What the Right gets wrong about economics that annoys the shit out of me....

[crazy canuck]

Since we have most of those things now, then I guess the US is in fact socialist.

North Korea is not.

Sure, that definition make perfect sense.

The US, along with all the other industrial nations on the planet could be described as having a form of social democracy.  The  bigger question is why Americans have such a visceral reaction to that fact.

[Berkut]

Since we have most of those things now, then I guess the US is in fact socialist.

North Korea is not.

Sure, that definition make perfect sense.

The US, along with all the other industrial nations on the planet could be described as having a form of social democracy.  The  bigger question is why Americans have such a visceral reaction to that fact.

OK, I don't mind that term. But it isn't socialism, and deciding to spend 18.5% of GDP on social programs is not "more socialist" then deciding to spend 18.4%. It is just deciding to spend more on social programs.

[FunkMonk]

Socialism is things I don't like. However, socialism is also things I like.

[alfred russel]

That's the point though - in the example you cite, one of them is wrong ,and the other is right.

Cuba is socialist, and France is not. And it has NOTHING to do with how much they spend on social spending, but rather how they structure their productive capacity.

North Korea probably spends some tiny percent of their GDP on social spending, yet they are clearly a socialist country - because they organize their production on socialist principles.

The USA almost certainly spends vastly more then North Korea on social spending, yet the USA is NOT socialist, rather we are a managed free market economy. If we spend more on social spending, that won't make us become socialists, and if we spend, that won't make us less socialist.

Social spending != socialism.

Awesome that you think you've cleared that up!

Trouble being you've just decided that a bunch of people that describe themselves politically as socialist, plus actual socialist parties, plus current and former members of the Socialist International, are not socialist.

[crazy canuck]

Since we have most of those things now, then I guess the US is in fact socialist.

North Korea is not.

Sure, that definition make perfect sense.

The US, along with all the other industrial nations on the planet could be described as having a form of social democracy.  The  bigger question is why Americans have such a visceral reaction to that fact.

OK, I don't mind that term. But it isn't socialism, and deciding to spend 18.5% of GDP on social programs is not "more socialist" then deciding to spend 18.4%. It is just deciding to spend more on social programs.

This brings us back to the question I posed in the other thread.  If it is not socialism, what is it?  It is not free market capitalism.  I don't think such a thing exists - although it has been a useful myth for right wing political discourse.

[Josquius]

That's the point though - in the example you cite, one of them is wrong ,and the other is right.

No. You've rather missed the point there.
The truth is relative and it depends on where you're standing.
Show practically any modern democracy to somebody from the 19th century and their monocle would pop out. Clearly the radicals have taken over!
Lest we forget German State Socialism.

Cuba is socialist, and France is not. And it has NOTHING to do with how much they spend on social spending, but rather how they structure their productive capacity.

You're thinking of state capitalism.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Right berk, you're dying on a hill here that comes to a very specific, "theory of labor" definition of Socialism that is heavily informed by taking a very narrow view of specific tents of Marxism from the 19th century. The simple reality is words evolve and change, and literally millions upon millions of people in both the United States and Europe who are self-described socialists, do not use this restrictive definition any longer.

Marx imagined a world in which class boundaries were fairly well established and labor and capital were cleanly distinct, and he had some ideas for how labor could protect itself in a world where capital would otherwise have all the power. Marx didn't invent socialism, and the specific Marxist understanding of what socialism means has never been universal, it's mostly a U.S.-centric, "distorted view" of Soviet Socialism that has lead to this being the prevailing view of socialism in the United States.

A more reasonable understanding is Socialism is a set of philosophies that share in common a conception of "social ownership" of things, which things, to what degree etc are all points of debate, and different countries implement it to different degrees. The U.S. Social Security system is obviously us having "social ownership" over the financial welfare of pensioners. Medicare is society taking social ownership over the healthcare of the elderly. Medicaid is society taking social ownership of the health of the poor. Government owned water utilities is an example of localities taking social ownership of water treatment and supply.

[Valmy]

The dude who coined the term "Socialism", Louis Blanc, simply meant the idea that the state should be involved in solving social problems which was kind of revolutionary at the time. He contrasted that with the "Capitalists", which he also coined, currently running the government in France who were mostly interested in the state helping out the banks and private business interests.

Then Marx redefined the terms as being economic systems rather than political philosophies. Confusingly they continue to be used in both senses.

[fromtia]

It is not possible that you are just now realizing this Berkut. Socialism has a special meaning inside the United States - polyester uniformed autocrats! Monstrous evil! Things economic libertarians dont like! Whatever one might decide the word actually mean, in the US its simply a boogly-woogly scare word for conservative media. You will be afraid when we tell you to be. 

I thought it was an odd choice for Sanders to run as a "Democratic Socialist" when he's very clearly a rather old fashioned new deal Democrat. Presumably the campaign was trying to draw the sting of the inevitable "Thats Socialism!" chorus, I'm not sure. Seemed like a bad idea with hindsight. Honestly I thought it was a bad idea at the time.

[grumbler]

The dude who coined the term "Socialism", Louis Blanc, simply meant the idea that the state should be involved in solving social problems which was kind of revolutionary at the time. He contrasted that with the "Capitalists", which he also coined, currently running the government in France who were mostly interested in the state helping out the banks and private business interests.

Then Marx redefined the terms as being economic systems rather than political philosophies. Confusingly they continue to be used in both senses.

The study of socialism (and capitalism, and traditional economies, etc) falls, in fact, into the sphere of political economics. As you note, they are used in both politics and economics and cannot be separated from either one. 

[Berkut]

It is not possible that you are just now realizing this Berkut. Socialism has a special meaning inside the United States - polyester uniformed autocrats! Monstrous evil! Things economic libertarians dont like! Whatever one might decide the word actually mean, in the US its simply a boogly-woogly scare word for conservative media. You will be afraid when we tell you to be. 

I thought it was an odd choice for Sanders to run as a "Democratic Socialist" when he's very clearly a rather old fashioned new deal Democrat. Presumably the campaign was trying to draw the sting of the inevitable "Thats Socialism!" chorus, I'm not sure. Seemed like a bad idea with hindsight. Honestly I thought it was a bad idea at the time.

What makes you think I am just realizing this?

And Sanders ran as a "Democratic Socialist" in an effort to differentiate himself from the "Socialist" he has been describing himself as for his entire political career before he decided he wanted to be President.

I think the term "socialist" has no actual meaning in modern liberal politics. It either describes all political parties and their views, or exactly none of them.

You can say that the word "socialist" is just a term to describe anyone who feels that we should weigh more on the left side of the spectrum on the question of how much we should dedicate to social spending. But in that case...is it not just an overlap with the term "progressive"?

Hence my annoyance with the rights use of the term. It either references something that simply does not actually exist in any real way in modern liberal politics (an actual SOCIALIST/state owns means of production) or it references something that everyone is, including themselves (people who think the government should be involved in defining what the 'right' level of social spending ought to be).

My post wasn't intended to be some kind of revelation.

[Valmy]

The dude who coined the term "Socialism", Louis Blanc, simply meant the idea that the state should be involved in solving social problems which was kind of revolutionary at the time. He contrasted that with the "Capitalists", which he also coined, currently running the government in France who were mostly interested in the state helping out the banks and private business interests.

Then Marx redefined the terms as being economic systems rather than political philosophies. Confusingly they continue to be used in both senses.

The study of socialism (and capitalism, and traditional economies, etc) falls, in fact, into the sphere of political economics. As you note, they are used in both politics and economics and cannot be separated from either one. 

Ok but using Socialism and Capitalism as terms for economic systems and using them as a political theory about the state's relationship and obligations with regard to social problems strikes me as very different and distinct definitions even if they are in some similar spheres.

[Josquius]

Democratic socialist isn't said in Europe as it goes without saying.
In the US however I can understand sanders wanting to underline this. That the political party are called Democrats doesn't hurt either.

[Valmy]

Democratic socialist isn't said in Europe as it goes without saying.
In the US however I can understand sanders wanting to underline this. That the political party are called Democrats doesn't hurt either.

Too many try to paint leftwing politics as ONLY being North Korea and Cuba so I understand the branding exercise of Sanders and company. In the short term it seems pretty suicidal.

I noticed even CNN was pretending Bernie Sanders wanted to have death squads killing people in Central Park.

[grumbler]

The dude who coined the term "Socialism", Louis Blanc, simply meant the idea that the state should be involved in solving social problems which was kind of revolutionary at the time. He contrasted that with the "Capitalists", which he also coined, currently running the government in France who were mostly interested in the state helping out the banks and private business interests.

Then Marx redefined the terms as being economic systems rather than political philosophies. Confusingly they continue to be used in both senses.

The study of socialism (and capitalism, and traditional economies, etc) falls, in fact, into the sphere of political economics. As you note, they are used in both politics and economics and cannot be separated from either one. 

Ok but using Socialism and Capitalism as terms for economic systems and using them as a political theory about the state's relationship and obligations with regard to social problems strikes me as very different and distinct definitions even if they are in some similar spheres.

Political economists would say that your distinction isn't very meaningful - that public economic policy and public political policy are too intertwined to separate.  There are certainly branches of economics outside of political economics (like all of microeconomics), and some branches of political studies that are outside of economics (like political party hierarchies), but public political policy cannot be made in the absence of economic considerations, and vice-versa.