Socialism

[Peregrinator]

The give us a better word.

As I pointed out, it doesn't matter what word you use, there's enough leeway in the interpretation of the definition that everyone of that ilk has deniable plausibility. Is "The Politic of Altruism" an acceptable substitute, for that which we discuss is the purview of the social and economic moral busybodies of anti-Capitalism and Liberalism.

How about "pinkocommiedoodyhead?" You might as well use something that silly. A more mature approach would be to look at what you're trying to name, then find a word that describes it, rather than using "socialist" as some sort of catch-all "you like something I don't like" term.

There's an example up there, provided by you. I made the link between anarchist and libertarian, and asked you where the line is drawn. You provided quotes and a sentence that showed me the answer. Good. Now I know what you mean by "libertarian" as opposed to "anarchist." This entire thread is me trying to get someone to do that with the word "socialist." Every definition I looked up online--most of them posted in the first page or two of the thread--mentioned government control of the means of production," or something similar, generally even more expansive. Yet you apply the word to me. This is not justifiable, as I do not advocate such government control.

This is not me "parsing" or squirming to avoid being called a socialist. This is me trying to understand why a simple word describing one of the most prominent political doctrines in history has been used so broadly, primarily by the right as a slur.

If by "socialist" you mean someone who holds all my positions, then great, I am one. But you're the only person on the planet who thinks that's what it means. I think we've posted together often enough that you should be able to see that the scope of my beliefs does not at all resemble socialism.

 

[Peregrinator]

So too, do you, it's just the degree of which gives you a false sense of superiority and I am tired of having this slander hurled at me unless I am wrong in your position so let's find out.

Can a woman chose to have an abortion right up to the minute before the baby crowns, and then it must be killed lest you be telling her what she can do "with her uterus (Gawd, what disgusting phraseology)" while we at once tell her she cannot sell her kidney or liver? Or, do you to, think that at some arbitrary point that you can begin to tell her what to do with her uterus, and if so, then do we not share the same position, only with differing time lines?

Sure we do. We also believe in government intervention with slightly differing parameters. So what?

I don't think, as an aside, that my phraseology is as disgusting as "baby-killer" and its ilk.

 

[Peregrinator]

"What your whole post fails completely to address is that there's the same amount of parsing available to you; where's the line between "good" and "bad" government intervention? Once we start eliminating government, how do we know where to stop?"


"[W]hat limits ought to be set to the activity of the state," is "that the provision of security, against both external enemies and internal dissensions must constitute the purpose of the state, and occupy the circle of its activity."
Wilhelm von Humboldt

"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."
Adam Smith

Self-defense against enemies of the state and a sound legal structure that addresses actual wrong, not a government that tries to anticipate wrongs.

This post is worth a whole thread or three. Thank you for it. I think where we differ is that I think that "wrongs" can be foreseen in many instances. That's why we have speed limits, laws about toxic substances, laws against ownership of nuclear materials, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Peregrinator]

I think you anarchists are more ignorant of the definitions of "socialist" and "progressive" than you think we are about "libertarian."

This is too easy.

 

[Liar]

There's an example up there, provided by you. I made the link between anarchist and libertarian, and asked you where the line is drawn. You provided quotes and a sentence that showed me the answer. Good. Now I know what you mean by "libertarian" as opposed to "anarchist." This entire thread is me trying to get someone to do that with the word "socialist." Every definition I looked up online--most of them posted in the first page or two of the thread--mentioned government control of the means of production," or something similar, generally even more expansive. Yet you apply the word to me. This is not justifiable, as I do not advocate such government control.

Problem there is that "government control" can also be liberally intepreted. Are you in favor of some level of regulation, to prevent corporations from misbehaving? If you are, you can bet someone will come along and say "See? Control!"

 

[off2bed]

How about the Federal government telling a private company they can't build a plant in South Carolina because it won't employ union laborers?

 

[Peregrinator]

Problem there is that "government control" can also be liberally intepreted. Are you in favor of some level of regulation, to prevent corporations from misbehaving? If you are, you can bet someone will come along and say "See? Control!"

How about the Federal government telling a private company they can't build a plant in South Carolina because it won't employ union laborers?

Lmao...

 

[JenAltArmy]

Jenin is an idiot... there's no rhyme or reason to it.

Jane you ignorant welfare slut, oh sorry Richard you ignorant welfare whore.

 

[badbabysitter]

Jane you ignorant welfare slut, oh sorry Richard you ignorant welfare whore.

pssst... the real jenn is back


you're going to have to drop schtick now

 

[JenAltArmy]

pssst... the real jenn is back


you're going to have to drop schtick now

why, we need more people like us, that don't tollerate the crap ozing out of obama.

the question is why more "conservatives" don't post. is it cuz the left here are on a porn web site and doing little damange in the real world, therefore allow the left wing nuts to play in the zoo (to coin a term from Jen)?

or because most of the left are so crazy, that there is no point to ask you kids questions and debate?

 

[badbabysitter]

blah balh blah blah?

No, I mean seriously..drop it.. no one cares...you did a great impression of her.. but face it, you're even stupider then her on political issues


leave it to the big kids , okay?

 

[Liar]

Lmao...

It's pavlovian, I tell you.

 

[JenAltArmy]

No, I mean seriously..drop it.. no one cares...you did a great impression of her.. but face it, you're even stupider then her on political issues


leave it to the big kids , okay?

do you wear a helmet when typing?

seriously, do you?

you get called out on your B.S. all the time, yet you brush off the dirty and keep on trying. Why is that? insane (holding the belief that the same action will have different results)?

 

[badbabysitter]

do you wear a helmet when typing?

seriously, do you?

you get called out on your B.S. all the time, yet you brush off the dirty and keep on trying. Why is that? insane (holding the belief that the same action will have different results)?

Please show me the examples of me being called out for my BS?

and if you bring up Cade.. you're even stupider then you appear to be

 

[Sean Renaud]

Seriously alt. The real Jen is here. You have to leave because too retards can't occupy the same space and really we like her better.

 

[JenAltArmy]

Seriously alt. The real Jen is here. You have to leave because too retards can't occupy the same space and really we like her better.

life can suck some time, just like your pay check. deal with it

 

[Luk]

Please show me the examples of me being called out for my BS?

and if you bring up Cade.. you're even stupider then you appear to be

Why do constantly talk to these fucktards? You just become as annoying as them and worthy of iggy.

Seriously alt. The real Jen is here. You have to leave because too retards can't occupy the same space and really we like her better.

Classic.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't give to shits about my brain fart! Your being mean Luke!

And I don't get a pay check Alt. Haven't for years so yeah I guess it would suck if I got one but still.

 

[Peregrinator]

It's pavlovian, I tell you.

I'll bet they even salivate.

 

[JenAltArmy]

Why do constantly talk to these fucktards? You just become as annoying as them and worthy of iggy.



Classic.

speaking of fuck tards, there you are! the queen amoung all tards.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's because since 1880, it (assuming one can actually treat Europe as a block of similar states, possibly a bad assumption) keeps trying to turn hard Left and every time it does economic reality forces it back to the right as it descends either into inflation, war, or both.

Well, there you are. A little socialism does not lead to a lot of socialism. And at present, a little socialism leads not at all to war.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I think you socialists are more ignorant of the definitions of "libertarian" and "anarchist" than you think we are about "socialist."

Libertarians are ideological descendants of 19th-Century Liberals, or "Classical Liberals"; those nowadays are influenced by more recent thinkers such as Hayek, Mises, Friedman, and Rand (although Rand's reputation is controversial even among Libertarians, and for some reason she never approved of the Libertarian Party). The modern movement under the name "Libertarian" is essentially an American phenomenon (though it has had some presence an other countries); and it is no coincidence that Liberalism in the old sense also has antecedents in the Lockean political culture of the Founders. It is worth pointing out here that this branch of "Liberalism" has grown more extreme along its defining lines in the years since it split off from what is called "Liberalism" in contemporary American usage (which also has its antecedents in the Founders' time*; and which is distinguishable both from "progressive" or "social-democratic" politics and from "socialist" politics, each of which is also distinguishable from the other, but that's another discussion). There are many modern Libertarians who are, at least IMO, far more fiercely anti-statist than was, say, John Stuart Mill. In some cases it's hard to tell them from Anarchists; but their backstory -- historical, cultural, and intellectual -- is very different.

Anarchists are ideological descendants of early-19th-Century leftists (including Proudhon and Bakunin), roughly contemporary with Marx. Anarchists have a lot of common ground with Marxists and some self-ID as Marxists; but, from the beginning, Anarchists have regarded the state -- always a ruling-class instrument of rule, or in modern times, as Marx put it, "the salaried managers of the bourgeoisie" -- as the core of the problem of class exploitation, and the essential first target for abolition.

A core difference between Libertarians and Anarchists is the kind of socioeconomic system they have in mind: Libertarians dream of capitalism, with drastically less state interference, regulation and taxation, and with drastically fewer state subsidies or sweetheart contracts, to the extent a pared-down low-tax government would be capable of dispensing such. In Libertopia -- I presume -- wide disparities in individual wealth/income would be unremarkable and unremarked on, and "social class" a concept with little relevance even to academics. Whether big business would still be around depends on whether, as I have heard a Libertarian argue, "the Corporation is a creature of the State"; it is legally, but the question is whether the elimination or drastic reduction of the state would destroy the business corporations, or free them to grow even larger and more powerful, or something in between. But, for Libertarians, as I understand it, in this regard the results are not ideologically crucial, not really the point of Liberty, (which is its own point, as it were); as with much else, they'll deregulate, etc., and then just let what happens happen. What matters most is that the state should not be a problem.

Anarchists, OTOH -- most of them -- dream of an egalitarian-collectivist economy/society, but without state economic control. In most variants of their vision, the economic units are to be self-organized cooperatives, independent of the capitalists and independent of the state. There are some actual instances in history where this has been tried; none was allowed to last long enough to really show what it could or could not do.

While the Spanish Civil War was going on, there was also, in many parts of the country which the Republic controlled (or, at any rate, which the Nationalists did not control), something called the Spanish Revolution, which was essentially an Anarcho-Syndicalist** revolution. (Anarcho-Syndicalists fly a flag combining Communist red with Anarchist black.) The workers took control of the factories -- for real -- and the peasants took over the landlords' estates and they ran everything co-op style and issued their own ration coupons as money.*** All this was done independently of the direction (and without the permission) of the state. The system actually seemed to work pretty well, while it lasted. However, the faction or constellation of factions in control of the Republic was actually more in line with Stalinism, with its model of revolutionary socialism/communism (i.e., until the future Millennium of "communism" arrives we shall have "socialism," in which the State owns and manages the economy and the Party controls the State; think of the Anarchists, by contrast, as wanting to and actually trying to skip all that and jump straight to the punchline, as it were). More importantly, the government needed Stalin's material support to fight Franco -- and Stalin, as a, you know, Stalinist, did not like this Spanish Revolution one little bit. So, the Spanish Revolution was squashed by the Republic. And, not long after, the Republic was squashed by Franco, so it goes. ****

See also the Soviets, the self-organized workers' councils, independent of management, of the state, and of any political party, that emerged in Russia after the 1905 Revolution. We associate the word "soviet" ("council" -- related to the Russian verb sovyetovat', "to advise") with Stalinism, but in its original form it was really kinda Anarcho-Syndicalist. A Soviet of this period was as if a labor union local, instead of demanding concessions from management, demanded to be management, and tried to act as if it were management, and -- commanding the actual loyalty of and including the participation of the workers -- sometimes was able to make that stick. In 1917, Lenin and the Bolsheviks came to power on the slogan "All Power to the Soviets!" -- but, in the event, all the Soviets were turned into instruments of Party rule. The Bolsheviks'/Communists' basic organizational principle was democratic centralism, which was kinda-sorta-in-certain-aspects-arguably democratic and very-definitely-emphatically-make-no-mistake-about-it centralized.

Whether the ultimate tendency of the Paris Commune was what would later be called Anarchist or Stalinist or merely social-democratic is imponderable; only lasted a few months, and in this instance the RW, not the LW, squashed it.

The one significant Anarcho-Syndicalist movement in American history was the Industrial Workers of the World, or "Wobblies." They still exist, though they haven't made the news much since the Palmer Raids (1920).

A really good source on all this is the TVTropes Useful Notes page on Political Ideologies, which devotes at least six pages to variants of Anarchism alone.*****



* As discussed by Michael Lind, "Is It OK To Be Liberal Again, Instead of Progressive?" (2008)

** Fascism also has variants that can be called, or call themselves, "syndicalist" -- see the Spanish Fascists or Falangists. Franco's regime (in which the Falangists did not rule, but were included) experimented with the "vertical trade union" and similar somewhat-syndicalist ideas until 1959 when Spain, under significant U.S. and IMF pressure, went free-market (by European standards), where it remains today, despite its current ruling party being something calling itself the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party.

*** I already told you, we're an Anarcho-Syndicalist commune! We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week . . .

**** Fuck Hemingway, a really good source (to the extent a first-person account of a war can be) on the Spanish Civil War and the Spanish Revolution is George Orwell, who fought as a volunteer for the militia of the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (an Anarchist party, despite the name; for which reason Orwell -- personally more of a democratic state-socialist than an Anarchist, but it was all Trotskyism to the Stalinists -- was targeted for arrest by the Republic as soon as the above-mentioned crackdown began, and got out of Spain by the skin of his teeth, with the truly heroic help of his wife Sonia). See:
"Spilling the Spanish Beans" (1937)
Homage to Catalonia (1938) (see links at bottom of Wiki page for full-text book online)
"Looking Back on the Spanish War" (1942)

***** Fucking Splitters!

 

[KingOrfeo]

speaking of fuck tards, there you are! the queen amoung all tards.

Eerrmm . . . No, that would be you who would be the, errmmm, doodyhead, I believe is the phrase. I am rubber, or some similarly resilient and non-adhesive material . . .

 

[eyer]

Libertarians are ideological descendants of 19th-Century Liberals, or "Classical Liberals"; those nowadays are influenced by more recent thinkers such as Hayek, Mises, Friedman, and Rand (although Rand's reputation is controversial even among Libertarians, and for some reason she never approved of the Libertarian Party).

The reason is because she was an individualist...

"I am an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, of individual rights -- there are no others -- of individual freedom. It is on this ground that I oppose any doctrine which proposes the sacrifice of the individual to the collective, such as communism, socialism, the welfare state. fascism, Nazism and modern liberalism. I oppose the conservatives on the same ground. The conservatives are advocates of a mixed economy and of a welfare state. Their difference from the liberals is only one of degree, not of principle."

Any collectives' primary threat is the individual...

...that's why "the common good" is so essential to socialists.

The upholding of "the common good" at the expense of the individual...

...you are definitely in your realm, King0.

 

[KingOrfeo]

How about the Federal government telling a private company they can't build a plant in South Carolina because it won't employ union laborers?

While that almost (depending on circumstances) certainly would be the policy socialists would prefer, it would, as an instance of government intervention in the economy, be neither more nor less "socialist" than if the Feds sided with management and helped it union-bust -- of which latter intervention there are many examples in American history.