The ineffable quality of socialism....

[Elixir]

He was not a tolerator of intentional idleness nor a proponent of a welfare state, but did believe that if those who were working in meaningful industries did not have their most basic of needs met, social collapse or revolution was inevitable.

Seems quite at odds with the prevailing conservotard definition(s). Also contrary to the definition embraced by today's pseudolibs, e.g. "unless they believe that most means of production should be publicly owned".
I guess those people don't see any other way to ensure that the most basic needs of the lowliest workers are met. Could just be a deficit of imagination.

 

[steve_bank]

The conservatives define socialism as the negation of rights to do as one pleases. Toitalitarianism.

To me socialism is a mixed economy with structural supports at the bottom and enforced to a degree economic stability. Compred to the USA which is a wide open free marjet take no prisoners get all you can for yourself economy.

Note that COTUS says govt must provide for the common good. From what I read the question of govt support for the peole goes back to the early days.

We emphasize the individual over the group more thn anywhere else. Any collectives rights are attacked as burdensome and limiting the individual.

Russian and Chinese collectisatiob faild catastrophically. There was no room for personal initiative and no reward. Just unvesal sameness.

I read that when China allowed farmers to grow more than govt required quota and sell for profit production went up.

The Soviets had some of the best science in the world, but there was no allowance for initiative to transfer it to manufacturing. They never provide a reasonable standard of living despite plenty of natural resources.

While it is still the CCP in China they have a mixed economy. Overall central control at the top along with allowance for individual enterprise and profit. Major business decagons are made at the top.

If everybody has some level of guaranteed comfort then that can lead to an atrophy of sorts, a lessoning of initiative.

 

[Derec]

There are many forms of crisis where collective aid in the form of social policies need to be directed. That is a form of socialism at work.

Sigh. Government spending != socialism.

 

[ZiprHead]

There are many forms of crisis where collective aid in the form of social policies need to be directed. That is a form of socialism at work.

Sigh. Government spending != socialism.

It's a better word than most any other.

 

[Derec]

Who was a Marxist way back in the day vs who is a Marxist now is a very different preposition. LeVey was older, as we're all the original LeVeyan Satanists. Doesn't change the fact that afterward, it became the religion exclusively of edgy teens.

I don't know why you are so obsessed with LeVey or why you think LeVeyian Satanism is a good analogy for Marxism. It is not.

and here is the admission that your insistence that "socialism" only be one thing is nonsensical. You have already pointed out other "Socialism" that are not "Marxist Socialism" but are rather less specific, derived socialisms and also non-derived socialism.

There are differences in socialist thought. Democratic Socialism is for example different than revolutionary socialism. Leninism, Stalinism or Trotsyism are all different in significant aspects.
But they are all socialism. They all, including democratic socialism, advocate public ownership of means of production. How that is implemented - direct state control, worker self-management etc. - differs, but the basic idea is the same.

That is very different than social democracy, that advocates greater regulation and social spending in a capitalist framework. You are trying to muddy the waters here.

Now, somebody like AOC is an interesting specimen. She is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, an actual socialist group that advocates actual socialism. She also self-identifies as a socialist. But AOC tends mostly to push social democratic legislative ideas. Either she is cunning and treading carefully by pushing the Democratic Party leftward gradually - as advocating actual socialist ideas now would not go over too well - or she is herself not aware what democratic socialism actually stands for.

You're right, it ISN'T a direct description or proscription for social order.

It's not an indirect one either.

only for those who have an inability to intersect two functions in a linear fashion.

A system of two linear equations is laughingly simple to solve. What does that have to do with parables and sayings attributed to Jesus?

I can easily APPLY that entreatment economically at the very least to understand that leveraging my neighbor for profit rather than equitable exchange is not loving them as I love myself. See how that works? Honestly, I'd bet not.

Why do you think profit and equitable exchange are antithetical?

For the same reason that Rand argues, in fact.

Talking about edgy teenagers ...

Have balls or else you are not really a man...
Have testosterone or you are not really a man...
Wear a kilt or you are not really a Scotsman...

Have three straight sides or you are not really a triangle ...

No, people give words meaning. They have whatever meaning the people decide to give them, based on how they use them. Carts don't draw along the horses.

Doesn't mean you get to redefine words any way you want.

 

[Derec]

It's a better word than most any other.

It is not. Every government spends money. It is thus not a good way to differentiate economic systems. Whether an economic system is dominated by publicly (under socialism) or privately (under capitalism) owned means of production, is a good way to distinguish disparate economic systems.

 

[Derec]

This is an interesting statement coming from someone who is so rigid in the use of words.
Language is not codified. It is fluid and changes over time.

Of course language changes over extended periods of time. That is not an excuse for people like Jarhyn to deliberately misuse words like "socialism".

 

[ZiprHead]

This is an interesting statement coming from someone who is so rigid in the use of words.
Language is not codified. It is fluid and changes over time.

Of course language changes over extended periods of time. That is not an excuse for people like Jarhyn to deliberately misuse words like "socialism".

The point is no one is misusing the word because the meaning of the word has changed. You're the only one who codified it even though you clearly admit that words and their meaning change over time.

 

[Derec]

The point is no one is misusing the word because the meaning of the word has changed.

Just because some ignorant people misuse it does not mean the meaning has changed.

 

[DBT]

There are many forms of crisis where collective aid in the form of social policies need to be directed. That is a form of socialism at work.

Sigh. Government spending != socialism.

You forget that there are many ways of being a society, social policies, looking after the common good, care and attention for all citizens, than your narrow view of 'socialism' appears to allow.

 

[DBT]

The point is no one is misusing the word because the meaning of the word has changed.

Just because some ignorant people misuse it does not mean the meaning has changed.

There is more than one definition of socialism.

 

[Derec]

You forget that there are many ways of being a society, social policies, looking after the common good, care and attention for all citizens, than your narrow view of 'socialism' appears to allow.

As you say, there are many ways of being a society. Those ways are very different from one another. It is silly to try to pretend they are all a form of "socialism" just because they concern a society in some fashion.

Socialism is one set of ways, where means of production are publicly owned.
Social democracy is another, and very different way, that establishes social programs and policies within a capitalist framework of private ownership of means of production.

 

[DBT]

You forget that there are many ways of being a society, social policies, looking after the common good, care and attention for all citizens, than your narrow view of 'socialism' appears to allow.

As you say, there are many ways of being a society. Those ways are very different from one another. It is silly to try to pretend they are all a form of "socialism" just because they concern a society in some fashion.

Look up 'different forms of socialism' - educate yourself. The word is not as rigid in its meaning as you would like to believe.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[DBT]

Yes, indeed. Yet some folks love to cling to their rigid images.

 

[untermensche]

Socialism is defined as the economic system dominated by public ownership of the means of production.

That is the socialist ideal. But in the midst of inequitable violent capitalism socialism is just wanting a few decent social programs that can be easily paid for when the will is there.

 

[Swammerdami]

For those curious, Marx and Engels were actually second generation adopters of the term "socialism"; it was coined and first defined by Henri Saint-Simon, a utopian social philosopher whose works inspired both Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill. The ideas laid out in his most famous work, the "Declaration of Principles", indeed look very similar to what most people today mean by the word socialism. He was not a tolerator of intentional idleness nor a proponent of a welfare state, but did believe that if those who were working in meaningful industries did not have their most basic of needs met, social collapse or revolution was inevitable. On many topics (not all of course) he was a neoliberal before his time.

Interesting. I'd never heard of Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon.... But I'd certainly heard of that Rouvroy family!

Here follows a few paragraphs about genealogy completely unrelated to the thread. If the Hide tags are not enough to mitigate this infraction, please exercise the Ignore option.

Show

The distinction between descendant and agnatic descendant is often ignored. Essentially every European is descended from Charlemagne — usually in millions of different ways, but does he have any living agnatic descendants? If my mother's father's mother's mother's father's mother's ... father was Charlemagne then I am his descendant, but to be his agnatic descendant (and thereby eligible to inherit his titles under Salic law) he must be my father's father's father's father's father's ... father — no female links allowed. In that case I would have inherited my Y-chromosome from this famous Emperor of the West.

So: Does this famous Emperor have any living agnatic descendants? Apparently not. The Counts of Ulster may have claimed agnatic descent from Charlemagne, but their agnatic line went extinct centuries ago. The last person certain to have had the Carolingian Y-chromosome was  Odo I, Count of Vermandois. His very brief Wiki article reveals the key details. He was heir to Vermandois but was disinherited because of some mental disability. Vermandois went to his sister's husband, Hugh the Great of the House of Capet, Leader of the First Crusade. As a consolation prize, Odo "the Insane" became "Comte de Saint-Simon" in 1085. Odo then disappears from historical records.

Do the subsequent Rouvroy Counts of Saint-Simon descend from Odo? Nobody knows. AFAIK there are no plans to disinter any of the Carolingian kings for a DNA sample. But as a hobbyist with a vague interest in ancient genealogies I was intrigued to learn of an important 19th century thinker from the Rouvroy-Saint-Simon family.

These days, Internet genealogies are dominated by giant pedigrees at sites like Geni.Com. Clicking there just now, I see that they have a pedigree for the famous thinker Politesse mentions. And that pedigree shows an agnatic ancestry that traces all the way back to ... Charlemagne, King of All Franks and Emperor of the West!

(No complaints please: I did put this in Hide tags.)

 

[Harry Bosch]

You forget that there are many ways of being a society, social policies, looking after the common good, care and attention for all citizens, than your narrow view of 'socialism' appears to allow.

As you say, there are many ways of being a society. Those ways are very different from one another. It is silly to try to pretend they are all a form of "socialism" just because they concern a society in some fashion.

Look up 'different forms of socialism' - educate yourself. The word is not as rigid in its meaning as you would like to believe.

Buddy: Derec isn't the problem. <sigh> I just don't understand why the left is so dumb regarding language. Why use the right's definitions? The right started calling any increase in the safety net as socialism 50 years ago. They knew that most people don't like socialism (for good reason); so naming all politicians just slightly left of George Bush hurts the left. You are helping the right wing by calling everything socialist.

 

[Elixir]

... I just don't understand why the left is so dumb regarding language. Why use the right's definitions? The right started calling any increase in the safety net as socialism 50 years ago. They knew that most people don't like socialism (for good reason); so naming all politicians just slightly left of George Bush hurts the left.

I hear you.
What is the word for a system where the government is owned by the private owners of most means of production?
'Cuz that's what we have in the US now. Oligarchy?

 

[DBT]

Look up 'different forms of socialism' - educate yourself. The word is not as rigid in its meaning as you would like to believe.

Buddy: Derec isn't the problem. <sigh> I just don't understand why the left is so dumb regarding language. Why use the right's definitions? The right started calling any increase in the safety net as socialism 50 years ago. They knew that most people don't like socialism (for good reason); so naming all politicians just slightly left of George Bush hurts the left. You are helping the right wing by calling everything socialist.

The hard right tend to see anything they happen to disagree with as a socialist or communist plot to take over the world.