]Politics[

"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer) 01/16/2019 at 12:24 • Filed to: None

1

34

Not about current news, just a definition.

Those who know, know.

What is Socialism to you? Because the definition might be very hard to pin down. Merriam Webster says that it’s a government owning all of the means of production in a society... but google’s dictionary says that it owns (or regulates) some aspects only. Both agree that Socialism seeks equality.

In the end, what country isn’t socialist by definition? Since the government is !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! spender in all economies, you could argue that they control a huge portion of the economy.

Nevermind that the invisible hand of markets is often covered by the the high-visibility glove of government regulations, subsides, and international treaties so in the end... The government does control the economy of their nation. They might not own the means of production but they sure as hell decide their fate.

But is the US is Socialist?

They do own some means of production. Schools, VA hospitals, police forces, and the Army corps of engineers. Also millions in assets and debts from private companies, plus all of the services the governmnt provides.

Yes, services... not industry. But still, they produce a product, which is sold to Americans. The Social Security system is also the government owning a service.

I add this because this is one of the key disctintions to some of my friends, if the government doesn’t own means of production it isn’t socialist even if it owns services. As in, even if everyone was treated at VA hospital, the VA buys the beds, needles, and everything from a private party... In their mind, even if the surgeon is employed by the VA and the product is the surgery, if the scalple is made by, idunno, Philips, then it’s not a socialist “thing”.

But that's a very classical and narrow understanding of the economy, since nowadays services are very important and very intertwined with industry in general.

But in the end, the US prides itself in being the most capitalist nation on earth or something. I do wonder why though. Maybe they’re a mixed economy, an economy where the government owns some methods of production but not all, and does regulate but only to an extent.

But I guess that if you ask Bernie Sanders “Democratic Socialist” is more catchy than “Mixed-Economy-Democrat.” Which, given his plataform, the latter better describes his position.

Trying to pin down any sort of economic system is very hard. Capitalism is also very elusive. According to Adam Smith in a capitalist system advancement in productivity isn’t because of competition, but because of personal enrichment. He theorized that in a perfect capitalist economy, all corporations would become monopolies.

But then, the US has some strong anti-trust laws in order to prevent the theorized conclusion of capitalism... why?

To me socialism always was an economic principle in which government redistributed some of the wealth, owned some of the methods of production, and also protected consumers to insure the most competitve market possible exists. But given how it’s described in the dictionary, I think I’ve been confusing a Mixed economy with Socialism for a very long time.

fintail > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 12:43

4

The best part about the term “socialism” is that the Randian dolt “alpha” “patriot” etc sensitive souls who cry against it (all too often on the receiving end of parental or public sector largesse) almost always can’t define it. In second place is that those who proclaim it are really into the idea of a social democracy.

American style socialism today seems to be benefit of the few funded by the sacrifice of the many. Socio-economic trends in terms of wealth and economic mobility support this.

For Sweden > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 12:43

1

If you scratch someone and they become a Chekist, they are socialist.

DipodomysDeserti > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 12:45

5

This is an invitation for Nibby to post The Communist Manifesto in its entirety.

Spanfeller is a twat > fintail 01/16/2019 at 12:46

2

But maybe it’s because the dictionary is kind of not clear on what it actually is....

In the end they just think about it as a catchphrase for “HUR DUR VENEZUELA”
Even if Venezuela wasn't socialist under one definition, and barely so under the other one.

random001 > For Sweden 01/16/2019 at 12:48

1

Cheks out.

Spanfeller is a twat > DipodomysDeserti 01/16/2019 at 12:48

4

Communism=/=Socialism

VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely > fintail 01/16/2019 at 12:51

4

The people complaining about Socialism seem to always equate it to C ommunism, especially the type people saw during the 20th century - the totalitarian variant, run by corrupt bureaucrats who engage in cronyism and nepotism and favor only their own wealth.

It would be nice if the critics of Socialism could describe it without reaching into their jingoistic grab bag s of over- reductive definitions . Most people just wind up repeating the same talking point over and over again regardless of the counterarguments presented against their views , like an American going abroad and just yelling English slower and louder.

In fact, it would be nice if anyone having an argument about anything would:  
1. Have decent reading comprehension (by far the worst problem)
2. Not immediately resort to a logical fallacy to try and dispute a point
3. Back up their political views with evidence
4. Understand how to fact check properly
5. Stay on fucking point 

Spanfeller is a twat > VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely 01/16/2019 at 12:54

0

I think that perhaps we don’t really have a base understanding of what it actually is. Bernie Sanders isn’t actually advocating for state control of all industry... merely the regulation of it!

VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 12:58

0

I’d like to think I have a decent layman’s grasp on it, but I’m open to discussion to improve my (and others’) viewpoint , in a calm, sane, and rational manner.

Jayhawk Jake > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 13:00

3

The issue with the definition of socialism today is the same issue with a billion other things: people want a quick and easy answer to a complicated problem.

I mean that at it’s most basic literal sense - people look for one word (socialism) to describe an idea that is far more nuanced than the one word can capture. People throw around ‘socialist’ to describe anyone that thinks taxes should be higher for wealthy individuals, for example . That’s socialism, to them. Similarly, a free market = capitalism to most people, when there’s much more to capitalism than that singular facet.

Spanfeller is a twat > VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely 01/16/2019 at 13:00

0

What is your definition of Socialism? I’d align more with Google’s than Merriam Webster’s

Google:

For Sweden > fintail 01/16/2019 at 13:02

0

American socialists definitely exist; unfortunately

https://www.liberationnews.org/10-11-30-why-we-continue-to-defend-soviet-html/

For Sweden > random001 01/16/2019 at 13:03

0

Cheks into gulag

fintail > VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely 01/16/2019 at 13:03

0

Exactly. Two words come up again and again - Commies and Venezuela.

For Sweden > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 13:04

0

Venezuela is more socialist than most

jimz > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 13:04

3

yes it is, at least in concept. it’s pretty much the most extreme form; Marx basically preached that everything should be in the hands of the people, and the people would see to it that everyone would contribute to the running of society and look after each other (“from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”)

however, that’s impossible to make work on a national scale. it might work in small societies (e.g. a neighborhood) where everyone knows everyone else; people are only too happy to help kick in to help people they’re familiar with (thus services like GoFundMe.) But when you get to the state/national level, human self-interest dominates and all you see is stuff being taken from you and disappearing to benefit people you don’t even know exist.

so at that point, the only way to make it work is to have someone in control enforcing it at gunpoint. Which is why the “communist” governments in the world have been far closer to fascist. Communism= people own the means of production. Fascism= the state controls the means of production. Human nature will always dominate. Heck, communism didn’t even survive the initial wave; Lenin and his Marxist ilk overthrew the Tsar (seized the means of production from the bourgeoisie) but then decided they very much liked being in charge and kept them for themselves instead of returning them to the hands of the proletariat. Then once Stalin took over, it was pretty much 100% fascist at that point (state control of industry, ultra nationalism, and ruthless suppression of dissent.)

so that’s why Communist governments have never really existed, and never will.

boredalways > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 13:05

0

fintail > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 13:05

0

True, there is some subjectivity to the term.  Lots of misidentification as well.  Still, so many of the cries against the term have nothing to do with it all, and many who whine about it don’t have any education in economics at all, still blindly clinging to trickle down lies and the specter of the temporarily embarrassed millionaire.

djmt1 > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 13:07

1

Socialism is just about making personal sacrifices for the greater good.

#the greater good#

So me countries (Norway) do it better than others (Venezuela) but all countries engage it in one way or another. 

Spanfeller is a twat > For Sweden 01/16/2019 at 13:08

0

How?

Spanfeller is a twat > jimz 01/16/2019 at 13:10

0

In a sense communism sort of defeats the purpose of specialization...

For Sweden > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 13:10

0

There’s the whole seizing the means of production thing. Also the fact that socialists keep defending Venezuela.

Spanfeller is a twat > For Sweden 01/16/2019 at 13:13

0

GM closed their plant in Venezuela, they weren’t forced to. Yes, the government did own some methods of production but even nowadays private businesses still exist. 

DipodomysDeserti > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 13:13

1

Correct, but Marx had a unique view of socialism and its role in creating a post-capitalist use-value economic system, eventually leading to communism. I could have referenced “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, but For Sweden would have been the only one who got the joke.

The real issue is that historically, socialism was never defined as a specific governmental system. It was a way of organizing a more “equal” society (usually by redistributing wealth from the aristocratic and new capitalist class to the rest of society). Different thinkers had different theories that defined what socialism would actually look like.

Marx believed there would be several phases of it, with the final phase involving a meritocracy of labor. Once the value of labor was established, he believed the means of production could be equally distributed among the populace (via the state which laborers would now control).

So, when you ask people what socialism is, and they give you lots of different answers, that’s how it’s always been.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go teach some kids science at a private high school, because the State won’t pay me a wage that is suffienct for my labor. Fucking socialists.

For Sweden > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 13:15

0

That definitely sounds more socialist than most.

Spanfeller is a twat > DipodomysDeserti 01/16/2019 at 13:21

0

I guess that I won’t try to define it and just ask people what they think it is. 

DipodomysDeserti > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 13:25

1

Keep in mind that most Americans are woefully uneducated when it comes to government, economics and history, so you’re most likely going to get a variation of crap answers. Which is where capitalists and communist alike would like society to be.

DipodomysDeserti > For Sweden 01/16/2019 at 13:29

2

Venezuela is what I imagine would happen if you let a bunch of Freshmen philosophy majors run a country.

VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 13:30

0

From a literal standpoint, sure, that makes sense. Contextually and socially the definition has gotten a bit muddled, right? Also, the scale of practical implementation is a spectrum, not a binary toggle. Managing groups of people is a complex logistical problem.

I think the key context in the Google definition there is communal vestiture. Obviously you can’t please everyone, but the entire idea of Socialism is to ensure at least a facet of social organization should voluntarily (through implementing whatever the communal social contract obliges) put the bulk of the society’s people overall in priority. Even the definition indicates that it could be swayed towards towards more regulation and/or control, not direct ownership.

That’s my .02 on it, the short version anyway, without having to go back and dust off some rather old arguments of mine or going through my old papers from Uni. 

DipodomysDeserti > For Sweden 01/16/2019 at 13:31

1

Czech who?

My bird IS the word > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 13:31

0

Socialism is a “spectrum” and when you push socialists, they always say, no not that socialism a different kind of socialism. In truth, what they are pushing is still for a mixed market, just one that is more favored towards the government.

What we have in the US is a mixed market economy, not capitalism, not socialism.

Socialism is what you see in the USSR as defined by Lenin. Not communist, as Karl Marx founded communism. Socialism still has a ruling elite, but seeks to centralize power and control solely in the government. It’s not some fairytale power to the people movement like they would have you believe, nor what Karl Marx envisioned either. China, for instance, was socialist, moved to being capitalist by removing barriers for non-party members to produce (moreso to allow foreign investment than to promote chinese ownership) and now they are pushing back to being socialist, although they aren’t there yet.

Social policies aren’t necessarily a problem, but socialism is a farce and as a result I am naturally resistant to moving in that direction. Slippery slope fallacy is written all over it.

VajazzleMcDildertits - read carefully, respond politely > djmt1 01/16/2019 at 13:33

1

#the greater good#

Future next gen S2000 owner > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 14:13

0

Every country is socialist to some extent and capitalist to some extent. To me, socialism along the lines of the government providing all the services necessary to live, healthcare, education, retirement, mandatory job benefits - I’m thinking of paid leave. Then there is the higher taxes that go along with it.

The US detests socialism because people view it as a hindrance to moving up the economic ladder. Also, the US was founded on people not wanting the government in their life and wanting to do their own thing. We didn’t have an income tax until the late 1800's. I think it was less than 5% IRC.  

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Spanfeller is a twat 01/16/2019 at 15:03

0

Individual liberty is the overarching tenant of the U.S. system.

Sometimes that ends up benefiting society as a whole, sometimes it doesn’t, but protection of individual liberty takes precedent in most cases (except when it comes to eminent domain, etc.).