Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Thus they kept the Social Welfare component, but generally reneged on the economic component, i.e. government/cooperative ownership of the means of production.

---

Quote:

---

If you mean Socialist economics, I have to go back again the the classic consensus definition as noted above. Government/cooperative ownership of the means of production. Not regulation, not taxation - ownership.

---

Quote:

---

So they left Socialist economic principles behind and became Social Democrats, or Democratic Socialists, with a platform that didn't even address economy.

---

Quote:

---

Not really, since the NHS doesn't earn any dollars to use to provide benefits. Instead it's supported by tax revenue from privately-owned industries and the people they employ. Also "socialized" and "Socialist" aren't the same thing.

---

Quote:

---

The term is often used in the U.S to create an understanding that the health care system would be run by the government, thereby associating it with socialism, which has negative connotations in American political culture [15].

---

Quote:

---

so·cial·ize (ssh-lz)
v. so·cial·ized, so·cial·iz·ing, so·cial·iz·es
v.tr.
1. To place under government or group ownership or control.

---

Quote:

---

so⋅cial⋅ize
  /ˈsoʊʃəˌlaɪz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-lahyz] Show IPA verb, -ized, -iz⋅ing.
Use socialised in a Sentence
–verb (used with object)
1. to make social; make fit for life in companionship with others.
2. to make socialistic; establish or regulate according to the theories of socialism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
So you're agreeing with me, Social Welfare is socialist?

---

Quote:

---

It's a watering down of Marx's original idea, but I don't see any reason to divorce it completely.

---

Quote:

---

The term (Socialised Healthcare) is often used in the U.S to create an understanding that the health care system would be run by the government, thereby associating it with socialism, which has negative connotations in American political culture [15].

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
The governments in Europe who call themselves "Socialist" while doing nothing to nationalize the means of production are "Socialist" in pretty much the same way the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is "Democratic" or run by the "People".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Not really.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
To me (and most dictionaries), "Socialist", in economic terms, still applies only to government/communal ownership of the means of production. "Social Welfare" or "Social Democrat", applies to governments that exist in a country with a (predominantly) capitalist economy, which use taxation of the capitalist enterprises and their employees to advance their egalitarian social (not socialist) agenda.

---

Quote:

---

It rejects or ignores the major premise of Marx's central idea - that the government, and eventually the people, would own the means of production.

---

Quote:

---

Rather than the people being cared for exclusively based on the fruits of their labour, they are cared for based on taxing the fruits of successful private capitalist businesses and the employees of those businesses.

---

Quote:

---

I agree it's not 'pure' Capitalism, but it still relies on private enterprise, not government owned enterprise, as the means to generate revenue to support the state. The same logic would deny that any government in Europe (or in fact the world) is socialist because there is always some private ownership of the means of production. Consider that even in the Atlee government, no more than 25% of business was nationalized (per the Wiki article you cited), and much less is nationalized now.

---

Quote:

---

A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates a mixture of private and government ownership or control, or a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry, but that's politics, not logic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I beg to differ, you said that Social Democracy took Social Welfare from Socialism.

---

Quote:

---

Is there any government in Europe that calls itself socialist??

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Nope.

---

Quote:

---

"With its ascendancy, social democracy changed gradually, most notably in West Germany. These changes generally reflected a moderation of the 19th-century socialist doctrine of wholesale nationalization of business and industry."

Thus they kept the Social Welfare component, but generally reneged on the economic component, i.e. government/cooperative ownership of the means of production.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
That would only be true if Social Welfare were exclusive to Socialism. However, government created and supported Social Welfare can exist in pretty much any economic or governmental system. Consider Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security in the U.S. Even Nazi Germany had a strong Social Welfare system.

---

Quote:

---

Your argument, using your example, is like saying the ten commandments aren't Christian, because other things have commandments.

---

Quote:

---

Um no, the modern welfare state comes from the Social Democracy movement, which is socialism that rejected certain ideas of Marx

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Is there any government in Europe that calls itself socialist??

---

Some parties are 'socialist' - this from wiki's socialism page:

"Many social democrats, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as "socialists", introducing a degree of ambiguity to the understanding of what the term means."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So in other words, the answer to economic oppression is government, and the answer to government oppression is democracy (or, failing that, revolution).

---

Quote:

---

is competition

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
back to the issue that capitalism naturally evolves to monopolism through non-governmental processes such as economies of scale.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
...I'm saying that Social Welfare programs are a socialist ideal, coming from Socialism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
And here we are, back to the issue that capitalism naturally evolves to monopolism through non-governmental processes such as economies of scale.

---

Quote:

---

Relying on "competition" as the antidote to economic coercion is a pipe dream.

---

Quote:

---

But without governmental intervention, there will always be a new generation of small competitors rising to challenge the big fish-Ct

---

Quote:

---

Except that it doesn't. Large organizations* come with very real disadvantages that, in a free and unfettered market, smaller independent competitors can take advantage of.-Sarge

---

Quote:

---

There seems to be a lot of genuine wishful thinking about government, and how warm and fuzzy it can be. It's not. Politicians represent THEIR interests, not yours. They will, and do, trample over everyone - women, men, children- in their rush for maximum power and dominance. That is the nature of the beast. Haven't the last two years taught you anything? Politicians are GREEDY. Short-sighted. Interested ONLY in power. Sheesh!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Absolutely NOT....Startups generally...er, start up...

---

Quote:

---

The family farms were swallowed up by Cargill and Monsanto.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
No, hang on. The ten commandments are specific to christianity, whereas it hasn't been established yet by you or anyone that social welfare is specific to socialism, or originated as a specifically socialist idea. So my argument is like saying you cannot define commandments as 'christian', because other religions also have them. Because you're defining social welfare as socialist aren't you?

---

Quote:

---

Introduced interestingly by Germany under Otto von Bismarck, a staunch anti-socialist heading a government that certainly wasn't a social democracy, it wasn't even a democracy.

---

Quote:

---

But anyway, here I've shown you an idea for social welfare dating back to the French Revolution in 1789 - predating social democracy, predating marx and predating socialism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
However, I can't find any reference stating that Social Welfare programs originated with Socialist thought. Given that forms of Social Welfare have existed since the beginning of recorded history, such as the Roman food welfare system - complete with food stamps (tesserae), I'd have to question your assumption that Socialism was the progenitor of Social Welfare.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezer:
I'm not sure why some Social Democrats insist on calling themselves Socialists,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
When you come down to it, just about every country has a mixed economy, but most are weighted heavily in favor of private ownership of TMOP, so they have more of a Capitalist/Free-market rather than Socialist economy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
As for Social Welfare, absent some proof that it originated in classical Socialist thought, and given the fact that it was around in various forms long before Socialism was developed, I'd say any form of government or economy has the right to provide it without having to pay Socialism for the privilege.

---

Quote:

---

Absolutely not--AS LONG AS THERE IS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. And how exactly were they swallowed up by Cargill and Monsanto? With government intervention.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So, just to bump this up: CTS, Sarge, I can show you many governments which are responsive to their people under consistent pressure.

---

Quote:

---

Can you show me any occasion in which a mature industry de-consolidated?

---

Quote:

---

The problem is, they are very responsive to corporations under consistent pressure as well, more so than to their people.

---

Quote:

---

Not in recent history, because of government intervention.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
This didn't happen because the factory farm can grow pork and chicken cheaper per unit than the family farm????

---

Quote:

---

This didn't happen because the family farm is prevented (BY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION) from inventing new technology that will make them more efficient and cost effective and more profitable than the factory farm.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
So old industries fail when new technologies are developed. That's not de-consolidation.

---

Quote:

---

The world wide web is "still in its infancy", the web's inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee has told BBC News.He was speaking ahead of the 15th anniversary of the day the web's code was put into the public domain by Cern, the lab where the web was developed and that the technology for the world-wide web

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
LIKE WHAT????

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
But the TREND is towards monopolism. Always.

---

Quote:

---

I say if left alone, the trend is a cycle, where the monopoly breaks when new revolutionary technology is introduced.

---

Quote:

---

But what do you think about how recently major corporations that were dying were bailed out and gulped up by the government? Necessary government intervention to save the economy, or a scary sign of just how closely interrelated government and corporations are? Or something else?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I actually knew you were going to mention Roman Bread, but since that's actually rather unlike the concept of Social Welfare, I really can't see where you why it would prove anything.

---

Quote:

---

It seems to me the crux of your argument depends on only applying it to one side and not the other.

---

Quote:

---

Beyond that, I'm fairly confident I have shown that the modern concept of Social Welfare, at it's maximum the Welfare State, came from Socialism through Social Democracy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
which is sometimes abetted by government intervention,

---

Quote:

---

but which is primarily driven by free-market economics?

---

Quote:

---

And what I say is that consolidation happens very quickly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA "free market" is concerned... the drive within capitalism, if you will, is towards monopolization, with or without government help.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So what's your concept of Social Welfare this time around? Apparently you believe (contrary to most definitions) that it has nothing to do with providing services (like the Roman Bread) to those who need them.

---

Quote:

---

The economic test of Socialism versus Capitalism/Free Market is the ownership of The Means of Production (TMOP). In Socialism, the State owns TMOP. In Capitalism/Free Market, investors or individual entrepreneurs own TMOP. Since Capitalism/FM is only an economic system, you can't compare it to anything but the economic definition of Socialism. Looking at who owns TMOP in most reasonably free countries the private sector, investors or individual entrepreneurs, holds more - mostly much more of TMOP. Therefore, from an economic standpoint, most countries are more Capitalist/FM than Socialist.

---

Quote:

---

Well, you've said it, but I'm still waiting for some other evidence that Social Welfare originated in classical Socialist thought.

And again, it'd be interesting to know how you define Social Welfare, since it seems you don't agree with any of the definitions available.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
But really, I find it strange you'd need me to point out the difference between Social Welfare, paid for by the state, and Roman Bread, paid for by rich private citizens out of their own pocket, who were seeking office.

---

Quote:

---

How come you now rely on the fact that Socialism is a social and economic system in your argument, when before you were rather willing to ignore it and only deal with the economic side of things?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Also, your definitions seem to focus solely on Socialist Economics, but since Socialism is a social and economic system, that's necessarily missing at least half the picture.

---

Quote:

---

Anyway. Private ownership of the means of production has been the watch word of of many economic systems. People owned and operated their own shops, smithies and farms under Feudalism. Mercantilism was all about private ownership. The Roman Economy was dominated by private ownership, even in Imperial times.

---

Quote:

---

Regardless, modern social welfare are systems enacted and paid for by the state, usually with some level of state ownership, for the ultimate purpose of improving social equality. As a big rough overview.

Roman Bread was never about social justice or equality, and it wasn't paid for by the state.

---

Quote:

---

Everywhere I look I see that Social Welfare, and the Welfare State with which it is virtually synonymous, and Social Democracy are indelibly linked. That Social Democracy grew from Socialism, merely being a moderation of Socialist policies and ideals.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
As for Roman Bread being a political tool, try changing NHS and see how political it gets.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
True. So I'll drop mention of any particular economic system involving private ownership and just use private ownership of TMOP itself as the test. And due to private ownership of TMOP, none of the systems you mention were a Socialist economy, just like no country in Europe currently has a Socialist economy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer
Or would you disagree that the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Doctors Without Borders, etc. are Social Welfare organizations? The Carnegie Corporation, set up by one of the most notorious Capitalists of all time, provides Social Welfare in the form of education. Need I mention the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Social Welfare.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
And I see Social Welfare springing from all types of political and economic systems and from both State and private sources.

---

Quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Geezer:
I'm not sure why some Social Democrats insist on calling themselves Socialists...

---

Quote:

---

Here though, your argument is subtly different, here it's more like saying because any one of the Commandments can be found in another place none of them are remotely Christian. So if a pre-Christian society had a law against murder (#6 thou shalt not murder), then that commandment can't be Christian, which means none of them are.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduced interestingly by Germany under Otto von Bismarck, a staunch anti-socialist heading a government that certainly wasn't a social democracy, it wasn't even a democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You need to look up some history. Germany had elections and it had a Social Democratic Party, founded in May 23, 1863. Laws were formed by the Parliament, the Lower House, the Reichstag, was elected by universal male suffrage. The SDP was banned until 1890, but was still able to gain seats in elections, which allowed them to get the ban repealed. The pension plan was enacted to appease the labour movement, so I don't see how it's proof of what you claim.

---

Quote:

---

Pensions could be the exception that tests the rule

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Something being only a political tool and something being political are two entirely different things.

---

Quote:

---

I never said they were (Socialist eonomies). Neither are they Capitalist. I said modern economies, are Mixed Economies, that mix Capitalist and Socialist thought. That is what I said, that is what I've said throughout.

---

Quote:

---

Actually I was rather hoping that we'd be clear that I was talking about state social welfare, the welfare state, social safety nets, things of that nature.

---

Quote:

---

You think the Red Cross and the NHS are the same thing then do you? Because I'm fairly sure they're not.

---

Quote:

---

But ok, I'll adjust my argument, or at least make the context clear. It makes no odds to what I'm saying either way, so here goes: State Social Welfare programs, come from Socialism.

---

Quote:

---

But I asked it earlier of KPO specifically, but I might as well ask you too, what is Socialist? Remembering that if it's not unique to Socialism, it can't be Socialist.

---

Quote:

---

THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future - to a real radical democracy from below. The Socialist Party fights for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. We support militant working class struggles and electoral action, independent of the capitalist controlled two-party system, to present socialist alternatives. We strive for democratic revolutions - radical and fundamental changes in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations - to abolish the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. The Socialist Party is a democratic, multi-tendency organization, with structure and practices visible and accessible to all members.

---

Quote:

---

What is Socialism?
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.

In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions

---

Quote:

---

And for the record, no, I wouldn't call the Red Cross or any of the others Social Welfare. Welfare organisations certainly, but not Social Welfare.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
But people (if you consider politicians people) use NHS, Social Security, etc. as a political tool. Pretty much any State-driven Social Welfare program has been used as a political tool at one time or another.

---

Quote:

---

But proportionately there is, throughout Europe, less State ownership of the means of production than private ownership. So their economies are less Socialist than something else.

---

Quote:

---

Okay, now you're just using a circular argument. State Social Welfare programs can only come from Socialism, therefore any State which implements a State Social Welfare program must be Socialist.

---

Quote:

---

Again, I'm not saying that Social Welfare suddenly makes a nation 100% socialist, I'm saying that Social Welfare programs are a socialist ideal, coming from Socialism.

---

Quote:

---

Well, let's ask the Socialists.

---

Quote:

---

Darn, it all goes back to that 'owning the means of production' thing, doesn't it?

---

Quote:

---

Feel free to disagree with most definitions of Social Welfare.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Just pointing out a bit of history that was interesting (and relevant) - not 'claiming' anything. Are you trying to argue that a Social Democrat party played an important role in forwarding the idea of a pension system? Fine, I can happily concede that.

---

Quote:

---

Introduced interestingly by Germany under Otto von Bismarck, a staunch anti-socialist heading a government that certainly wasn't a social democracy, it wasn't even a democracy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Exceptions disprove a rule I'm afraid, unless you can account for them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Think about it, this idea for state social welfare predates the socialist movement completely - you can't just treat it as an anomolous example because it shows that the whole philosophy of the state providing welfare for its citizens existed before socialism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
As to your subtle shift towards defending a position of 'modern' social welfare for socialism - I'm not really interested in contesting a re-framed debate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
The important thing is to establish that any philosophy now or in the future can subscibe to the idea of state provided social welfare, without having to give all the credit to social democracy or socialism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Irrelevent, Roman Bread was just a political tool, that's where it's ethos began and ended. The same isn't true of the NHS.

---

Quote:

---

If we accept your statement that it can't be socialist unless it's 100% Socialist. I don't.

---

Quote:

---

I'm saying that Social Welfare programs are a socialist ideal, coming from Socialism.

---

Quote:

---

It's your stance that something can't be Socialist unless it's enacted by a 100% perfect Socialist state...

---

Quote:

---

...it's my position that a Government that isn't socialist can put socialist programs into place, and still not be Socialist.

---

Quote:

---

If I was interested in asking the Socialists, I'd ask the Socialists. I very clearly asked you, if you can't answer the question, feel free to say so.

---

Quote:

---

Except since state ownership of the means of production isn't unique to socialism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So the Poor Law of 1601 came from Socialism?

---

Quote:

---

No it's not, and you know it.

---

Quote:

---

I've said that for a State to be recognized as having a Socialist economy a majority of the means of production (probably a sizable majority) should be in the hands of the state.

---

Quote:

---

That can be your position all day long,
but you still have not given any valid evidence that State Social Welfare programs must originate from Socialism. That was your original argument, and when I asked for cites I got none. I have asked repeatedly and still get nothing more than your opinion. All I'm asking is one good reference that State Social Welfare must come from Socialism.

---

Quote:

---

I'm perfectly pleased with the definitions provided by the U.S. and British Socialist parties. Their platforms describe very well what I've always considered Socialism. I figured if I just stated it myself, you'd ask for cites or say it was incorrect.

---

Quote:

---

No, but per the Socialist organizations cited above, it is a major plank in their platform.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
No, but it's (Poor Law of 1601) not social welfare by any standard used here either, so it's really rather irrelevant.

---

Quote:

---

It created a system administered at parish level,[17] paid for by levying local rates on rate payers.[18] Relief for those too ill or old to work, the so called 'impotent poor', was in the form of a payment or items of food ('the parish loaf') or clothing also known as outdoor relief.

---

Quote:

---

Which is really rather irrelevant, since I've been talking about mixed economies.

---

Quote:

---

I've given plenty of evidence (that State Social Welfare programs must originate from Socialism)...

---

Quote:

---

Or in other words you can't answer the question (what is socialism?).

---

Quote:

---

Another thing that's quintessential to Socialist thought is the State caring for the people. That's right in there too, but my god if you won't perform mental back flips to deny it...

---