Print

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

[Phmcw]

That would be me. Universal food stamps? OH HELL NO. That just screams 'Hello communism!'

Not really. Socialism and communism are two completely separate things that are often incorrectly associated with each other. Universal food stamps are towards the far end of socialism by providing the means of acquiring basic necessities. Production is still in the hands of private individuals/corporations.  But communism would mean state owned/run farms providing rations to everyone.

I myself am not even fond of the idea of universal foodstamps, but it is likely a better solution to the tiny amount of fraud and waste than gutting the system.

Whoh. I am pretty sure you are incorrect here. In Socialism the government does own the business. I am pretty sure you are (like we all are) thinking of Sweden, which is not 'Socialism.' They practices a form called democratic socialism, which is a much more mild version.

Edit: For clarification, I believe that communism in it's purer form can be thought of as anarchy+Socialism. Of course most people tend to think of communism as socialism and socialism as democratic socialism. (This leads down the line all the way to, at least, what we have in the US now with most people probably calling it capitalism.)

Well, we talked of it before. "Socialism" is awfully vague, now. Socialists party are pretty big in Europe, and they defend what you call "democratic socialism". The right are usually called liberals, too.

[PTTG??]

This is getting really sad. The intellectual tools people need to discuss politics rationally have been removed from the education system. Things are reduced to communism or fascism, or both, despite the obvious impossibility of that.

Let's do it this way:

A universal food stamp program is a part of [concept A].
Government ownership of farms is a part of [concept B].

Parts of [concept A] and [concept B] are similar, but they are distinct.

A universal food stamp program does not require government ownership of farms.

A universal food stamp program may be judged on it's own merit, not on the merit of [concept A], [concept B], government ownership of farms, or societies that have made use of same.

It is, however, reasonable to compare relevant historical information from said societies in these considerations, so long as a connection exists between the information in question and the use of a universal food stamp system.

Now stop arguing semantics.

[Criptfeind]

No. Lets not do it that way. I dislike that way. That way is misinforming.

[Nadaka]

That is one of the problems with politics, people make up meanings to words that are already well defined.

Socialism is fundamentally a form of government that seeks to ensure the general well being of all (or at least as many as possible) of its citizens through instruments of the state.

Communism is fundamentally a form of government where the state controls the means of production and distribution of materials that are shared with all the people, and in turn the people as a whole control the state.

I practice, no one ever lives up ANY abstract political concept, so people redefine words to mean other crap.

[PTTG??]

No. Lets not do it that way. I dislike that way. That way is misinforming.

How is it misinforming?

[Criptfeind]

No. Lets not do it that way. I dislike that way. That way is misinforming.

How is it misinforming?

How you have these as parts of concepts.

They are concepts in of themselves. And when you put connect A and concept B (as well as others that are not in this exercise) together then you get a system. This system in this case is called socialism. You do not pick and chose and whatever you end up with you call socialism. Socialism is a set of concepts. If you do not have all the concepts that is fine, but it is not socialism.

That is one of the problems with politics, people make up meanings to words that are already well defined.

True. They do. But, did you make sure your definition is the correct one?

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a theory or system of social organization  that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

All only minor variations of the same theme. None of them as you said.

[Nadaka]

I may sound crazy, but the dictionary is wrong. It is stating the more popular perversion of the word.

[Taricus]

I may sound crazy, but the dictionary is wrong. It is stating the more popular perversion of the word.

You aren't. That description does happen to be wrong.

[Sowelu]

Huh.  Time for me to update my definition to the dictionary version I guess.

[Criptfeind]

I may sound crazy, but the dictionary is wrong. It is stating the more popular perversion of the word.

You aren't. That description does happen to be wrong.

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd we fall into what is the point of a word if no one uses it? Seriously, if a word is used in such a way, by everyone from academics to pedestrians, what makes it so that a couple fourmites can decide that everyone else is wrong?

(Note, at this point Criptfeind stops talking to Taricus and goes back to Nadaka without outward sign.)

I am still almost sure that you are (almost (technically almost all governments try to do what you say)) wrong.

...

Wait...

I got a idea that can let us both walk away right here.

We can define Socialism as both the over term for dem soc, soc, ect ect and as a specific subset of socialism. That way we can both be right.

Deal?

[Nadaka]

The problem with redefining socialism to what the dictionary states is that we already have a perfectly good word that has the same meaning. Communism.

By making socialism a synonym for communism you impoverish the language and our culture by removing the only word with the original meaning of socialism.

This is double think in action. By redefining language you can remove the ability to talk and eventually think about an idea because there are no words to express it.

[Sowelu]

See Nadaka, your definition isn't any good either though, and it's equally corrupt.

"Socialism is a form of government that cares about its peoples' well-being!" implies "No other form of government cares about its peoples' well-being."

[Nadaka]

See Nadaka, your definition isn't any good either though, and it's equally corrupt.

"Socialism is a form of government that cares about its peoples' well-being!" implies "No other form of government cares about its peoples' well-being."

I mentioned earlier that no one ever lives up to abstract ideals. Every reasonable government in the last 300 years implements socialism to some degree or another.  Feudalism didn't.

[Criptfeind]

The problem with redefining socialism to what the dictionary states is that we already have a perfectly good word that has the same meaning. Communism.

By making socialism a synonym for communism you impoverish the language and our culture by removing the only word with the original meaning of socialism.

This is double think in action. By redefining language you can remove the ability to talk and eventually think about an idea because there are no words to express it.

My same logic from earlier refutes that.

You are using communism wrong.

See Nadaka, your definition isn't any good either though, and it's equally corrupt.

"Socialism is a form of government that cares about its peoples' well-being!" implies "No other form of government cares about its peoples' well-being."

I mentioned earlier that no one ever lives up to abstract ideals. Every reasonable government in the last 300 years implements socialism to some degree or another.  Feudalism didn't.

You kidding? Feudalism was closer to socialism (according to the accepted definition) then much of what we have now.

[Glowcat]

The problem with redefining socialism to what the dictionary states is that we already have a perfectly good word that has the same meaning. Communism.

Communism is closer to what Criptfiend said. It's a form of semi-anarchy where the workers directly control the means of production.

The dictionary definition of Socialism is either uselessly broad, or a statement that all governments follow a Socialist ideology to some degree. All governments in history have distributed resources to some degree, although not usually to the general public's benefit until recently.