Europe submits voluntarily

[Harry Bosch]

Well, socialism is meant to be a stage towards communism. Under socialism assets are collectivized and controlled by the collective. Then after this creates world harmony and abundance, communism would emerge where all goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. So, right wingers starting defining social spending by government as emerging socialism. We'd better stop the safety net stuff or else the communists will take over! Then for some reason, the left started describing "government spending" as socialism about 10 years ago or so.

You have a Left over there? Who knew?

Funny. I hear that there is quite a right movement going where you are? Every country has a spectrum of politics. I would agree that generally Americans are more right than the typical European. However, there are parts of Europe (eastern Europe) that are more to the right than the US (Poland for example).

 

[Derec]

To get back on topic, it looks like Austria at least had enough of submitting voluntarily.
Austrian president approves far-right Freedom party joining coalition government

 

[Jokodo]

To get back on topic, it looks like Austria at least had enough of submitting voluntarily.
Austrian president approves far-right Freedom party joining coalition government

If European values include democracy, then the opposite is more to the point. Giving half of the ministries, including interior and defense, to a party whose de facto party newspaper discusses "constitutional measures to prevent the opposition from regaining its strength" is nothing short of a submission.

 

[angelo]

I agree. How about we buck the trend and use words are they are defined? Do you guys in the EU use the Merriam-Webster? Below is their definition of socialism. If not, which dictionary do you use?

Definition of socialism

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
4. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Actually, looking at British dictionaries, that is not too different. Wiki does it better, when it opens by saying that the word refers to a range of systems.

Obviously, 'Socialism' can refer to a system where some but not all of the ownership is collective or governmental. This, I think, is the version common in the Social Democracies of western Europe. The state owns and controls certain things (those 'basics' deemed to have the most 'collective' interest, such as rail transport and health and energy) and others are open to the free-market. Housing is often mixed, where the state owns and provides and manages some. I don't think the blend is the same in any two countries.

My outside impression of the USA is that Socialism is treated as an all or nothing thing.

Though I doubt that's true. There was a lot of support for Bernie Sanders. I have a lot of admiration for Sanders, who I hear did a great job as 'Socialist' mayor of Burlington and was, wiki says, rated as one of America's best ever mayors in a national poll in 1987.

I have this abiding suspicion that if the average American wised up they would realise they'd probably be better served by some sort of blend of Social Democracy like Europe has.

8 years of the left Obama administration make America any better?

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, socialism is meant to be a stage towards communism. Under socialism assets are collectivized and controlled by the collective. Then after this creates world harmony and abundance, communism would emerge where all goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed. So, right wingers starting defining social spending by government as emerging socialism. We'd better stop the safety net stuff or else the communists will take over! Then for some reason, the left started describing "government spending" as socialism about 10 years ago or so.

You have a Left over there? Who knew?

Funny. I hear that there is quite a right movement going where you are? Every country has a spectrum of politics. I would agree that generally Americans are more right than the typical European. However, there are parts of Europe (eastern Europe) that are more to the right than the US (Poland for example).

Sure. I thought when you said the left started describing government spending as socialism, you meant the Democrats.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Funny. I hear that there is quite a right movement going where you are? Every country has a spectrum of politics. I would agree that generally Americans are more right than the typical European. However, there are parts of Europe (eastern Europe) that are more to the right than the US (Poland for example).

Sure. I thought when you said the left started describing government spending as socialism, you meant the Democrats.

I might have misspoke earlier. But right wing people first started calling government spending "socialism" as a way to scare people who wanted a larger safety net. I've probably shifted this thread far from where it should be. but my main point is that European companies are extremely capitalistic. They'll chop you at your legs figuratively speaking in a second if it helps them gain market share. Most of the European systems aren't that much different than the US, but they value more government programs, aren't as scared with higher taxes, and tend to be more fair.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I agree. How about we buck the trend and use words are they are defined? Do you guys in the EU use the Merriam-Webster? Below is their definition of socialism. If not, which dictionary do you use?

Definition of socialism

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
4. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Actually, looking at British dictionaries, that is not too different. Wiki does it better, when it opens by saying that the word refers to a range of systems.

Obviously, 'Socialism' can refer to a system where some but not all of the ownership is collective or governmental. This, I think, is the version common in the Social Democracies of western Europe. The state owns and controls certain things (those 'basics' deemed to have the most 'collective' interest, such as rail transport and health and energy) and others are open to the free-market. Housing is often mixed, where the state owns and provides and manages some. I don't think the blend is the same in any two countries.

My outside impression of the USA is that Socialism is treated as an all or nothing thing.

Though I doubt that's true. There was a lot of support for Bernie Sanders. I have a lot of admiration for Sanders, who I hear did a great job as 'Socialist' mayor of Burlington and was, wiki says, rated as one of America's best ever mayors in a national poll in 1987.

I have this abiding suspicion that if the average American wised up they would realise they'd probably be better served by some sort of blend of Social Democracy like Europe has.

8 years of the left Obama administration make America any better?

Tons better. His administration got us out of the recession, stabilized our foreign policy, found health insurance for millions of uninsured, and etc. The Obamas brought stabilization and dignity to the WH.

 

[ruby sparks]

Funny. I hear that there is quite a right movement going where you are? Every country has a spectrum of politics. I would agree that generally Americans are more right than the typical European. However, there are parts of Europe (eastern Europe) that are more to the right than the US (Poland for example).

Sure. I thought when you said the left started describing government spending as socialism, you meant the Democrats.

I might have misspoke earlier. But right wing people first started calling government spending "socialism" as a way to scare people who wanted a larger safety net. I've probably shifted this thread far from where it should be. but my main point is that European companies are extremely capitalistic. They'll chop you at your legs figuratively speaking in a second if it helps them gain market share. Most of the European systems aren't that much different than the US, but they value more government programs, aren't as scared with higher taxes, and tend to be more fair.

No prob. I didn't think you misspoke. My comment could have been interpreted as having a go at America. Yeah, there are degrees of free market. As to politicicians, since ours here in NI are mostly either terrorist sympathisers or creationist nutjobs who can't even form a government, I'm in no position to slag off anyone else's.

 

[bilby]

It's very frustrating, but the right wing in the US has been wildly successful at redefining words to win an argument. Right wingers changed the definition of larger safety net to mean "socialism". A tax on an estate is now called "death tax". Government allocating scarce health care resources is now called "death panels". It's frustrating to see people on the left also adopting the right wing language. And I know that I'm fighting an unwinnable battle, but I won't give up.

Viewed from across the water, it is clear that language has been used inaccurately to discredit certain ideas that don't accord with the extreme capitalism that is dominant. I often wonder how come so many citizens apparently buy into it. It makes me sad, actually. It's not exclusive to the USA of course. It goes on here too, to a lesser extent.

I agree. How about we buck the trend and use words are they are defined? Do you guys in the EU use the Merriam-Webster? Below is their definition of socialism. If not, which dictionary do you use?

Definition of socialism

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
4. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

No; English speakers on the right-hand side of the Atlantic do NOT use Merriam-Webster.

That nonsensical compilation can't even get the basic spellings of common words, like colour, humour, or aluminium correct.

If you start from the basic assumption that American and English are fundamentally similar enough to share a dictionary, then you will be wrong most of the time.

Words in English have many definitions, and the usual authority to which English English speakers make their fallacious appeals is the Oxford English Dictionary, which conflicts with Merriam-Webster in many ways.

Appeal to Authority remains fallacious, even if there were no disagreements between authorities. It's doubly fallacious in this case.

 

[bilby]

Sure. You are arguing for a larger safety net. A larger safety net is what is really the difference between the Scandinavian countries and the US. But there is this growing belief that the "Nordic" countries are socialist. This is just false. The private sector is very strong in Norway and Sweden. This posts always stick out to me because I started a company and had our butts kicked by a Norwegian company. And then was eventually bought out by a joint Norway-Swedish company. After the fact, we got a great deal! But we got out maneuvered by two great innovative, aggressive, and cunning Nordic companies. Believe me, they are formidable capitalists!

Two nations divided by a common language.

"Socialism' in America means what an English speaker would call 'Communism'.

A large safety net is the very essence of what an English speaker means by the word 'Socialism'. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the means of production.

Socialism is really where the means of production are owned by the collective. There is no individual ownership of assets.

Only to the extent that 'colour' is really spelled without the letter 'u' - ie That's true in US English, but not in the rest of the English speaking world.

Communism is suppose to be the next stage where assets or the means of production are owned in common and are available to all. Communism is generally meant to be universal as well. In communism it's theorized that the state will wither away and all goods are distrubited out equally.

Meh.

I am speaking a different language to you. That doesn't mean that I am wrong. Or that you are.

 

[bilby]

State ownership of infrastructure is uncontroversial even in the USA.

The only question is where the line should be drawn between infrastructure and industry.

In the US, things like healthcare are considered industry, where the UK considers it it be infrastructure.

Even in the US, the military, (most) highways, and such things as policing and emergency services are treated as infrastructure.

In the UK, until recently, the definition of infrastructure was stretched to encompass such things as railway operations (as well as track, signalling and stations); Telecommunications; Electricity and Gas supply; And Coal and Steel production.

All of these have be re-privatised in the last three decades (except coal mining, which was shut down completely).

Exactly how large the definition of 'infrastructure' needs to become before national ownership of infrastructure is socialism (in the American sense of the word) I couldn't say; but certainly the existence of interstate highways, the Army, Navy and Airforce, show that Americans are not completely opposed to it in principle.

Any idea taken to extremes becomes a bad idea.

 

[ruby sparks]

State ownership of infrastructure is uncontroversial even in the USA......Exactly how large the definition of 'infrastructure' needs to become before national ownership of infrastructure is socialism (in the American sense of the word) I couldn't say; but certainly the existence of interstate highways, the Army, Navy and Airforce, show that Americans are not completely opposed to it in principle.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I agree. How about we buck the trend and use words are they are defined? Do you guys in the EU use the Merriam-Webster? Below is their definition of socialism. If not, which dictionary do you use?

Definition of socialism

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
4. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

No; English speakers on the right-hand side of the Atlantic do NOT use Merriam-Webster.

That nonsensical compilation can't even get the basic spellings of common words, like colour, humour, or aluminium correct.

If you start from the basic assumption that American and English are fundamentally similar enough to share a dictionary, then you will be wrong most of the time.

Words in English have many definitions, and the usual authority to which English English speakers make their fallacious appeals is the Oxford English Dictionary, which conflicts with Merriam-Webster in many ways.

Appeal to Authority remains fallacious, even if there were no disagreements between authorities. It's doubly fallacious in this case.

Well, why not attack my post with a link of your own? Geez. Okay, let's discard the loser dictionary Merriam-Webster (the fraud that it is). Let's go with the Oxford-English dictionary. Are they good enough? Here's the English version:

"A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. A Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism."

You are claiming that I'm using "Appeal to Authority"? Well, how do you define your words? Sorry, I'm just not going to let the right wing define how words are used.

 

[bilby]

I agree. How about we buck the trend and use words are they are defined? Do you guys in the EU use the Merriam-Webster? Below is their definition of socialism. If not, which dictionary do you use?

Definition of socialism

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
4. a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

No; English speakers on the right-hand side of the Atlantic do NOT use Merriam-Webster.

That nonsensical compilation can't even get the basic spellings of common words, like colour, humour, or aluminium correct.

If you start from the basic assumption that American and English are fundamentally similar enough to share a dictionary, then you will be wrong most of the time.

Words in English have many definitions, and the usual authority to which English English speakers make their fallacious appeals is the Oxford English Dictionary, which conflicts with Merriam-Webster in many ways.

Appeal to Authority remains fallacious, even if there were no disagreements between authorities. It's doubly fallacious in this case.

Well, why not attack my post with a link of your own? Geez.

I was posting from my phone, so it was in the 'too hard' basket. But even if I could have done so, it would be pointless - the dictionary doesn't define the meaning of words; it attempts to describe how they are actually used.

Okay, let's discard the loser dictionary Merriam-Webster (the fraud that it is).

Good idea.

Let's go with the Oxford-English dictionary. Are they good enough?

No. No authority is good enough. Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy.

Here's the English version:

"A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. A Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism."

You are claiming that I'm using "Appeal to Authority"? Well, how do you define your words? Sorry, I'm just not going to let the right wing define how words are used.

Words are defined by the population that uses them. Dictionaries are an attempt to capture those definitions; and, like maps (which attempt to capture a picture of a landscape), dictionaries are ALWAYS out of date, and often badly wrong, in areas where change is rapid. The map is not the territory, and where the two do not agree, it is the territory that is 'correct', and never the map.

Appealing to Authority is a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter what authority you select; But dictionaries remain a poor choice amongst a list that only contains poor choices.

I understand that this is very challenging for many people - I am one myself - but it is nevertheless true that words mean what the speaker understands them to mean, and that this does not always match what the audience takes them to mean. And it remains also true that in the event of a dispute, the ONLY authority is the speaker. So in a dialogue, there are two competing authorities, BOTH of whom are right, and BOTH of whom may also be wrong - depending on whether they are speaking or listening.

If you use 'socialism' to mean 'State ownership of the means of production', then that's what the word means when you say it. But if you are talking to an Englishman, he may well not understand what you mean; So if you want to be understood, you need to use words that he will understand, and avoid using words for which he has a definition that differs from yours.

Your only other option is to be incomprehensible, and misunderstood - which benefits nobody.

 

[Hermit]

What's the point of throwing dictionaries at each other? The spectrum ranging from anarcho-capitalism to communism is wide. Anything in between the two extremes is best described as a mixed economy, keeping in mind that the mix varies. So, the US is mostly capitalistic with only small socialist components. In comparison, Scandinavian countries include rather more of the latter, though even there most of the means of production are not government owned. Neither extreme has actually existed in the real world. Both Russia and China quickly degenerated into state capitalism, which basically combined the worst aspects of both capitalism and communism, and the US (among others) are notorious for capitalist welfarism, where business is heavily subsidised directly or through tax breaks and bailed out of bankruptcy. The shareholders get to keep the profits and the public bears the cost.

It's a wonderful world we live in - wonderful as in it makes me wonder why we don't live in a state of permanent revolt.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, why not attack my post with a link of your own? Geez.

I was posting from my phone, so it was in the 'too hard' basket. But even if I could have done so, it would be pointless - the dictionary doesn't define the meaning of words; it attempts to describe how they are actually used.

Okay, let's discard the loser dictionary Merriam-Webster (the fraud that it is).

Good idea.

Let's go with the Oxford-English dictionary. Are they good enough?

No. No authority is good enough. Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy.

Here's the English version:

"A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. A Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism."

You are claiming that I'm using "Appeal to Authority"? Well, how do you define your words? Sorry, I'm just not going to let the right wing define how words are used.

Words are defined by the population that uses them. Dictionaries are an attempt to capture those definitions; and, like maps (which attempt to capture a picture of a landscape), dictionaries are ALWAYS out of date, and often badly wrong, in areas where change is rapid. The map is not the territory, and where the two do not agree, it is the territory that is 'correct', and never the map.

Appealing to Authority is a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter what authority you select; But dictionaries remain a poor choice amongst a list that only contains poor choices.

I understand that this is very challenging for many people - I am one myself - but it is nevertheless true that words mean what the speaker understands them to mean, and that this does not always match what the audience takes them to mean. And it remains also true that in the event of a dispute, the ONLY authority is the speaker. So in a dialogue, there are two competing authorities, BOTH of whom are right, and BOTH of whom may also be wrong - depending on whether they are speaking or listening.

If you use 'socialism' to mean 'State ownership of the means of production', then that's what the word means when you say it. But if you are talking to an Englishman, he may well not understand what you mean; So if you want to be understood, you need to use words that he will understand, and avoid using words for which he has a definition that differs from yours.

Your only other option is to be incomprehensible, and misunderstood - which benefits nobody.

Well, again I recognize that I'm going to lose the argument. The right wing is just better at redefining words that suits their strategy. (I know that you aren't right wing). But I'm curious, what do you call systems where the means of production are owned by the collective and there is no private ownership of assets?

 

[bilby]

I was posting from my phone, so it was in the 'too hard' basket. But even if I could have done so, it would be pointless - the dictionary doesn't define the meaning of words; it attempts to describe how they are actually used.Good idea.

Let's go with the Oxford-English dictionary. Are they good enough?

No. No authority is good enough. Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy.

Here's the English version:

"A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. A Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism. A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism."

You are claiming that I'm using "Appeal to Authority"? Well, how do you define your words? Sorry, I'm just not going to let the right wing define how words are used.

Words are defined by the population that uses them. Dictionaries are an attempt to capture those definitions; and, like maps (which attempt to capture a picture of a landscape), dictionaries are ALWAYS out of date, and often badly wrong, in areas where change is rapid. The map is not the territory, and where the two do not agree, it is the territory that is 'correct', and never the map.

Appealing to Authority is a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter what authority you select; But dictionaries remain a poor choice amongst a list that only contains poor choices.

I understand that this is very challenging for many people - I am one myself - but it is nevertheless true that words mean what the speaker understands them to mean, and that this does not always match what the audience takes them to mean. And it remains also true that in the event of a dispute, the ONLY authority is the speaker. So in a dialogue, there are two competing authorities, BOTH of whom are right, and BOTH of whom may also be wrong - depending on whether they are speaking or listening.

If you use 'socialism' to mean 'State ownership of the means of production', then that's what the word means when you say it. But if you are talking to an Englishman, he may well not understand what you mean; So if you want to be understood, you need to use words that he will understand, and avoid using words for which he has a definition that differs from yours.

Your only other option is to be incomprehensible, and misunderstood - which benefits nobody.

Well, again I recognize that I'm going to lose the argument. The right wing is just better at redefining words that suits their strategy. (I know that you aren't right wing). But I'm curious, what do you call systems where the means of production are owned by the collective and there is no private ownership of assets?

That sounds like what I would call 'communism'.

Or perhaps 'disastrous'

I agree that the Right Wing is very effective at redefining words to suit their goals - and I recognize that the only way to do this is to get people in general to start using words in the way they want them to. The right wing use the media (in particular social media and the tabloid press) to do this to good effect, and always have an advantage, because right wing ideas tend to be simplistic and easy to encapsulate in a few words; while left wing ideas (and reality) are more complex and unsuited to sound-bites and simple aphorisms.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What's the point of throwing dictionaries at each other? The spectrum ranging from anarcho-capitalism to communism is wide. Anything in between the two extremes is best described as a mixed economy, keeping in mind that the mix varies. So, the US is mostly capitalistic with only small socialist components. In comparison, Scandinavian countries include rather more of the latter, though even there most of the means of production are not government owned. Neither extreme has actually existed in the real world. Both Russia and China quickly degenerated into state capitalism, which basically combined the worst aspects of both capitalism and communism, and the US (among others) are notorious for capitalist welfarism, where business is heavily subsidised directly or through tax breaks and bailed out of bankruptcy. The shareholders get to keep the profits and the public bears the cost.

It's a wonderful world we live in - wonderful as in it makes me wonder why we don't live in a state of permanent revolt.

Good post. Where do you put Australia in the spectrum? More towards to Europe?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's the point of throwing dictionaries at each other?

Please don't throw them. The OED is simply too heavy!

 

[Hermit]

Where do you put Australia in the spectrum? More towards to Europe?

There are many factors that make a comparison difficult. For starters, Europe is much less a homogeneous entity in political, social and (despite the EU) economic terms than the US or Australia. Then there are fluctuations in time. That said, I think that Australia resembles the states of affairs in Europe more closely than that pertaining to the US. Despite the vast majority of the past several decades being presided over by the conservative coalition (approximately 46 years since 1949) the Australian mindset has from before even its beginning as a nation in1901 leant more towards a social compact prevalent in Europe than the naïve individualism that is so pervasive in the US.