Definition of "Socialist"

[Rooster71]

Since the word "socialist" is thrown around so freely in this forum (primarily when speaking of Michael Moore), I think a definition is in order.
A "socialist" is someone who practices "socialism." Socialism is defined by Merriam Webster as follows:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

[riverflush]

Since we're on to the definition thing:

Social democrats are often described, particularly by revolutionary socialists as being reformists that is in favour of change through gradual reforms in the capitalist system. While some social democrats contend that a process of gradual reforms will eventually bring about socialism many, including most of the leadership of social democratic parties, now argue that the goal of reforms is to make capitalism more equitable and that this makes the abolition of capitalism unnecessary. Thus social democracy can be distinguished in this sense from democratic socialism, which seeks to bring about a fully socialist state via electoral means.

You misunderstand us Libertarians...

Liberal politics in the U.S. (as opposed to the Classical Liberals of the 19th century, who were libertarian) is not full fledged socialism. It's an offshoot. To us free market (aka personal and economic freedom) folks, one or two steps removed from Socialism is just as bad as full-on Socialism . If you march down that road in some aspects, what is keeping society from going even further? Where do you stop? How far do you go? How much collectivization of the economy is acceptable?

If you socialize education, then why not electricity? If you socialize medicine, then why not food? Where does it end? When you remove rational self-interest (profit motive) from an industry, it usually collapses upon itself over time. It's not "college professor speak" - it's human economic history. There's a reason why my relatives in Canada travel to the U.S. to get an MRI (they don't have to wait 6 weeks for their "free" service).

We're not anarchists (most of us), we just don't look to Canada and Europe as successful economic models. To us, the United States' "mixed" economy is already screwed up. We'll fight every additional step towards socialism...even if it isn't true Socialism, or Communism.

[riverflush]

And another thing...

The lefty members on this board (and elsewhere) are usually quick to label free marketers as 'evil' or 'fascists' or 'greedy' or 'rich fat cats' or whatever sounds good that day. These labels usually make us laugh, because they are so off-the-wall as to be completely anathema to our beliefs. They come off to us as wacko, that's why you hear the term "wacky lefty".

Why?

To us it is laughable that someone would label a fiscal conservative or libertarian as a fascist, due to the fact that this philosophy is thoroughly hostile to government control . We see economic freedom as freedom itself. Many of us have built businesses from nothing to various degrees of success (and even failure, that's ok to us). With that experience, we realize that the only thing a person can change is himself . We believe in individuals, not groups. To us there is nothing more compassionate or responsible than to allow individuals the freedom to create their own success or failures.

What chaps us is that too many left-leaning folks want freedom to smoke pot , but not to run your own business the way you see fit . They want freedom, but also protection against economic failure, which itself stifles freedom. Round and round we go.

To us, lefty politics are so contradictory as to not make any sense.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
And another thing...

The lefty members on this board (and elsewhere) are usually quick to label free marketers as 'evil' or 'fascists' or 'greedy' or 'rich fat cats' or whatever sounds good that day. These labels usually make us laugh, because they are so off-the-wall as to be completely anathema to our beliefs. They come off to us as wacko, that's why you hear the term "wacky lefty".

Why?

To us it is laughable that someone would label a fiscal conservative or libertarian as a fascist, due to the fact that this philosophy is thoroughly hostile to government control . We see economic freedom as freedom itself. Many of us have built businesses from nothing to various degrees of success (and even failure, that's ok to us). With that experience, we realize that the only thing a person can change is himself . We believe in individuals, not groups. To us there is nothing more compassionate or responsible than to allow individuals the freedom to create their own success or failures.

What chaps us is that too many left-leaning folks want freedom to smoke pot , but not to run your own business the way you see fit . They want freedom, but also protection against economic failure, which itself stifles freedom. Round and round we go.

To us, lefty politics are so contradictory as to not make any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking of Libertarians, whatever happened to Lyndon LaRouche?

[dsm]

[ QUOTE ]
my relatives in Canada travel to the U.S. to get an MRI (they don't have to wait 6 weeks for their "free" service).


[/ QUOTE ]

So in Canada a medical doctor isn't free to open a private clinic and charge people for something as simple as an MRI? I guess I just assumed that socialized medicine in Canada was for citizens in general, but if you wanted to and could afford to, you could go to a private doctor.

If this is the case, I wonder what percentage of those who, once they become a doctor, instantly leave Canada to practice in the U.S.?

[MMMMMM]

"So in Canada a medical doctor isn't free to open a private clinic and charge people for something as simple as an MRI? I guess I just assumed that socialized medicine in Canada was for citizens in general, but if you wanted to and could afford to, you could go to a private doctor."

I recently read an article saying that there are now new laws in Canada making some such things illegal. Hefty fines can be imposed if you pay a doctor in Canada for surgery outside the system. Of course, if you want surgey you just have tro wait in line like everyone else.

How long now for "elective" knee surgery waits, I wonder? Someone needs reconstructive knee surgey---->get in line, buddy, it's only 16 weeks or whatever...and don't even THINK of paying a doctor on the side to do it or you'll both be in a world of sh!t.

Not sure on the specifics of it all, and I'm going to sleep now, but please feel free to Google it for more details.

If it is true then that is a CROCK of a system they now have in Canada.

[MMMMMM]

LaRouche is NOT a Libertarian.

[nothumb]

Hi riverflush,

As a so-called 'lefty' I think your arguments are interesting and logically more or less consistent. I disagree with them, but I agree that there is a significant population of 'liberals' for whom 'rights' tend to be exceedingly self-serving. (For those of you in the WAMC listening area, think Alan Chartock.)

Here's where I disagree with you: I agree that people should be free to exercise their own ideas in terms of small business and what they do for a living. I don't think any centralized state should dictate your life's work. But I also don't think that a giant corporation should have government-level influence over my life, and sadly that is what is happening in this country every day. If you think otherwise, you quite simply don't understand American politics. (I usually don't make confrontational blanket statements like this, but I am growing tired of corporate apologists.)

This may seem bizarre to you, but as an anarchist I believe there is a strange confluence of individualism and socialism in good anarchist thinking. If you read Robert Paul Wolff, he expands on the value of free will and autonomy to demonstrate that anarchism is a necessary philosophy.

Basically what he says is that, if you accept the premise that man's value comes largely from his free will and ability to make informed decisions, or that this is a fundamental right/purpose of men, you cannot accept outright any government. He demonstrates how all forms of government so far have failed to achieve direct democracy and therefore do not pass the litmus test for acceptable social organization.

This does not mean that I disobey the government at every opportunity, or even believe for that matter that government should be abolished as of now. Without some other basis for interaction I think that would be disastrous. What it means, however, is that I do not obey the law because it is the law. I obey it (or don't) because I agree with it or have chosen to accept it out of enlightened self-interest.

I think it is clear (whether you would agree with Wolff's argument or not, which I have not given adequate treatment here) that a philosophy of anarchism rooted in the value of individual decision making is not oppressively socialist. However, I think systems of mutual aid that emphasize the participatory capacity of each individual could conceivably grow amongst like-minded people of this belief. So a social network does not NECESSARILY value the group over the individual.

I basically believe that man needs society in many ways, but that society is also healthiest when it encourages people to actively and thoughtfully participate in it at every level of decision making. This takes a lot more work and a much greater leap of faith than simply asserting your own freedom to do what you will.

NT

[riverflush]

nothumb...

Good post. I respect thoughtful opinions and I welcome an actual friendly response on a topic like this. Most of the time you just get name-calling. I'm not sure why I feel inclined to even get involved in political/philisophical topics on a poker message board, but I read such off-the-wall things I'm almost forced to post.

Libertarians are in a tough spot in the U.S. Most are inherently government-averse, and yet still hold a strong opinion of how government should be run (minimalist). We want the "system" to be more efficient, but most of us are too busy living entrepeneurial lives outside of government's hand to really want to get involved with it. We see little need for it, so getting involved (running for office) is the last thing we want to do.

Those who see government as the "helping hand" tend to take a strong interest in its operation, and subsequently get involved in the process. From that group (especially Democrats, but also many Republicans) you tend to find many career politicians. That's anathema to us libertarians. With that type of approach to life, it's easy to predict that the Libertarian Party faces an uphill battle gaining any footing in popular elections.

Many of us are very uncomfortable with the government/big business relationship - as it distorts the meaning of 'free market'. We see the corporate influence on both sides (D's and R's) as being very questionable. That said, my philosophy at its core still relies on the consumer pricing model...that is, if big corporations are to thrive - people must be able to pay for their products. If they make shoddy products, no matter how 'influencial' in Washington, they will suffer greatly in the marketplace (Firestone, anyone?). At the end of the day, individuals (consumers) still hold most of the power.

So we march on...ever hoping that government will roll-back to simply the basics: defense, police, courts (to help settle disputes, although private arbitration works better), and roads. Pretty much everything else can be done more efficiently by the private sector. Private charity, private education (I went to public school btw), private health care, private goods and services, etc.

At the heart of classical liberalism, libertarianism, fiscal conservatism, etc. is a core of being extremely skeptical of any group's attempt to make life better through legislation. We know that human behavior is too complex to legislate.

[riverflush]

On the Canadian Medicare issue...

I suggest anyone interested in "Universal Health Care Coverage" do a quick Google of 'Canadian Medicare' or 'Canada Health Care' and see what you come up with. Canada's single-payer system (government provided "free" health care) is in extreme peril. It's a bubbling, festering issue in Canadian politics, with most politicians loathe to even bring up the subject.

My grandparents are from Canada and I make frequent visits to Ontario...and I like the place. Canada is a nice country. That said, their health care system is broken (as any socialist economic model will inevitably be - it removes incentives from the process).

Private health care in Canada is not illegal, but it is very uncommon. The vast majority of physicians practice entirely within the public sector. There are still private insurance companies and employer-provided coverage, however, most citizens ride on the government Medicare train...as much of Canada considers health care to be a right, not a service. (This is gradually changing, and Quebec has always gone its own way on this issue)

The system started out with rave approval across Canada. Gradually over the past 10 years more and more citizens have become frustrated with both the quality of the care and the time spent waiting for services. Costs are skyrocketing and Provinces are struggling to keep up with budget shortfalls.

Many patients in dire need of care travel to the U.S. to pay for private (and high-quality, quick, yet expensive) surgeries. Doctors move from Canadian universities to the U.S. in droves (wouldn't you to be paid 300% more for your skills?)

Check out these resources (there are many many more):

http://www.newsandevents.utoronto.ca/bin1/010322d.asp

http://www.canada.com/national/natio...a-17e447c651ca

http://www.cbc.ca/healthcare/index_05.html