Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It isn't even evidence of life. It's just organic, which means it's a molecule containing carbon, nothing more.

[Nadaka]

The presence organic material is not evidence of life, any more than the presence of silicon dioxide with traces of copper and gallium is evidence of computer.

[Scoops Novel]

Amazingly i managed to confuse the observational capacity's of curiosity and the satellite observing mercury from the comparisons to tar or coal. Forgive me, not exactly in my most attentive state at the moment by a long shot.

[Helgoland]

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.

Okay, let's just stop this before things get flamey, because I know I have a tendency to get unpleasant. Just one thing: "So does everyone" is not exactly an argument if a significant portion of people here, on Wikipedia and probably everywhere where this is talked about use it differently.

The dictionary is wrong and it is wrong with an agenda.

Seriously? (Alright, I'm getting flamey. Post terminates in 3, 2, 1)

[scriver]

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.

Okay, let's just stop this before things get flamey, because I know I have a tendency to get unpleasant. Just one thing: "So does everyone" is not exactly an argument if a significant portion of people here, on Wikipedia and probably everywhere where this is talked about use it differently.

And I say it's the opposite, it is Ndaka's and my definition that is used everywhere outside of American blame-politics and similar situations. Nobody here in Scandinavia denies that our prosperity was built on socialism and by socialists, for example.

[Sheb]

It depends what you call socialism. It's a word with shifting definitions, so this naturally makes discussion difficult.

[Helgoland]

I guess Sweden also has two major parties - is the left one the Socialist or the Social Democrat party?

It depends what you call socialism. It's a word with shifting definitions, so this naturally makes discussion difficult.

Exactly.

[scriver]

I guess Sweden also has two major parties - is the left one the Socialist or the Social Democrat party?

It's both.

[Reelya]

The scandinavian countries have a very high proportion of government spending, but also a very high proportion of government employees, and things like true public corporations. To me, that's more true state socialism than just throwing money at the private sector (i.e. America's food stamps).

One problem with expanding the definition of socialist too much, is that it might start to encompass things you don't want in your definition:

e.g. is the army "socialist"? It's government owned, government employees, they provide wages, education and health care to army personnel etc

[Helgoland]

Well, in 1918 the sailors of the Hochseeflotte were the ones who started the German revolution; they were pretty red back then

I guess Sweden also has two major parties - is the left one the Socialist or the Social Democrat party?

It's both.

What's it called?

[RedKing]

Well, in 1918 the sailors of the Hochseeflotte were the ones who started the German revolution; they were pretty red back then

Admittedly, that probably had less to do with economic ideology than a big "Geficken Sie" to the German Admiralty who were ready to sacrifice the entire German Navy in one last glorious battle.

[Darvi]

I think what you were going for is "Fick dich".

[Nadaka]

The scandinavian countries have a very high proportion of government spending, but also a very high proportion of government employees, and things like true public corporations. To me, that's more true state socialism than just throwing money at the private sector (i.e. America's food stamps).

One problem with expanding the definition of socialist too much, is that it might start to encompass things you don't want in your definition:

e.g. is the army "socialist"? It's government owned, government employees, they provide wages, education and health care to army personnel etc

Part of the military mission is "socialist", but not just because it provides jobs to a lot of people. Providing a defense against potential military aggression by other countries is in the interest of the welfare of the people.

[scriver]

They're called the Social Democrats, and they are socialists. Because social democracy is a form of socialism.

And if you're trying to claim that "one party is called 'the Social Democrats' another 'the Socialists' so that proves they're not socialists", or anything like that, you might want to acknowledge that Sweden doesn't have a party of the latter kind, so such an assertion would automatically fail.

[GreatJustice]

Right, so I know I was responded to somewhere back 3 pages or so, but I don't want to be arguing two entirely separate things at the same time so unless you really want to keep it going (in which case you can repost it), I'm going to move on.

The scandinavian countries have a very high proportion of government spending, but also a very high proportion of government employees, and things like true public corporations. To me, that's more true state socialism than just throwing money at the private sector (i.e. America's food stamps).

One problem with expanding the definition of socialist too much, is that it might start to encompass things you don't want in your definition:

e.g. is the army "socialist"? It's government owned, government employees, they provide wages, education and health care to army personnel etc

The Scandanavian countries can be called "socialist" straight up (and since this is a nomenclature debate, I'm not even going to get into all the associated problems there), but the US is "socialist" in its own way. It leans more towards "fascist" or "corporatist" though, in which the state, the corporations, and the unions all kind of play off each other for control where needed in certain sectors. Hence, the US has a lot of huge, influential corporations like GM, Goldman Sachs, and GE, which in turn generally have large, powerful unions representing their workers, and all of them are both heavily tied to and influenced by the US government. In a lot of ways they exist outside the market economy because of how closely tied they are to the government so far as contracts, regulations, etc go. It isn't outright socialism as in Europe, but it's certainly a type of socialism and definitely isn't capitalistic.