Socialism

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Monday, August 26, 2024 16:07
VIEWED: 8535
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:08 PM (P)

http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html

Stalin's Purges

Summary

Under the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin, tens of millions of ordinary individuals were executed or imprisoned in labour camps that were little more than death camps. Perceived political orientation was the key variable in these mass atrocities. But gender played an important role, and in many respects the Purge period of Soviet history can be considered the worst gendercide of the twentieth century.

The background

According to the historian Robert Conquest, Joseph Stalin "gives the impression of a large and crude claylike figure, a golem, into which a demonic spark has been instilled." He was nonetheless "a man who perhaps more than any other determined the course of the twentieth century."

Joseph Stalin
Stalin was born Joseph Dzhugashvili in the Georgian town of Gori in 1879. In his youth he imbibed both the seminary training and the Great Russian nationalism that many would later link to his tyrannical exercise of power. He was an early activist in the Bolshevik movement, where he first assumed the pseudonym Stalin (which means "man of steel"), and was twice exiled to Siberia by the Tsarist authorities. When the Russian Revolution triumphed in October 1917, Stalin returned from exile, and was named General Secretary in 1922. The post was largely an undistinguished administrative one, but Stalin used it to fortify his power base and control over the bureaucracy of the ruling Communist Party. When the communist leader, Vladimir Lenin, died in 1924, a struggle for control broke out that pitted Stalin against his nemesis, Leon Trotsky, and a host of lesser party figures. Stalin's victory was slow and hard-fought, but by 1927 he had succeeded in having Trotsky expelled from the party and, in 1929, from the country (Trotsky was tracked down and killed by Stalin's agents in Mexico City in 1940).

By 1928, Stalin was entrenched as supreme Soviet leader, and he wasted little time in launching a series of national campaigns (the so-called Five-Year Plans) aimed at "collectivizing" the peasantry and turning the USSR into a powerful industrial state. Both campaigns featured murder on a massive scale. Collectivization especially targeted Ukraine, "the breadbasket of the Soviet Union," which clung stubbornly to its own national identity and preference for village-level communal landholdings. In 1932-33, Stalin engineered a famine (by massively raising the grain quota that the peasantry had to turn over to the state); this killed between six and seven million people and broke the back of Ukrainian resistance. The Ukrainian famine has only recently been recognized as one of the most destructive genocides of the twentieth century (see Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow, and the Web resources compiled by The Ukrainian Weekly). The Five-Year Plans for industry, too, were implemented in an extraordinarily brutal fashion, leading to the deaths of millions of convict labourers, overwhelmingly men. These atrocities are described in the corvée (forced) labour case study. The millions of deaths in Stalin's "Gulag Archipelago" (the network of labour camps [gulags] scattered across the length and breath of Russia) are dealt with in the incarceration/death penalty case study.

A leader whose callous disregard for human life was matched only by his consuming paranoia, Stalin next turned his attention to the Communist Party itself. Various factions and networks opposed to his rule had managed to survive into the early 1930s; many in the party were now calling for reconciliation with the peasantry, a de-emphasizing of industrial production, and greater internal democracy. For Stalin, these dissident viewpoints represented an unacceptable threat. Anyone not unquestioningly loyal to him -- and many hundreds of thousands who were -- had to be "weeded out." The Communist Party would be rebuilt in the image of the "Great Leader." This was the origin of the "cult of personality" that permeated Soviet politics and culture, depicting Stalin as infallible, almost d

SIGNYM

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:16 PM (P)

SOCIALISM: SWEDEN, DENMARK, FRANCE, AND GERMANY

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:17 PM (P)

You're actually describing Communism there Sarge

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:19 PM (P)

Heh... I was actually making a point that it's silly to blame the evil that men do on political systems, economic systems, religions or ideologies. People do evil, not systems. But I'm supposing you knew that.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

SIGNYM

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:23 PM (P)

People do evil because the system allows/ rewards it. It has a lot to do with what people accept, and/or are willing to commit in order to right a wrong. Government oppression is checked and balanced though a functioning democracy. What is YOUR answer to economic oppression, if any?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But I'm supposing you knew that.

Actually I thought you were playing tit for tat with Rue.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Heh... I was actualy making a point that it's silly to blame the evil political systems, economic systems, religion or otherwise. People do evil, not systems.

So you're saying Fascism a good thing with a bad name, sullied by the likes of Hitler?

Some systems are conducive to 'evil' in one way or another. Or at least can't help rewarding and furthering baser instincts that lead to harm. One aspect of communism for instance means that if you steal, you haven't just taken a bit of cash from pay roll, embezzlement that can expect a prison term, you've stolen the necessities of life from everyone man woman and child! How can you possibly come up with a punishment strong enough for that?

Fascism is a system that largely requires subjugation as a matter of course, why can't we call such a system 'bad'?

SIGNYM

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:35 PM (P)

Well, but then Sarge might have to confront the idea that his favorite "ism" might not be as good as some other "isms".

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:36 PM (P)

All right. I'll play. Human trafficking, slavery and the like are atrocities. They should be illegal. In most civilized countries they are. But simply outlawing something doesn't mean there won't be miscreants who pursue it anyway.

We should do much more than we are to hunt down these bastards down and put them out of business. Fortunately, it's relatively easy to put a stop to their activities once we catch them.

Governments commit atrocities too. Maybe not as often as individuals, but they tend to be more persistent and dedicated once they get on a roll. If we concentrate enough power in the hands of government, and the wrong people find their way to the controls, well, Stalin happens. And it's much, much harder to stop that kind of atrocity.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:46 PM (P)

Actually, I take it back - about the "I'll play" part. I've been trying to focus more on getting things done and this thread would likely turn into a huge time sink.

So tell us all about "economic coercion" and I'll do my best to avert my eyes and resist telling you how full of shit I think you are.

Maybe later.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

SIGNYM

Friday, June 26, 2009 5:47 PM (P)

So in other words, the answer to economic oppression is government, and the answer to government oppression is democracy (or, failing that, revolution).
ETA

Quote:
So tell us all about "economic coercion

And you wonder why pro-capitalist libertarianism doesn't get more traction??? You are so far out of the loop of everyday experience that most peeps react to your screed like you just grew a horn in the middle of your forhead. And no wonder.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

GEEZER

Friday, June 26, 2009 6:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SOCIALISM: SWEDEN, DENMARK, FRANCE, AND GERMANY

None of these states have a Socialist economy. In none of these countries does the state own the means of production. Not even a majority of the means of production. They're all capitalist economies with a heavy social welfare component supported by the taxes levied on the capitalists and their employees.

Just because you continue to call Social Welfare states Socialist states does not mean that they are.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Friday, June 26, 2009 7:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SOCIALISM: SWEDEN, DENMARK, FRANCE, AND GERMANY

None of these states have a Socialist economy. In none of these countries does the state own the means of production. Not even a majority of the means of production. They're all capitalist economies with a heavy social welfare component supported by the taxes levied on the capitalists and their employees.

Just because you continue to call Social Welfare states Socialist states does not mean that they are.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

And just because the right continues to call Obama a socialist ALSO does nott mean that he is.

It's humorous, though - every time someone mentions nationalized health care (where the state wouldn't OWN the healthcare industry, but would be the single payer that gets billed), people come running to scream "Socialism! Bad!" - and they always point at such "socialist" places as... SWEDEN, DENMARK, FRANCE, AND GERMANY. Oh, and the UK.

So if the left and the right can agree that THEY aren't socialist places, maybe we can also agree that healthcare isn't socialism any more than the fire department is socialism.

Deal?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

BYTEMITE

Friday, June 26, 2009 7:09 PM (P)

Huh, I always thought social welfare states were considered somewhat socialist, in that they require workers to give up a certain percentage of their income, and direct it towards state sponsored programs that redistribute wealth to the less fortunate.

In America, there are two socialist parties, the democratic socialists, and the social democrats. The democratic socialists reject capitalism, and call for an economy managed entirely by worker unions. The social democrats advocates a mixed ecomony blend of socialism and capitalism with a social welfare state.

Quote:
There is not one single definition for a mixed economy, but relevant aspects include: a degree of private economic freedom (including privately owned industry) intermingled with centralized economic planning and government regulation (which may include regulation of the market for environmental concerns and social welfare, or state ownership and management of some of the means of production for national or social objectives). ~wikipedia

So you see, it is possible to be socialist AND capitalist, and social welfare states are kind of sort of socialist states.

KWICKO

Friday, June 26, 2009 7:09 PM (P)

Quote:
... I'll do my best to avert my eyes and resist telling you how full of shit I think you are.

Gosh, Sarge... coming from you, that means...

well, almost nothing!

After all, you think Stalinist Communism is synonymous with socialism!

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 7:24 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
None of these states have a Socialist economy. In none of these countries does the state own the means of production. Not even a majority of the means of production. They're all capitalist economies with a heavy social welfare component supported by the taxes levied on the capitalists and their employees.

Just because you continue to call Social Welfare states Socialist states does not mean that they are.

Social Welfare is Socialist. As is regulation. Just because you say they aren't doesn't mean that you're right.

GEEZER

Friday, June 26, 2009 8:20 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Social Welfare is Socialist.

Cite one reputable source which supports this interpretation.

Every definition of Socialism I can find stresses either state or cooperative ownership of the means of production and either curtailment or abolishment of private property.

Here's a compilation of definitions.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4HPIB_enUS308US308&defl=en&q=
define:socialism&ei=Vy1FSpCVIY7SMs-ttd0M&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PIZMOBEACH

Friday, June 26, 2009 8:37 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SOCIALISM: SWEDEN, DENMARK, FRANCE, AND GERMANY

What I take away from this whole "Socialism" spin is how little faith we in the US seem to have in ourselves. As someone else has mentioned it's not the ism as much as the people working it. I still believe that we have some of the smartest fraking people available on this planet to maximize whatever ism we choose, so why do so many have such little faith? Feels like it's just more empowering to dismiss and discredit.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 9:19 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Cite one reputable source which supports this interpretation.

Isn't the clue in the name?

Your definition sounds more like Communism to me, and Communism is certainly a type of Socialism, but it's not all there is. What about Social Democracy? 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.

What's the essence of Social economics? Central Government control? What's the essence of Capitalist Economics? Government staying out of the way? In which case surely that makes regulation of markets socialist by their very definition?

Or as Wikipedia puts it (since it's convenient and short):

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.

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

Wikipedia's entry on Socialism makes mention of the foundation of the NHS as well as other social programs under the "Social Democracy in Power" section:

Quote:
The post-war social democratic governments introduced social reform and wealth redistribution via state welfare and taxation. The new U.K. Labour Government effected the nationalizations of major public utilities such as mines, gas, coal, electricity, rail, iron, steel, and the Bank of England.[33] To wit, France claimed to be the world's most State-controlled, capitalist country.[34]

In the UK, the National Health Service provided free health care to all of the British population. Working-class housing was provided in council housing estates, and university education available via a school grant system. Ellen Wilkinson, Minister for Education, introduced free milk in schools, saying, in a 1946 Labor Party conference: Free milk will be provided in Hoxton and Shoreditch, in Eton and Harrow. What more social equality can you have than that? To wit, Clement Attlee's biographer says this contributed enormously to the defeat of childhood illnesses resulting from bad diet. Generations of poor children grew up stronger and healthier, because of this one, small, and inexpensive act of generosity, by the Attlee government.

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

That's just a starter, since Wiki isn't really the best source on which to base an argument, come on, I know you were thinking it.

Encyclopedia Britannica says:

Quote:
[Social Democracy]
political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes.
...
After World War II, social-democratic parties came to power in several nations of western Europe—e.g., West Germany, Sweden, and Great Britain (in the Labour Party)—and laid the foundations for modern European social-welfare programs.
...
The Marxist view of democracy as a “bourgeois” facade for class rule was abandoned, and democracy was proclaimed essential for socialist ideals. Increasingly, social democracy adopted the goal of state regulation, but not state ownership, of business and industry as sufficient to further economic growth and equitable income.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551073/social-democracy

Rather gives me the feeling that Social Welfare programs are an intrinsic part of Social Democracy, and that in turn Social Democracy is a form of Socialism.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Here's a compilation of definitions.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4HPIB_enUS308US308&defl=en&q=
define:socialism&ei=Vy1FSpCVIY7SMs-ttd0M&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

From your google:
"The view that the government should own and control major industries using the dollars earned to provide benefits to citizens."
Doesn't that describe a socialised health industry?

KPO

Friday, June 26, 2009 9:28 PM (P)

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by citizen:
Social Welfare is Socialist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cite one reputable source which supports this interpretation.

Every definition of Socialism I can find stresses either state or cooperative ownership of the means of production and either curtailment or abolishment of private property.

He's not even defining socialism, he's defining social welfare; ie. social welfare is socialist by definition - which is even worse. Social welfare could maybe be claimed as a tenet of socialism (though I don't like this sprawling and misleading definition of socialism), but that doesn't mean social welfare has to be 'socialist' - it can be a tenet of many other philosophies also, and not just exclusive to 'socialism' (citizen's definition of).

An example of what I mean; Christians believe in parents loving their children - does that mean parents loving their children anywhere in the world is 'Christianity'?

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 9:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
He's not even defining socialism, he's defining social welfare - ie. social welfare is socialist by definition; which is even worse. Social welfare could maybe be claimed as a tenet of socialism (though I don't like this sprawling and misleading definition of socialism), but that doesn't mean social welfare has to be 'socialist' - it can be a tenet of many other philosophies also, and not just exclusive to 'socialism' (citizen's definition of).

How about you back up that assertion from one reputable cite? Or even reading and responding to my post honestly for once would be a start...

KPO

Friday, June 26, 2009 9:52 PM (P)

It wasn't an assertion it was logic, so I've nothing to back up really. But, since it's easy to -

You want me to link social welfare to another philosophy in a few easy steps, like you did to reach socialism?

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare

"Accordingly, many people refer to welfare within a context of social justice"

Now here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

"It is a part of Catholic social teaching"

And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching

Catholic social teaching, a tenet of Catholicism. To quote: "Catholic social teaching encompasses aspects of Catholic doctrine"

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 10:16 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
It wasn't an assertion it was logic, so I've nothing to back up really. But, since it's easy to -

You want me to link social welfare to another philosophy in a few easy steps, like you did to reach socialism?

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare

"Accordingly, many people refer to welfare within a context of social justice"

Now here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

"It is a part of Catholic social teaching"

And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching

Catholic social teaching, a tenet of Catholicism. To quote: "Catholic social teaching encompasses aspects of Catholic doctrine"

Heads should roll

Well, if that's the progression you call logical, I don't doubt you have nothing to back up your 'logic'. Social Democracy is a form of Socialism, and Social Welfare is an integral part of Social Democracy.

Your progression on the other hand is far more tenuous, for instance no where in your link is it shown that Government Social Welfare programs integral, or even a part of Catholic social teaching. Seems your 'logic' is entirely based on equivocation.

In fact turning your argument around on you, all those things you claimed were "capitalist" in a previous thread aren't capitalist at all. Your logic does a better job of dismissing your own arguments than they do mine.

EDIT:
Also, you yourself made the case that Socialism was all about social equality rather than "economics", now you turn around and say programs of social equality can't be called socialist?

So what exactly is socialist in your view? It can't be state control of the means of production, because Fascism also shows that, and Fascism isn't Socialist in the least.

KPO

Saturday, June 27, 2009 1:08 AM (P)

Quote:
Social Democracy is a form of Socialism, and Social Welfare is an integral part of Social Democracy.

Social justice is an integral part of Catholic doctrine, and Social Welfare is a form of Social justice. Hey, I'm making the same links you are!

Quote:
Well, if that's the progression you call logical

This whole process was illogical (social welfare isn't catholic by definition) - I was copying you and coming up with a contradictory result to show you that. You obviously missed what the logic was that I was referring to, go back to my first post that you knee-jerk dismissed and try to find it.

Quote:
Also, you yourself made the case that Socialism was all about social equality rather than "economics"

I suggested that socialism was a system for organising* production that was useless because its primary interest was achieving social justice, and not in making things productive. And that social justice could be achieved to a large extent another way, through social welfare, which is best funded by an economy whose businesses are capitalist, like Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France.

*Organising it by putting it in state/collective hands, essentially.

Heads should roll

BYTEMITE

Saturday, June 27, 2009 1:22 AM (P)

Religious socialism is socialism too, in my opinion. All of them are about trying to help the less fortunate. Unfortunately, socialism in some cases has been subverted as a control mechanism, and also as an excuse for leaders to take power and never give it back. I denounce that sort of false socialism.

FUZION

Saturday, June 27, 2009 1:45 AM (P)

Quote:
You're actually describing Communism there Sarge

The term "communism" is generally used to refer to an ideology which is a subset of socialism, or to refer to specific socialist societies which emerged in the 20th century. Either way, usage of the term "socialism" is correct.

Quote:
I always thought social welfare states were considered somewhat socialist

Um no, the modern welfare state has roots dating back to classical liberal thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and even Adam Smith. Specifically, people started realizing that certain factors prevent equality of opportunity from being evenly distributed and the more intellectually honest liberals began to notice that these factors are very prevalent in society and that someone should do something about them.

Certainly, there was socialist influence but primarily in the area of the policy rather than ideology.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 27, 2009 2:07 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Cite one reputable source which supports this interpretation.

Every definition of Socialism I can find stresses either state or cooperative ownership of the means of production and either curtailment or abolishment of private property.

you mean like General Motors? like AIG? like Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac? is it cooperative ownership when the government subsidizes an industry? this is insane

BYTEMITE

Saturday, June 27, 2009 2:18 AM (P)

Did they advocate government administering social programs? On the level that a social welfare state does? And the centralization of certain business essential to national stability like the mixed economy that most social welfare states have?

I admit that "liberal" means to be giving and generous to the less fortunate. I don't know if the term accurately describes the philosophy when it was invented...

But when we say social welfare state, we are describing a certain system of government that did not exist at the time of the development of liberalism as an ideology, nor one that the fathers of liberalism could have predicted, let alone advocated. I think it's perhaps inaccurate to say a social welfare state stems from a liberal ideology. However, liberal ideologies can promote aspects of a social welfare state.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:28 AM (P)

we could use the term progressive, since they coopted the word liberal to hide their totalitarian/communist leanings

FUZION

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:32 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Did they advocate government administering social programs? On the level that a social welfare state does? And the centralization of certain business essential to national stability like the mixed economy that most social welfare states have?

I admit that "liberal" means to be giving and generous to the less fortunate. I don't know if the term accurately describes the philosophy when it was invented...

But when we say social welfare state, we are describing a certain system of government that did not exist at the time of the development of liberalism as an ideology, nor one that the fathers of liberalism could have predicted, let alone advocated. I think it's perhaps inaccurate to say a social welfare state stems from a liberal ideology. However, liberal ideologies can promote aspects of a social welfare state.

As I stated, the modern welfare state has roots in classical liberal theory, in the sense that it is based off essentially the same ethical and sociological framework. However, the progression of the idea becomes particularly apparent as you read some later liberals, perhaps between 1870 and 1940; maybe even a bit later.

To be a liberal does not mean anything remotely similar to "be giving and generous to the less fortunate". Liberalism is based around equality of opportunity. This is just as true today as it was in the days of classical liberalism. The primary difference is that there came a time when people slowly started realizing that unbridled competition doesn't actually create equality of opportunity. Then the more intellectually honest ones realized the public domain has to make up the difference. For example, despite Adam Smith's reputation as the posterboy for division of labour, if you actually read The Wealth of Nations you will find he thought that the division of labour can create excessively repetitive tasks that dull personal development even as it improves efficiency, and argues that unless government prevents it the mass of the people will become mentally stunted by this process.

In other words, they realized that if something in society (eg. systemic, institutionalized forms of oppression) prevented people from realizing their freedoms that the government was obligated to fix it. As time went on it became increasingly apparent that these factors are in fact very common in the modern age, so liberals increasingly called for state intervention to do things like pay for public fire departments, regulate the water supply, etc. This was a very logical step for liberalism to take and it's not really until the later 20th century that people started claiming that these are not liberal positions. You see, back when theorists became increasingly aware of problems in society which prevent equality of opportunity, a bunch of them just shut their ears and yelled really loudly.

To summarize, the core values and methods of liberalism have remained largely intact during the transition from classical to modern liberalism and the welfare state is a product of the theory's adjustment to a world of new facts and ideas.

KWICKO

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:01 AM (P)

Quote:

What's the essence of Social economics? Central Government control? What's the essence of Capitalist Economics? Government staying out of the way? In which case surely that makes regulation of markets socialist by their very definition?

So I take it that Geezer will agree that the U.S. system isn't any more "capitalist" than some of those European systems are "socialist". We're all a mish-mash, and some of the systems that seem to work BEST are the same ones that are geared more towards "socialism" than the U.S. is.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:07 AM (P)

By 1940, you're referring to the new deal and the development of social security?

Okay, I'll agree with that, that they were proposed from a liberal platform.

KWICKO

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:09 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
we could use the term progressive, since they coopted the word liberal to hide their totalitarian/communist leanings

You mean the same way "conservatives" co-opted that word to hide their totalitarian/fascist leanings, and their desire to "conserve" those facets of society?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

FUZION

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:15 AM (P)

It's adorable when people try to compare liberalism and socialism in that way. If there is a quicker way to find out that someone has no knowledge of political philosophy, I haven't heard it!

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:24 AM (P)

So, under socialism will everyone get a pony? Cause that would be cool. Either that, or a mini-bike. You should have your choice, a pony or a mini-bike.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

FUZION

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:30 AM (P)

Under capitalism, one person in North America gets both while a starving child in a Third World country who built the mini-bike gets nothing and no choice!

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:32 AM (P)

Exactly. It's time for a change.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:41 AM (P)

You'd have to feed a pony. But the mini-bike would require gasoline. I'm leaning toward a pony.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

FUZION

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:42 AM (P)

Ponies require a stable, cleaning, food, etc.

the upkeep costs are surprisingly high

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:45 AM (P)

Ok, we'd have to make sure everyone got food and stuff for their ponies. And gas for their mini-bikes. And parts and stuff if it breaks down.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

FUZION

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:06 AM (P)

is this actually going anywhere

FUZION

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:13 AM (P)

well if it helps stir up any discussion I'd like to point out that I am a proponent of revolutionary socialism (specifically, Marxism-Leninism mixed with Maoism-Third Wordlism)

before, I was an anti-Stalinist, but over the past few years I've become increasingly aware that Stalin, despite his flaws, was a net positive in the world and that figures which suggest he killed tens of millions of people are grossly exaggerated

the criteria used to determine who was a victim of a particular economic system (in this case, communism) are inconsistent. if the same criteria were applied to capitalism we would find the death tolls are so vastly high so as to be nigh incomparable

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:20 AM (P)

Whatever. I'm tired of worrying so much about matters of principle. Justice, freedom, individual dignity - bah. Why fight fashion? It's especially silly in my case, 'cause I got nothing to lose. I'm unemployed with zip in the bank.

Let's get this party started. I say we start redistributin' tomorrow!

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

FUZION

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:28 AM (P)

Redistribution of wealth within First World countries is a mostly frivolous exercise. The vast majority of that wealth was not actually created IN the First World, so why is it only being redistributed there?

I do not consider workers in the First World to be exploited. On the contrary, just about everyone there is part of the upper class which lives off the labour of the global poor. Even people such as those who are unemployed reap the benefits of this labour through the liberal welfare state.

Consequently, I don't see people in the First World as agents for bringing about meaningful change. Nor do I see them as victims. The sort of socialism I advocate would, without a doubt, be detrimental to the living quality of these people. There is simply not enough resources in the world for everyone to live as they do in countries like the United States or Canada.

And as for "justice, freedom, and individual dignity". Most advocates of capitalism are certainly tired of them! They advocate justice, freedom, and dignity for a small minority while specifically denying those things to the vast majority.

Here is something fun to read,
http://www.naomiklein.org/files/resources/pdfs/budhoo.pdf

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:32 AM (P)

As long as I get a pony.
Or a mini-bike.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

SERGEANTX

Saturday, June 27, 2009 6:12 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fuzion:
before, I was an anti-Stalinist, but over the past few years I've become increasingly aware that Stalin, despite his flaws, was a net positive in the world and that figures which suggest he killed tens of millions of people are grossly exaggerated.

Ya know, I check up on this online, and you're totally right. No way he killed more than 4 or 5 million, and most of them had it comin'. He was really nice to kids too.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

FUZION

Saturday, June 27, 2009 6:34 AM (P)

Yeah 4 or 5 million is pretty much the figure I would use. As to whether most of them had it coming- well, I would say that many of them did. You may not recognize most of what these people did as being criminal, but likewise I would not recognize much of what people in US prisons do as criminal! What is deemed necessary to land a person in prison, or work camp, varies depending upon context and certainly in many places counter-revolution was certainly considered a crime.

Despite the amount of deaths caused, communism in the USSR (as well as other places- namely the People's Republic of China) had numerous positive effects, including nearly doubling life expectancy. Not to mention that thing about stopping that one guy who wanted to do the citizens of the USSR what settlers did to the natives of the Americas. Think his name was Hitler.

As for whether he was really nice to kids. I don't know! Stalin was probably pretty damn insane and not a likeable person but that doesn't mean he did not do good things [as well as bad].

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 27, 2009 9:44 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Social justice is an integral part of Catholic doctrine, and Social Welfare is a form of Social justice. Hey, I'm making the same links you are!

Actually you aren't. You're straw manning my argument and using equivocation to make irrelevant links.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
This whole process was illogical (social welfare isn't catholic by definition)

Yes, your progression was illogical, as is how you try to use it to dismiss my statements. I note for the record you've been unable to deal with what I said, and have instead gone off on an irreverent tangent, constructed a straw man and attacked that. Good job!

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I was copying you and coming up with a contradictory result to show you that.

You're really not, no matter how often you repeat yourself, it doesn't make it true. You're making an illogical argument, and then just saying it's the same as what I am doing, but it isn't in the slightest.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You obviously missed what the logic was that I was referring to, go back to my first post that you knee-jerk dismissed and try to find it.

Actually you 'knee jerked dismissed' my statements, how about you read your first post and maybe you'll find it. You've obviously missed the logical progression behind what I'm saying, that's in turn completely missing from your own attempt. The fact is, I get where you're coming from, and why you think your example is the same thing, so I haven't missed anything. It just so happens you're wrong, you're the one missing something and your link is neither logical nor remotely relevant. Maybe if you bothered to read my posts and see why and how I got to where I did, rather than just immediately dismissing it because you don't want to accept it, you'd realise the logic of my position, and the illogic of your objection.

You're trying to say that, my argument is that Social Welfare is mentioned in Social Democracy, which is mentioned in Socialism, therefore Social Welfare is Socialist. That's the sort of progression you put up for Social Welfare programs being Catholic, that you say is exactly what I was doing. But it is not the logical progression I'm using in any way shape or form, and trying to pass that off as what I'm doing, is a straw man of my actual argument. Are you too pro-capitalist to accept that maybe good stuff can come from systems other than Capitalism, and we can incorporate them for a better society, without being completely socialist? Is this what a centrist gets for trying to talk to pro-capitalists and pro-socialists?

Because at the moment your terribly logical argument would dismiss that any nation has a capitalist economy, which pretty much lays the 'logic' of your argument open now doesn't it.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I suggested that socialism was a system for organising* production that was useless because its primary interest was achieving social justice, and not in making things productive. And that social justice could be achieved to a large extent another way, through social welfare, which is best funded by an economy whose businesses are capitalist, like Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France.

*Organising it by putting it in state/collective hands, essentially.

Yeah but other systems do all that as well, so you dismiss your own argument with your logic. So I ask again, what is 'Socialist'? Remembering, using your logic, it can't be socialist if it's mentioned or used anywhere outside of Socialism.

Your stand point is inherently illogical, I've shown quite clearly that Social Democracy is a form of Socialism, I've also shown quite clearly that the Social Welfare systems we're talking about are implemented by Social Democracies and Social Democratic thinking. In return you've tried to claim I'm making irreverent leaps, by making irreverent leaps yourself and erroneously saying "I'm just doing what you did". Your argument is asinine and has very little to do with what I

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 27, 2009 9:58 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Ya know, I check up on this online, and you're totally right. No way he killed more than 4 or 5 million, and most of them had it comin'. He was really nice to kids too.

Just 4-5 million? The estimates for 1926-1937 are about 8.5 Million alone.

I've seen predictions that show Russia should have a population of about 300 million, roughly analogous to the United States, if Stalin hadn't killed all them folk. Russia's actual population today is 140,702,096.

Fun fact about Stalin. He ordered a census to be taken in 1937, to find out the population or the Soviet Union. When the Census takers (censors?) came back, the figure was too low, because Stalin had killed so many people, so he had the Census takers shot. Then made up new figures to be published.

Great man, real fun guy at parties, apparently liked dancing, that is he liked other people to dance for his amusement and if they didn't he'd have them executed. Absolute life of the party, got the right mix of abject terror and dancing every time.

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 27, 2009 10:04 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fuzion:
The term "communism" is generally used to refer to an ideology which is a subset of socialism, or to refer to specific socialist societies which emerged in the 20th century. Either way, usage of the term "socialism" is correct.

I said that myself, and I also said (actually it may be in the other thread) that there's more to socialism than just communism, in which case equating Socialism and Communism in this way is decidedly incorrect. Fascism is a right wing ideology, it's not correct to say the Right wing is responsible for the holocaust.

Quote:

Um no, the modern welfare state has roots dating back to classical liberal thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and even Adam Smith. Specifically, people started realizing that certain factors prevent equality of opportunity from being evenly distributed and the more intellectually honest liberals began to notice that these factors are very prevalent in society and that someone should do something about them.

Um no, the modern welfare state comes from the Social Democracy movement, which is socialism that rejected certain ideas of Marx, such as Democracy being bad, and the necessity for state ownership of the means of production.

GEEZER

Saturday, June 27, 2009 2:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Your definition sounds more like Communism to me, and Communism is certainly a type of Socialism, but it's not all there is.

Not my definition, just a compilation of the overwhelming majority of what you get when you google "Socialism definition".

Quote:
What about Social Democracy?

The Social Democracy movement right after WWII was as close as Europe got to Socialism - exemplified by the Atlee government in England, as you noted. However, as also included in the Britannica article:

"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:
What's the essence of Social economics? Central Government control?

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:
Wikipedia's entry on Socialism makes mention of the foundation of the NHS as well as other social programs under the "Social Democracy in Power" section:

Yep. As noted, Europe flirted with Socialism after WWII, but, from the same Wikipedia article:

"In the 1980s and 1990s, western European socialists were pressured to reconcile their socialist economic programmes with a free-market-based communal European economy. In the UK, the Labour Party struggled much; Neil Kinnock made a passionate and public attack against the Party's Militant Tendency at a Labour Party conference, and repudiated the demands of the defeated striking miners after a year-long strike against pit closures. In the 1990s, released from the Left's progressive pressure, the Labour Party, under Tony Blair, posited policies based upon the free market economy to deliver public services via private contractors."

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

"In 1989, at Stockholm, the 18th Congress of the Socialist International adopted a Declaration of Principles, saying that

Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice, and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents, and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society."

Quote:

From your google:
"The view that the government should own and control major industries using the dollars earned to provide benefits to citizens."
Doesn't that describe a socialised health industry?

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.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:32 PM (P)

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.

So you're agreeing with me, Social Welfare is socialist?

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.

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

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

Even so that doesn't deny that Social Welfare is Socialist. What would you call Regulation enacted from a central source? It sure isn't Capitalism.

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.

The Wikipedia Article on Socialised Healthcare says:

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].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
The Relevant entry in the 'free dictionary' is:

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.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialized
Kinda sounds like socialism.

Dictionary.com says:

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.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialised

I did a number of searches on Google to see if anything would pop up suggesting that Socialised and Socialism were distinct, nothing did.

GEEZER

Sunday, June 28, 2009 2:21 AM (P)

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

Not really. 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.

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

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. 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:

Even so that doesn't deny that Social Welfare is Socialist. What would you call Regulation enacted from a central source? It sure isn't Capitalism.

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:
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].

Sorry, but that's politics, not logic.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:06 AM (P)

I know a girl who's favorite "ism" isn't political.

It's not religious either.

Although she is on her knees a lot for it.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

AGENTROUKA

Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:15 AM (P)

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".

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

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Not really.

I beg to differ, you said that Social Democracy took Social Welfare from Socialism. The rest of your paragraph rather sounds like back peddling.

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.

I've shown quite clearly that Social Democracy is a system coming from Socialism, saying you don't accept that because you want to adhere to a rigid definition that only takes account of Marx's original idea and ignore that things can change and expand over time, doesn't hold much water for me. If we take that and apply it to capitalism, then only systems identical to those described in the Wealth of Nations are Capitalist, that is no nations are Capitalist. If we apply it too Democracy only those nations identical to those described by Plato are Democracies, that is, none are.

Further I've shown that 'Socialised' is a word denoting Socialism put into action, which further lends credence to Socialised Welfare systems being Socialist, doesn't it? I mean you did rather skate around that issue, so I do have to ask.

Even further, you seem to be reaching a point where you have nothing more to argue, so you just wave at the dictionary definition and demand we take that at face value. But I'm sorry you need more than that, Dictionaries define words, but we're trying to define an abstract concept. We're talking about the concept Socialism, not the word Socialism. A dictionary or thesaurus can tell me that Socialised means putting some aspect of Socialism in to action, it can't give me a debate winning concept of what Socialism is.

And one more thing (even even further), you make a big show of 'predominately Capitalist economy', but as I've already pointed out, Socialism is an economic AND social system. I also pointed out that all the definitions you posted, were focusing only on the economic component, and were thus missing half the picture (further leading into my case of imperfect definition above). Even if your argument shows that Social Democracy completely rejects Socialist Economic Principles, and I don't think it does, it doesn't show that it rejects Socialist Social principles. Indeed even YOU admitted that Social Welfare came from Socialism in your previous post.

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.

It modifies it, certainly. Even if that's the case, all Capitalist economies today reject the major premise of Capitalism to one degree or another, that of (completely) free markets. If your argument here rejects that Social Democracy is Socialist, then it also rejects that any of the economies of the world today are Capitalist.

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.

Isn't taxes based on their income a percentage of the fruits of their labour?

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.

It seems a rather unfair stipulation you're making to me. It can be

GEEZER

Sunday, June 28, 2009 11:18 PM (P)

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

Nope. 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.

More later.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KPO

Sunday, June 28, 2009 11:42 PM (P)

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."

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Sunday, June 28, 2009 11:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Nope.

Your statement was exceedingly clear Geezer.

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.

:Thus they kept the Social Welfare component [from 19th century socialism], but generally reneged on the economic component [of 19th Century socialism], 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.

And you have to show those weren't taken from socialism. Because I'm fairly sure your examples did come from socialism, the Nazi's took a smorgasbord of things from the other political parties operating in Germany. Since one of their major competitors were the Socialists/Communists, and since Germany was rather impoverished borrowing the Socialist social welfare systems would be a way to garner popular support.

Medicare/Medicaid seem to be the product of Social Democratic thinking within the United States, such as it is. I can consider all those things, it doesn't mean that Social Welfare isn't Socialist, just because it's not enacted by a Socialist government.

Again, you go back to your unfair criteria. If it's not being enacted in a 100% Socialist Government, it can't be from socialism, yet if it's capitalism even if it's not pure Capitalism, we can call it Capitalist.

Hell you've even co-opted Private enterprise as Capitalist, despite private enterprise existing in other systems, and prior to the existence of Capitalism.

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. For that to be the case, it doesn't matter what the overall society or economy is. I never said only Socialist governments can enact Social Welfare programs, neither did I say something can't be Socialist or come from Socialism if it's not enacted by a 100% socialist government. That's your stipulation, and not only is it completely wrong, it's also being unevenly applied, since you're perfectly happy for something to be capitalist even if it's not enacted in a 100% capitalist economy.

KPO

Monday, June 29, 2009 12:20 AM (P)

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

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

From an article on the history of pensions:

"The idea of a universal old-age pension was initially touted in the French Revolution and Germany was the first country to introduce such a system almost 100 years later."

http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=847124

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.

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.

Heads should roll

AGENTROUKA

Monday, June 29, 2009 5:32 AM (P)

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."

Does it say which countries?

I'd say they're definitely misapplying the term, then.

ETA: I looked at the page and they don't elaborate at all. Kind of a weird thing to throw in there without any detail.

If it's true (and I'm not saying it isn't!) I suspect they may be trying to distance themselves from more centrist social democratic parties by adopting such a name, taking it more for show than for actual political intent.

ETA2: Apparently France has a Parti Socialiste. They seem to have grown out of a genuinely socialist party that abandoned its full socialist aims for good in 1982 and - I would guess - retained the name for the sake of tradition.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 29, 2009 7:02 AM (P)

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).

Uh, no. That is not what I heard Sarge say.

The answer to force-free economic oppression, that is economic oppression without government collusion, is competition.

The problem is, nowadays, most economic oppression happens with government collusion, which is unchecked by democracy. This sort of economic oppression prevents free market competition from sorting things out, by making it impossible for small guys to compete with the big giants.

--------------------------
The corporation is a true Frankenstein's monster - an artificial person run amok, responsible only to its own soulless self.
-- William Dugger, management analyst

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 7:32 AM (P)

Quote:
is competition

And here we are, back to the issue that capitalism naturally evolves to monopolism through non-governmental processes such as economies of scale. That means that big businesses are naturally more efficient than small businesses. Which means they can produce each individual widget more cheaply than small shops, which are eventually driven out of business. Hence, Walmart wipes out the mom-and-pop stores and Microsoft strangles its competition. Relying on "competition" as the antidote to economic coercion is a pipe dream. Real capitalists (not just pro-capitalists, but the people who actually run businesses) HATE competition. The goal of each and every business is 100% market share. Those who do not share that dream are simply overwhelmed earlier in the process.

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

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 29, 2009 12:56 PM (P)

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

But without governmental intervention, there will always be a new generation of small competitors rising to challenge the big fish. See without government collusion, it's a circular process, not the linear one we know.

I agree that capitalism cannot work well in conjunction with government. Really, you have to have one or the other.

--------------------------
What is the use of a house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?
-- Henry David Thoreau

GEEZER

Monday, June 29, 2009 1:50 PM (P)

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

And this, I believe, is the crux of your argument.

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.

I'm not sure why some Social Democrats insist on calling themselves Socialists, just like I'm not sure why the Nazi's chose to be called National Socialists. Certainly, neither group hews (hewed) very closely to the original meaning of Socialism - Government/cooperative ownership of... you know the rest.

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.

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.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 29, 2009 2:56 PM (P)

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.

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. What tips the balance is the large organizations ability to impede competition and enhance their own position through the legislative process.

*(I'm referring here to large, non-corporate companies. I think we agree there are issues with the foundations of corporate law that are a problem. But my understanding is that you're convinced that the momentum toward monopolies is independent of the corporate issues)

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

Right, government intervention is the real answer. Let's sit back and watch the health care reform process currently underway in Washington. I suspect it will be a nice case in point.

You know, what's so frustrating in arguing this point is that those complaining the loudest that "competition doesn't work" are generally the ones supporting all the government policies designed to directly interfere with competition (and so often these are devised by the large business interests they claim to be against).

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!

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 2:56 PM (P)

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

Absolutely NOT.

Do you really think that Paramount Petroleum is going to beat out Exxon? Or Ben & Jerry's is going to beat out Unilever? Startups generally...er, start up... in virgin markets: either with new products (eg Genentech) or in isolated geographic areas (Honda in prewar Japan) or with significant government financing (Taiwan). There is a period of ferment, and then the market matures, the technology stabilizes, and the businesses start swallowing each other up until there are only a few... or just one.. dominant players.

The family farms were swallowed up by Cargill and Monsanto.
Most of the chip manufacturers- Texas Instruments, Fairchild, Motorola, National Semiconductor, AT&T, Hewlett Packard, AMD, and IBM - have been swallowed up by Intel.
Mom and pop stores and even large retailers like Target are crumbing before Walmart, which has been the ONLY retailer to see increased sales during this deep recession.
Health insurances are consolidating
As is the media: television combining with radio and internet
Food processing: Unilever, Kellog and Nestle own nearly all of the small names like Ben & Jerry's and Burts' Bees, which people believe to be "independents but which are not
Microsoft strangled Lotus, Corel, Novell, WordPerfect, Borland and literally hundreds of startup competitors

As a close observer of the business world, I can name you prolly dozens of similar examples. Can you find ONE example of an industry which DEconsolidated? Just one?

I agree that big business has disadvantages. It's biggest disadvantage is being wedded to the infrastructure and technology which brought it success in the first place. IBM, for example, killed OS/2, one of the best OSs ever made (and that includes even beating out Linux in some aspects) because it was wedded to the mainframe. Coal and oil interests aren't jumping into solar (except BPArco). Pharma was not interested in genetic engineering (I knew one of Genentech's original startup partners BTW. It took $50,000 back then to buy into the startup.) GM, Chrysler and Plymouth were stuck on gas-guzzlers. So in general, big business isn't very flexible about getting into new areas because their old investments have already been paid off a zillion years ago and have much higher profit margins. So smaller companies tend to get into new areas (snd the cycle of growth and maturation occurs) but big business dominates mature markets.

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!

Of course.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 3:44 PM (P)

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

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

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 29, 2009 3:46 PM (P)

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

Absolutely not--AS LONG AS THERE IS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

Quote:
The family farms were swallowed up by Cargill and Monsanto.

And how exactly were they swallowed up by Cargill and Monsanto? With government intervention.

All the examples you provided happened and happens in the corrupt marriage of corporation and government. I don't dispute that it won't work in the current environment.

What you haven't shown is that it won't work if government steps out of the way.

I should point out that all large corporations now were start-ups at one point.

The free market competition cycle has been halted for probably the last 100 years. As an example, one of the most competitive start-ups, as you say, is new technology, and there are myriad of laws (bought for by Big Corp) to prevent the introduction of new, competitive technology out of their control and govt control.

So study the business world all you want--all you'll find is the govt-corporation alliance that we both agree moves linearly towards power and wealth consolidation and does not work.

You'll have to go back into history to the 1800's to find any semblance of the free market I am advocating.

--------------------------
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
--Thomas A. Edison

CITIZEN

Monday, June 29, 2009 3:46 PM (P)

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?

Actually they're not. The Ten Commandments originated in Judaism, and actually probably originated in an even older legend of the Canaanite religion. The two off shoots of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, both include the ten commandments, or versions of.

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.

In fact since the Commandments originated in Judaism, your logic definitely dismisses the commandments as Christian.

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. Neither was it quite the sort of system we'd recognise today.

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.

Not really. Pensions could be the exception that tests the rule, but the fact remains even state pensions of the type we recognise haven't been implemented outside of Social Democracy or Socialism, certainly not to my knowledge, nor have you shown this.

CITIZEN

Monday, June 29, 2009 3:50 PM (P)

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.

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

Probably because they're a branch of Socialism, as I've already shown.

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.

Except of course, using your own logic, they're not Capitalist, regardless of how much private ownership there is, since Private ownership has been a constant in most of the economic systems employed throughout history. It seems to me the crux of your argument depends on only applying it to one side and not the other.

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.

In that case I don't see any reason why any economy can be called capitalist merely because it has private ownership. Yet if it has private ownership, you're ready to tout another triumph of capitalism.

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.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 3:54 PM (P)

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

Right.

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

Or that Walmart contracted for very cheap products with the Chinese because they can guarantee to sell millions of units, and used their leverage to dump goods into specific markets to force out the competition?

Or that Microsoft coerced exclusive agreements with Dell and other PC distributors, and used their superior finances to buy up and kill smaller (better, competitive) products?

As for big business having been startups at one time, I already addressed that in detail. But if you wish, I will readdress it again in brief: Startups generally focus on new products. They are then either bought out by larger existing companies, or they themselves BECOME a big company. But the TREND is towards big (either vertical or horizontal monopolies) because they generate larger profits and higher margins.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:08 PM (P)

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.

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

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

Not in recent history, because of government intervention.

But just as an example, the horse carriage industry deconsolidated when the automobile industry started up. The lantern industry deconsolidated when the lightbulbs were placed in every home.

--------------------------
I don't like government because if there is a government, someone will buy it.
-- Milton Friedman

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:12 PM (P)

So old industries fail when new technologies are developed. That's not de-consolidation.

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

The problem is, the people still believe that corporations are the fount of all wealth. Right now, under pressure from the worst recession since the Great depression, most people simply want things to go back to the way they were. Tearing down corporatocracy is too scary for most. Our current government IS responding to "the people", because if there was a significant push (shit, look at Iran) in one direction government would move.

Quote:
Not in recent history, because of government intervention.

Like what? Be specific. Name me the policy, cite me the regulation, which made Microsoft a monopoly. Show me which "government interventions" created Walmart, forced so many chip makers out of business, and consolidated the media.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:14 PM (P)

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????

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.

As you say, and I agree, technology is key.

--------------------------
I have no special talents, I am only passionately curious.
-- Albert Einstein

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:16 PM (P)

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.

LIKE WHAT???? You keep waving your hands, I look, but nothing is there.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:16 PM (P)

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

That is the free market competition cycle I'm talking about.

Fail, deconsolidate, whatever, the gist is the same. The big guys get replaced by the little guys. By the time the little guys become big guys, there are new little guys with new technology, and the cycle starts again.

--------------------------
Our society is only as free as the least free among us.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:19 PM (P)

But the TREND is towards monopolism. Always. Because bigger is more efficient. And while the new technology is percolating in the background for 50-75 years (typically based BTW on blue-sky university or government research) wealth continues to consolidate.

And you still need to come up with examples of "government intervention" which you say is the root of consolidation in the media, farming, food processing, software, chip manufacturing, retail etc.

BTW- Did you know that the physical internet was created by DARPA, and that the WWW technology was developed at CERN and given away for free?

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

Anyway, many things to do today. TTUL.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7371660.stm
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
LIKE WHAT????

Sure, an example. Let's say someone has an idea to make cheap, synthetic fuel out of waste material. Free us from our dependence on petroleum. Wow. That'll put some big boys out of business, wouldn't it?

So he build's a pilot plant in his shop. It works. He wants to build a larger plant, but needs bulk waste material. He goes to waste locations, but they won't let him have the waste because of whatever govt regulation that won't let waste be moved. He wants to build his plant at waste locations but can't because of whatever govt regulation that says he can't build there. He wants people to start giving him their waste, but he can't because of whatever govt regulation that says he can't take waste. To make it all work, he would need a huge amount of capital to influence the laws (and lawmakers) to make an exception for him. By then, he has to explain in detail why he wants these exceptions, the big boys find out, and pay whoever they need to pay to sabotage this effort.

Even if they don't, and this guy succeeds in building his plant, he needs a way to sell his product. Now he needs another huge amount of capital to meet govt regulations and taxation codes on the sale of fuel. Another huge chunk of capital.

If only he could make the fuel and sell it to his neighbors out of his garage without violating a dozen laws...

Nowadays, to pose competition to the big boys, you have to be rich to begin with--to overcome the hurdles. But the rich folks get their money from the big boys, so the last thing they want to do is destroy, deconsolidate, or force their own investments or buddies to fail.

--------------------------
If everything's under control, you're going too slow.
-- Mario Andretti

BYTEMITE

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:29 PM (P)

Hey SignyM, just wondering. You've probably talked about this on other threads in the board, but I don't remember.

I also think corporate capitalism or even just "big fish" capitalism kind of inevitably lead to monopoly. And I think that when a corporation gets really powerful, they can pretty much control the government with lobbyists and money.

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?

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:32 PM (P)

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

I don't dispute that.

What I dispute is the trend to STAY at monopolism. I say if left alone, the trend is a cycle, where the monopoly breaks when new revolutionary technology is introduced.

--------------------------
That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best.
-- Thomas Jefferson

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:42 PM (P)

XPOSTED. Somewhat redundant.

Actually, been there, done that. The diesel engine was invented to give farmers a chance to use waste food oil so they would have an alternate sources of fuel. My understanding is that it was killed - actually, outcompeted- by the petroleum industry, long before any biodiesel regulations were in place.

what do you have to say about chip manufacturing, software, food processing, retail sales, communications media, factory farming, petroleum refining, health insurance, and other examples of consolidation? Can you find me the regulations which "forced" this consolidation? Or will you just have to agree (which BTW you already did) that consolidation is a persistent, inbuilt, phenomenon within capitalism, which is sometimes abetted by government intervention, but which is primarily driven by free-market economics? What I dispute is the trend to STAY at monopolism.

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

And what I say is that consolidation happens very quickly. Look at Google. Ten years ago it was a startup. Now its a near-monopoly. So in every cycle you might have 10- 15 years of ferment, and 60 years of stagnation. Not enough benefit in there for me.

'Bye for now.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:51 PM (P)

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?

Complete corruption of the government by moneyed interests. Unlike Sarge, however, I blame moneyed interests and a somnolent people, not the government. In a democracy, where peaceful change is always possible, people generally get the government they deserve.

----------------------
If you want change, the first thing you have to do is change your mind and the minds of the people around you..

GEEZER

Monday, June 29, 2009 5:01 PM (P)

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.

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

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:
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.

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.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BYTEMITE

Monday, June 29, 2009 5:21 PM (P)

Interesting. Can I blame all three?

The full effect of the seizure of corporations isn't known yet. Nor is whether or not the government will give up GM and other companies it has taken over. Government has a tendency to take and keep, so I believe this is where a number of fears in regards to this stems from. If the government gives up the power it has seized, the dangers of government control will seem lessened, but I doubt government will willingly give up control.

I have no evidence that government has been angling for a take-over of corporations to centralize them... Or, on the other side, if corporations have deliberately triggered economic hardship and moved to become centralized so as to secure longevity. Or if both sides have been working towards that goal.

Yet I think that one of those three conspiracies is what has happened. And I find that scary as all hell. All hail the Fascist Corporate United States of America.

A bad government may be enabled by it's people, but I defy anyone to show me that a bad government is not responsible for it's actions because of that. I would even go so far as to say that bad governments often manipulate their people into enabling them in the first place.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 6:25 PM (P)

Sometimes it's a conspiracy, sometimes it's just a club of like-minded people. It's a little hard to tell where one leaves off and the other begins. Because money is SO important for elections, almost every single person in politics (and I don't care what level you're talking about) is either (1) financed by one wealthy interest or another or (2) independently wealthy in their own right. That doesn't mean there's a "quid pro quo" at work as I'm sure that many politicians are sincerely pro-business. But the PTB have simply filtered out the "objectionable" candidates via non-support. Then there is the revolving-door between government and business. Finally, there is money under the table, and all of the expensive lobbying efforts that business undertakes to present their POV. What it all boils down to is that the interests of those without huge sums of money... ie most of us... are simply not uppermost on the minds of politicians.

Take Tim Geithner, for example. He is part of the Goldman contingent, and due to his hx of working there, he has more knowledge of... and more concern about... the interests of investment banks. So he convinced Obama that due to the "multiplier effect" it was more cost effective to bail out the banks, without realizing that the multiplier effects cuts both ways and that it would have been far simpler to back the initial investments (mortgages) than try to make up for their liabilities which had "multiplied" through the entire system.

And don't forget that MANY American are pro-business. I personally think that most of us have our heads stuck so far up the corporate ass that we're nothing more than hemorrhoids.

But undoubtedly, there are politicians who DO "know better"... and I include many Dems in that category... who are simply afraid to vote against their financial supporters.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:58 AM (P)

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

ALWAYS abetted by government intervention. The intervention may not have to be specifically targeting the product in question. The fact that all income and sales are taxed is government intervention. Minimum wage laws are government intervention. Child labor laws are govt intervention. I'm not saying all these laws are bad. But all these laws prevent FREE market from existing and allowing the cycle of competition to gain momentum.

Quote:
but which is primarily driven by free-market economics?

There has always been government intervention in recent history, so there hasn't been any FREE market in the last 100 years or more. None of these things you're talking about are driven by free market economics. They are driven by govt enabled-business economics.

I really wish people wouldn't use the adjective "free market" to describe ALL capitalist dynamics, especially the ones that they dislike. Free market exists only in absence of govt interference in all things financial, labor related, trade related, technological, and environmental. When was the last time that happened?

Free market is completely a theoretical construct. Nothing remotely resembling a free market has existed anywhere on earth for more than a century.

Quote:
And what I say is that consolidation happens very quickly.

When there is government intervention.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:26 AM (P)

mmm... when I said "abetted" I meant "abetted", not "intervened in". Government intervention usually abets monopolization but sometimes opposes it. AFA "free market" is concerned... the drive within capitalism, if you will, is towards monopolization, with or without government help.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:52 AM (P)

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.

You keep saying this, but I'd be interested in cites by reputable sources.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:34 AM (P)

I've given a half-dozen examples. That isn't enough for you? (Just checking to see if you can think for yourself, or if you have to hear it from an "authority")

Economies of scale
www.investorwords.com/1653/economy_of_scale.html

The corporate reconstruction of American capitalism, 1890-1916
By Martin J. Sklar p157

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:51 AM (P)

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.

Since when was the distribution of Roman Bread really about that?

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. Even in the later era's when it was a formalised responsibility of the Aedile, it wasn't paid for by the Roman State. By the time of the Roman Empire, the Grain was still paid for by the Emperor's own pocket, not the Roman State.

Roman Bread was a charity paid for by Private Roman Citizens directly, who were seeking or cementing political power and office.

That's not even getting into the differences of the ethos of the two.

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.

No, that's your personal test. 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?

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.

Yet if there's any example of Private Ownership, you're ready to call it Capitalist. So China is Capitalist is it? Because I'm fairly sure it is Leninist Corporatist, moving away from Communism. The Nazi's were Capitalist were they? Fascism is Capitalist? All of those systems have private ownership, albeit mixed in with government ownership and control, but as we see even a tiny bit of private ownership means it's all Capitalist.

Perhaps, before I take this at face value, you can explain how Private Ownership, which is a constant through most economic systems, can be taken as definition of Capitalism?

Apparently you find Roman Bread, one example with some major differences to modern social welfare, proof that the modern concept of social welfare isn't from Socialism, while at the same time happily proclaiming Private Ownership of the means of production a working definition of Capitalism, despite nearly every other economic system there has ever been displaying private ownership of the means of production. Please don't wonder why I lay the charge that you're using two different arguments and criteria at the two opposite sides.

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.

I don't think you have all that much right to demand I respond to questions or portions of your posts, when you've spent the entire thread ignoring much of what I've said. Earlier, from a post of 309 words, you respond to 13 of them. Just because you ignore things I've shown, doesn't mean that I haven't shown them.

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 equ

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:47 PM (P)

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.

That's because most definitions of Social Welfare do not distinguish between State and private assistance. For example.

"Main Entry: social welfare
Function: noun
Date: 1917
: organized public or private social services for the assistance of disadvantaged groups"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social+welfare

As for Roman Bread being a political tool, try changing NHS and see how political it gets.

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?

Well, since you brought it up earlier,

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.

I've been trying to include both sides.

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.

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:
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.

"Social welfare programs are undertaken by governments and by non-governmental organizations (NGOs)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_provision

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:
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.

And I see Social Welfare springing from all types of political and economic systems and from both State and private sources. I see nothing that makes Social Welfare exclusive to either Social Democracy or Socialism.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:44 PM (P)

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

Something being only a political tool and something being political are two entirely different things.

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.

I never said they were. 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:
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.

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.

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

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:
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.

And as I've said that's rather irrelevant. I have a Chinese Restaurant up the road, but I'm not in China!

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.

EDIT:
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.

ELVISCHRIST

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:29 PM (P)

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

For the same reason that many Americans call themselves Capitalists. They're not, but they think it conjurs a "patriotic" and "American" image to refer to themselves that way.

KPO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:35 PM (P)

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.

We're getting our wires crossed. Let's drop this logic argument for now, I only intended to move the debate on to the question of whether social welfare originated solely within socialism, and we seem to be there now, one way or another.

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.

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:
Pensions could be the exception that tests the rule

Exceptions disprove a rule I'm afraid, unless you can account for them. 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. It seems that whatever model of social welfare your Social Democrats put together they were only grouping together/developing existing ideas, and an existing philosophy of the state taking care of citizens.

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. 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.

Heads should roll

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:40 PM (P)

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

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:
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.

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:
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.

Actually referring to it as State Social Welfare in the first place might have helped.

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

Well, neither are the NHS and the Child Support Agency or JobCentre Plus. Different agencies, funded by different sources, doing different tasks can all be involved in Social Welfare (The broader Social Welfare, not your State Social Welfare).

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.

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. Hmm. This would have made Queen Elizabeth I the ruler of a Socialist country. Bet she'd be surprised.

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.

Well, let's ask the Socialists.

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.

http://www.sp-usa.org/

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 'ownin

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:18 PM (P)

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.

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:
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.

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

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.

And you're using a strawman, since that was never my argument in anyway shape or form. I even said the EXACT opposite to this earlier:

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.

I have no idea how you even got that from what I said, except maybe confusing your logic with mine. It's your stance that something can't be Socialist unless it's enacted by a 100% perfect Socialist state, it's my position that a Government that isn't socialist can put socialist programs into place, and still not be Socialist.

There's nothing to even remotely suggest what you claim of my words, so please stop putting your words, in my mouth.

EDIT:
Lets put it another way. Freedom of Religion, being free to worship however you wish, is a secular ideal, agree?

By your logic that means the Islamic states that allowed people of other religions to worship were secular. But they weren't, they were still theocracies.

Quote:
Well, let's ask the Socialists.

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

Except since state ownership of the means of production isn't unique to socialism, (not to mention you didn't answer the question I asked) your answer makes a mockery of your logic, doesn't it?

Quote:
Feel free to disagree with most definitions of Social Welfare.

I'd say feel free to lie about my words, Geezer, but you seem to need no encouragement. You asked me whether I'd consider the Red Cross Et Al Social Welfare, and an honest answer is no, for reasons already given. I also clearly insinuated that I'd bind to the definition you provided, when I changed the statement I was making from social welfare, to state social welfare.

I answered your question, kindly return the favour.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:28 PM (P)

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.

Really, because when you said this:

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.

I got the impression you were claiming Germany had no democracy whatsoever, no Social Democratic movement within that Democracy, and that the Pension system was implemented by the Staunchly anti-socialist Bismark. The over ridding claim would be that Social Democracy or Socialist had nothing to do with the Pension system's implementation.

Perhaps I misunderstood?

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

Actually they don't. I'm basing my statement off of a well known saying, that is generally given as "the exception that PROVES the rule", but is more correctly translated as "the exception that TESTS the rule". I'm afraid "the exception that disproves the rule" doesn't exist.

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.

Even if that is so, it doesn't disprove anything. No idea forms in a vacuum, if Socialism formed as ideas about the state caring for it's citizens came to the fore, and Socialism was where those ideas found their home, while movements branching from, directly related too, or borrowing from Socialism are the only ones to put those ideas into action, how is it not correct to say they come from 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.

I'm not reframing anything. What I'm talking about is what I was always talking about. I've made what I was always talking about more clear in light of people not being on the same page, and the definition of Social Welfare including private charities. I don't agree with Charities being Social Welfare, but if that's the accepted definition in use here, I'm more than happy to use it. I'm not reframing anything, I'm talking about what I was always talking about, and merely making the context more clear since we were all obviously talking at crossed paths. Apart from saying Social Welfare, did I give any indication that I was talking about anything other than the Social Welfare programs that have become synonymous with the welfare state? I can't see how since I said at least twice that I was talking about Social Welfare as a synonym for Welfare State.

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.

Would you accept the opposite? That an economy can have Private Ownership of the means of production, and not have to pay Capitalism for the privilege?

In which case what philosophies do you suggest?

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:06 PM (P)

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.

If you believe that the politicians who instituted NHS had no political motive in doing so, sure.

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

Who said anything about 100%? But if less than 50% of the economy is owned by the state, is it still a socialist economy?

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

So the Poor Law of 1601 came from Socialism?

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

No it's not, and you know it. 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:
...it's my position that a Government that isn't socialist can put socialist programs into place, and still not be Socialist.

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:
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.

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:02 PM (P)

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

No, but it's not social welfare by any standard used here either, so it's really rather irrelevant.

Quote:

No it's not, and you know it.

It pretty much is actually, and I'd bet real money that you know it too.

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.

Which is really rather irrelevant, since I've been talking about mixed economies. Why is your argument so dependent on arguing against things I never said?

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.

I've given plenty of evidence more in fact than you. In fact you've truly given nothing, you've not even managed to give your opinion. I've asked relevant questions, you've flat out ignored them. I've made relevant statements, you've flat out ignored them. In fact, anything you disagree with and can't be twisted, seems to be flat out ignored. Just because you choose to ignore things you don't agree with, doesn't mean I haven't provided it.

You can't even argue against what I've said, preferring to make stuff up, put words in my mouth, and then claim victory when you tear that down. You've made no case whatsoever, unless I were to count "lalala I'm not listening" as a case.

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.

Or in other words you can't answer the question. Since other systems have included these things you say are socialist, YOUR OWN LOGIC says they can't be Socialist.

To answer the question you'd have to admit your 'logic' is wrong, so I know you won't answer it.

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

Doesn't matter, your own logic says it's not Socialist. I agree, your logic makes no sense, but there it is.

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...

GEEZER

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:09 AM (P)

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.

Oh, of course. If the Socialists didn't do it, it can't be social welfare.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-house#Old_Poor_Law
So this is not social welfare how, exactly?

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

Just wanted to establish that no European country currently has a Socialist economy. If you grant that is true, I'm not sure why you've been arguing about it for so long (unless you just enjoy the argument

).

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

Nope. You have given evidence that State Social Welfare programs can originate from Socialism (as with NHS), but nothing to show that they can't originate from other political or economic systems. Your responses seem to be that: 1) If Socialists didn't create them, they aren't actually State Social Welfare programs, although they have the same purpose and meet the same needs, or: 2) if non-Socialist governments do create State Social Welfare programs, the programs instantly become Socialist.

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

But I did, by providing cites supporting my interpretation of what socialism is. Why waste time paraphrasing definitions with which I totally agree?

Since you apparently don't agree with the Socialists about what Socialism is, perhaps you would provide your own definition?

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...

Nope, I'll just point out once again that Socialists don't have a corner on caring for the people, just like they don't have a corner on providing State Social Welfare.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE