Socialism

[viper37]

Yeah. What he describes is social democracy, which is exactly what Western liberal capitalism developed in response to socialism.

social democracy is what socialists started calling their option when it became synonymous with USSR.

[crazy canuck]

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

Its not semantics.  You set up a definition which includes all welfare reform policies of governments from the far left to the far right and called it socialism.  Not sure where the discussion goes form there.  Which is why I said your definition is rather odd. 

[Jacob]

social democracy is what socialists started calling their option when it became synonymous with USSR.

True enough... well, that and when they stopped pushing for revolution and instead bought into the democratic process.

[Admiral Yi]

Social Democracy is Communism with a vote?

[crazy canuck]

social democracy is what socialists started calling their option when it became synonymous with USSR.

True enough... well, that and when they stopped pushing for revolution and instead bought into the democratic process.

the most significant differences where the democratic process and private economic actors as opposed to government control of the means of production.

[crazy canuck]

Social Democracy is Communism with a vote?

That is the part Jacob was missing and which I tried to fill in for him.

[Admiral Yi]

the most significant differences where the democratic process and private economic actors as opposed to government control of the means of production.

Except that various self-proclaimed Communist states have allowed some degree of private ownership of the means of production, and various self-proclaimed Social Democratic states have had some degree of state ownership.

[Jacob]

the most significant differences where the democratic process and private economic actors as opposed to government control of the means of production.

Except that various self-proclaimed Communist states have allowed some degree of private ownership of the means of production, and various self-proclaimed Social Democratic states have had some degree of state ownership.

That's true for states of pretty much any ideological description - from Fascist to Monarchist to Liberal Democracies (including ones with very Conservative governments), so I'm not sure how that observation helps us.

What sort of definition are you looking for?

[crazy canuck]

the most significant differences where the democratic process and private economic actors as opposed to government control of the means of production.

Except that various self-proclaimed Communist states have allowed some degree of private ownership of the means of production, and various self-proclaimed Social Democratic states have had some degree of state ownership.

What you are describing is the period of transition to mixed economies from total government control.  That never occurred in social democratic countries because there was never total government control of the means of production.  It is true that in some countries some industries did come under state control but those were largely exceptions which proved the rule.

Certainly nothing like communism with a vote - your term.

[Neil]

You need to define your terms is we are going to have a sensible discussion about anything. If one of us defines socialism as state intervention, the next as a welfare state, the next as control of the means of production and the last as full central planning and distribution where each gets according to needs then we are not going to have a remotely sensible discussion.

Define your terms and we can have a discussion. Just be grateful that we are not defining your terms for you.

Edit: I mean just be grateful that everybody except me is not defining your terms for you.

He defined his terms, and then the lot of you started quibbling over how he defined them.

[Admiral Yi]

What sort of definition are you looking for?

Not sure I was really looking for a definition.  Throwing out an idea and seeing what happens.

[crazy canuck]

You need to define your terms is we are going to have a sensible discussion about anything. If one of us defines socialism as state intervention, the next as a welfare state, the next as control of the means of production and the last as full central planning and distribution where each gets according to needs then we are not going to have a remotely sensible discussion.

Define your terms and we can have a discussion. Just be grateful that we are not defining your terms for you.

Edit: I mean just be grateful that everybody except me is not defining your terms for you.

He defined his terms, and then the lot of you started quibbling over how he defined them.

Yes he defined them.  But in a really quite meaningless way as his definition incorporates most every political stripe I can think of in the modern age and perhaps most forms of government in all other ages.

[Berkut]

...which is why I intentionally defined the term in a very general sense.

I am not talking about the state owning the means of production, to any greater OR lesser extent. That is simply one means by which what I am talking about has been achieved. That is in the details.

I am talking about the general overall trend through human history to continually add more and more to the basket of goods/services/products that society decides should be allocated to those who do not necessarily earn them directly.

And this isn't about welfare either - because that has a connotation that is very much about the poor receiving that which they could not afford. But this goes well beyond that - public schooling, for example, is not just for those who cannot afford private schooling.

I get the objection to the term "socialism" since it has a historical context that is largely negative when used specifically in its most common usage as referencing a political system where the state controls some elements of the means of production. But I don't know of a better term to reference what I am talking about, which is the general concept of the society allocating some percentage of production for the common good, in contrast to that production being allocated to those who produce it/fund it/own the capital/etc.,etc.

I think this is a critically important issue that is largely lost in the details of partisan fighting. I don't even think there is a "right" answer (although there are certainly plenty of wrong ones) per se - I think there is a range though of *possible* answers that all will pretty much work.

Examples of clearly wrong answers: Communism (simply doesn't work in any practical sense, since it ignores some critical factors of human nature that drive behavior). Randian Libertarianism (fails for the exact same reason as Communism - it ignores some basic factors of human social nature that drive human behavior). Both if these had their chances, IMO, and both proved to be unworkable. Ironically enough, both of them still have their proponents who argue that their chances didn't really work out because they were not actually implemented thoroughly enough.

[Jacob]

Not sure I was really looking for a definition.  Throwing out an idea and seeing what happens.

OK

Then I'd say that social democracy is not communism with a vote. I'd say that social democracy is an attempt to achieve communist goals* within the framework of a liberal democratic state, with various doses of pragmatic compromise along the way.

*and I don't mean the "intermediate" revolutionary communist goal of a dictatorship of the proletariat (which tended to become permanent), but the part that was supposed to evolve out of that state - from each according to ability, to each according to need, equality, solidarity, lack of material want, and so on.

[Martinus]

I think the "social minimum" in the "civilized West" is this:

1. We should prevent people from dying from starvation, exposure or other form of failure to meet their basic biological needs.
2. We should prevent people from dying (including through health deterioration) of commonly curable diseases.
3. We should prevent minors from dying or suffering health deterioration from curable diseases or deprivation, irrespective of the financial position of their parents.
4. We should allow minors to get education that would allow them, subject to their personal talents, to perform any type of job they would like, irrespective of the financial position of their parents.
5. We should allow minors, to the extent possible, and subject to the overriding principle of minor's interest, to benefit from the above while raised by their biological parents.
6. We should allow people after their productive age to live their autumn years in dignity.

Agree/disagree?