Socialism

[Berkut]

You start a thread to define a term, define it contrary to most people's understanding and then get mad that they disagree with you definition? Lol classic languish.

No, what is classic Languish is that I start a thread to talk about a concept, define my terms appropriately, then the people who care more about scoring points turn it into an argument about what a rather general term like "socialism" means (when we all know it can mean a LOT of different things), and then the discussion turns into a pissing contest about who said what, instead of just talking about the issue at hand.

That is, in fact, very typical Languish, and mores the pity.

[Viking]

I did define my terms. That is the point.

No you didn't you just rambled on stream of consciousnesses like about the topic for 5 paragraphs. Part of defining your terms means expanding on their consequences.

Is charity socialism? Is socialism voluntary? Is socialism selective and discriminating? Who controls the purse strings? Your definition includes every single human society at every point in time. That is not a definition.

[Berkut]

First, lets define the term.


I do not want to use the term socialism as the knee-jerk pejorative that it is typically used as in US politics. Rather, I want to use the term to more generally describe the basic idea that human societies engage in a process of ensuring that everyone has some level of their needs met as a responsibility of society in general.

You don't have to like the definition, but it is hardly so far out of bounds as to warrant everyone getting their panties all bunched up like this.

[Berkut]

I did define my terms. That is the point.

No you didn't you just rambled on stream of consciousnesses like about the topic for 5 paragraphs. Part of defining your terms means expanding on their consequences.

Is charity socialism? Is socialism voluntary? Is socialism selective and discriminating? Who controls the purse strings? Your definition includes every single human society at every point in time. That is not a definition.

My definition is intended to define the scope of my rambling, not include or exclude human societies. In fact, the entire point is that all societies have in fact engaged in this behavior. If you want to replace the tmer with "welfare state" (although I think that is too constraining since it implicitly denotes actions strictly by a state actor) go right ahead.

But I get it - it is me posting, so it is so much more fun to turn it into a pissing contest rather than actually discuss anything. Whatever.

[Josephus]

Christ, you fuckers are so damn hung up on semantics it is impossible to have a discussion with the majority of you.

Yeah. Unfortunate but thats the way this forum is. It hides under a pretence of intellectualism, but really it's just one big circle jerk.

[Valmy]

Yeah. Unfortunate but thats the way this forum is. It hides under a pretence of intellectualism, but really it's just one big circle jerk.

I was not aware we even had a pretence of intellectualism.

[Jacob]

Yeah. Unfortunate but thats the way this forum is. It hides under a pretence of intellectualism, but really it's just one big circle jerk.

I was not aware we even had a pretence of intellectualism.

And to be honest, I don't think we're that good at making circles either.

[Barrister]

I did define my terms. That is the point.

No you didn't you just rambled on stream of consciousnesses like about the topic for 5 paragraphs. Part of defining your terms means expanding on their consequences.

Is charity socialism? Is socialism voluntary? Is socialism selective and discriminating? Who controls the purse strings? Your definition includes every single human society at every point in time. That is not a definition.

My definition is intended to define the scope of my rambling, not include or exclude human societies. In fact, the entire point is that all societies have in fact engaged in this behavior. If you want to replace the tmer with "welfare state" (although I think that is too constraining since it implicitly denotes actions strictly by a state actor) go right ahead.

But I get it - it is me posting, so it is so much more fun to turn it into a pissing contest rather than actually discuss anything. Whatever.

Okay Berkut.  I will not argue definitions.

I read through your post.  I had no idea where you were going with this, since you completely buried your lead.  It was only in your last paragraph that you come to your thesis statement.

What I am not ok with, however, is the argument that we ought to give the poor awesome health care because they deserve it, and damn the costs. I think we should have an honest and rational discussion about what society can afford, and then decide what should be done with that level of resources. Maybe that is more health care, maybe it is more education, maybe it is more welfare. But it should never be divorced from the realization that it must be paid for.

You have to be either a complete Austrian-school libertarian, or a full-blown communist, to disagree with this statement.  So I'm not quite sure where the conversation can go.

[Josephus]

I think you also need to define "Awesome" health care. I think most social welfare societies believe the poor, again "poor" needs a definition, should have basic health care. Not sure that private hospital rooms with personal attendants is something most people think they need.

[Admiral Yi]

You have to be either a complete Austrian-school libertarian, or a full-blown communist, to disagree with this statement.  So I'm not quite sure where the conversation can go.

I don't think either of those would disagree with the statement as presented.

[Eddie Teach]

It's pretty clear to me that America can afford more than it currently provides, considering that other poorer nations already do.

[Berkut]

I am not sure that it is clear that other "poorer" nations can in fact afford the levels of <insert languish acceptable name for the process of funding socialism/welfare/transfer payments/whatever here>.

[Eddie Teach]

Oh, I was talking about health care.

[garbon]

Defining Socialism as having welfare policies is silly. The modern welfare state was NOT invented by socialists, it was invented by the paleo-conservatives of Bismarck's Prussia to prevent the pressure among the dis-enfranchised working classes of Germany to cause them to revolt and create a communist state. It worked. It worked so well that the Bismarckian welfare state was adopted by the SPD creating what today is known as Social Democracy. Since then all the world's Labour and Social Democratic parties have pretended the welfare state was their idea.

I think this also highlights want I think is wrong with Berk's want vs. can afford dichotomy.  It is true that general societies are not enacting these social changes out of kindness,there is still a want there...and that want can be as simple as it is better for the state to provide those services than have people agitated because they don't have them. On the flipside, I think it'd be inaccurate to say that we couldn't afford universal healthcare in the mid-90s - but rather the driving factor in not adopting was a lack of significant "want".

[The Brain]

Unlike Berk I don't think Socialism is the answer. Unless he defines it as cheese.