Print

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

[scriver]

How about this: Capitalism with a band-aid is a social democratic, communism with a band-aid is socialism. That way each term has a clearly defined and useful meaning, and we no longer alienate people when calling reasonable and good policies 'socialist'.

[..]Fakeedit: I'll vote with Wikipedia, because the thing Nadaka describes is already covered by the term social democratic.

Ehnope. It's both socialism. The very thing that makes social democracy social democracy is it's socialist policies.

[Reelya]

And, because terminology debates get boring/repetitive quickly: What do you think of paternalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

nothing wrong with it, if used sparingly. all laws are paternalistic by the standard definitions. Anytime you say "don't do that - it's for your own good". sometimes it's heavy-handed, but sometimes you're right.

[tahujdt]

In a capitalist society, you look out for the government by looking out for yourself. Capitalism takes advantage of people's natural selfishness and improves society with it. It gives you the chance to get filthy rich, but by the same token the stuff upon which you became filthy rich will help others. If you're an oil magnate, the oil you help produce helps people. If you produce electricity, that goes to help the people. So, you help society by helping yourself. That is why I am against government subsidies. They take money away from what people need and give it to what the government thinks people need.

HOLY DOUBLE NINJA, BATMAN!

[Owlbread]

And, because terminology debates get boring/repetitive quickly: What do you think of paternalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

nothing wrong with it, if used sparingly. all laws are paternalistic by the standard definitions. Anytime you say "don't do that - it's for your own good". sometimes it's heavy-handed, but sometimes you're right.

Paternalism isn't a problem as long as the people have a direct role in the creation of paternalistic laws. The last thing we want is a group of people sitting at the top of the government claiming that they "are the people".

[Nadaka]

Your idea of a government looking out for people regardless of economic system - isn't socialism by any definition i can find:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : 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

1 = collective control of production and distribution of good (i.e. economic production)
2 = no private property, or all state-owned property
3 = marxist definition of socialism.

"welfare" and service provision by a government in a capitalist economy don't fit any of the dictionary definitons. All the definitions are at core, economic systems.

Socialism makes no assertion on the validity of private ownership of property, that would be an aspect of collectivism.

I think that there's a fair statement. It doesn't matter whether you're a socialist or capitalist, we can agree that the two don't really mix. Capitalism cannot be socialized"humanized", and any attempts to do so will meet with increasing levels of bureaucratic resistance.

I am still a die-hard Conservative War-Monger because I think that the markets are far to complex to "fix", but that does not (overmuch) influence my judgement upon a socialism/capitalism hybrid.

You are wrong. Capitalism can coexist with socialism, because the two are not mutually exclusive. Socialism makes no demands on who may own or control the means of production as long as the state acts in the defense of its peoples welfare.

[Helgoland]

Ehnope. It's both socialism. The very thing that makes social democracy social democracy is it's socialist policies.

In your nomenclature, yes; I got that the last couple of times I was proposing a new nomenclature to differentiate between the various forms of socialism as defined by you. If you want, we can start talking about socialism_scriver and social democracy_Helgoland, with a conversion table for translations. But just using one is easier. (And apparently a significant chunk of the internet disagrees with your terminology; that doesn't make it less valid, but more inconvenient. Think about it as talking about socialism in French and talking about socialism in Afrikaans: Different words, same meaning.)

Your idea of a government looking out for people regardless of economic system - isn't socialism by any definition i can find:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : 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

1 = collective control of production and distribution of good (i.e. economic production)
2 = no private property, or all state-owned property
3 = marxist definition of socialism.

"welfare" and service provision by a government in a capitalist economy don't fit any of the dictionary definitons. All the definitions are at core, economic systems.

Socialism makes no assertion on the validity of private ownership of property, that would be an aspect of communism or some flavors of statism.

Well, socialism originally referred to a step in the development towards (true) communism: Public ownership of means of production, but still meritocratic as long as there would be insufficient wealth to create true communism.)

[Reelya]

I guess you know better than the people who compile dictionaries and encyclopedias both.

http://www.workers.org/2008/us/socialism_1106/

The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property#Socialist_perspective

Socialist perspective

In general, socialists view private property relations as limiting the potential of productive forces in the economy. They believe private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralized, socialized institutions based on private appropriation of revenue until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant. With largely reduced capital accumulation from the original class of owners, private property in the means of production is to be replaced with a free association based on public or common ownership of socialized assets.

You are wrong. Capitalism can coexist with socialism, because the two are not mutually exclusive. Socialism makes no demands on who may own or control the means of production as long as the state acts in the defense of its peoples welfare.
[/quote]
not by any formal definition.

[Nadaka]

Socialism was the GOAL of communism, not its means. And communism is not the only method of working towards that goal.

[Reelya]

What are you talking about? you have that reversed. Marx held that socialism was the first step, communism was the end point. And Marx is the guy who coined the term Communism, so you'd guess he knew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism.

^ socialist economic system, specifically.

[Helgoland]

Marxism 101, really. Though we should be glad they no longer teach that - in the Eastern Bloc, it was an actual subject!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yes, to Marx communism was the utopic ideal to reach, socialism and people's revolution were the methodology.

[Nadaka]

The definition you are using is absolutely identical to communism in every way.

Communism is socialist. Yes... that is probably something that can be agreed upon.

Does that mean that socialism is communism? Not by my usage of the word. And not even by Marx's usage of the word. The only people who agree that socialism is nothing more or less than communism are the people who use both words as insults.

The ultimate goal of communism was the equality of mankind, to remove one mans power over others. The method of achieving that equality was by distributing wealth and decision making to the community as a whole. That goal was never really achieved outside of a handful of tiny communes, and was most likely unachievable by the means attempted.

Is food stamps communist? Not by any rational definition.
Is food stamps socialist? Yes.

Is unemployment insurance communist? Not by any rational definition.
Is unemployment insurance socialist? Yes.

How do we actually describe any government policy/action/system that is intended to benefit all people, particularly those who are disenfranchised in some other way? We call it socialist. So does everyone. That is the defacto definition of socialism. The dictionary is wrong and it is wrong with an agenda.

[Scoops Novel]

When, exactly, will the general population care about climate change. We found what points to fucking life on Mercury and i doubt many people know. How many years?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Organic Material =/= Life

[Scoops Novel]

Evidence of life, forgive me    . (brain-belch, i believe it's called)