Print

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

[scriver]

The "democratic" in democratic socialism has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of economy it proposes.

Screw everyone else.

All you people are talking about Democratic Socialism, stop calling it Socialism.

(Then start calling it Socialism again, cause that is a quicker way of writing it, but understand what you mean is Democratic Socialism and not just Socialism.)

Meh, socialism doesn't mean anything anymore. USSR VS NSDAP, "socialist" vs "socialist", while Sweden is "socialist" as well as Wallonia. Yet four completely different political system. If you want to discuss the precise meaning of the world socialism, I don't think you'll get a lot of success. And it's not an interesting question.

Socialism's "meaningless" as a term because it is an over-arching super-lable of ideologies with roughly the same purpose and/or way of act. Same way conservatism and liberalism are also "meaningless" because they can mean so many things. Same with the big, non-saying music genres like "pop" or "rock". Meaningless, but not quite.

[Criptfeind]

That's Nazism(sorta)/Stalinism you're describing there as Socialism, which is something 19th century socialists were dead opposed to.

Yes. Socialism and Fascism are quite close. And yes 200 years ago words surprisingly did not mean the something/people were still stupid.

The Socialist/Communist term was appropriated in the 20th century by totalitarians as a facade.

Oh no. Words change meaning as they are further refined. Obviously using outdated terms is the correct way to go!

Seriously, you sound like a Tea partier here

"anarchist ideals" of individual liberty ("no rules") are not the same as "anarchist political ideas" which are about society as an amalgam of voluntary-membership democratic local councils. e.g. participatory democracy. There's still regional councils made up of delegates from the smaller councils etc, so there is a definite structure, and a natural market economy.

If you are electing people, your doing it wrong.

This no more or less requires us to trust our neighbour than any other similar system, such as representative democracy.

Because of course social stigma (or the neighbor in this case becoming a dictator) works so much better then laws.

That's Nazism(sorta)/Stalinism you're describing there as Socialism, which is something 19th century socialists were dead opposed to. The Socialist/Communist term was appropriated in the 20th century by totalitarians as a facade.

"anarchist ideals" of individual liberty ("no rules") are not the same as "anarchist political ideas" which are about society as an amalgam of voluntary-membership democratic local councils. e.g. participatory democracy. There's still regional councils made up of delegates from the smaller councils etc, so there is a definite structure, and a natural market economy. This no more or less requires us to trust our neighbour than any other similar system, such as representative democracy. Conservatives actually used to claim that giving the common man the vote would lead to stuff like killing in the street, rape

Communism (Marxism) had two stages. I'll explain my understanding of Marx's thinking:-

1 - Socialism. There's a constant struggle between "owners" and "employees". If the employees were themselves the owners, then where's the conflict? Marx's first idea is for the employees to become the owners/shareholders themselves (on a local company level which he called a Commune), and not be exploited by an "other" class. They would still be part of a market economy, and market incentives still exist with profit shares, competition between the communes etc. Central wage controls and taxation rather defeats the point of the whole exercise.

2 - Communism. Marx's second target is the dual hierarchy of economics and politics. The collectives created in stage 1 gradually take on the role of organizing society. They co-ordinate their actions through councils of delegates etc to a senate. This is certainly not "anarchism" in the "no rules" sense.

Noooo… That would be democratic socialism.

I find it scary that what you label "Socialism" - a form of Nazism/Stalism by your description is not utterly rejected by you (you're lukewarm on it), whereas systems based on local councils you find totally repulsive.

Because of course Fascism equals anti-semitism in the same way that Sweden is currently having wide spread famine under their oppressive ‘communist’ dictators.

Meh, socialism doesn't mean anything anymore. USSR VS NSDAP, "socialist" vs "socialist", while Sweden is "socialist" as well as Wallonia. Yet four completely different political system. If you want to discuss the precise meaning of the world socialism, I don't think you'll get a lot of success. And it's not an interesting question.

I know it is a bad idea, and it will never work. Also at anyrate we can seprate thouse four systems because we do not have to call them what they say they are.

The "democratic" in democratic socialism has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of economy it proposes.

See, it is stuff like this that is why I am slowly losing interest in talking about politcal systems.

You are basicly flat out wrong here.

Edit: Screw me. I tried to say something. This is what happens. Oh well.

[Leafsnail]

Oh no. Words change meaning as they are further refined. Obviously using outdated terms is the correct way to go!

I completely agree that we shouldn't stick to outdated terms.  So why not define socialism based on the socialist parties of today, rather than the Maoist/ Nazi/ Stalinist ideals you seem to be attaching to it?  It scarcely needs to be said that all three of those regimes no longer exist, wheras, say the Parti Socialiste does.

Noooo… That would be democratic socialism.

Socialism doesn't imply "not democratic" without the word "democratic".  I see absolutely no reason why it should, as it's an economic system.

EDITED: Screwed up quoting badly.

[Criptfeind]

I completely agree that we shouldn't stick to outdated terms.  So why not define socialism based on the socialist parties of today, rather than the Maoist/ Nazi/ Stalinist ideals you seem to be attaching to it?  It scarcely needs to be said that all three of those regimes no longer exist, wheras, say the Parti Socialiste does.

Because they are democratic socialists. They are not socialists. They do not call themselves socialist. When you go to wikpedia it does not call them socialist. The only people who call them socialist are the people are I argue with online about them being called socialist.

Socialism doesn't imply "not democratic" without the word "democratic".  I see absolutely no reason why it should, as it's an economic system.

You people. It is both economic and political. When your politics control your economy (Like they do in every politic thing we are talking about) it is both. You do not separate them.

Also yeah. Socialism would be like a non official democracy if it worked.

EDITED: Screwed up quoting badly.

I am honestly starting to feel you are picking on me here. I mean, when I say it you have to jump right on it and attack me on it, but when someone else said it you ignore them.

Fuck man, even if you are concentrating on me (which is fine) you already wrote it. I feel you are not arguing for a principle here, but arguing against anything I say.

[Leafsnail]

Because they are democratic socialists. They are not socialists. They do not call themselves socialist. When you go to wikpedia it does not call them socialist. The only people who call them socialist are the people are I argue with online about them being called socialist.

Whatever Wikipedia may think, the party name is still socialist and this applies to almost every "socialist" party.  And I'm not sure what you mean by "They do not call themselves socialists" since the first part of their principles says:

Être socialiste, c'est ne pas se satisfaire du monde tel qu'il est, c'est vouloir changer la société.

Being a socialist is not satisfied with the world as it is, wanting to change society.

In other words, they define what a socialist is and say that's what they are.  They go on to repeatedly refer to themselves as "socialists" throughout their list of aims.

You people. It is both economic and political. When your politics control your economy (Like they do in every politic thing we are talking about) it is both. You do not separate them.

Not convinced.  You can clearly have a democratic or non-democratic form of socialism, but why should you automatically assume the latter?

I am honestly starting to feel you are picking on me here. I mean, when I say it you have to jump right on it and attack me on it, but when someone else said it you ignore them.

Fuck man, even if you are concentrating on me (which is fine) you already wrote it. I feel you are not arguing for a principle here, but arguing against anything I say.

Actually, it's more to do with context.  Since I somehow managed to misread that part as attributable to you, I assumed it meant "This is what Marx said socialism means, therefore this is what I say socialism means", which might have been a valid interpretation if you actually did put that in your post.  However, Reelyanoob clearly wasn't making that point (and, as it turns out, neither were you), so the stuff I wrote would be completely meaningless as a reply to him (and you).

[Criptfeind]

In other words, they define what a socialist is and say that's what they are.  They go on to repeatedly refer to themselves as "socialists" throughout their list of aims.

I think we have a mistranslation here. I was talking about socialist countries. Specifically Sweden. Because it always seems that is what people first go to when talking about this. You are talking about a political part it seems? That’s… Okay. But I do not really care.

Not convinced.  You can clearly have a democratic or non-democratic form of socialism, but why should you automatically assume the latter?

Man… They are just words man. Democratic socialism has… Well not much at least to do with democracy. (Once again, if I got you wrong here I am sorry. You are quite frankly smarter then most people I argue with, so I am not quite sure what arguments to use here.)

Actually, it's more to do with context.  Since I somehow managed to misread that part as attributable to you, I assumed it meant "This is what Marx said socialism means, therefore this is what I say socialism means", which might have been a valid interpretation if you actually did put that in your post.  However, Reelyanoob clearly wasn't making that point (and, as it turns out, neither were you), so the stuff I wrote would be completely meaningless as a reply to him (and you).

Okay. Yeah. That works. Makes sense to me.

[Leafsnail]

I think we have a mistranslation here. I was talking about socialist countries. Specifically Sweden. Because it always seems that is what people first go to when talking about this. You are talking about a political part it seems? That’s… Okay. But I do not really care.

I dunno about mistranslation - it's a level of French which I feel fairly confident translating myself, and the word "democratic" definitely hasn't been accidentally omitted.

Doing something similar for Sweden would be harder, though, since the country obviously doesn't have a statement of beliefs anyway (and the ruling party doesn't regard itself as socialist or social democratic at all).

Man… They are just words man. Democratic socialism has… Well not much at least to do with democracy. (Once again, if I got you wrong here I am sorry.

Hmm... I guess it's just a matter of assumptions.  "Socialism" for me brings up the democratic kind by default, wheras I guess it might not for you (possibly due to cultural difference?).  I'd still say it is valid to call social democratic movements socialist, though, and Wikipedia (hooray for reliable sources!... yeah, I can't find a better one right now) would seem to agree:

Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist movements and organizations

Which would imply that anyone who you could call a "democratic socialist" could also be called a "socialist", and that the term "socialism" encompasses both this view and the authoritarian one.

...Of course, this is all obviously semantics, but I guess one of the biggest problems with socialism is defining it anyway.

You are quite frankly smarter then most people I argue with, so I am not quite sure what arguments to use here.)

Smart enough to completely misquote and misunderstand a post, apparently >.>

[Criptfeind]

Eh. I do not know anything about France. So eh.

And yeah. You are right.

"Socialism" for me brings up the democratic kind by default

This is quite true, I am just way to cynical.

[Starver]

I think socialism might be just that bad because, well, when you give power over to the government, eventually a total douchebag will be elected, appointed, or otherwise come into power. And then he passes some legislation that pretty much screws everyone over.

That's not purely the domain of socialist[1] governments.  But the obvious counter-example invokes Godwin's Law, so I won't continue on that subject.

In short, don't fear Socialism (per se, and I've no love for the "Socialist Worker" set, as seen in the UK, but neither was I impressed with the Thatcherite situation as I was growing up), fear Authoritarianism of any colour or hue[2] along the left/right part of the political spectrum.

[edit: Looks like more water passed under the bridge since the post I was replying to than I had thought.  To some degree, also my next post.  But I'd still like to say what I did, even if my non-Godwin stance has already been overtaken.]


[1] My impression is that "Socialist" to most 'Merkins means not much short of a Red Under The Bed, busy sending secret signals back to his KGB handlers in Moscow.  To me, it means a guy standing in the local shopping precinct distributing a slightly-to-the-left-of-Old-Labour 'red top' newspaper.

[2] Interesting that Red/Blue in UK is Labour(left)/Conservative(right), but currently in the US it is Republicans(right)/Democrats(left).  (All directions relatively speaking, of course, and New Labour tended to hedge to the right of the centre-ground in various matters...)

[Starver]

The original fascists regarded their ideology as "socialistic" insofar it geared all elements of society towards a national goal, set by the Leader.

Having said in my recent post[1] that I wouldn't Godwinise, I'd just like to point out that a certain political faction had the long-hand title of (translated to English) "National Socialist <Insert Obvious Country Name Here> Workers Party".  They even had a (mostly!) red flag!  Obviously pinko commies.

[1] Written a little while ago, but only just posted, and this thread is fast moving, so I'm probably intra-thread necroing a point with that, and this...

[Starver]

Also, cut all public education. Did you know that there isn't a single public elementary school in USA that generates profit?

That's what gets me.  If absolutely every single institution, business, etc, etc consistently and continually generates a profit, then aren't they just fuelling inflation, or (even worse) grabbing far too much in charges from the sectors they are serving?


Also, in not entirely unrelated point, did you know that 50% of all schools[1] have below average exam results!

[1] In any given supersample or subsample.

[lemon10]

Also, cut all public education. Did you know that there isn't a single public elementary school in USA that generates profit?

That's what gets me.  If absolutely every single institution, business, etc, etc consistently and continually generates a profit, then aren't they just fuelling inflation, or (even worse) grabbing far too much in charges from the sectors they are serving?

No, it doesn't. It just means they are screwing over their workers/everyone who isn't a shareholder.

[Reelyanoob]

Hmm... I guess it's just a matter of assumptions.  "Socialism" for me brings up the democratic kind by default, wheras I guess it might not for you (possibly due to cultural difference?).  I'd still say it is valid to call social democratic movements socialist, though, and Wikipedia (hooray for reliable sources!... yeah, I can't find a better one right now)

Well even Lenin ran multi-party elections in 1917 under his "communist revolution", but when other progressive groups got the majority of votes, he turned on them militarily. So the socialist expectations and promises at that point were of a democratic transition from the Russian Empire. They had to exterminate all other left-wing parties (Like the SR who got the most votes, etc) so that nobody was left to complain.

Also, cut all public education. Did you know that there isn't a single public elementary school in USA that generates profit?

And businesses certainly don't benefit from a guaranteed  supply of educated workers do they? Business get no benefit from their workers being able to get public transport to work either, or hospital care.

[DJ]

Socialism is more of a scale than a category. In total socialism *everything* is provided by the state, in zero socialism *everything* is provided by private businesses, including stuff like national defence and law enforcement. Obviously, no real country reaches either of these extremes. Democracy/dictatorship is a whole different political axis, though, and a country's political system can move along these axes independently.

[Phmcw]

Any of these definition have their pro and cons. You could use those of cictionary, too : 1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels Compare capitalism
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

But then again it show that you're all right. It' either the scale, the fuckton of so called socialist system or he Marxist definition. Just say wich one you are referring to.