|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/24/2003 : 07:04:39
|
(Attempting to end the hijack of this thread...)
Snake wrote:quote:
There is only one Socialism, it's a philosophy, just as any other school of philosophy, it has a basic idea. There are however, interpretations, thoughts on what people think is meant by it, ideas people think they were taught about it and the confusion because of that and so on. Ah, there's the rub.
andquote:
I don't believe that the 1st or most of the references on that web site are exactly correct.
Well, the main reason I started talking about the dictionary definitions is that it was plain, just from glancing at them, that people have a difficult time defining the word. The Encyclopedia Britannica is quoted as saying:quote:
The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics.
Snake again:quote:
Gees! People, why don't you just go read H. G. Wells?
What's his definition of socialism?quote:
And what you say above is Communism where the state owns the means of production.
But, but, but, Webster's defines communism asquote:
A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.
There appear to be just as many difficulties in defining communism as there are defining socialism, however.
Actually, Snake, I'm still interested in finding out how your example,quote:
You have an apple tree, I have some bricks. You need a fence, I can build it. We decide together, a meeting of the minds, a contract if you will, of what the price should be.
You give me 3 bags of apples for a 5 foot long fence. Your turn!
is any different from capitalism. One idea I had was that, maybe, the socialist state is analogous to the person with the bricks (or maybe to the person with the apples), but you now appear to be equating that twist on the analogy with communism. Or something. I just don't see it.
Look, forget H.G. Wells and dictionary definitions for a moment. What's your defintion of socialism, Snake, in your own words?
(By the way, I'm betting the Limoncello is being blamed for Henry hitting the "Reset Form" button instead of the "Preview" button.)
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2003 : 09:54:36 [Permalink]
|
Good grief, what a load of crap. Perhaps someone else has a better resource on what socialism really should be, instead of this idealistic nonsense? I mean, "We reject dogma..." my aunt fanny. The page Gorgo linked to is nothing but dogma.
Anybody else notice that the descriptions offered of capitalism and communism are both based on real-world states, but the promises of what socialism will be appear to be idealized? Certainly I wouldn't argue that this:quote:
The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position.
isn't what has happened in practice, but it certainly isn't the goal or ideal of capitalism as an economic theory.
Frankly, the whole thing smacks of a bunch of "have-nots" whining about the "haves" (or, in their terms, the rich "few"). And I would classify myself as a "have-not," so it's not like I'm complaining about people different from me. I will gladly complain about the rich when the rich abuse their power, but I don't begrudge them their wealth or power on general principles. Heck, I'd like to become rich. Becoming equal with everyone else just sounds boring.
And they need to come up with a word other than "feminism" to describe their goal - I might suggest "genderless society." They surely don't mean to equate "feminism" with "matriarchy," but unless you actually read their definition of "feminism," there's nothing to dissuade one from that idea.
Reading that page, I also can't help but be reminded of that Vonnegut story in which everyone was forcibly equalized. Strong people had to drag weights around with them, smart people had klaxons going off in their ears to break their concentration, etc., etc.. I bet socialism would work just fine in some idyllic, Logan's Run-style society in which competition for resources has largely vanished, but while there's a competitive bone in anyone's body, and a limited number of resources, the Socialist Party USA's principles aren't going to take hold in any practicle sense. "I want" is far too powerful a human drive.
By the way, what happens to those folks who don't want jobs under the SPUSA's system?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2003 : 10:47:05 [Permalink]
|
If that's the way it is, and the way that it has been, and the way that it will be, then why would you think that this isn't the goal?
quote:
Anybody else notice that the descriptions offered of capitalism and communism are both based on real-world states, but the promises of what socialism will be appear to be idealized? Certainly I wouldn't argue that this:<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The capitalist system forces workers to sell their abilities and skills to the few who own the workplaces, profit from these workers' labor, and use the government to maintain their privileged position.
isn't what has happened in practice, but it certainly isn't the goal or ideal of capitalism as an economic theory.[/quote] |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2003 : 10:52:53 [Permalink]
|
What specifically is dogmatic about it?
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 06/24/2003 10:53:12 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2003 : 10:59:33 [Permalink]
|
I don't hear anyone whining about anyone having anything, it's the tendency of the system for the wealthy to rob from the poor. Nothing particularly whiny about noticing reality. It's not that every wealthy person is evil and every poor person is virtuous. It's a tendency of the system that's the problem, not just individuals who can and do take advantage of the system.
It's like institutional racism. That doesn't mean that because I'm white and I benefit from a racist system that I'm evil. That's just the system, and it behooves all of us that benefit from that system to remember that when someone tries to tell us about ridiculous things like "reverse racism."
It's the same with your idea about those who wish to rectify the system and make it more democratic "whining" about haves and have-nots, etc. The poor didn't start the class war. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 06/24/2003 11:38:27 |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2003 : 11:38:16 [Permalink]
|
| I believe the story you credit to "Vonnegut," Dave W, is actually by Anne Rann (Sp?). Dunno, butt think there is room for "socialistic" programs even in a capitalistic state, such as health care, and schooling. Unless you believe it's in the state's best interest to use a pay as you go style for only those, who can afford to pay for it..? |
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2003 : 19:28:08 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote:quote:
If that's the way it is, and the way that it has been, and the way that it will be, then why would you think that this isn't the goal?
Are you saying that the driving ideal behind capitalism or communism is quote:
...a class society with gross inequality of privileges, a draining of the productive wealth and goods of the society into military purposes, environmental pollution, and war in which workers are compelled to fight other workers.
That's what I'm talking about, Gorgo. The SPUSA page you sent me to compares the ideal of their type of socialism with the realities (to date) of capitalism and communism. I will maintain that societies will never meet the capitalist, communist, or socialist ideals until they lose at least a part of their humanity. Capitalism and communism only become the horrors described because people are human. I can't see anything inherent in that brand of socialism which makes it immune to human nature, yet they offer up their principles as if the ideal socialist society is the only possible end result.
Back to Gorgo:quote:
What specifically is dogmatic about it?
Um, the "inevitibility" of what happens under capitalism or communism? Or how about this:quote:
Under welfare capitalism, a reserve pool of people is kept undereducated, under-skilled and unemployed, largely along racial and gender lines, to exert pressure on those who are employed and on organized labor.
Where is the evidence that this is done on purpose, by those in control (the verb 'kept' gives it this meaning)? Without evidence, it's dogma.
Gorgo again:quote:
It's not that every wealthy person is evil and every poor person is virtuous.
From reading that page, it sure sounds like every wealthy person is evil. The absolutism is extremely thick. It's clear that to the SPUSA, anyone having any more power (whether measured in dollars or political muscle) than anyone else is a bad thing. And unless I missed it, to them, the poorer are always oppressed masses, and thus victims, whether virtuous or not.quote:
It's the same with your idea about those who wish to rectify the system and make it more democratic "whining" about haves and have-nots, etc. The poor didn't start the class war.
Can someone show that they offer a practical rectification to the current system? Until it is demonstrated that the SPUSA's type of socialism really does work, as a form of state government, their words about the evils of capitalism or communism are nothing but unconstructive complaints.
And I noticed you skipped my question at the end.
NubiWan wrote:quote:
I believe the story you credit to "Vonnegut," Dave W, is actually by Anne Rann (Sp?).
I've never read any Ann Rand. The story is definitely Vonnegut. Tooling around Amazon.com dredged it up, it's the story "Harrison Bergeron" in the collection entitled Welcome to the Monkey House.quote:
Dunno, butt think there is room for "socialistic" programs even in a capitalistic state, such as health care, and schooling. Unless you believe it's in the state's best interest to use a pay as you go style for only those, who can afford to pay for it..?
Well, that's not the question here. Given the vastly different definitions of 'socialism' I've come across, I was looking for a good description of what a socialist state would look like. While I'll readily admit that Gorgo has supplied that (thanks for the pointer, Gorgo), it should also be clear that when I read what was on that page, it struck me as nonsense. I apologize to all for derailing my own thread.
But to answer your query, NubiWan: sure! Bits and pieces of socialist ideals would probably fit fine into other forms of government. As a whole, though, I doubt it would necessarily fare any better than any other form of government while people still have lusts and dreams.
I'd like to note at this point, that it appears to me that the United States of America does NOT have a capitalist government (whatever the heck that would look like), but does have a capitalist economy. Unless someone wants to demonstrate how the two are necessarily (and under ideal conditions) equivalent.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2003 : 23:28:21 [Permalink]
|
I have lived in what might be the closest thing to a socialist ideal that is workable. It was a commune in a land of communes and non commune type free enterprise. The commune I was on has a box factory and a farm. Some of the communes even have hotels on them. All of them have clinics with doctors, child care, central eating areas for volunteers (who are paid) or small houses for permanent residents. All the services are provided free of charge. All you have to do to take advantage of this paradise is show up to work. The commune itself makes money this way. That makes it self reliant. I'm sure some money goes to the government in the form of income tax or however they have it worked out. But those workings were invisible to those of us who lived there. I have to tell you, it wasn't a bad life. No worries. Show up to work and everything ells is taken care of. There have been times that I have regretted leaving. I can see no reason why this sort of system could not work here. On the other hand, I guess to many feathers would be ruffled if this kind of life was actually a choice for us. If you haven't guessed yet, this was a kibbutz in Israel. For all of mess Israel is in, much of which it created itself, the kibbutz system is brilliant.
Since I do not foresee this sort of thing happening anytime soon in this country, I guess I'll just have to keep voting for the social programs that I think are necessary for a fair and civilized society here.
I know I didn't define socialism. Oh well... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2003 : 03:18:16 [Permalink]
|
Again, you haven't shown me anything that says that socialists think that socialism will have us all laying around smelling flowers. Yes, they point out the problems of the current system and explain their ideals, but leave it to reasonable people to understand that all problems are not solved. That's fair. I'm not here to defend what they wrote, though, that's why I didn't answer your question, I have no idea of the answer and that's one of the reasons why I didn't join their party.
Here's a good article on the driving force behind capitalism. Let me know if you can't get to it, I'll post the article here.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2000-05/10wise.htm
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 06/25/2003 03:26:49 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2003 : 09:30:09 [Permalink]
|
I've got little doubt that socialism can work on a small scale when everyone is committed to making it work, Kil. Also, a friend of mine spent the better part of a year in a San Fransisco commune. Unfortunately not a good example of socialism, since they were more concerned about sex, but they were trying.
Gorgo wrote:quote:
Again, you haven't shown me anything that says that socialists think that socialism will have us all laying around smelling flowers.
I didn't think I was attempting to show you anything of the sort. The principles are obviously just the SPUSA's idea of what a just and equitable society should be like. However, that idea seems to be fraught with impossibilities while people - as a whole - are not just and equitable. As soon as someone desires more power than his/her neighbors, the socialist ideal will collapse. As soon as a bunch of unionized factory workers go on strike against the factory that they themselves own and control, the economic system will break down. Why the heck should socialists be pro-union, anyway, when unions are a protection from the powerful few who simply don't exist under socialism?!?quote:
Yes, they point out the problems of the current system and explain their ideals, but leave it to reasonable people to understand that all problems are not solved. That's fair.
Actually, I just figured out that the correct answer is that the SPUSA principles page is an advertisement for one form of socialism, and not an unbiased treatise on socialism through the ages. Just like a car ad isn't going to tell you that the latest model only has the screws fall off every 30,000 miles, that particular page isn't going to talk about the perils of their ideal socialism. One needs to look elsewhere for that.quote:
Here's a good article on the driving force behind capitalism.
Actually, no, that's a good article about the driving force behind modern capitalism inside modern America. Judging by what he's written, Tim Wise grasps the difference between the ideal of capitalism, and what has happened here in the past couple-hundred years. Perhaps I'm wrong, and capitalist economic theory shows that you must have something like the Federal Reserve dinking with interest, unemployment, and inflation rates in order to have capitalism at all. If I'm right, however, the United States, as I said, falls short of capitalistic ideals, and the only people who'd argue that are the people that Wise seems to say are blinded by the myth of the meritocracy. But other than human nature, is there anything about capitalism which requires oppression? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2003 : 12:02:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But other than human nature, is there anything about capitalism which requires oppression?
That's a fair question, but then you take on the responsibility of defining capitalism. If it's fair to say that socialism doesn't work because the Soviet Union was a failure, when no living socialist thinks that the Soviet Union had anything to do with socialism, then I think it's fair to call what we have here in the U.S. capitalism. If you want to define what capitalism is and ask questions about that, that's another matter. There is no question that the U.S. system was built with the goal of making certain that those who have get more at the expense of those that have not. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 06/25/2003 12:02:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2003 : 12:42:48 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote:quote:
If it's fair to say that socialism doesn't work because the Soviet Union was a failure, when no living socialist thinks that the Soviet Union had anything to do with socialism, then I think it's fair to call what we have here in the U.S. capitalism.
Does anybody think that the Soviet Union had anything to do with socialism, other than there being the word 'socialist' in the name of the country? Obviously, I wouldn't think it fair to claim socialism a failure based on the USSR's example. Has any country had a socialist government for any significant length of time in recorded history?quote:
If you want to define what capitalism is and ask questions about that, that's another matter. There is no question that the U.S. system was built with the goal of making certain that those who have get more at the expense of those that have not.
From its inception? Or more recently than that? The Federal Reserve wasn't created in 1776, after all. The U.S. system has changed over the years. I can imagine at least one of the Founding Fathers time-travelling to today and shouting, "Dear God what have you done?!?" before keeling over in shock at what goes on in Congress.
Just re-title the thread, "What the heck is ____ism?" and I'll explicitly ask a question I asked implicitly earlier: what would a capitalist state government look like? I've got a good idea of how a capitalist economy is supposed to work, but is it even possible to apply those ideals to a state government, which has more to worry about than just economics?
What is the absolute minimum that a government needs to do, anyway? National defense, interaction with other countries, and the establishment and enforcement of country-wide laws?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2003 : 12:49:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But other than human nature, is there anything about capitalism which requires oppression?
That's a fair question, but then you take on the responsibility of defining capitalism. If it's fair to say that socialism doesn't work because the Soviet Union was a failure, when no living socialist thinks that the Soviet Union had anything to do with socialism, then I think it's fair to call what we have here in the U.S. capitalism. If you want to define what capitalism is and ask questions about that, that's another matter. There is no question that the U.S. system was built with the goal of making certain that those who have get more at the expense of those that have not.
[/quote]
I don't think that any person who has looked into socialism could call the Soviet form of government anything but Stalinist Communism or Leninist Communism.
Big diff being that in Communism, the state holds all lands and production. The people are allowed to live in the places the state says so.
Socialism, the state takes responsibility for managing basic services such as health care. While better than Leninist Communism and Stalinist Communism, it still tends to stiffle innovation in healthcare.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2003 : 18:25:02 [Permalink]
|
From before it's inception, of course. I'm told that James Madison's idea of government was to "protect the minority of the opulent from the majority."
"In the United States, elections are basically debates
between the haves, among the haves, about how best to keep
the have-nots from having anything."
--Michael Albert, editor of *Z Magazine*, in an interview
with KPFK's Frank Stoltz, Thu 15 Feb 96.
quote:
From its inception? Or more recently than that? The Federal Reserve wasn't created in 1776, after all. The U.S. system has changed over the years. I can imagine at least one of the Founding Fathers time-travelling to today and shouting, "Dear God what have you done?!?" before keeling over in shock at what goes on in Congress.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2003 : 19:46:40 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote:quote:
From before it's inception, of course. I'm told that James Madison's idea of government was to "protect the minority of the opulent from the majority."
Well, I suppose that proves it. And I guess the Michael Albert quote pertains to every U.S. election there's ever been, too. (/sarcasm) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
