Heaven on Earth The Rise and Fall of Socialism

[Duke Leto]

Again, in my opinion you are all talking about what amounts to the "legitimate" use of a non-trademarked brand name, but has it occurred to anyone to compare the definitions of the word in question to that presented in non-English Dictionaries?

 

[dystopian]

Again, in my opinion you are all talking about what amounts to the "legitimate" use of a non-trademarked brand name, but has it occurred to anyone to compare the definitions of the word in question to that presented in non-English Dictionaries?

Good question, with an interesting answer that sheds light on different cultural interpretations and attitudes.

The Van Dale (*the* Dutch dictionary); gives us:

Betekenis ' socialisme '

so·ci·a·lis·me (het; o) 1(het streven naar) een sociaaleconomische orde waarin geen klassentegenstellingen bestaan

http://www.vandale.nl/opzoeken?pattern=socialisme&lang=nn#.VEf5KclFM54

Translation:
Socialism; (The striving towards) a social-economic order within which there are no class contradictions.

'Contradictions' is the closest literal translation of 'tegenstellingen'; originally I had translated it as class differences, but that isn't strictly speaking a correct translation. The term as used here would mean something like 'class differences' of the unfair variety, rather than simply class differences period.


Another (online) dictionary gives us:

het socialisme
zelfst.naamw.
Uitspraak: [soʃaˈlɪsmə]

maatschappelijk systeem dat gebaseerd is op gelijkheid, sociale rechtvaardigheid en solidariteit, met een eerlijke verdeling van macht en goederen en een sterke rol van de staat
http://www.woorden.org/zoek.php?woord=socialisme

Translation:
Societal system that is based on equality, social justice and solidarity, with an honest division of power and goods and a strong role of government.


These types of definitions correspond with a more general societal interpretation of the term that is closer to what I've been saying all along. Over here, socialism is (generally) considered; at its core; to concern itself with a more equal distribution of wealth and the limitation of class differences. As such, any system that is centered around accomplishing those goals is socialist, regardless of the specific details of execution.

 

[Duke Leto]

So we might actually be looking at a less well documented Liberalism versus Liberalism definition impasse.

I'd be more willing to believe that if it were not for the fact that I've also grown up in America and seen numerous economics and political science texts written in the 70s and 80s calling the Welfare State+Intervention without state ownership systems practiced in France and Sweden described as Socialism in contrast to the Communism of the Soviet planned economy systems. It wasn't until I was taught actual Soviet history as an undergraduate by an excellent Sovietologist that I learned that Communism = Socialism as far as the guys in Moscow described themselves.

For an American popular media example of someone clearly differentiating Socialism from Communism, there's the 1986 comedy "Back to School", which featured an Econ professor as the villain:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIroRqO_BpM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Bomb#20]

But before you define "ideologue", you really ought to apologize to Bill, don't you think? Strike that; your opinion isn't relevant. You really ought to apologize to Bill.

Apologize simply on the grounds that you happen to think I'm being hypocritical when I'm not?

I think not.

Why did you write that? I quoted the exact statements you owe him an apology for. I didn't say you should apologize because you're a hypocrite; I said you should apologize because you accused Bill of dishonesty.

 

[boneyard bill]

Do you have to be Dutch to understand socialism?

No.

But it helps to know what the word actually means, what it looks like in practice in what effect it has on people and societies.

I could write about this for hours but to put it simply:

1. Socialism is not communism, bolshevism, fascism or any other totalitarian system.
2. Socialism is quite common, even in America (Public schools, OSHA laws, food stamps, medicaid etc...)
3. Socialism is quite successful. Among the countries with best healthcare, best standards of living etc.. this is often attributed to socialist politics.

Political systems are not in absolute black and white. Socialism does not necessarily mean that all goods and means are hold in public, it just recognizes that some are or should be. For example public infrastructure and flood defenses are publicly owned and maintained for the common good by the government. Would any of you anti-socialists argue for a state where even roads are privately owned and exploited?

This is the main point why and where socialism works: It understands that the society has shared interests and that a government represents its people in these matters. A real debate on socialism is on what, where and how this representation should take place, not if it exists.

Here lies a hard fact: If you don't force the exploiters to contribute they won't. Look for example at a soup kitchen in the US: run by volunteers and payed for by charity. This is a public service to all but only some are contributing. These few carry a burden that should be everybody's. Would you try to run a road system like this?

The problem is that your attempt at a "definition" (you actually never give one), doesn't make a whole lot of sense. By your standard the US could be defined as a socialist country since its inception. Since nearly every government builds roads, virtually all governments qualify as socialist. I submit that this is nonsense and is unsupported by either the dictionary or common usage. You are basically doing the same thing that dystopian is doing. You provide a definition that is too general to be of any use at all.

 

[boneyard bill]

You appear to be claiming that the welfare state is a form of socialism that hasn't fallen and remains common practice in most countries. I don't know why you don't say that if that's what you mean. My critique, however, has been that the terms you have used are too nebulous to characterize them as particularly socialist. The terms you have used could be applied to Elizabethan England, to Bismark's Germany or to Franco's Spain. Indeed, even such "free market" champions as F.A. Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises supported various forms of social welfare. Perhaps you should begin by explaining to us which countries are NOT socialist by your standards.

And my critique of your critique is that these systems *are* in fact specifically called *socialist* both by their proponents *and* by academics of political theory. I already linked you to some of these systems and terms, so I don't feel any particular need to explain them to you myself. I do not consider that these terms are at all so nebulous as to be applied so broadly, but rather consider that you have suffered from a primarily American phenomenon by which socialism and communism are conflated in meaning, and thus the term has become tainted for you to the point that you cannot willingly accept its usage to describe anything that isn't obviously flawed or evil.

Absolute nonsense. I haven't made any of the statements that you claim, and your claim to have knowledge of the presuppositions of my thinking is not only unsubstantiated but incapable of being substantiated by you. I am well aware of the differences among Marx, Lenin, Bakunin, Rosa Luxemburg, Mao-Tse-Tung, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and other socialist and communist thinkers.

Where are the theoretical advocates of the welfare state? The welfare state emerged as a political compromise. It is not the result of a grand theoretical scheme. It is more the product of pragmatic trade unionism than it is of any political theory. Winston Churchill, the arch-conservative Prime Minister advocated it "from the cradle to the grave." To claim that this hodge-podge of political and economic accommodations which differ widely from country to country and sometimes even within in countries constitutes the only proper definition of socialism is simply nonsensical. Those who advocated socialism at the theoretical level are the people I have mentioned above, and they called themselves socialists. Some also used the term communist. Others said anarchist or syndicalist. Even the term "libertarian" had its origins in the left, not the right.

 

[boneyard bill]

Good question, with an interesting answer that sheds light on different cultural interpretations and attitudes.

The Van Dale (*the* Dutch dictionary); gives us:

Betekenis ' socialisme '

so·ci·a·lis·me (het; o) 1(het streven naar) een sociaaleconomische orde waarin geen klassentegenstellingen bestaan

http://www.vandale.nl/opzoeken?pattern=socialisme&lang=nn#.VEf5KclFM54

Translation:
Socialism; (The striving towards) a social-economic order within which there are no class contradictions.

'Contradictions' is the closest literal translation of 'tegenstellingen'; originally I had translated it as class differences, but that isn't strictly speaking a correct translation. The term as used here would mean something like 'class differences' of the unfair variety, rather than simply class differences period.


Another (online) dictionary gives us:

het socialisme
zelfst.naamw.
Uitspraak: [soʃaˈlɪsmə]

maatschappelijk systeem dat gebaseerd is op gelijkheid, sociale rechtvaardigheid en solidariteit, met een eerlijke verdeling van macht en goederen en een sterke rol van de staat
http://www.woorden.org/zoek.php?woord=socialisme

Translation:
Societal system that is based on equality, social justice and solidarity, with an honest division of power and goods and a strong role of government.


These types of definitions correspond with a more general societal interpretation of the term that is closer to what I've been saying all along. Over here, socialism is (generally) considered; at its core; to concern itself with a more equal distribution of wealth and the limitation of class differences. As such, any system that is centered around accomplishing those goals is socialist, regardless of the specific details of execution.

That, of course, isn't what you have been saying. In fact, your claims have been quite inarticulate despite your unwillingness to recognize this fact. Until now, you have not mentioned the leveling intent of your alleged socialist model. That would, in fact, distinguish it from some systems which are really not much more than replacements for private charity aimed at aiding the needy but not at equalizing the social structure as a whole. I could have expected that from the beginning, but you consistently refused to narrow your definition to anything worth discussing. Nonetheless, the reference to the fall of socialism is still quite appropriate because the author is addressing a very specific set of similar philosophies which we understand as socialism and not to a more general appropriation of the term as applied to the water-down policies of political parties which called themselves socialist. The slogan of the French Revolution: liberty, equality, fraternity, would fit the definitions you have offered but the perpetrators of the revolution were not at all socialist.

 

[boneyard bill]

So we might actually be looking at a less well documented Liberalism versus Liberalism definition impasse.

I'd be more willing to believe that if it were not for the fact that I've also grown up in America and seen numerous economics and political science texts written in the 70s and 80s calling the Welfare State+Intervention without state ownership systems practiced in France and Sweden described as Socialism in contrast to the Communism of the Soviet planned economy systems. It wasn't until I was taught actual Soviet history as an undergraduate by an excellent Sovietologist that I learned that Communism = Socialism as far as the guys in Moscow described themselves.

For an American popular media example of someone clearly differentiating Socialism from Communism, there's the 1986 comedy "Back to School", which featured an Econ professor as the villain:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIroRqO_BpM[/YOUTUBE]

Actually, in the Soviet view, socialism was what they had and communism was something to be achieved with the withering away of the state, but that could not happen until the whole world first became socialist.

The welfare state in Western Europe emerged as the platforms of various parties which called themselves socialist, but which knew that they could not achieve the socialism of political theory through the electoral process. The German Social Democrats have given up socialism altogether in favor of co-determination which allows labor union representation on corporate boards. So far as I know, no other socialist parties in Europe have actually renounced social ownership of industry as an eventual goal. However, other parties, such as the French Radical party renamed itself the Radical Socialist party after they moved to left and added welfare policies to their program.

In the US, there were no major socialist parties and so the name never became a common part of political nomenclature except as a pejorative as when John Nance Garner attacked Herbert Hoover for turning America toward "socialism."

 

[Dutch_labrat]

So we might actually be looking at a less well documented Liberalism versus Liberalism definition impasse.

I'd be more willing to believe that if it were not for the fact that I've also grown up in America and seen numerous economics and political science texts written in the 70s and 80s calling the Welfare State+Intervention without state ownership systems practiced in France and Sweden described as Socialism in contrast to the Communism of the Soviet planned economy systems. It wasn't until I was taught actual Soviet history as an undergraduate by an excellent Sovietologist that I learned that Communism = Socialism as far as the guys in Moscow described themselves.

For an American popular media example of someone clearly differentiating Socialism from Communism, there's the 1986 comedy "Back to School", which featured an Econ professor as the villain:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIroRqO_BpM[/YOUTUBE]

Actually, in the Soviet view, socialism was what they had and communism was something to be achieved with the withering away of the state, but that could not happen until the whole world first became socialist.

The welfare state in Western Europe emerged as the platforms of various parties which called themselves socialist, but which knew that they could not achieve the socialism of political theory through the electoral process. The German Social Democrats have given up socialism altogether in favor of co-determination which allows labor union representation on corporate boards. So far as I know, no other socialist parties in Europe have actually renounced social ownership of industry as an eventual goal. However, other parties, such as the French Radical party renamed itself the Radical Socialist party after they moved to left and added welfare policies to their program.

In the US, there were no major socialist parties and so the name never became a common part of political nomenclature except as a pejorative as when John Nance Garner attacked Herbert Hoover for turning America toward "socialism."

Russia was never socialist nor communist but for its name. Some would call it bolshevism what they had but what that really means is a kleptocracy masquerading as socialism. Totally different from current Russia which is a kleptocracy masquerading as a democracy.

You see, the label does not define the thing.

 

[boneyard bill]

Actually, in the Soviet view, socialism was what they had and communism was something to be achieved with the withering away of the state, but that could not happen until the whole world first became socialist.

The welfare state in Western Europe emerged as the platforms of various parties which called themselves socialist, but which knew that they could not achieve the socialism of political theory through the electoral process. The German Social Democrats have given up socialism altogether in favor of co-determination which allows labor union representation on corporate boards. So far as I know, no other socialist parties in Europe have actually renounced social ownership of industry as an eventual goal. However, other parties, such as the French Radical party renamed itself the Radical Socialist party after they moved to left and added welfare policies to their program.

In the US, there were no major socialist parties and so the name never became a common part of political nomenclature except as a pejorative as when John Nance Garner attacked Herbert Hoover for turning America toward "socialism."

Russia was never socialist nor communist but for its name. Some would call it bolshevism what they had but what that really means is a kleptocracy masquerading as socialism. Totally different from current Russia which is a kleptocracy masquerading as a democracy.

You see, the label does not define the thing.

The thing often defines the label and that was certainly true of Soviet Communism because the word wasn't in common usage until Lenin chose it as the new name for his Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party. The same could not be said of socialism, however, because the name was in common usage and was claimed by disparate factions most of which, but not all, were Marxist.

 

[Dutch_labrat]

No.

But it helps to know what the word actually means, what it looks like in practice in what effect it has on people and societies.

I could write about this for hours but to put it simply:

1. Socialism is not communism, bolshevism, fascism or any other totalitarian system.
2. Socialism is quite common, even in America (Public schools, OSHA laws, food stamps, medicaid etc...)
3. Socialism is quite successful. Among the countries with best healthcare, best standards of living etc.. this is often attributed to socialist politics.

Political systems are not in absolute black and white. Socialism does not necessarily mean that all goods and means are hold in public, it just recognizes that some are or should be. For example public infrastructure and flood defenses are publicly owned and maintained for the common good by the government. Would any of you anti-socialists argue for a state where even roads are privately owned and exploited?

This is the main point why and where socialism works: It understands that the society has shared interests and that a government represents its people in these matters. A real debate on socialism is on what, where and how this representation should take place, not if it exists.

Here lies a hard fact: If you don't force the exploiters to contribute they won't. Look for example at a soup kitchen in the US: run by volunteers and payed for by charity. This is a public service to all but only some are contributing. These few carry a burden that should be everybody's. Would you try to run a road system like this?

The problem is that your attempt at a "definition" (you actually never give one), doesn't make a whole lot of sense. By your standard the US could be defined as a socialist country since its inception. Since nearly every government builds roads, virtually all governments qualify as socialist. I submit that this is nonsense and is unsupported by either the dictionary or common usage. You are basically doing the same thing that dystopian is doing. You provide a definition that is too general to be of any use at all.

Bolded for your convenience. Socialism is recognizing that a society holds property, goods and interests in common and that the state represents the people in managing these.

It is not necessarily a type of government but another element in governance. A state can have a free market with socialist healthcare and social security (e.g. W. Europe) . It is not black and white and yes, the USA has social elements. Always had and always will.

 

[Dutch_labrat]

Russia was never socialist nor communist but for its name. Some would call it bolshevism what they had but what that really means is a kleptocracy masquerading as socialism. Totally different from current Russia which is a kleptocracy masquerading as a democracy.

You see, the label does not define the thing.

The thing often defines the label and that was certainly true of Soviet Communism because the word wasn't in common usage until Lenin chose it as the new name for his Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party. The same could not be said of socialism, however, because the name was in common usage and was claimed by disparate factions most of which, but not all, were Marxist.

So, Marx and Engels wrote their Communist manifest in 1840: An extremely well known and hotly debated political manifest. After 70 years debate and polemics about this manifest it was Lenin who first turned the page back and noticed the title. Really?? Of course not, by the time Lenin was born the word was common (heh) although used with many (slightly) different meanings

In early days communism and socialism were not just the same thing, it is the same word with either a Germanic (kommun) or Latin (societas) root. The difference originated when Western labour organisations distanced themselves from Russia's version of communism.

You see, labels are easily replaced and the meaning of words shifts. The change of a label does not change the thing. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and all that.

 

[boneyard bill]

The problem is that your attempt at a "definition" (you actually never give one), doesn't make a whole lot of sense. By your standard the US could be defined as a socialist country since its inception. Since nearly every government builds roads, virtually all governments qualify as socialist. I submit that this is nonsense and is unsupported by either the dictionary or common usage. You are basically doing the same thing that dystopian is doing. You provide a definition that is too general to be of any use at all.

Bolded for your convenience. Socialism is recognizing that a society holds property, goods and interests in common and that the state represents the people in managing these.

It is not necessarily a type of government but another element in governance. A state can have a free market with socialist healthcare and social security (e.g. W. Europe) . It is not black and white and yes, the USA has social elements. Always had and always will.

As I've already noted, you can find "elements" of socialism going back almost to the beginnings of the nation-state. If you're going to claim that anything that has elements of socialism in it must necessarily be socialism, you can claim just about any system as "socialist." But the issue here is the title of a book called The Rise and Fall of Socialism and some people are claiming that since we still have systems with elements of socialism in them, that it is wrong for the author title this book they way he has since socialism hasn't fallen. But I think that the author is perfectly correct in his title. He is talking about the fall of socialism as an intellectual model upon which to base a social order. Yes, some aspects of socialism have been retained, but they are a pragmatic adaptation to events that would likely have occurred even if no socialist model had ever been invented.

 

[boneyard bill]

The thing often defines the label and that was certainly true of Soviet Communism because the word wasn't in common usage until Lenin chose it as the new name for his Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party. The same could not be said of socialism, however, because the name was in common usage and was claimed by disparate factions most of which, but not all, were Marxist.

So, Marx and Engels wrote their Communist manifest in 1840: An extremely well known and hotly debated political manifest. After 70 years debate and polemics about this manifest it was Lenin who first turned the page back and noticed the title. Really?? Of course not, by the time Lenin was born the word was common (heh) although used with many (slightly) different meanings

In early days communism and socialism were not just the same thing, it is the same word with either a Germanic (kommun) or Latin (societas) root. The difference originated when Western labour organisations distanced themselves from Russia's version of communism.

You see, labels are easily replaced and the meaning of words shifts. The change of a label does not change the thing. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and all that.

The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. It was published for a group called the Young Communist League, and that is presumably where the title came from. But most leftist groups of the day did not call themselves communist. They usually called themselves social democrats. The Russian party to which Lenin belonged was called the Social Democratic Party. The German Social Democrats also claimed to be Marxist. In France they called themselves the Socialist Party.

Western parties did not call themselves socialist to distance themselves from Lenin. Lenin called his movement Communist to differentiate it from the socialist parties. They began as the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Party. In his book, What is To Be Done?, written before the revolution, Lenin distinguishes between the "Trade Union Consciousness" of the working classes who will sell out for better benefits and "Social Democratic Consciousness" of the intellectuals who must form the vanguard of the revolution who will prevent the workers from selling out. So Lenin defines his position as one of social democracy and has not yet come around to the point where he needed a new name for his movement.