Failure of socialism

[rob_just_rob]

For someone who was just whining about being taken out of context, you certainly have no qualms about doing it to others...

Not true. Assumption on your part.

That's not what I said, nor it is what I was hinting at, eluding to or whatever other phrasing you would like to assume I meant.

So you can make assumptions, but I can't?

ROFL at you calling me out for what you suppose to be a double standard, and then doing the VERY SAME THING, yourself.

It's "alluding", by the way.

let's recap, since you seem eager to misconstrue things...

NO NO NO... c'mon TP... we BOTH are eager to do that. Right?

Sheesh, and YOU bitch about people taking your remarks out of context???

I mainly bitch about hypocrisy, a quality you have in spades.

You're on a public discussion forum... exactly what did you think was going to occur?

I always hope for reasonable responses in the Politics forum, but am continually disappointed. You're right, I should have expected this.

As other posts have indicated, it isn't obvious... Why don't you be a sport and explain it to everyone in clear, unmistakable terms. Then perhaps the discussion can actually progress in a constructive manner, instead of being run around in circles by your word games.

Socialism is a political philosophy. "Socialism" is a collective term used by groups (mainly right wing groups) to describe any kind of government to the political left of them. This whole forum is full of people ranting about "socialism". I assumed you had read it, and didn't just beeline to my post.

that the entire point of posting here is to engage others in discussion.)

For you, perhaps.

 

[Bbucko]

I have to provide you with a link to a history of Socialism in Civil War Spain? Seriously?

...

I really must say I don't have any idea what an entitlement program is, so you can call it whatever you want.

You already have provided links in this thread, Hilly. There's no need to re-link anything.

As to entitlement programs, here's a fairly bias-neutral description:

A federal program that guarantees a certain level of benefits to persons or other entities who meet requirements set by law, such as Social Security, farm price supports or unemployment benefits. It thus leaves no discretion with Congress on how much money to appropriate, and some entitlements carry permanent appropriations.

Here's another link that goes into somewhat greater detail. Here's a very long article that verbosely outlines how they are perceived by conservatives in the US.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

You already have provided links in this thread, Hilly. There's no need to re-link anything.

As to entitlement programs, here's a fairly bias-neutral description:
Here's another link that goes into somewhat greater detail. Here's a very long article that verbosely outlines how they are perceived by conservatives in the US.

Interesting reading, thank you hotness. :wink:

 

[B_talltpaguy]

NO NO NO... c'mon TP... we BOTH are eager to do that. Right?

When I initially responded to you today, I wasn't trying to be a jackass or misconstrue what you said or anything of the sort. I was trying to understand why you thought you were being taken out of context, and was hoping you would explain more about what you meant. Seriously.

After you suggested I ignore you, when I was still just trying to figure out what your point was, at that point I figured you were being a bit of a dick and changed my outlook accordingly.

I always hope for reasonable responses in the Politics forum, but am continually disappointed.

certainly can't disagree with you there... And I don't mean that in a wise ass, I'm-looking-at-you kind of way either... Except I will add that I think this place has already improved a bit in the past couple of weeks, and will hopefully be more conducive to constructive discussions after the mods overhaul the rules.

Socialism is a political philosophy. "Socialism" is a collective term used by groups (mainly right wing groups) to describe any kind of government to the political left of them. This whole forum is full of people ranting about "socialism". I assumed you had read it, and didn't just beeline to my post.

Unfortunately, due to the people who misuse words that have an otherwise clear meaning, it's pretty much impossible to know the difference, unless you say so... Maybe you've made posts in the past that would allow someone who has been active here even longer than myself to know what side of an issue you're on from the get-go, but I'm not yet one of them.

Sorry I called you childish, but from my perspective, I was like WTF is this guy's problem?

 

[Bbucko]

Interesting reading, thank you hotness. :wink:

De nada, nino :biggrin1:

 

[dandelion]

When I initially responded to you today, I wasn't trying to be a jackass or misconstrue what you said or anything of the sort. I was trying to understand why you thought you were being taken out of context, and was hoping you would explain more about what you meant. Seriously.

As the person whose response this debate is about, I would just say I also do not see how I misconstrued the original quite short posting. It has about 4 short sentences. They do not seem to depend on each other but make separate points. The post is:

So many misconceptions and outright fallacies in this thread.

America under Bush looked screwed a year and a half ago. Europe will muddle its way through the current crisis as well. America's crisis was caused by unfettered "capitalism" and Europe's by excessive "socialism".

Bottom line is: No economic system is proof against its own excesses.

You argue that in the US the current crisis was caused by unfetterd capitalism, but in Europe by Socialism. No. The problem in europe is a direct result of the problem in the US. The European problems are also the consequences of unfettered capitalism. The fact that europe has chosen to tax more and spend the proceeds on social programs, whereas the US seems to like to spend on armaments, is neither here not there.

I also would be interested in further explanation of your points.

 

[JacobFox]

Why did you leave out the late [edit] part? It was a closing comment sufficient to express a point. Plus, all that had been said in argumentation was not addressed by Sargon. You got love that selective rebuttal practice.

I think he did a much better job at addressing your points then you did at his. Regardless, that's what your comment reminded me of so that's why I say it.

 

[B_spiker067]

I have to provide you with a link to a history of Socialism in Civil War Spain? Seriously?

I can call you a fascist and ardently believe that you are one, but does that mean that you are ? Of course not, because the objective standard for judging if you are a fascist or not would contradict my belief and assertions.

I really must say I don't have any idea what an entitlement program is, so you can call it whatever you want.

You just don't answer questions.

Previous post questions gone unaswered: So if you have no basis for an opinion on how socialism would work in real life what is your problem with people calling something in real life socialist based on the weight of the precepts involved? Chavez SAYS he's socialist. Why isn't that good enough? Most his followers say they are socialist. Isn't that good enough?

Also, many of the programs set up that are breaking western countries like Greece (et al); those programs were set up by self labeled "socialist" parties. They are also socialist party ideas. BTW, these are countries with lesser defense expenditures.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Previous post questions gone unaswered: So if you have no basis for an opinion on how socialism would work in real life what is your problem with people calling something in real life socialist based on the weight of the precepts involved? Chavez SAYS he's socialist. Why isn't that good enough? Most his followers say they are socialist. Isn't that good enough?

Simply put, ignorance does not define a concept.

If homosexuals call themselves 'straight' does that mean that suddenly we're all homosexual, or does it mean that homosexuals have misappropriated the word?

 

[B_spiker067]

Simply put, ignorance does not define a concept.

If homosexuals call themselves 'straight' does that mean that suddenly we're all homosexual, or does it mean that homosexuals have misappropriated the word?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... Thanks for that. Proves a point about the politics forum in general.

 

[Bbucko]

You just don't answer questions.

Previous post questions gone unaswered: So if you have no basis for an opinion on how socialism would work in real life what is your problem with people calling something in real life socialist based on the weight of the precepts involved? Chavez SAYS he's socialist. Why isn't that good enough? Most his followers say they are socialist. Isn't that good enough?

Also, many of the programs set up that are breaking western countries like Greece (et al); those programs were set up by self labeled "socialist" parties. They are also socialist party ideas. BTW, these are countries with lesser defense expenditures.

I think that the problem here lies in vocabulary (not semantics). Unless one is either a PoliSci, Sociology or Economics major in college, the seemingly subtle but very real distinctions between Socialism, Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Social Democracy are blurry. Part of this is the long-standing inherent conservatism of much of the American population who view leftist politics and social engineering as suspect and dubious.

I also think that, for the OP and you there is no difference between Socialism and Welfare Statism, when the two are actually totally different concepts, with the Welfare State being one of the chief goals of Social Democracy, not Socialism.

As to how various governments choose to describe themselves, I'm not sure that one can take this as necessarily a reflection of reality. East Germany called itself the GDR (German Democratic Republic) when only the first letter was in any way accurate. Nazi is an abbreviation for National Socialist yet was, in fact, fascist and totalitarian. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is another great example, as is the People's Republic of China, when each were/still is a single-party dictatorship.

I don't claim to be an expert on Hugo Chavez, but his lapdog-like relationship with Fidel Castro marks him as a Communist; he'd like to be a dictator, but his continued leadership in Venezuela is dependent on popular election. He did not come to power as the result of a coup. Hitler was not elected, he was appointed by Hindenburg following a strong win for the Nazis in a general election.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... Thanks for that. Proves a point about the politics forum in general.

Or in other words, you STILL don't know what you are talking about, and are STILL trying to deflect from your ignorance by trying to change the subject.

lolololololol Indeed!

 

[B_spiker067]

Socialism, Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Social Democracy are blurry.

From your first link, which I read on your finding as I did on mine:

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Now, my part in this thread was that I was saying that socialist entitlement programs (i.e. SS, Medicare, Obamacare in the U.S. and others abroad) were a failure in that what good they did was offset by the fact we could not afford them. I was told I did not have a right to call them socialist. That I had no idea what socialism was and then someone quoted a classical textbook definition.

I've expressed how and why I characterized them as socialist. But in pursuit of denial, people act as if socialism is defined and can only exist inside a textbook and that is simply not true. Socialism has a much broader definition and is not constrained so narrowly. The red text above among many other points I've made make the case.

Despite collective protestation my position has not been effectively debunked as can be verified by any honest reader of the thread.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

From your first link, which I read on your finding as I did on mine:

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Now, my part in this thread was that I was saying that socialist entitlement programs (i.e. SS, Medicare, Obamacare in the U.S. and others abroad) were a failure in that what good they did was offset by the fact we could not afford them. I was told I did not have a right to call them socialist. That I had no idea what socialism was and then someone quoted a classical textbook definition.

I've expressed how and why I characterized them as socialist. But in pursuit of denial, people act as if socialism is defined and can only exist inside a textbook and that is simply not true. Socialism has a much broader definition and is not constrained so narrowly. The red text above among many other points I've made make the case.

Despite collective protestation my position has not been effectively debunked as can be verified by any honest reader of the thread.

If you were suggesting that entitlement programs were introduced as part of a wider attempt to reform the USA in to a socialist state then one might be able to address the argument you've made, but since that has never been the case and since entitlement programs are limited in scope and not intended to form the basis of a socialist economy its hard to see what you're driving at.

I mean lets be clear here, there's nothing particularly socialist about the programs you're talking about, economies of a huge variety of kinds have had such programs, for goodness sake the Roman imperial system had state wheat monopolies and massive Imperial granaries which funded the farmers of north africa so well that the meanest smallholder in Numidia had a higher standard of living than the peasant of Latium. Are you suggesting that this system was socialistic?

But you continuing to aver proper definitions of Socialism makes this discussion essentially circular.

That might be why your argument continues to sort of hang there, unanswerable, because it's framed in such a way which makes it impossible to discuss it unless the person choosing to do so agrees with your presumptions and subjective definitions.

Your argument has been repeatedly debunked, in as much as your assertion that entitlement programs are socialist is demonstrably untrue. That they may have been inspired by some socialist policy or other and then implemented by politicians of a totally different ideology with the intention of achieving ends which have nothing to do with socialism is entirely possible, but how this discussion could be fruitful or apposite even is beyond me.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

If you were suggesting that entitlement programs were introduced as part of a wider attempt to reform the USA in to a socialist state then one might be able to address the argument you've made, but since that has never been the case and since entitlement programs are limited in scope and not intended to form the basis of a socialist economy its hard to see what you're driving at.

I mean lets be clear here, there's nothing particularly socialist about the programs you're talking about, economies of a huge variety of kinds have had such programs, for goodness sake the Roman imperial system had state wheat monopolies and massive Imperial granaries which funded the farmers of north africa so well that the meanest smallholder in Numidia had a higher standard of living than the peasant of Latium. Are you suggesting that this system was socialistic?

But you continuing to aver proper definitions of Socialism makes this discussion essentially circular.

That might be why your argument continues to sort of hang there, unanswerable, because it's framed in such a way which makes it impossible to discuss it unless the person choosing to do so agrees with your presumptions and subjective definitions.

Your argument has been repeatedly debunked, in as much as your assertion that entitlement programs are socialist is demonstrably untrue. That they may have been inspired by some socialist policy or other and then implemented by politicians of a totally different ideology with the intention of achieving ends which have nothing to do with socialism is entirely possible, but how this discussion could be fruitful or apposite even is beyond me.

I've said it before to you......But if i were a gay man.....

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I've said it before to you......But if i were a gay man.....

Oh you! :redface:

 

[Bbucko]

From your first link, which I read on your finding as I did on mine:

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Now, my part in this thread was that I was saying that socialist entitlement programs (i.e. SS, Medicare, Obamacare in the U.S. and others abroad) were a failure in that what good they did was offset by the fact we could not afford them. I was told I did not have a right to call them socialist. That I had no idea what socialism was and then someone quoted a classical textbook definition.

I've expressed how and why I characterized them as socialist. But in pursuit of denial, people act as if socialism is defined and can only exist inside a textbook and that is simply not true. Socialism has a much broader definition and is not constrained so narrowly. The red text above among many other points I've made make the case.

Despite collective protestation my position has not been effectively debunked as can be verified by any honest reader of the thread.

You cherry picked enough of my post to make a whole pie, Spiker

This is what I actually wrote:

I think that the problem here lies in vocabulary (not semantics). Unless one is either a PoliSci, Sociology or Economics major in college, the seemingly subtle but very real distinctions between Socialism, Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Social Democracy are blurry. Part of this is the long-standing inherent conservatism of much of the American population who view leftist politics and social engineering as suspect and dubious.

This is what you quoted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism, Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Social Democracy are blurry

Now I know that I tend to write in complex sentences. That makes sense because I'm a writer. But the level of disingenuousness you display, not just in your highly selective quote but in your response makes any further interaction with you in this thread a ludicrous waste of my time.

Enjoy your crazy.

 

[vince]

I find it interesting that some of you believe that socialized heath insurance plans cannot be afforded by the USA, yet every statistic I have seen points to the fact that not only does the USA spend a greater percentage of it's GDP on healthcare, the citizens actually get less in return. Costs are clearly higher in the USA than in countries where the public has a greater degree of control over costs and over their own individual healthcare.

The only reason I can think of that someone would deny the clear benefits of collective action and control of some aspects of life, is a blind adherence to an ideology. Similar to others who condemn the benefits of free markets in business. It's not an all or nothing world we live in guys. There are shades of grey. And green and purple too.

The most successful economies, such as Germany, USA, Japan, Canada, UK, France, Korea, and now China, are a mix of Socialism and Capitalism. Likewise, successful people aren't emotionally bound to ideologies. They logically analyse what is the best way forward and follow through. If some plan or idea is not working or if a better one comes along, they can change and adapt or even walk away. That's one thing I like about Obama. He is less ideological than many other politicians and more opportunistic. Don't confuse principles with ideologies. They are not the same thing at all.

 

[B_spiker067]

If you were suggesting that entitlement .... could be fruitful or apposite even is beyond me.

I'm not playing at nuances. Generally policy is divided into categories that classify as capitalist programs and ideas, and others that are classified as socialist - in the real world. It so happens that capitalist ideas generally flow from conservatives while socialist ideas tend to come from liberals. You certainly cannot say that entitlement programs, in the modern age, come from capitalist ideology.

In this thread (if not another closely related one) I've stated we need a degree of socialism but that it has to be paid for by capitalism. What IS disingenuous is the falling back on a classical TEXTBOOK definition of what socialism is. It is kind of petty and done simply to avoid the well perceived notion that socialism and the sundry ideas that it has sprouted are failing in Europe and in the U.S.

Here is a quote from you supporting Sargon's dictionary definition of socialism when answering me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by spiker067 http://www.lpsg.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
Of all the points I made you care to hang onto this one? The definition of socialism has changed a bit in common usage to go beyond its classical textbook definition.

It has become a charge of sort when govt. is significantly involved in terms of financing the means or production of goods and services because in some ways it is in effect as if they actually took over that production.

For example when you have a single payer govt. system for healthcare it is as if healthcare has been taken over by govt.; especially when in some countries they made looking for services outside the system illegal. [/quote]


To be honest common usage isn't relevant here. When discussing the supposed failings of a political ideology it is imperative that one use a clear and thorough definition of what that ideology is, not a pop-cultural bowdlerisation which may have alternative uses in different cultural contexts.

Socialism is a formal ideological and economic system which should be defined in its own terms and not in the terms of its ideological detractors who have a vested in interest in misrepresenting it and attributing to it characteristics which will tend to make it look inherently deficient.

You want to talk about socialism in a rarefied intellectual sense and keep it narrow. Links to this point show that socialism is broader in definition and real world practice. When a socialist party says we are going to do welfare program X and a bunch of other socialist parties say the same, you can rest assured that it IS a socialist program.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

The most successful economies, such as Germany, USA, Japan, Canada, UK, France, Korea, and now China, are a mix of Socialism and Capitalism. Likewise, successful people aren't emotionally bound to ideologies.

This mixture you describe is has a name, Social Democracy. :wink: