Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

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?

Communism: Anything that's in the intellectual tradition of Marx. Essential are the concept of class struggle, an emphasis on alienation, the belief that the proletariat needs to seize power (democratically or by revolution, there are examples of both), and the wish to erect a Socialist state in pursuit of the end goal of Communism in the Marxian sense. Bonus points for still using Marx' theory of history for that last bit.

Socialism: Anything that has at its core the communal ownership of production and a spirit of equality. Can be democratic, can be authoritarian. It does not need a theory of classes as Communism does, but it does need an idea of 'us down here' and 'them up there'. It is essential that the interests of the current owners of the means of production are not considered beyond questions of feasibility.

Social Democracy: Anything that has the same ideals as socialism, but has adopted as its methods slow, adaptive reformism and the balancing of interests. The interests of the current owners of the means of production thus do enter into the equation. It is not hostile to communal ownership, but since it does not divide between 'us' and 'them' as sharply as Socialism does, it will usually leave private ownership intact.

Conservatism: Anything that values the status quo, usually because it is seen to be doing a decent job. It emphasizes the possible negative effects of innovation more strongly than the other ideologies and the possible positive effects less so. It is not necessarily opposed to slow, deliberate reform, but radical proposals and revolutionary steps are anathema to Conservatism. Literally so, on occasion.

Liberalism: Anything that does not make judgements on aspects of peoples' lives that are irrelevant to the res publica.

Fascism: Oh boy. Anything that values action over inaction, strength over ease, decisiveness over moderation. Since all these things can only be achieved through unity and strong leadership, both are among its core principles. Since a Rechtsstaat makes a tradeoff between these values and stability and transparency, Fascism and Rechtsstaatlichkeit are to a degree antagonistic. Do note that it may be compatible with some forms of democracy.

Statism: Anything that values control, often at the cost of efficiency or freedom. Often is a consequence of Fascism, for obvious reasons. The converse does not hold.

Anything below this line should not be taken entirely seriously. IMO these terms are only useful for a very small range of subjects.

Neoliberalism: At this point, nothing but a slogan.

Neoconservatism: In many ways the American equivalent of the above. Refers to a more or less amorphous portion of the contemporary American center-right. Not of interest beyond discussions of contemporary American politics.

Libertarianism: An umbrella term for a range of convictions. Opinions vary on whether their degree of sophistication is sufficient to consider them political ideologies.

I've purposely tried to keep these definitions fairly abstract and formal. For example, using my definitions you can imagine a Liberal Communist Fascist without contradiction. That is intentional: A Liberal Communist Fascist is not contradictory a priori, but only made contradictory by real-life considerations.

[misko27]

Neoliberal also seems to be exclusively used as an insult, so I'm not entirely sure that I would ever use it seriously. It's used like this codeword for "anything about capitalism that I don't like", which is radically different from person to person; thus, not meaningful. I personally tend to be very leery of (negative) terms that both the left and right use to describe the center, because it brings up unpleasant analogies in my mind.

I thought redwallzyl was asking about our opinions on them or what we thought they meant, not the dictionary definitions, but okay.

Let me ask a different question: Do you believe in dictionary definitions?

I may do this little quiz when I have more time.

[scriver]

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.

It is important to remember that in today's world social democracy is dead. What remains is a neoliberal parasite controlling it's rotting, beaten carcass. Sweden is no longer an example of social democracy, it is an example of what happens when socialism (as well as the national unity which made that social democracy possible in the first place) is eroded away and replaced by corrupt liberalism.

Neoliberal also seems to be exclusively used as an insult, so I'm not entirely sure that I would ever use it seriously. It's used like this codeword for "anything about capitalism that I don't like", which is radically different from person to person; thus, not meaningful. I personally tend to be very leery of (negative) terms that both the left and right use to describe the center, because it brings up unpleasant analogies in my mind.

I thought redwallzyl was asking about our opinions on them or what we thought they meant, not the dictionary definitions, but okay.

Let me ask a different question: Do you believe in dictionary definitions?

I may do this little quiz when I have more time.

Neoliberalism is in no way near the centre, it's basically extreme liberalism.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

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.

It is important to remember that in today's world social democracy is dead. What remains is a neoliberal parasite controlling it's rotting, beaten carcass. Sweden is no longer an example of social democracy, it is an example of what happens when socialism (as well as the national unity which made that social democracy possible in the first place) is eroded away and replaced by corrupt liberalism.

Hey man, I'm just sayin'.

[EnigmaticHat]

For me neoliberal means greasing  the gears of globalism. No tariffs, no wars between developed nations, no policies that would offensive to any big business.  If globalism is buying in China, selling in the US, and paying taxes in Panama, then neoliberalism is removing all obstacles to that.

By my definition both parties in the US are neoliberal.  Kinda like how technically both parties are pro-democracy and pro-Republic.  Saying anyone is neoliberal is kind of meaningless, the exceptions are what's worth mentioning.

Trump isn't neoliberal, but... he's pretty much a wannabe kleptocrat and a man who has personally benefitted greatly from globalism.  So its possible he's just an incompetent neoliberal.

[Dunamisdeos]

Is anyone else super surprised about the unanimous vote to prevent congress from exempting themselves from healthcare laws?

[smjjames]

Is anyone else super surprised about the unanimous vote to prevent congress from exempting themselves from healthcare laws?

A little bit. Though I read that it was unianimous only on the Republican side, or it was just that only Republicans were mentioned. Obviously the Dems would want the Republicans to stick it to themselves

[wierd]

if they want to institute horrible healthcare, they need to abide by it as well.

Of course, since the system they are wanting will basically allow "really rich people" to "buy top rate medical care" while everyone else gets "shit"-- they are not too concerned, and will feel quite content "getting what they pay for", and morally justified in getting it, while others get "shit."

I think we can call it "Conservacare", where they not only conserve the good care for themselves (and other high bidders), they also conserve how much they care about others getting good care. (as in, they dont give any.)

[MrRoboto75]

Being poor is a pre-existing condition, you see...

[Max™]

All these discussions about drinks and ideologies, and I'm just a naive anarchist sipping a tall glass of sun tea wondering if Memphis actually forgot it's supposed to be May (dropped to 10 C or below several times this week, wtf?) while trying my damndest to expect the Senate to pass an even worse version of the House "health"care bill so I can be pleasantly surprised at being wrong instead of crushingly disappointed at being wrong, for a change.

[alway]

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "global fellowship", and I don't believe there will ever be. Maybe in the most ideal of worlds, but we aren't working with that world. We have to work with what we have at hand, not commit ourselves to some ideology that would only be realistic in the very best of all possible worlds.

Says the European to the American, politely and with no sense of irony. :V

First of all, ChairmanPoo is Basque. Secondly, explain what you find ironic about it.

Even better then! I was finding it ironic that you would talk about how there was no such thing as global fellowship on a highly international forum in a discussion between multiple people of various (and effectively irrelevant) origin points. Which is to say, within a global fellowship.

[scriver]

Yeah, no, that was not the kind of fellowship talked about. A group of dozens having a talk over the internet does not a fellowship of global nature equivalent to that of a national fellowship make.

[wierd]

I dunno. I have long ago abandoned nationalism as a mental illness that you need to get over, not something you need to cherish and love.

As such, I am more apt to embrace a global demographic. People in different locales have different cultures, but that is the same even within a nation's borders. The east coast is VERY different from the west coast, for instance.  Still the US. Still "americans."

In the same vein, somebody in europe is very different from me culturally, but I can still have a fellowship with them as a person living on earth.

[Loud Whispers]

I dunno. I have long ago abandoned nationalism as a mental illness that you need to get over, not something you need to cherish and love.
As such, I am more apt to embrace a global demographic. People in different locales have different cultures, but that is the same even within a nation's borders. The east coast is VERY different from the west coast, for instance.  Still the US. Still "americans."
In the same vein, somebody in europe is very different from me culturally, but I can still have a fellowship with them as a person living on earth.

It's easier to be global when you're the global hegemon
Though I am intrigued by the comparison between nationalism and mental illnesses, which particularly got me interested - I have not thought to place mental illnesses with political preferences, yet mental illnesses are increasingly significant in Western populations. Yet those in the countryside are nationalists, whilst those in the city capitals globalist, and the latter are are far greater at risk of mental illness.

Their analysis revealed that growing up in the city nearly doubled the likelihood of psychotic symptoms at age 12, and that exposure to crime along with low social cohesion (that is, a lack of closeness and supportiveness between neighbors) were the biggest risk factors. Although most kids who have psychotic symptoms will not develop schizophrenia as adults, Fisher notes, “In some of the other studies where we follow people later in life, we show that [psychotic symptoms] are actually related to lots of other [mental health] problems as well, so it's a broader marker for that.” These problems include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse.

However, this evidence is not conclusive - it's also as likely that mentally ill people move into cities, not necessarily that cities produce increases of mental illness. Still, the environment which produces nationalists is one that produces communities of neighbours, in areas of low-crime where there is a high trust community steeped in folk and communal bonds. A large, densely populated city is one where this cannot occur, wherein we act as individuals who meet so many people on a daily basis that it is beyond the ability of both our time and brains to deeply relate to and remember every relation we make. We cannot trust our neighbour, because we have so many and we do not know them well, and there are with certainty criminals and weirdos amongst their number - the streets are large, and the population larger. Without social cohesion, without the option to ever have community, are not urbanites forced to organize into units based on global categories for sensible socializing? I suppose that is the gift and curse of global citizens, who are emancipated from all social obligations to any preexisting units, yet are also alienated from being a member of any
I know I've got an American paper around here somewhere about what makes a city... Hmph. I'll post it later, as it brings up this interesting notion of how the city shapes its inhabitants by necessity, in manners which produce different ways of social interaction altogether. Perhaps they would have called us mad to consider it possible to have fellowship with another human being without ever seeing their face, except behind an electronic screen, I worry it is still so :/

[Reelya]

I dunno. I have long ago abandoned nationalism as a mental illness that you need to get over, not something you need to cherish and love.

As such, I am more apt to embrace a global demographic. People in different locales have different cultures, but that is the same even within a nation's borders. The east coast is VERY different from the west coast, for instance.  Still the US. Still "americans."

In the same vein, somebody in europe is very different from me culturally, but I can still have a fellowship with them as a person living on earth.

Well it's been mentioned by some theorists that the new divide is between globalists and nationalists.

That sort of explains some of the mutual back slapping between Trump and Kim Yong Un, Duterte, Putin. Even though they're coming from different points in the left/right spectrum in theory, they're all perhaps the same general type of leader in practice.

Having nationalist leaders in "enemy" countries in fact strengthens the nationalist leaders in your own country, so none of these guys actually want to see rival nations getting moderate globalist leaders. They don't care what economics or politics you pay lipservice too, as long as you're a strongman they can rail against.

Hence the hacking against the French liberal candidate recently. Even though Le Pen isn't going to be "friendly" with Putin & Co, having a hostile xenophobic French leader helps Putin because he doesn't really have to enter a dialogue with them. A concilatory person who actually wants dialogue is the last thing a strongman wants to face.