|
|
Post by largeham on Jun 27, 2011 9:23:51 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. I wouldn't really call them revisionist, unless you would call Keynesians revisionist classicists. 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. Lol, what? Economics is about how resources should be distributed to achieve the highest level of living standards, any economic system is hinged on this basis, then come the arguments over who benefits, what to produce, etc. Therefore, all economics is about living standards taking precedent, because that's all there is. Also, how is communism irrelevant? |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jun 27, 2011 11:18:48 GMT -5
ltfred, where would you place someone who wants a minimally regulated market for ... let's say, consumer electronics (regulations about safety or recycling, that sort of things, but no price restrictions), and one nation-wide, more-or-less compulsory, public health insurance, in your pro-/anti-capitalist dichotomy?
|
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jun 27, 2011 12:44:55 GMT -5
ltfred, where would you place someone who wants a minimally regulated market for ... let's say, consumer electronics (regulations about safety or recycling, that sort of things, but no price restrictions), and one nation-wide, more-or-less compulsory, public health insurance, in your pro-/anti-capitalist dichotomy? I would guess as a pro-capitalist because it contains capitalist elements. Of course, the fact that it also contains socialist elements, and it therefore also anti-capitalist (by his definition) can be safely disregarded. Of course, what I find most amusing is that the opinions of millions of people who vote for pro-mixed market socialist parties can also be disregarded because nobody has written a book or policy paper that ltfred approves of. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 27, 2011 12:57:08 GMT -5
Or perhaps it's pro-socialist whilst also being anti-socialist?
This is basically a 9 page argument about semantics. A mixed market economy is what it is, regardless of whether you call it pro-capitalist, anti-capitalist, or a duck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 27, 2011 16:16:46 GMT -5
Or perhaps it's pro-socialist whilst also being anti-socialist? This is basically a 9 page argument about semantics. A mixed market economy is what it is, regardless of whether you call it pro-capitalist, anti-capitalist, or a duck. Right. Of course, we all know that mixed market economies don't exist, just like platypuses don't exist  |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 27, 2011 17:50:54 GMT -5
Sure. But the social Democrats were in fact revisionist Marxists. That's who I was talking about. I wouldn't really call them revisionist, unless you would call Keynesians revisionist classicists. They were, contemporarily, called revisionists, right or wrong. It'd be interesting to call Keynesians 'revisionist Smithites'. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 27, 2011 18:09:51 GMT -5
ltfred, where would you place someone who wants a minimally regulated market for ... let's say, consumer electronics (regulations about safety or recycling, that sort of things, but no price restrictions), and one nation-wide, more-or-less compulsory, public health insurance, in your pro-/anti-capitalist dichotomy? I would guess as a pro-capitalist because it contains capitalist elements. Of course, the fact that it also contains socialist elements, Bullshit. A regulated capitalist system is the opposite of socialism, not the same. Let's look at the slander-socialist ideas. Is it not socialist to ban a limited number of markets. The purpose is not to end capitalism, but to make it better. Markets like the bribary markt, the dangerous drug market and th fraudulent advertising markets are banned with the intention of improving capitalism- in fact, if they weren't, capitalism basically couldn't exist. Markets were banned before the invention of socialism. It is not socialist for the government to provide services. Governments have always and must always provide services. The existence of a government that does it's job is not socialist, any more than it is fascist. Claiming a working government as socialist is a slander both on liberalism and socialism, and wrong. The socialist idea is that capitalism is inherently bad and must be gotton rid of. Zero liberals believe this. People do not mix that idea with a capitalist system. The parties you mean* aren't socialist. They're just liberal. Its really easy to work out. Al you have to do is ask them 'do you want a classles, stateless, fully employed society (socialism)'. When every elcted official of every slander-socialist party anwers no, you have your answer. * US Democrats, Swedish Democratic Worker's Party, British or Australian Labour/Labor, ect. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 27, 2011 18:10:19 GMT -5
ltfred, where would you place someone who wants a minimally regulated market for ... let's say, consumer electronics (regulations about safety or recycling, that sort of things, but no price restrictions), and one nation-wide, more-or-less compulsory, public health insurance, in your pro-/anti-capitalist dichotomy? Capitalist. You haven't blown up the entire market, which the socialist idea, so you're a liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 27, 2011 18:11:13 GMT -5
Or perhaps it's pro-socialist whilst also being anti-socialist? This is basically a 9 page argument about semantics. A mixed market economy is what it is, regardless of whether you call it pro-capitalist, anti-capitalist, or a duck. Sure thing, boss, but vy a duck? |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 27, 2011 18:19:22 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. In this case, you clearly mean that government officials must not be subject to any laws. Socialism is either a state of anarchy or people advocating that state. Capitalism is the modern market-based, government-regulated, trade-based and advanced system of economy. You can't mix those two. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 27, 2011 18:20:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 27, 2011 18:25:11 GMT -5
In this case, you clearly mean that government officials must not be subject to any laws. Buzzzzz.....please try again! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SocialismYour totally and absolutely wrong on what Socialism is, thanks for playing. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 27, 2011 18:57:29 GMT -5
What's called 'market socialism' either isn't capitalism or isn't socialism. There're two types. Proudhon suggested a market system (but not a capitalist system) as an effective mechanism for an anarchistic, socialist society to use to allocate resources. That is indeed how the Spanish worked their anarchistic system. The other is just liberalism- a capitalist system with a market and government ownership of industry. Or government prce-setting. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 27, 2011 19:03:36 GMT -5
What's called 'market socialism' either isn't capitalism or isn't socialism. It is a mix, under the flag of socialism. That is the point. Again it does not matter what someone wrote, or suggested years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Jun 27, 2011 19:13:19 GMT -5
I wouldn't really call them revisionist, unless you would call Keynesians revisionist classicists. They were, contemporarily, called revisionists, right or wrong. It'd be interesting to call Keynesians 'revisionist Smithites'. I see, though it seems after 1927 it just became a term for the Trotskyists and Stalinists to insult each other with. When uni starts, I'll ask some people what they think about 'revisionist Smithites/classicists'. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SocialismYour totally and absolutely wrong on what Socialism is, thanks for playing. [/quote] I'm going to have to agree with nickerson, communism is a state of anarchy, not socialism. This 'ideology'/system seems to have come from anarchists (Proudhon, etc). I would not call it socialism because it doesn't remove capitalism. So this comes down to whether you believe socialism is anti-capitalist or not. I would say it is, considering that the two founders of modern communist thought (I say modern, just to distinguish them from Babeuf or the Gracchi), Marx and Engels, were vehemently anti-capitalist, also the last major Marxist revolution, the Russian, as was anti-capitalist. I hesitate to call other 'communist revolutions' (China and Cuba) that, but that's another debate. |
|
