kflux wrote:comunisim , fashism , marxism , and demorcracy , all stem from the socilist movement , as an alternative to the system of monarcies found throughout Europe , ...
Democracy definately not.
And fascism is more than only to doubted.
Ok.
1. Democracy. Demos Kratos. Ancient Greeks.
2. Communism. Ancient Sparta.
3. Marxism was a response to the struggle between the classes.
People do not evolve out of greed and sloth. If we didnt evolve out of greed and sloth over the last 250 generations, what makes the next 9 or 10 so special?
i didn't say democracy was socialism.
perhaps i should haves stated it differently.
the big socialist movement of the late 1800"-early1900"s ,is one of the things that pushed democrocy into popularity.
i was trying to make the point that many ideas moved forward due to the socilist movement , and so far democracy has out played all of them so far,
where allot of the ideas that took on a more socilist agenda caused allot of problems
they were all trying to solve a common problem.
dose anyone else hate pop up adds as much as i do?
as for the debate weather or not marxism, fashism,communism, vs socialism , i would refer you back to the first statement i made . i don't feel like typing that much again.
kflux, according to your own definitions fascism is political repression by a cantral government, capitalism is unregulated industry and private ownership of business, capital and land, and socialism is public ownership of business coupled with egalitarian ideals.
The examples you provide do not match with these lables.
Under socialism
Neither England nor Sweeden have to my knowledge advocated equalising salaries without regard to work performed and none of your socialist states did more than pay lip service to this idea. While England did nationalise heavy industries at one time I do not belive Sweeden ever did this, and neither England nor sweeden have ever seen a majority of businesses publicly owned.
Apart from England and Sweeden all your examples also fit your definition of fascism. (political percecution by a central government)
Under fascism:
Your definition of fascism applies to these states as well, but that of socialism does not. None of the states you sited advocated egalitarianism, rather the opposite is true, and although big business whielded considerable influence on the government, business remained private, and a free market system was maintained. Ofthen government did not dictate industrial and comercial dealings with other countries. (and never all)
Capitalism by your definition is unregulated privately owned business coupled with a state with no other tasks than law enforcement and defence. (I find it hard to belive that anyone would consider this a good thing) The closest example I can com up with would be Pinochet's Chile.
Give up trying to equate socialism with fascism, or redefine the terms. At least pick other examples.
Etruscia wrote:Isn't all of Scandinavia free-enterprise socialist, they're rated at the top for technological advances, standard of living and best places in the world to live.
Depends how you define socialism. I do suspect you will define "free enterprice socialism" in a way that applies to scandinavia.
Interestingly the term "social market economy" ( 'Sozial Marktwirtschaft') was introduced by the post-WWII conservative government(s) in Germany and has been for decades their hallmark - until (nearly) now.
"free enterprise socialism"
is an oxymoron , once you have free enterprise , and free elections , it is no longer socilism, by my definition . a rose by any other name , USA defines it's self as a capitalist nation , yet dose take part of the peoples money to pay for social programs. there is no 100% socilist or capitalist country . It is a matter of degree , most of the money should , in my opinion remain in the pockets of the privet citizens , if a government follows that policy , it leans toward capitalism , no matter what you choose to call it . History has taught us that socilism is a very slippery slope , as cold as it may sound , money is power , i'd rather have most of that money in the hands of the people than the government.
BYW i have just been wondering , dose most of Europe really hate Americans as much as they seem to on TV , i don't mean to start a whole new debate , it's an innocent question?
Actually, I really don't know if there are any, who hate America.
However, taking all Europe, I would think that a lot more than 50% doesn't like the actual US politics.
thank you for takeing the time to answer.
So
By definition Socialism has free elections and come into power peacefull unlike communists. All socialist means today, (in most countries) is that it is far to the left of the political spectrum., social.
[Img]C:\Documents and Settings\Dan\My Documents\My Picture\PoliticalSpectrum[/Img]
So
By definition Socialism has free elections and come into power peacefull unlike communists. All socialist means today, (in most countries) is that it is far to the left of the political spectrum., social.
Democracy
Socialism Capitalism
Left- Right
Communism Fascism
Totalitarian
Imagine it was a circle. Of course modern socialism abandoned the ideals of complete gorvernment ownership. But the government is much more involved then say in a conservative government. Although it is an oxymoron, its socialist capitalism. Or Free-Enterprise Socialism.
Re: So
Etruscia wrote:All socialist means today, (in most countries) is that it is far to the left of the political spectrum., social.
Could you please give some examples for that?
Holland: The Socialist Party. The left green party.
Canada: The NDP(theyre considered socialist)
Sweden: The Social Democrats, The left party
Norway: The socialist left party, The labour party,
Denmark: Social Democratic Party, Socialist Peoples party, Social-liberal party
Belgium: Socialist Party andother way, Socialist Party(francophone)
France: Socialist Party, the Radical Leftist Party,
Germany: Social Democratic Party, Democratic Socialist Party,
I think that should be enough.
Well, I do know those parties - I'm a Social Democrat myself.
But you spoke about
.
(Besides, I sincerely doubt that the Green are 'socialists'!)
Btw: there is no "Democratic Socialist Party" in Germany.
Well although im no political expert, i would say if a party calls themselves socialist, theni would assume they are quite left, always left of the liberals. It was called the "Left green party" so i dont know what to say.
As for the Democratic Socialist Party, i miss wrote, "the party of democratic socialism".
http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/facts/bl_parties.htm
Correct, they are the successors of the the the foremr East German communists.
"Liberal" in Europe is more or less at least "rightish" btw, with some extrem right one's like the Austrian liberals.
'Left Green' is left green - nothing to do with socialism per se. :wink:
Ok thats cool, but am i right that when socialist is used in Europe and such today, it is not so much to do with government ownership but with a left lying party who cares about social issues?
Who should care about social issues - actually, most socialist parties are more like the conservatives used to be.
Btw: I just noticed that you left out Tony Blair's Labour Party, who is more or less the most leftish Socialist party in Europe.
Socialist parties like conservatives, sorry because this makes little sense to me as in Canada, the tories, (conservatives) are in the right, and liberals occupy the center or a little left, and NDP is left.
