Socialism: evil impact

[Valjean]

Au contraire, bruderherz.
I'm using standard definitions.
You're not.
Instead you use a non-standard personal definition.
If anything, tis your argument which smells of straw.

Yes, it's a "non-standard" definition. That's my whole point. When people rail against commies, socialists or the radical left, they're using the 'standard' definition and picturing a repressive, totalitarian state like the USSR. I'm trying to point out that neither the "official" definition of socialism nor the totalitarian exemplars who've co-opted the name are what the progressive social democrats have in mind. You're attacking something no-one's advocating by pretending the progressives are promoting dictionary socialism.

There's no reason that left-wing regimes cannot be authoritiarian.
In fact, the more leftish they are, the more they tend to be exactly
that, eg, USSR, PRC, Cuba, Kampuchea.

And how were these left wing?

The Scandinavian model is rife with capitalism, & in Denmark's case,
ranks above Ameristan in economic liberty. They're not socialist.
They're capitalist with an extensive social safety net.
Denmark to American leftists: We’re not socialist

Exactly! They're not dictionary socialists. They've socialized some of the commons, like healthcare and education, but discretionary goods and services are still private. This is what the American progressives are advocating, and what their opponents are calling a socialist takeover.
Beware of confusing socialism with socialism!

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, it's a "non-standard" definition. That's my whole point. When people rail against commies, socialists or the radical left, they're using the 'standard' definition and picturing a repressive, totalitarian state like the USSR. I'm trying to point out that neither the "official" definition of socialism nor the totalitarian exemplars who've co-opted the name are what the progressive social democrats have in mind. You're attacking something no-one's advocating by pretending the progressives are promoting dictionary socialism.

I'm only attacking "socialism" as defined in dictionaries. It's a failed
approach to economics, with consequent deleterious effects on
governance (the necessary authoritarianism).
If you want to advocate capitalism with an extensive social safety net,
then why not do that...instead of advocating socialism?

And how were these left wing?

They're big government, ie, micro-managing us.

Exactly! They're not dictionary socialists. They've socialized some of the commons, like healthcare and education, but discretionary goods and services are still private.

Such things aren't "the means of production", so they aren't "socialism".
So perhaps we have detente....except regarding your bogus, bonkers,
irrational, non-standard, goofballtastic, Trumperific, dim bulbish, personal
definition of "socialism".
Pardon my French there. I got all worked up.

This is what the American progressives are advocating, and what their opponents are calling a socialist takeover.

Clearly, Republicans are just as guilty of personal redefinition
of "socialism" as are lefties.

Beware of confusing socialism with socialism!

I try to be careful.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Definition of communism | Dictionary.com
1) a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2) (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

As we've been over before, with circular definitions, overly short and simplistic definitions, and not enough room to really define things they are crap for philosophy and economics. For example, with dictionary.com the first definition of Libertarian uses a no true Scot fallacy for the example, the second one is a definition you disagree with(though it is the way it's defined and approached outside of America, and the third belief requires the belief in free will. That's not very good way of figuring out what Libertarianism is. Especially considering there are Libertarians such as yourself, and thise who are ultra minimalist and don't even accept the state should provide for defense.

 

[Revoltingest]

As we've been over before, with circular definitions, overly short and simplistic definitions, and not enough room to really define things they are crap for philosophy and economics. For example, with dictionary.com the first definition of Libertarian uses a no true Scot fallacy for the example, the second one is a definition you disagree with(though it is the way it's defined and approached outside of America, and the third belief requires the belief in free will. That's not very good way of figuring out what Libertarianism is. Especially considering there are Libertarians such as yourself, and thise who are ultra minimalist and don't even accept the state should provide for defense.

It should be simple.
"Socialism" has definitions different from what many of its fervent
fans & detractors use. If you want capitalism & a wonderful social
safety net, then it should be called something that doesn't preclude
the very capitalism that fuels it.
If we want democracy, social services, & capitalism, then how about
"Democratic social capitalism"?

 

[Valjean]

I don't know what you mean by "classical".
I don't care what straw man the right erects.
Nor do I accept your personal definition...which
is remarkably like their claimed "straw man".
I use dictionaries.

It's not my personal definition. The right has labeled any attempt to improve social services or disrupt the healthcare or education industry cash cows as socialist. They're even claiming the Biden administration will be a socialist takeover. They call everything not yielding profits for some private enterprise socialist.

Call it what you will, what I and all the so-called progressives are advocating is a more socialized commons and a free market for everything else. It's the corporatists on the right calling this socialist and pointing to the dictionary -- and the USSR.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not my personal definition. The right has labeled any attempt to improve social services or disrupt the healthcare or education industry cash cows as socialist.

I disagree with this usage of "socialism" too.
But why adopt their definition?

 

[Valjean]

Lol, that's the common excuse. Anything to avoid admitting that Marxism is a total failure and has killed more people than any other ideology in history, perhaps even more than all the others combined.

But was it the professed ideology that caused the devastation, or the totalitarian psychopaths that seized power?

 

[Revoltingest]

But was it the professed ideology that caused the devastation, or the totalitarian psychopaths that seized power?

Socialism necessitates a powerful government because it must
quell all attempts at free economic association, lets it blossom
& replace socialism. Thus authoritarianism is an emergent
property of a socialist economic system. We see this in all
attempts by countries.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But was it the professed ideology that caused the devastation, or the totalitarian psychopaths that seized power?

The "totalitarian psychopaths" are the natural result of Marxist-Leninist doctrine. Lenin was an evil crackpot.

 

[Valjean]

It should be simple.
"Socialism" has definitions different from what many of its fervent
fans & detractors use. If you want capitalism & a wonderful social
safety net, then it should be called something that doesn't preclude
the very capitalism that fuels it.
If we want democracy, social services, & capitalism, then how about
"Democratic social capitalism"?

Fine with me, but what's to prevent the special interests with their hands in the social cookie jar from denouncing democratic social capitalism as "Socialism! " and pointing to red China?
It's what they do. It's always worked in the past.

 

[Valjean]

I disagree with this usage of "socialism" too.
But why adopt their definition?

I'm fine with whatever you want to call it, just keep the corporatists from equating it with Bolshevism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fine with me, but what's to prevent the special interests with their hands in the social cookie jar from denouncing democratic social capitalism as "Socialism! " and pointing to red China?
It's what they do. It's always worked in the past.

Mischief can never be eliminated in any system.
People must be ever vigilant....no exceptions!

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm fine with whatever you want to call it, just keep the corporatists from equating it with Bolshevism.

They don't return my calls.
So I can't prevent it.

 

[Valjean]

Socialism necessitates a powerful government because it must
quell all attempts at free economic association, lets it blossom
& replace socialism. Thus authoritarianism is an emergent
property of a socialist economic system. We see this in all
attempts by countries.

Not sure what you mean by "free economic association," and why this is a necessary corollary of socialism (and which "socialism" are we talking about, here)?
Clarify?

 

[Valjean]

The "totalitarian psychopaths" are the natural result of Marxist-Leninist doctrine. Lenin was an evil crackpot.

Totalitarian psychopaths are an untoward effect of any Klein Shock.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes, it's a "non-standard" definition. That's my whole point. When people rail against commies, socialists or the radical left, they're using the 'standard' definition and picturing a repressive, totalitarian state like the USSR. I'm trying to point out that neither the "official" definition of socialism nor the totalitarian exemplars who've co-opted the name are what the progressive social democrats have in mind. You're attacking something no-one's advocating by pretending the progressives are promoting dictionary socialism.
And how were these left wing?
Exactly! They're not dictionary socialists. They've socialized some of the commons, like healthcare and education, but discretionary goods and services are still private. This is what the American progressives are advocating, and what their opponents are calling a socialist takeover.
Beware of confusing socialism with socialism!

Do people just not understand that dictionary definitions are barest minimum research, common denominator, colloquialisms? They're not authoritive in any real academic field. Particularly social sciences.

Trying to parse down dynamic umbrella terms into a sentence or two is foolhardy. Things like 'big government = left wing' = socialism' is literally ignorant.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Socialism necessitates a powerful government because it must
quell all attempts at free economic association, lets it blossom
& replace socialism. Thus authoritarianism is an emergent
property of a socialist economic system. We see this in all
attempts by countries.

No it doesn't. There is both libertarian socialism and anarcho communism.
There are socialist philosophies on every quadrant of the political compass.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not sure what you mean by "free economic association,"....

It would include capitalism & black markets...which I suppose are capitalism.

....and why this is a necessary corollary of socialism (and which "socialism" are we talking about, here)?
Clarify?

As I explained, people will tend to form free economic relationships,
eg, employer, employed, buy, sell, make, consume. This will be
further encouraged by the shortages that typically accompany
socialism, eg, food, luxuries, clothing. People will want...& others
will supply by private means. But if this capitalist activity weren't
reined in, then labor & material would flock to it. It would become
more attractive than socialism, & thus an existential threat.
Capitalist countries needn't prohibit free socialist associations
because there's no threat to it by communes & cooperatives.

 

[Valjean]

Definition of communism | Dictionary.com
1) a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2) (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

So the Hutterites and probably the Bruderhoffs are communist (def. 1), and the Incas communist by def. 2.

 

[Revoltingest]

No it doesn't. There is both libertarian socialism and anarcho communism.
There are socialist philosophies on every quadrant of the political compass.

Libertarian socialism & communism can only exist when voluntary,
& this happens only on smaller scales. When an entire country
goes socialist or communist, it's necessarily authoritarian in order
to prevent movement towards free economic relationships, which
threaten the command economy.