I was reading this thread, and thought to myself "Oh, this is silly." so I left. Then I found myself on the front page of general discussion, and I thought "Oh, let's check Ameripol!" So I click the link and find myself back here, and for a moment I think I've finally lost my mind.
misko, are you feeling alright? We don't have any thread by that name. Sit down and have some coffee.
Oh good. I had such horrible nightmares about this bizzaro universe where everything was just like our universe, except it made less sense. Felt like I was in LOST or something. Glad to be back.
Oh, don't worry about all that.
We've got it all going fine here.* MetalSlimeHunt turns around to reveal he is a lobster person wearing a MAGA hat!
We'll stop those crab immigrants yet!
I have a question of definition to but to everyone. many words that get tossed around by various groups seem to be used completely differently. for example the US government doing anything being called communism by certain groups. their also seem to be a difference between definition in Europe and America. so for the sake of clarity how would you define the following: socialism, communism, liberalism, conservatism, neoliberalism, neo conservatism, social democracy, fascism, statism an libertarianism in no particular order and in contrast to each other?
Socialism: Socialism, in general, posits the removal of economic dominion from the wealthy and distribution of that power to the general population. Or as Marx would put it, "owning the means of production". Socialism has gone a wild number of ways over these years and, sadly, there is some truth to the accusation that socialist adherents sometimes treat it like religious doctrine, accusing some strands of being deviant and heretical while others are pure and "real socialism". All the same, socialists of various types are responsible for nearly the entirety of the economic left (which some would say is all the left is), including...
Communism: "Workers of the world unite, nothing to lose but chains, etc, etc." The line between socialism and communism isn't very clear. Some would say you can only be one or another, some would say you
have to be both or you're a filthy kulak, others say that communism is the philosophical ideal of the socialist struggle and isn't actually an ideology per se. Regardless, identifying as a Communist Party instead of a Socialist Party is in functional terms used to identify a harder left and more physical revolutionary stance to the public.
Liberalism: Liberalism is the belief that humans should have some more degree of freedom from the established traditions of the social contract. Founded as classical liberalism, which was highly invested in the development of industrial capitalism, liberalism has always to some degree supported greater free-wheeling in both social and economic matters. Controversy abounds with the development of social liberalism, which is less concerned with lazes-faire economics and more with checking for the human consequences of capitalism and emphasizing social liberties. Social liberalism is probably fused at the hip with social democracy for the true political center point, albeit being very few places where this is the functional center point.
Conservatism: Conservatism is about the conservation of traditional structures now that humanity has begun to experience rapid societal change. Conservatives can only really exist in such an environment to begin with. Unlike a lot of other ideologies listed here, conservatism doesn't have a great potential for back and forth. Once it loses ground, that ground is removed from the political spectrum forever and conservative norms reorient themselves. The ideology of "no", though like all ideologies it comes in more moderate and more extreme forms. I'll get to that part in a bit...
Neoliberalism: Neoliberalism is what has become of classical liberalism now that it's not all that competitive anymore. It focuses on the maintenance of our current status quo of transnational corporate stasis (I'm not bitter). In fairness, it does try to maintain lip service towards regulating economic activity to be non-malignant, and it is pretty egalitarian (if a meritocratic egalitarianism) in social affairs. All the same, when people bitch about our corporate overlords they're in a large sense talking about these guys. Even when on the outs in traditional political bodies, it is the neoliberal ideology that dominates the IMF and the WTO, which is one huge fucking pie to have a slice of.
Neoconservatism: [deepnarratorvoice]Deep in the fires below, he bid them three together. The War Hawks, that they might strike down his enemies and further the crusade of glorious democracy. The Fiscal Conservatives, that he might rend the budgets of the unworthy and exalt the fortune of the powerful. The Religious Right, that he might with whip and frenzy drive the Men of the Cross through the lands and stifle the libertine obscenities of all who might oppose him. Forged together in darkest heat and fury, they emerged from a pool of molten metal as one flesh, immaculate and unbreakable in a new creation. Under the watchful eyes of Great Mammon, the smooth masque of flesh split for the first time in a flood of blood and bone as He Who Is Reagan...smiled.[/deepnarratorvoice]
...
So yeah, neoconservatism is a reaction to the various forms of conservative becoming noncompetitive, and so they became one syncretic ideology to appeal to more people and have a full and coherent defense against liberals and leftists.
Social Democracy: SocDems are trying to reconcile capitalism and socialism. Like I said before, they're right next to social liberalism, and their policies are generally a more lefty version of that. Full welfare for anybody who can't shake it in capitalism and such. Anti-traditionalist as well since being obligated to traditionalism also causes harms. That's probably the best way I can characterize it, as the ideology of harm reduction. Or maybe that's just Sweden, idk.
Fascism: Fascism, ironically enough, is
another way to reconcile capitalism and socialism. Though it's a little....uh....different. The defining characteristics of fascism are seeking out corporatism of a "loyalist" sort, economic autarky, and radical traditionalism. There is also generally a cult of personality involved with the leader of the movement (Mussolini, Hitler, Pinochet, Franco, Tr.....Duterte). When I say "loyalists" I generally mean things like fascist trade unions, which exist more to "educate" their members in how to better serve the state than defend those members' interests. There are also the famous example of the Freikorps. Radical traditionalism is also usually more "reconstructed" than a genuine attempt to retain tradition like with conservationism. Hitler wanted Germanic mysticism instead of Christianity in the long run, and such.
Statism: Has the distinction of being used as an accusatory epithet even more than fascism! Statism is the belief in the power of the state to solve problems. Nobody identifies as a statist, but everybody is one except for anarchists, and even then you run into some examples of "so how is this not a state" when describing anarchist societies.
Libertarianism: The libertarian ideology is at its most basic an opposition to coercive forces in society. In spite of a definition creep caused by the US Libertarian Party, libertarianism exists on both the left and the right. Right-libertarians, as most people know, seek a drastic reduction of the state in favor of voluntary association by individuals. A person is neither obligated to do anything they haven't agreed to nor are they provided anything they have not arranged to be provided. Left-libertarians generally seek the democratic establishment of socialist economics and the elimination of the state's role in deciding individual norms. Both forms of libertarianism are "almost-anarchists" who seek the minimization but not elimination of the state, at least not in any near timeframe.
This is why I think it is necessary for a country to have a strong national spirit and moral backbone for socialism to work. People need to take pride in solidarity with their brothers and sisters and feel accomplishment in what their sacrifices do for others. With a stronger national community comes a stronger national conscience, which keeps down corruption and self-serving abuse of the system.
I don't think this is a problem with socialism so much as it is a growing problem with the modern human era. We lack a vision of our purpose, a telos. Religion and nationalism are old hat and nearly nobody treats them as the human telos even if they believe in them, while we don't even articulate a hedonistic telos in replacement. There's just nothing there for a lot of people, and that creates a fundamental disconnect and discomfort in the human mind.
What we need is that vision (space travel) of a plan that we can follow, some sort of grand goal (launching rockets and space travel) that will give our civilization a purpose to exist (
conquering the galaxy and space travel). Until we have something like that (
13 trillion dollar global space program launch colony ships go go go) we risk what I think counts as depression on the societal level (
show children pictures of stars and tell them it's their destiny baby) and will continue to be massive apathetic jackasses to each other. Personally, I blame bad philosophy classes (and a lack of contemporary space travel achievements), everybody thinks they need an objective purpose instead of choosing for themselves.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4457085 times)