Print

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

[Helgoland]

Depends on your definition of socialist: What you call socialist I'd call social democratic (that's a thing in English as well, right?) or Soziale Marktwirtschaft (social market economy) policies. It has the added benefit of not creeping people out with the terminology

[Sheb]

German? That's a nazi policy!

[scriver]

What do you think the "social" in social democracy stands for if not social-ism, dude.

[Owlbread]

Perhaps if America actually had a decent socialist or left-wing movement things would be different. They need charismatic figures who can sell the idea of socialism and left wing policy to the masses.

[Reelya]

What do you think the "social" in social democracy stands for if not social-ism, dude.

People appropriate and change the meaning of words all the time. Remember, East Germany was "The German Democratic Republic" and North Korea is "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" - by that logic they MUST be Democratic, since it says so :/

The socialist economic system isn't compatible with capitalist free market system - social democracy is a hybrid of capitalism, democracy and reformism. Whilst they might approach things from a "social justice" point of view, the reforms under social democracy have nothing to do with socialist economic theories. e.g. you won't find a discussion of the "welfare state" in Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin or Mao

Socialism is defined as " social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy". Since true socialist systems stipulate the workers as the owners of the assets, no "welfare" is factored in, because there's no "other" to "hand out" "their stuff" - everyone is employed and their job provides them with a living. Until capitalist reforms, all benefits were provided by Chinese companies to their employees for life as part of their pay - hence there was no welfare system as such.

In social democratic countries, almost everything is owned by autocratic top-down private corporations, or run autocratically (top-down) by bureaucrats, with little input from the people who work for those organizations (worker participation in the management of their own workplace is a key element of socialist economics).

The "means of production" is privately owned, and the government is left to provide all non-producing, but still vital services - the stuff no corporation wants to run. That's not socialism - it's a band-aid on the capitalist system.

[scriver]

Socialism is both an ideology and an economic system. It is the idea of solidarity among the many - that us individuals should help each other out to form the benefit of all. A state running such things as free hospitals, schools, universites, etc, is a state with socialist policies. That makes it a partly socialist state.

Don't pretend that it's some sort of all-or-nothing bullshit. Socialism and capitalism goes together just fine, and the Scandinavian countries will show you.

The "means of production" is privately owned, and the government is left to provide all non-producing, but still vital services - the stuff no corporation wants to run.

Yeah, that's why you see the state running schools, hospitals, drug-stores, liquor-stores, power companies, police and prisons. Because no private corp wants to. 

That's not socialism - it's a band-aid on the capitalist system.

A socialistic band-aid.

[Owlbread]

Perhaps a "socialistic" plaster like you're talking about would be the most reasonable path to take for seeking acceptance of socialism in America, especially if it grew out of the "liberal" movement. I'll say it again, they just need credible politicians and good speakers to get it across. They also need to be able to convince people that their freedoms will not be sacrificed, but socialist countries often end up sacrificing personal and economic freedom for the good of society; it's less that you need to be free to do things but free from things i.e. free from poverty.

[Reelya]

The problem is the term is thrown out way to easily, and whilst there might be "socialist sentiment" which is in common, the goals and practices of socialist economics and reformism have little to do with each other. It just confuses the whole issue, rather than help if we lump everything from mild welfare reform to full communism under one banner.

Even conservatives has "compassionate conservatism". Bismarck created the first welfare state, and he was no socialist.

I'm sticking to the usage as per this article:

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

An excerpt pointing out what I was talking about:

The major difference between social democracy and democratic socialism is the object of their politics: contemporary social democrats support a welfare state and unemployment insurance as a means to "humanize" capitalism, whereas democratic socialists seek to replace capitalism with a socialist economic system, arguing that any attempt to "humanize" capitalism through regulations and welfare policies would distort the market and create economic contradictions.

Another:

Social democracy is not itself a socialist system. Rather, traditional social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of moving toward a socialist economy and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits. It is best demonstrated by the economic format which has been used in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland in the past few decades. This approach has been called the Nordic model.

[Nadaka]

"Socialist economic theories" "Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin or Mao"

Socialism isn't really an economic theory, though there are economic theories that are based on socialism. Socialism is the idea that government has an inherent and explicit obligation to defend the welfare and security of all its people, even (or especially) those disenfranchised by economics.

[Reelya]

"Socialist economic theories" "Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin or Mao"

Socialism isn't really an economic theory, though there are economic theories that are based on socialism. Socialism is the idea that government has an inherent and explicit obligation to defend the welfare and security of all its people, even (or especially) those disenfranchised by economics.

That's paternalism you're thinking of. And socialism is definitely an economic theory. esp. Marxism.

Again I will quote the encyclopedia reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.

Social ownership does not mean "the state". The end goal of socialist reform is actually the breakdown of economic class hierarchies. State enterprises are seens as a possible a means to that end - not the end itself.

And socialist theory was about empowering the workers, not creating a dependency on a "higher power", i.e. a nanny state.

Even when looking at the way "state socialists" differ from other types, EVERYTHING is about the economics:

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic political system.

[Nadaka]

Yea... I am going to go with wikipedia being wrong in this case.

And paternalism is definitely not appropriate to my words either.

[scriver]

Ayup. Wrong it is.

[Helgoland]

Socialism is both an ideology and an economic system. It is the idea of solidarity among the many - that us individuals should help each other out to form the benefit of all. A state running such things as free hospitals, schools, universites, etc, is a state with socialist policies. That makes it a partly socialist state.

Don't pretend that it's some sort of all-or-nothing bullshit. Socialism and capitalism goes together just fine, and the Scandinavian countries will show you.

I keep telling you: This is merely a difference in nomenclature, we all basically agree I think. So: Terminology debate!

Problem is: Socialism is ill-defined. Communism? Sure! Capitalism? Sure! Liberalism? Sure! Socialism? Eeeh... not so much.

That's not socialism - it's a band-aid on the capitalist system.

A socialistic band-aid.

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'.

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

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

[tahujdt]

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.

[Reelya]

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.