Logic Alone is Not Enough. Not Nearly Enough.

[Audie]

I wouldn't claim "all S are P, all animals are striped" because you were only using tigers which don't represent all animals.

Of course they do.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually, they use variations (well, except for China and one or two others) use variations of democratic models of government. Socialism is
noun

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

In other words, the government owns all the corporations, manufacturies, stores...everything.

NONE of those nations you mentioned qualify. In fact, the Norwegians are even more capitalistic than the USA is, push come to shove. They are simply taxed higher.

I will repeat but bigger

use variations of socialist models of government

You have a problem the the political system in various countries then take it up with the country.

 

[Skwim]

I wouldn't claim "all S are P, all animals are striped" because you were only using tigers which don't represent all animals.

That's why I said "one cannot argue;

All M are P
All M are S
_________
All S are P

​

However, one can argue:

All M are P.........OR.........All M are P..........OR.........All M are P............OR..........All M are P.........OR........All M are P
All S is M........................All M are S......................Some S are M.........................No S are P......................All M are S
_________......................__________.....................____________......................__________...................._________​

Therefore S is P................. .....Some S are P......................Some S are P.......................No S are M....................Some S are P

But you can't argue

All M are P
All M are S
_________
All S are P
​

because it simply isn't one of the 24 valid forms of syllogisms.


And to show the 5 examples I provided are valid go ahead a substitute "tiger" for M, "striped" for P, and "animal" for S and see if the conclusions are valid or not.

Now, a syllogism maybe valid (take one of the 24 forms) but remain unsound if one or both premises are untrue:

Take the valid syllogism

No M are P........and substitute "tigers," "striped," and "animal.".......No tigers are striped
All S are M.............................................................................................All animals are tigers
__________..........................................................................................._________________
No S are P..............................................................................................No animals are striped

Not a sound conclusion at all because there are striped tigers and not all animals are tigers, both untrue statements. So a sound syllogistic argument must be in one of the 24 valid forms and contain true premises.

.

​

 

[dianaiad]

I will repeat but bigger

use variations of socialist models of government

You have a problem the the political system in various countries then take it up with the country.

No. I have problems with your definition of 'socialist.' Socialist governments go for government OWNED manufacturers, corporations, utilities,etc.,

A government that leaves the ownership of income producing properties in private hands is not socialist, no matter how high the taxes are, or how comprehensive social programs (such as health care) may be.

What I see here is that you...and others who like to point at nations you like and say 'see? This SOCIALIST nation is socialist and it's doing fine" aren't pointing at socialist nations. You are pointing at capitalist nations with large social programs...and that ain't socialism.

Sorry.

But it's not.

 

[ChristineM]

No. I have problems with your definition of 'socialist.' Socialist governments go for government OWNED manufacturers, corporations, utilities,etc.,

A government that leaves the ownership of income producing properties in private hands is not socialist, no matter how high the taxes are, or how comprehensive social programs (such as health care) may be.

What I see here is that you...and others who like to point at nations you like and say 'see? This SOCIALIST nation is socialist and it's doing fine" aren't pointing at socialist nations. You are pointing at capitalist nations with large social programs...and that ain't socialism.

Sorry.

But it's not.

I stated

variations of socialist models

The governments of the country's i notes freely state they use variations of socialist models. Thet you do not agree with them is irrelevant.

 

[dianaiad]

I stated

variations of socialist models

The governments of the country's i notes freely state they use variations of socialist models. Thet you do not agree with them is irrelevant.

What 'variations' would those be? If they don't go for public (i.e., government) owned utilities, corporations and manufacturies, they aren't socialist, in any variation.

Those nations which DO go for government owned and run manufacturies, utilities, etc., etc., are not doing well.

At all.

 

[ChristineM]

What 'variations' would those be? If they don't go for public (i.e., government) owned utilities, corporations and manufacturies, they aren't socialist, in any variation.

Those nations which DO go for government owned and run manufacturies, utilities, etc., etc., are not doing well.

At all.

But they do go for publicity owned utility, health care etc

 

[dianaiad]

But they do go for publicity owned utility, health care etc

They do not 'go for' any system which provides profit and income...and THAT, Christine, is the definition of 'socialism.'

Health care is only profitable in private hands. When the government controls it, it's a 'service' that high taxes have to pay for. Utilities are the same.

That can be proven by my own city and its entrance into providing electricity...though to be honest, it's doing better than most; Lancaster is the first city to go 'all solar.' That is, all new construction MUST have solar panels associated with it. The city collects the electricity from all these folks (including me...I purchased a solar system two years ago...) and sells it back to the city inhabitants. Those who don't have solar panels yet pay fairly standard rates, and those who, like me, produce more electricity than we use, get checks from the city.

I'll admit, I like that. Don't REALLY know if that's 'socialism,' but I suppose it could be, given that the folks in Lancaster do produce their own power, sell it to a central authority, which sends it back to us to use. On the other hand, the city DOES have to use SCE for all the delivery systems; wiring, transformers, etc., and SCE is most definitely private.

Hmmn.. I'm going to have to think about that one for a bit.

 

[ChristineM]

They do not 'go for' any system which provides profit and income...and THAT, Christine, is the definition of 'socialism.'

Health care is only profitable in private hands. When the government controls it, it's a 'service' that high taxes have to pay for. Utilities are the same.

That can be proven by my own city and its entrance into providing electricity...though to be honest, it's doing better than most; Lancaster is the first city to go 'all solar.' That is, all new construction MUST have solar panels associated with it. The city collects the electricity from all these folks (including me...I purchased a solar system two years ago...) and sells it back to the city inhabitants. Those who don't have solar panels yet pay fairly standard rates, and those who, like me, produce more electricity than we use, get checks from the city.

I'll admit, I like that. Don't REALLY know if that's 'socialism,' but I suppose it could be, given that the folks in Lancaster do produce their own power, sell it to a central authority, which sends it back to us to use. On the other hand, the city DOES have to use SCE for all the delivery systems; wiring, transformers, etc., and SCE is most definitely private.

Hmmn.. I'm going to have to think about that one for a bit.

Healthcare need not be profitable, for many years the NHS was the envy of the world. Many countries have mimicked it, many use a modified version of it. Why is it now failing in the UK? Because successive conservative governments have cut back funding and sold the parts that could make profits to their conservative buddies.

High taxes? The NHS was (and to some extent is) funded by a tax called national insurance or NI. I can guarantee that NI payments are lower than private healthcare costs*. NI is now intercepted and partly diverted to other government projects.

* I now live in france which has a health service which is a combination of private/public. The public part pays between 15% and 70% of medical costs, the rest is made up by compulsory private insurance. The insurance on its own is more than the NI a typical wage earner in Britain pays.

Yes we too produce our own electricity and sell it back to EDF.

 

[dianaiad]

Healthcare need not be profitable,

Not when the government is in control, certainly...but that's the point. Socialism is about the government owning PROFITABLE stuff. When the government takes over, and it is no longer profitable, then, er.....

the nation is in trouble.

.....and you have solar panels on your home? Good for you. I do love mine. Cost me 30K, because we chose to buy them outright rather than do a 'rent-a-roof,' lease or financing. It was a good investment, because at the present rate, they will have paid for themselves in eight to ten years, and they have a twenty year guarantee.

Works for me.

 

[ChristineM]

Not when the government is in control, certainly...but that's the point. Socialism is about the government owning PROFITABLE stuff. When the government takes over, and it is no longer profitable, then, er.....

the nation is in trouble.

.....and you have solar panels on your home? Good for you. I do love mine. Cost me 30K, because we chose to buy them outright rather than do a 'rent-a-roof,' lease or financing. It was a good investment, because at the present rate, they will have paid for themselves in eight to ten years, and they have a twenty year guarantee.

Works for me.

Socialism is not about the government making profit, that is conservativism.

We had our solar panels installed in early 2010 just after we bought the house, bought outright with a 50% tax credit incentive from the government.

We didn't move in to the house until late 2015 so there was over 5 years when we only used electric for 6 weeks a year, the rest we sold.

It gets better

The first four and a half years, EDF were paying 5 times the metered rate for solar as an additional incentive so the panels are paid for before we moved to france

 

[Left Coast]

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

There are few purely socialist or purely capitalist countries in the modern world. Most modern nations are a hybrid where there is some private ownership and enterprise and some public ownership of certain industries. Arguing that a nation is "not socialist" because 100% of their economy is not state-owned is silly and facile.

Definition of SOCIALISM

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

 

[dianaiad]

Socialism is not about the government making profit, that is conservativism.

We had our solar panels installed in early 2010 just after we bought the house, bought outright with a 50% tax credit incentive from the government.

We didn't move in to the house until late 2015 so there was over 5 years when we only used electric for 6 weeks a year, the rest we sold.

It gets better

The first four and a half years, EDF were paying 5 times the metered rate for solar as an additional incentive so the panels are paid for before we moved to france

Very nice (about the solar panels).

And socialism isn't about the government making profit...but it is about the government owning the profit making industries. So if the government is NOT 'making profit," or at least, making enough money from those industries to support them, the workers, and the services that government provides that were never meant to be profitable (like infrastructure building and maintenance) then there is trouble. Venezuela style trouble. Greece style trouble. Cuba and North Korea style trouble.

So you'd better hope that your socialist nation DOES make a profit from the industries that are government owned.

But they don't.

Which is why the Norwegians don't own the industries; private capitalists do....and the government just taxes the peawaddin' out of 'em.

 

[ChristineM]

Very nice (about the solar panels).

And socialism isn't about the government making profit...but it is about the government owning the profit making industries. So if the government is NOT 'making profit," or at least, making enough money from those industries to support them, the workers, and the services that government provides that were never meant to be profitable (like infrastructure building and maintenance) then there is trouble. Venezuela style trouble. Greece style trouble. Cuba and North Korea style trouble.

So you'd better hope that your socialist nation DOES make a profit from the industries that are government owned.

But they don't.

Which is why the Norwegians don't own the industries; private capitalists do....and the government just taxes the peawaddin' out of 'em.

Still on socialist ideas as i stated at the start

 

[Revoltingest]

I still say that what most self described western
socialists want should be called "social capitalism".
It's not catching on, is it?

 

[dianaiad]

Still on socialist ideas as i stated at the start

Please look up the definition of 'socialist.'

Please.

According to Merriam-Webster, socialism is:

Definition of socialism


1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Any nation which keeps the methods of production in private hands IS NOT SOCIALIST. Not even a little bit. It could be capitalist or fascist, but NOT socialist.

A government which provides services that are NOT profitable is not, by definition, socialist. All governments do that...it's what government is for.

I have seen many people claim that the Netherlands is socialist.

It is not. If it WERE, IKEA would be owned by the government, and the government in the Netherlands is way too smart to do anything of the sort...not when it gets considerably more money for its social programs by taxing this very capitalist organization than it ever would by socializing it.

 

[dianaiad]

I still say that what most self described western
socialists want should be called "social capitalism".
It's not catching on, is it?

nope.

"capitalism' is one of those politically incorrect words that are to be 'never spoken.'

 

[Revoltingest]

nope.

"capitalism' is one of those politically incorrect words that are to be 'never spoken.'

Capitalism is like bacon....even those who ostensibly oppose it will themselves imbibe.
And for those trying to sell this, labeling it "socialism" will cause
opposition by anyone who likes capitalism or owns a dictionary.
"Social capitalism" would be an easier sell.

 

[ChristineM]

Please look up the definition of 'socialist.'

Please.

According to Merriam-Webster, socialism is:

Definition of socialism


1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Any nation which keeps the methods of production in private hands IS NOT SOCIALIST. Not even a little bit. It could be capitalist or fascist, but NOT socialist.

A government which provides services that are NOT profitable is not, by definition, socialist. All governments do that...it's what government is for.

I have seen many people claim that the Netherlands is socialist.

It is not. If it WERE, IKEA would be owned by the government, and the government in the Netherlands is way too smart to do anything of the sort...not when it gets considerably more money for its social programs by taxing this very capitalist organization than it ever would by socializing it.

Jeez, how many times must i repeat "variations of socialist models" we have had along discussion on the NHS. That is based on a socialist model. It is cloned in several countries, all based on socialist models.

 

[Revoltingest]

Jeez, how many times must i repeat "variations of socialist models" we have had along discussion on the NHS. That is based on a socialist model. It is cloned in several countries, all based on socialist models.

Are you advocating the kind of socialism
which has capitalism & a market economy?