Socialism

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Monday, August 26, 2024 16:07
VIEWED: 8502
PAGE 10 of 12

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But really, I find it strange you'd need me to point out the difference between Social Welfare, paid for by the state, and Roman Bread, paid for by rich private citizens out of their own pocket, who were seeking office.

That's because most definitions of Social Welfare do not distinguish between State and private assistance. For example.

"Main Entry: social welfare
Function: noun
Date: 1917
: organized public or private social services for the assistance of disadvantaged groups"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social+welfare

As for Roman Bread being a political tool, try changing NHS and see how political it gets.

Quote:
How come you now rely on the fact that Socialism is a social and economic system in your argument, when before you were rather willing to ignore it and only deal with the economic side of things?

Well, since you brought it up earlier,

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Also, your definitions seem to focus solely on Socialist Economics, but since Socialism is a social and economic system, that's necessarily missing at least half the picture.

I've been trying to include both sides.

Quote:
Anyway. Private ownership of the means of production has been the watch word of of many economic systems. People owned and operated their own shops, smithies and farms under Feudalism. Mercantilism was all about private ownership. The Roman Economy was dominated by private ownership, even in Imperial times.

True. So I'll drop mention of any particular economic system involving private ownership and just use private ownership of TMOP itself as the test. And due to private ownership of TMOP, none of the systems you mention were a Socialist economy, just like no country in Europe currently has a Socialist economy.

Quote:
Regardless, modern social welfare are systems enacted and paid for by the state, usually with some level of state ownership, for the ultimate purpose of improving social equality. As a big rough overview.

Roman Bread was never about social justice or equality, and it wasn't paid for by the state.

"Social welfare programs are undertaken by governments and by non-governmental organizations (NGOs)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare_provision

Or would you disagree that the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Doctors Without Borders, etc. are Social Welfare organizations? The Carnegie Corporation, set up by one of the most notorious Capitalists of all time, provides Social Welfare in the form of education. Need I mention the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Social Welfare.

Quote:
Everywhere I look I see that Social Welfare, and the Welfare State with which it is virtually synonymous, and Social Democracy are indelibly linked. That Social Democracy grew from Socialism, merely being a moderation of Socialist policies and ideals.

And I see Social Welfare springing from all types of political and economic systems and from both State and private sources. I see nothing that makes Social Welfare exclusive to either Social Democracy or Socialism.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
As for Roman Bread being a political tool, try changing NHS and see how political it gets.

Something being only a political tool and something being political are two entirely different things.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
True. So I'll drop mention of any particular economic system involving private ownership and just use private ownership of TMOP itself as the test. And due to private ownership of TMOP, none of the systems you mention were a Socialist economy, just like no country in Europe currently has a Socialist economy.

I never said they were. Neither are they Capitalist. I said modern economies, are Mixed Economies, that mix Capitalist and Socialist thought. That is what I said, that is what I've said throughout.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer
Or would you disagree that the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Doctors Without Borders, etc. are Social Welfare organizations? The Carnegie Corporation, set up by one of the most notorious Capitalists of all time, provides Social Welfare in the form of education. Need I mention the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Social Welfare.

Actually I was rather hoping that we'd be clear that I was talking about state social welfare, the welfare state, social safety nets, things of that nature.

You think the Red Cross and the NHS are the same thing then do you? Because I'm fairly sure they're not.

But ok, I'll adjust my argument, or at least make the context clear. It makes no odds to what I'm saying either way, so here goes: State Social Welfare programs, come from Socialism.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And I see Social Welfare springing from all types of political and economic systems and from both State and private sources.

And as I've said that's rather irrelevant. I have a Chinese Restaurant up the road, but I'm not in China!

But I asked it earlier of KPO specifically, but I might as well ask you too, what is Socialist? Remembering that if it's not unique to Socialism, it can't be Socialist.

EDIT:
And for the record, no, I wouldn't call the Red Cross or any of the others Social Welfare. Welfare organisations certainly, but not Social Welfare.

ELVISCHRIST

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:29 PM

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Geezer:
I'm not sure why some Social Democrats insist on calling themselves Socialists...

For the same reason that many Americans call themselves Capitalists. They're not, but they think it conjurs a "patriotic" and "American" image to refer to themselves that way.

KPO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:35 PM

Quote:
Here though, your argument is subtly different, here it's more like saying because any one of the Commandments can be found in another place none of them are remotely Christian. So if a pre-Christian society had a law against murder (#6 thou shalt not murder), then that commandment can't be Christian, which means none of them are.

We're getting our wires crossed. Let's drop this logic argument for now, I only intended to move the debate on to the question of whether social welfare originated solely within socialism, and we seem to be there now, one way or another.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduced interestingly by Germany under Otto von Bismarck, a staunch anti-socialist heading a government that certainly wasn't a social democracy, it wasn't even a democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You need to look up some history. Germany had elections and it had a Social Democratic Party, founded in May 23, 1863. Laws were formed by the Parliament, the Lower House, the Reichstag, was elected by universal male suffrage. The SDP was banned until 1890, but was still able to gain seats in elections, which allowed them to get the ban repealed. The pension plan was enacted to appease the labour movement, so I don't see how it's proof of what you claim.

Just pointing out a bit of history that was interesting (and relevant) - not 'claiming' anything. Are you trying to argue that a Social Democrat party played an important role in forwarding the idea of a pension system? Fine, I can happily concede that.

Quote:
Pensions could be the exception that tests the rule

Exceptions disprove a rule I'm afraid, unless you can account for them. Think about it, this idea for state social welfare predates the socialist movement completely - you can't just treat it as an anomolous example because it shows that the whole philosophy of the state providing welfare for its citizens existed before socialism. It seems that whatever model of social welfare your Social Democrats put together they were only grouping together/developing existing ideas, and an existing philosophy of the state taking care of citizens.

As to your subtle shift towards defending a position of 'modern' social welfare for socialism - I'm not really interested in contesting a re-framed debate. The important thing is to establish that any philosophy now or in the future can subscibe to the idea of state provided social welfare, without having to give all the credit to social democracy or socialism.

Heads should roll

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Something being only a political tool and something being political are two entirely different things.

But people (if you consider politicians people) use NHS, Social Security, etc. as a political tool. Pretty much any State-driven Social Welfare program has been used as a political tool at one time or another.

Quote:
I never said they were (Socialist eonomies). Neither are they Capitalist. I said modern economies, are Mixed Economies, that mix Capitalist and Socialist thought. That is what I said, that is what I've said throughout.

But proportionately there is, throughout Europe, less State ownership of the means of production than private ownership. So their economies are less Socialist than something else.

Quote:
Actually I was rather hoping that we'd be clear that I was talking about state social welfare, the welfare state, social safety nets, things of that nature.

Actually referring to it as State Social Welfare in the first place might have helped.

Quote:
You think the Red Cross and the NHS are the same thing then do you? Because I'm fairly sure they're not.

Well, neither are the NHS and the Child Support Agency or JobCentre Plus. Different agencies, funded by different sources, doing different tasks can all be involved in Social Welfare (The broader Social Welfare, not your State Social Welfare).

Quote:
But ok, I'll adjust my argument, or at least make the context clear. It makes no odds to what I'm saying either way, so here goes: State Social Welfare programs, come from Socialism.

Okay, now you're just using a circular argument. State Social Welfare programs can only come from Socialism, therefore any State which implements a State Social Welfare program must be Socialist. Hmm. This would have made Queen Elizabeth I the ruler of a Socialist country. Bet she'd be surprised.

Quote:
But I asked it earlier of KPO specifically, but I might as well ask you too, what is Socialist? Remembering that if it's not unique to Socialism, it can't be Socialist.

Well, let's ask the Socialists.

Quote:
THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible. The working class is in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling capitalist class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future - to a real radical democracy from below. The Socialist Party fights for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. We support militant working class struggles and electoral action, independent of the capitalist controlled two-party system, to present socialist alternatives. We strive for democratic revolutions - radical and fundamental changes in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations - to abolish the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. The Socialist Party is a democratic, multi-tendency organization, with structure and practices visible and accessible to all members.

http://www.sp-usa.org/

Quote:
What is Socialism?
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.

But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'ownin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But people (if you consider politicians people) use NHS, Social Security, etc. as a political tool. Pretty much any State-driven Social Welfare program has been used as a political tool at one time or another.

Irrelevent, Roman Bread was just a political tool, that's where it's ethos began and ended. The same isn't true of the NHS.

Quote:
But proportionately there is, throughout Europe, less State ownership of the means of production than private ownership. So their economies are less Socialist than something else.

If we accept your statement that it can't be socialist unless it's 100% Socialist. I don't.

Quote:

Okay, now you're just using a circular argument. State Social Welfare programs can only come from Socialism, therefore any State which implements a State Social Welfare program must be Socialist.

And you're using a strawman, since that was never my argument in anyway shape or form. I even said the EXACT opposite to this earlier:

Quote:
Again, I'm not saying that Social Welfare suddenly makes a nation 100% socialist, I'm saying that Social Welfare programs are a socialist ideal, coming from Socialism.

I have no idea how you even got that from what I said, except maybe confusing your logic with mine. It's your stance that something can't be Socialist unless it's enacted by a 100% perfect Socialist state, it's my position that a Government that isn't socialist can put socialist programs into place, and still not be Socialist.

There's nothing to even remotely suggest what you claim of my words, so please stop putting your words, in my mouth.

EDIT:
Lets put it another way. Freedom of Religion, being free to worship however you wish, is a secular ideal, agree?

By your logic that means the Islamic states that allowed people of other religions to worship were secular. But they weren't, they were still theocracies.

Quote:
Well, let's ask the Socialists.

If I was interested in asking the Socialists, I'd ask the Socialists. I very clearly asked you, if you can't answer the question, feel free to say so.

Quote:
Darn, it all goes back to that 'owning the means of production' thing, doesn't it?

Except since state ownership of the means of production isn't unique to socialism, (not to mention you didn't answer the question I asked) your answer makes a mockery of your logic, doesn't it?

Quote:
Feel free to disagree with most definitions of Social Welfare.

I'd say feel free to lie about my words, Geezer, but you seem to need no encouragement. You asked me whether I'd consider the Red Cross Et Al Social Welfare, and an honest answer is no, for reasons already given. I also clearly insinuated that I'd bind to the definition you provided, when I changed the statement I was making from social welfare, to state social welfare.

I answered your question, kindly return the favour.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Just pointing out a bit of history that was interesting (and relevant) - not 'claiming' anything. Are you trying to argue that a Social Democrat party played an important role in forwarding the idea of a pension system? Fine, I can happily concede that.

Really, because when you said this:

Quote:
Introduced interestingly by Germany under Otto von Bismarck, a staunch anti-socialist heading a government that certainly wasn't a social democracy, it wasn't even a democracy.

I got the impression you were claiming Germany had no democracy whatsoever, no Social Democratic movement within that Democracy, and that the Pension system was implemented by the Staunchly anti-socialist Bismark. The over ridding claim would be that Social Democracy or Socialist had nothing to do with the Pension system's implementation.

Perhaps I misunderstood?

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Exceptions disprove a rule I'm afraid, unless you can account for them.

Actually they don't. I'm basing my statement off of a well known saying, that is generally given as "the exception that PROVES the rule", but is more correctly translated as "the exception that TESTS the rule". I'm afraid "the exception that disproves the rule" doesn't exist.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Think about it, this idea for state social welfare predates the socialist movement completely - you can't just treat it as an anomolous example because it shows that the whole philosophy of the state providing welfare for its citizens existed before socialism.

Even if that is so, it doesn't disprove anything. No idea forms in a vacuum, if Socialism formed as ideas about the state caring for it's citizens came to the fore, and Socialism was where those ideas found their home, while movements branching from, directly related too, or borrowing from Socialism are the only ones to put those ideas into action, how is it not correct to say they come from socialism.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
As to your subtle shift towards defending a position of 'modern' social welfare for socialism - I'm not really interested in contesting a re-framed debate.

I'm not reframing anything. What I'm talking about is what I was always talking about. I've made what I was always talking about more clear in light of people not being on the same page, and the definition of Social Welfare including private charities. I don't agree with Charities being Social Welfare, but if that's the accepted definition in use here, I'm more than happy to use it. I'm not reframing anything, I'm talking about what I was always talking about, and merely making the context more clear since we were all obviously talking at crossed paths. Apart from saying Social Welfare, did I give any indication that I was talking about anything other than the Social Welfare programs that have become synonymous with the welfare state? I can't see how since I said at least twice that I was talking about Social Welfare as a synonym for Welfare State.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
The important thing is to establish that any philosophy now or in the future can subscibe to the idea of state provided social welfare, without having to give all the credit to social democracy or socialism.

Would you accept the opposite? That an economy can have Private Ownership of the means of production, and not have to pay Capitalism for the privilege?

In which case what philosophies do you suggest?

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Irrelevent, Roman Bread was just a political tool, that's where it's ethos began and ended. The same isn't true of the NHS.

If you believe that the politicians who instituted NHS had no political motive in doing so, sure.

Quote:
If we accept your statement that it can't be socialist unless it's 100% Socialist. I don't.

Who said anything about 100%? But if less than 50% of the economy is owned by the state, is it still a socialist economy?

Quote:
I'm saying that Social Welfare programs are a socialist ideal, coming from Socialism.

So the Poor Law of 1601 came from Socialism?

Quote:
It's your stance that something can't be Socialist unless it's enacted by a 100% perfect Socialist state...

No it's not, and you know it. I've said that for a State to be recognized as having a Socialist economy a majority of the means of production (probably a sizable majority) should be in the hands of the state.

Quote:
...it's my position that a Government that isn't socialist can put socialist programs into place, and still not be Socialist.

That can be your position all day long,
but you still have not given any valid evidence that State Social Welfare programs must originate from Socialism. That was your original argument, and when I asked for cites I got none. I have asked repeatedly and still get nothing more than your opinion. All I'm asking is one good reference that State Social Welfare must come from Socialism.

Quote:
If I was interested in asking the Socialists, I'd ask the Socialists. I very clearly asked you, if you can't answer the question, feel free to say so.

I'm perfectly pleased with the definitions provided by the U.S. and British Socialist parties. Their platforms describe very well what I've always considered Socialism. I figured if I just stated it myself, you'd ask for cites or say it was incorrect.

Quote:
Except since state ownership of the means of production isn't unique to socialism.

No, but per the Socialist organizations cited above, it is a major plank in their platform.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So the Poor Law of 1601 came from Socialism?

No, but it's not social welfare by any standard used here either, so it's really rather irrelevant.

Quote:

No it's not, and you know it.

It pretty much is actually, and I'd bet real money that you know it too.

Quote:
I've said that for a State to be recognized as having a Socialist economy a majority of the means of production (probably a sizable majority) should be in the hands of the state.

Which is really rather irrelevant, since I've been talking about mixed economies. Why is your argument so dependent on arguing against things I never said?

Quote:
That can be your position all day long,
but you still have not given any valid evidence that State Social Welfare programs must originate from Socialism. That was your original argument, and when I asked for cites I got none. I have asked repeatedly and still get nothing more than your opinion. All I'm asking is one good reference that State Social Welfare must come from Socialism.

I've given plenty of evidence more in fact than you. In fact you've truly given nothing, you've not even managed to give your opinion. I've asked relevant questions, you've flat out ignored them. I've made relevant statements, you've flat out ignored them. In fact, anything you disagree with and can't be twisted, seems to be flat out ignored. Just because you choose to ignore things you don't agree with, doesn't mean I haven't provided it.

You can't even argue against what I've said, preferring to make stuff up, put words in my mouth, and then claim victory when you tear that down. You've made no case whatsoever, unless I were to count "lalala I'm not listening" as a case.

Quote:
I'm perfectly pleased with the definitions provided by the U.S. and British Socialist parties. Their platforms describe very well what I've always considered Socialism. I figured if I just stated it myself, you'd ask for cites or say it was incorrect.

Or in other words you can't answer the question. Since other systems have included these things you say are socialist, YOUR OWN LOGIC says they can't be Socialist.

To answer the question you'd have to admit your 'logic' is wrong, so I know you won't answer it.

Quote:
No, but per the Socialist organizations cited above, it is a major plank in their platform.

Doesn't matter, your own logic says it's not Socialist. I agree, your logic makes no sense, but there it is.

Another thing that's quintessential to Socialist thought is the State caring for the people. That's right in there too, but my god if you won't perform mental back flips to deny it...

GEEZER

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No, but it's (Poor Law of 1601) not social welfare by any standard used here either, so it's really rather irrelevant.

Oh, of course. If the Socialists didn't do it, it can't be social welfare.

Quote:
It created a system administered at parish level,[17] paid for by levying local rates on rate payers.[18] Relief for those too ill or old to work, the so called 'impotent poor', was in the form of a payment or items of food ('the parish loaf') or clothing also known as outdoor relief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-house#Old_Poor_Law
So this is not social welfare how, exactly?

Quote:
Which is really rather irrelevant, since I've been talking about mixed economies.

Just wanted to establish that no European country currently has a Socialist economy. If you grant that is true, I'm not sure why you've been arguing about it for so long (unless you just enjoy the argument

).

Quote:
I've given plenty of evidence (that State Social Welfare programs must originate from Socialism)...

Nope. You have given evidence that State Social Welfare programs can originate from Socialism (as with NHS), but nothing to show that they can't originate from other political or economic systems. Your responses seem to be that: 1) If Socialists didn't create them, they aren't actually State Social Welfare programs, although they have the same purpose and meet the same needs, or: 2) if non-Socialist governments do create State Social Welfare programs, the programs instantly become Socialist.

Quote:
Or in other words you can't answer the question (what is socialism?).

But I did, by providing cites supporting my interpretation of what socialism is. Why waste time paraphrasing definitions with which I totally agree?

Since you apparently don't agree with the Socialists about what Socialism is, perhaps you would provide your own definition?

Quote:
Another thing that's quintessential to Socialist thought is the State caring for the people. That's right in there too, but my god if you won't perform mental back flips to deny it...

Nope, I'll just point out once again that Socialists don't have a corner on caring for the people, just like they don't have a corner on providing State Social Welfare.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE