|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 20:27:09 GMT -5
In other words, Marx has not control or say on how his ideas are defined today. Marx believed what I say he believed Trolling, in other words. In fact, Marx preempted this. Seeing the party platform of a French 'Marxist' party, he declared "I am not a Marxist". You might also say that he said "I am not a socialist (as M52nickerson has defined the word)". In other words, you still need to show that major philosopher who doesn't exist. Or you might show polling data of socialists that say that socialism is pro-capitalist- polling data that doesn't exist. And you'd need to explain that major split in anti-capitalism, where half the anti-capitalists turned into pro-capitalists. Of course, you'd need to provide more evidence of the split- a split that didn't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 25, 2011 20:33:14 GMT -5
It's impossible to talk about the ideologies of everyone- there are too many. By that logic, it's useless to talk about the ideologies of the big name philosophers, since everyone who follows them is going to have a slightly different take on the ideology. This is all very interesting, but, I think, off topic. The way political scientists study ideologies is by looking at the writings of the people who wrote them*. Maybe that's broken, maybe it isn't. But that's the way it is. *That's actually why it's so tricky to define fascism. There's no fascist Das Kapital as Mein Kampf wasn't really an effective statement of philosophy, and Mussolini was inconsistent. So political scientists are left studying speeches and practice, which is much harder. |
|
|
|
Post by John E on Jun 25, 2011 22:00:09 GMT -5
By that logic, it's useless to talk about the ideologies of the big name philosophers, since everyone who follows them is going to have a slightly different take on the ideology. This is all very interesting, but, I think, off topic. The way political scientists study ideologies is by looking at the writings of the people who wrote them*. Maybe that's broken, maybe it isn't. But that's the way it is. That's fine for political scientists, but I thought we were talking about real-world applications. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 25, 2011 22:33:11 GMT -5
Trolling, in other words. In fact, Marx preempted this. Seeing the party platform of a French 'Marxist' party, he declared "I am not a Marxist". You might also say that he said "I am not a socialist (as M52nickerson has defined the word)". In other words, you still need to show that major philosopher who doesn't exist. Or you might show polling data of socialists that say that socialism is pro-capitalist- polling data that doesn't exist. And you'd need to explain that major split in anti-capitalism, where half the anti-capitalists turned into pro-capitalists. Of course, you'd need to provide more evidence of the split- a split that didn't happen. Holy lead Batman, are you dense! I never said socialism is pro-capitalist. I know arguing with what you want me to be saying is easier, but damn at least try. I have been talking about different socialist systems. Not pure socialism. Political and economic systems are not set in stone. You may think they are, but then again that is what talking to you is like, talking to a rock. .......or talking to a book, no mater what I say you still say the same thing. By taking parts of Socialism and parts of Capitalism you can get systems such as Market Socialism, or the Nordic Model, or the numerous other mixed system. Those systems are considered by the rest of the world Socialistic type systems. It does not matter what Marx would think. I'm sure he would not like them, or consider them part of Socialism, but he does not have to. Oh, and it is not my definition. I posted a link and so did Oriet in this thread. That is 2-0 buddy. |
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Jun 25, 2011 22:52:15 GMT -5
The objectives of what is called democratic socialism is not to achieve socialism- a classless, near-stateless society. That's not the idea. The currently-existing system of 'democratic socialism' in Sweden and such is the end, not the means. And the end certainly is not socialism; Sweden has poverty, currency, classes, authority, a state- things that socialists want to destroy. So 'democratic socialists' aren't. They're just liberals. Their aim is to create to closest thing to socialism possible in a democratic-capitalist context. It doesn't matter that their equal faith in capitalism and democracy makes socialism impossible. Socialism is one of their aspirations, therefore they are socialists. Democracy is also one of their aspirations, therefore they are also democrats. Hence, democratic-socialism. And what they have created is the closest thing that's ever existed to a socialist utopia. So going by how close they have come to the end goal, they are better socialists than any other kind. |
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jun 25, 2011 23:05:19 GMT -5
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. Ideas don't have a geography. I don't know where geography based on a political spectrum (which you claimed to be bullshit) came into play here, but, um, ok? |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 26, 2011 1:32:05 GMT -5
Trolling, in other words. In fact, Marx preempted this. Seeing the party platform of a French 'Marxist' party, he declared "I am not a Marxist". You might also say that he said "I am not a socialist (as M52nickerson has defined the word)". In other words, you still need to show that major philosopher who doesn't exist. Or you might show polling data of socialists that say that socialism is pro-capitalist- polling data that doesn't exist. And you'd need to explain that major split in anti-capitalism, where half the anti-capitalists turned into pro-capitalists. Of course, you'd need to provide more evidence of the split- a split that didn't happen. Holy lead Batman, are you dense! I never said socialism is pro-capitalist. Either socialists want to make capitalism more efficient or they want to destroy capitalism. Either they're anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist. Which are they? There are two types of socialism; authoritarian (where you blow up the market now but leave the government for a while) and libertarian (where you blow up both at the same time). Which one were you talking about? But if you believe that socialism is now a pro-capitalist ideology (a change that would be akin to conservatism now being an ideology calling for revolutionary change) you'd need to prove this, with either historical data and polling or some written political philosophy. You can't just make assertions, you need to prove your claims. I of course, do not need to prove my claim. Nobody ever needs to prove the null hypothesis (because it's often impossible). In this case, the null is that socialism has just remained reasonably the same as Marx wrote it, with no massive flip towards becoming it's opposite. Neither of which are even remotely socialist. Neither of them are designed to bring socialism*. The most obvious thing, though, is that the Nords have a market, private ownership of capital, ect- meaning that they aren't socialist. Now, it's possible that modern socialism is the opposite of early socialism (pro, rather than anti-capitalist). But you'd need to prove that. * A state without government, authority, classes or inequality. In other words, socialism means what non-socialists mean, not what socialists say it means. Well, hey. That's great. Conservatism is now defined as paedophilia, and liberalism is child-care. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 26, 2011 1:40:26 GMT -5
Ideas don't have a geography. I don't know where geography based on a political spectrum (which you claimed to be bullshit) came into play here, but, um, ok? A 'moderate' or 'centrist' belief isn't. Ideas don't have a geography. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 26, 2011 3:21:08 GMT -5
Holy lead Batman, are you dense! I never said socialism is pro-capitalist. Either socialists want to make capitalism more efficient or they want to destroy capitalism. Either they're anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist. Which are they? False dichotomy on aisle 5, next to the ltfreds! Coming from you, that's rich ;D |
|
|
|
Post by dharmicdalek on Jun 26, 2011 3:48:48 GMT -5
I'm going to make a retarded comment so bare with me.
I am going to make the argument that China has basically defaulted into Quasi-Fascism after it went corporate. What the hell is Marxism with a profit motive? Considering how they treat minority ethic groups I think it is fairly save to assume a basic fascist motive of regulating the economy but for greater state profit and state betterment rather then equality of the masses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 26, 2011 5:17:15 GMT -5
Either socialists want to make capitalism more efficient or they want to destroy capitalism. Either they're anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist. Which are they? False dichotomy on aisle 5, next to the ltfreds! What's the third option? You know, Hitler asked people to provide evidence for their claims too. ltfred sees social democrats and revisionist democratic socialists as liberals and not socialists because they have abandoned the idea that public ownership of the means of production is necessary to achieve economic equality. This, I think, is a fair argument, although I disagree with the idea that ownership of the means of production essentializes socialism as a philosophy. I think he is incorrect to assert that there was no pro-capitalist/ anti-capitalist schism in radical political philosophy. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jun 26, 2011 5:17:22 GMT -5
Either socialists want to make capitalism more efficient or they want to destroy capitalism. Either they're anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist. Which are they? Social Democrats want to regulate, limit and/or influence the market in some areas where it is (acc. to their opinion) needed, and leave it otherwise. Can you stuff this in one of the boxes 'pro-capitalist' or 'anti-capitalist'? If you hit it with a hammer, yes. Is it helping understanding and discussion to do so, or does it represent their stance faithfully? No. In other words, hell of a false dichotomy. |
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 26, 2011 5:35:53 GMT -5
Either socialists want to make capitalism more efficient or they want to destroy capitalism. Either they're anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist. Which are they? Social Democrats want to regulate, limit and/or influence the market in some areas where it is (acc. to their opinion) needed, and leave it otherwise. Can you stuff this in one of the boxes 'pro-capitalist' or 'anti-capitalist'? If you hit it with a hammer, yes. Is it helping understanding and discussion to do so, or does it represent their stance faithfully? No. In other words, hell of a false dichotomy. The objection I would raise is that neither the Social Democrats nor any other center-left movement seek a transfer of ownership of the means of production to the public (except, I presume, in certain rare cases). Instead, they seek to limit what can be done with the means of production that currently exist, regardless of who owns them. The actions are plainly consistent with capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 26, 2011 5:48:10 GMT -5
I'm going to make a retarded comment so bare with me. I am going to make the argument that China has basically defaulted into Quasi-Fascism after it went corporate. What the hell is Marxism with a profit motive? Considering how they treat minority ethic groups I think it is fairly save to assume a basic fascist motive of regulating the economy but for greater state profit and state betterment rather then equality of the masses. Crony capitalism, at it's worst. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 26, 2011 6:04:10 GMT -5
Either socialists want to make capitalism more efficient or they want to destroy capitalism. Either they're anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist. Which are they? Social Democrats want to regulate, limit and/or influence the market in some areas where it is (acc. to their opinion) needed, and leave it otherwise. Can you stuff this in one of the boxes 'pro-capitalist' or 'anti-capitalist'? If you hit it with a hammer, yes. Is it helping understanding and discussion to do so, or does it represent their stance faithfully? No. In other words, hell of a false dichotomy. There are two types of government intervention, pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist. Look at it through the prism of banking regulation. Government regulation can be designed to destroy the market; banks can all be nationalised, on the basis that capitalism is bad and should be gotten rid of. Or regulation can be designed to make capitalism work better- by preventing banks from over-lending, acting irresponsibly or defrauding people- on the basis that capitalism is good and should be preserved and that these things are threats to it. Keynesianism/New Deal theory gives a really good example of this in practice. The idea is to reduce poverty, unemployment, hunger and so on in order to curtail revolutionary sentiment among the poor or unemployed. The idea behind the regulation is pro-capitalist, not anti-capitalist. |
|
