|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 24, 2011 7:42:53 GMT -5
Think they are opposites is your problem. They are not. So what you are asking me to prove is not what I'm stating.
Some socialistic system, such as the Nordic model, are also very liberal. Not hard to understand since they are both on the left side of the political spectrum, and not opposites. Both socialism and modern liberalism acknowledge that the good of the community is in the best interest of the individual. Purely socialist states will have state provided health systems. Now just because liberal like that idea it does not mean it not a socialist ideal.
Ideals are ultimately linked to the systems that spawned or advocate them. Not the be people and parties that do.
It all comes down to you not understanding that there is a political spectrum. There are no hard and fast lines. Some systems are closely related. Calling socialism and liberalism opposites is ridiculous see as they advocate for many of the same things.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 24, 2011 18:20:39 GMT -5
Think they are opposites is your problem. They are not. So what you are asking me to prove is not what I'm stating. I'm asking you to prove that communism/socialism split between Marx's period and now and that socialism ceased to be communism* and became it's opposite^. In order to do this, you'd need to point to a hugely important socialist philosopher who wrote some kind of mega-work advocating the split. Of course, this didn't happen, so it will be slightly tricky. *An anti-capitalist system. ^ A pro-capitalist system. Until proven otherwise, socialism is a stage in the journey to communism. The Nords certainly are not attempting to get to a classless, anarchistic society. However, they are a liberal government, with a capitalist economy. Real socialism and liberalism are opposites. But slander-socialism* and liberalism are identical and opposites to communism. * As in, let's define socialism in the easiest way to slander liberals. As you've defined it, liberalism and slander-socialism are identical. A socialist solution would be to get doctors to provide their service free of charge, after blowing up the market economy. A liberal solution is to create a free government service. Marx certainly would not have approved of Medicare, but Keynes did. Indeed. Why do you think this isn't true of socialism, which, in your view, is the opposite of Marxist theory? As I've pointed out above, the 'political spectrum' is bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 24, 2011 18:56:09 GMT -5
The only thing that is bullshit in this thread is you.
One, and this will be the last time I say it, socialism and socialist systems are not the opposite of communism. They are on the same side of a spectrum that very much exist. Everyone else understands that. Why don't you? The fact is you do. You understand left and right.
Only stupid socialist would want doctors to give services for free. How would they expect the doctors to eat? No, they would expect the doctors to be payed by the state, as state employees. Socialist would love a single payer system in which everything is owned a run by the government. They may love a single payer system which allows private industry to participate, but the idea is still the same.
Whenever you are talking about services or production that is publicly owned and operated that is a socialist ideal. That is why you can have system such as market socialism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 24, 2011 21:31:22 GMT -5
As I've pointed out above, the 'political spectrum' is bullshit. More like "As I've said repeatedly over and over again without actually providing any proof other than 'Marx said'" |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 25, 2011 1:00:19 GMT -5
ltfred... just be honest... you're Phillip Adams, aren't you?
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 3:04:42 GMT -5
One, and this will be the last time I say it, socialism and socialist systems are not the opposite of communism. Nice assertion. At no point have provided any evidence that they are even different. You could achieve this as below. "I'm asking you to prove that communism/socialism split between Marx's period and now and that socialism ceased to be communism* and became it's opposite^. In order to do this, you'd need to point to a hugely important socialist philosopher who wrote some kind of mega-work advocating the split. Of course, this didn't happen, so it will be slightly tricky." *An anti-capitalist system. ^ A pro-capitalist system. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 3:08:22 GMT -5
ltfred... just be honest... you're Phillip Adams, aren't you? Nice guy. Bit of a wanker, but he's definately the least irrational person in that den of vipers laughably known as 'the Australian'. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 3:14:30 GMT -5
As I've pointed out above, the 'political spectrum' is bullshit. More like "As I've said repeatedly over and over again without actually providing any proof other than 'Marx said'" "Well, I think the so called 'political spectrum' greatly oversimplifies an already oversimplified theory- that people believe certain hermetically-sealed sets of ideas called ideologies. Sure, it's an easy way to group people together (and a useful way) but it's hardly accurate. What the idea of a 'political spectrum' does is pretend that conservatism is just moderate fascism, and liberalism moderate communism. Which is just wrong. Fascism and conservatism are opposites. Communism and liberalism are opposites. Fascism is no more like conservatism than liberalism. But, sure, people believe different things about what the economy should be. Was that your point?" These are my views on the 'political spectrum'. It's a useful, wrong idea, a bit like those monks in Terry Pratchett. It certainly isn't evidence (as m52nickerson claims) that liberalism is closer to socialism than conservatism. That's just wrong, any close look at the actual ideologies (rather than their pretend positions on some scale) would show this. Also show where I say in relation to the spectrum 'because Marx says'. Or you could, you know, not strawman me. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 25, 2011 4:07:36 GMT -5
ltfred... just be honest... you're Phillip Adams, aren't you? Nice guy. Bit of a wanker, but he's definately the least irrational person in that den of vipers laughably known as 'the Australian'. I'll take that as a yes. Would you like me to call you Phil, or what? Frankly, I'm rather surprised you havn't been put in Taronga, as the worlds last surviving unapologetic Stalinist. Not to mention worlds biggest hypocrit, always banging on about the aboriginals' plight, yet happy to make a fortune plundering the cultural treasures of OTHER indiginous people. I hope the Monarchist referendum sticks in your craw every night. And I didn't vote for your ugly arse wife when she stood in NSW, just Dr. Karl, so  ETA: I'm glad your dog ran away too. Getting disemboweled by a kangaroo and dying slowly over days with your guts hanging out would HAVE to be preferable to living with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Jun 25, 2011 5:38:29 GMT -5
Okay. I see it now.
It is why there has been a rise in something more than just a "left-right" paradigm. It's only handy for Republicans because they would, in fact, be fascist if they were given free reign because they love passing punitive laws and building jails. On the other hand, they would prefer to let businesses do as they please, which is, in fact, a libertarian directive.
And because of that, we have a mixed up paradigm where the Democrats are regarded as liberal, when they're in favor of having more government regulation, but (at least claim) they would prefer to keep out of people's private lives.
And while socialism is a step in the road to communism, I can't see how terrible it is to have certain regulations over how businesses and people conduct themselves. Nor can I see a problem with having those who have a nice disposable income doling out more in regards to infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 25, 2011 5:51:01 GMT -5
Okay. I see it now. It is why there has been a rise in something more than just a "left-right" paradigm. It's only handy for Republicans because they would, in fact, be fascist if they were given free reign because they love passing punitive laws and building jails. On the other hand, they would prefer to let businesses do as they please, which is, in fact, a libertarian directive. And because of that, we have a mixed up paradigm where the Democrats are regarded as liberal, when they're in favor of having more government regulation, but (at least claim) they would prefer to keep out of people's private lives. And while socialism is a step in the road to communism, I can't see how terrible it is to have certain regulations over how businesses and people conduct themselves. Nor can I see a problem with having those who have a nice disposable income doling out more in regards to infrastructure. Isn't genuine fascism actually pretty keen on letting businesses do what they like too? |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 25, 2011 9:05:57 GMT -5
Nice assertion. At no point have provided any evidence that they are even different. seeks a classes and stateless society where there is common ownership and free access to goods. Socialism seek common or state ownership which are co-operative managed. |
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Jun 25, 2011 11:51:13 GMT -5
I hope this doesn't cause more confusion, but here's what I've learned about communism/socialism/fascism/libertarianism and the way the words are used in a political science context: Communism is authoritarian left. Socialism is libertarian left. Fascism is authoritarian right. Libertarianism is libertarian right. Under a right system high production is the priority, and under a left system high average living standards are the priority. ---------------------------------- Now I'm going to explain about capital C Communism, small c communism, and their relationship with socialism. Why? Because I'm bored and feel like writing it, and it seems slightly relevant to the current conversation: Firstly some definitionsSocialist utopia - A society where everyone has guaranteed access to high quality food, housing, education, medical care, etc, and the state is either minimal or non-existent. Capitalism - A system where most things are privately owned and treated as commodities; they are bought and sold with each person aiming to maximize their personal profit. Now back to communism. Capital C Communism is the final stage of civilization as imagined by Marx and Engels. Basically, a world-wide socialist utopia is achieved through simultaneous popular-revolutions in all capitalist societies. These revolutions are supposedly the inevitable results of capitalism, which constantly widens the wealth gap between the working and ruling classes. A small c communist also wants a socialist utopia. They think this can be achieved by a small group of communists taking control in a single society, and then holding onto power by any means, while forcing the society to build a local utopia. This is what existed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union until recently. The problem was that holding onto power was so difficult that it become the main focus, and the goal of utopia was forgotten. A socialist is anyone who wishes to create a socialist utopia, regardless of how this utopia is to be created. So all C/communists are socialists, but most socialists are not C/communists. Both forms of C/communism have been discredited. Capital C Communism because revolutions have hardly ever occurred in developed capitalist societies, and because most of the older capitalist systems (the European ones) are actually closing the wealth gap rather than widening it and collapsing into revolution. Small c communism was a clear failure; the ruling parties made no progress towards socialist utopia, and ended up as stagnant police states waiting to be overthrown. The main current form of socialism is democratic socialism, which can sort of be equated with American liberalism. Under this system a socialist utopia is to be achieved within a democratic-capitalist system. C/communists would say that achieving a socialist utopia is impossible so long as any aspect of capitalism exists. Democratic socialists would tell them to look at northern Europe, where the main aspects of utopia (minus the non-existent state) coexist with democratic-capitalism. All information referenced from "The Rise & Fall of Communism" by A. Brown, published in 2009 by Vintage Books, London.---------------------------------- Sorry if that was too long and/or pointless. I hope someone found it interesting... |
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Jun 25, 2011 12:05:50 GMT -5
Okay. I see it now. It is why there has been a rise in something more than just a "left-right" paradigm. It's only handy for Republicans because they would, in fact, be fascist if they were given free reign because they love passing punitive laws and building jails. On the other hand, they would prefer to let businesses do as they please, which is, in fact, a libertarian directive. And because of that, we have a mixed up paradigm where the Democrats are regarded as liberal, when they're in favor of having more government regulation, but (at least claim) they would prefer to keep out of people's private lives. And while socialism is a step in the road to communism, I can't see how terrible it is to have certain regulations over how businesses and people conduct themselves. Nor can I see a problem with having those who have a nice disposable income doling out more in regards to infrastructure. Isn't genuine fascism actually pretty keen on letting businesses do what they like too? You're correct about that, my mistake. Shadoom, however, has certainly made an excellent explanation and it clears things up nicely, and to avoid further confusion, I'll leave it there. |
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jun 25, 2011 13:37:52 GMT -5
As I've pointed out above, the 'political spectrum' is bullshit. So I am not a moderate? My personal beliefs don't fall somewhere between James Carvell and Ann Coulter (if we assume she is serious and not just doing it for the money)? This is interesting. I have some soul searching to do. |
|
