal. This happens ALL THE TIME with complex social concepts.

Again, how do you define democracy?

nicky g

04-06-2005, 12:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The second a socialist stops advocating government ownership of the means of production, he ceases to be a socialist. He is then a capitalist advocating varying degrees of government intervention. If a person advocating a great deal of government intervention persists in calling himself a socialist, he does so in error.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might as well argue that a capitalist who believes in any form of government intervention or collective ownership automatically ceases to becomes a capitalist and becomes a socialist. The truth is that most people calling themselves capitalists or socialists actually believe in some form of a mixed economy, and they identify themselves with capitalism or socialism based on the degree of government intervention they advocate as well as other factors that tend to be associated with each position.

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 12:28 PM

I disagree. Every major work dealing with socialism, in support or opposition, uses roughly the same definition. I'm talking about serious scholars here, not some donkey writing for the Nation. It needs to be that way otherwise its impossible to have debate. If people think socialism is something different than what it is, thats their fault, it doesnt mean socialism now has a new meaning.

I still haven't gotten an alternative meaning from anyone.

nicky g

04-06-2005, 12:36 PM

"needs to be that way otherwise its impossible to have debate. "

Not really. Most concepts evolve and are hard to pindown 100% if you look at them in any depth. Words mean what people use them to mean, there's no way of encasing language in concrete. Furthermore it refers to more than one thing: an economic concept, a movement, specific parties, etc.

"If people think socialism is something different than what it is, thats their fault, it doesnt mean socialism now has a new meaning."

Why can't the meaning and connotations of words evolve? They do, whether or not you want them to.

"I still haven't gotten an alternative meaning from anyone."

Sam has given you one.

From the introduction from the Wikipedia article on Socialism:

"Socialism is a concept and a collection of a party-based political movements that has evolved and branched over time. Initially, it was based in the organized working class, with the aim of building a classless society. But eventually, it increasingly concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist also refer to the broader ideology or a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed.
In Marxist theory, the society that would succeed capitalism, and in some cases develop further into communism. Marxism and communism are specific branches of socialism.

The word dates back at least to the early nineteenth century. It was first used, self-referentially, in the English language in 1827 to refer to followers of Robert Owen. In France, again self-referentially, it was used in 1832 to refer to followers of the doctrines of Saint-Simon and thereafter by Pierre Leroux and J. Regnaud in l'Encyclopédie nouvelle. Use of the word spread widely and has been used differently in different times and places, both by various individuals and groups that consider themselves socialist and by their opponents . While there is wide variation between socialist groups , nearly all would agree that they are bound together by a common history rooted originally in nineteenth and twentieth-century struggles by industrial and agricultural workers, operating according to principles of solidarity and advocating an egalitarian society, with an economics that would, in their view, serve the broad populace rather than a favored few."

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 12:49 PM

If we call heavy interventionists socialists, what are we going to call people that advocate govt. ownership of means of production? We already have many words for various types of interventionism: fascist, statist, progressive, social democrat etc, why change the meaning of socialist?

I understand that the common usage of socialist is basically interventionist, my point is that this is wrong. Serious, economically astute socialists would agree with me.

nicky g

04-06-2005, 12:57 PM

"If we call heavy interventionists socialists, what are we going to call people that advocate govt. ownership of means of production? "

A lot of people would call these people communist and use socialism to denote a sort of "communism-lite". A lot of people also use the term socialist to mean redistributionist.

"I understand that the common usage of socialist is basically interventionist, my point is that this is wrong"

My point is that once the common usage of something changes, the effective meaning of the word changes and it is pointelss to try to change it back or claim that it is incorrect. But regardless you are wrong, as socialism refers to ore than one thing. Saying "I am a Socialist" may well mean "I belong to the Socialist party", or "I sympathise with the global socialist movement", both of which are likely to have positions that cannot be reduced to a single sentence. People often use the term socialism to refer to the movement rather than a specific indicidual concept, and the term predates the Marxist concept of "state ownership of the means of production" anyway.

elwoodblues

04-06-2005, 12:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that the common usage of socialist is basically interventionist, my point is that this is wrong. Serious, economically astute socialists would agree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So maybe the term has different meanings to different audiences. People refer to the US, colloquially, as a democracy, but you always here some ass spout off about how we aren't a democracy...

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 01:06 PM

"But eventually, it increasingly concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies."

Thus socialists gave up on socialism (after getting hammered by the Austrian school) but continued to call themselves socialists.

"This concept and the term Socialist also refer to the broader ideology or a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed."

These ideologies have at least one thing in common; in order to attain the ends discussed in your description, the government must control the means of production.

This is a very sympathetic description you've given me. I'm not surprised socialists prefer to emphasize their delightfull desired ends over their scary means of acheiving it.

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 01:26 PM

I dont think the common usage has changed as much as you think it has. Most intellectuals on both sides understand what socialism really is. Thats why most lefties don't call themselves socialist anymore; they are progressives, or liberals, or social democrats.

Anyways, among the people that really know what they are talking about (economists, philosophers etc), socialism has meant one thing since the time of Marx, and thats the definition I gave. However I shouldnt have called it a definition, its simply the one characteristic required for a system to be considered socialist.

I'm done.

Felix_Nietsche

04-06-2005, 02:27 PM

"Socialism: Government ownership of the means of production."
************************************************** ***
I prefer defintion:
Government CONTROL of the means of production.

When you own something, in theory you control it. If you own a business and the govt mandates:
*35 hour work week
*How much you must compensate people
*Who you can hire
*etc...
The legal owner loses more and more control.
More regulation = More govt control of their business.

I often claim that contries like France, Germany, etc... run 'Karl Marx Lite' economies because of their govt heavy regulations of business. The mentioned defintion allows for shades a gray, where some contries are more socialiest than others...

Bjorn

04-06-2005, 06:08 PM

Typically in most European countries there is (at least) three big parties and these are usually a "social democrat" party, a conservative party and a liberal party.

European social democrats are usually very much for the wellfare state, like to talk about "redistribution politics" and are often very much integrated with the unions. They do not however advocate or practice goverment ownership in any large scale (at least not anymore).

European liberal parties often act more or less as a (sometimes very) moderate version of what in the US would be called libertarian. Tend to be noninterventionist in economic maters and "US liberal" in matters of personal values. Pretty much for indivdual rights and freedoms across the board.

European conservatives are generally more interventionist in economic matters than liberals but far less so than social democrats, while having a social agenda that would be typical of US conservatives although usually less extreme.

This is of course an ultrasimplified explanation. The European political landscape obviously also varies a lot from country to country.

/Bjorn

The once and future king

04-06-2005, 06:11 PM

Socialism = Some form of collective ownership of production as compared to private individual ownership of production.

So socialism could be appplied to communal ownership etc etc. IN NO WAY HAS IT EVER BEEN STRICTLY DEFINED AS PURELY GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.

Government is a form of collective organsation so government ownership is socialistic, however governemnt is not the only form of colective ownership.

You are just wrong on on every count and are typical of the hyperbolic mis informed ranter one finds one every forum.

SNOWBALL138

04-06-2005, 06:39 PM

It seems like you are uninterested in actually discussing socialism, and more interested in sounding smart. FWIW, you are doing a poor job on both counts.

For the record, socialism has nothing to do with the state necessarily. The reason that you think that you are correct has to do with sovietology, which is not political philosophy, but is a western intellectual reaction to cold war politics.

Many people who have called themselves socialists (Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, Luxembourg) were interested in workers controlling the means of production, and therefore having control of the fruits of their labor.

Some socialists believe that the state is the means whereby private property will be smashed, and workers will be able to control their workplaces.

State control of the means of production has never been a desired tool, or a desired end of prominent socialists. Classical marxism is radically anti-statist. See The State and Revolution by Lenin or Private Property, the Family and the state by Engels, or Critique of the Gotha program by marx.

I don't really expect to be able to respond to your threads in the future, but I may surprise myself.

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 06:54 PM

I'm aware that socialist don't like to use the work government in that respect, but thats what it is no matter how they disguise it, communal, collective, proletariate, whatever.

The once and future king

04-06-2005, 07:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm aware that socialist don't like to use the work government in that respect, but thats what it is no matter how they disguise it, communal, collective, proletariate, whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

You tard. Read my post. I quite clearly state that a government is a collectivist organsisation. :

[ QUOTE ]
Government is a form of collective organsation so government ownership is socialistic, however governemnt is not the only form of colective ownership.

[/ QUOTE ]

SNOWBALL138

04-06-2005, 07:25 PM

Nicky, if you don't stop making posts with content that is arranged in a sensible manner, Ryan will find it difficult to teach us the real truth about politics and economics.

So, quiet down while Ryan gets to the point.

....

....

(crickets)

....
....

Well Ryan?

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 07:40 PM

"Many people who have called themselves socialists (Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, Luxembourg) were interested in workers controlling the means of production, and therefore having control of the fruits of their labor."

I don't care what they call it, its still the state. In this case, the workers are the state, supposedly. In truth, its ridiculous to imagine every little decision being held up for vote; so even in this very tale situation there will be government with unimagineable power.

"Some socialists believe that the state is the means whereby private property will be smashed, and workers will be able to control their workplaces."

You're proving my point. Government (the proletarians) ownership of the means of production; if they control it, they own it. This has been their goal from the beginning.

"State control of the means of production has never been a desired tool, or a desired end of prominent socialists. Classical marxism is radically anti-statist."

You've taken in their propoganda completely. They may not have liked the state as it was in their time, but by no means were they anti-statist. As you said above, they wanted to use the state to eliminate private property. If they choose to call the state something else that doesnt mean its not a state or government.

This stuff shouldnt be controversial people, many of the great socialists of even the 20th century (Abba Lerner, Oskar Lange) used the same definition as I have.

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 07:47 PM

You missed the point. Bottom line is this, unless your talking about syndicalism, if you want to eliminate capitalism you'll need some form of government. If you choose to call that government the collective, or the commune, or the proletariate or whatever, it is still government. Syndicalism is different from socialism but equally moronic.

I'm done.

RyanWoj

04-06-2005, 08:02 PM

Sorry for triggering an emotional response in you; but no I won't be able to help you other than to recommend "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis" by L Von Mises (read it free at www.mises.org (http://www.mises.org)). After you read that, you can find a good counter argument in "On the Economic Theory of Socialism" by Oskar Lange. Lange loses the debate, but at least after reading these you will have an informed opinion and you will even know what socialism is.

natedogg

04-06-2005, 09:51 PM

Sorry, I had just gone done finished reading this:

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/04/tax_everything.html

where a famous social democrat pundit just outed himself as a communist

and I was so flabbergasted I had to vent, which leads to gross generalizations...

natedogg

natedogg

Dead

04-06-2005, 10:44 PM

I support lower taxes for the bottom 95% of taxpayers, with a tax increase on the top 5%. It should be revenue-neutral.

natedogg

04-07-2005, 03:06 AM

That is unrelated to the fact that Matthew Yglesias wants to raise taxes on everything (http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/04/tax_everything.html) , and his ideal utopia is one where we redistribute income even across nations (http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/04/some_marxian_mu.html)

YOU may not be a communist, but Matthew Yglesias sure is.

natedogg

nicky g

04-07-2005, 06:35 AM

"I dont think the common usage has changed as much as you think it has. Most intellectuals on both sides understand what socialism really is. Thats why most lefties don't call themselves socialist anymore; they are progressives, or liberals, or social democrats."

This is a bit weird, as previously you were argung that many people called themselves socialists but weren't really becuase they didn't advocate total state control of the means of production; now you see to be arguing that socialists hide their socialsim by calling themselves something else.

You repeatedly refer to a mysterious group of experts that deine socialism 100% your way; I seriously doubt all so-called experts agree on a one-sentence definition of a contentious term that refers to more than one thing, and I'm not sure they (largely economists from what I understand from you) should be the sole arbiters of its meaning; shouldn't for example the self-professed socialists have some say over what socialism means? I don't doubt that your definition is a correct one for one particular economic concept that goes by the word socialism, but the word means different things in different contexts to different people and in different times.

Furthermore you haven't explained to me why socialism is an all-or-nothing concept but others aren't; you claim a socialist who doesn't adovate total state control of production is a capitalist who favours heavy intervention, but why isn't a capitalist (who should be all about private enterprise) still a capitalist if he favours some state intervention or ownership? The truth is as I said before that the vast majority of so-called socialists and capitalists these days favour a mixed economy, but with different proportions of ingredients. If you want to argue that neither are "true" to their professed concepts, OK, but you're focusing on one defintion when there are several and just playing semantics.

I'm done too.

Rooster71

04-12-2005, 12:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
you're clearly trying to sound smart. nice try, but no dice. sry.

[/ QUOTE ]
My thoughts exactly.

nanoCRUSHER

04-12-2005, 02:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Fascism is entirely left wing, not right. Only relative to communism is fascism to the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common mistake made by those not informed about political theory. The common thread in fascist themes is the idea of imposed collectivism, shown in such themes as a military draft, spying on citizens to make them say nothing bad about their leader, etc.

For instance, look at the following image from politicalcompass.org:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/axeswithnames.gif

Notice any similarities between Stalin and Hitler? Hitler loved forced collectivism, as did Stalin. And notice that Hitler had very little to do with what one would consider socialist economic tendencies. You can find speeches where he's talking to the common man about having them unite against Jews and the businesses, but you can also find documents that conclude that businesses were given ownership over their workers. When push comes to shove, explaining Hitler's economic policies would be hard, but pinning down his social policies were easy.

If you were to look at a similar graph with all of 20th centuries fascists/dictatorships (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Pinochet), you'd find the common theme of forced collectivism. Aside from that, the economic differences between all of them are so vasly different that you wouldn't find a common thread.