|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 10/12/2008 : 18:10:36
|
I recently had a rather troubling exchange with someone via email. The origin of this discussion regards how people on the right will describe Democrats and others on the left side of the American political spectrum as socialists. Here is how it went:
Cune:| I have an honest question for you: do you really think that Democrats are socialists? This theme is pretty common in letters the Oklahoman runs. For the life of me, I can't see how anyone would honestly think that (unless the word 'socialist' has undergone a radical change in meaning in the last few years), but it seems like there are lots of people who believe this. |
Right Wing Guy:| Yes I do believe the Democrats are becoming socialistic, and the Republican are following closely Any time you do for people things they should be doing for themselves then I call it socialism... |
C:Re socialism. OK, so if you change the definition of socialism, then the idea that Democrats (or Republicans) are "soclialists" makes more sense. But given that terms like "socialism" and "communism" and such are loaded terms and have relatively clear definitions, it seems sort of... unfair to use them. I mean, no one is talking about nationalizing all industry, or taking away the right to own property. That is socialism. [snip]
I mean, if I started saying "Republicans are homosexuals" with the caveat that by "homosexual" I mean things like favoring tax cuts for the rich and getting rid of Social Security, that would be rather dubious, no?
So, I guess that I'm skeptical that calling "any time you do for people things they should be doing for themselves" is anything like socialism. |
RWG:| I do believe that socialism is when the government starts taking money from taxpayers to use the money to do for others what they should be doing for themselves. |
C:Re socialism. I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. What you're talking about sounds like what those on the right term "big government". Socialism is an actual term for a type of social/economic system wherein the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution (e.g. industry, land, etc.) is belongs the community ("society") as a whole.
Moreover, I think that when people hear "socialism" that's that they're thinking. OMG, the government wants to take everyone's land and property and all our freedoms!!!!!1!!
So when people write to the Oklahoman and say "Democrats are socialists" what they're saying is that Obama (or Pelosi, or whomever) wants society and/or the government to take control over all land and property.
And that's just not true. It's a lie. It has no basis in reality. And saying "well, it's true because I've given the term 'socialism' my own special definition" isn't all that much better. |
RWG:| And it appears we are going to have to disagree on socialism. |
The whole thing is sort of crazy. It's frightening in that it shows how it is simply impossible to argue with a significant section of the population about anything. I mean, here it is: I've shown him the textbook definition of a term, and all he can say is that he disagrees and is going to continue to believe what he wants to believe. Even when he knows it's a lie!!
I really don't know what to say!
|
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 10/12/2008 18:11:39
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 19:06:02 [Permalink]
|
There isn't really anything to say, is there? I mean, if the guy is using some home-brewed definition for socialism then you can't have a discussion about socialism with him unless you agree to his definition. Obviously you shouldn't agree to his definition, so you are left with arguing over the word definition with a person who is being willfully ignorant.
This is far far more common than you might think. Willful ignorance is a blight on our species, one for which there is no cure.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 19:44:22 [Permalink]
|
I agree with Dude.
The guy's definition has no grounding in reality. If he is unwilling to use the correct definition, even after it has been pointed out to him; well, there is little that you can do about it.
On an unrelated (but somewhat interesting) note. After the soviet revolution, several of the socialist/communist parties in western Europe had to make a choice. Either side with the new government of abandon their revolutionary ideals and move toward the centre in order to participate to the government.
In France, this lead to the splitting of the communist party between the communist and the socialist party (which would evolve to become centre left, essentially the same niche in the political environment than the Democratic party uses in the US).
In Italy, the same happened to the communist party... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 20:30:35 [Permalink]
|
Am I misunderstanding the definition of socialism?
I believed that socialism and communism were different.
In communism, the government owned everything especially the means of production and cared for the people equally.
In socialism, private ownership of land is retianed and the government only owns a few sectors including healthcare, banking, and retirement plans. It does not own the means of production.
It sounds like the RWG is actually railing against two things.
Big Government (especially socialized healthcare and retirement planning)
Nanny State (over regulation of industry and reduction of the populace to be held accountable for thier actions)
The Republicans only use the word "socialism" because they can't get away with "communism".
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 20:49:23 [Permalink]
|
It's the same reason some of them can call Obama a "terrorist" and mean it sincerely, because they've just changed the definition to mean "a person of color whom I hate."
Also, they throw that word socialism around like it's some sort of boogey man word or shocking revelation that should send shudders up my spine. Obama wants socialism! And I'm like, yeah, so? What's wrong with socialism? They never say. They just shake their heads like they can't believe I'm not disgusted by the term alone. As if it's somehow self-evident what's so bad about socialism. I really don't get it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/12/2008 20:52:42 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 21:10:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Am I misunderstanding the definition of socialism?
I believed that socialism and communism were different.
In communism, the government owned everything especially the means of production and cared for the people equally.
In socialism, private ownership of land is retianed and the government only owns a few sectors including healthcare, banking, and retirement plans. It does not own the means of production.
It sounds like the RWG is actually railing against two things.
Big Government (especially socialized healthcare and retirement planning)
Nanny State (over regulation of industry and reduction of the populace to be held accountable for thier actions)
The Republicans only use the word "socialism" because they can't get away with "communism".
|
Basically; the way Marx understood it socialism was to be established by a revolution that would nationalize the mean of production and distribution. But not necessarily abolish all classes or private property.
From there, the system would gradually evolve through communism. Basically, the state would slowly become obsolete and die off.
In Lenin's view the socialist phase was to be that of a 'centralised democracy' to force the nation to move forward on the road to communism. But it was not Marx's idea.
Obviously, no nations have ever emerged from the socialist phase.
Also, both socialism and communism belong to a vast array of philosophies that were formed by a variety of people.
Definitions for either of these terms can vary from one thinker to the other... to a certain extend.
But, clearly, not to the extent where you friend sees it. After all, a capitalist economy with heavy economic interventionism already existed at the time and the philosophers would not have felt the need to invent new words to describe it.
*Edited for format* |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
| Edited by - Simon on 10/12/2008 21:15:09 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2008 : 22:38:47 [Permalink]
|
My government teacher in 11th grade (25 years ago) actually taught the cows example:In a capitalist state, if you have two cows, you can sell one to buy a bull and thus make more cows to sell.
In a socialist state, if you have two cows, the government will take one of them and give it to your neighbor who has none.
In a communist state, if you have two cows, the government will take both of your cows and give you two quarts of milk.
And in a fascist state, if you have two cows, the government will take both of your cows and shoot you because you didn't give the cows to the state immediately. |
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 05:56:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
In France, this lead to the splitting of the communist party between the communist and the socialist party (which would evolve to become centre left, essentially the same niche in the political environment than the Democratic party uses in the US).
|
I'd just like to recap what I've said before: In Europe, Social Democrats represents the middle and right of the Political Left. American Democrats are right of European political center.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 07:57:58 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah... In the US; the whole spectrum is shifted toward the right a notch. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 08:27:42 [Permalink]
|
OK, so the on-line Encyclopedia Britannia (which I can unfortunately access only through my library server) says the following:| social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members. |
This is the generic definition and there are disagreements as to what is true socialism:The first concerns the extent and the kind of property that society should own or control. Some socialists have thought that almost everything except personal items such as clothing should be public property... [o]ther socialists, however, have been willing to accept or even welcome private ownership of farms, shops, and other small or medium-sized businesses.
The second disagreement concerns the way in which society is to exercise its control of property and other resources. In this case the main camps consist of loosely defined groups of centralists and decentralists. On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance of a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe that decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or lowest-possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This conflict has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement. |
So either way you cut it, I find it hard to label any major Democratic candidate in the States as a "socialist" in any way. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 08:43:52 [Permalink]
|
| Indeed Cune; indeed. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 09:56:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
There isn't really anything to say, is there? I mean, if the guy is using some home-brewed definition for socialism then you can't have a discussion about socialism with him unless you agree to his definition. Obviously you shouldn't agree to his definition, so you are left with arguing over the word definition with a person who is being willfully ignorant.
This is far far more common than you might think. Willful ignorance is a blight on our species, one for which there is no cure. |
I am aware of the the while willful ignorance idea. But I was struck that it was used in this case. I mean, it's not like not calling Democrats or liberals "socialists" is a challenge to his world view or something. At least, it shouldn't be.
So I sort of expected him to end up saying "yeah, so they're not really socialists, but they're still in favor of X, Y, and Z, and I don't like that" or something.
But I give him the textbook definition of the term, and he rejects it for no good reason-- except that in doing so, it allows him to keep parroting the 'socialist' line. It's unreal. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2008 : 12:03:34 [Permalink]
|
Cune said:
I mean, it's not like not calling Democrats or liberals "socialists" is a challenge to his world view or something. At least, it shouldn't be.
|
Well, thats just it. It is a challenge to his world view. He can't admit that he might be in error(obviously he is in error), so instead he creates some way to demonize those who have shown him to be wrong. It is an elaborate argumentum ad hominem that boils down to: You're a socialist, therefore you are wrong.
If he has to maintain a false definition of the word to support that fiction, he will.
It is the same basic construct of fallacious logic that religious people use against us atheists. They redefine atheist to mean "malignantly evil", and it lets them ignore anything else we have to say.
People do this shit all the time.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2008 : 15:56:05 [Permalink]
|
Well, here it is: McCain, Palin hint that Obama's policies are 'socialist'
In the radio address, McCain didn't directly call Obama a socialist, but he let the now-famous Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher nearly do it for him.
"You see, [Obama] believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism," McCain said Saturday....
Asked why McCain used the word "socialist" in the radio remarks, a spokesman said, "That's what it is. 'Spreading the wealth' around is socialism." |
For Christ's sake. "Spreading the wealth" is how this country does anything. Schools. Roads. Aircraft carriers. How the hell do these IDIOTS think that we pay for this stuff??
I am happy that the press is picking up on this "socialist" meme, but I wish they'd at least, you know, define what socialism is to show how completely stupid this critique is!
|
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 10/18/2008 15:57:20 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2008 : 18:54:16 [Permalink]
|
By that phony definition, every rich person is a committing an act of "socialism" each time they buy anything, or hire someone. Because they are "spreading the wealth." The commie bastards, those capitalist swine!
It would logically follow that the only "non-socialists" would have to be the very poor, who have no wealth to spread, and anyone who puts all their greenbacks under their mattress or into their vault.
And now McCain and Palin have descended into classical red-baiting. That tactic has lost even its questionable McCarthyite luster, since the fall of Communism. But face it, they've got nothing much else to try.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/18/2008 18:59:28 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Redefining the enemy
