Hey, we want to be part of the hate!
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 02:14
VIEWED: 18566
PAGE 10 of 23
As usual, we're having a problem of semantics.
What is socialism? It's not just another name for tyranny or "social engineeering". My casual definitions are:
capitalism: Individual ownership of the means of production; no state involvement on wealth distribution
communism: ownership of the means of production by the masses; free distribution of wealth
socialism: capitalist production; distribution of wealth heaviily controlled by the state
fascism: ownership of the state by the capitalists.
Mix-and-match with democracy, republic, dictatorship, or other means of goverment (as opposed to production and distribution) as needed to create about 30 different variants.
Now, the trick, in MY book, is to keep the various forms of power from coalescing: keep the media, religion, government (force), and money away from each other. You not only need separation of church and state, you need separation of church and money, money and media, church and media, media and government...
I think you get the picture.
---------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think some of these are poor definitions.
Originally posted by SignyM:
As usual, we're having a problem of semantics.
What is socialism? It's not just another name for tyranny or "social engineeering". My casual definitions are:
capitalism: Individual ownership of the means of production; no state involvement on wealth distribution
communism: ownership of the means of production by the masses; free distribution of wealth
socialism: capitalist production; distribution of wealth heaviily controlled by the state
fascism: ownership of the state by the capitalists.
Socialism: Government ownership of the means of production; meaning that the government controls production, administration and distribution of goods and profits.
Fascism is not really an economic philosophy. Nazi Germany was a de facto socialist regime. And Nazi Germany is a perfect example of a totalitarian regime tending towards socialism as the government demands more and more control.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
nice things to have, sure.
The origin of socialism is not a speculative matter. It was originally social engineering.
Just like neocons were originally called the American Trotsky Communistws, then the TSWP, then the Social Dems, then some became neoconservatives, but even then, they never denied who they were, and never claimed to have changed beliefs. They just said "we're trotsky socialists who support the conservative movement" because as irving kristol said they had be "blindsided by reality" He meant that a large conservative christian public that did not vote would vote if certain issues were on the table, and then the neocons could win. They had tried for many years to win a democratic primary with no luck. Clinton was their first democrat, after 20+ years of trying
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I got this from Conservative Resources:
Quote:
Capitalism is an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor.
Socialism is a formal economic system in which society exerts considerable control over the nation's wealth and property in the pursuit of social justice.
Communism is a formal economic system in which property, particularly capital property (e.g. factories, machines, tools, etc.), is commonly owned and scarce resources are allocated through planning as opposed to price signals in a free market.
www.conservative-resources.com/capitalism-vs-socialism-vs-communism.ht
ml
The reason why I came up with the definitions that I did was because there doesn't seem to be a definition for governments which control distribution, as opposed to governments which control production. Since most peeps call government distribution programs (Social Security, welfare, unemployment, health care) "socialist", while referring to nationalized production as "communist" I decided to go along with the flow.
But if you don't agree with my definitions- a vaid point, since nobody seems to have a good handle of what they mean by each word- the I'm okay with using your definitions, as long as we reserve a word for a system of government-controlled distribution.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Etymology is a hobby of mine. I accept no definitions, for the record. This gets me into some arguments. Most definitions are some part interpretation.
Capitalism is a system based on capital, as the measure of wealth. I disagree with such a system as it rewards inheritance over industry and progress. It's still better than the competition.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:All economic theories concern the distribution of goods. The more formal a theory is the more that distribution is handled by the government.
Originally posted by SignyM:
But if you don't agree with my definitions- a vaid point, since nobody seems to have a good handle of what they mean by each word- the I'm okay with using your definitions, as long as we reserve a word for a system of government-controlled distribution.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Very astute. I'd not put it into that frame before.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
All economic theories concern the distribution of goods. The more formal a theory is the more that distribution is handled by the government.
The impressed Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And that’s the reason why totalitarian rulers love socialism. Total rule and propaganda in one neat package. Everyone from Hitler to Stalin to Saddam Hussein used some form of it.
In general, I agree with this. I'm no fan of socialism in its pure form, anyways, for the reason that you state - it can somewhat more easily be abused by people with totalitarian ambitions.
The only thing I do vehemently disagree with is the tendency to assume that such ambitions MUST exist or would inevitably result, or that there is an undeinable connection between mass murder or child labor and socialism. Socialism is a utopian system but it is not an inherently evil system.
Child labor, in particular, is something I MUCH rather associate with unchecked capitalism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only thing I do vehemently disagree with is the tendency to assume that such ambitions MUST exist or would inevitably result...
I concur, and it is that very assessment which marks the difference between Darwinist, and Kropotkinist, schools of thought on human behavior.
I mean, if human nature was really that nasty, how the hell did we build civilisation in the first place, and if it's human nature then why do we *have* to pound it into children by means so extreme that some of them would be called outright torture if you did it to an adult ?
Ain't natural at all, you ask me.
On that note, saw a kid's T-shirt today that left me a little awestruck at the effectiveness and simplicity of it's message.
On the front it said.
"You shouldn't hit people."
And on the back.
"Children are people too."
A whole philosophy expressed perfectly in eight words, impressive that was.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Child labor, in particular, is something I MUCH rather associate with unchecked capitalism.
Yup, and so it was, until the government stepped in to "control the means of production" with evil socialist-communist things like labor laws...
Mike
"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME