NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen the term "socialism" used to describe capitalism, communism, fascism, democracy and dictatorship. So what the bloody hell is it?

Excuse my ignorance. I know pretty much everything else, but this one thing has eluded me.

From my understanding, socialism is based on society. Everyone has to give a portion of what they earn to benefit the group as a whole. It's not communism, where everyone gives everything they own to be split up by a government. Sweden is a good example of socialism. Really high taxes, but outstanding public transport, public healthcare, birth/old age services, excellent public education, etc.

Somewhere like america, which is a corporate consumerism driven democracy has really low taxes, but doesn't give anything at all back to the public at large. Gotta fend for yourself, which is, like everything else, good and bad at the same time.

That's just how I understand socialism. Hope it helps. (hope it's right! :P)

Socialism is just the concept of government or some other organisation directing the resources of society to provide everyone with certain services. Just about every government on Earth that isn't completely dysfunctional performs some socialist roles, collecting taxes to pay for universally available amenities like the police and fire brigades, major roads, the education system etc.

Of course when people talk about socialists or socialist governments, they're talking about the concept of taking the concept as far as it can go. The United States, for example, isn't considered to be a socialist state because of its reluctance to fund amenities like public healthcare and welfare as generously as other governments, and its enthusiasm for privatising traditionally government-controlled industries, all in the belief (and I'm not gonna get into whether it's right or wrong) that market forces will be able to more efficiently provide these services and place less of a burden on the economy than high taxes would.

So, using your definition, I'd say it'd be best to have something halfway between American consumerist capitalist democracy (yes, I know that America isn't really a democracy, but...) and Swedish socialism.

berrrrrr. *dribble* ... Kievan-Prussia use big word...

Socialism has nothing to do with high taxes. Workers are just as oppressed (and it's probably fair to say more so, depending on where such taxes are allocated) in a market society with high taxes than one with low taxes.

A socialist society at its most basic level is a society in which the workers have democratic ownership and control over the means of production.

So, using your definition, I'd say it'd be best to have something halfway between American consumerist capitalist democracy (yes, I know that America isn't really a democracy, but...) and Swedish socialism.

That's individual taste, really. I would prefer Sweden over the USA any day...

AFAIK, the term socialism was either invented or popularised by Marx. He used it to refer to the period before full communism was reached, while there was still a functioning government. I don't fully know, but I gather that he neither defined it, or said how long the socialist state would exist.

Nazism (Nationalist Socialism) took some of the ideas expressed by socialists (eg government control of businesses) and combined them with the autocratic government form of fascism. This can lead to confusion between the three different terms (socialism, fascism, nationalist socialism).

AFAIK, the term socialism was either invented or popularised by Marx. He used it to refer to the period before full communism was reached, while there was still a functioning government. I don't fully know, but I gather that he neither defined it, or said how long the socialist state would exist.

yup - historical materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism)

Eh, can I just point out one thing here: There are two different things, first there is "Socialism" and then there is "socialism".

The first (with a capital 'S') is the ideology commonly bandied about instead of Marxism.

The second (lower case 's') is a grassroots, local community effort to help struggling areas, literacy levels, housing, crime and so forth.

For instance, in Ireland Sinn Fein are described as being "socialist" (ie on a ground level) but not necessarily "Socialist" (on a national level)

Just thought you'd like to hear the difference and to not mix them up. :)

Eh, can I just point out one thing here: There are two different things, first there is "Socialism" and then there is "socialism".

The first (with a capital 'S') is the ideology commonly bandied about instead of Marxism.

The second (lower case 's') is a grassroots, local community effort to help struggling areas, literacy levels, housing, crime and so forth.

For instance, in Ireland Sinn Fein are described as being "socialist" (ie on a ground level) but not necessarily "Socialist" (on a national level)

Just thought you'd like to hear the difference and to not mix them up. :)
I agree with you on there being a difference, but I dissagree on what that is. In my opinion, Socialism (each of several - distinct, if need be, ideologies) describes programs that rely on seeing state control/state participation (along with other traits that vary from dogm to dogm) as an essential and always necessary policy. On the other hand, socialism is an economical policy based on state-intervention for a certain period of time, taken on by any government (see, for example, the critique that Engels launched against Bismarck's "state socialism").
Coincidentally, it's rather like the opposite of the difference between communism (a political ideology expressed in a certain setting) and Communism (the "ultimate stage of development", the millenarian belief adhered to by Marxists and some others).


EDIT: Also note that Socialism is a intermediate stage of developement in society, after "proletarian dictatorship" or "people's democracy" with Marxist-Leninists (although not with Marx himself) and before "Communism".

Socialism is the economic/politic system were the state controls all means of production. Either really owns, or controls (like in national socialism) by telling every producer what and how to produce, and who to buy from/sell to at what price.

Socialism is the economic/politic system were the state controls all means of production. Either really owns, or controls (like in national socialism) by telling every producer what and how to produce, and who to buy from/sell to at what price.

Not necessarily; socialism can (and IMHO should) be technically stateless.

I've seen the term "socialism" used to describe capitalism, communism, fascism, democracy and dictatorship. So what the bloody hell is it?

Excuse my ignorance. I know pretty much everything else, but this one thing has eluded me.

There are many forms and definitions of Socialism.

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

A bit long, but it covers most of the ground.
In practical language, "socialism" can mean everything, from left party platforms over soviet republics to simple insults...if someone uses the word in a debate, it's always good to simply put them off camber by asking what exactly they mean by it...

Not necessarily; socialism can (and IMHO should) be technically stateless.
Wouldn't that be communism (or anarchism)? Of course I was lazy when writing "the state controls", it can be any one will controlling all production, but socialism implies central planning. So something must do "the job" of the state, and in all real cases it has been the state.

Wouldn't that be communism (or anarchism)? Of course I was lazy when writing "the state controls", it can be any one will controlling all production, but socialism implies central planning. So something must do "the job" of the state, and in all real cases it has been the state.

Well, communism and anarchism are both forms of (or rather, extensions of) socialism. A centrally-planned economy however doesn't really fit socialism- it works within a capitalist system (hence state-capitalism), and is geared towards the same end as any capitalist entity- making profit. The organisation in a socialist economy should be done from the bottom-up, by the workers themselves, making sure that they address the needs of society first and foremost...not from any arbritary central authority which by definition is out of touch with the common worker. This doesn't necessarily mean "anarchism", as it doesn't rule out having an elected head-of-state, etc...and it doesn't have to be Marxist communism, as the ideology in such a state could be quite different.

Anarcho-Syndicalism then?

Well, communism and anarchism are both forms of (or rather, extensions of) socialism. A centrally-planned economy however doesn't really fit socialism- it works within a capitalist system (hence state-capitalism), and is geared towards the same end as any capitalist entity- making profit. The organisation in a socialist economy should be done from the bottom-up, by the workers themselves, making sure that they address the needs of society first and foremost...not from any arbritary central authority which by definition is out of touch with the common worker. This doesn't necessarily mean "anarchism", as it doesn't rule out having an elected head-of-state, etc...and it doesn't have to be Marxist communism, as the ideology in such a state could be quite different.
State "capitalism" is (one special case of) socialism. Capitalism implies that there are many producers who make their own independent decisions about their production, which is the opposite of central planning.

"Bottom up" or "top down" organisation is not relevant. Democracy (in as big an organisation as a state) is top down, that people are allowed to vote for their rulers does not change the fact that the rulers rule the subjects.

Anarcho-Syndicalism then?
Yes, can somebody please explain that one? If it was just about setting up cooperatives, then they would fit perfectly into capitalism, but generally sydicalists don't like capitalism, so what is the whole idea.

Anarcho-Syndicalism then?

I certainly regard that as a form of socialism.

However, in the generic socialist society I described earlier, it could even be religiously fundamentalist and still be socialist. (while I do not support this)

At the end of the day, all that is required in order to earn the label "socialism" is worker empowerment.

Socialism is the economic/politic system were the state controls all means of production. Either really owns, or controls (like in national socialism) by telling every producer what and how to produce, and who to buy from/sell to at what price.
Don't think that's quite right, at least not here in Sweden. The only things the state control here is healthcare, education etc. It also have monopoly on selling liquor and spirits, and it owns a part of one of the train-companies. That's pretty much it.

State "capitalism" is (one special case of) socialism. Capitalism implies that there are many producers who make their own independent decisions about their production, which is the opposite of central planning.

However, "state-capitalist" implies a nation seeking profit at the expense of others - the nations are your independent producers, acting as huge corporations - whereas socialism is a far more international movement.

"Bottom up" or "top down" organisation is not relevant. Democracy (in as big an organisation as a state) is top down, that people are allowed to vote for their rulers does not change the fact that the rulers rule the subjects.

No, it's certainly relevant. If workers vote on decisions in the workplace, it's a lot more democratic and closer to socialism than a government authority which says "You shall build X amount of product Y by this date."

Yes, can somebody please explain that one? If it was just about setting up cooperatives, then they would fit perfectly into capitalism, but generally sydicalists don't like capitalism, so what is the whole idea.

It's definitely a strange one. I admit that i'm not widely read up on it (Proudhon pisses me off...anti semite, and sexist). From what I understand, syndicalists are opposed to corporatism more than the market itself...and oppose having a "boss" as a form of authority. Working together within your collectively owned factory to achieve profit is fine, though. Someone else can probably explain it better.

Don't think that's quite right, at least not here in Sweden. The only things the state control here is healthcare, education etc. It also have monopoly on selling liquor and spirits, and it owns a part of one of the train-companies. That's pretty much it.

That's because Sweden is social-democratic rather than explicitly Socialist.

Don't think that's quite right, at least not here in Sweden. The only things the state control here is healthcare, education etc. It also have monopoly on selling liquor and spirits, and it owns a part of one of the train-companies. That's pretty much it.
And some more things. But Sweden is not socialist, Sweden is capitalist, but with a very interventionistic government. If somebody calls Sweden socialist that is because 1) The government has a lot of power and 2) The party that controls the government was originally a socialist party and does a lot of capitalism-bashing, and that has been true for most of the latest century.

However, "state-capitalist" implies a nation seeking profit at the expense of others - the nations are your independent producers, acting as huge corporations - whereas socialism is a far more international movement.
That may be. But within each state it is socialism. And it is way too hard to move from one state to another to make for real choice and real competition. Capitalism is not defined by competition (even though that is an important feature), capitalism is defined by consumer choice, and profit seeking (as opposed to rent seeking) based on other people's free choice. And things can't be both capitalist and socialist at the same time.

No, it's certainly relevant. If workers vote on decisions in the workplace, it's a lot more democratic and closer to socialism than a government authority which says "You shall build X amount of product Y by this date."
Democratic/=socialist. There are people who claim that democracy leads to socialism, but that is an empiric claim. There is no such implication in the concepts of socialism and democracy.

And if workers vote on decisions in their workplace that is capitalism if there are other workplaces were others make decisions, so that no one is forced to follow a decision just because the majority in some group has voted for it.

If the state tells all producers exactly what to produce that is 100% socialism in that industry, I don't see how anything can be "closer to socialism".

It's definitely a strange one. I admit that i'm not widely read up on it (Proudhon pisses me off...anti semite, and sexist). From what I understand, syndicalists are opposed to corporatism more than the market itself...and oppose having a "boss" as a form of authority. Working together within your collectively owned factory to achieve profit is fine, though. Someone else can probably explain it better.
Ok, Proudhon. I should be reading up on that too. But it is something about the definition of property that sets him apart from others, right?

That's because Sweden is social-democratic rather than explicitly Socialist.

The word 'socialist' does tend to be used to describe social-democratic movements in capitalist countries though. Just another one of the different meanings the word can have.

Google

It seems to be a label thrown at everyone from liberals to hardline marxist-leninists.

In an actual sense it is either an ideology or a way to run a state.

Ideologically socialism advocates equality amongst all people and a controlled (as opposed to free) market.

Socialist states are that which exist between capitalism and communism. They are the beginning of a time when all the means of production are being collectivised and it is still necessary to have a state to oppress the former oppressors.

I think ive put that right. I cant tell, it all seems a little blurry

Anarcho-Syndicalism then?
It's funny... I was raised Socialist, but I have come round to Anarcho-Syndicalism through my experience in the real world. What a long, strange trip it's been.

I've seen the term "socialism" used to describe capitalism, communism, fascism, democracy and dictatorship. So what the bloody hell is it?

Excuse my ignorance. I know pretty much everything else, but this one thing has eluded me.
Google the Communist Manifesto and give it a read. It's a (relatively) concise statement intended to explain socialism to the world. Many of Marx's predictions did not come true, but his analysis of the weaknesses and failtures of capitalism is bang on.

If you're really interested, I recommend reading about it straight from the horse's mouth, rather than getting anyone else's (myself included) interpretations, which are always liable to be biased.

The problem with asking for the definition of socialism is that so many people believe such a wide variety of things. Socialists tend to believe in the possibility of state-less socialism and that 'means of production' is meaningful term. Yet, I promise you that without some sort of state forcing me otherwise, I will act only to further my own ends. I am not alone, and such society would probably never fit anyone's definition os socialism.

From my perspective, socialism exists any time you have a state-coerced exchange. Any tax, being an exchange coerced by the state, is socialism. The free market is any market free from coercion. A tiny tax in an otherwise free market used to pay for doesn't harm people much is only a little bit of socialism, whereas a mean tax rate of 50% is a lot of socialism. An exchange coerced by a non-state entity is simply called 'crime'.

From my perspective, socialism exists any time you have a state-coerced exchange. Any tax, being an exchange coerced by the state, is socialism. The free market is any market free from coercion. A tiny tax in an otherwise free market used to pay for doesn't harm people much is only a little bit of socialism, whereas a mean tax rate of 50% is a lot of socialism. An exchange coerced by a non-state entity is simply called 'crime'. No, if that were true, then every country on earth would be socialist in some way or another. Socialism isn't so simple as to be measured by tax alone. Socialism is worker empowerment and/or a fairly to heavily regulated market.
It's quite a variable label, and why people use it as an insult when it's in the political mainstream in many first world countries is beyond me.

It's quite a variable label, and why people use it as an insult when it's in the political mainstream in many first world countries is beyond me.
Because in one particular first-world country, socialism has been effectively demonized throughout the 20th century, while political revisionism has so skewed applicable terminology that comparative terms have been rendered invalid (in that one particular first-world country, anyway).

The word 'socialist' does tend to be used to describe social-democratic movements in capitalist countries though. Just another one of the different meanings the word can have.
Socialist about a person or party means either that they would like their state to be socialist, or that they give a higher priority to equality (of economic outcome) than to freedom and civil rights. A pure social democrat party is socialist, but can rule a state for quite some time before the land is socialist. Also many social democrat parties (like the Swedish) are social liberal and so will be called socialist by classic liberals, because they want more power to the (democratic) state, but don't want real socialism.

That may be. But within each state it is socialism. And it is way too hard to move from one state to another to make for real choice and real competition. Capitalism is not defined by competition (even though that is an important feature), capitalism is defined by consumer choice, and profit seeking (as opposed to rent seeking) based on other people's free choice. And things can't be both capitalist and socialist at the same time.

Well, clearly "state-capitalist" societies are something else, then...as those states cannot be called rightly socialist when their workers are exploited. That's the reason I feel they are closer to capitalism...

Democratic/=socialist. There are people who claim that democracy leads to socialism, but that is an empiric claim. There is no such implication in the concepts of socialism and democracy.

Okay, i'll admit that's a personal point of view on my part.

And if workers vote on decisions in their workplace that is capitalism if there are other workplaces were others make decisions, so that no one is forced to follow a decision just because the majority in some group has voted for it.

No...not if there's no profit involved...that has nothing to do with capitalism.

If the state tells all producers exactly what to produce that is 100% socialism in that industry, I don't see how anything can be "closer to socialism".

Well...we're simply going to have to agree to disagree. In my opinion, if the state is arbitrarily ordering about workers, then those workers do not have power, and therefore it is not socialism.

Ok, Proudhon. I should be reading up on that too. But it is something about the definition of property that sets him apart from others, right?

He did state "Property is theft" but unfortunately I have not read any of the other syndicalist authors so I can't tell how this differs from their points of view.

The word 'socialist' does tend to be used to describe social-democratic movements in capitalist countries though. Just another one of the different meanings the word can have.

Usually in a derogatory fashion, though. Most self-acclaimed socialists do not see those societies as such.

Well, clearly "state-capitalist" societies are something else, then...as those states cannot be called rightly socialist when their workers are exploited. That's the reason I feel they are closer to capitalism...
They could probably be called fascist, at least if we just look at the "state capitalist" states that have existed. But fascism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.

No...not if there's no profit involved...that has nothing to do with capitalism.
Capitalism does not require pecuniary profit. Many people want profits, and corporations always seek profit. But there can be entities in capitalism that don't care for profit. As long as they choose what to do and how to interact with others that changes nothing. 'Profit' in the generalised sense that is in the definition of capitalism is always involved. Profit is whenever an action makes you better off than you would otherwise have been. The workers voting in a cooperative would (by definintion of profit) vote for that which would give them a profit.

Usually in a derogatory fashion, though. Most self-acclaimed socialists do not see those societies as such.
The original social democratic movements wanted to "abolish capitalism" and "democratic control of the means of production". That sounds pretty similar to what socialists talk about to me. If liberals use it derogatory that is just because we want other things.

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/processed_new_images/nazi_flag_150.gif

Socialism is basically an economic system where the working class controls the means of production. There are a lot of possible variants of the idea, like Marxism, anarchism, democratic socialism, etc. but they all share that basic idea.

Well, technically socialism refers to the control of the economy/means of production by the workers, redistribution of wealth, and so on. It contains a variety of ideologies that could be measured by the degree of capitalism they contain or allow. Strong emphasis is always placed on the working class as the true leaders of the nation/economy, be they urban or rural (like in China).

Of course, 99.99% of these will inavariably degenerate in to some kind of oligarchial state-capitalism, but that's a different topic.

So, using your definition, I'd say it'd be best to have something halfway between American consumerist capitalist democracy (yes, I know that America isn't really a democracy, but...) and Swedish socialism.
Depends what you wish to focus on...
The Scandinavian Socialistic model has proven to work very well, but does not favour the individual at all.
It is incredibly difficult to become rich here (Scandinavia), but also almost impossible to starve thanks to the social net that supports those in need. Literacy is also unfathomably high compared to the rest of the world, while hospitals, schools and roads (not including bridges) are *free*, as they are paid through very high taxes.
(as a side note the scandinavians do have a high minimum wage - example Dk: ca 11$/hr - meaning that they are still pretty well off)

The Scandinavian Socialistic model has proven to work very well, but does not favour the individual at all.
It is incredibly difficult to become rich here (Scandinavia), but also almost impossible to starve thanks to the social net that supports those in need. Literacy is also unfathomably high compared to the rest of the world, while hospitals, schools and roads (not including bridges) are *free*, as they are paid through very high taxes.

The biggest thing helping that model be so successful is how well its tax structure works. Sweden, for example, has the lowest effective corporate tax rate in the world even though the real percentage is one of the higher rates: the effective rate is 10%, compared to an effective rate of 39% in the United States.

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/processed_new_images/nazi_flag_150.gif

That is National-Socialism

Google the Communist Manifesto and give it a read. It's a (relatively) concise statement intended to explain socialism to the world. Many of Marx's predictions did not come true, but his analysis of the weaknesses and failtures of capitalism is bang on.

If you're really interested, I recommend reading about it straight from the horse's mouth, rather than getting anyone else's (myself included) interpretations, which are always liable to be biased.

While Marx is a perfectly unbiased sourse sure to inform the lad on everything wrong with Socialism? Say if we want to learn about National Socialism we should just read Mein Kamph so we can get a valid unbiased sourse right?

While Marx is a perfectly unbiased sourse sure to inform the lad on everything wrong with Socialism?
Well Marx is the one who more or less invented the term... :rolleyes:

Well Marx is the one who more or less invented the term... :rolleyes:

Well then would you consider Ayn Rand an unbiased sourse on Objectivism? She invented it. She's also rather biased for it. And MArx is pretty biased towards Socialism.

While Marx is a perfectly unbiased sourse sure to inform the lad on everything wrong with Socialism? Say if we want to learn about National Socialism we should just read Mein Kamph so we can get a valid unbiased sourse right?

Well, Marx provides an accurate source on what Socialists believe. Given that Marxism has never been applied in real life in the way that Marx described it, the criticisms aren't going to be any less unbiased or credible than reading Marx himself.

"Socialism" as a term was in use before the time of J.S. Mill...

No Marx didn't invent the term.

Well, Marx provides an accurate source on what Socialists believe. Given that Marxism has never been applied in real life in the way that Marx described it, the criticisms aren't going to be any less unbiased or credible than reading Marx himself.

Well no the current analysis is going to be MORE accurate. Marx wrote theory. We now have practical examples of the results of those who have attempted to apply the theory. Reading for instance Darwin would give you a much less accurate idea of how evolution works than a freshman college textbook. You know that brings a good question. Why when we find more refined and accurate variationson the theory of evolution we don't say that 'evolution as Darwin invisioned it' has never been tried?

Well no the current analysis is going to be MORE accurate. Marx wrote theory. We now have practical examples of the results of those who have attempted to apply the theory. Reading for instance Darwin would give you a much less accurate idea of how evolution works than a freshman college textbook.

It's still a good place to start, as would Ayn Rand for Objectivism. Reading the original source means that you know what the ideology claims rather than accepting someone else's interpretation which can carry its own agenda. After that, reading criticism is useful as well.

I agree on Darwin, however this seems to be a different matter. You said that the problem with Marx is his bias, but the problem with Darwin is that his theories are out of date. I magine this is true for much of Marx as well, since there has been 100 years to improve on his theories.

Well then would you consider Ayn Rand an unbiased sourse on Objectivism? She invented it. She's also rather biased for it. And MArx is pretty biased towards Socialism.
What do you mean with unbiased?
Someone thinks about the idea first, and then defines it. Then they write well about it, because they like it.
Some might contest that Ayn Rand (Witch! Burn her, Buuuurn her!!!) has actually invented Objectivism, but she's probably the main source for finding out more about it.
It's pretty easy to read a libertarian critique of "Das Kapital" and then decide that communism is stupid. You have to listen to the actual arguments, objectively and without carrying bias, and then decide your stance.

So if he wants to know more about socialism, yes, he should go and read Marx. And when he wants to know more about objectivism, he should read Rand. And for Islam, he should read the Koran etc

Only when you read something objectively, and listened to the opposition's most convincing arguments can you make an unbiased decision. Too many people don't bother. :(

It's still a good place to start, as would Ayn Rand for Objectivism. Reading the original source means that you know what the ideology claims rather than accepting someone else's interpretation which can carry its own agenda. After that, reading criticism is useful as well.
While Marx's writings have no agenda?

I agree on Darwin, however this seems to be a different matter. You said that the problem with Marx is his bias, but the problem with Darwin is that his theories are out of date. I magine this is true for much of Marx as well, since there has been 100 years to improve on his theories.
In Darwin we have a theory that implemented differently than Darwin origionally intended but works in a predictable manner. While in Marx we have a theory that implemented differently than Marx origionally intended but works in a predictable manner. So we say 'evolution works' and then turn around and say 'real communism has never been tried'?

What do you mean with unbiased?
Someone thinks about the idea first, and then defines it. Then they write well about it, because they like it.
Some might contest that Ayn Rand (Witch! Burn her, Buuuurn her!!!) has actually invented Objectivism, but she's probably the main source for finding out more about it.
It's pretty easy to read a libertarian critique of "Das Kapital" and then decide that communism is stupid. You have to listen to the actual arguments, objectively and without carrying bias, and then decide your stance.

So if he wants to know more about socialism, yes, he should go and read Marx. And when he wants to know more about objectivism, he should read Rand. And for Islam, he should read the Koran etc

Only when you read something objectively, and listened to the opposition's most convincing arguments can you make an unbiased decision. Too many people don't bother. :(

Right.

As in econmic style, its basically communism, without the violent over throw...instead they believe that a reform is possible through the existing governnments.

As in econmic style, its basically communism, without the violent over throw...instead they believe that a reform is possible through the existing governnments.
^
This type of questionable statement is what MacCarthyism has produced.

Right.
So I take it you never bothered reading Marx?

No I read Marx. And I don't consider him either the best or least biased sourse of information on Socialism.

No I read Marx. And I don't consider him either the best or least biased sourse of information on Socialism.
Well neither do I, but not for the same reason as you.
He's not the least biased source for it. Obviously. Are you going to read Rumsfeld if you want the least biased source for US military policy?

No, Marx just wrote about a very special kind of socialism, and that isn't what the word means anymore. It's a wide area, and one needs to read many more books if one is to come to a conclusion as to what socialism exactly is.

I think we're in a bit of a mess here. I've been responding to folks quoting my response to the fellow who said to the thread starter that to learn about socialism he should read Marx. I never said that one should'nt read Marx. Know thy enemy right?I just said it would be a bad place to put one's faith if they were trying to figure out what socialism is.

Socialism is an economic style in which the state controls the means of production. Beyond that, it can be totalitarian, democratic, or various other forms.

"Socialism" as a term was in use before the time of J.S. Mill...

No Marx didn't invent the term.
Sorry I didn't see that before... :headbang:

Obviously the term itself had been around, it was pretty influential in the French Revolution too.
But much of the modern-day meaning of it is heavily influenced by Marxist thought.

I think we're in a bit of a mess here. I've been responding to folks quoting my response to the fellow who said to the thread starter that to learn about socialism he should read Marx. I never said that one should'nt read Marx. Know thy enemy right?I just said it would be a bad place to put one's faith if they were trying to figure out what socialism is.
Yes, in a sense - but only like that. Not all Socialism is Marxism (my beliefs - and, if I know Leonstein, also his- are opposed to Marxism from a Socialist point of view). This means two things: you can be a Socialist from a school of thought that had no Marxist connections (Anarcho-Syndicalist, Saint-Simonist, Fabianist, Blanquist, Socialist Libertarian; for example, Germany under Bismarck was accused of promoting "state socialism", dismissed as opportunism by Engels) or you can reject/re-interpret Marx in a movement that started with accepting his logic (rejection: Social-Democracy; re-interpretation: in most views, Lenin himself caused mutations in essential Marxist concepts).

Never hear of Saint-Simonist. Socialist Libertarian was what Chomsky was calling himself for a minute. My beef with socialism is that no matter which form they adhere to there's no way to implement it without robbing individual property. They always seem to gloss over or just skip that entire phase of the operation. Which is a necissary one. And an unjust and unpleaasant one.

Never hear of Saint-Simonist. Socialist Libertarian was what Chomsky was calling himself for a minute. My beef with socialism is that no matter which form they adhere to there's no way to implement it without robbing individual property. They always seem to gloss over or just skip that entire phase of the operation. Which is a necissary one. And an unjust and unpleaasant one.
Fine. you want to be intransigent. Let's talk moral absolutes, so as to test them.
There is something Proudhon said: "Property is theft". A man has a right to his work, to his body, to the results of his actions. To steal these would be to steal his property, and all of them are what give value to employment. Value! What is that? What is stolen from a man: no economy is going to work if all people are to be paid as much as their work is worth! Also, a man cannot find a product in which he will pay no profit to the manufacturer, right? He will not opt for fairness, but rather interact with the one stealing less.

These paradoxes are to show that we are to avoid the absolute wrong in condemning state-participation measures. "Unjust and unpleasant" - I'd rather be talking about these when I'm helping someone trapped in a life of poverty than when justyfing the profits of some guys on Wall Steet, especially since the latter have more to begin with.

I'm not being intransient. I'm being practical. 'Property is theft' has a nice ring to it but it's a bromide it does'nt MEAN anything. The reason the manufacturer makes a profit is because his work goes in to. I'm building walls in a new hotel right now. Eventually someone's going to work at that hotel changing sheets or carying bags. In between here and there an awful lot of people have to be coordinated or it's not going to happen. An awful lot of resourses have to be allocated as well. Now when the hotel goes up it could go out of business the next week and I still get paid. In which case the 'capitalist' (If you want to talk class I'll usse Marx's terms) gets paid what he's worth. An awful lot of debt. If the hotel makes a million or four he gets his worth out of it too. For making a hotel that worked that people wanted. If you can describe a 'socialism that does'nt involve robbing me or him then give it to me.

I'm not being intransient. I'm being practical. 'Property is theft' has a nice ring to it but it's a bromide it does'nt MEAN anything. The reason the manufacturer makes a profit is because his work goes in to. I'm building walls in a new hotel right now. Eventually someone's going to work at that hotel changing sheets or carying bags. In between here and there an awful lot of people have to be coordinated or it's not going to happen. An awful lot of resourses have to be allocated as well. Now when the hotel goes up it could go out of business the next week and I still get paid. In which case the 'capitalist' (If you want to talk class I'll usse Marx's terms) gets paid what he's worth. An awful lot of debt. If the hotel makes a million or four he gets his worth out of it too. For making a hotel that worked that people wanted. If you can describe a 'socialism that does'nt involve robbing me or him then give it to me.
For one, the only reason a contracted worker has guaranteed pay in case of a failed enterprise is because at some point society decided to intervene and punish (dreadful word!) those employers who did not respect their contracts. In fact, depending on society, this is probably the only reason why contracts got to mean anything. Remember slave labour? Also note that slavery survived in a contract-binding, capitalist world for some hundreds of years. What I mean is that intervention, even cohertion (New Deal-like) has played a positive, essential and PRACTICAL role throughout history.
People forget that the state "robs" only because the state has essential responsabilities that none of us have but we all are glad to benefit from when need be. A democratic state can have its funds checked and directed -ultimately, it may be more flexible and more careful than any company you'll ever invest money in (no matter what the common image may be, nevermind the cliche - privatization can fail miserably; also, the money you give may not be an investment, they may be rent - you pay because you live there).

I've seen the term "socialism" used to describe capitalism, communism, fascism, democracy and dictatorship. So what the bloody hell is it?

Excuse my ignorance. I know pretty much everything else, but this one thing has eluded me.
Governmental ownership of some or all of the means of production.

Never hear of Saint-Simonist. Socialist Libertarian was what Chomsky was calling himself for a minute. My beef with socialism is that no matter which form they adhere to there's no way to implement it without robbing individual property. They always seem to gloss over or just skip that entire phase of the operation. Which is a necissary one. And an unjust and unpleaasant one.

My view of it is that you are absolutely correct when you say it is necessary, but unjust and unpleasant. The results of not violating a certain degree of individual rights is far more unjust and unpleasant than socialism. Unfortunately, nothing's perfect in real life and you can't have a system that respects every single right and gains the consent of everyone involved.

Yes a contract protects the rights (and property rights) of the individuals involved through mutual consent. I've not heard of anyone signing a contract agreeing to be a slave. If your concepot of socialism means upholding the obligations you consent to then it is one and the same as my concept of Libertarianism and it is but a word that seperates us.

Up that was at Agresia. Forgot the damn quote thing.

My view of it is that you are absolutely correct when you say it is necessary, but unjust and unpleasant. The results of not violating a certain degree of individual rights is far more unjust and unpleasant than socialism. Unfortunately, nothing's perfect in real life and you can't have a system that respects every single right and gains the consent of everyone involved.
I meant necissary to comit the rest of the 'justices' and unmentioned in that it is difficult to hold a moral highgound whilst admitting you are a theif.

Socialism is sexy! ;) :fluffle:

I meant necissary to comit the rest of the 'justices' and unmentioned in that it is difficult to hold a moral highgound whilst admitting you are a theif.

Not really, as long as the process is democratic. The reason I find words like "theft" ridiculous is that people don't just vote to tax some victimised minority, they vote for taxes that they themselves have to pay.

Yes a contract protects the rights (and property rights) of the individuals involved through mutual consent. I've not heard of anyone signing a contract agreeing to be a slave. If your concepot of socialism means upholding the obligations you consent to then it is one and the same as my concept of Libertarianism and it is but a word that seperates us.

"I've not heard of anyone signing a contract agreeing to be a slave" - no, but you have heard of millions being slaves in a society in wich contracts were signed (I mean, in Marxist terms - and, interestingly, making a point that would infuriate Marx, that different "work relations" overlapped; signing contracts was norm between slave-owners etc. - it took a state to enforce a different and common standard, from which we all benefit).
Also, no matter what you do, property itself is something shaped by the state, and guaranteed - always, in limited terms - by a gov't. The fact that these were more easy-going in the US (but for the harsh lives Blacks led as slves and most immigrants as underpaid workers) does not mean anything - it could've just as well been otherwise. Europe has had different experiences - more restrictive to begin with, but - and this is essential - remembering the world of feudalism (with rules that would seem implausable and absurd to a Libertarian, but ones that did not wipe out civilization).
Also, Libertarianism and its actions are just a mere effect of what the US establishment has been doing to remove the possibility of socially-minded gov't. Its philosophy is comfortable, corresponding to the morally untenable American Dream, it promotes an individualism that measures the individual in his most mundane details (it's elloquent that the dollar sign is a symbol for one of its branches - such is value, such is meaning :rolleyes: ).

Not really, as long as the process is democratic. The reason I find words like "theft" ridiculous is that people don't just vote to tax some victimised minority, they vote for taxes that they themselves have to pay.

What's a 'progressive' tax then? The majority taking a minority's money is'nt it. If there are 20 men in a room and one knocks another down and takes his wallet it's theft. But if 19 of them beat the other and take his wallet it's democracy?

"I've not heard of anyone signing a contract agreeing to be a slave" - no, but you have heard of millions being slaves in a society in wich contracts were signed (I mean, in Marxist terms - and, interestingly, making a point that would infuriate Marx, that different "work relations" overlapped; signing contracts was norm between slave-owners etc. - it took a state to enforce a different and common standard, from which we all benefit).
Also, no matter what you do, property itself is something shaped by the state, and guaranteed - always, in limited terms - by a gov't. The fact that these were more easy-going in the US (but for the harsh lives Blacks led as slves and most immigrants as underpaid workers) does not mean anything - it could've just as well been otherwise. Europe has had different experiences - more restrictive to begin with, but - and this is essential - remembering the world of feudalism (with rules that would seem implausable and absurd to a Libertarian, but ones that did not wipe out civilization).
Well no it likely cou;d'nt have been different. And those oppressed immegrants became some of the wealthiest people in the country. Because they decided to go somewhere where they had that freedom.

Also, Libertarianism and its actions are just a mere effect of what the US establishment has been doing to remove the possibility of socially-minded gov't. Its philosophy is comfortable, corresponding to the morally untenable American Dream, it promotes an individualism that measures the individual in his most mundane details (it's elloquent that the dollar sign is a symbol for one of its branches - such is value, such is meaning :rolleyes: ).
Now this is preposterous. The American establishment is dead set against Libertarianism. They have a vested interest in statism. Go to a Lib fundraiser and find me the American Establishment supporting them. Has the American dream become less attainable? Yes as this nation has moved further and further from lesaissfair. And what's that with the dollar sign?

What's a 'progressive' tax then? The majority taking a minority's money is'nt it. If there are 20 men in a room and one knocks another down and takes his wallet it's theft. But if 19 of them beat the other and take his wallet it's democracy?

But if all tax is theft, why quibble over how much is stolen from you? If you can justify having any tax whatsoever then you should also be able to justify including social justice into tax rates- a person's income doesn't exactly reflect their effort and talent, it includes factors outside their control.

But if all tax is theft, why quibble over how much is stolen from you? If you can justify having any tax whatsoever then you should also be able to justify including social justice into tax rates- a person's income doesn't exactly reflect their effort and talent, it includes factors outside their control.
I don't see how having a tax has to naturally justify 'social justice' one of those phrases designed to imply the opposite of it's intent.

Well no it likely cou;d'nt have been different. And those oppressed immegrants became some of the wealthiest people in the country. Because they decided to go somewhere where they had that freedom.
Yes, it couldn't have been different... right. I mean, you Americans take pride in being "a new country", but you just had to have slavery...
Yes, and all the immigrants became rich in that magical land of yours (true, many did - out of a very large influx, mind you - but this only because the US were the empty "come and get it" country, which is a get-rich-quick scheme and it established social inequality as the norm). By the way, most weren't oppressed. They were just poor. Funny thing: most of those who got rich(er) came back home. It happened all over Eastern Europe (excluding Russia). Of course the others wouldn't do the same - they cound't afford the way back.
Also, note that not many Asians or liberated Blacks got rich. How come? Capitalism creates real, natural equity, right? How could people be prevented from having access to prosperity if anybody can play the rulette? Doesn't this indicate that rules unwritten and unwarranted are at work in a free-market, precisely at the moment of zero state intervention?

Now this is preposterous. The American establishment is dead set against Libertarianism. They have a vested interest in statism. Go to a Lib fundraiser and find me the American Establishment supporting them. Has the American dream become less attainable? Yes as this nation has moved further and further from lesaissfair. And what's that with the dollar sign?
The point is that America does not know what statism is (also, this means that it is not aware of its benefits). The system is propelled by fundamental inequities and absurdities that any other democratic state would avoid from a distance (even the UK), which make it unusually hostile to any kind of levelling as a solution - but does NOT prevent it from being protectionist. Protectionism as "statism". Not socialism. A world of difference.


EDIT: Note that I called the American Dream "morally untenable", as in "having design-flaws, being unwise".

But if all tax is theft, why quibble over how much is stolen from you?
Excellent point. You rock!

Yes, all it couldn't have been different... right. I mean, you Americans take pride in being "a new country", but you just had to have slavery...
Yes, and all the immigrants became rich in that magical land of yours (true, many did - out of a very large influx, mind you - but this only because the US were the empty "come and get it" country, which is get-rich-quick scheme and it established social inequality as the norm). By the way, most were'nt oppressed. They were just poor. Funny thing: most of those who got rich(er) came back home. It happened all over Eastern Europe (excluding Russia). Of course the others wouldn't do the same - they cound't afford the way back.
Also, note that not many Asians or liberated Blacks got rich. How come? Capitalism creates real, natural equity, right? How could people be prevented from having access to prosperity if anybody can play the rulette? Doesn't this indicate that rules unwritten and unwarranted are at work in a free-market, precisely at the moment of zero state intervention?

The point is that America does not know what statism is (also, this means that it is not aware of its benefits). The system is propelled by fundamental inequities and absurdities that any other democratic state would avoid from a distance (even the UK), which make it unusually hostile to any kind of levelling as a solution - but does NOT prevent it from being protectionist. Protectionism as "statism". Not socialism. A world of difference.

I was going to answer this and I started to. Typed a couple of paragraphs and then I remembered that I asked a while back how you figured to implement socialism without theft. Seems you did'nt feel like answering. Now I've answered a few of your questions and mine still seems unanswered. I'm starting to think that you don't have an answer and would really rather love to talk about anything except the fact that YOUR scheme is a mass mugging. So we can consider continuing this little chat when you answer my question allright?

Socialism is, as implemented here in Norway, a system where the state provides certain important services(education, hospitals, police) in order to adjust inequalities. The main thought behind it is that people are born equal and therefore should have equal possibilities. This is only possible if vital services are provided by the state so everybody has at least a minimum quality of life.

It's from the Latin word socius, which means(if my memory serves) "comrade" or "colleague". Care about your next.

Norway combines the social democratic political ideology('social democracy' was coined by Bernstein in the 19th century and basically means "once the working class can vote, we will have socialism because the workers are the majority and will win a fair democratic vote") with a mixed economy - we have certain state-owned companies which act on the private market just like any other actor with no preferential treatment. It's a nice mix between planned economics where the state decides All and the free market where it's cut-to-the-bone.

Hope my explanation is of some use. :)

//EDIT: Oh, and to answer this:

I was going to answer this and I started to. Typed a couple of paragraphs and then I remembered that I asked a while back how you figured to implement socialism without theft. Seems you did'nt feel like answering. Now I've answered a few of your questions and mine still seems unanswered. I'm starting to think that you don't have an answer and would really rather love to talk about anything except the fact that YOUR scheme is a mass mugging. So we can consider continuing this little chat when you answer my question allright?

No, socialism cannot be implemented without taxes or, as you say, theft. It's not possible.

I was going to answer this and I started to. Typed a couple of paragraphs and then I remembered that I asked a while back how you figured to implement socialism without theft. Seems you did'nt feel like answering. Now I've answered a few of your questions and mine still seems unanswered. I'm starting to think that you don't have an answer and would really rather love to talk about anything except the fact that YOUR scheme is a mass mugging. So we can consider continuing this little chat when you answer my question allright?
Ok, where didn't you get me?
This was the process of me answering:
- we do not share the same vision on what it means to steal, since I cannot consider it a moral absolute - if it were, it would confront itself with Mr. Proudhon; in fact, I showed that capitalism has relative views on this, just as well
- the state has duties that it better have, and a sort of "droit de seigneur"; to place yourself in the same opposition with a democratic state as you would with a medieval polity is to ignore the core of the issue and to get stuck on a senseless attitude
- if I could sympathize with your views, I could still say that the State better be doing it, that somebody will do it anyway - and that we can/should/must ensure that the state is responsible and the operations visible - this is political philosophy without modern frustration

I've seen the term "socialism" used to describe capitalism, communism, fascism, democracy and dictatorship. So what the bloody hell is it?

Excuse my ignorance. I know pretty much everything else, but this one thing has eluded me.

Imagine a kitten with a splinter in it's paw. A tiny mouse comes along and helps the little kitten by pulling it out. Then an elephant accidentally steps on the mouse. A man is washing the elephant's genitals with a pressure washer at the time. Meanwhile, another zoo worker is trying to coax the kitten away from the elephant and toward the wolverine's cage. Little does he know that he's about to step on the wolverine's tail and be mauled to death.

Socialism is kind of like that. Without the dark humor.

Ok, where didn't you get me?
This was the process of me answering:
- we do not share the same vision on what it means to steal, since I cannot consider it a moral absolute - if it were, it would confront itself with Mr. Proudhon; in fact, I showed that capitalism has relative views on this, just as well
- the state has duties that it better have, and a sort of "droit de seigneur"; to place yourself in the same opposition with a democratic state as you would with a medieval polity is to ignore the core of the issue and to get stuck on a senseless attitude
- if I could sympathize with your views, I could still say that the State better be doing it, that somebody will do it anyway - and that we can/should/must ensure that the state is responsible and the operations visible - this is political philosophy without modern frustration

Well lets start simple how do you define theft. OR are we falling back on relativism as a dialectic dodge to avoid having to deal with the real world?

Well lets start simple how do you define theft. OR are we falling back on relativism as a dialectic dodge to avoid having to deal with the real world?
Ever heard of the monopoly of violence? Ever heard of the fact that you can bring a gov't to court, but not ever the State per se?
Are you aware that the state benefits from the exception because it, and not God, is the originator of rules accepted by citizens (even in your God-trusting country)? Do you relise that your moral viewpoint is extended on the taxes themselves and not just on high taxes - so your point should be against paying the state anything?

Ever heard of the monopoly of violence? Ever heard of the fact that you can bring a gov't to court, but not ever the State per se?
Are you aware that the state benefits from the exception because it, and not God, is the originator of rules accepted by citizens (even in your God-trusting country)? Do you relise that your moral viewpoint is extended on the taxes themselves and not just on high taxes - so your point should be against paying the state anything?

That's a yes right? OK tell me when you want to talk I'll be around. It's to late for slogan chanting kids.

That's a yes right? OK tell me when you want to talk I'll be around. It's to late for slogan chanting kids.
Look: I'M ANSWERING YOU. What do you want me to do, agree deafly? Read my posts, I defined all the problems with moral issues. I took in all your comments, and just now (my last post) I gave you the real world situation, since you accused me of not being aware of it.
How much more could I explain myself? Must I act like a servant or something?

Look: I'M ANSWERING YOU. What do you want me to do, agree deafly? Read my posts, I defined all the problems with moral issues. I took in all your comments, and just now (my last post) I gave you the real world situation, since you accused me of not being aware of it.
How much more could I explain myself? Must I act like a servant or something?

No just attempt a little honesty. I asked a one sentence question. You answered (You can go back and read if you want) with 4 sentences ending in question marks. Now I reply with 16 questions to wich you could respond with 64 questions but that would waste both our time. Instead we'll just waste a little nit more of my time and I'll ask again:
How would you define theft?

No just attempt a little honesty. I asked a one sentence question. You answered (You can go back and read if you want) with 4 sentences ending in question marks. Now I reply with 16 questions to wich you could respond with 64 questions but that would waste both our time. Instead we'll just waste a little nit more of my time and I'll ask again:
How would you define theft?
Go back to my post about Proudhon. I answered there. If we have the same definition, it still should be irrelevant since I pointed that there is no absolute vision. In the same post, I point out that if we were to see it in the same light, we still cannot elude it: not only does it apply only to a "landscape" where the state is granting the moral basis (so the state can never be properly included in it), but if it were to be extended it would become apparent that the stealing the state does is on par with the stealing we tolerate or encourage in a market economy (property is theft, just as well).
To indicate that I am dishonest is beyond rude. I believe I am honest, and I should have the liberty of having my own vision about what that means. (I chose to ignore several other attacks.)
The questions I asked were rethorical. They were to point out that, again, we do not, and cannot operate with moral absolutes.

If we can't decide on definitions for simple words then we can't communicate either. Us poor practical capitalists think that words mean something and being able to express and communicate ideas is important. Aparently what you're saying is that words don't have meanings and that we should'nt communicate. Now I suppose if we accept that premise we can envision a socialism that is not inherintly dependant upon theft because being a word and all 'relative we have made it disappear. Shall we call it flubbering when someone clouts you in the head and takes your wallet?

If we can't decide on definitions for simple words then we can't communicate either. Us poor practical capitalists think that words mean something and being able to express and communicate ideas is important. Aparently what you're saying is that words don't have meanings and that we should'nt communicate. Now I suppose if we accept that premise we can envision a socialism that is not inherintly dependant upon theft because being a word and all 'relative we have made it disappear. Shall we call it flubbering when someone clouts you in the head and takes your wallet?
Where did I say that? What are you, a columnist on FOX News?
Let's say I agree with you (I still don't). How would that be relevant? The world comprises people who are not like you and me. The real world, that is.
We may agree on definition, but how do we agree on the implications of it? You are not a pragmatical capitalist, you are the exact opposite in your definition of morality. "Practical" reflects utilitarian - using the notion of good as being "better for most". I don't agree with that precisely, but if I were to accept the notion, I still would point out that we have different notions of who the "most" are. (Libertarians have a way of reffering to individual as opposed to state, only they do it for unsustainable causes.)
Forget the world seen through American eyes, with the impending "common sense". You need to know that, since we are different, we will not agree on what that is - so we'd better leave "common sense" aside. Also, the source of morality in a democratic society is convention granted by the state (as with "the monopoly of violence" that the state reserves for itself).

If we can't decide on definitions for simple words then we can't communicate either. Us poor practical capitalists think that words mean something and being able to express and communicate ideas is important. Aparently what you're saying is that words don't have meanings and that we should'nt communicate. Now I suppose if we accept that premise we can envision a socialism that is not inherintly dependant upon theft because being a word and all 'relative we have made it disappear. Shall we call it flubbering when someone clouts you in the head and takes your wallet?
Let me explain it in a few words (I think I'll do a bigger thread on this at some point).

Property Rights are either
a) something that exists in practical life because of violence that people or the state use if you take someone's stuff
b) something metaphysical that is justified according to moral philosophy.

In case a) there is no more discussion required. If we as people decide what's right and wrong, and we have a society that on the whole agrees that paying taxes is okay (and so do you implicitly, you're still living here - you haven't left for some cave without a social security card), then taxes are not immoral.

In case b) the validity of any moral philosophy needs to be questioned. Some people believe in one thing, others believe in something else.
You can use rational thought and logic - but apparently not to justify property rights. All my attempts with some of the brightest posters here have left me with final assumptions based on value judgements.
As an atheist, I don't believe there is some secondary plane, where morality and immorality are clearly defined concepts.

I have tried myself to find a justification for morals, using game theory - only to find that my examples regarding torture and Guantanamo Bay were dismissed by a whole set of pro-Bush Americans who obviously didn't share this entirely rational, mathematical model for morality.

So I have come to the conclusion that b) is impossible. Whether or not taxes are theft depends on your own subjective judgements.
The only thing that makes those even exist is physical reality. And in physical reality, we come back to a), and find ourselves in a world where the majority of people thinks paying taxes is fundamentally not an immoral thing (about the height of tax rates there can be debate though).
And the majority is who decides right now.

For me that means: case closed.

Where did I say that? What are you, a columnist on FOX News?
Let's say I agree with you (I still don't). How would that be relevant? The world comprises people who are not like you and me. The real world, that is.
We may agree on definition, but how do we agree on the implications of it? You are not a pragmatical capitalist, you are the exact opposite in your definition of morality. "Practical" reflects utilitarian - using the notion of good as being "better for most". I don't agree with that precisely, but if I were to accept the notion, I still would point out that we have different notions of who the "most" are. (Libertarians have a way of reffering to individual as opposed to state, only they do it for unsustainable causes.)
Forget the world seen through American eyes, with the impending "common sense". You need to know that, since we are different, we will not agree on what that is - so we'd better leave "common sense" aside. Also, the source of morality in a democratic society is convention granted by the state (as with "the monopoly of violence" that the state reserves for itself).
I am asking (FOr the third time for) YOU YOUR personal definition of theft. I'd consider that a damn simple question to answer. and you're spending an awful lot of effort avoiding it. That's pretty much the definition of disengenuos.
WTF is FOX news is that a tellevision thing? I don't watch tellevision.

Let me explain it in a few words (I think I'll do a bigger thread on this at some point).

Property Rights are either
a) something that exists in practical life because of violence that people or the state use if you take someone's stuff
b) something metaphysical that is justified according to moral philosophy.

In case a) there is no more discussion required. If we as people decide what's right and wrong, and we have a society that on the whole agrees that paying taxes is okay (and so do you implicitly, you're still living here - you haven't left for some cave without a social security card), then taxes are not immoral.

In case b) the validity of any moral philosophy needs to be questioned. Some people believe in one thing, others believe in something else.
You can use rational thought and logic - but apparently not to justify property rights. All my attempts with some of the brightest posters here have left me with final assumptions based on value judgements.
As an atheist, I don't believe there is some secondary plane, where morality and immorality are clearly defined concepts.

I have tried myself to find a justification for morals, using game theory - only to find that my examples regarding torture and Guantanamo Bay were dismissed by a whole set of pro-Bush Americans who obviously didn't share this entirely rational, mathematical model for morality.

So I have come to the conclusion that b) is impossible. Whether or not taxes are theft depends on your own subjective judgements.
The only thing that makes those even exist is physical reality. And in physical reality, we come back to a), and find ourselves in a world where the majority of people thinks paying taxes is fundamentally not an immoral thing (about the height of tax rates there can be debate though).
And the majority is who decides right now.

For me that means: case closed.
Well by the same line of thinkinging Murder and rape don't exist any more than property.

Well by the same line of thinkinging Murder and rape don't exist any more than property.
Indeed.
The only thing that exists is the state, which happens to agree more or less with what the majority of the population wants. In a democracy that's more or less always, in other forms of government you might have to take a more long-term view...so far there hasn't been a government that could go against its people's will and survive for more than a few years (although education is an issue here...another reason why free education = oversupply is a good idea).
If you take my stuff, the police comes and puts you away. The same goes for murder and rape.
That doesn't mean any of those things is universally "evil".
Which is, strangely enough the same view I held before I went on my great ideological journey over the past year. Just now I know why.

I am asking (FOr the third time for) YOU YOUR personal definition of theft. I'd consider that a damn simple question to answer. and you're spending an awful lot of effort avoiding it. That's pretty much the definition of disengenuos.
WTF is FOX news is that a tellevision thing? I don't watch tellevision.
Do you even read my posts?
For me that means: case closed.
Precisely the point I was making. Thank you, Leonstein. Great minds think alike.

Do you even read my posts?
YEp they're the ones where I ask a question and you answer with about a dozen questions.

Indeed.
The only thing that exists is the state, which happens to agree more or less with what the majority of the population wants. In a democracy that's more or less always, in other forms of government you might have to take a more long-term view...so far there hasn't been a government that could go against its people's will and survive for more than a few years (although education is an issue here...another reason why free education = oversupply is a good idea).
If you take my stuff, the police comes and puts you away. The same goes for murder and rape.
That doesn't mean any of those things is universally "evil".
Which is, strangely enough the same view I held before I went on my great ideological journey over the past year. Just now I know why.

I take it then that you don't beleive in the individual either?

Obviously the term itself had been around, it was pretty influential in the French Revolution too. But much of the modern-day meaning of it is heavily influenced by Marxist thought.

It probably depends on which socialist you talk to, but I think that is a fair statement.

Socialism is an economic style in which the state controls the means of production. Beyond that, it can be totalitarian, democratic, or various other forms.

Governmental ownership of some or all of the means of production.


I like those definitions the most. No particulars, but they describe the most basic qualifier of socialism and to some extent communism.

In practical language, "socialism" can mean everything, from left party platforms over soviet republics to simple insults...if someone uses the word in a debate, it's always good to simply put them off camber by asking what exactly they mean by it...

Especially poignant advice because the devil is in the details. Market socialism a la Lange v. rationed distribution. Central planning v. leasing productive property. National level of control v. local level of control. And so on.

YEp they're the ones where I ask a question and you answer with about a dozen questions.
I was trying to avoid this, but let me ask you: do you believe in letters forming syllables, syllables forming words and words having a meaning? Or is it letters forming nice patterns?

I was trying to avoid this, but let me ask you: do you believe in letters forming syllables, syllables forming words and words having a meaning? Or is it letters forming nice patterns?
What is the average air speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Do Purple thoughts sleep furiously?

What is the average air speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Do Purple thoughts sleep furiously?
So, you do not.

So, you do not.
There's this thing clever folks employ called sarcasm look it up.
Twit.

I take it then that you don't beleive in the individual either?
Well, why not? The individual exists in the real world. You can observe it.
Everyone makes their own decisions, so maybe I misundertand your question.
I'm not against property rights either. I just don't think that they are anymore universal than religion is for example.
What is moral is dictated by what we see around us. It's essentially the law that decides what's moral and what's not.
So stealing is wrong, just like murder and rape. But not in some sort of universal "always was and always will be, and even if there were no more humans it would still be wrong" kind of way.

There's this thing clever folks employ called sarcasm look it up.
Twit.
Clever folks? The ones that write down words like "tellevision", "do'nt"? (This is ESPECIALLY FUNNY since English is not my first language).
Call me a "twit" again and I'll report your ass.

Well, why not? The individual exists in the real world. You can observe it.
Everyone makes their own decisions, so maybe I misundertand your question.
I'm not against property rights either. I just don't think that they are anymore universal than religion is for example.
What is moral is dictated by what we see around us. It's essentially the law that decides what's moral and what's not.
So stealing is wrong, just like murder and rape. But not in some sort of universal "always was and always will be, and even if there were no more humans it would still be wrong" kind of way.

Well by exetension. I'm not the religious sort so I don't use wrong in the moral context either. But it would appear that there are then things in your veiw besides the state. Right?

Clever folks? The ones that write down words like "tellevision", "do'nt"? (This is ESPECIALLY FUNNY since English is not my first language).
Call me a "twit" again and I'll report your ass.
I could use spellcheck for my lousy typing. But as it is I'm wasting my time even conversing with you.

Well by exetension. I'm not the religious sort so I don't use wrong in the moral context either. But it would appear that there are then things in your veiw besides the state. Right?
Well yes, obviously.
I meant in a moral context, the only thing that really dictates what is moral or immoral is the state.
I personally have all kinds of moral ideas, about torture and war and racism and that kind of thing. But those are only mine, and unless the majority (and then hopefully the legislator) agrees with me, that is of little consequence other than the way I want to live my own life.

I'm not saying that taxation is not potentially immoral. It is immoral as soon as the majority of people/the government declare it to be.
But that's not the case at this point, so any argument otherwise must eventually fail because many people obviously don't share the same value system.

Well yes, obviously.
I meant in a moral context, the only thing that really dictates what is moral or immoral is the state.
I personally have all kinds of moral ideas, about torture and war and racism and that kind of thing. But those are only mine, and unless the majority (and then hopefully the legislator) agrees with me, that is of little consequence other than the way I want to live my own life.

I'm not saying that taxation is not potentially immoral. It is immoral as soon as the majority of people/the government declare it to be.
But that's not the case at this point, so any argument otherwise must eventually fail because many people obviously don't share the same value system.

Right well I'm saying that the only real morals are individual. Morals are a form of judgement and only individual human beings are capable of having or expressing judgement. The state's claims to a moral authority are an attempt to personalise what is essentially inhuman.

Right well I'm saying that the only real morals are individual. Morals are a form of judgement and only individual human beings are capable of having or expressing judgement. The state's claims to a moral authority are an attempt to personalise what is essentially inhuman.

Earlier you stated that socialism was theft. Can you explain that given that you espouse subjective moral relativism?

Right well I'm saying that the only real morals are individual. Morals are a form of judgement and only individual human beings are capable of having or expressing judgement. The state's claims to a moral authority are an attempt to personalise what is essentially inhuman.
Then either "theft" is a legal term, and as such defined by the state,
or it is a moral term, in which case we agree that you can say that taxes are immoral, but that should not have any sort of bearing on the way society is run, because most people disagree with you.
In democratic societies in the least, and more long-term in other governments, the law given to us by the state is the culmination of what the majority of people can agree on morality-wise.