things you are secretly kinda socialisty about

complete the cycle

secretly = i'm out

ha, same here :)

well yes

The state is the best provider of public services, especially but not exclusively healthcare, education etc.

Healthcare and education are fundamental rights that should be free to all at the point of provision.

all advertising beyond a simple announcement that an event is taking place should be illegal

ownership = theft

P much everything tbh

TRAINS

yep, almost everything.

the state should fully control the production of all goods and the administration of all services

But yeah, I think the remarkable shitness of the national rail system in the UK has had more of an impact on my political beliefs than any learning or upbringing in my lifetime.

Why does government-run healthcare have to be "socialist" though? Can't we decide to have government-provided healthcare as a democracy?

http://www.economicnoise.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/road_to_serfdom.jpg

Can't we decide to have government-provided healthcare as a democracy?

democracy and socialism aren't incompatible

^ first line there ws quoting beachville

I didn't have a terribly advanced undergraduate course in polisci. I thought they were separate systems of government?

democracy limits socialism. socialism limits communism. communism limits us.

I didn't have a terribly advanced undergraduate course in polisci. I thought they were separate systems of government?

― getting good with gulags (beachville), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 16:50 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This misconception is probably fairly prevalent, maybe because for a lot of people Socialism = Communism (which could technically come under democracy anyway but is often associated with dictatorships). Democracy essentially means that the ruling party is elected into power, rather than taking it by force or heritage.

I thought they were separate systems of government?

nah, socialism is a means of managing the ownership/control of things like "the means of production" or "the provision of services". under socialist systems, these things are managed to some degree or another by the government, for the common good. an example of socialism being publicly funded and administrated schools. if socialism has an opposite, it's capitalism. under capitalism, the means of production and the provision of serves are owned/controlled/managed by individuals, for profit.

democracy is simply a means of electing leaders.

some people do use 'socialism' to mean 'communism'. other people use it to mean, idk, france. none of the terms really mean anything w/o being strictly defined first, which they rarely are.

Thanks guys. I hate having to think about politics, btw, but that's probably a separate thread.

from each according to his votes on the action movie thread, to each according to his needs.

Socialism is to one-degree-or-another left-of-centre. The Labour party in the UK were formed under Socialist principles, but in the last few decades moved towards a centrist (and some might even say right-wing) standpoint, coinciding with their re-branding as New Labour. As such, it's the Liberal Democrats (technically a centrist party) who ended up being classed as the major left-wing alternative. Sadly they've found keeping to this as easy as eating scrambled eggs with a tennis racket since they formed a coalition with the right-wing Tory party. So now anyone of a Socialist bent in the UK has little choice. Same as America with its two-party Liberal/Republican system.

I didn't have a terribly advanced undergraduate course in polisci. I thought they were separate systems of government?

I'm going to say what I said on that other thread, there are times when I'm glad I'm not an American

because then you would use words differently, and that sentence wouldn't be false

because words mean lots of things, sometimes even the opposite of their other meanings

this thread ought to be about things that people are like REALLY socialisty about, beyond the ilx norm. i mean 'a national health service' isn't blowing anyone's mind here.

i can't think of anything really. not to get too jonah goldberg on you but maybe my answers from the fascist thread should go here, oh ho ho

LOL at France being "socialist", Christ

no you see it is socialist, because socialist means multiple things

in the US it appears to mean naff all.

some people do use 'socialism' to mean 'communism'. other people use it to mean, idk, france. none of the terms really mean anything w/o being strictly defined first, which they rarely are.

agree that the terms need defining, but i think the basic definition of socialism is p well understood, no? state owns/controls stuff, manages it for the public good. beyond that, there are many different types and definitions of socialism, but they all share that basic principle in common.

I would say those are the historic principles but otoh current left-wing politics isn't particularly concerned w/ taking over factories, which makes it a pretty bad reference point usually

free childcare for all

i'm not very secret about that one, though

in the US it appears to mean naff all.

Or pretty much anything, as long as it's European?

France is sort of statist (not the same as scoialist), so I can understand the confusion to some extent

these words all don't mean anything unless strictly defined and put in context and are generally used as reference points: socialist, liberal, conservative, left-wing, right-wing, radical

Don't forget that the political axis incorporates two axes - social and economic, so placing yourself on a simple left-right scale is pretty redundant.

iatee - they mean different things in different countries. Comparing a Democratic candidates in the US are perceived as left-wing, but many of them would be considered fairly right-wing were they to be placed on a UK scale.

Not so much anymore I think

right, they mean things in context, which is why it's stupid for people from two different contexts to try and argue about 'what it means'

Don't forget that the political axis incorporates two axes - social and economic, so placing yourself on a simple left-right scale is pretty redundant.

― The Invisible Superstars (dog latin), Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:20 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't think this is true. there aren't really 'axes' and there aren't only two of them

otoh current left-wing politics isn't particularly concerned w/ taking over factories, which makes it a pretty bad reference point usually

well, no, not factories at this point, but other stuff. gov't regulation of industry leans in the direction of socialism, despite the fact that ownership remains private, due to the focus on "management of commerce & commercial entities in the public good". and lots of potentially profit-making things are directly managed by gov't in contemporary democracies: medicine, education, road construction, police & fire departments, parks, etc. that's all sort of socialist-y. and then there's all the public good stuff based on the idea that the gov't has the right to take property and redistribute it in the interest of the greater good, social welfare type stuff.

again that's miles away from 'owns the means of production'

Not so much anymore I think

― Charles Kennedy Jumped Up, He Called 'Oh No'. (Tom D.), Tuesday, 14 February 2012 17:23 (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

sadly OTM ;_;

my point, relative to what iatee's been saying, is that "socialism" has a much clearer and more universal basic definition than "left-wing", "liberal" or "progressive", which can only be satisfactorily defined relative to local politics.

internet socialism = pwning the means of production

historically, yes, but its current usage is almost always so far from that that that it's also better to avoid treating it like it has a 'definition'. the current usage of a word is 'what a word means' and so that's not 'what it means' very often.

not to get too jonah goldberg on you but maybe my answers from the fascist thread should go here, oh ho ho

― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:07 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

haha i was basically interpreting "fascist" this way, too, except for my eugenics outburst :(

talking about a world where groupon.com is worth a trillion dollars w/ 19th century vocabulary: often confusing

again that's miles away from 'owns the means of production'

it is and it isn't. broadly speaking, socialism is that which tends towards government not-just-ownership-but-also control or management of things like "the means of production" - including but not necessarily limited to "public resources" and "the provision of public services". so government schools = socialism, as the provision of education is something that private interests could obviously accomplish. same with the other stuff i've mentioned: road building, police forces, etc.

i'd go as far as to say that social welfare and income redistribution are inherently socialist in that they focus on the relationship between the government's right to own what would otherwise be individual property and its obligation to attend to the common good. agree that the definition can get shaky, but everything extends out from a few basic principles.

it's also better to avoid treating it like it has a 'definition'. the current usage of a word is 'what a word means' and so that's not 'what it means' very often.

eh, maybe so, but i think it's useful to keep/force "socialism" in/into a fairly specific box. maybe it's a lost cause, i dunno...

things like 'the means of production' are pretty different from 'the means of production'. a redistributionist free market gov't w/ lots of regulation is not the opposite of a free market system, it's a type of a free market system.

and yeah it's a lost cause.

well, i totally reject the sharply drawn "socialist" over here, "free markets" over there distinction. that's only one way of constructing their relationship. better to see them as tendencies rather than as absolutes, which allows them to coexist, intermingle. better yet, allows us to address the real world, not just ideal societies. we don't act like "free market" has no meaningful general definition simply because it's not always applied or understood in the most extreme/absolute fashion. "socialist" is the same: a general set of principles and tendencies that encompasses more specific arguments & ideologies while remaining fluid.

it encompasses two ideologies that are completely at odds with each other, one of which is to save capitalism from its own excesses, the other is to end it. so it makes more sense for people to spell out what their views on policies are than to say 'I'm a socialist'

because then you would use words differently, and that sentence wouldn't be false

I'm quite sure that "socialism and democracy are two different systems of government" is false in any dialect of English.

'the ussr was socialist, it was not democratic'

(destroys english)

"Social democracy" is a good term for a European-style compromise system. Otherwise, contenderizer mostly OTM about "socialism", except that it can also refer to non-statist forms of collectivism.

2xpost 'the ussr was socialist, it was not democratic' is a very different sentence (and a true one) from "socialism and democracy are two different forms of government".

100% inheritance tax

okay here is my argument in whole:

words can mean lots of different things, people should be pretty rigorous about the definition they're working with, it's easy to be sloppy w/ words that mean multiple things and get into stupid arguments

does anyone disagree with this

it encompasses two ideologies that are completely at odds with each other, one of which is to save capitalism from its own excesses, the other is to end it. so it makes more sense for people to spell out what their views on policies are than to say 'I'm a socialist'

well, i understand your objection. i see those as points on a curve (and only two among many) and am fine with the general descriptor being applied to all sorts of different positions, but i can see as how some might find that confusing.

words can mean lots of different things, people should be pretty rigorous about the definition they're working with, it's easy to be sloppy w/ words that mean multiple things and get into stupid arguments

does anyone disagree with this

not at all. but i also think that blanket words are useful, even if they encompass many different potential meanings. i think "socialist" is one such word. and i'm pretty confident that the sorting out you're talking about can be accomplished conversationally, subsequent to the use of the word, should any confusion arise.

No, that's where I was coming from too. "Collective control over the means of production" seems like a pretty good definition to me.

And reading more closely, I depart from contenderizer when he starts saying 'socialism and the free market are just tendencies' and the welfare state is inherently socialist.

xpost to iatee

how do you think they gov't should control the means of production in economies where most of the economy is service sector work?

OK, so I think I was actually agreeing with iatee.:P

xpost

honestly, i'm politically committed to the maintenance of the "big tent" definition of socialism, because i'm a nondogmatic socialist (i.e., i think it's okay for the government to own things, manage the economy, regulate trade and provide for the common good, even to point of aggressive wealth redistribution), and i dislike the tendency to demonize the word by attempting to confine it to its most dogmatic extremes, big brother owns yr soul type shit.

well unlike political parties, words don't have any benefit from being a 'big tent', they just increase the chance that you're not really saying anything

OK, so I think I was actually agreeing with iatee.:P

lol, yeah you were. and maybe i'm being foolish in trying to force an insupportably broad definition onto the word. i like the idea that public schools, parks and road construction = "socialism". i like the idea that medicare and social security = socialism, esp when funded by progressive taxation. i like this tendency-based definition because it treats socialism like something ordinary, something that we all believe in to some degree or another.

I'm with contenderizer for the most part on this afaict. No two people hold the same political views, but you can still see socialism as a rough set of rules by which you can adhere to one extent or another.

'rough set of rules' that happens to encompass the political-economic systems found in USSR, sweden and france

how do you think they gov't should control the means of production in economies where most of the economy is service sector work?

I'm not sure that the government should! I'm a social democrat, not a socialist! Still, tertiary-sector can be nationalized, can't it? Much of it already is.

oh okay I misread you, sorry

'rough set of rules' that happens to encompass the political-economic systems found in USSR, sweden and france

And, like, Richard Nixon.

i also just generally prefer tendency-based interpretations of political ideologies. this allows us to see the way ideologies interact and shade into one another. if it's all extremes, with socialism over here and free market capitalism over there, tyranny here and libertarian freedom there, then we've got nothing but opposition. if we're more flexible in the way we construct these things, we reduce the tendency to oppositionalism.

Xpost Yeah and the Nazis, cos they were National Socialists, amirite? Seriously these semantic arguments get pretty dull. May as well be arguing over what is and isn't indie.

'rough set of rules' that happens to encompass the political-economic systems found in USSR, sweden and france

And, like, Richard Nixon.

yeah, exactly. the US too. socialism is everywhere, we are all socialists. to some extent or another, even most hardline american conservatives. in my view this is the truth, and it should be promoted aggressively.

well when you don't have the semantic arguments you have a bunch of people talking past each other or british people confused about the american idea of 'socialism'

i also just generally prefer tendency-based interpretations of political ideologies. this allows us to see the way ideologies interact and shade into one another. if it's all extremes, with socialism over here and free market capitalism over there, tyranny here and libertarian freedom there, then we've got nothing but opposition. if we're more flexible in the way we construct these things, we reduce the tendency to oppositionalism.

But various terms exist for the shades of grey: social democracy, welfare state, neoliberalism, Red Toryism, etc. And there's nothing wrong with saying "moderately liberal" etc. "Socialism" has a real meaning that describes an actual system that has been used in actual places.

(Ha, my Gr 10 history/social science teacher taught us that Canada is a socialist country fwiw.)

100% inheritance tax otm

been pondering the implications of no private ownership of housing stock lately, but not deeply enough to encapsulate/defend itt- nevertheless, no private ownership of housing stock

Seriously these semantic arguments get pretty dull. May as well be arguing over what is and isn't indie.

but i do that too! the dull is in me. anyway, i think i've said my piece.

in short:

words mean lots of things
their meaning depends on their context and who is using them
it's good to remember this and define your terms
otherwise things get confusing

To answer the question, I'm not convinced that having a publicly owned bank/credit lender would be a bad thing.

Also, higher education should be fully socialized and free.

Xposts The thing is, if you define these things in narrow, extremist terms, that's when ideologies get misunderstood and misappropriated. Like if I were to say 'I define myself as a socialist', someone could interpret that to mean I want everyone to dye their clothes grey and start carrying red books around with them, when really all I believe is that free healthcare should be a human right, that nationalisation of public services leads to corporate greed, and that the wealthy should be asked to help in the effort to stabilise the worse off.

Also, higher education should be fully socialized and free.

Well, maybe not free but a year's tuition should be payable with a summer job.

right, which is why it's better for you to say the 2nd part instead of saying "I'm a socialist" cause then everyone knows what you mean xp

in the movie, Dave, where a presidential impersonator becomes president, he enacts some weird WPA-style legislation that guarantees a job to anybody. I haven't seen the movie where Chris Rock becomes president, but there's probably good ideas there, too.

Xposts The thing is, if you define these things in narrow, extremist terms, that's when ideologies get misunderstood and misappropriated. Like if I were to say 'I define myself as a socialist', someone could interpret that to mean I want everyone to dye their clothes grey and start carrying red books around with them, when really all I believe is that free healthcare should be a human right, that nationalisation of public services leads to corporate greed, and that the wealthy should be asked to help in the effort to stabilise the worse off.

But what's wrong with saying "I define myself as a social democrat" (not that "socialism" means wanting people to wear grey and carry red books)?

not as edgy

(or iatee OTM)
xpost

"Socialism" has a real meaning that describes an actual system that has been used in actual places.

― EveningStar (Sund4r)

yeah, i don't deny that, but i'm politically committed to a definition of "socialism" that includes not only complete examples of that specific system but also the various ways in which other systems can exhibit similar characteristics.

for instance, government ownership & management of free public schools is "socialist" even if the government in question isn't socialist as a whole.

like, why should it be all or nothing? we don't need different words to talk about instances of capitalism in china. why should we need different words to talk about instances of socialism in generally non-socialist systems?

no, we do need different words to talk about instances of capitalism in china, because the way the economy works there is structurally miles away from what the word 'capitalism' means in america.

but that's okay. we still know roughly what we mean when discussing "capitalism" in china, just as we know what we mean when describing free public school systems as "socialist".

I'm sorry I did this to this lol parody thread.

thread sums up socialism kinda nicely tbh

troo. plus i had fun.