A successful socialist economy

[DrZoidberg]

That's just a stupid way of arguing. Let's create a rubber definition of socialism that only applies to failed economies. That way socialism is always a failure. Hooray. A win for capitalism.

On the contrary, saying that socialism is any system that has more generous social spending than US is using a rubber definition and is stupid. For one, it includes many capitalist economies, like for example Sweden.
My definition, the actual definition, is cleaner:
Capitalism is an economic system where means of production are mostly privately owned and controlled.
Socialism is an economic system where means of production are mostly publicly owned and controlled.

When the concept of socialism was born in the 19'th century and as socialist political parties took power around the world and through trial and error the meaning of word evolved. In the 19'th century socialism and communism were synonyms. In the beginning of the 20'th century the two concepts split apart. You're talking about communism.

The two concepts are related. Communism is the ideal end stage of socialism where the state itself withers away. That's why the actually existing countries controlled by communist parties were called "socialist" and not "communist". Communism hasn't been achieved yet.
There are many jokes about the distinction, like this Radio Yerewan joke:

This is Armenian Radio. Our listeners asked us, "When the final phase of socialism, namely communism, is built, will there still be thefts and pilfering?"
We're answering: "No, because everything will be already pilfered during socialism."

But even that's starting to slide considering what's happening in China. In China the government officially owns everything. But in practice they, very much, respect private property.

China is a weird case. They have pretty much abandoned socialism except for show and for single party dictatorship.

And there's no country on Earth where the government isn't legally able to seize private property if it's considered in the best interest of the government. Otherwise, how could we build infrastructure.

So all countries are socialist now? Existence of public works does not make otherwise capitalist systems socialist, and neither does tolerance of small businesses turn otherwise socialist countries capitalist. It's about whether public or private ownership of production predominates in the economy.
Post-Tito Yugoslavia was still socialist even though they allowed very small private businesses to operate because the economy was still mostly public. Sweden is still capitalist even though the government plays a bigger role than in the US.

Any country with social welfare, if we're to be strict about definitions, is a socialist country. But I think that's a bit silly, because it just confuses what we're talking about.

It would be silly. Which is why Sweden is by no means a socialist country. It's like with Denmark where their PM was quick to contradict Bernie when he called them "socialist".
Denmark's prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," [Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen] said. "Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
In Rasmussen's view, "The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

This article sums up the evolution of the concept.

Socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The very first paragraph of the article agrees with me.

Socialism is a left-wing[1] political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[2][3][4][5] of the means of production,[6][7][8][9] as opposed to private ownership.[5][10][11] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[12] Social ownership can be public, collective, or cooperative.[13] While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[14] social ownership is the one common element.[2][10][11] Socialisms vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, on the structure of management in organizations, and from below or from above approaches, with some socialists favouring a party, state, or technocratic-driven approach. Socialists disagree on whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[15][16]

To stubbornly cling to a definition of socialism that hasn't been relevant for over a hundred years... is just silly on a discussion forum. What's the point with doing that?

I think the definition that focuses on public/socialized ownership of means of production as defining characteristic of socialism is very much relevant. On the other hand, defining socialism as any economy with higher taxes and more generous public spending than the US has is quite silly.

I don't see the point of continuing talking with you about this. I find your world view and definitions bizarre. I just don't know what to say as a response.

To quote Deng Xiao Ping

"It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white. What matters if it catches mice".

It was a reference to Mao's fixation with ideological purity, rather than on having an experimental and empirical view on the economy.

I think you're so fixated on ideological purity that you miss out on reality. Reality isn't pure and neat. It's messy

 

[DrZoidberg]

I agree the term socialism is being misused. Democratic socialism would be a more appropriate term, but even that one would be or is heavily targeted by the right wing in the US.

The only difference between democratic socialism and revolutionary socialism is how they intent to bring about the change - via the democratic process or via a proletarian revolution.
But do not be deceived - democratic socialists also believe that means of production should be collectively owned. It is not the same as social democracy, which is the best way to describe countries like Sweden.
From the constitution of Democratic Socialists of America:

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.

The DSA leaders know who they are, even if some of their more public-facing members (like AOC) either don't or are just playing dumb.

Why not just say that we need a much better safety net for all. There is no reason why capitalism can't be better regulated. There is no reason why monopolies can't be broken up.

More regulation is not necessarily better. The baby formula shortage was largely due to too much regulation. FDA has been regulating baby formula more severely than other food which served as a high barrier for other manufacturers to enter.
And what monopolies in the US do you think exist that need to be broken up? Standard Oil and AT&T were broken up in their day, and there are anti-trust laws on the books.
None of this makes it socialism though.

There is no reason why the richest citizens and largest corporations shouldn't be expected to pay more taxes, since they benefit more than the rest of us from the infrastructure and business centered laws. There is no reason why a country as wealthy as the US can't provide a more generous safety net,

We can debate what the proper level of taxation and spending should be of course. Does not make it socialism.
And note that TANSTAAFL - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It's not like Sweden's system is without its problems either.

I will add one more point. It's easier to get a small, less diverse country to agree on what's best for the majority of its citizens, then it is to get a huge, extremely diverse, very divided country to agree on much of anything. The US is almost like 50 little countries with different ideas on how to govern. Don't get me started.

True.

Revolutionary socialists are revolutionary because the authoritarian regimes those socialists live doesn't accept any democratic change. Democratic socialists are democratic because they live in a democracy. Revolutionary socialist movements in democracies have always been tiny to a point where they are irrelevant. Its not really a thing.

You really make things unnecessarily complicated

 

[southernhybrid]

Here's the dictionary definition of socialism.

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.

This is why it gets such a bad reputation in the US. It's a confusing and misunderstood term that has been defined in many ways, but the actual meaning is the same or very similar to communism.

Looking up "socialism" in Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

The differences between communism and socialism are still debated, but generally English speakers use communism to talk about the political and economic ideologies that find their origin in Karl Marx’s theory of revolutionary socialism, which advocates a proletariat overthrow of capitalist structures within a society; societal and communal ownership and governance of the means of production; and the eventual establishment of a classless society. The most well-known expression of Marx’s theories is the 20th-century Bolshevism of the U.S.S.R., in which the state, through a single authoritarian party, controlled a society’s economic and social activities with the goal of realizing Marx’s theories. Socialism, meanwhile, is most often used in modern English to refer to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control.

Most people who equate all forms of socialism with communism do so in order to taint the former with the odour the latter has acquired in the real world. The real world has also demonstrated that socialist and capitalist policies do not preclude each other. It can even be argued that socialist policies are not inherently antithetical to conservatism. The United Kingdom's Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli and Germany's Chancellor Otto von Bismarck come to mind.

My point is that the terms are confusing and defined differently by people, depending on where they live and what they believe. That's obvious. That is why I try to avoid the term socialism. It's become a meaningless or confusing term, imo. When I was a teenager, I was gullible enough to believe that true socialism, as defined in the dictionary, was a viable way to keep everyone's assets fairly equal. As I became older, I realized this was a fantasy, as most humans are motivated by material things, status and power.

Socialism probably can work in small communities. It doesn't work well in large countries, where people aren't interested in total economic equality. When a term is confusing and defined in different ways, it's not helpful to use it. There is a difference between the traditional meaning of socialism and the more modern term, "Democratic Socialism". The latter is a mix of well regulated capitalism, combined with generous social programs.

Btw, some Republicans are already referring to our. pragmatic progressive Stacey Abrams as a communist. She has never said anything that would even equate her with socialism. She has never even used the word socialism to describe any of her governing policies. She's just a realist, imo, who would like to see more progressive policies become law but realizes that one must compromise to make any progress at all. So, regardless of what terms those left of center use to describe their ideologies, those on the right will acuse them of being socialists or communists.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's the dictionary definition of socialism.

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.

This is why it gets such a bad reputation in the US. It's a confusing and misunderstood term that has been defined in many ways, but the actual meaning is the same or very similar to communism.

Looking up "socialism" in Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

The differences between communism and socialism are still debated, but generally English speakers use communism to talk about the political and economic ideologies that find their origin in Karl Marx’s theory of revolutionary socialism, which advocates a proletariat overthrow of capitalist structures within a society; societal and communal ownership and governance of the means of production; and the eventual establishment of a classless society. The most well-known expression of Marx’s theories is the 20th-century Bolshevism of the U.S.S.R., in which the state, through a single authoritarian party, controlled a society’s economic and social activities with the goal of realizing Marx’s theories. Socialism, meanwhile, is most often used in modern English to refer to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control.

Most people who equate all forms of socialism with communism do so in order to taint the former with the odour the latter has acquired in the real world. The real world has also demonstrated that socialist and capitalist policies do not preclude each other. It can even be argued that socialist policies are not inherently antithetical to conservatism. The United Kingdom's Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli and Germany's Chancellor Otto von Bismarck come to mind.

My point is that the terms are confusing and defined differently by people, depending on where they live and what they believe. That's obvious. That is why I try to avoid the term socialism. It's become a meaningless or confusing term, imo. When I was a teenager, I was gullible enough to believe that true socialism, as defined in the dictionary, was a viable way to keep everyone's assets fairly equal. As I became older, I realized this was a fantasy, as most humans are motivated by material things, status and power.

Socialism probably can work in small communities. It doesn't work well in large countries, where people aren't interested in total economic equality. When a term is confusing and defined in different ways, it's not helpful to use it. There is a difference between the traditional meaning of socialism and the more modern term, "Democratic Socialism". The latter is a mix of well regulated capitalism, combined with generous social programs.

Btw, some Republicans are already referring to our. pragmatic progressive Stacey Abrams as a communist. She has never said anything that would even equate her with socialism. She has never even used the word socialism to describe any of her governing policies. She's just a realist, imo, who would like to see more progressive policies become law but realizes that one must compromise to make any progress at all. So, regardless of what terms those left of center use to describe their ideologies, those on the right will acuse them of being socialists or communists.

I think it's only confusing to Americans. The rest of us seem to understand the words just fine

 

[DrZoidberg]

Fun fact, there's an old collective in Copenhagen dating back to the 70'ies. It was based on the principles of chairman Mao. It's name is still "Mao's Lyst". In English meaning something like "the shining light of Mao". I find it hillarious that they keep the name and its all very unproblematic. This is all very Danish. But does emphasize how Scandinavians are not att all feel threatened by socialism.

All Scandinavian countries became modern democracies because of our socialist movements. We are all free citizens because of socialism. So we are likely to have a different relationship to the term

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Socialism means public ownership of means of production. Sweden is not socialist.

I am not sure whether you believe what you are saying or not.

Socialism is really a complex set of ideas, mate. I support some of those ideas but not others.

For example, I support the right of employees at a company to vote to unionize. I personally prefer to have a direct relationship with my employer, but I could never have that kind of trust toward my employer if my employer attempted to use force or intimidation to prevent my coworkers from unionizing. The only reason I would ever vote in favor of a union would be if I no longer believed my employer respected me.

Also, I think that cities should have a right to build their own utilities. If a city's government chooses to build their own power plant, rather than buying electricity from a large corporation, then I see them as being within their rights. I might not vote in favor of that solution for my own city, but if my government attempted to take away my city's right to do so, then that would constitute tyranny.

I call this "soft socialism," and I prefer it because I value the power of choice. In effect, I am libertarian as long as a choice is not imposed upon me and my immediate community by force, but when my government is attempting to deny that I should have a right to choose socialization, then I am effectively a socialist.

Socialism is a rational reaction to distrust toward the bourgeoisie, and where that distrust is forsooth justified, socialism is justified. The one thing that is guaranteed to shatter my trust is to install a pro-bourgeoisie government and, through it, attempt to deprive me of the power to choose how I should be allowed to live. If the trust is broken, then the gloves are off.

As aristocratic classes go, the current crop of tech entrepreneurs has been benign enough because the majority of them have been liberal and gracious, but like the Rockefeller generation, that edifice, too, must decay and crumble, in time. The Steve Jobs and Bill Gates types and especially Sergey Brin and Larry Page were true entrepreneurs that risked everything on a mad gamble. They were willing to risk being one of us for a chance at greatness, so in a queer way, they are us. Those that are coming along later to cash in are not us. The reckoning will come.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As aristocratic classes go, the current crop of tech entrepreneurs has been benign enough because the majority of them have been liberal and gracious, but like the Rockefeller generation, that edifice, too, must decay and crumble, in time. The reckoning will come.

Tech entrepeneurs is not an aristocracy. The aristocracy is a protected class of people who are born into a life where they don't need to do anything.

All tech billionaires are all born into middle class families and have all had to work extremely hard to attain success. In an extremely competitive and volatile market.

The IT market is not only fast moving, but only keeps moving faster all the time. None of the tech billionaires sit on empires that are safe. Altavista had a near total domination of the Internet search market. Google quickly pushed them off the throne. Before the iPhone smart phones wasn't a market at all.

The tech billionaires are wealthier than any human has been before, both in absolute and relative terms. But they're still not an aristocracy. They all know that they will likely soon be pushed off their privileged perches, and are milking it as long as they can. The IT market is an incredibly unstable and fast moving market

 

[steve_bank]

Over here socialism is often conflated with communism by the right. Or socialism leads to communism and loss of freedoms. The usual political fear mongering.

Sure. Stupid people don't understand the meaning of words. I am not sure what your point is?

I guess I am one of the stupid people.

I never quite understand what both communism and socialism means. It is like god, people talk about it as if they kno what it is but can never explain what it is.

The point? In American politucs the left calls the right Nazis. The right calls the left socialists and communistss interchangeably.

In his campaign for president Anders shfted form hard line socialist to democratic socialist. Hey I an not a socialist, I am a 'democratic socialist'. Meaning I am not after your rights.

When attached as socialist Biden responds ' I am a not socialist I am capitalist Make as much money as you want as long as you pay your fair share in taxes'. His words.

Obama was attacked as a socialist, the right saying he will lead us to socialism to communism and authoritarian rule.

Using socialism over here in politics has a lot of package.

So, cobflating communism and all the observed negatives of communist states is often conflated with socialsim intentionaly as a pejorative or out of ignorance.

In American politics it is an in intentional pejorative. A talking point by the right.

There is also a fon the right of socialism-communism as being anti relgion.

 

[Elixir]

Over here socialism is often conflated with communism by the right. Or socialism leads to communism and loss of freedoms. The usual political fear mongering.

Sure. Stupid people don't understand the meaning of words. I am not sure what your point is?

I guess I am one of the stupid people.

I never quite understand what both communism and socialism means. It is like god, people talk about it as if they kno what it is but can never expakin what it is.

I can relate.

Seems everyone just means whatever they mean by socialist or communist, and hope that by power of repetition what they mean will become the meaning of socialism and communism. The right is aligning itself with authoritarianism, no matter what form it takes. Kim, Duterte, Xi, Putler, Orban ... more likely seen as communist than socialist government. Venezuela is a great example of both fluid re-definition and of what happens to democracy when people are brainwashed into electing authoritarians.
We are becoming Venezuela. Call it what you like; if you repeat it long enough and loudly enough, that will be what it is.
FWIW, I can't think of a really badly corrupt and authoritarian "socialist" country by my own definition.

 

[Canard DuJour]

My definition, the actual definition, is cleaner:

Capitalism is an economic system where means of production are mostly privately owned and controlled.
Socialism is an economic system where means of production are mostly publicly owned and controlled.

Righty ho..

The means of production might be mostly privately owned, while the conditions of production and distribution are mostly socially controlled. If the workforce is mostly covered by collective bargaining, enforced by the democratic state, and public spending is >50% of GDP, then your definition of socialism arguably extends to France, Germany, the Netherlands and others.

(the quadriceps of 70 year old triathletes notwithstanding)

 

[steve_bank]

Over here socialism is often conflated with communism by the right. Or socialism leads to communism and loss of freedoms. The usual political fear mongering.

Sure. Stupid people don't understand the meaning of words. I am not sure what your point is?

I guess I am one of the stupid people.

I never quite understand what both communism and socialism means. It is like god, people talk about it as if they kno what it is but can never expakin what it is.

I can relate.

Seems everyone just means whatever they mean by socialist or communist, and hope that by power of repetition what they mean will become the meaning of socialism and communism. The right is aligning itself with authoritarianism, no matter what form it takes. Kim, Duterte, Xi, Putler, Orban ... more likely seen as communist than socialist government. Venezuela is a great example of both fluid re-definition and of what happens to democracy when people are brainwashed into electing authoritarians.
We are becoming Venezuela. Call it what you like; if you repeat it long enough and loudly enough, that will be what it is.
FWIW, I can't think of a really badly corrupt and authoritarian "socialist" country by my own definition.

That is the irony. The right is being seduced by auterterisnim as long as it fits thier views. What they ignore is histry and Machivelinism. Once in power the gol is to stay in power by any means, as with Trump.

Auteprterian leadersd invaribly turn on anyone who they see as a threat.

In our polarized poltiics the keft is going progressive. The 'nanny state' where the government provides everything. Biden tried to subsidize day care. Sanders and 'free' college.

As an indeondent centrist both are equally impractical.

So, it on order to make any headway it can;t be framed as socialism. A new term needs to be coined that both the left and right can get behind.

Today we lack politicians with the skill, insight, and nuance to frame it.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

As aristocratic classes go, the current crop of tech entrepreneurs has been benign enough because the majority of them have been liberal and gracious, but like the Rockefeller generation, that edifice, too, must decay and crumble, in time. The reckoning will come.

Tech entrepeneurs is not an aristocracy. The aristocracy is a protected class of people who are born into a life where they don't need to do anything.

All tech billionaires are all born into middle class families and have all had to work extremely hard to attain success. In an extremely competitive and volatile market.

The IT market is not only fast moving, but only keeps moving faster all the time. None of the tech billionaires sit on empires that are safe. Altavista had a near total domination of the Internet search market. Google quickly pushed them off the throne. Before the iPhone smart phones wasn't a market at all.

The tech billionaires are wealthier than any human has been before, both in absolute and relative terms. But they're still not an aristocracy. They all know that they will likely soon be pushed off their privileged perches, and are milking it as long as they can. The IT market is an incredibly unstable and fast moving market

I believe that the early aristocracy of the United Kingdom really were true aristocracy because it really meant something if somebody went to arms in the defense of their country. While the aristocracy as we know it might effectively be human show-dogs, those people's ancestors literally risked life and limb to have the status they do, and then they fought for legitimacy against the odds and often against more established governments that regarded them as criminal renegades. Establishing their legitimacy was not easy. The other powers in their world often did not acknowledge their rights as legitimate peers for centuries, and the king of a new country could spend centuries being regarded as little better than a bandit. What is a king, really, except the progeny of a successful criminal? Whether or not that criminal is really a just one is not always clear-cut.

Even then, though, the symptoms of oligarchic thinking were already taking root, passing first through an intermediate stage of timocracy that favored military leaders that fought for personal glory rather than out of love for their nations (I differ with Plato in that I see this as a transitional point between aristocracy and oligarchy or, rather, the path between them). An oligarchy, though, is what you describe. They are a protected class. They would never really put anything on the line for their people because, in their world, none of them could never be one of the people. They hold themselves to be a "different breed" and almost seem to perceive themselves as a superior race. Ultimately, the problem was that they were too big to fail.

When a section of society has become too big to fail, then they have become oligarchy. They are permanently separated from the ordinary people of society, and they could never make a big enough mistake--or so they think--to put them among ordinary people. Because of that, they lose the sense of grace that characterizes a true aristocracy. They become corrupt, and they become immoral. They become decadent, and they cease to have any moral compass at all. In time, they prove themselves willing to sell out their entire nation for personal gain, which is precisely the behavior that led to the French Revolution.

Every society has either an aristocracy or an oligarchy. An aristocracy differs from an oligarchy in only one particle of information: are they really deserving of their positions? People like Steve Jobs are genuine studs, in my opinion. Jobs, in spite of his imperfections, had a true vision, and he fought for that vision for the betterment of society. He might not be as truly "rags to riches" as legends about him would have us believe, but he was willing to live like one of the middle-class because everything he did was done for them.

Elon Musk seems to walk the line between aristocracy and oligarchy, but he has been tilting toward oligarchy, lately, because of his sheer petulance, and if he would only shut the fuck up, he just might become a slightly respectable human being. Zuckerberg is the same in a different way: his original idea for Facebook was really created in poor taste, and frankly, I think he got rich off of one of the vices of an imperfect society. He could have only justified himself if he had, like Jobs, chosen to live a simple life and looked for ways to make his technology something that served society, but social media is at best a mixed-blessing if not as much of a curse as cocaine.

Donald Trump's family is pure oligarchy, and may they suffer the same fate as the Romanovs.

You cannot help but have either an aristocracy or an oligarchy or something in-between. Aristocracy is good, and oligarchy is bad.

Right now, the leaders of the tech industry are in a sort of transitional stage between aristocracy and oligarchy. Elon Musk did, indeed, take many risks in his rise to power, but he is also an egotist that does not clearly care what effect he has on society, and this rankles of timocracy. In the future, entrepreneurs in that field will be a decadent class that tends to see risk as nothing more than a threat to their established wealth and power, not as the road to power that it was for those that came before them, but ultimately, their own spinelessness will lead them into corruption, which will be their downfall.

 

[steve_bank]

My definition, the actual definition, is cleaner:

Capitalism is an economic system where means of production are mostly privately owned and controlled.
Socialism is an economic system where means of production are mostly publicly owned and controlled.

Righty ho..

The means of production might be mostly privately owned, while the conditions of production and distribution are mostly socially controlled. If the workforce is mostly covered by collective bargaining, enforced by the democratic state, and public spending is >50% of GDP, then your definition of socialism arguably extends to France, Germany, the Netherlands and others.

(the quadriceps of 70 year old triathletes notwithstanding)

19th century Marxist terminology does not fit today.

Major companies are public and people own stock. Corporations are sensitive these days to shareholder opinions on racism and the environment. Private ownership in Marx's day meant something entirely different. More like a feudal system.

If you have an IRA you are invested in corporations.

 

[steve_bank]

Aristocracy is where your privildge and position in society depends on the family yu are brn into. You do not have to work for postion. We have it in a sense. Trump was made a millionare by his father before he turned 18.

In the NFL quarterbacks Peyton and Eli Manning are the sons of Archie Manning a successful NFL quarterback. Peyton and Eli certainly had a leg up in sports but they had to earn they way into the NFL.

Oligarchy is a form of government in which a small group of people hold most or all political power.

I use oligarch to describe Musk, but it is a cinvuence. We really do not have an oligarchy. Musk did work for his wealth.

What is the difference between a plutocracy and an oligarchy?


Oligarchy refers to the government system ruled and controlled by a small group of privileged people whereas plutocracy refers to the government system ruled and controlled by a wealthy minority.Feb 14, 2019

I don't think we have a plutocracy either. There is no direct political control, unless Trump becomes the norm as president. Were ging green on enegy because enough peole wnted it. Big auto s responding to popular dennd for electric vehicles.

In an oligarchy a Trump could curtail EVs and promote fossil fuels. The standard definitions do not really fit how our system actually works.

The wealthy individuals and contortions have influence via campaign money. Macain tried his best to get campaign reform, neiter the left ot right wanted reform.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Aristocracy is where your privildge and position in society depends on the family yu are brn into. You do not have to work for postion. We have it in a sense. Trump was made a millionare by his father before he turned 18.

In the NFL quarterbacks Peyton and Eli Manning are the sons of Archie Manning a successful NFL quarterback. Peyton and Eli certainly had a leg up in sports but they had to earn they way into the NFL.

Oligarchy is a form of government in which a small group of people hold most or all political power.

I use oligarch to describe Musk, but it is a cinvuence. We really do not have an oligarchy. Musk did work for his wealth.

What is the difference between a plutocracy and an oligarchy?


Oligarchy refers to the government system ruled and controlled by a small group of privileged people whereas plutocracy refers to the government system ruled and controlled by a wealthy minority.Feb 14, 2019

I don't think we have a plutocracy either. There is no direct political control, unless Trump becomes the norm as president. Were ging green on enegy because enough peole wnted it. Big auto s responding to popular dennd for electric vehicles.

In an oligarchy a Trump could curtail EVs and promote fossil fuels. The standard definitions do not really fit how our system actually works.

The wealthy individuals and contortions have influence via campaign money. Macain tried his best to get campaign reform, neiter the left ot right wanted reform.

Aristocracy is, by definition, "rule by the best," and we only use the word "aristocracy" to describe people that we assume to be deserving of their positions, at least according to thinkers like Plato and Aristotle. The "oligarch" is not assumed to be so deserving.

The difference between an aristocrat and an oligarch is explained best within the explanation of what constitutes a timocracy:

"A timocracy, in choosing its leaders, is "inclining rather to the more high-spirited and simple-minded type, who are better suited for war".[1] The governors of timocracy value power, which they seek to attain primarily by means of military conquest and the acquisition of honors, rather than intellectual means. Plato characterizes timocracy as a mixture of the elements of two different regime types — aristocracy and oligarchy. Just like the leaders of Platonic aristocracies, timocratic governors will apply great effort in gymnastics and the arts of war, as well as the virtue that pertains to them, that of courage. They will also be contemptuous towards manual activities and trade and will lead a life in public communion. Just like oligarchs, however, they will yearn for material wealth and will not trust thinkers to be placed in positions of power. Timocrats will have a tendency to accumulate wealth in pernicious ways, and hide their possessions from public view. They will also be spendthrift and hedonistic. Because their voluptuous nature will not be, like that of philosopher-kings, pacified in a philosophical education, law can only be imposed onto them by means of force."​

The aristocrat is, in Plato's perception, a sort of "philosopher-king" that promotes intellectualism and supports artists and scholars and (assuming the word were used, then) scientific advancement. A Platonic aristocrat would defend a controversial artist or scientist from superstitious and ignorant commoners, and that person would also instate a system of public education in order to remedy that ignorance. Aristocrats are like the liberal bourgeoisie. They are the William Godwins, the Jeremy Benthams, and the John Stuart Mills. We could even count John Maynard Keynes among them, even though there were douchy aspects of Keynes.

Oligarchs are, by definition, anti-intellectual. They have to be. An educated populace would notice that the oligarchy is corrupted and not really deserving of their positions. An oligarch has no intention of being deserving of their positions, but they have every intention of staying in power by keeping the people too hobbled and divided against themselves to ever threaten them. They do not want to deserve their positions. They like being corrupt. Their purpose is to preserve their power to get away with that corruption, and they really relish not having to answer for their crimes.

Aristocrats and oligarchs seem to be similar, but they are really not similar at all. The security of the aristocrat is that the people are enlightened enough to see that they are really just. The security of the oligarch is that the people are too ignorant to see that they are really unjust. The difference is a large one.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

All of that explanation about aristocracy v. timocracy v. oligarchy strays from my point about socialism v. capitalism.

Under an aristocracy, I support capitalism. Under an oligarchy, I support socialism. I think that this is a reasonable position.

I think that we are currently at a juncture, in society, where the once-visionary and just aristocracy has begun to deteriorate into a corrupted oligarchy, and while I am not yet prepared to throw my lot in with the unions, I am getting closer every single year. I do not see the trend changing anytime soon. Once we are truly living under an oligarchy, our society will begin to stagnate because an oligarchy can never stay in power if the public is truly informed and if the arts are truly unhindered.

We are not quite there, yet, but we are on our way there. Furthermore, it is increasingly inevitable that we will ultimately find ourselves there. Without robust intervention to establish a new, more worthy aristocracy and to restore empowerment to the people, it will be like a train-wreck that can be observed but that cannot obviously be stopped.

One way that I am trying to help is that I am speaking out to say that I do not currently want union representation at my own job, but I defend the rights of employees to pursue union representation if they choose to do so. If a business is suppressing union representation by threats and intimidation, then union representation is indeed necessary.

I do not mind a strategy for the prevention of unions that is based on high wages and diverse workplaces. Those are a good thing. In diverse workplaces, you have allies that see management as the defenders of their interests, and well-paid workers are loyal workers. This is a good strategy.

When workers that discuss unionization are being fired, though, then it is imperative to make sure that that company unionizes as quickly as possible. Under such circumstances, unionization should not be delayed another moment.

We should not aspire to be unionized, but we should aspire to have the ability to unionize--quickly--if we have lost faith in management and if the management has made up its mind to adopt a leadership style that is based on intimidation. That is where I stand.

 

[Elixir]

That is the irony. The right is being seduced by auterterisnim as long as it fits thier views

A polite and generous, but laughable way to put it. RW politicos don’t have views.

Conservative minded people don’t all automatically scream socialism, but their elected representatives do, which forces them to sheeple right along.
The RW politicos don’t have views. They have donors and endorsers, and that’s all that matters.

 

[Elixir]

Communism is the end stage of socialism.

Meaningless RW platitude..
Authoritarianism is the "end stage" of every form of government except authoritarianism.
We see it developing right now in the USA just as it happened in Venezuela - at the hands of authoritarians, willingly elected by propaganda-soaked conservotard voters.

 

[steve_bank]

The OP represents what I take to be Freethought. In Freethought one tries to look at issues without looking through a partclar -ism.

In the OP some try to shoehorn a country like Sweden into a dictionary definition of socialism amd the USA in old Marxist terms.

The better approach is to say Sweden is a successful system with attributes a, b, and c that differentiates from say the American system with attributes d,e,f. Therefore Sweden is bettor or worse than the American system for reasons a,b,c.

If we do nor get down to specifics it is a never ending philosophical debate on meaning.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

The OP represents what I take to be Freethought. In Freethought one tries to look at issues without looking through a partclar -ism.

In the OP some try to shoehorn a country like Sweden into a dictionary definition of socialism amd the USA in old Marxist terms.

The better approach is to say Sweden is a successful system with attributes a, b, and c that differentiates from say the American system with attributes d,e,f. Therefore Sweden is bettor or worse than the American system for reasons a,b,c.

If we do nor get down to specifics it is a never ending philosophical debate on meaning.

Horse shit. The Nordic Model goes straight back to the Kanslergade Agreement, which was overtly and officially, a compromise package that included the most pressing priorities of several different parties, some of them being socialist. It constitutes a compromise between socialism and capitalism, but socialism was clearly a part of that compromise. To deny this would reflect a stunning ignorance of history.

Kanslergade Agreement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you want to know who to thank for making sure that that compromise happened, you can thank Thorvald Stauning, who remains one of the most effective statesmen in European history. He is a model of statesmanship because he used compromise to create a better system than any of the parties in his government could have created by themselves. He turned his government into a united team, and that team realized that their first responsibility was toward the common people of Denmark, not toward partisan loyalties.

However, that great Danish statesman also happened to be a socialist.