Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 11:35 pm
has had elaborate meanings in my getting to be a long life.

More knowledgeable people than I am on a2k can describe economic choices that don't have to do with despotic governance by killers. Or, I hope so.

As I've no mastery of what zillions of people define, usually negatively from here, as socialism, and what zillions of people live with that might be socialism in part, that seems to work, in part..

nor do I know exactly when any movement becomes totalitarianism, fascistic or socialistic totalitarianism or some combo... including our capitalistic space. Nor can I really dance around those words.

I hope that people who really understand these terms will post here.

I also hope that the back and forth battering desist for at least a few days so that we can get some clues about the core arguments without having to deal with our usual rants.

I suppose that is too much to ask, but -- could we foster clear definitions from whatever pov over rants for a while?
Rants are really in the way, from whichever pov we look.

Thank you/osso



 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 01:14 am
@ossobuco,
Unfortunately, we live in an age when words have no concrete meanings and concepts are subject to the spin of whoever considers them, and so your hope that this thread will be visited by people who "really understand these terms," is a fallow one.

I would suggest, however, that we dispense with labels and consider economic issues on a continuum where totally unrestricted markets represent one end (let's, for laughs, call this the Right) and complete control of the economy by a centralized governmental authority represents the other (the Left).

Obviously there are political points to be scored as respects the use of "socialism," but since political points scored rarely relate to substance, the argument of whether one candidate's political position is or is not "socialist" is without substance.

Perhaps those with a greater knowledge of history than I will correct me, but I am not aware of an example of the failure of a Right based economy leading to the downfall and transition of the associated system of government. On the other hand, we have several (The USSR being the most obvious) examples of Left based economies leading to chaos and complete political transformation.

The Right end of the spectrum relies upon the principles of a self-organizing system or what John Stossel would call "spontaneous order."

The Left end of the spectrum relies upon the judgment of individual human beings.

It's understandable that many people would prefer to rely upon the judgment of their fellow humans than the somewhat abstract notion of events taking care of themselves.

The problem is that the latter has a much better track record than the former.

I'm extremely bullish on humanity. I believe we are on a path towards an end where we truly transcend natural law, but we're no where near that end yet.

What's more, people far to the Left of me agree!

What is the current consensus among ecologists (invariably supported by the Left)?

Mankind should not mess around with the natural order of things. When we try to fiddle with ecologies (rabbits in Australia, feral pigs in Hawaii) we create larger problems than we solve.

Interestingly enough, these same people who understand and agree that ecologies should not be messed with by humans, usually also believe that we will all benefit from human intervention with economic systems that are equally self-organizing.

Now the extremes of either positions are not sound in world which cannot dismiss human sensibilities, but this is a spectrum we are talking about and it is not an either or choice.

Ultimately it comes down to whatever superficially partisan/tribal influence is directing you, but for those who are serious about considering these issues the ultimate consideration is whether or not you trust the judgment of individuals above the natural order of things.

For me, it's a no-brainer (at least for the next 100 years or so).






gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 01:36 am
@ossobuco,
Real communism is easier to define or get some sort of a read on than "socialism". 'Socialism' can mean several different kinds of things. One common denominator has been tax rates which chase people who ever start to make any real money out of socialist countries; they find some island to live on.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 06:15 am
Socialism has had several degrees of severity
ranging from Fabianism to German National Socialism
and/or to the socialism of Stalin, Pol Pot or maybe Obama.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 02:07 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Thanks for your reply, Finn. Just the kind of thing I was looking for.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 02:10 pm
@ossobuco,
Not to ignore Gunga and OmSig - thank you for your replies. I take Gunga's point. See OmSig's as a bit of a jump, re, say, Obama.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 02:16 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Socialism has had several degrees of severity
ranging from Fabianism to German National Socialism
and/or to the socialism of Stalin, Pol Pot or maybe Obama.



That could be funny if you didn't mean it seriously.

At least it's a very simple idea to call everything from the left up to the most extreme right as socialism.

Neither Stalin nor Pol Pot were Socialist: they were clearly - and no-one really doubts such - Communists.


The Fabian Society, btw, is part of the British Labour Party (their "think tank"), the party of Blair, Brown etc ... [And I'm a 'Fabian' as well Wink ]
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 02:29 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter, if you have time, would you describe Fabianism? If you don't, I can look it up..
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 03:34 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
The Fabian Society has played a central role for more than a century in the development of political ideas and public policy on the left of centre. Analysing the key challenges facing the UK and the rest of the industrialised world in a changing society and global economy, the society's programme aims to explore the political ideas and the policy reforms which will define progressive politics in the new century.

The society is unique among think-tanks in being a democratically-constituted membership organisation. It is affiliated to the Labour Party but is editorially and organisationally independent. Through its publications, seminars and conferences, the society provides an arena for open-minded public debate.

All Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society ...

Famous members:
George Bernard Shaw, HG Wells , Beatrice and Sidney Webb, Oscar Wilde, Peter Townsend, and all Labour prime ministers.

'About' on the Fabian Society website

Wikipedia on Fabian Society

Quote:
Fabian Society
socialist society founded in 1883"84 in London, having as its goal the establishment of a democratic socialist state in Great Britain. The Fabians put their faith in evolutionary socialism rather than in revolution.

The name of the society is derived from the Roman general Fabius Cunctator, whose patient and elusive tactics in avoiding pitched battles secured his ultimate victory over stronger forces. Its founding is attributed to Thomas Davidson, a Scottish philosopher, and its early members included George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Annie Besant, Edward Pease, and Graham Wallas. Shaw and Webb, later joined by Webb’s wife, Beatrice, were the outstanding leaders of the society for many years. In 1889 the society published its best-known tract, Fabian Essays in Socialism, edited by Shaw. It was followed in 1952 by New Fabian Essays, edited by Richard H.S. Crossman.

The Fabians at first attempted to permeate the Liberal and Conservative parties with socialist ideas, but later they helped to organize the separate Labour Representation Committee, which became the Labour Party in 1906. The Fabian Society has since been affiliated with the Labour Party.

The national membership of the Fabian Society has never been very great (at its peak in 1946 it had only about 8,400 members), but the importance of the society has always been much greater than its size might suggest. Generally, a large number of Labour members of Parliament in the House of Commons, as well as many of the party leaders, are Fabians; and in addition to the national society, there are scores of local Fabian societies.

The principal activities of the society consist in the furtherance of its goal of socialism through the education of the public along socialist lines by means of meetings, lectures, discussion groups, conferences, and summer schools; carrying out research into political, economic, and social problems; and publishing books, pamphlets, and periodical. ...

Source:
Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 03:44 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Thanks, Walter.

This of course brings us back to "what is socialism".

Meantime, I'm going to add the Britannica site to my reference list. I tend to forget about it, even though I had a friend who wrote for Brittanica occasionally.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 04:06 pm
@ossobuco,
You're quite welcome.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 04:15 pm
@ossobuco,
Too many have taken Adam Smith's 'free market' as the standard and misinterpreted his works. First off, 'free market' does not do away with government regulations or rules. A 'free market' can only operate in a democracy but democracy cannot exist without a government or else it would be an anarchy. Second, Adam Smith's assertion that specializtion leads to productivity. Adam Smith is no philosopher. Specialization itself is a rule or regulation. The process in which a person is designated a role is a rule or regulation e.g. trying driving a car without a driver's license. The act of defining a role is a rule or regulation so Adam Smith is really defining a set of rules specific to economics and governments do enforce those rules. Where Adam Smith probably disdains government intervention is when government officials or leaders do not take the time to evaluate the economic conditions or are ignorant of economic forces tries to interfere with market forces unilaterally and not blending with economic forces.

Socialism is like the color grey. There are infinite degrees of greyness. As shown above even Adam Smith's 'free market' has government involvement.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 12:49 am
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

Meantime, I'm going to add the Britannica site to my reference list.


On the entry about 'Socialims'
Britannica wrote:
Socialism after Marx » Fabian socialism

As the anarcho-communists argued for a form of socialism so decentralized that it required the abolition of the state, a milder and markedly centralist version of socialism, Fabianism, emerged in Britain. Fabian Socialism was so called because the members of the Fabian Society admired the tactics of the Roman general Fabius Cunctator (Fabius the Delayer), who avoided pitched battles and gradually wore down Hannibal’s forces. Instead of revolution, the Fabians favoured “gradualism” as the way to bring about socialism. Their notion of socialism, like Saint-Simon’s, entailed social control of property through an effectively and impartially administered state"a government of enlightened experts. The Fabians themselves were mostly middle-class intellectuals"including George Bernard Shaw, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Graham Wallas, and H.G. Wells"who thought that persuasion and education were more likely to lead to socialism, however gradually, than violent class warfare. Rather than form their own political party or work through trade unions, moreover, the Fabians aimed at gaining influence within existing parties. They eventually exercised considerable influence within Britain’s Labour Party, though they had little to do with its formation in the early 1900s.

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 12:49 am
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:

Socialism is like the color grey.


'Red' Very Happy
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 02:07 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
'Red' Smile



Very Happy

0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 05:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Socialism has had several degrees of severity
ranging from Fabianism to German National Socialism
and/or to the socialism of Stalin, Pol Pot or maybe Obama.
and G W Bush. Lets not forget it was on his watch that capitalistic greed became so obscene that he ended up nationalising the banks. You live in a new country now, the United Socialist States of America. America has failed. You may if you wish feel suitably embarrassed. Meanwhile under the wise stewardship of the Communist Party, capitalism thrives in the Peoples Republic of China. They are the masters now.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 09:51 am
@ossobuco,
a suggestion for everyone's reading list :

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081018.RTICKERSECONDARY18/TPStory/Business



Quote:
BUSINESS TICKER: FINANCIAL GUIDANCE: BOOKS

Marx's : Das Kapital makes a comeback

Associated Press

October 18, 2008

Some Germans seem to be seeking solace in the words of their countryman Karl Marx amid the global financial crisis - to the delight of a small academic publisher.

The Karl-Dietz Verlag has sold 1,500 copies of Marx's Das Kapital this year, making the annotated edition of the dense text an unlikely hit for the Berlin publisher. It moved 200 in September, as many as it used to sell in a year.

"It's definitely in vogue right now," said Joern Schuetrumpf, the publisher's director. "The financial crisis brought us a huge bump."

Mr. Schuetrumpf said Karl-Dietz's yearly sales for the work that Mr. Marx wrote in 1867 once barely cracked the double digits. But he has noted a steady upward trend since 2005, when 400 copies were sold, to a total of 1,300 sales in 2007.


that's great news imo !
hbg
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 02:09 pm
@hamburger,
yeah I think I'll become a revolutionary marxist. So long as I dont have to read anything, I'm happy throwing Molotov cocktails.
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 02:37 pm
A defintiion according to Foxfyre:

Adam Smith's definition of free market is the quintessential definition of capitalism. Basically it is the ability of buyer and seller to negotiate what products and/or services will be exchanged for a specified sum or payment and for each to benefit from whatever profits are achieved through such transaction.

The government for whatever purpose can regulate this process by say prohibiting exchange of certain hazardous substances or pathogens or whatever and, for purposes of an orderly economy may restrict the import of certain items. There also are legitimate political and antitrust considerations, but otherwise there are no inhibitions on or government interference in the transactions between the involved parties.

Socialism begins to creep into the mix when the government enters into the transactions perhaps becoming the middleman and taking a cut of the profits from one or by owning or controlling the process or means of production or the product itself. The buyer and/or seller operate more at the pleasure of or as the agent of the government rather than as independent entities but can negotiate the terms of what role each will play.

Socialism slides into totalitarianism when the government assumes power to control commerce and industry and the affairs of the people and the people have no ability or authority to negotiate any terms with the government and no power to opt out of the system.

Totalitariaism become dictatorship when one or a very few individuals obtain the power to control both the government and all affairs of the people.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 02:46 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Socialism begins to creep into the mix when the government enters into the transactions perhaps becoming the middleman and taking a cut of the profits from one or by owning or controlling the process or means of production or the product itself. The buyer and/or seller operate more at the pleasure of or as the agent of the government rather than as independent entities but can negotiate the terms.

Socialism slides into totalitarianism when the people can no longer negotiate the terms with the government but the government assumes power to control all commerce and industry and the affairs of the people and the people have no ability or authority to negotiate any terms with the government and no power to opt out of the system.

Totalitariaism become dictatorship when one or a very few individuals obtain the power to control both the government and all affairs of the people.



Did it ever occur to you, Foxfyre, that for instance the German Social-Democratic, the British Labour Party etc are all parties in democratic countries, forming governments which are thaught to be allies of the USA?

Should we or the Britons fear that we slide into totallirism? Wasn't it the Socialist party in Spain which helped in first place to replace the tolaristic Franco regime with democracy?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » socialism
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 09:30:03