NationStates Jolt Archive

A while ago I started a thread entitled "Did the cold war rob America of any sense of social justice" which basicly asked why the American political system has no Socialist representation in its political system. I then immidately got showered down in a series of insults against communism and a series of arguements about why communisim is inherintly evil ranging from the number of deaths in communist regiemes to the explaination of why you loose personal freedoms under communism. Now I just want to make it clear that Socialism and Communism are NOT the same thing. I'm not sure why people can't understand that but its the truth. Calling Socialism Communisim is like calling Conservatisim Facisim. Both Communisim and Facisim are extreme authoritarian styles of their respective original forms. It seems to me that many Americans here like to confuse Socialism with Communism so as to avoid having to look at the possibility of Socailalism working in their country.

Also, communism is not Stalinism.
I can't stand people who say "OMG COMMUNISM IS EVIL BECAUSE STALIN KILLED 500 MILLION OF HIS OWN PEOPLE!!11"

Man, I hate people.

Both Communisim and Facisim are extreme authoritarian styles of their respective original forms.

Once again, I will state that communism has never existed...only authoritarian state-socialism under "communist" parties...

Communism is the evolutionary transition after socialism.

Also, communism is not Stalinism.
I can't stand people who say "OMG COMMUNISM IS EVIL BECAUSE STALIN KILLED 500 MILLION OF HIS OWN PEOPLE!!11"

Man, I hate people.

Also, Russia was not socialist.

EDIT: Good thread! I noticed the same thing, too, that some people can differentiate the two.

Also, Russia was not socialist.
:confused:
Err, what was it then? I had thought it was statist authoritarian socialist...

Also, communism is not Stalinism.
I can't stand people who say "OMG COMMUNISM IS EVIL BECAUSE STALIN KILLED 500 MILLION OF HIS OWN PEOPLE!!11"

Man, I hate people.

No, but Stalinism "was" Communism, supposedly, right?

Regards,
Gaar

:confused:
Err, what was it then? I had thought it was statist authoritarian socialist...

State-capitalist. It still had social and economic heirarchy.

:confused:
Err, what was it then? I had thought it was statist authoritarian socialist...

Communist. It was communist. Let's not get into famcy euphemisms.

No, but Stalinism "was" Communism, supposedly, right?

Regards,
Gaar

That is correct my friend.

Excellent thread.

I have strong socialist values and I admit I am a bugger for referring to the American Right as Fascists, despite it being generally quite clear that they're largely not.

But does America need any socialist values? I mean, they don't have anyone living below the poverty line do they? No one ever gets ill who doesn't have adequate healthcare, do they? Everyone owns their own home and the legal system never gets anything wrong.

Yay America!

Communist. It was communist. Let's not get into famcy euphemisms.

No it wasn't...
Russia was an authoritarian socialist system up until Gorbachev, under whom it transitioned towards a democratic socialist nation.

That is correct my friend.

Just like Communism is a "form" of Socialism, right?

Regards,
Gaar

No, but Stalinism "was" Communism, supposedly, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Stalinism was Stalin's vision of 'Socialism in one state' - opposing the traditional internationalist views of socialists like Trotsky and Lenin.

No it wasn't...
Russia was an authoritarian socialist system up until Gorbachev, under whom it transitioned towards a democratic socialist nation.

Well, their intent was to build a Communistic Country, right?

So perhaps you could give us an example of a Country that has been able to set-up a successful Communism?

And I'll show you a few successful Democracies, ok?

Shall we take a look at how each has performed in the "Real World" over the last century...

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/govt1900.htm

Regards,
Gaar

Just like Communism is a "form" of Socialism, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Communism is essentially socialism sans state. It's similar in ideology to anarchism, only with collective ownership of land and property etc.
Socialism (aka the dictatorship of the proletariat) was the transition phase from capitalism to communism.
That is basically Marxism.

Socialism is not Communism and vice versa.

But both are still bad ideas. :D

PS- The only successful Communist state ever was ancient Sparta. And they only succeeded because they banned currency. :cool:

Russia was quite close to socialism before Stalin had any power. After that it was just psychotic dictatorship. ('til Gorby)

Socialism is not Communism and vice versa.

But both are still bad ideas. :D


Socialist government hasn't hurt Europe, particullay Britain

Communism is essentially socialism sans state. It's similar in ideology to anarchism, only with collective ownership of land and property etc.


Since none of the Anarcho-Commies seem to be on line. They would say that is Anarchism ;)

Just like Communism is a "form" of Socialism, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes but at the same time, there are distinctions.

Socialist government hasn't hurt Europe, particullay Britain

Then why did Maggie tear down the post war consensus when she got to power, and why have her successors not reinstated it?

The post war consensus could be said to have hurt Britain. Study the social situation from the mid 70s til Maggie became boss. There were a variety of things caused by our socialism that could be said to be less then beneficial (two that spring to mind are The Winter of Discontent and "Squeeze the rich 'til the pips squeak")

Well, their intent was to build a Communistic Country, right?

So perhaps you could give us an example of a Country that has been able to set-up a successful Communism?

And I'll show you a few successful Democracies, ok?

Shall we take a look at how each has performed in the "Real World" over the last century...

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/govt1900.htm

Regards,
Gaar

The USSR was, first and foremost, a military dictatorship and police state. That kind of invalidates it as either socialist or communist by any rational measure. Examples of successful, democratic, communist administrations are few and far between -- but you could usefully take a look at the Italian city of Bologna.

"Socialist" is an incredibly broad definition. All developed countries are socialist to a degree, in that they have some form of state provision of basic services (schools, healthcare, welfare etc.) -- some form of society in fact, i.e. where taxation is actually spent for the population, not merely to keep the population paying the taxes. Some societies are more socialist than others: the more socialist ones tend to have smaller gulfs between rich and poor, lower crime, better health, longer lifespans, greater happiness etc, and the less socialist ones don't.

Well, their intent was to build a Communistic Country, right?

So perhaps you could give us an example of a Country that has been able to set-up a successful Communism?

And I'll show you a few successful Democracies, ok?

Shall we take a look at how each has performed in the "Real World" over the last century...

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/govt1900.htm

Regards,
Gaar

Communism according to Marxist theory won't work unless it springs up in a capitalist nation. All of the states that practiced Marxism in the 20th century have been mostly pre-industrial societies, even Russia.

Communism according to Marxist theory won't work unless it springs up in a capitalist nation. All of the states that practiced Marxism in the 20th century have been mostly pre-industrial societies, even Russia.

And yet not one has come about that way... Why do you suppose that is?

Fortunately, Capitalism thrives under Democracies and they are in direct opposition to Communism.

Regards,
Gaar

Communism according to Marxist theory won't work unless it springs up in a capitalist nation. All of the states that practiced Marxism in the 20th century have been mostly pre-industrial societies, even Russia.

I never thought I'd see an Anarchist say that marxism would work in any state :p. :)

And yet not one has come about that way... Why do you suppose that is?

Fortunately, Capitalism thrives under Democracies and they are in direct opposition to Communism.

Regards,
Gaar
hmm...socialism thrives under democracies too...together with capitalism.

Then why did Maggie tear down the post war consensus when she got to power, and why have her successors not reinstated it?

The post war consensus could be said to have hurt Britain. Study the social situation from the mid 70s til Maggie became boss. There were a variety of things caused by our socialism that could be said to be less then beneficial (two that spring to mind are The Winter of Discontent and "Squeeze the rich 'til the pips squeak")

Yes, Britain was in a real mess because of the post-war consensus. I mean, we had high to full employment, better health than at any time ever in British history, enormously improved education and managed to give the kiss of death to the class system -- all on top of a crippling six-year war. An utter shambles, absolutely.

I remember the 70s. They weren't great, but they were hugely, enormously better than the 80s or 90s. Or now, for that matter. Thatcher and her deranged cronies screwed this country, possibly permanently. By wasting the North Sea oil bonanza on tax cuts for the rich, by widening the gulf between rich and poor, by creating four million unemployed, by destroying whole communities and fostering greed, selfishness, vice and crime, Britain is left as Europe's sweatshop.

The USSR was, first and foremost, a military dictatorship and police state. That kind of invalidates it as either socialist or communist by any rational measure. Examples of successful, democratic, communist administrations are few and far between -- but you could usefully take a look at the Italian city of Bologna.

"Socialist" is an incredibly broad definition. All developed countries are socialist to a degree, in that they have some form of state provision of basic services (schools, healthcare, welfare etc.) -- some form of society in fact, i.e. where taxation is actually spent for the population, not merely to keep the population paying the taxes. Some societies are more socialist than others: the more socialist ones tend to have smaller gulfs between rich and poor, lower crime, better health, longer lifespans, greater happiness etc, and the less socialist ones don't.

You should remember that in the US, in general, socialism is defined in terms of the ownership of the means of production, i.e. in communist terms. It is not defined as being a degree of redistribution of wealth by the state. By the terms of the definition normallyused, the USSR was a socialist/communist state.
What needs to be challenged here is this definition. Socialism is not, was not, and never should have been defined in terms of the ownership of the means of production. The concern for this arose with Karl Marx, but socialism arose much earlier than that. Socialism should be defined in terms of the intent and purpose of government. (Anarcho-socialists will have to argue their case.) Where the government has its primary objective as being the economic strength of a nation, it tends away from socialism. Where it has the welfare of the people as its primary objective it tends toward socialism. Socialism being the provision of the people's social needs by the state. There are variations of degree and method possible. The USSR was still a socialist state by this definition, but one that operated through an economic communism and political one party dictatorship. The UK is still socialist, but one that operates through free market economics and a representative democracy. The USA is less socialist, with its economy being more important than the person, but it still has some socialist principles (health?, education).

And yet not one has come about that way... Why do you suppose that is?

Fortunately, Capitalism thrives under Democracies and they are in direct opposition to Communism.

Regards,
Gaar

One reason it hasn't is because when it has in the past, it's been squashed by foreign intervention by capitalist powers or other external forces. Eg., Chile.

There are many reasons. I don't particularly feel like going right into it though, unless you really want me to.

I never thought I'd see an Anarchist say that marxism would work in any state :p. :)

But then, that's according to Marxist theory. I didn't say I subscribed to that particular mindset ;)

hmm...socialism thrives under democracies too...together with capitalism.

Really?

I believe they stop calling it Socialism when you start having multi-party Elections, if I am not mistaken... I may be wrong however. But I believe they call Socialism "limited Democracy" on that map I supplied a link to, and that is the "light blue" color on the map, "dark blue" represents multi-party Democracy and, correct me if I am wrong but, it looks like most of Europe now is dark blue, right?

Regards,
Gaar

One reason it hasn't is because when it has in the past, it's been squashed by foreign intervention by capitalist powers or other external forces. Eg., Chile.

There are many reasons. I don't particularly feel like going right into it though, unless you really want me to.


So you are saying Capitalism outdoes Communism wherever they have competed?

I would agree with that.

You don't have to go into it if you don't like. I don't believe there is anything you can say that will change my position on the matter, but I do have an open mind and am willing to let you try, as long as you are willing to listen to rebuttals.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, Britain was in a real mess because of the post-war consensus. I mean, we had high to full employment, better health than at any time ever in British history, enormously improved education and managed to give the kiss of death to the class system -- all on top of a crippling six-year war. An utter shambles, absolutely.

Before we go on I think I should state I am an Anarchist. Lest accusations of being a Thatcherite are hurled my way.

btw, What six year war? Surely not WWII, seeing about how I was talking about the 70s and all.

But how did it manage to "give the kiss of death to the class system" exactly? I'm fairly sure that the Monarchy didn't go on a five decades holiday, or that the House of Lords became defunct during those years. Similarly there were the upper classes who didn't sit in the Lords yet held onto their 'anscestral homes and lands" and there was definately a middle class as well as a working class.

I remember the 70s. They weren't great, but they were hugely, enormously better than the 80s or 90s. Or now, for that matter. Thatcher and her deranged cronies screwed this country, possibly permanently. By wasting the North Sea oil bonanza on tax cuts for the rich, by widening the gulf between rich and poor, by creating four million unemployed, by destroying whole communities and fostering greed, selfishness, vice and crime, Britain is left as Europe's sweatshop.

I'm not trying to justify the 80s or the Tories of the time (personally I cannot wait till that bitch kicks the bucket. But I have a feeling that some Cons feel the same way). I'm just saying that socialism, whilst it did do a lot of good, iwasn't the milk and honey utopia some people I know have made it out to be.

Really?

I believe they stop calling it Socialism when you start having multi-party Elections, if I am not mistaken... I may be wrong however. But I believe they call Socialism "limited Democracy" on that map I supplied a link to, and that is the "light blue" color on the map, "dark blue" represents multi-party Democracy and, correct me if I am wrong but, it looks like most of Europe now is dark blue, right?

Regards,
Gaar
Check what Alien Born wrote.
In many countries Social Democrats are the biggest party.

But then, that's according to Marxist theory. I didn't say I subscribed to that particular mindset ;)
Touché :)

So you are saying Capitalism outdoes Communism wherever they have competed?

I would agree with that.

You don't have to go into it if you don't like. I don't believe there is anything you can say that will change my position on the matter, but I do have an open mind and am willing to let you try, as long as you are willing to listen to rebuttals.

Regards,
Gaar

If Capitalism outdoing Communism is exemplified by overthrowing democratically elected governments with one-party military regimes, then I guess Capitalism does win. Yay fascism.

As for going on, i'm tired and I don't feel like posting a massive reply, but i'll hang around this thread for some time and post short snippets. I may be convinced to post an in-depth tomorrow though. It doesn't concern me that I can't change your mind. Debating can be fun. ^_^

Really?

I believe they stop calling it Socialism when you start having multi-party Elections, if I am not mistaken... I may be wrong however. But I believe they call Socialism "limited Democracy" on that map I supplied a link to, and that is the "light blue" color on the map, "dark blue" represents multi-party Democracy and, correct me if I am wrong but, it looks like most of Europe now is dark blue, right?

Regards,
Gaar

All democracies are socialist, in that they are societies. They all restrict economic activity based on some idea of the public good (you can sell these drugs, but not those; claim this in an advert, not that; sell food from this standard of premises, not that, etc. etc.), and they all spend state money for the perceived public good (state-funded schools, welfare payments, health care to one degree or another, subsidies to various industries etc. etc.). That's socialism. What colour some website puts on a map has no bearing on the matter.

It would be more useful to consider Russia with regards to it's own history. Russia has nearly always had an authoritarian government - whether it was the Tzar, Stalin or whoever, it also seems to be heading down the same path with Putin. The Bolshevik party was opportunist and almost as soon as it had seized power it sold out the revolution, consolidated it's position and molded the existing system into the state capitalism that we've all heard so much of.
You only need look at the way the Kronstadt sailors revolt was put down to see what the Bolsheviks really thought of the socialist principles of the revolution.

As for successful democracies, how do you define success? If purely in terms of overall economics maybe they are successful (if not sustainable) . As democracies most western states fail - people do not have any control on any of the major issues facing us as there is so little difference between mainstream political parties. Even in individual nations is an ever growing gulf between rich and poor a sign of a successful system?

For me the biggest problem is the state, history shows a constant struggle to keep the state in check, whether through charters, civil wars or declarations of independance. It is in the nature of states to take more and more control and centralise authority and the only way we can have true freedom and democracy is from a bottom up system not a top down.


Well, their intent was to build a Communistic Country, right?

So perhaps you could give us an example of a Country that has been able to set-up a successful Communism?

And I'll show you a few successful Democracies, ok?

Shall we take a look at how each has performed in the "Real World" over the last century...

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/govt1900.htm

Regards,
Gaar

I believe they stop calling it Socialism when you start having multi-party elections, if I am not mistaken... I may be wrong however.
You are wrong. It's actually the other way around: You can't have (full) socialism unless you have a democracy with universal suffrage and multi-party elections. Or, in the words of Leon Trotsky, "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen".

A case could be made that the Soviet Union and other similar countries represented a kind of limited socialism, but no more than that.

But I believe they call Socialism "limited Democracy" on that map I supplied a link to, and that is the "light blue" color on the map.
You haven't really paid attention to the map or the articles explaining it, have you? "Limited democracy" is exactly what it sounds like. A democracy in which a large part of the population (women, for example) does not have the vote. The United States and Western Europe were limited democracies all throughout the 19th century and some time into the 20th (in the USA, for example, women got the vote in 1920).

You will also notice that limited democracies tend to be far more capitalist than full democracies. Both the USA and Western Europe were far more capitalist in the 19th century than they are now. Up until Stalin started screwing things up, democracy and socialism went hand in hand. And they still go hand in hand in all the countries that haven't experienced stalinism.

All democracies are socialist, in that they are societies. They all restrict economic activity based on some idea of the public good (you can sell these drugs, but not those; claim this in an advert, not that; sell food from this standard of premises, not that, etc. etc.), and they all spend state money for the perceived public good (state-funded schools, welfare payments, health care to one degree or another, subsidies to various industries etc. etc.). That's socialism. What colour some website puts on a map has no bearing on the matter.

Sorry, I disagree...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy
2) The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn: socialist ]
________________________________________

So, while a Democracy may use some principles of Socialism (i.e. those systems you cite) they are far from putting all industry and the like under collective ownership.

Democracies, by their very nature, are able to select the best of what they see and make it part of their System, it is the "choice" of the people... But any time you have a Government that has muliple Parties that vie for Election, and private property that is not owned by the Government, then you are talking about a Democracy and not a Socialistic type Government, are you not?

Regards,
Gaar

Wow, Neo Cannen, From our other debates I had you pegged as some thing else its nice to see someone other than me (who no one listens to anyway) redress the misgivings most people have about socialism.

Just a single point if I may,

One thing I feel needs pointing out is that generally although in most political situations communists and socialists do start out on the 'same side' for example the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, and the socialist and communists in the Spanish civil war to name two examples, this relationship as we know from the past soon breaks, down and in both these cases lead to the 'back stabbing' of the socialists by the communists as soon as they saw fit.

So yes to call a socialist a communist is folly, when in fact although the two ideologies share the basement foundation of help people who cannot help themselves, there are diametrically opposed as one is far more authoritarian than the other. I am a socialist and I hate communists for this very reason.

Before we go on I think I should state I am an Anarchist. Lest accusations of being a Thatcherite are hurled my way.

btw, What six year war? Surely not WWII, seeing about how I was talking about the 70s and all.

Yes, WWII -- that was the war the post-war consensus was post to. And the 1970's began only 25 years after the end of WWII. 25 years isn't that long, believe me.

But how did it manage to "give the kiss of death to the class system" exactly? I'm fairly sure that the Monarchy didn't go on a five decades holiday, or that the House of Lords became defunct during those years. Similarly there were the upper classes who didn't sit in the Lords yet held onto their 'anscestral homes and lands" and there was definately a middle class as well as a working class.

The class system in the UK is dying. It's not yet dead, and it still jerks and kicks and grunts now and again, but it's well on the way out. WWII did for it in the end, and the post-war consensus recognised that and accepted it. Even grandees like Churchill recognised it. Class privilege began to end.

I'm not trying to justify the 80s or the Tories of the time (personally I cannot wait till that bitch kicks the bucket. But I have a feeling that some Cons feel the same way). I'm just saying that socialism, whilst it did do a lot of good, iwasn't the milk and honey utopia some people I know have made it out to be.

The more socialist governments of Britain from 1945 to 1979 were not perfect, no -- but they were a hell of a lot better that the greed-fest which followed. With the flow of North Sea oil we could have had a country and economy like, say, Sweden -- lots of mutual welfare, lots of happiness points, low crime, good housing, decent schools. Instead, we have sink estates, rampant crime, massive drug use, shitty schools, filthy hospitals, and a small knot of super-rich wankers with offshore bank accounts. Whatever was wrong with the post-war consensus, Thatcherism wasn't any sort of solution.

On a personal note, I'll be hiring a bus to take parties to dance on her grave when the old witch finally chokes and dies. Do you want me to save you a seat?

I believe they stop calling it Socialism when you start having multi-party Elections, if I am not mistaken...

Yes you are very mistaken. Socialism/Communism and Capitalsim as economic systems are distinct from the political systems of dictatorship and democracy. There is no specific link between the two and you can have democratic communist state, although none has yet existed (although China has limited democracy, whereby you have a vote if you are a member of the party).

Not only that, but, as has been said in several other posts, most of the West operates to varying degrees on the socialist system. As has already been said, the UK was on of the most socialist countries until the 1980s and was very successful. In fact, I believe that 1972 (It was at some point in the 1st half of the 70's anyway), at the height of UK socialism was found to be the "best" year for the UK, in that it was the year of highest GDP (taking into account inflation) lowest inflation, least gap between rich and poor, highest average standards of living, etc, etc.

The UK, and the rest of Western Europe still has reasonably socialist principles. Most of these states, unlike the US, have Healthcare free at the point of service, or State Health Insurance for all (you may have heard of the NHS in the UK, the state health service - the UK has virtually no private healthcare, although it is increasing - which is the biggest employer in Europe). Not only that but the UK is now the least socialist state in Europe and we still provide more than twice what the US does in terms of social welfare. The UK provides about 2/3 of what the rest of Europe does (www.europa.eu.int or office of national statistic (possibly www.ons.gov.uk)). Also see Spain - the Socialist party just got elected there and they don't seem to be on the verge of banning democracy. Therefore Europe is largely socialist and consists entirely of multi-party democracies.

I'm just saying that socialism, whilst it did do a lot of good, wasn't the milk and honey utopia some people I know have made it out to be.

No one claims it was, but it does work. Americans will often dismiss it completely as a stupid and unworkable system and instantly liken it to communism for proof. It can work, its not perfect but if you think any system is perfect then you are in for a shock

Check what Alien Born wrote.
In many countries Social Democrats are the biggest party.

Yes, but they aren't the only Party...

And they aren't always in power, their power comes "from the People".

They have to get Elected in a multi-Party Elections, right?

I believe that is the definition of Democracy, is it not?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Democracy

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, but they aren't the only Party...

And they aren't always in power, their power comes "from the People".

They have to get Elected in a multi-Party Elections, right?

I believe that is the definition of Democracy, is it not?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Democracy

Regards,
Gaar


Is that not the point that was being made? They are socialist and are elected?

No one claims it was, but it does work. Americans will often dismiss it completely as a stupid and unworkable system and instantly liken it to communism for proof. It can work, its not perfect but if you think any system is perfect then you are in for a shock

Well Scandinavia is the best example of Social Democracy in practise.

I was just objecting to you using Britain where Socialism (in the guise of the post war consensus) created or help along a series of crises that eventually lead to its downfall.

However I would say the problem was with the reformism and over centralisation of the post war consensus rather then with socialism itself.

Democracies, by their very nature, are able to select the best of what they see and make it part of their System, it is the "choice" of the people... But any time you have a Government that has muliple Parties that vie for Election, and private property that is not owned by the Government, then you are talking about a Democracy and not a Socialistic type Government, are you not?
You're confusing political systems with economic ones. Democracy and dictatorship are political systems. Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. You can combine political and economic systems in various ways. Thus, you can have socialist democracies, socialist dictatorships, capitalist democracies, capitalist dictatorships, etc.

A socialist democracy, which is the system advocated by most socialists, is a multi-party democracy in which the people freely elect their government and in which the means of production are the collective property of the people and/or the property of the state.

My own NS nation (Constantinopolis) is an example of a socialist democracy. Read all about it here:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Constantinopolis
(and scroll down to the sections about Politics and elections and about the Economy)

Is that not the point that was being made? They are socialist and are elected?

So they are a Democracy that has Socialists "in charge"...

Does that make them any less a Democracy?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, but they aren't the only Party...


I just wanted to point out that multiparty systems don't mean there can not be socialist elements in society. In fact socialist ideas are quite popular.

Really?

I believe they stop calling it Socialism when you start having multi-party Elections, if I am not mistaken... I may be wrong however. But I believe they call Socialism "limited Democracy" on that map I supplied a link to, and that is the "light blue" color on the map, "dark blue" represents multi-party Democracy and, correct me if I am wrong but, it looks like most of Europe now is dark blue, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Ahem. Go look up New Labour Ideology before you start calling socialism "Limited democracy"

Gaar

Please understand this:

SOCIALISM DOES NOT MEAN NO DEMOCRACY
DEMOCRACY DOES NOT MEAN NO SOCIALISM

(Sorry for the caps, but you keep missing the point.)

thanks, I was just getting frustrated.

I was just objecting to you using Britain where Socialism (in the guise of the post war consensus) created or help along a series of crises that eventually lead to its downfall.

To be fair to the British government, the stagflation of the 1970's wasn't the fault of the Labour government. It was to do with rising oil prices rising the prices on everything and wage demand inflation. Prices rising and productivity falling, not the governments fault. The unions were to blame, creating a situation where they were demanding pay rise's with no good economic case for them

So they are a Democracy that has Socialists "in charge"...

Does that make them any less a Democracy?

Regards,
Gaar

NO!!! That is the point! A country can be socialist and it can be democratic at the same time! Jeez....www.politicalcompass.org

Communism and Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems!

Despotism/Democracy/Anarchy are political systems!


No cross over! You can have a capitalist dictatorship or a socialist dictatorship, etc, etc, etc!

Not only that but the UK is now the least socialist state in Europe and we still provide more than twice what the US does in terms of social welfare. The UK provides about 2/3 of what the rest of Europe does (www.europa.eu.int or office of national statistic (possibly www.ons.gov.uk)).

Perhaps through your Government you do, but you are no where near as giving a Nation as the U.S. is.

The U.S. outdoes every other Nation by far in Charity to its poorer people, both internally and Worldwide, without exception.

Regards,
Gaar

So they are a Democracy that has Socialists "in charge"...

Does that make them any less a Democracy?


Surely America is a democracy with Conservatives "in charge..." (dont give me any of this "representive republic" nonsense, America is a democracy)

So they are a Democracy that has Socialists "in charge"...

Does that make them any less a Democracy?
For the millionth time: SOCIALISM AND DEMOCRACY GO HAND IN HAND. They do not exclude each other; on the contrary, full socialism can only ever be achieved in a democratic state. Why is that? Because Socialism = an economic system in which the means of production (productive capital, in the form of companies and businesses) are the public property of the people. Simply put, socialism is economic democracy - it puts the people in charge of the economy. And economic democracy can't really survive without political democracy.

Perhaps through your Government you do, but you are no where near as giving a Nation as the U.S. is.

The U.S. outdoes every other Nation by far in Charity to its poorer people, both internally and Worldwide, without exception.


Ahem, no it doesnt

America does not have a welfare state

Dont make those kinds of statements without backing them up.

NO!!! That is the point! A country can be socialist and it can be democratic at the same time! Jeez....www.politicalcompass.org

Communism and Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems!

Despotism/Democracy/Anarchy are political systems!

No cross over! You can have a capitalist dictatorship or a socialist dictatorship, etc, etc, etc!

Sorry, just because a Democracy uses "some" Socialistic ideals doesn’t make it any less a Democracy, it still stands by its Democratic principles, right?

Whereas any Socialist Country that uses Democratic principles is no longer adhering to Socialistic principles, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps through your Government you do, but you are no where near as giving a Nation as the U.S. is.

The U.S. outdoes every other Nation by far in Charity to its poorer people, both internally and Worldwide, without exception.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes...welll I still wouldn't like to poor and ill in your country thank you very much. And there are more poor as a % of the population in the US than there are over here! Because you don't distribute wealth to the same extent that we do. in fact, I believe that a certain GW Bush is actually proposing a flat tax rate. How generous of him! Those poor people earning $1million a year can't possible afford to pay that higher rate of tax! And lets not forget those poor multi-national corporations who pay such a crippling rate of tax! And them with tax-dodging subisidiaries to feed!

Perhaps through your Government you do, but you are no where near as giving a Nation as the U.S. is.

The U.S. outdoes every other Nation by far in Charity to its poorer people, both internally and Worldwide, without exception.

Regards,
Gaar
We don't have to because our government already gives enough. Our poor are not as poor as the poor in USA.

To be fair to the British government, the stagflation of the 1970's wasn't the fault of the Labour government. It was to do with rising oil prices rising the prices on everything and wage demand inflation. Prices rising and productivity falling, not the governments fault. The unions were to blame, creating a situation where they were demanding pay rise's with no good economic case for them

Ahh but the Unions were a key part of the consensus, part of the trilateralism. ;)

Which (in my eyes) helps the case of consensus failing due to the nature of its socialism rather then the nature socialism in general.

Sorry, just because a Democracy uses "some" Socialistic ideals doesn’t make it any less a Democracy, it still stands by its Democratic principles, right?

Whereas any Socialist Country that uses Democratic principles is no longer adhering to Socialistic principles, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Are you thick or just trying to irritate me?

A socialist country that uses democratic principle is still a socialist country. As long as they redistribute wealth and make high social welfare provisions they are still socialist. It doesn't matter what the political system is!!!!!!! ARRGGGHHH!!!!!!! This is the last time that i make this point.

Socialism = economic system
Capitalism = economic system
Democracy = Political system
Dictatorship = Political system

Get it?

The U.S. outdoes every other Nation by far in Charity to its poorer people, both internally and Worldwide, without exception.

Is that in total or per capita?

The class system in the UK is dying. It's not yet dead, and it still jerks and kicks and grunts now and again, but it's well on the way out. WWII did for it in the end, and the post-war consensus recognised that and accepted it. Even grandees like Churchill recognised it. Class privilege began to end.


I'd love to have a whole debate on this actually, i'd have to disagree, the class system yes in its conventional form if technically on its way out due to the all but death of the aristocrats, and subsequent socialist governments post war that have attempted to hammer the final nails into its coffin, i can perhaps testament to that, as many of my fellow students in my collage in fact a close friend of mine is from what we would call the lower class, and my intellectual and cultural equal he is no doubt to me if not more so. But The idea is not dead, not by a long shot the lines have just shifted.

I saw a rather appalling piece of 'journalism' on sky one the other night, entitled chav's (A word I despise in its vulgarity and idiotism) but the program raised a very clear point to me, in the decline of church and subsequently as i can testament to first hand the decline of the public school boy attitude of the middle class (which by no stretch of imagination was ever a bad thing) there has become a vacuum of sorts would you not agree, the middle class of my generation would never dare call them selves so and would try and associate them selves with a sort of pseudo working class were money appears to be the only object.

I'm trailing off here, but the objective of socialism has always been to destroy the class system, but I don’t believe we have gone about it properly, and effectively in my eyes new classes have arises, namely popularises who strive to model them selves on the media who propagate the virtues of wealth and notoriety, and a quickly shrinking element of an independent intellectual class (the public school boy remnants of which i feel i am one) with whom the ideas of the old Britain of liberality, fair play and gentlemanly manner are dieing too.

An innate rant, yes but some slivers of fact may be in there. I must strike you as an odd kind of socialist indeed but I feel we went about it all the wrong way, but increaseing equality by simply changing monetary factors instead of hitting the class problem at its source the education system and improving the education of all, and this is the mess we have got into

Sorry to hijack your thread neo cannen

Yes...welll I still wouldn't like to poor and ill in your country thank you very much. And there are more poor as a % of the population in the US than there are over here! Because you don't distribute wealth to the same extent that we do.

Well, we can do a bit of comparison in this regard also, there are studies...

The average poor person in the U.S. lives at a standard that the "average" person lives at in Europe. So the only reason you can cite such a statistic is because of the differing ways each of our Countries calculate its poor.

in fact, I believe that a certain GW Bush is actually proposing a flat tax rate. How generous of him! Those poor people earning $1million a year can't possible afford to pay that higher rate of tax! And lets not forget those poor multi-national corporations who pay such a crippling rate of tax! And them with tax-dodging subisidiaries to feed!

We can get into this too, if you like. You have made some very erroneous statements there that really should be corrected after all.

Regards,
Gaar

Once you understand that socialism (as well as communism) is economic democracy, you can also see the difference between socialism and communism:

Socialism is representative economic democracy - the people elect representatives (the government) to plan and manage the economy on their behalf.

Communism is direct economic democracy - there is no government, and the people collectively manage the economy on their own.

You will notice that the Soviet Union was neither socialist nor communist. You could say that it was a warped form of socialism, or "half-socialism", because the government managed the economy but it was not freely elected by the people. I prefer to call the soviet system "stalinism".

Gaar

Please understand this:

SOCIALISM DOES NOT MEAN NO DEMOCRACY
DEMOCRACY DOES NOT MEAN NO SOCIALISM

(Sorry for the caps, but you keep missing the point.)

Yes, thank you! Just to emphasise this point again, i thought I'd quote someone else

Is that in total or per capita?

Both, by far...

We can get into this too, if you like. You have made some very erroneous statements there that really should be corrected after all.

Go for it....

Both, by far...

Care to acutally support your statement or shall we just assume your word to be true

Whereas any Socialist Country that uses Democratic principles is no longer adhering to Socialistic principles, right?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I will say this one last time:

DEMOCRACY IS A VITAL COMPONENT OF SOCIALISTIC PRINCIPLES.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I will say this one last time:

DEMOCRACY IS A VITAL COMPONENT OF SOCIALISTIC PRINCIPLES.

errr...no. Still on the difference between economic and political systems here...

Are you thick or just trying to irritate me?

A socialist country that uses democratic principle is still a socialist country. As long as they redistribute wealth and make high social welfare provisions they are still socialist. It doesn't matter what the political system is!!!!!!! ARRGGGHHH!!!!!!! This is the last time that i make this point.

Socialism = economic system
Capitalism = economic system
Democracy = Political system
Dictatorship = Political system

Get it?
*claps*

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I will say this one last time:

DEMOCRACY IS A VITAL COMPONENT OF SOCIALISTIC PRINCIPLES.

It's that stupid dictionary definition that’s doing it, suddenly you can sum up a ideology in 5 lines. I get the impression that socialism is quite demonised in america.

I saw a rather appalling piece of 'journalism' on sky one the other night, entitled chav's (A word I despise in its vulgarity and idiotism)

I saw that too. I don't know if 'chav' means something different in the south then its northern synonym (scal or scally), but she seemed to miss the point.


Both, by far...

Proof?

I meant the fact that economic democracy (the people controlling the economy) is one of the core principles of socialism. You can have economic democracy without political democracy (at least in theory), but it won't last for long.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I will say this one last time:

DEMOCRACY IS A VITAL COMPONENT OF SOCIALISTIC PRINCIPLES.
errr...no. Still on the difference between economic and political systems here...
well, yes...and no. it depends on what version of socialism you're going for of course. many socialsit theories do have democracy at the heart of the whole socialist 'package', while strict socialism as a economic discipline has nothing inherently to do with democracy

But does America need any socialist values? I mean, they don't have anyone living below the poverty line do they? No one ever gets ill who doesn't have adequate healthcare, do they? Everyone owns their own home and the legal system never gets anything wrong.
I sincerely hope you are joking, rather than speaking from ignorance. 12% of America's population lives in poverty. Twelve freaking percent. That's an eighth of the entire population of America. People get ill all the time with "adequate" healthcare (me, for example). There is a massive population of people who rent their home (my family, for example), and a moderately high population of people who don't have any home. And the legal system here is crap.

I meant the fact that economic democracy (the people controlling the economy) is one of the core principles of socialism. You can have economic democracy without political democracy (at least in theory), but it won't last for long.

Fair enough. Still, socialism is mainly to do with the welfare state.

Damn, I have to go write an essay now. Much as I wanted to see where this thread would go.

It's that stupid dictionary definition that’s doing it, suddenly you can sum up a ideology in 5 lines. I get the impression that socialism is quite demonised in america.

It's a bit like debating Anarchism. One person will post the definition of it from www.dictionary.com then all the anarchists viewing the thread will simultaneously jump on the post, then we end up debating semantics or some such.

Ahh but the Unions were a key part of the consensus, part of the trilateralism. ;)

Which (in my eyes) helps the case of consensus failing due to the nature of its socialism rather then the nature socialism in general.

The unions were the cause, not the fact that the unions existed. If one corner of a triangle desides to walk off, leaving the other two to fall ontop of themselves, whose fault is it? The corner or the triangle for being that shape. The Unions were making unrealistic demands, asking for wage increases when they haddnt done enough work or increased productivity.

Fair enough. Still, socialism is mainly to do with the welfare state.

Damn, I have to go write an essay now. Much as I wanted to see where this thread would go.

It's obviouse your new, if you were old you would stay on :p

Are you thick or just trying to irritate me?

A socialist country that uses democratic principle is still a socialist country. As long as they redistribute wealth and make high social welfare provisions they are still socialist. It doesn't matter what the political system is!!!!!!! ARRGGGHHH!!!!!!! This is the last time that i make this point.

Socialism = economic system
Capitalism = economic system
Democracy = Political system
Dictatorship = Political system

Get it?

Shall we try again, or are you really going to try and make an argument that the "dictionary" is wrong?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
_________________________________

Are your production and distribution owned "collectively" or by a centralized Government?

If not, you are not a Socialist System. You may use some Socialist principles but, by DEFINITION you are not a Socialistic System, you are a Democracy that uses principles of Socialism.

Is that more clear now?

Or perhaps you would be good enough to "show me" where the definition you are using is "widely held" as correct?

Because I am pretty sure I just offered empirical evidence to support my case.

Regards,
Gaar

"Socialism = economic system
Capitalism = economic system
Democracy = Political system
Dictatorship = Political system"

Great to see this

Many people don´t know the difference between this concepts
Great clarification



"The average poor person in the U.S. lives at a standard that the "average" person lives at in Europe"


I didn´t know that poor in USA had car and house ( or renting one to live ). I thought there are homeless ...... But perhaps in USA even dog eat in gold plates :-) joking



"So the only reason you can cite such a statistic is because of the differing ways each of our Countries calculate its poor."


Perhaps the question is that in USA there a concept named "out of stadistic" that means that some kind of people are not considered when doing stadistic

For example : when USA say that have less than 6% people unemployed is because they forget the 10% people out of stadistic ( homeless, unemployed for very long time ..... )


It´s sad see that the "big" country of the world leave his weaker peoplein a total alone situation ( the system don´t help out of stadistic people )

The average poor person in the U.S. lives at a standard that the "average" person lives at in Europe.



...quite interesting indeed...Will I take your word for it? Well of course!

Proof?

America's Tsunami of Giving

by Larry Elder
Posted Jan 7, 2005

Last year, American government provided 35 percent of worldwide relief aid. In private contributions, American individuals, estates, foundations and corporations gave over $240 billion to charitable causes in 2003, according to Giving USA Foundation. Privately, Americans give at least $34 billion overseas.

Josette Shiner, former Empower America president, points out that more than 80 percent of Americans belong to a "voluntary association," and 75 percent of households report charitable contributions. Shiner wrote in 1999, "Americans look even better compared to other leading nations. Accons.

According to recent surveys, 73 percent of Americans made a charitable contribution in the previous 12 months, as compared to 44 percent of Germans, and 43 percent of French citizens. The average sum of donations over 12 months was $851 for Americans, $120 for Germans, and $96 for the French. In addition, 49 percent of Americans volunteered over the previous 12 months, as compared to 13 percent of Germans and 19 percent of the French."

Of the 184 subscriber nations of the World Bank -- which provides financial assistance and debt relief to developing countries for particular sectors or projects with low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants -- contributions paid in by America make up over 17 percent. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) focuses on providing financing for general support of a country's balance of payments and international reserves. Again, of the IMF's 184 nations, the U.S. does the heavy lifting, providing 17.5 percent of contributions.

What about debt forgiveness? The United States forgave about $14 billion in foreign debt from the late '80s through 1995. Since 1994, the U.S. has worked with the Paris Club -- an informal forum of creditor countries -- to review, negotiate and adopt debt relief programs for poor countries, recently badgering France and Germany into agreeing to forgive 80 percent of the $39 billion owed by Iraq.

America twice assisted Europe in World Wars I and II. America took the lead in defeating the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and continues to provide troops and military assistance to European nations and Southeast Asia.

United Nations' Egeland brags about his native Norway, which, in giving, he says, "is No. 1 in the world." Norway gives 0.92 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to foreign aid development, versus 0.14 percent in this country. " . . . We have . . . no country up to the 1 percent . . . line of foreign assistance in general," says Egeland, "and we have, I think, three . . . Scandinavians that have exceeded -- and Holland -- the 0.7 percent line of gross national income for assistance." Yes, Holland gave $12.2 billion in foreign aid in 2003, but that was following two years in which it received more aid than it gave.

Besides, these numbers overlook Americans' private contributions, which equal 2.2 percent of our GDP. Add the value of volunteer time contributed, and -- even when calculated at minimum wage -- that gives you another $100 billion.

Add in the amount of money spent to protect other (often wealthy) countries -- military spending is 3.3 percent of our GDP, versus Sweden's 1.7 percent, Denmark's 1.6 percent, Norway's 1.9 percent, and Holland's 1.6 percent -- and, as Ronald Reagan might have put it, not bad. Not bad at all.

As to the tragedy in southern Asia, consider other actions taken by the United States so far: providing aircraft carriers, transport planes, helicopters, military support, logistical support, ships carrying food supplies, reconnaissance planes and warships, sending disaster assistance teams, shuttling supplies and advance teams to Sumatra's northwest coast and sending cargo planes carrying Marines and water purification equipment to Sri Lanka.

____________________________________________________
Two types of charity:
1. What your government gives.
2. What your people give through private philanthropy.

The US government provides a tremendous amount of aid money, but if you figure on a per capita basis, it might not appear to be as much as other nations whose governments give money.

Americans are more philanthropic than anyone else.

An upcoming study, to be published in full in spring 2005 by the San Francisco-based Institute for Jewish & Community Research, finds that the top 6% of annual American charitable contributions exceeds the combined efforts of all other nations to aid victims of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami.

The study, Mega-Gifts in American Philanthropy, Volume II: 2001, by Gary A. Tobin, Alexander C. Karp, and Aryeh K. Weinberg, shows that in 2001 American individuals, corporations, and foundations donated nearly $13 billion in mega-gifts (donations over $1 million) without the impetus of a major disaster, including the attacks of September 11. The total for all tsunami relief, both private and governmental, stands to date at approximately $10 billion.

According to the study, the wealthiest Americans annually donate to charitable causes at levels that other peoples and nations barely reach even in the face of a major crisis such as the tsunami.

"Americans are so generous that every year, a number of single donors give gifts that dwarf the aid offered by other countries to those affected by the tsunami," said Gary Tobin, one of the authors of the study. "Americans give at emergency levels every day. When the rest of the world has forgotten about this crisis, Americans will keep giving generously to this and thousands of other causes."

According to Giving USA, published by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, Americans donated approximately $241 billion in 2003. The next most generous nation, the United Kingdom, donated 7 billion pounds sterling, or approximately $70 billion when adjusted for population differences. France ($20 billion adjusted average 1995-2000) and Germany ($12.25 billion adjusted average 1995-2000) also lag far behind the United States in charitable donations.

Contrary to the tradition of governmental support, which is more pronounced in much of the rest of the developed world, the size and volume of American mega-gifts often creates trends that the American government then follows, according to the Institute's report. When the news of the tsunami reached American households, individuals, foundations, and corporations donated more than $300 million. The United States government then pledged $350 million.

The report also shows that mega-givers open up entirely new areas of philanthropy, encouraging social awareness and action for previously underrepresented needs. Bill and Melinda Gates donated over $350 million in funding for AIDS research in Africa; the American government followed suit with a multi-billion dollar aid package.

The study shows that Americans also demand accountability for their gifts, especially those sent abroad. According to the report, "financial scandals that have plagued global efforts, including the oil for food scandal of the United Nations and the bloated personal bank account of the likes of Yasser Arafat create great skepticism and caution among donors who want to know that the monies they give will actually go for the intended purposes when they donate internationally."

According to the report, the recent debate over American generosity points out "a fundamental difference between Americans and the rest of the world regarding the faith that Americans place in individual choice and the resulting moral vision as expressed through philanthropy."

These findings are based on research conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, San Francisco, an independent, non-partisan think tank, which provides innovative research and pragmatic policy analyses to Jewish and other communities around the world. For more information, see "American Mega-Giving: A Comparison to Global Disaster Relief."

Shall we try again, or are you really going to try and make an argument that the "dictionary" is wrong?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


Often not always...hence you just disproved yourself

The unions were the cause, not the fact that the unions existed. If one corner of a triangle desides to walk off, leaving the other two to fall ontop of themselves, whose fault is it? The corner or the triangle for being that shape. The Unions were making unrealistic demands, asking for wage increases when they haddnt done enough work or increased productivity.
I think we had better stop this line. Since we seem to basically agree except for a few technicalities.

However I'll leave the ball in your court.

Yes, the unions were making unreasonable demands. They got the power to do this from the nature of the consensus, it gave them the power to make such demads, even when it would (and did) lead to crisis.

The power of the unions was emmense. And it is the fault of those that gave them the power as well as the unions themselves.

Shall we try again, or are you really going to try and make an argument that the "dictionary" is wrong?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
_________________________________

Are your production and distribution owned "collectively" or by a centralized Government?

If not, you are not a Socialist System. You may use some Socialist principles but, by DEFINITION you are not a Socialistic System, you are a Democracy that uses principles of Socialism.

Is that more clear now?

Or perhaps you would be good enough to "show me" where the definition you are using is "widely held" as correct?

Because I am pretty sure I just offered empirical evidence to support my case.

Regards,
Gaar
democracy and socialism do not have anything to do with each other! if a socialist system is indeed where "means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy" (which socialism NOT NECESSARILY is... read some Owen, the original Socialist) then this is how the ECONOMY is controlled, not how the system is POLITICALLY run (democracy or not)

Gaar, would you say that the US are a democracy or a capitalist nation? It can't be both. Because that's the reasoning behind your argument.

Get it now?

Communist. It was communist. Let's not get into famcy euphemisms.
The clue is in the term Commune-ism. When have you ever heard of any autonomous communities developing amongst themselves within a communist framework. Not Russia, not China, not Cuba. Not anywhere!

Therefore it's a truism that Communism in it's theoretical form has never existed within the Capitalist frameork we all live in and understand.

...quite interesting indeed...Will I take your word for it? Well of course!

http://holtz.org/Library/MarketLiberal/How%20Poor%20are%20America's%20Poor%20-%20Heritage%201990.htm

The average "poor" American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population.

"Poor" Americans consume three times as much meat each year and are 40 percent more likely to own a car than the average Japanese. And the average Japanese is 22 times more likely to live without an indoor flush toilet than is a poor American.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040810-100240-4474r.htm

As a result, living standards are much lower in Europe than most Americans imagine. This fact is highlighted in a new study by the Swedish think tank Timbro. For example, it notes the average poor family here has 25 percent more living space than the average European.

http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2004/06/20/better_to_be_poor_in_the_us_than_in_europe.php

Don't take my word for it!

Regards,
Gaar

Shall we try again, or are you really going to try and make an argument that the "dictionary" is wrong?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
_________________________________

Are your production and distribution owned "collectively" or by a centralized Government?

If not, you are not a Socialist System. You may use some Socialist principles but, by DEFINITION you are not a Socialistic System, you are a Democracy that uses principles of Socialism.

Is that more clear now?

Or perhaps you would be good enough to "show me" where the definition you are using is "widely held" as correct?

Because I am pretty sure I just offered empirical evidence to support my case.

Regards,
Gaar

How exactly does government control of industry make any country less democratic? Answer: It DOESN'T! It doesnt matter if industries are controlled, the country can still be a DEMOCRACY!

Gaar, would you say that the US are a democracy or a capitalist nation? It can't be both. Because that's the reasoning behind your argument.

Get it now?

We are a Democratic Republic with a Capitalistic Economy.

And I didn't make up the definition of Socialism; I merely recognize it in its entirety.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, the unions were making unreasonable demands. They got the power to do this from the nature of the consensus, it gave them the power to make such demads, even when it would (and did) lead to crisis.

The power of the unions was emmense. And it is the fault of those that gave them the power as well as the unions themselves.

But the system itself does not require these powers to be given. Had the system employed some of the regulations given to the running of unions that were given (balloting of members, secondary picketing etc) it could have worked

Don't have the time now but just few points
Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population.
Meat is cheaper than vegetables or fruits.
likely to own more dishwashers IN 1980! How old stats you usually use?
btw Europeans don't need cars to get everywhere. Ever heard of public transportation or sidewalks? Indoor toilets? this study is just hilarious.

We are a Democratic Republic with a Capitalistic Economy.

And I didn't make up the definition of Socialism; I merely recognize it in its entirety.

Regards,
Gaar

So why do you believe it is impossible to be a Constitutional Democratic Monarchy with a Socialist Economy (Britain)

But the system itself does not require these powers to be given.

I realise that it socialism does not require that, but in this case it existed. Which as I said was a problem with the socialism in Britain at this time, rather then socialism as a whole.

[Had the system employed some of the regulations given to the running of unions that were given (balloting of members, secondary picketing etc) it could have worked

Possibly

How exactly does government control of industry make any country less democratic? Answer: It DOESN'T! It doesnt matter if industries are controlled, the country can still be a DEMOCRACY!

Well, if the Government took total control of Industry and "distributed" it as a collective, therefore taking away private ownership, we would no longer be a Democracy, we would be a Socialistic Government.

Regards,
Gaar

We are a Democratic Republic with a Capitalistic Economy.

And I didn't make up the definition of Socialism; I merely recognize it in its entirety.

Regards,
Gaar
so what's the problem? you can have a democratic republic with a socialistic economy, a totalitarian/authoritarian/dictatorship republic with a socialistic economy. a democratic constitutional monarchy with a socialistic economy.... the mixes are endless...

don't forget that any economy is a mix between socialist state control and free market capitalism, too

Well, if the Government took total control of Industry and "distributed" it as a collective, therefore taking away private ownership, we would no longer be a Democracy, we would be a Socialistic Government.

Regards,
Gaar
but that government can be elected still... thats the democracy part

Well, if the Government took total control of Industry and "distributed" it as a collective, therefore taking away private ownership, we would no longer be a Democracy, we would be a Socialistic Government.

Regards,
Gaar

NO IT WOULDN'T. Democracy does not mean you have control of your own industry. It means that you have control of your government, who is goverening you. Capitalism means that you control your own industry.

Yes, Britain was in a real mess because of the post-war consensus. I mean, we had high to full employment, better health than at any time ever in British history, enormously improved education and managed to give the kiss of death to the class system -- all on top of a crippling six-year war. An utter shambles, absolutely.

I remember the 70s. They weren't great, but they were hugely, enormously better than the 80s or 90s. Or now, for that matter. Thatcher and her deranged cronies screwed this country, possibly permanently. By wasting the North Sea oil bonanza on tax cuts for the rich, by widening the gulf between rich and poor, by creating four million unemployed, by destroying whole communities and fostering greed, selfishness, vice and crime, Britain is left as Europe's sweatshop.




That is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read about Thatcher and I have heard a lot of rubbish about her. To make out that the 70s was brilliant is absolute madness. We had full employment, yes, but also we had inflation rates of 27%, showing how flawed Keynesian economics was. Also, we have full employment now , with virtually no inflation! You call Britain the sweatshop of the world since Thathcer. Well, if you want Britain to be more like the seventies then go and live in france. There they have growth of 0-1% and massive unemployment. Go to France and enjoy their superior unemployed lifestyle!

You say that Thatcher squandered North Sea Oil on tax breaks, which is empirically false. Acutally, since Thatcher's tax cuts, that particular rich tax band have payed more tax. Likewise with Reagan and bush's tax cuts, the rich pay more, and that's what you want. The rich actually pay more to brign about 'social justic' whatever that is. You really should get a grasp of basic facts and economics before you start making emotional claims like that. The fact is that before Thatcher in the late 70s we were going to the IMF for loans with Albania. Let us be that powerhouse once more. Take us back Tony!

Also, every country has better health after the war. It comes with a better standard of living rather than better healthcare. Beveridge ignored the economic realities of the time and went on with his 'New Jerusalem dream. Please talk sense!

It's a bit like debating Anarchism. One person will post the definition of it from www.dictionary.com then all the anarchists viewing the thread will simultaneously jump on the post, then we end up debating semantics or some such.

I would just say anarchism was the planned absence of a central goverment.

Urantia: do japanese people need cars? No. so it's quite useless comparison.

What is the density of population in USA compared to western Europe? Very low. Are the house prices same in densily populated areas than in rural areas? no. House/apartment sizes don't tell enough about one's wealth.

So why do you believe it is impossible to be a Constitutional Democratic Monarchy with a Socialist Economy (Britain)

I did say that was impossible.

But how is that not a Democracy with Socialistic tendencies?

Not all your businesses are owned by the Government, are they?

If not, you are only using "some" Social principles not all. So to claim that you have a Socialist Economy instead of a Capitalistic economy with Socialistic tendencies, or perhaps even calling it a Socialistic Economy with Capitalistic tendencies may work for you, but since Socialistic norms are not excluded in Capitalism but Capitalistic norms are excluded in Socialism one is left to assume that it is Capitalism that is allowing for Social tendencies rather than the opposite, since Capitalism isn't allowed in a true Socialistic structure.

Is that clear enough?

Regards,
Gaar

The UN Human Poverty Index places the US 17th of the 17 sample states. Using level standards therefore a higher percentage of US citizens live in poverty than in West Europe.
The UK (with our own wonderful version of neo-liberalism) is 15th - Sweden is first.
http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/indic_26_1_1.html

NB: I would have thought it possible to that a website with a name alphapatriot (and a counter stating "1896 Days since Honor, Decency, and Integrity returned to the White House") is perhaps not exactly a neutral observer.




http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2004/06/20/better_to_be_poor

As a result, living standards are much lower in Europe than most Americans imagine. This fact is highlighted in a new study by the Swedish think tank Timbro. For example, it notes the average poor family here has 25 percent more living space than the average European.

http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2004/06/20/better_to_be_poor_in_the_us_than_in_europe.php

Don't take my word for it!

Regards,
Gaar[/QUOTE]

Urantia: do japanese people need cars? No. so it's quite useless comparison.

What is the density of population in USA compared to western Europe? Very low. Are the house prices same in densily populated areas than in rural areas? no. House/apartment sizes don't tell enough about one's wealth.

Understood, and hence the reason I also offered the other two comparisons.

Regards,
Gaar

We had full employment, yes, but also we had inflation rates of 27%, showing how flawed Keynesian economics was.


The stagflation of the 70's is not the fault of Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics itself can work very well, but only if you have enough of all the raw materials you have yourself. The stagflation was caused partly by the unions and partly by OPEC hording. The fact that Britian does not have all the raw materials it needs is not the fault of Keyneisanism.

Socialist government hasn't hurt Europe, particullay Britain

Depends on your point of view... I'd submit that things are so much more expensive in Britian/Europe because of Socialist spending. Further, the retirement bubble (less folks supporting more retirees) is going to be harder to stomach in Europe (esp. Germany), as the benefits are so huge.

I did say that was impossible.

But how is that not a Democracy with Socialistic tendencies?

Not all your businesses are owned by the Government, are they?

If not, you are only using "some" Social principles not all. So to claim that you have a Socialist Economy instead of a Capitalistic economy with Socialistic tendencies, or perhaps even calling it a Socialistic Economy with Capitalistic tendencies may work for you, but since Socialistic norms are not excluded in Capitalism but Capitalistic norms are excluded in Socialism one is left to assume that it is Capitalism that is allowing for Social tendencies rather than the opposite, since Capitalism isn't allowed in a true Socialistic structure.

Is that clear enough?

Regards,
Gaar

Socialism does not demand that ALL industries are owned by the government. Communism demands that. Socialisim isnt just about the means of production, its also about wealth redistribution. And I was talking about the fact that you still dont seem to understand that you can be a Socialist democratic nation. Would you please admit that now.

You are getting bogged down insemantics. Most acknowledge that Communism is a form of Socialism, whether it is extreme of otherwise. The point is that being a socialist means never having to acknowledge any flaws in your system. Whenever a socialist system goes wrong, as they frequently do, we are always told that it wasn't 'true socialism. For example, someone claimed in a message that Stalinism wasn't communism whereas Leninism was, putting lenin in a positive light. Brilliant bloke Lenin. Well he was a murderer and his philosophy left socialism open to totalitarianism.

Socialism when any kind of state is involved tends to be to the detriment of the the people as they beomce horrendously illiberal.

Also, someone tell me what social justice is. I wish i could have a definition hat takes it out of being a buzz word. Am i wrong in thinking justice is already by its nature social. The 'social' part of justice implies that the term has nothing just about it, but is rather a utopian plan with a 'social' or socialist aim.

But how is that not a Democracy with Socialistic tendencies?

Not all your businesses are owned by the Government, are they?

If not, you are only using "some" Social principles not all. So to claim that you have a Socialist Economy instead of a Capitalistic economy with Socialistic tendencies, or perhaps even calling it a Socialistic Economy with Capitalistic tendencies may work for you, but since Socialistic norms are not excluded in Capitalism but Capitalistic norms are excluded in Socialism one is left to assume that it is Capitalism that is allowing for Social tendencies rather than the opposite, since Capitalism isn't allowed in a true Socialistic structure.

Is that clear enough?

Regards,
Gaar
i was gonna write a reply, but i totally fail to understand your logic.

look, its very simple. economies are not either/or socialist/capitalist. the 'opposite' of socialist is not democracy, it is capitalist. democracy is a way of organising a countries' political reigime. socialism and capitalism are ways of organising a countries' economy. none of them are mutually exclusive. you can have a bit of each in whatever mix you want.

http://holtz.org/Library/MarketLiberal/How%20Poor%20are%20America's%20Poor%20-%20Heritage%201990.htm

The average "poor" American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population.

"Poor" Americans consume three times as much meat each year and are 40 percent more likely to own a car than the average Japanese. And the average Japanese is 22 times more likely to live without an indoor flush toilet than is a poor American.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040810-100240-4474r.htm

As a result, living standards are much lower in Europe than most Americans imagine. This fact is highlighted in a new study by the Swedish think tank Timbro. For example, it notes the average poor family here has 25 percent more living space than the average European.


http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2004/06/20/better_to_be_poor_in_the_us_than_in_europe.php

Don't take my word for it!

Regards,
Gaar


Yes, and those and nice liberal objective sources im sure which canavas thousands of people from both sides in order to get a valid result.

One of them alpha patriot, ok it quotes a Swedish think tank, wow there in europe it must be true, and then it goes on to state that having more consumer goods improves your quality of life.... er ok that’s a very capitalist outlook on it.

The Washington times article, called why the e.u sucks in so many words quotes one single economic figure for the entire article Real GDP, which of course will be higher as that takes taxes into the account and so all the lovely European taxes that go towards healthcare and education, make us look a lot poorer.

It then goes on to quote hours worked per year. wtf! that’s not even citing economic efficiency, take Japan they have the highest one in the world that there economy is stagnant.

In conclusion.

No your wrong, next time your going to quote economic articles don’t quote horribly biast ones that pick one little fact and moan on about it till the cows come home

GPD and GPD per capital, real and base, do not equal quality of life, if you want the official one, its called the human development index and it’s a mixture of that and many other things, its done by the U.N

This the typical capitalist attitude, more shit in home = better life.

Were as the socialist attitude, is more civil liberties a free objective press, better equality, and an equal start in life through good education and health care = better life

Another rant. The claim that socialism hasn't hurt Europe is patent nonsense. Britain was markedly influenced by communist trade union leaders throughout up until 1984. I would also bet that in a few years when the French will have to reform their economy as we did, they will be regretting left-wing excess under Chirac. Ditto with Germany.

Capitalism means that you control your own industry.

Capitalism means it is owned by whoever it is most beneficial to own it. If that is deemed to be the Government, then it's the Government... Capitalism is very flexible like that. That's why it works so well with Democracy, they both espouse what is best for the Individuals Rights.

Regards,
Gaar

Capitalism means it is owned by whoever it is most beneficial to own it. If that is deemed to be the Government, then it's the Government... Capitalism is very flexible like that. That's why it works so well with Democracy, they both espouse what is best for the Individuals Rights.

Regards,
Gaar
i give up :headbang:

Another rant. The claim that socialism hasn't hurt Europe is patent nonsense. Britain was markedly influenced by communist trade union leaders throughout up until 1984. I would also bet that in a few years when the French will have to reform their economy as we did, they will be regretting left-wing excess under Chirac. Ditto with Germany.

How has it hurt Europe then, yes the trade unions in the 70's were a complete mess, but were are all the other weeping sores in Europe exactly, the British economy is resoundingly socialist since labour got in (hell they are the socalist party), and we are having the biggest sustainable increases in our economy hell since ww2.

EDIT, Ive just seen Uratia II, post and shit

Should we just get out the dictionarys and start fighting with them.

Socialism is this capatalism is that.

What its meant to be and what it does it two quite diffrent things.

Capitalism means it is owned by whoever it is most beneficial to own it. If that is deemed to be the Government, then it's the Government... Capitalism is very flexible like that. That's why it works so well with Democracy, they both espouse what is best for the Individuals Rights.

Regards,
Gaar
Best one ever! I have to save this one.

I bet Urantia actually has the opposite view but just wants to make us mad.

Socialism does not demand that ALL industries are owned by the government. Communism demands that. Socialisim isnt just about the means of production, its also about wealth redistribution. And I was talking about the fact that you still dont seem to understand that you can be a Socialist democratic nation. Would you please admit that now.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

If I bust my ass and go to school for years, graduate, and get a job making excellent money, I'll be damned if my wealth should be spread out evenly with the rest of society who is mainly comprised of those not willing to work as hard to achieve so much as me. That is the essence of America. If I want the government to put a number on me, and wrap a plastic bubble around me with social programs to keep me safe and free of ingenuity or individual thought, I'll move to Canada.

If I bust my ass and go to school for years, graduate, and get a job making excellent money, I'll be damned if my wealth should be spread out evenly with the rest of society who is mainly comprised of those not willing to work as hard to achieve so much as me. That is the essence of America. If I want the government to put a number on me, and wrap a plastic bubble around me with social programs to keep me safe and free of ingenuity or individual thought, I'll move to Canada.

Thats a very narrow minded and selfish view, you are suggesting that when eveyone is born they enter the world on a level playing field, if you hold this to be true, id love to know how rosy tinted thouse glasses your wereing are.

Capitalism means it is owned by whoever it is most beneficial to own it. If that is deemed to be the Government, then it's the Government... Capitalism is very flexible like that. That's why it works so well with Democracy, they both espouse what is best for the Individuals Rights.

Regards,
Gaar

Neetly skip the point. You can have a socialist democacry for this reason

Socialism is an economic model, it relates to the way in which a government works its economy

Democacy is a political model, it relates to the way that the governed relate to the government.

You can have a socialist democacry. Please admit that now.

I stuck pretty much the same posting on another thread yesterday which had exactly the same subject matter. Sorry about that, but I suppose identical threads deserve identical responses:

The problem here is that people with different political outlooks use the same words to mean different things.

Historically speaking Marxists have referred to themselves at different times as social democrats, socialists or communists meaning by those words exactly the same thing. Lenin's party for instance was actually called the Social Democrats (RSDLP).

Marx did not argue that a certain number of historical stages were predetermined to be passed through by society. Instead he argued that Western societies had in fact moved through certain defined modes of production - broadly speaking primitive communism, slave based, feudal and capitalist. He noted that some parts of Asia had followed a different path. Each of these societies (with the exception of primitive ones where there wasn't enough surplus produced to support a true ruling class) was divided at root into a ruling class and an exploited class, although other social classes also existed.

Most of his work was a critique of the political economy of the kind of society he found himself living in, capitalism in other words. He was at pains to argue that capitalism was not eternal, it had not always existed and would not always exist in the future. It was not somehow the "natural" order of things.

In particular he argued that capitalism had created its own gravediggers in the form of the working class, the first exploited class with the capacity to wrest power away from their exploiters and thereby end class division once and for all. This is "the revolution" which Marxists want to see occur.

Marx did not write much about the society which he hoped would exist in the future, concentrating instead on analysing the world around him. However the broad outlines were that class division and exploitation would be abolished, the production and distribution of goods and services would be organised democratically and so on. Private property would be replaced by collective ownership, but it is important to note that Marx was referring here to the "means of production", the businesses, factories, land and so on and not to toothbrushes, books, shoes and other chattels. In this sense he argued that private propery had in fact already been abolished for the vast majority of humanity.

The seizure of power by the working class would of course be resisted by the capitalists and their allies, which would mean that the working class would have to smash the capitalist state - an instrument for the suppression of the great majority by a small minority - and replace it with their own power. The instrument of workers power would be what Lenin called a "workers state". As the revolution is consolidated, and the problems of class divided society are dealt with, there would be less need for a state as an instrument of class rule. Those functions would fade away, leaving a state in the sense only of purely administrative bodies.

This is the stage referred to by Marxists as socialism or communism.

Where it gets complex is when you deal with the evolution of these theories within the labour movement. At various stages some socialists, an early example being Bernstein in Germany, decided that it wasn't necessary to have a revolution to achieve this goal. Instead capitalism could be reformed out of existence. It's important to note that at least initially the same end goal was envisaged.

Over time however this reformist wing itself developed strands which did not share the same end goal. Instead these people wanted the workers movement to reform capitalism to make it fairer or nicer but did not want to get rid of capitalism entirely. These people also used the terms "social democracy" and "socialism", although now they were talking about a reformed capitalism rather than socialism in the Marxist sense.

What's more, the Stalinist regimes which came out of the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR laid claim to the terms "communism" and "socialism" to describe their own societies, even though they certainly didn't believe in the withering away of the oppressive functions of the state. As I understand it, the distinction between "communism" and "socialism" sometimes drawn in dictionaries has its roots in the decision of the Stalinist societies to declare their then current social set ups to be "actually existing socialism" with communism still to occur at a later stage.

Social democracy, socialism and communism are contested terms, and what is meant by any of them depends on the time, place and political viewpoint you are dealing with.

Thats a very narrow minded and selfish view, you are suggesting that when eveyone is born they enter the world on a level playing field, if you hold this to be true, id love to know how rosy tinted thouse glasses your wereing are.
well said, good man :)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Stop quoting that studpid dictionary, hell its not even a good site its all crappy with banners.
That dose not make it gospel on what socialism is/isunt

That is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read about Thatcher and I have heard a lot of rubbish about her. To make out that the 70s was brilliant is absolute madness.
"Why? did you ever see homelessness amongst the young during the 70's."

We had full employment, yes, but also we had inflation rates of 27%, showing how flawed Keynesian economics was.
"A baseless argument, you offer no justification for your claim"

Also, we have full employment now , with virtually no inflation!
"No? here in London, Bus fares have risen 20% sibce January"

You call Britain the sweatshop of the world since Thathcer. Well, if you want Britain to be more like the seventies then go and live in france. There they have growth of 0-1% and massive unemployment. Go to France and enjoy their superior unemployed lifestyle!
"What nonsense are you saying, France today, has no parallel with Britain in the 70's"

You say that Thatcher squandered North Sea Oil on tax breaks, which is empirically false. Acutally, since Thatcher's tax cuts, that particular rich tax band have payed more tax.
"Again, you make a sweeping claim, yet offer no evidence"

Likewise with Reagan and bush's tax cuts, the rich pay more, and that's what you want. The rich actually pay more to brign about 'social justic' whatever that is.
"Still no evidence for your spurious claims"

You really should get a grasp of basic facts and economics before you start making emotional claims like that. The fact is that before Thatcher in the late 70s we were going to the IMF for loans with Albania. Let us be that powerhouse once more. Take us back Tony!
"I think you're the one whose being emotionally charged"

Also, every country has better health after the war. It comes with a better standard of living rather than better healthcare. Beveridge ignored the economic realities of the time and went on with his 'New Jerusalem dream.
"ditto" Please talk sense!
the 70's were'nt brilliant but things only got worse under Thatcher in the 80's

http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2004/06/20/better_to_be_poor_in_the_us_than_in_europe.php

I find this chart to be shady at best. I googled figures for some of those items in Finland (hardly the richest country in Europe). http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/taskue_tulot.html (it's the 3rd chart)

Hard to believe we are that much ahead of our European neighbours... Easy to believe we are behind USA though - but not nearly as much as I thought.

The stagflation of the 70's is not the fault of Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics itself can work very well, but only if you have enough of all the raw materials you have yourself. The stagflation was caused partly by the unions and partly by OPEC hording. The fact that Britian does not have all the raw materials it needs is not the fault of Keyneisanism.


Germany didn't have oil. They had inflation rates of 8% when OPEC raised prices. They acomodated the shock with bundesbanl led monetarism and moved on, whereas we went on the path to economic destruction. Ignoring monetarism means that you don't accomodate against supply-side shocks.

Keynesianism has no effect on empoyment in the long-term. Also, no country in the world has all the raw materials it needs (the correct term is wants), so keynesianism can never work. All we need is water, food shelter and air. We want steel and bananas and other helpful things like that. You can't grow bananas in the UK

Germany didn't have oil. They had inflation rates of 8% when OPEC raised prices. They acomodated the shock with bundesbanl led monetarism and moved on, whereas we went on the path to economic destruction. Ignoring monetarism means that you don't accomodate against supply-side shocks.

Keynesianism has no effect on empoyment in the long-term. Also, no country in the world has all the raw materials it needs (the correct term is wants), so keynesianism can never work. All we need is water, food shelter and air. We want steel and bananas and other helpful things like that. You can't grow bananas in the UK

I assume your a classisist then, as good as that theory may be in its 'foundations', its bloody heartless.

Thats a very narrow minded and selfish view, you are suggesting that when eveyone is born they enter the world on a level playing field, if you hold this to be true, id love to know how rosy tinted thouse glasses your wereing are.

Maybe if you would have paid attention in school, learned how to spell, and passed up those bonghits during English class you would be better off today. Don't talk to me about a level playing field. Where did I or my government sign an agreement to keep everybody socially and financially equal? We are equal as men, and are judged equally by divine right, but what we achieve through the course of our lives is up to us. How am I being selfish? I want to work hard and achieve great things. You want to achieve the same great things by sitting in your mom's basement smoking weed and playing D&D. That's your business, but you are only entitled to what you earn by virtue of your own work.

We are a Democratic Republic with a Capitalistic Economy.

And I didn't make up the definition of Socialism; I merely recognize it in its entirety.

Regards,
Gaar
Let's look at these words shall we?

All according to your source, dictionnary.com
Capitalism
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Does the states not have public school, is the military privately owned, do you have tariff on some product? So, in effect, the US is not a capitalistic country as per the definition.

So, if you agree that the US is not capitalist, I will agree that most of Europe is not socialist. We will all dance happily in the joy that we all share a commonground: we are all democracies.

If you disagree and still refuse to acknowledge that socialism and democracy cannot co-exist, then you are the height of hyppocrisy.

but you are only entitled to what you earn by virtue of your own work.

doesn't sound like capitalism to me ;)

doesn't sound like capitalism to me ;)

Call it Sloshnism for all I care. The point is, America is built on individual thought, accomplishment, and inginuity. These things are what makes us the youngest country to reach so much power, wealth, and success in the world. Socialism kills individualism. It despises it and roots it out where ever it is found. I will never support something so overtly in contrast to the idea of liberty.

You can have a socialist democacry. Please admit that now.

It can be called a Socialistic Democracy if...

All Industry is owned by the Government or the collective and Elections are only held to appoint people to "oversee" the System, not change it. A Socialistic System cannot change from Public ownership to private, depending on whose in Office. It would have to be written into the Constitution that the power to run the Government lies within the Government and not the People.

Otherwise, if the power to change things resides in the people, it is a Democracy that has Social ideals enacted.

Regards,
Gaar

i've just remembered why i gave up posting in political debates on here...

Call it Sloshnism for all I care. The point is, America is built on individual thought, accomplishment, and inginuity. These things are what makes us the youngest country to reach so much power, wealth, and success in the world. Socialism kills individualism. It despises it and roots it out where ever it is found. I will never support something so overtly in contrast to the idea of liberty.

No, authoritarianism kills individualism. It kills free thought and independant criticism. As one of a number of countries heading headlong into this type of state you should worry. Communism is authoritarian, socialism certainly isn't by (that magic word) definition.

Call it Sloshnism for all I care. The point is, America is built on individual thought, accomplishment, and inginuity. These things are what makes us the youngest country to reach so much power, wealth, and success in the world. Socialism kills individualism. It despises it and roots it out where ever it is found. I will never support something so overtly in contrast to the idea of liberty.
No, isolation and vast quantity or land and ressources made you youngest country to reach so much power.

The fact that a country like Belgium is smaller than some states give him a little disadvantage when trying to compete with the whole of the 50 states.

Maybe if you would have paid attention in school, learned how to spell, and passed up those bonghits during English class you would be better off today. Don't talk to me about a level playing field. Where did I or my government sign an agreement to keep everybody socially and financially equal? We are equal as men, and are judged equally by divine right, but what we achieve through the course of our lives is up to us. How am I being selfish? I want to work hard and achieve great things. You want to achieve the same great things by sitting in your mom's basement smoking weed and playing D&D. That's your business, but you are only entitled to what you earn by virtue of your own work.

Whoa,
Shit i must of hit a nerve, quickly nurse get the morphine.

Ok firstly my spelling, yes I’m a shitty speller so was Einstein, I just hope in time…. You can learn to forgive me , I just forgot to spell check that entry, but just for your benefit ill make sure I do this one. Ok?

Ok secondly, you insinuate that everyone, i.e. me who is a socialist and believes in equality I’m some sort of basement living bong smoking D&D player. Ah ha, you it surprise you to know I’m actually a student at a posh British public school. Perhaps it may
I suppose many famous socialists such as Orwell, J.s Mill even Clement Attlee where all basement living bong smoking D&D Fanatics as well.

Finaly you start talking about what law did my government sign that ok ill quote you here

Don't talk to me about a level playing field. Where did I or my government sign an agreement to keep everybody socially and financially equal? We are equal as men, and are judged equally by divine right, but what we achieve through the course of our lives is up to us.


I can see your making very heavy reference to your constitution here, ok that’s fair.

I never, ever said everyone should be financially equal you've just extrapolated that yourself, wrongly i might add, i simply said everyone should have the chance to better them selves, by removing obstacles that society (capitalism) puts in there way, such as poor education for the poor, poor healthcare for the poor and class discrimination, in lassie fair, society you seem to be advocating, don’t tell me for a second that dose not happen.
As for the divine right, that’s religion this is politics keep that separate mister.

Finally let me apologise for calling you selfish, you may not be but the common belief you hold sure as hell is.

No, authoritarianism kills individualism. It kills free thought and independant criticism. As one of a number of countries heading headlong into this type of state you should worry. Communism is authoritarian, socialism certainly isn't by (that magic word) definition.
communism is not authoritarian, necessarily. in true communism the state will dissolve as all classes become one, but nobdoy seems to know these bits of the ideology :mad:

Robin Hood was a socialist

(robbed Peter to pay Paul, basically)

it ain't right, but so long as lazy people who are jealous for other people's money have votes, they can elect politicians who will STEAL from some and give that money to said lazy, light-fingered, unprincipled people.

(now here comes the flaming "you hate poor people" verdict... no, i don't hate poor people. i hate the idea that someone has a RIGHT to someone else's property/money. In THIS country we WORK for what we get, unless we're lucky enough to be kin of someone rich who decides to give us his/her money -- which should be his right under the general respect for proprietary rights and financial freedom in the US)

Piss on socialism/Communism -- It (they) stifles choice, financial freedom, financial incentive to work hard and be innovative, leads to crappy production and generally a crappy economy and LAYS WASTE TO propriety and the RIGHTS of ownership. I HATE socialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-bola
That is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read about Thatcher and I have heard a lot of rubbish about her. To make out that the 70s was brilliant is absolute madness.
"Why? did you ever see homelessness amongst the young during the 70's."

We had full employment, yes, but also we had inflation rates of 27%, showing how flawed Keynesian economics was.
"A baseless argument, you offer no justification for your claim"

Also, we have full employment now , with virtually no inflation!
"No? here in London, Bus fares have risen 20% sibce January"

You call Britain the sweatshop of the world since Thathcer. Well, if you want Britain to be more like the seventies then go and live in france. There they have growth of 0-1% and massive unemployment. Go to France and enjoy their superior unemployed lifestyle!
"What nonsense are you saying, France today, has no parallel with Britain in the 70's"

You say that Thatcher squandered North Sea Oil on tax breaks, which is empirically false. Acutally, since Thatcher's tax cuts, that particular rich tax band have payed more tax.
"Again, you make a sweeping claim, yet offer no evidence"

Likewise with Reagan and bush's tax cuts, the rich pay more, and that's what you want. The rich actually pay more to brign about 'social justic' whatever that is.
"Still no evidence for your spurious claims"

You really should get a grasp of basic facts and economics before you start making emotional claims like that. The fact is that before Thatcher in the late 70s we were going to the IMF for loans with Albania. Let us be that powerhouse once more. Take us back Tony!
"I think you're the one whose being emotionally charged"

Also, every country has better health after the war. It comes with a better standard of living rather than better healthcare. Beveridge ignored the economic realities of the time and went on with his 'New Jerusalem dream.
"ditto" Please talk sense!


the 70's were'nt brilliant but things only got worse under Thatcher in the 80's



A few things wrong with your complaints.

First, bus fairs aren't acutally an accurated reflection of inflation. You should really know that people in Britain don't just catch the bus to catch another bus in an endless cycle of buses. People buy things like houses, cars, food, water, furniture, pets. Not just buses. And inflation is at 2% so don't argue for the sake of it when you're completely wrong.

Second, as i have already posted Germany didn't follow keynesian economics, cut monetarism, and they suffered the same OPEC crisis, and a similar reliance on oil. They however had inflation rater of around 8% at the time.

Third, there are massive parallels with France now and the UK in the 70s. A pervasive welfare state. Strike-hungry trade unions. Low growth rates. the constant threat of unemployment. State ownership of nationalised industries. 50 quid bet that within the next ten years they will have to change their economic tsystem completely.

Fourth, the fact about albania remains.

Fifth, the claims are not 'spurious' if you had a basic level of economics knowldge you would know that high tax is actually a disincentive to earn suprisingly. So when there are lower tax rates rich people earn more. I will find the relative stats within the next half hour. Read up on the Laffer curve before you question me on that one.

sixth, with growth rates things are actually miles better after Thatcher, common sense and economics tells us that standard of living must have risen massivley.

seventh, your assertion at the end doesn't actually prove anything. Also, without Thatcher (undoubtedly the best PM in the 20th century) we would be in economic ruin and completely buggered. The IMF actually made us liberalise our economy.

Call it Sloshnism for all I care. The point is, America is built on individual thought, accomplishment, and inginuity. These things are what makes us the youngest country to reach so much power, wealth, and success in the world. Socialism kills individualism. It despises it and roots it out where ever it is found. I will never support something so overtly in contrast to the idea of liberty.

Um... ok little bit of the p word creeping in there.

Were oh were, dose actual socialism kill individualism. Please give me a case study.

Let's look at these words shall we?

All according to your source, dictionnary.com
Capitalism
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Does the states not have public school, is the military privately owned, do you have tariff on some product? So, in effect, the US is not a capitalistic country as per the definition.

So, if you agree that the US is not capitalist, I will agree that most of Europe is not socialist. We will all dance happily in the joy that we all share a commonground: we are all democracies.

If you disagree and still refuse to acknowledge that socialism and democracy cannot co-exist, then you are the height of hyppocrisy.

Yes, that's why we are a Democratic Republic with Capitalistic ideals... We are a Democracy first and foremost because the power lies within the People, no ifs ands or buts. So because we espouse the ideals of Democracy BEFORE we do those of Capitalism, Democracy is the dominate ideal, is it not?

Doesn't the same apply to a Democratic Society that uses Socialistic ideals? The power lies with the People first and foremost, does it not?

So why would you give the dominate position in the Title to the lesser of the ideals?

Regards,
Gaar

Robin Hood was a socialist

(robbed Peter to pay Paul, basically)

it ain't right, but so long as the lazy poor who are jealous for other people's money have votes, they can elect politicians who will STEAL from some and give that money to said lazy, light-fingered poor people.

(now here comes the flaming "you hate poor people" verdict... no, i don't hate poor people. i hate the idea that someone has a RIGHT to someone else's property/money. In THIS country we WORK for what we get, unless we're lucky enough to be kin of someone rich who decides to give us his/her money -- which should be his right under the general respect for proprietary rights and financial freedom in the US)
the simple fact is people do not start out on a level pegging - some people are born with more wealth than others, hence they will have an easier start in life and hence potentially always be better off.

if you want a philisophical validation for why the state can "steal" from the rich to give to the poor, read Rawl's work on distributive justice and the Veil Of Ignorance

Robin Hood was a socialist

(robbed Peter to pay Paul, basically)

it ain't right, but so long as there are lazy people who are jealous for other people's money have votes, they can elect politicians who will STEAL from some and give that money to said lazy, light-fingered, unprincipled people.

(now here comes the flaming "you hate poor people" verdict... no, i don't hate poor people. i hate the idea that someone has a RIGHT to someone else's property/money. In THIS country we WORK for what we get, unless we're lucky enough to be kin of someone rich who decides to give us his/her money -- which should be his right under the general respect for proprietary rights and financial freedom in the US)
The fact that you associate robbing people with socialism means you don't understand the precept behind the ideology.

communism is not authoritarian, necessarily. in true communism the state will dissolve as all classes become one, but nobdoy seems to know these bits of the ideology :mad:

the stae is supposed to 'wither away' as Marx put it but it never happens. This only happens is you completely abandon the beliefs of communism.

No, authoritarianism kills individualism. It kills free thought and independant criticism. As one of a number of countries heading headlong into this type of state you should worry. Communism is authoritarian, socialism certainly isn't by (that magic word) definition.

Both kill individual thought - but by different means. Authoritarianism kills the acting on individual thought by strongarming the people into submission. Socialism kills individual thought by filling people with the idea that they are all social clones of each other with no differences to offer. There are no traits or gifts that can benefit one person over another. They all make the same amount of money, depend on the imperial federal government for all of life's needs and can benefit nothing from being inventive and individualistic.

Its like this - if I am free to create and invent, knowing that my creations might bring me great wealth one day, I will work hard with that motivation. If I know that all of our wealth is redistributed by the government to one another and there is no chance of me getting rich from my creativity, I will not have any motivation to be creative.

This only happens is you completely abandon the beliefs of communism.
:confused:

the state whithering away is the end point of communism and the historical materialist evolution of society. it is the point of utopia.

but then again, i suppose it is improbable, but only because we cannot imagine it happening

Were oh were, dose actual socialism kill individualism. Please give me a case study.

Well, perhaps it doesn't "kill it" but we do have empirical evidence that Democracy has done a far better job building an individuals wealth than does Socialism. Which then gives them the ability to use some of that wealth to help those less fortunate on a scale that the World has never seen before.

Regards,
Gaar

communism is not authoritarian, necessarily. in true communism the state will dissolve as all classes become one, but nobdoy seems to know these bits of the ideology :mad:

true, the end result is the dissolution of the state, and as only the end result is technically communism, you are correct. The Leninist/Stalinist path that communist parties have tended to take is certainly authoritarian though.

Yes, that's why we are a Democratic Republic with Capitalistic ideals... We are a Democracy first and foremost because the power lies within the People, no ifs ands or buts. So because we espouse the ideals of Democracy BEFORE we do those of Capitalism, Democracy is the dominate ideal, is it not?

Doesn't the same apply to a Democratic Society that uses Socialistic ideals? The power lies with the People first and foremost, does it not?

So why would you give the dominate position in the Title to the lesser of the ideals?

Regards,
Gaar
Then it falls on basic grammar precept.

Let's look at the term: Social Democracy
in this term, the noun is? That's right, Democracy.
What is social? an adjective.
What is the role of adjective? to nuance the noun.

So, in effect, we put the "dominate position" on the proper term, Democracy. We, in effect, use proper english. I'm sorry if you seem to read that differently, but It's not my fault.

the simple fact is people do not start out on a level pegging - some people are born with more wealth than others, hence they will have an easier start in life and hence potentially always be better off.

if you want a philisophical validation for why the state can "steal" from the rich to give to the poor, read Rawl's work on distributive justice and the Veil Of Ignorance

thanks for the tip. BTW, i edited that post... i was misrepresenting myself. It isn't the poor i dislike, but the idea of having a "right" to other people's money.

Well, perhaps it doesn't "kill it" but we do have empirical evidence that Democracy has done a far better job building an individuals wealth than does Socialism. Which then gives them the ability to use some of that wealth to help those less fortunate on a scale that the World has never seen before.

Regards,
Gaar
Unfortunately, we don't have empirical evidence of socialist country as per your definition so your point is moot.

Well, perhaps it doesn't "kill it" but we do have empirical evidence that Democracy has done a far better job building an individuals wealth than does Socialism. Which then gives them the ability to use some of that wealth to help those less fortunate on a scale that the World has never seen before.

Regards,
Gaar

Again there is the socialism democracy contrast.

I live is a socialist democracy for christ sake. The ruling party in the u.k the labour party is socialist, we are a parlemntary democracy, so for the next 3 months at least the U.K IS A SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY. Both things at the same time.

And again where is your proof this, that democracy has made the individual richer, not democracy, capatalism might have, but at the same time due to its very nature it makes others pooer. its the basic ecomic problem of capatlist.
Limited resorces inifinte wants
Capatlist anwser = give to thouse who can pay for it
Socalist anwser = share as best you can

Im getting knackerd going full force in two diffrent threads, neo cannen is managing it, but im gettting tired, need my mid afternoon nap soon.

Unfortunately, we don't have empirical evidence of socialist country as per your definition so your point is moot.

Not really...

Because the question then becomes, why don't we have such a Country?

Regards,
Gaar

Not really...

Because the question then becomes, why don't we have such a Country?

Regards,
Gaar


We do, I live in it. It called Britain
Most of the rest of western Europe, i.e Spain, France and Germany operates on a similar socialist system as all their governments are socialist at the current time.
(I’m getting rattled now I’m sorry.)

Whoa,
Shit i must of hit a nerve, quickly nurse get the morphine.

Ok firstly my spelling, yes I’m a shitty speller so was Einstein, I just hope in time…. You can learn to forgive me , I just forgot to spell check that entry, ... Ah ha, you it surprise you to know I’m actually a student at a posh British public school.

If you are a successful student at a posh British school, with lack of elementary spelling skills, then I have lost all faith in the British educational system.

To address your social issues, if I can even interpret what you are trying to say, we are born equal as men, and that's it. We have different abilities and skills and life is about how we apply those abilities to accomplish things throughout the course of our lifetime. Financial independence and wealth is the key motivator in any corner of the world - it always has been. If you equalize everyone by freezing their individual abilities and strengths, and simply make them clones of each other economically, liberty has failed. Individualism is non-existent. Suddenly, you rely on the government to accomplish things that individuals were doing in the private sector before. I'm not willing to give my government more power than it has already.

OK examples of the laffer curve in action:



Kennedy tax cuts: top rate of tax cut from 90% in 1963 to 70% in 1965. tax revenue grew by a solid 62% because of the longets economic expansion in economic history. Tax collection from the rich climbs 57% between 1963 and 1966

Reagan: Cuts from 70% in 1980 to 28% in 1988. Total tax revenue expanded by 99.4%. Share paid by the top ten percent climbs from 48% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988.

Thatcher tax cuts: 83% in 1979 cut to 60% in 1980 to 40% in 1986. per capita GDP rises massively. top 10% of earners are paying 35% share of revenues in 1979 to contributing 42% in 1990.

This is because people work harder for higher after tax returns. secondly, tax evasion becomes less rewarding. Thirdly, tax avoidance becomes less rewarding so people pay tax legitimately.

Both kill individual thought - but by different means. Authoritarianism kills the acting on individual thought by strongarming the people into submission. Socialism kills individual thought by filling people with the idea that they are all social clones of each other with no differences to offer. There are no traits or gifts that can benefit one person over another. They all make the same amount of money, depend on the imperial federal government for all of life's needs and can benefit nothing from being inventive and individualistic.

Its like this - if I am free to create and invent, knowing that my creations might bring me great wealth one day, I will work hard with that motivation. If I know that all of our wealth is redistributed by the government to one another and there is no chance of me getting rich from my creativity, I will not have any motivation to be creative.

You have a fixation with individualism, creativity and wealth being somehow related. It's an interesting idea that socialism is about creating clones. Where did you read that? I would say that everyone sitting there in their jeans and t shirts in their identikit houses and towns, rushing to buy the (same) latest fashions from the same global storechains. Running home to watch the same tv programs etc etc etc sounds pretty much like some kind of clone world. ALthough it isn't everyone it's just us lucky ones

Again there is the socialism democracy contrast.

I like is a socialist democracy for christ sake. The ruling party in the u.k the labour party is socialist, we are a parlemntary democracy, so for the next 3 months at least the U.K IS A SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY. Both things at the same time.

You also have private property, right? That's a Capitalistic ideal, right?

So are you a semi-Socialistic Democracy with some Capitalistic tendencies?

No, because you concentrate on Socialistic ideals within your Democracy you are a Democratic Country which espouses Social tendencies.

Since Democracy is the ideal that trumps all others, it takes the dominate position in the title so that all else is subject to it...

Just as if we begin to espouse more Social ideals we have the potential to become a Democratic Republic with Socialistic tendencies, just as your Country likely has the potential to become a Democracy with Capitalistc tendencies, since you already have some tendencies towards Capitalism, do you not?

Regards,
Gaar

Again there is the socialism democracy contrast.

I live is a socialist democracy for christ sake. The ruling party in the u.k the labour party is socialist, we are a parlemntary democracy, so for the next 3 months at least the U.K IS A SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY. Both things at the same time.

And again where is your proof this, that democracy has made the individual richer, not democracy, capatalism might have, but at the same time due to its very nature it makes others pooer. its the basic ecomic problem of capatlist.
Limited resorces inifinte wants
Capatlist anwser = give to thouse who can pay for it
Socalist anwser = share as best you can

Im getting knackerd going full force in two diffrent threads, neo cannen is managing it, but im gettting tired, need my mid afternoon nap soon.

To call new labour socialist is absolutely laughable. they followed Thatcher's legacy just like Major did. Privatisation (supposedly) low tax, they haven't reversed union legislation. They don't redistribute wealth. They abandoned clause IV of their constitution for god's sake.

Also, capitalism has brought the greatest increase in standard of living in the history of the human race, so why do we have to keep apologising for it? If you lived in Cuba you wouldn't have a computer. You have one because you live in the UK- a capitalist country

Another point. The poorest in Britain are richer than the richest in Cuba and the people have CHina which has accepted unbridle cpaitalism are now far better off than when they were poor peasants under Mao

All evidence shows that any attempt at mild redistribution has little or even detrimental effect on wealth districution.

You also have private property, right? That's a Capitalistic ideal, right?

So are you a semi-Socialistic Democracy with some Capitalistic tendencies?

No, because you concentrate on Socialistic ideals within your Democracy you are a Democratic Country which espouses Social tendencies.

Since Democracy is the ideal that trumps all others, it takes the dominate position in the title so that all else is subject to it...

Just as if we begin to espouse more Social ideals we have the potential to become a Democratic Republic with Socialistic tendencies, just as your Country likely has the potential to become a Democracy with Capitalistc tendencies, since you already have some tendencies towards Capitalism, do you not?

Regards,
Gaar

Where oh where dose it say private property is a solely capitalist idea, ill have you know it existed way way way before capitalism, hell its in the bible, are you about to say the bible is capitalist.

Nothing i mean nothing states that private property is anti socialist, after all socialism is all based around the right of the individual (the most modern thinking especially) it was born out of the French revolution after all, and is not the right to private property an extension of that.

Democracy doesn’t trump all others either, its in essence a crap system that is the father of bureaucracy, and in reality it’s the dictatorship of the majority nothing else. As Winston Churchill said,
"democracy isn’t a good system, its just the best we have got"
In fact the best system would be benevolent dictatorship, but that’s a different discussion

You also seem to be constantly blurring democracy with capitalism, some one else was stated this x number of times, capitalist/socialist = economic theory democracy/autocracy= political theory

I assume your a classisist then, as good as that theory may be in its 'foundations', its bloody heartless.

why is it heartless

You also have private property, right? That's a Capitalistic ideal, right?

It is, but private property existed before capitalism.

So are you a semi-Socialistic Democracy with some Capitalistic tendencies?

I would say yes, but because of your justifications. Private property is not soley a capitalist value.

In fact many socialists (using the broad definition of the term) are staunch advocates of private property right.

No, because you concentrate on Socialistic ideals within your Democracy you are a Democratic Country which espouses Social tendencies.

Dude, wtf? I leave for a bit and I feel I have completely lost the plot. You're not making sense.

Since Democracy is the ideal that trumps all others, it takes the dominate position in the title so that all else is subject to it...

How does democracy trump all others.

In fact, what is democracy? (And don't give some crappy dictionary definition, democracy is too broad a concept to sum up in a few lines from a second rate dictionary.)

I'm so sick of hearing about "luck". I am not rich - far from it. My wife is sick right now and out of work - I'm working hard everyday at a mediocre job, taking night classes online, and juggling a fledgling career as a screenplay writer. I have dreams, ambitions, and goals. I would cease my dreams if I were to simply be handed a paycheck every week that was equal to everybody elses and I had no chance to apply my tenacity to achieve more. Lucky ones - bullshit! I was born dirt poor. My mom was a single mother who scraped whatever crumbs she could to feed my baby sister and I. I wasn't supposed to have a chance - but I worked my ass off, and I'm finally starting to see some prosperity almost thirty years later. I'd rather be poor and free to maake my own choices regarding how I achieve wealth rather than be a social clone!

true, the end result is the dissolution of the state, and as only the end result is technically communism, you are correct. The Leninist/Stalinist path that communist parties have tended to take is certainly authoritarian though.
true. i suppose i'm just being pedantic ;)

where is Nova Castlemilk to answer my claims about tax, admit ur wrong and we can all finish happy.

compltely agree with the bloke above.

Someone said Sweden was the best in terms of low poverty.

Well by the UN description poverty will always exist no matter what the standard of living.

THE UK would be the best in terms of poverty if we had 60% tax rates, but it wouldn't last very long. Just like it hasn;'t lasted in Sweden and they are having to change their system.

why is it heartless

Because when there are what is it, when the labour market collapses, classism assumes that people have to just work for jack crap, but hell as long as the market stabilises

I'm so sick of hearing about "luck". I am not rich - far from it. My wife is sick right now and out of work - I'm working hard everyday at a mediocre job, taking night classes online, and juggling a fledgling career as a screenplay writer. I have dreams, ambitions, and goals. I would cease my dreams if I were to simply be handed a paycheck every week that was equal to everybody elses and I had no chance to apply my tenacity to achieve more. Lucky ones - bullshit! I was born dirt poor. My mom was a single mother who scraped whatever crumbs she could to feed my baby sister and I. I wasn't supposed to have a chance - but I worked my ass off, and I'm finally starting to see some prosperity almost thirty years later. I'd rather be poor and free to maake my own choices regarding how I achieve wealth rather than be a social clone!
Now imagine if you were born in Irak...

Yes you are lucky. More lucky that you can imagine. You were born in the right part of Earth to be able to make it up to where you are, with an education that gave you the set of belief to aim higher.

Do not, for a moment, believe that you are not lucky. If you weren't lucky, you wouldn't be on the internet right now.

I would say yes, but because of your justifications. Private property is not soley a capitalist value.

In fact many socialists (using the broad definition of the term) are staunch advocates of private property right.

Again, I didn't make up the language, I just use it as accurately as I can...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Capitalism

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

If you are a successful student at a posh British school, with lack of elementary spelling skills, then I have lost all faith in the British educational system.

When all else fails, blame the spelling.

I'm glad you weren't Coleridge's agent or Einstein's publisher.

To address your social issues, if I can even interpret what you are trying to say, we are born equal as men, and that's it. We have different abilities and skills and life is about how we apply those abilities to accomplish things throughout the course of our lifetime.

How do you mean "we are born equal as men?" Especially since you say right after "e have different abilities and skills." Is there some ordinal ranking or skill's value and everyone (looking at it broadly) is equal.

Financial independence and wealth is the key motivator in any corner of the world

Ever heard the term 'wage slave?'

Very few people are financially independent.

- it always has been.

Read up on the CNT in Spain, or the Ukraine during the Russian civil war. Or the Levellers in the English civil war or the......

No it hasn't, granted in the modern world most are motivated by this. However not everyone is, nor has everyone been motivated by this.

If you equalize everyone by freezing their individual abilities and strengths, and simply make them clones of each other economically, liberty has failed. Individualism is non-existent. Suddenly, you rely on the government to accomplish things that individuals were doing in the private sector before. I'm not willing to give my government more power than it has already.

You really don't 'get' socialism do you?

I would say it is heartless to have a society where everybody is made poorer by the state for some unfounded emotional affection for 'social justice'.

We should have an argument as to why footballers are paid more tha nurses and it is because society values them more. You may scoff, but it is completely true. We may value them mor ein total monetary terms, but we as members of society would value them less with the next pound we spent. 95% of people in the UK are healthy and so are not in need of nurse and so would choose to 'buy' the footballers services. That is why they are paid more because we value nurses less.

The decisions made in a free and independent market are just and not the coecerion of the state.

When all else fails, blame the spelling.

I'm glad you weren't Coleridge's agent or Einstein's publisher.



How do you mean "we are born equal as men?" Especially since you say right after "e have different abilities and skills." Is there some ordinal ranking or skill's value and everyone (looking at it broadly) is equal.



Ever heard the term 'wage slave?'

Very few people are financially independent.



Read up on the CNT in Spain, or the Ukraine during the Russian civil war. Or the Levellers in the English civil war or the......

No it hasn't, granted in the modern world most are motivated by this. However not everyone is, nor has everyone been motivated by this.



You really don't 'get' socialism do you?


Damn it, you’re better at this than me, i missed that quote about how stupid i was, were was it.

Because when there are what is it, when the labour market collapses, classism assumes that people have to just work for jack crap, but hell as long as the market stabilises

the unfettered labour market never collapses, conditoins change

Again, I didn't make up the language, I just use it as accurately as I can...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Capitalism

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Which is not very accurate evidently.

It is like me basing my definition of what Catholicism is on what an anti-clerical Satanist thinks.

A dictionary's purpose is to give a brief overview of a the meaning of a word. It is not to be all and end all of the word's definition. It is an insult to everyone who has written about socialism (irrelevent of where they are on the political spectrum), and not to mention slightly arrogant, to think that a concept which can fill whole libraries can be summed up in a few words.

Dictionaries are starting points, they are not definitive and they are not the last word.

also what do socialists want. when the labour market 'collapses' then what is the socialist alternative? does socialism just make them as well off as they were before? no. COnditions change and people have to change with them, with a safety net welfare state, which iwould recommend.

Now imagine if you were born in Irak...

Yes you are lucky. More lucky that you can imagine. You were born in the right part of Earth to be able to make it up to where you are, with an education that gave you the set of belief to aim higher.

Do not, for a moment, believe that you are not lucky. If you weren't lucky, you wouldn't be on the internet right now.

And why is it that the part of the world that I was born in provides better chances for its citizens than most other parts of the world? Because of the American way of life, our social structure, our capitalism, our liberty, and our freedom. This is the essence of what this entire discussion is about. Why would we want to change our form of government when ours has been historically beneficial to the overall prosperity of its people and other governments have not? America's government is powered by the people. We give it its power. It has no power over us that we did not grant it. That is the beauty of our country.

good point

the unfettered labour market never collapses, conditoins change

Conditions like wage rate and quality of life?

I'm so sick of hearing about "luck". I am not rich - far from it. My wife is sick right now and out of work - I'm working hard everyday at a mediocre job, taking night classes online, and juggling a fledgling career as a screenplay writer. I have dreams, ambitions, and goals. I would cease my dreams if I were to simply be handed a paycheck every week that was equal to everybody elses and I had no chance to apply my tenacity to achieve more. Lucky ones - bullshit! I was born dirt poor. My mom was a single mother who scraped whatever crumbs she could to feed my baby sister and I. I wasn't supposed to have a chance - but I worked my ass off, and I'm finally starting to see some prosperity almost thirty years later. I'd rather be poor and free to maake my own choices regarding how I achieve wealth rather than be a social clone!

It would be selfish to prevent other people from clawing their way up from nothing by taking the opportunity to start from nothing away from them? Is that what you're saying? You like to write but you couldn't be creative without a financial incentive? Is that what you're saying? Now, to be fair you've had to work hard to survive but, assuming you could have a society that protected your liberty and that had a much fairer redistribution system wouldn't you rather bring children up in that society. As a start compare the UK and US to Sweden see http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/01/11/punitive-and-it-works/

Again, I didn't make up the language, I just use it as accurately as I can...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Capitalism

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
And it is.... a corporation is a collectivity of shareholders that own privately a good. In effect, socialism is all for the big enterprise and not the one-man business.

besides, according to different sources, the definition of socialism varies.

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn:
socialist economy]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Socialism \Socialism\, n.

Socialism of the chair [G. katheder socialismus], a term
applied about 1872, at first in ridicule, to a group of
German political economists who advocated state aid for
the betterment of the working classes. Sock \Sock\, v. t.
[Perh. shortened fr. sockdolager.]
To hurl, drive, or strike violently; -- often with it as an
object. [Prov. or Vulgar] --Kipling.

Socialism \So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.]
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a
complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and
equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular
usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless,
revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism,
Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

Socialism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

so, pray tell, why should we use only your definition?

I would say it is heartless to have a society where everybody is made poorer by the state for some unfounded emotional affection for 'social justice'.

We should have an argument as to why footballers are paid more tha nurses and it is because society values them more. You may scoff, but it is completely true. We may value them mor ein total monetary terms, but we as members of society would value them less with the next pound we spent. 95% of people in the UK are healthy and so are not in need of nurse and so would choose to 'buy' the footballers services. That is why they are paid more because we value nurses less.

You greatly over estimate the number of people that are not recieving treatment in the UK. The NHS is falling apart, partially because we admire celebrities who (come on, admit it) are fairly useless, especially with regards to nurses. Of whom there is a serious shortage of (exaccerbated by the fact that the NHS bureacracy is gradually becoming larger then the rest of the NHS).

The decisions made in a free and independent market are just and not the coecerion of the state.

It sounds wonderful. Tell me where this free and independent market exists.

Conditions like wage rate and quality of life?

well firstly quality of life isn't part of the labour market.

A change in the wage rate is not a collapse.

My previous comment is not opinionit's economic fact

And why is it that the part of the world that I was born in provides better chances for its citizens than most other parts of the world? Because of the American way of life, our social structure, our capitalism, our liberty, and our freedom. This is the essence of what this entire discussion is about. Why would we want to change our form of government when ours has been historically beneficial to the overall prosperity of its people and other governments have not? America's government is powered by the people. We give it its power. It has no power over us that we did not grant it. That is the beauty of our country.
You seemed to have missed my point and the point of this thread...

1) My point: saying you are unlucky is like a millionnaire saying he's not lucky because he's not a billionnaire.

2) The point of this thread: Socialism and communism are DIFFERENT. Capitalism, the american way of life, you own achievments, all of this is besides the discussion this thread was supposed to generate.

You greatly over estimate the number of people that are not recieving treatment in the UK. The NHS is falling apart, partially because we admire celebrities who (come on, admit it) are fairly useless, especially with regards to nurses. Of whom there is a serious shortage of (exaccerbated by the fact that the NHS bureacracy is gradually becoming larger then the rest of the NHS).



It sounds wonderful. Tell me where this free and independent market exists.

The point is not the celebrity culture. healthy people don't actually want nurses, which is a fact.

This is like the argument about water and diamonds. If a bottle of water and a pile of diamonds were put in front of us, we'd take the diamonds every time because we value the next unit more.

We may value water more in total than we do diamonds, butthe next unit is the one that coutns. We do not go through life buying everything at once, we buy the marginal item.

The point is not the celebrity culture. healthy people don't actually want nurses, which is a fact.

This is like the argument about water and diamonds. If a bottle of water and a pile of diamonds were put in front of us, we'd take the diamonds every time because we value the next unit more.

We may value water more in total than we do diamonds, butthe next unit is the one that coutns. We do not go through life buying everything at once, we buy the marginal item.

The NHS is falling apart because it is essentially a relic of pre berlin wall eastern european healthcare systems

You seemed to have missed my point and the point of this thread...

1) My point: saying you are unlucky is like a millionnaire saying he's not lucky because he's not a billionnaire.

2) The point of this thread: Socialism and communism are DIFFERENT. Capitalism, the american way of life, you own achievments, all of this is besides the discussion this thread was supposed to generate.

in terms of definitions, if you read a few politics books you would know that communism is a very extrem form of socialism

And why is it that the part of the world that I was born in provides better chances for its citizens than most other parts of the world?

Because most of the world is controlled by one party states, corrupted capitalisms, autocrats or is being fought over by a group of wannabe dictators.

By default, and vaguely egalitarian system is better then "most other parts of the world."

Because of the American way of life, our social structure, our capitalism, our liberty, and our freedom. This is the essence of what this entire discussion is about. Why would we want to change our form of government when ours has been historically beneficial to the overall prosperity of its people and other governments have not?

Sorry what? Historically the American system was very prejudicial to black, women and the "feckless poor" in general. Treating them with disgust.

I'm not judging the current US by what it was like historically, I'm judging what America was by what it was historically.

Also it is the height of arrogance (or it is just being unimaginative) to think that the system you live in is the best that ever could be.

America's government is powered by the people.

No, if that were true it would be a democracy. However it is a Contitutional Republic, one only has to read the Constitution and some of the federalist papers to realise what the founders thought of the people.

We give it its power. It has no power over us that we did not grant it. That is the beauty of our country.

No the Constitution gives it it's power. It just promises not to overstep the boundaries laid down by the founding fathers.

The point is not the celebrity culture. healthy people don't actually want nurses, which is a fact.

This is like the argument about water and diamonds. If a bottle of water and a pile of diamonds were put in front of us, we'd take the diamonds every time because we value the next unit more.

We may value water more in total than we do diamonds, butthe next unit is the one that coutns. We do not go through life buying everything at once, we buy the marginal item.

Sorry, just began a rant against one of my favorite bug bears; The NHS.

Nothing to do with you, just got carried away.

I'm still interested to hear where this "free and independent market" exists though :)

Because most of the world is controlled by one party states, corrupted capitalisms, autocrats or is being fought over by a group of wannabe dictators.

By default, and vaguely egalitarian system is better then "most other parts of the world."



Sorry what? Historically the American system was very prejudicial to black, women and the "feckless poor" in general. Treating them with disgust.

I'm not judging the current US by what it was like historically, I'm judging what America was by what it was historically.

Also it is the height of arrogance (or it is just being unimaginative) to think that the system you live in is the best that ever could be.



No, if that were true it would be a democracy. However it is a Contitutional Republic, one only has to read the Constitution and some of the federalist papers to realise what the founders thought of the people.



No the Constitution gives it it's power. It just promises not to overstep the boundaries laid down by the founding fathers.

You say that the third world is controlled by 'corrupted capitalisms'. i would be interested if you could name one. it's funny because the poorest countries in the wordl tend not to be capitalist. Maybe its a coincidence

capitalisms isn't a word either

Sorry, just began a rant against one of my favorite bug bears; The NHS.

Nothing to do with you, just got carried away.

I'm still interested to hear where this "free and independent market" exists though :)


The free independent market exists where the market is completely unaltered by the government. Like cup construction for example.

it's highly ironic that these left wingers are having a go at capitalism by computer. Capitalism got you thje computer. Why don't you sell it as a model of exploitation and give the money back to the poor.

You say that the third world is controlled by 'corrupted capitalisms'.

I didn't say that. I said.

"Because most of the world is controlled by one party states, corrupted capitalisms, autocrats or is being fought over by a group of wannabe dictators."

i would be interested if you could name one. it's funny because the poorest countries in the wordl tend not to be capitalist. Maybe its a coincidence

Hence "corrupted." That is, where the values of capitalism have been altered to suit the needs of an oligarchy.

And again you extropolating without reason. I never claimed that capitalism caused poverty, or that the poorest countries were capitalist.

capitalisms isn't a word either

Sure it is, it is a neologism and the plural of capitalism.

I'm also glad you weren't Shakespeare's producer.;)

The free independent market exists where the market is completely unaltered by the government. Like cup construction for example.

I know what a free market is. I'm a free marketeer after all. I asked where one existed.

And what is cup construction?

it's highly ironic that these left wingers are having a go at capitalism by computer. Capitalism got you thje computer. Why don't you sell it as a model of exploitation and give the money back to the poor.

Ok then i will, good bye everyone, This has become a circular debate anywho.
(I’m tried of this debate as my brains melting, I may as well feed my communist instincts and go regurgitate some food to feed some small birds, then ill settle down and have a nice cold glass of blood, cheerio all)

Actually, I thought that Sloshnia made some fairly salient points regarding the natural/logical effects of socialism on personal liberty/pursuit of gain/punishment of success and eradication of the pursuit of success.

First let's make some assumptions:

a)Socialism would lead to a far more homogenous group of people, at least in terms of socioeconomic level (IE, divisions of class would become blurred if not erased)

b)Socialism would burden the rich, upper-middle and middle classes with punitive taxes (most punitive, of course, for the rich).

c)Socialism would "empower" the working class and other poor or lower-middle-class denizens with the money of said middle/upper-middle/rich classes.

d)Probably (though not necessarily) everyone would receive health care coverage free of charge... generally there would be a rather large amount of welfare money in reserve to "help" struggling people.

Ramifications:

a)Because of the rise in pay for lower/lower-middle class (via the punitive taxes for others and redistribution of wealth) people would stop trying to advance to higher positions (i mean you're getting your paycheck plus parts of other people's paychecks). And... since the unions would likely be immune to any sort of "owner" interference, they could slack off all they want on the job and still get paid, leading to lower production and generally higher costs of goods.

b)(obvious) Higher taxes for most (very likely the majority) means less financial freedom/control for most.

c)The incentive for becoming wealthy would go down the tubes as the taxes on such people becomes exorbitant and as their control over their businesses/investments becomes little or none. And so it would be that people would stop trying to build the better mouse trap. Since innovation/business acumen would not be rewarded, it would slow to a crawl or stop entirely. Country would become dependent on foreign trade in order to get the newest and best products (and the people would pay out the yin-yang for them) OR the country would shut its borders to trade and proclaim to its people, "This is what we can make, and this is what you can buy. If you don't like it, too bad."

d)Unemployment would skyrocket. I would hope that most people, due to a responsible upbringing during which they were taught discipline and the values of hard work, would continue to work even though they could become totally dependent on the government (health care, food, shelter... remember, THERE SHALL BE NO POVERTY IN A SOCIALIST SETTING). Alas, certainly some would take the government up on its offer of a completely lazy life. HENCE, unemployment would skyrocket.

In sum:

People would be stuck in their jobs, either by choice or due to lack of options (contracting or stagnant economy whose constraints do not reward business expansion) or would decide not to work at all due to advanced social welfare programs through which they could live off the work of others.

Rising unemployment would hurt the economy.

Lack of financial freedom would hurt the economy.

Laziness would be rewarded while hard work and innovation would get the cold shoulder or, in the case of real success (rags-to-riches stories), would be PUNISHED.

As business, in general, would be discouraged, fewer people would want to start businesses... leading to a decrease in jobs. If your taxes will double and you will have little or no control of your investment -- due to the power of unions -- WHY BOTHER starting a business and providing jobs for hundreds or thousands of people?

With innovation down and production down and jobs down (although the government might step in and give jobs to people) and unemployment up, we're looking at an ECONOMY that will suffer. The suffering economy hurts consumers through an increase in prices and because of the lack of innovation, an overall decrease in quality (comparative to that of other, more FREE countries) and, hence, a drop in VALUE for the consumer.

You see, what you're basically doing is punishing THOSE THAT CAN and rewarding THOSE WHO CAN'T or WILL NOT.

It is counter-productivity at its finest.

I didn't say that. I said.

"Because most of the world is controlled by one party states, corrupted capitalisms, autocrats or is being fought over by a group of wannabe dictators."



Hence "corrupted." That is, where the values of capitalism have been altered to suit the needs of an oligarchy.

And again you extropolating without reason. I never claimed that capitalism caused poverty, or that the poorest countries were capitalist.



Sure it is, it is a neologism and the plural of capitalism.

I'm also glad you weren't Shakespeare's producer.;)



I know what a free market is. I'm a free marketeer after all. I asked where one existed.

And what is cup construction?


sorry got whipped un into a storm of having a go at left wingers. Apologies.

Cup construction is an industry that makes cups.

it's highly ironic that these left wingers are having a go at capitalism by computer. Capitalism got you the computer. Why don't you sell it as a model of exploitation and give the money back to the poor.

I always thought that computers were created by a gay mathematician (who incidently, doesn't hail too far away from where I'm sitting now).

And how is my computer a model of explotation?

Also, I ain't rich :p

sorry got whipped un into a storm of having a go at left wingers. Apologies.

Cup construction is an industry that makes cups.
Well that is hardly a market I would ideally like to live in (not that I have anything against cups, just that when I imagine a free market I imagine it on a universal scale, not just limited to a few industried the gvt cannot be arsed regulating)

We Must Be Careful Before We Criticise Communism. Take The Example Of Cuba. Cuba is Ruled By The Communist Party of Cuba, Yet It Is The Most Progressive Nation On Earth. I Beleive That Socialism and Communism Are Both Great Systems And Both Work. But They Are Not The Same.

I always thought that computers were created by a gay mathematician (who incidently, doesn't hail too far away from where I'm sitting now).

And how is my computer a model of explotation?

Also, I ain't rich :p

it's a model of exploitation because according to Our Karl, profit means that there must be exploitation of workers. Wealth is relative your probably richer than a starving african

We Must Be Careful Before We Criticise Communism. Take The Example Of Cuba. Cuba is Ruled By The Communist Party of Cuba, Yet It Is The Most Progressive Nation On Earth. I Beleive That Socialism and Communism Are Both Great Systems And Both Work. But They Are Not The Same.

You have a strange definition of progressive. thetwo plus points are health and education.

however, they arrest dissidents. they don't live in a democracy. they are only allowed meat on one day of the week. they have massive electrcity shortages. they aren't allowed to start up businesses. there is no economic freedom. the only reason they stay afloat is because of support from capitalist industries such as tourism or capitalist nations such as CHina.

Socialism encompasses communism for about the ninth time

Frangland

You made a very clear and concise point. I fear that it may fall on deaf ears (eyes?) considering the circumstances. Nice work.

to sya communism is a good system is the equivalent to me saying fascism was briliant and hitler was a saint (though we must remember that hitler was a socialist). hate to return to the point but the two key communist systems commited mass murder on a gigantic scale. Then again maybe they were good after all, mass murder is a check on the population

is Ruled By The Communist Party of Cuba, Yet It Is The Most Progressive Nation On Earth

Yes, it is so progressive that it can boast a stellar human rights record like this:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/cuba/document.do?id=CC76CCD717DFB52685256FCB0053C249

The clue is in the term Commune-ism. When have you ever heard of any autonomous communities developing amongst themselves within a communist framework. Not Russia, not China, not Cuba. Not anywhere!

Therefore it's a truism that Communism in it's theoretical form has never existed within the Capitalist frameork we all live in and understand.

Yes, I get that. However, sometimes are defined by wht the government intended for them to be. America is a democracy, but at the moment one could argue that it is a dictatorship run by the Bush administration.

So which is it a dictatorship or a democracy?

Yes, it is so progressive that it can boast a stellar human rights record like this:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/cuba/document.do?id=CC76CCD717DFB52685256FCB0053C249
good point

in terms of definitions, if you read a few politics books you would know that communism is a very extrem form of socialism
And what, pray tell, does that invalidate the premisce that communism and socialism are different? In fact, it seems you have proved my point by explaining that one is an extreme view of the other.

Yes, I get that. However, sometimes are defined by wht the government intended for them to be. America is a democracy, but at the moment one could argue that it is a dictatorship run by the Bush administration.

So which is it a dictatorship or a democracy?

i think some anarchist somehwere said that these Swiss people making pots and watches were a happy community. lovely mutualism

So which is it a dictatorship or a democracy?

It is a democracy, for now. It is not a dictatorship until people let it become one. If this country continues to slide in to deeper and deeper apathy, we will have an indirect dictatorship.

Communism and socialism have one key difference: Socialism still holds private ownership of the economy paramount and communism holds state control of the economy paramount.

Frangland

You made a very clear and concise point. I fear that it may fall on deaf ears (eyes?) considering the circumstances. Nice work.

Well upon re-reading it I'm afraid it was not as concise as I'd have liked (somewhat rambling), but thank you very much, suh!

i think some anarchist somehwere said that these Swiss people making pots and watches were a happy community. lovely mutualism

I was making an example. By definition, communism is attempted not achieved. Communism and socialism have distinct differences. Are you going to ignore that or acknowledge it?

I always thought that computers were created by a gay mathematician (who incidently, doesn't hail too far away from where I'm sitting now).

And how is my computer a model of explotation?

Also, I ain't rich :p

How does paragraph three stack up with paragraph two. The majority of the people in the world don't have enough food. You say you have a computer, but are not rich?
I have a computer and I am rich. By this I mean that I am not worrying what I am going to have to eat tomorrow, I have a rof over my head, I have clothes to wear, I even have an indoors toilet. Positive luxury.
I got to be rich in part by luck (family/nationality/accident of birth stuff) in part due to the government (education) but mostly by my own effort.

P.S. Turing did not actually invent the computer, he just mathematically described a finite state machine. Computers and the concept of computing are older than Turing (Pascal, Babbage to name a couple of significant people in the history).

The majority of the people in the world don't have enough food. You say you have a computer, but are not rich?

Here's a classic reminder to put things in perspective:

www.wowzone.com/100p.htm

How does paragraph three stack up with paragraph two. The majority of the people in the world don't have enough food. You say you have a computer, but are not rich?
I have a computer and I am rich. By this I mean that I am not worrying what I am going to have to eat tomorrow, I have a rof over my head, I have clothes to wear, I even have an indoors toilet. Positive luxury.
I got to be rich in part by luck (family/nationality/accident of birth stuff) in part due to the government (education) but mostly by my own effort.

Sorry, I was being needlessly flippant.

P.S. Turing did not actually invent the computer, he just mathematically described a finite state machine. Computers and the concept of computing are older than Turing (Pascal, Babbage to name a couple of significant people in the history).

Hush you, don't distract from my Mancunian patriotism :)

Communism is basically a form of socialism.

Communism is basically a form of socialism.

not to rehash, but is Communism not the most extreme/complete manifestation of Socialism?

Here's a classic reminder to put things in perspective:

www.wowzone.com/100p.htm

Incorrect.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/populate.htm

Stalinism is a form of Communism. There's no debating this. There's no wiggle room. There's no hazy definition, or alternate interpretation. Ergo Soviet Russia was Communist. Ergo Communism (With the inclusion of Mao's also Communist China), has killed 100,000,000+ people.

So quit trying to sidestep the fact that your favored economic systems leads to tens to hundreds of millions of dead. It does, that is an indisputable fact, and there is no way around it.

Socialism is less unpleasant than Communism, but nonetheless lends itself to endless layers of bureaucracy and red tape, and nonetheless interferes in places it has no business interfering.

Incorrect.

Sorry, it's a little old. Damn Google.

Stalinism is a form of Communism. There's no debating this.
huh? Of course there is. Stalin was a psychotic dictator who didn't give a damn about socialism or communism.

not to rehash, but is Communism not the most extreme/complete manifestation of Socialism?

It may be seen as that, but it depends on how you arrive at communism. If you arrive at it from the Marxist arguments on the ownership of the means of production, then yes, it is, if and only if you accept that very narrow definition of socialism.
If you arrive at communism in the Anarchist sense, then it has nothing to do with socialism, as it eliminates all government, and socialism is a political economy position wherein the government is responsible for welfare. No government means no socialism.

All a matter of perspective and what you understand by the term socialism.

Stalinism is a form of Communism. There's no debating this. There's no wiggle room. There's no hazy definition, or alternate interpretation. Ergo Soviet Russia was Communist. Ergo Communism (With the inclusion of Mao's also Communist China), has killed 100,000,000+ people.

So quit trying to sidestep the fact that your favored economic systems leads to tens to hundreds of millions of dead. It does, that is an indisputable fact, and there is no way around it.

Socialism is less unpleasant than Communism, but nonetheless lends itself to endless layers of beaurocracy and red tape, and nonetheless interferes in places it has no business interfering.

Stalinism is NOT a form of communism. The Stalinist USSR was a brutal totalitarian dictatorship that relied on the promises of communism to give it some legitimacy, and lied to the Russian people. Nothing more, nothing less. Same goes for Maoism.

Communism in Marxist theory, as I constantly state, is the end result of evolutionary socialism. Even the evolutionary state has yet to be acheived.

huh? Of course there is. Stalin was a psychotic dictator who didn't give a damn about socialism or communism.

Sta·lin·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stäl-nzm)
n.

The bureaucratic, authoritarian exercise of state power and mechanistic application of Marxist-Leninist principles associated with Stalin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

And don't give me any crap about how 'anyone can contribute to Wikipedia', because everyone knows that's a BS argument. Aside from anything else, you can go in and change it if you think it's wrong.

No room whatsoever for movement of definition here. Soviet Union = Communist.

Stalinism is a form of Communism. There's no debating this. There's no wiggle room. There's no hazy definition, or alternate interpretation. Ergo Soviet Russia was Communist. Ergo Communism (With the inclusion of Mao's also Communist China), has killed 100,000,000+ people.

Patently false. First of all, Stalinism is not Communism. Communism removes the government, Stalinism didn't. Soviet Russia was not communist, not by a long shot. Go look at the definition of communism.

Let's play the blame game, if Communism has killed that many people, how many has capitalism killed throughout the years?

Now who's the more barbaric?

Sta·lin·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stäl-nzm)
n.

The bureaucratic, authoritarian exercise of state power and mechanistic application of Marxist-Leninist principles associated with Stalin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

And don't give me any crap about how 'anyone can contribute to Wikipedia', because everyone knows that's a BS argument. Aside from anything else, you can go in and change it if you think it's wrong.

No room whatsoever for movement of definition here. Soviet Union = Communist.
The two bold statements are mutually exclusive, by dint of the definition of communism.

All you did there is prove that Soviet Russia was not communist.

Sta·lin·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stäl-nzm)
n.

The bureaucratic, authoritarian exercise of state power and mechanistic application of Marxist-Leninist principles associated with Stalin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

And don't give me any crap about how 'anyone can contribute to Wikipedia', because everyone knows that's a BS argument. Aside from anything else, you can go in and change it if you think it's wrong.

No room whatsoever for movement of definition here. Soviet Union = Communist.

The quote you provide from Wiki does not mention communism, only you do. It is often, and falsely assumed that the USSR was communist because it said it was. In true communism there is no state, so how does the "authoritarian excercise of state power" stack up with comunism. It does not.

Check my sig, by the way for my political position. Not exactly a lefty.

I see good things in socialism, communism, and capitalism.

The problem is human nature. It is human nature to have a hierarchy, and so it is human nature to be greedy, corrup, and easily fooled. In each of these systems, there are examples of good policies and good leadership, as well as extremist policies and leadership. Moderation often attains peace and is not noted. Extremism often attains bloodshed and is covered relentlessly.

Communism didn't kill over one hundred million people. People did, by their very nature. You can't blame an inherently benevolent, and easily corruptable, system for the faults of nature.

The problem is human nature. It is human nature to have a hierarchy, and so it is human nature to be greedy, corrup, and easily fooled.


You do realise, of course, that we lived in cities without currency, and thus wealth, or any formal heirarchy (of course, there were elders, etc.) for several thousand years?

Surely we can manage a similar form of egalitarianism now with our current technology?

There was still a heirarchy. There is a heirarchy in nearly every single mammalian species on the planet. It is natural to tend towards it.

Anarchy is impossible if you expect everyone to be exactly equal. It will neverh appen, because without technology the strongest and smartest would survive best, and thus assume the top of the food chain.

And I am not adverse to accepting a heirarchy and still consider myself a Socialist.

Shall we try again, or are you really going to try and make an argument that the "dictionary" is wrong?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Socialism

1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
_________________________________

Are your production and distribution owned "collectively" or by a centralized Government?

If not, you are not a Socialist System. You may use some Socialist principles but, by DEFINITION you are not a Socialistic System, you are a Democracy that uses principles of Socialism.

Is that more clear now?

Or perhaps you would be good enough to "show me" where the definition you are using is "widely held" as correct?

Because I am pretty sure I just offered empirical evidence to support my case.

Regards,
Gaar

OK, I've not read everything since page 7, so apologies if I'm repeating anything.

"so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
1)Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2)The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. "


I do legal theory and have studied socialism to an extent and that is not the necessarily the definition I would give of socialism. That is the more extreme version of socialism which is more akin to communuism but generally, when talking about socialism, people mean socialism to a lesser degree than that defined in your dictionary.

The whole problem you seem to be having is that you don not understand that Communism is socialism, but Communism is not the whole of socialism. There is a sliding scale of socialism. The most extreme version of socialism is communism, but just because a person does not believe in total collectivity does not mean they are not a socialist. The "lowest" level of socialism is basically a scaled tax rate or some minor employment benefit. A system that has any degree redistribution of wealth is operating on a limited socialist system


Are your production and distribution owned "collectively" or by a centralized Government?
Not all of it, but some. The NHS, ie, 98% of healthcare, hospitals etc, in the UK is collectively owned and controlled by government. The BBC is state owned, and takes up more than 30% of UK TV audience share. Up until the 1980s, so was all public transport, power generation, coal mining, steel production, the telephone system, the mail system, etc,etc. So YES, the UK did very much fall under this more extreme meaning of socialism, although it receded quite dramatically under Thatcher.



You have also clearly misunderstood the definition give in your dictionary. The only mention of the political form is "dictatorship of the people" which you clearly don't understand. Not dictatorship over the people; dictatorship of the people. In any case, even if this meant that dictatorship was the form of govt required, it specifically says that socialism is the form BEFORE dictatorship of the people! This is where socialism is employed as part of a process to move towards communism. It can also be emplyed purely as an ends rather than a means.


SOCIALISM - www.oed.com
" 1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all."

Note - Aims at or advocates and distribution in the interests of all." Thus there can be varying degrees before total collectivity.

Total collectivity of propert being -

"COMMUNISM -A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants."

Note the difference ALL PROPERTY and NO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.

As to your bizzare statistics about charity. Besides the total irrelvance of these figures to the internal economic structure of these states and the effectiveness of their wealth redistribution, I have one point to maje....

One point!

- the US gives what $241 billion in charity? And the UK gives $70 billion? Yes? And you say that makes the US more generous???


Well!

The US has a population of more than 270 million people.

The UK has a population of less than 60 million people

That makes the US more than 4 times the size of the UK in terms of population. Therefore to be AS GENEROUS as the UK, the US would have to give more than 4 times what the UK gives. Correct?

soo.....4 x $70 billion = $280 billion YES?

But the US gives $241 billion.

Which means that by your figures, the UK is proportionatly more generous. Which means that your articles are crap!

Not only that, but the US economy is 10 times larger than the UK, so to be more generous in proportion to the economies, the US would have to donate 4$700 billion! [For economic details - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ (!)]


The US gives more because it is a bigger country and has a bigger economy! Big deal!

OK, I've not read everything since page 7, so apologies if I'm repeating anything.

I do legal theory and have studied socialism to an extent and that is not the necessarily the definition I would give of socialism. That is the more extreme version of socialism which is more akin to communuism but generally, when talking about socialism, people mean socialism to a lesser degree than that defined in your dictionary.

The whole problem you seem to be having is that you don not understand that Communism is socialism, but Communism is not the whole of socialism. There is a sliding scale of socialism. The most extreme version of socialism is communism, but just because a person does not believe in total collectivity does not mean they are not a socialist. The "lowest" level of socialism is basically a scaled tax rate or some minor employment benefit. A system that has any degree redistribution of wealth is operating on a limited socialist system

Yes, thank you, I believe I have made that very point several times...

I'll wait for you to catch up, and see if you might like to comment further, and correct what you have accused me of without having read the whole of my argument.

Again Communism is a form of Socialism... Nice that someone with Legal theory would support that, care to try for the rest?

Regards,
Gaar

One point!

- the US gives what $241 billion in charity? And the UK gives $70 billion? Yes? And you say that makes the US more generous???


Well!

The US has a population of more than 270 million people.

The UK has a population of less than 60 million people

That makes the US more than 4 times the size of the UK in terms of population. Therefore to be AS GENEROUS as the UK, the US would have to give more than 4 times what the UK gives. Correct?

soo.....4 x $70 billion = $280 billion YES?

But the US gives $241 billion.

Which means that by your figures, the UK is proportionatly more generous. Which means that your articles are crap!

Not only that, but the US economy is 10 times larger than the UK, so to be more generous in proportion to the economies, the US would have to donate 4$700 billion! [For economic details - http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ (!)]


The US gives more because it is a bigger country and has a bigger economy! Big deal!

Care to try again?

"The next most generous nation, the United Kingdom, donated 7 billion pounds sterling, or approximately $70 billion when adjusted for population differences. "

Hmmmm....

Looks like they ALREADY adjusted for the population difference in their calculation and YOU just did it again with the adjusted number.

I guess that degree of yours doesn't help comprehension...

Shall we try again?

How does THAT work, in your mind?

Again, care to try again, with some "Real World" numbers?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: Like I said... By far, bar NONE! You might note that the UK was the second largest contributor, and they fall far short.

I just read through this thread and I swear, some of the arguments made by both sides made my head want to explode (especially arguments over the semantics of "socialism"). Given my faith in the flaws of the human condition, I support an economic system that attempts to turn those flaws into virtues. Specifically, I am referring to the tendancy of individuals to compete with one another over limited resources, and the individuals desire to have more money and/or power (one can often translate into the other, like matter and energy) than others. In this environment, I believe that the only system which allows individuals to take advantage of their natural instincts is free market capitalism. To ensure that everyone has an equality of opportunity, I support *some* socialist ideals, like public education (not health care though). It is not true equality, because those who are born into rich families have greater opportunities, but were I the Dictator-President of the United-Under-My-Iron-Fist States of America, I would would correct much of that difference by making sure the public education system was set at a very high standard. In my ideal, there is no need for welfare in the form of wealth distribution or universal healthcare, because each individual should be capable of supporting themselves. Those who are not capable of supporting themselves were given the opportunity to do so; they either failed to do so or chose not to, either way they do not deserve a handout.

IMHO, redistributing wealth, in any form, is rewarding underperformance. Why should I pay for someone else to not do their fair share? Why should my hard work be punished and their lack of work rewarded? Perhaps I have missed something here, but I don't get it.

To actually state the case in its most basic terms, we would actually be calling most of the "Democratic" Countries around the World, "Democratic Republics" and then cite the "Social" leanings by referring to a more Socialist agenda or a more Capitalist agenda.

The reason? Because I cannot think of a single Nation that is a true Democracy. That would require that every person voted on every Issue to be decided. A Republic is a Democracy that has chosen to Elect "Representatives" to address their concerns at various levels of the Government we have put in place, and I am pretty sure that most other Democracies have something of that sort in place.

Now, unless someone can SHOW me a Socialist Democracy where ALL of the Industry and production is owned by the Government or communally, then I will contend that I could "technically" then call ALL Democracies... "Democratic Republics that use a Capitalistic Economy with some Social variations"...

Now, I have a question for those who are on the Socialist side of things... What is it you would call "Communist China" technically? Everyone is aware that they are instituting Capitalist ideals in their economy, right? So, I know what I would call them, but I am interested in what those people who believe in "Socialistic Democracy" would call it?

Regards,
Gaar

To actually state the case in its most basic terms, we would actually be calling most of the "Democratic" Countries around the World, "Democratic Republics" and then cite the "Social" leanings by referring to a more Socialist agenda or a more Capitalist agenda.
Representative Democracies are not necessary republic. Some are still monarchies.


The reason? Because I cannot think of a single Nation that is a true Democracy. That would require that every person voted on every Issue to be decided. A Republic is a Democracy that has chosen to Elect "Representatives" to address their concerns at various levels of the Government we have put in place, and I am pretty sure that most other Democracies have something of that sort in place.
According to the definition from your favorite source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy), a democracy does not have to be a pure democracy to be considered as such.

democracy n.
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

So most nation can be considered democracies if they elect representative to vote for them.

Now, unless someone can SHOW me a Socialist Democracy where ALL of the Industry and production is owned by the Government or communally, then I will contend that I could "technically" then call ALL Democracies... "Democratic Republics that use a Capitalistic Economy with some Social variations"...
Now, how many times do we have to tell you that Democracy and Socialism are not mutually exclusive concept? One is an economic concept and the other is a government concept.

And your definition of socialism has been debunked so many times, you should have learned by now that being socialist does not infer that ALL industries are controled by the government.

And why call them "Democratic Republics that use a Capitalistic Economy with some Social variations"
and not "Democratic Republics that use a Socialistic Economy with some Capitalistim variations" or, you know, the simpler form "Social Democracy"?

I also find it highly hippocritical to ask that socialsim be held to an either/or standard and not capitalism. You cannot, in good conscience, say a democratic republic if it has any socialistic bent whatsoever since you refuse to accept any social democracy with any capitalistic bent whatsoever. And, no, capitalism has no precendence if both are found in the same government.

When you have agreed to look accept that your definition is flawed, we shall talk again. In the meantime, I'm going to bed as I don't see you yielding soon.

Representative Democracies are not necessary republic. Some are still monarchies.

So your Monarch has the power and not the People?

According to the definition from your favorite source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy), a democracy does not have to be a pure democracy to be considered as such.

So most nation can be considered democracies if they elect representative to vote for them.

Certainly, and I am not denying this at all, and hence I used the term "technically" and not what is just assumed by the Public. That is what we are discussing here, right?

Again, I didn't make up the Language, just trying to be as "technically correct" with it in this discussion, since it really is all about the meaning of the words and not what People "think" they are, right?

Otherwise, why are people questioning what I "think" they mean if that is going to be the only standard that is applied in this discussion?

Now, how many times do we have to tell you that Democracy and Socialism are not mutually exclusive concept? One is an economic concept and the other is a government concept.

You can "tell me" all you like, I am the one supplying links to back my assertions, right?

And your definition of socialism has been debunked so many times, you should have learned by now that being socialist does not infer that ALL industries are controled by the government.

Debunked by someone’s OPINION, and the definition of Socialism says something quite different than you say it does, is that MY lack of understanding or YOURS?

And why call them "Democratic Republics that use a Capitalistic Economy with some Social variations"
and not "Democratic Republics that use a Socialistic Economy with some Capitalistim variations" or, you know, the simpler form "Social Democracy"?

Again, shall we get back to the dominating subject? And why wouldn't you address that in your assertion?

I also find it highly hippocritical to ask that socialsim be held to an either/or standard and not capitalism. You cannot, in good conscience, say a democratic republic if it has any socialistic bent whatsoever since you refuse to accept any social democracy with any capitalistic bent whatsoever. And, no, capitalism has no precendence if both are found in the same government.

I didn't, or if I did I didn't mean to and apologize for the error. I believe I have always contended that it should be referred to as Capitalism with Social tendencies; I believe that was the terminology I used in my final evaluation, or something akin to that. And again, Capitalism takes the front seat because it is the dominating theory in the System.

When you have agreed to look accept that your definition is flawed, we shall talk again. In the meantime, I'm going to bed as I don't see you yielding soon.

Sorry, you are the one trying to justify a position that is not consistent with the actual definition, not me.

Regards,
Gaar

America and the UK are both ixed economies. It just depends on where the balance lies. the state provides things like education , healthcare and roads in what we call capitalist countries but much more things in a left wing economy. What we are really arguing about is the size of the liberal state, which is small and hence capitalism

once again the fact that communism is part of socialism doesn't mean that it is not an extreme form of socialism.

America and the UK are both ixed economies. It just depends on where the balance lies. the state provides things like education , healthcare and roads in what we call capitalist countries but much more things in a left wing economy. What we are really arguing about is the size of the liberal state, which is small and hence capitalism

Yes but the State, in all cases, supplies much less than the private sector, does it not?

So in essence they use a Capitalistic System with a small mix of Socialism, not the other way around, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Communism according to Marxist theory won't work unless it springs up in a capitalist nation. All of the states that practiced Marxism in the 20th century have been mostly pre-industrial societies, even Russia.
I'm very glad you qualified this in a later post! Vanguardism blows...

You need a broad social change and consciousness for a real revolution to stick. And that way you bypass the need for a vanguard and for an interim socialist state.


And everything ties up nicely.

I'm from Romania, a former communist country... or better so called communist. Theoretically, communism is perfect.. UTOPIA. The theory says "You have to do what you can for the society and the society will give you back what you need". Unfortunatelly, also this society has to be rulled by people... and that's why it goes upside down.

A while ago I started a thread entitled "Did the cold war rob America of any sense of social justice" which basicly asked why the American political system has no Socialist representation in its political system. I then immidately got showered down in a series of insults against communism and a series of arguements about why communisim is inherintly evil ranging from the number of deaths in communist regiemes to the explaination of why you loose personal freedoms under communism. Now I just want to make it clear that Socialism and Communism are NOT the same thing. I'm not sure why people can't understand that but its the truth. Calling Socialism Communisim is like calling Conservatisim Facisim. Both Communisim and Facisim are extreme authoritarian styles of their respective original forms. It seems to me that many Americans here like to confuse Socialism with Communism so as to avoid having to look at the possibility of Socailalism working in their country.

Wrong, Wrong, Worng, Wrong, WRONG!

When people say 'communist' they mean Socialist. Communism is impossible because it is the absice of classes and even in Soviet Russia there was a ruling class. Therefore all of those insults against comunist staes were actuallly against socialist states and that is why socialism is not viable in the US.

You are also completly and utterly wrong saying that Communism is to Socialism as Fascism is to Conservatism. Communism is to LIBRALISM as Fascism is to Conservatism at least in your sense. As I infer that you are wondering why conservatism exists and socialism does not. The reality is that in mankind's experiace and in a realistic political spectrum SOCIALISM is to LIBRALISM as Facsim is to Conservatism. The more moderate LIBRALISM and CONSERVATISM have survived where the radical SOCIALISM and FACSISM have died out because of thier brutality.

So you too have confused your political spectrum. You must always remember that communism has never and will never EXIST!

If any of this is confusing or you would like to dispute it leave another pos and I will reply in a few days. Giving you exact refferences to history and the writtings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engles.

Michael
Student, The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Study
Nation: Federation of Eichorn

P.S.- Sorry about any spelling mistakes I am to frussterated by the ignorace to spell well.

Oh and by the way socailist ideas have come to the US via the Democratic Party and the Supreme Court. Hense the problems with public education, medicare, and SOCIAL SECURITY all of wich were made into what they are today by the extreme socialist side of the democrats

Democracy:
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
Socialism:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Dictionary.com.

Politicalcompass.org tells us that
Communism - Socialism - Capitalism - Capitalizm
are in a line like that, left to right. Dicatorship to anarchy is like this:

Dictatorship
Contitutional Monarchy
Democracy
Anarchy

Right? Democracy is Goverment Gaar, Socialism is economy.

Democracy:
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
Socialism:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Dictionary.com.

Politicalcompass.org tells us that
Communism - Socialism - Capitalism - Capitalizm
are in a line like that, left to right. Dicatorship to anarchy is like this:

Dictatorship
Contitutional Monarchy
Democracy
Anarchy

Right? Democracy is Goverment Gaar, Socialism is economy.

How is Socialism ONLY an "economy" when in fact it is supposed to "own" everything?

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government"

They only offer this as an "often" thing...

"that often plans and controls the economy."

Regards,
Gaar