Heaven on Earth The Rise and Fall of Socialism

[dystopian]

The graph shows that it's maintianed most of the popularity it had in the 20th century, although not as much as it did around 1910. The differences on the graph are tiny.

Actually, it doesn't even do that. All it does is search for mentions of the word 'socialism' in English texts (with no way of knowing it seems, what percentage the searched texts represent of the total written in that timespan). The graph even completely changes shape when you base it on a case-insensitive spelling of the word; and there isn't enough data to form similar graphs for other languages. The graph doesn't show anything at all about the popularity of the idea itself, even within just the Anglosphere. All it does is tell us that writing the word down isn't as popular in the English speaking world today as it was around 1910; and even then only within whatever sample of texts represent their database, which might not even be representative. In fact, it *can't* be representative; the British English corpus, which presumably is part of the corpus they're using, hasn't even been updated since 1994; so naturally you'd have a dropoff after that. That leaves you with the American-English component of the database, and any low popularity results of the word there are easily explainable by American culture.

But yes, of course you're right that the differences on the graph are tiny too; it appears as though there's huge fluctuations in the frequency the word's been used, until you realize that the vertical axis goes up from 0.000000000% to 0.000000450%

 

[Duke Leto]

There seems to be a fundamental inability to communicate, it seems.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oik6dXm-0l0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[boneyard bill]

How is it poisoning the well?

You're kidding right? Did you not read the text you quoted?

Let's take a look:

'Because its goal proved so elusive' = poisoning the well by priming the reader/viewer into thinking socialism can't/hasn't achieved its goals.

'the socialist movement split and split again into diverse, sometimes murderously contradictory forms.' = Murderously contradictory? Again, primes the reader/viewer, this time with colorful language. Socialism is contradictory! Socialism is violent!

'There was Social Democracy, which insisted that only peaceful and democratic means could produce a harmonious commonwealth. There was Communism, which extolled the resolute use of force and dictatorship to propel mankind to a new way of life. There was Arab Socialism, African Socialism, and other Third World variants that sought to amalgamate western Social Democracy and eastern Communism. There was even fascism, which turned the socialist idea on its head by substituting the brotherhood of nation and race for the brotherhood of class. And there were those - from early American settlers, to the "flower children" of the 1960s, to Israeli Zionist kibbutzniks - who built their own socialist communities, hoping to transform the world by the force of example.' = primes the reader/viewer into thinking of socialism as hopelessly fragmented and chaotic, and does so by dishonestly conflating systems and idealogies that actually have very little to nothing to do with each other.

'As a model for the development of post-colonial states, the socialist model proved disappointing, fostering economic stagnation among millions of the world's poorest people.' = blames a priori the economic troubles of these states on socialism (and not, you know, the same reasons that keep many post-colonial capitalist states in similar poverty), also poisoning the well by insinuating that it would do similar things in developed economies that can actually sustain socialist policies, even if they're not outright implying it, they should be more than capable of understanding that less skeptical minds will innately jump to that subconscious conclusion.

'And in its most violent forms, socialism was calamitous, claiming scores of millions of lives and helping to make the twentieth century the bloodiest ever.' = poisons the well by conflating socialism and authoritarian communist states; priming the reader/viewer into thinking of socialism as an idealogy that leads to violence.

'Through profiles of the individuals that brought socialism to life, HEAVEN ON EARTH tells the story of how an idea arose, evolved, changed the world, and eventually fell.' = poisons the well by saying that socialism 'eventually fell' (neither the idea of socialism not socialism in practice has fallen); thereby insinuating that it can not stand on its own and socialism is doomed to failure: ideas that have risen and fallen are things we consider to belong in the past; so by referring to and idea that is still very much alive and practiced today in such a way, they're poisoning the well by priming the reader/viewer into regarding it as an outdated concept.

It would be one thing if they made these arguments in the documentary itself; their arguments would still be wrong but they wouldn't be poisoning the well at that point. However, stating these things beforehand is even more problematic. An objective teacher (as documentaries should aspire to be) should never put the conclusion before the facts. You don't start out by saying 'X sucks, here's why.', even if you hide it in more subtle language.

Your point is not well taken. It doesn't "prime the pump" by claiming that socialism is murderous or violent any more than I am doing so in pointing out that humans are murderous and violent. It specifically states that some forms of socialism evolved that way without, for one second, suggesting that murder and violence are inherent traits of socialism.

That socialism produced disappointing results in newly-independent colonies is perfectly true and the fact that other approaches often did so as well is completely irrelevant to that point.

Socialism in its authoritarian forms certainly has fallen or else evolved, as in China, into semi-fascist dictatorships. Even North Korea and Cuba are moving away from it. The argument that non-authoritarian forms still exist, stretches the meaning of the term to include the welfare states which are closer to paternalistic systems than to anything reasonably called socialism and can be traced as far back as the Elizabethan poor laws. Meanwhile, many of the "socialist" governments of Europe have more capitalistic features than the US does. (No minimum wage laws, "voucher" systems for public education and even for health care in some instances, and low corporate taxes). So that becomes impossible to say which countries are the most or the least socialist.

The "no true socialist" argument here is a valid criticism. What country in the world today is NOT socialist? Without a definition, it is impossible to say.

 

[dystopian]

And here I thought this thread was dead.

Your point is not well taken.

Gee, why am I not surprised that an idealogue would not take a point well when said point is aimed at undermining his idealogy?

It doesn't "prime the pump" by claiming that socialism is murderous or violent any more than I am doing so in pointing out that humans are murderous and violent.

Except, you saying that humans are murderous and violent WOULD be an example of priming the subject if you were an alien narrator in a documentary about planet earth; just like the blurb we're talking about is priming its viewers. The fact that you obviously don't understand what is meant by the term, or why it's important, doesn't change that.

The argument that non-authoritarian forms still exist, stretches the meaning of the term to include the welfare states which are closer to paternalistic systems than to anything reasonably called socialism and can be traced as far back as the Elizabethan poor laws.

Except that it is in fact you, who is stretching the definition of socialism. Socialism stretches back into antiquity, and in its early forms has always centered around welfare. You are falsely equating communism to socialism; the former is a later addition to the basic philosophies of socialism, which are in fact far closer to modern day western and northern European socialism than they have ever been to communism. Even a cursory understanding (and above all, an objective one free of bias) of the historical development of socialism would allow you to know this.

Meanwhile, many of the "socialist" governments of Europe have more capitalistic features than the US does. (No minimum wage laws, "voucher" systems for public education and even for health care in some instances, and low corporate taxes).

Why am I not surprised that you would engage in this type of dishonest argument? It's true that there are countries here that don't have minimum wage laws; what you fail to understand however, is that these countries do in fact still have effective minimum wage due to collective bargaining agreements; and that the effective minimum wage of these countries is much higher than it is in the US. Are you *really* going to try and tell me that collective bargaining leading to high effective minimum wage far beyond what US business lobbies apparently succesfully argue is manageable for their interests, makes these countries MORE capitalist than the US? Don't make me laugh.

And what about voucher systems is capitalist, exactly? Here's how it works in Sweden, for example:

"In Sweden, a system of school vouchers (called skolpeng) were introduced in 1992 at primary and secondary school level, enabling free choice among publicly run schools and privately run friskolor ("free schools"). The voucher is paid with public funds from the local municipality (kommun) directly to a school based solely on its number of students. Both public schools and free schools are funded the same way. Free schools can be run by not-for-profit groups as well as by for-profit companies, but may not charge top-up fees or select students other than on a first-come-first-serve basis."

Wow! Much Capitalism!

 

[Underseer]

Can you give me an example of where pure socialism worked well? Most of your points boil down to 'they weren't TRUE socialists'

Pure fascism fell even quicker than "pure" socialism, yet that doesn't seem to stop millions of conservatives and libertarians from promoting their ideology, does it?

 

[boneyard bill]

And here I thought this thread was dead.



Gee, why am I not surprised that an idealogue would not take a point well when said point is aimed at undermining his idealogy?

It doesn't "prime the pump" by claiming that socialism is murderous or violent any more than I am doing so in pointing out that humans are murderous and violent.

Except, you saying that humans are murderous and violent WOULD be an example of priming the subject if you were an alien narrator in a documentary about planet earth; just like the blurb we're talking about is priming its viewers. The fact that you obviously don't understand what is meant by the term, or why it's important, doesn't change that.

The argument that non-authoritarian forms still exist, stretches the meaning of the term to include the welfare states which are closer to paternalistic systems than to anything reasonably called socialism and can be traced as far back as the Elizabethan poor laws.

Except that it is in fact you, who is stretching the definition of socialism. Socialism stretches back into antiquity, and in its early forms has always centered around welfare. You are falsely equating communism to socialism; the former is a later addition to the basic philosophies of socialism, which are in fact far closer to modern day western and northern European socialism than they have ever been to communism. Even a cursory understanding (and above all, an objective one free of bias) of the historical development of socialism would allow you to know this.

Meanwhile, many of the "socialist" governments of Europe have more capitalistic features than the US does. (No minimum wage laws, "voucher" systems for public education and even for health care in some instances, and low corporate taxes).

Why am I not surprised that you would engage in this type of dishonest argument? It's true that there are countries here that don't have minimum wage laws; what you fail to understand however, is that these countries do in fact still have effective minimum wage due to collective bargaining agreements; and that the effective minimum wage of these countries is much higher than it is in the US. Are you *really* going to try and tell me that collective bargaining leading to high effective minimum wage far beyond what US business lobbies apparently succesfully argue is manageable for their interests, makes these countries MORE capitalist than the US? Don't make me laugh.

And what about voucher systems is capitalist, exactly? Here's how it works in Sweden, for example:

"In Sweden, a system of school vouchers (called skolpeng) were introduced in 1992 at primary and secondary school level, enabling free choice among publicly run schools and privately run friskolor ("free schools"). The voucher is paid with public funds from the local municipality (kommun) directly to a school based solely on its number of students. Both public schools and free schools are funded the same way. Free schools can be run by not-for-profit groups as well as by for-profit companies, but may not charge top-up fees or select students other than on a first-come-first-serve basis."

Wow! Much Capitalism!

You really expect me to reply to this nonsense? I'm not going to waste my time on one irrelevant point after another. The term "socialism" was first used by Saint Simon and does not go back to ancient times. There were private societies organized on principles of equality (such as early Christianity), but where on earth was there a "socialist" government in the ancient world? As in the last post you are using slippery terms in any way you like with no consistency in usage and no definitions of terms. This is not rational argument. This is sophistry.

Collective bargaining is entirely consistent with free market capitalism. Voucher plans for education are also closer to free market principles than are monopoly school systems. So your points there are also irrelevant and wrong. Contrary to your claims, I am not an "ideologue" a term you also refuse to define. I am definitely a critic of the welfare state in it's current forms but not an ideological opponent of it.

 

[dystopian]

]You really expect me to reply to this nonsense?

Well, I'd *like* to expect you to not only reply to it (which actually you have, so I'm not sure why you're asking the question), but to not consider it nonsense. That last one is a bit of a tall order for you, I understand.

I'm not going to waste my time on one irrelevant point after another. The term "socialism" was first used by Saint Simon and does not go back to ancient times.

It's not relevant when the 'term' was first used; but rather the *concept* which the term describes; which I assure you, goes back to antiquity.

There were private societies organized on principles of equality (such as early Christianity), but where on earth was there a "socialist" government in the ancient world?

Oh, I don't know... ancient Persia (Mazdakism)? Elements of socialist thought can be traced back to classical Greek philosophy. Even the Roman Republic had elements of socialism (consider how it supplied free food to the poor).

Collective bargaining is entirely consistent with free market capitalism.

Collective bargaining is intrinsically a socialist construct. The fact that socialism and capitalism can co-exist, does not change this fact.

Voucher plans for education are also closer to free market principles than are monopoly school systems.

I see you didn't really read how these systems work over in Europe. They clearly have elements of socialism in them. Your obsessive need to eradicate any and all traces of socialism from succesful countries so that you can pretend that 'socialism has fallen', doesn't change the obvious truth for the rest of us.

I am not an "ideologue"

A claim nobody but you will believe. It's patently obvious in the tone and content of your posts. Deal with it.

a term you also refuse to define.

I shouldn't have to, since you presumably have access to a dictionary.

 

[Bomb#20]

I am not an "ideologue"

A claim nobody but you will believe. It's patently obvious in the tone and content of your posts. Deal with it.

a term you also refuse to define.

I shouldn't have to, since you presumably have access to a dictionary.

Oh, for the love of god. You, of all people, telling somebody else to go look up a word.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

so·cial·ism noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

Full 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 : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: 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​

Here are several more dictionaries' definitions.

Welfare is not socialism. Collective bargaining is not socialism. Public education is not socialism. Nationalization of industry and/or compulsory conversion of private businesses into workers' co-ops is socialism. If you disagree, why do you disagree, since you presumably have access to a dictionary?

 

[boneyard bill]

Well, I'd *like* to expect you to not only reply to it (which actually you have, so I'm not sure why you're asking the question), but to not consider it nonsense. That last one is a bit of a tall order for you, I understand.

I'm not going to waste my time on one irrelevant point after another. The term "socialism" was first used by Saint Simon and does not go back to ancient times.

It's not relevant when the 'term' was first used; but rather the *concept* which the term describes; which I assure you, goes back to antiquity.

There were private societies organized on principles of equality (such as early Christianity), but where on earth was there a "socialist" government in the ancient world?

Oh, I don't know... ancient Persia (Mazdakism)? Elements of socialist thought can be traced back to classical Greek philosophy. Even the Roman Republic had elements of socialism (consider how it supplied free food to the poor).

Collective bargaining is entirely consistent with free market capitalism.

Collective bargaining is intrinsically a socialist construct. The fact that socialism and capitalism can co-exist, does not change this fact.

Voucher plans for education are also closer to free market principles than are monopoly school systems.

I see you didn't really read how these systems work over in Europe. They clearly have elements of socialism in them. Your obsessive need to eradicate any and all traces of socialism from succesful countries so that you can pretend that 'socialism has fallen', doesn't change the obvious truth for the rest of us.

I am not an "ideologue"

A claim nobody but you will believe. It's patently obvious in the tone and content of your posts. Deal with it.

a term you also refuse to define.

I shouldn't have to, since you presumably have access to a dictionary.

Bomb # 20 has already replied quite adequately to your post. He has demonstrated quite clearly how you are talking nonsense. But I would add one more offense you've made here. You've now moved the goal post. It seems we are no longer talking "socialism" we are talking "elements of socialism." What on earth are elements of socialism? It can be practically anything. The family unit obviously contains elements of socialism. But the family unit isn't a government. The Egyptians who built the pyramids contained elements of socialism in that they were a collectivist organization, but they were hardly socialist. To bring up the Roman empire in this context is absolutely laughable. The primary productive force of that empire were slaves!

 

[dystopian]

Welfare is not socialism. Collective bargaining is not socialism. Public education is not socialism. Nationalization of industry and/or compulsory conversion of private businesses into workers' co-ops is socialism. If you disagree, why do you disagree, since you presumably have access to a dictionary?

You're being somewhat dishonest here, don't you think? First of all, I never claimed that these things *make* a state socialist. Furthermore, you ought to be well aware of the fact that there are many different models of socialism, and that the simplistic definition you provide above is insufficient. Liberal Socialism and Social Democracy, for example, does not entail the nationalization of industry and/or compulsory end of private business. You're obviously focusing too much on the literal definition and not enough on central points around which all socialist systems revolve; namely the redistribution of wealth for collective purposes rather than individual purposes.

But I would add one more offense you've made here. You've now moved the goal post. It seems we are no longer talking "socialism" we are talking "elements of socialism."

False. I've merely pointed out that there are many different types of socialism; past and present; many of which can not be characterized the way you or bomb do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_socialism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy - these *are* socialist systems, regardless of what you or bomb think, and are perfectly serviceable systems of governance that are in use today.

 

[Duke Leto]

My take on the whole true meaning of Socialism question, if anyone cares:

There's no such thing. An identifier that can include Napoleon III and Eugene Debs and and Stalin and Hitler all self-identifying as Socialists is one that has lost all meaning. Same with Capitalism and Communism.

You can talk about economic policies and institutions and regulatory/intervention regimes, but taking any given country's ad-hoc system and holding it up as truly Socialist or Capitalist or Communist is making an arbitrary definition that muddies more than it clarifies.

 

[boneyard bill]

You're being somewhat dishonest here, don't you think? First of all, I never claimed that these things *make* a state socialist. Furthermore, you ought to be well aware of the fact that there are many different models of socialism, and that the simplistic definition you provide above is insufficient. Liberal Socialism and Social Democracy, for example, does not entail the nationalization of industry and/or compulsory end of private business. You're obviously focusing too much on the literal definition and not enough on central points around which all socialist systems revolve; namely the redistribution of wealth for collective purposes rather than individual purposes.

But I would add one more offense you've made here. You've now moved the goal post. It seems we are no longer talking "socialism" we are talking "elements of socialism."

False. I've merely pointed out that there are many different types of socialism; past and present; many of which can not be characterized the way you or bomb do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_socialism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy - these *are* socialist systems, regardless of what you or bomb think, and are perfectly serviceable systems of governance that are in use today.

First you claimed we were wrong because we weren't using a proper definition of socialism. Then Bomb #20 provided the dictionary definitions and none of your usage fit any of them. Now you seem to be saying that the dictionary is wrong. Perhaps you should iron out these problems in your thinking before you post rather than afterward. Mussolini's fascism was also a welfare state. Does that make it socialist? If not, why not?

If you're talking about the welfare state, then why don't you just say so instead of somehow linking it to a Leninist or Maoist state?

You haven't simply moved the goal post, you've moved it in and out and in and out in the course of a single conversation.

The author talked about the rise and fall of socialism, and we know pretty well what he is talking about. You've tried to critique his claim, but it's well-nigh impossible to figure out what you are talking about. You seem to be saying, "Socialism didn't fall because any system can be considered socialist." That isn't a point worth discussing.

 

[dystopian]

If you're talking about the welfare state, then why don't you just say so instead of somehow linking it to a Leninist or Maoist state?

Your obsessive need to pretend that socialism can only come in the form of a communist regime doesn't change the fact that the systems I pointed out which are very far removed from either lenin or mao's ideas are called *socialist*. The fact that they don't fit neatly into *your* right-wing understanding of socialism isn't relevant.

You haven't simply moved the goal post, you've moved it in and out and in and out in the course of a single conversation.

At no point have I changed the goalpost; I have since the beginning held to and pointed out the position you accuse of being a shifting of the goalposts. Neither have I claimed that you're not using "a proper definition of socialism"; I've simply stated that you've dishonestly *restricted* socialism to mean only what you want it to mean. If I've shifted the goalpost, then you've encased the goal in concrete only to then wonder why people are leaving the field.

The author talked about the rise and fall of socialism, and we know pretty well what he is talking about.

Yes, we know what he's talking about... that doesn't mean we can't see that his use of language is riddled with bias. Which was the whole point.

You've tried to critique his claim,

No, I've simply pointed out that the conclusions presented in the blurb follow only from accepting nothing except an overly narrow definition of socialism, and that the blurb itself is drenched in obviously biased language.

but it's well-nigh impossible to figure out what you are talking about.

Hardly. If you genuinely can't figure out what I'm talking about, then you've either blinded yourself to it in order to protect your worldview, or are mentally challenged in some fashion. Aside from you and bomb (with your political biases a matter of public record) everybody else seems to grasp it just fine.

You seem to be saying, "Socialism didn't fall because any system can be considered socialist." That isn't a point worth discussing.

Nor is it the point I've been discussing.

 

[Bomb#20]

Furthermore, you ought to be well aware of the fact that there are many different models of socialism, and that the simplistic definition you provide above is insufficient. Liberal Socialism and Social Democracy, for example, does not entail the nationalization of industry and/or compulsory end of private business.

What is or isn't the real meaning of "socialism" could make for an interesting discussion.

You're being somewhat dishonest here, don't you think?

You, unfortunately, are not the right person to discuss that with. Bill or I would need to find someone to discuss it with who isn't the left's version of a Randroid accusing people of dishonesty for the sin of disagreeing with him, apparently because he's convinced he's the font of truth and other people know it and are just being dicks about admitting it. So if you want to be involved in such a discussion, I suggest you first re-enroll in elementary school, and when the teachers critique your behavior around others, take it to heart.

You're obviously focusing too much on the literal definition

Are you suggesting that dictionaries do not fully capture the true meaning of words, Mr. "since you presumably have access to a dictionary"? If that is your view, then you really ought to take that first step toward curing your hypocrisy and give Bill a straight answer as to what you meant by "ideologue" when you called him one. You calling Bill an ideologue is the pot calling the kettle black.

Why am I not surprised that you would engage in this type of dishonest argument?

I've simply stated that you've dishonestly *restricted* socialism to mean only what you want it to mean.

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.

(No need to apologize to me -- I knew what you were when I picked you up.)

 

[Dutch_labrat]

Watching Americans debate socialism reminds me of 12 year old boys in the schoolyard teaching each other about sex

 

[boneyard bill]

Your obsessive need to pretend that socialism can only come in the form of a communist regime doesn't change the fact that the systems I pointed out which are very far removed from either lenin or mao's ideas are called *socialist*. The fact that they don't fit neatly into *your* right-wing understanding of socialism isn't relevant.

You haven't simply moved the goal post, you've moved it in and out and in and out in the course of a single conversation.

At no point have I changed the goalpost; I have since the beginning held to and pointed out the position you accuse of being a shifting of the goalposts. Neither have I claimed that you're not using "a proper definition of socialism"; I've simply stated that you've dishonestly *restricted* socialism to mean only what you want it to mean. If I've shifted the goalpost, then you've encased the goal in concrete only to then wonder why people are leaving the field.

The author talked about the rise and fall of socialism, and we know pretty well what he is talking about.

Yes, we know what he's talking about... that doesn't mean we can't see that his use of language is riddled with bias. Which was the whole point.

You've tried to critique his claim,

No, I've simply pointed out that the conclusions presented in the blurb follow only from accepting nothing except an overly narrow definition of socialism, and that the blurb itself is drenched in obviously biased language.

but it's well-nigh impossible to figure out what you are talking about.

Hardly. If you genuinely can't figure out what I'm talking about, then you've either blinded yourself to it in order to protect your worldview, or are mentally challenged in some fashion. Aside from you and bomb (with your political biases a matter of public record) everybody else seems to grasp it just fine.

You seem to be saying, "Socialism didn't fall because any system can be considered socialist." That isn't a point worth discussing.

Nor is it the point I've been discussing.

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.

 

[boneyard bill]

Watching Americans debate socialism reminds me of 12 year old boys in the schoolyard teaching each other about sex

Do you have to be Dutch to understand socialism?

 

[Dutch_labrat]

Watching Americans debate socialism reminds me of 12 year old boys in the schoolyard teaching each other about sex

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?

 

[dystopian]

You, unfortunately, are not the right person to discuss that with. Bill or I would need to find someone to discuss it with who isn't the left's version of a Randroid accusing people of dishonesty for the sin of disagreeing with him, apparently because he's convinced he's the font of truth and other people know it and are just being dicks about admitting it.

Me being the left's version of anything is pretty impressive... seeing as my political views are considered centrist. Apparently, taking issue with people's misrepresentation of socialism must mean my home is plastered in posters of Lenin or something. That kind of assumption on your part also makes it quite ironic how you'd try to argue that I'm not the right person to discuss a subject with on the grounds you've listed.

So if you want to be involved in such a discussion, I suggest you first re-enroll in elementary school, and when the teachers critique your behavior around others, take it to heart.

Like I said, quite ironic.

You calling Bill an ideologue is the pot calling the kettle black.

Obviously not; I'm not the one using loaded language designed for the sole purpose of dismissing one's opponent's views right from the get go. You certainly haven't seen me actually defending socialism as a system; rather you've seen me taking issue with the language and foregone conclusions presented.

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.

 

[dystopian]

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.