|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 26, 2011 6:12:13 GMT -5
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. I'm going to make a counter-argument, but it will take some time. Before then, I'd like to make the ever-slightly snarky comment that your argument shows exactly how ignorant about virtually everything m52nickerson is. Which is hilarious, in light of his huge self-confidence and contempt for everyone else's intelligence. Monkton/Tea Party levels of ignorance/confidence divergence, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 26, 2011 10:01:37 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? 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. There are more then two versions of socialism and socialistic systems. Notice the word Socialistic, meaning system that share some ideals with socialism. They do not have to be anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist. Just because you have a system that has a whole lot in common with Socialism but has some private owner ship and markets, does not mean that system is pro-capitalist. Markets does not equal capitalism. Yes markets are part of capitalistic systems, but that does not mean they make any system they are found it capitalism. Oh, and just like systems, not all Socialist are the same. Nor do they all share the same beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 26, 2011 10:10:13 GMT -5
I'm going to make a counter-argument, but it will take some time. Before then, I'd like to make the ever-slightly snarky comment that your argument shows exactly how ignorant about virtually everything m52nickerson is. Which is hilarious, in light of his huge self-confidence and contempt for everyone else's intelligence. Monkton/Tea Party levels of ignorance/confidence divergence, I think. Coming from a person who has arguments he does not understand quoted in his signature, I take this as a complement. .....you still make me smile! |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 26, 2011 10:23:35 GMT -5
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 would agree calling some socialist parties liberals might be closer to the mark. In time that might happen. Right now they are still not seen as such. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 26, 2011 12:55:00 GMT -5
False dichotomy on aisle 5, next to the ltfreds! What's the third option? Neutrality. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jun 27, 2011 4:31:10 GMT -5
There are two types of government intervention, pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist. There are two kinds of people, those who wear white socks and those who wear black socks. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 27, 2011 5:41:42 GMT -5
Do you really think that socialists don't have some ideas about the nature of the economy? I think neutrality is a bit unlikely for an ideology that is, you know, explicitly based on economics. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 27, 2011 5:48:13 GMT -5
There are two types of government intervention, pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist. There are two kinds of people, those who wear white socks and those who wear black socks. Potentially there might be more than two fundamentally different views of capitalism. But, potentially, there might only be two ideas about it. There are some things where there are a limited number of catagories. Either you're pregnant or not. If you can suggest that there are more than three (I accepted neutrality as a possible view an ideology might have, but I don't think socialists are neutral about economics) ways of thinking about capitalism, feel free to suggest them. But, until then, there are just three I can think of. |
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Jun 27, 2011 5:50:15 GMT -5
Socialism is not based on economics.
It is based on living standards holding precedent over everything else.
The only form of socialism that explicitly references economics is Communism, and in the modern world that is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 27, 2011 6:00:02 GMT -5
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. Well, okay. The German social Democratic Party is a real split group within Marxism- but they're nothing at all like the Swedes or the Democrats. And they didn't want to 'mix' capitalism and socialism (as I've pointed out, this is a contradiction in terms, like mixing pregnancy and not pregnancy). What the Social Democrats and liberals disagree about is the ends. Social Democrats and Marxists and Anarchists agree on the ends, but liberals disagree. The socialists want socialism*, the liberals want a liberal state ^. The way the socialists want to achieve that is where they disagree; most Marxists want to blow up the state and capitalism with, you know, bombs. But the Social Democrats wanted (they're not socialist any more) to blow it up by using parliament, gradually, building public support and so on. Not quickly, revolutionarily, sharply. But they're still not liberals. Parliamentary capitalism is acceptable only as a mid-point before socialism and then communism. * Zero unemployment, equality, classes or parliamentary democracy. * A capitalist economy which is as efficient and prosperous as possible regulated by an elected parliamentary state. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 27, 2011 6:03:25 GMT -5
Socialism is not based on economics. It is based on living standards holding precedent over everything else. The only form of socialism that explicitly references economics is Communism, and in the modern world that is irrelevant. Well, that's just bullshit. Socialists do have ideas about the economy. They do want maximum efficiency, prosperity, ect- but they think that can be best achieved in a socialist economy*. 'Living standards' are an objective of, not an alternative to, socialist ideas about economics. Saying that socialists don't care about the economy, just living standards, is like saying liberals don't care about the economy, just the GDP growth rate. * With no inequality, ect. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 27, 2011 6:08:15 GMT -5
I'm going to make a counter-argument, but it will take some time. Before then, I'd like to make the ever-slightly snarky comment that your argument shows exactly how ignorant about virtually everything m52nickerson is. Which is hilarious, in light of his huge self-confidence and contempt for everyone else's intelligence. Monkton/Tea Party levels of ignorance/confidence divergence, I think. Coming from a person who has arguments he does not understand quoted in his signature Oh, I understand your rationalisations. The government is above the law, because I really, really want it to be and if I screw up my eyes really hard, it's not an obvious undermining of the system everyone else relies on for certainty. |
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Jun 27, 2011 6:29:57 GMT -5
No, social democrats who want to create socialism through democratic means, and other such as Fabian socialists, are socialists, but they are not Marxist. Marxists are mainly separated from these groups through the idea of revolution (not necessarily violent, but in likelihood, it will be). One can be communist but not Marxist. And then Marxism-Leninism brings in the idea of a vanguard party.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 27, 2011 7:13:04 GMT -5
No, social democrats who want to create socialism through democratic means, and other such as Fabian socialists, are socialists, but they are not Marxist. Marxists are mainly separated from these groups through the idea of revolution (not necessarily violent, but in likelihood, it will be). One can be communist but not Marxist. And then Marxism-Leninism brings in the idea of a vanguard party. Sure. But the social Democrats were in fact revisionist Marxists. That's who I was talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 27, 2011 9:20:07 GMT -5
Oh, I understand your rationalisations. The government is above the law, because I really, really want it to be and if I screw up my eyes really hard, it's not an obvious undermining of the system everyone else relies on for certainty. Yup, still don't understand.......because different, obviously means above. Lets get back to the subject at hand. So you can't mix socialism and capitalism, yet mixed economies exist all over? I know you are going to say they are capitalistic systems. Why? Why are those systems, or any system that does not fall into you very limited definition of socialism, capitalistic? It just sounds like to me you are arguing that most systems are capitalistic because you want them to be. |
|
