Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Razgovory]

Khymer Rouge was pretty socialist.

[Zanza]

Is Social Democracy Socialist?

Typically not. Modern Social Democrat parties in Europe are not about socializing the means of production, which I consider the core tenet of socialism.

[crazy canuck]

@Jos Really, the late 19th century is when it meant the control of the means of production. And if you look in the dictionary, it's still defined as the control of the means of production.

I think I had it right the first time when I said it no longer has meaning.

Yi's definition is everything short of a libertarian fantasy.

[Josquius]

@Jos Really, the late 19th century is when it meant the control of the means of production.

That's when it's definition expanded beyond this with the main streaming of social democracy.

And if you look in the dictionary, it's still defined as the control of the means of production.

People always miss out a key part of the dictionary definition.

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.

[grumbler]

When did socialism stop being about the control of the means of production, and instead become government services?

Indeed.  There are forms of socialism that don't involve the government at all.  Socialism is the organization of the economy so that the benefits of production go to the workers or the public in general, rather than to those providing the capital.  Generally, but not always, that organization requires that the government provide the capital to expand output, and socialist principals can be applied without requiring all economic activity be organized along socialist lines.

[Sheilbh]

I basically agree with JR's definition. But I think socialism is a tradition that contains many schools or approaches to politics rather than a single thing - arguably nothing better demonstrates the importance of the national than the failure of this singularly internationalist movement to cohere and not split into particulars. For example, I agree with CC that there is the goal of control of the means of production but there are multiple answers of who should control them and how (guild socialists, cooperatives, unions, state, direct worker control etc). But also the various pre-Marx movements and thinkers that are, after the fact, understood as socialist even if that's not directly what they're talking about.

I think the key difference between most schools of socialism is around time - and is ultimately the debate between revolution and reform. I think Jos is absolutely right it's the development of the SPD (with Bernstein and Kautsky's thinking) after the Erfurt Program which is how what we'd now recognise as social democracy emerges in the late 19th/early 20th century. The end goal is the same but through reform - or accommdation - with existing social orders and the long democratic route to achieving the revolutionary goal (similarly, the Labour Party established by the trade unions as a party in parliament to achieve socialism by parliamentary means).

All of this is obviously very Eurocentric (and for that Donald Sassoon's One Hundred Years of Socialism is really good) and I'm less sure on the ROTW. For example, my instinct is that in the post-colonial world/global south socialism is often a bit more similar to 19th century liberalism as often as much about national liberation, sovereignty and agency as in Europe it has (fleetingly) been about internationalism, class etc. I think it looks and does something different if you're at the top of  world order than it does if you're at the bottom.

Edit: And I think it's broadly similar for conservatism or liberalism - that they're best understood as broad traditions drawing from multiple roots with many branches rather than a butterfly pinned to a board.  Romantic Tory reaction is as much a part of the conservative tradition as, say, working class conservatism.

[The Brain]

My non-expert impression is that Sweden and Germany in say 1935 were roughly in a similar place concerning Socialism (whatever that place was, opinion seems to be divided). Sweden was ruled by Soc Dems and Germany by Nazis. Both regimes self-identified as "Social something", both had a pretty clear image of what they wanted to mould society to be (their images were extremely different, but neither image was about individualist capitalism), and both worked WITH industrialists to help achieve it.

Obviously, even if my impression is correct (which it may well not be) it only concerns one tiny dimension and has no impact on the evaluation of the relative merits of the regimes. The Swedish one was pretty great and the German one extremely awful.

[Tamas]

Next topic: revise the definition of Republic considering that China calls itself one.

[Josquius]

Next topic: revise the definition of Republic considering that China calls itself one.

China is a republic.
North Korea now, that's where there could be debate.

[Tamas]

Next topic: revise the definition of Republic considering that China calls itself one.

China is a republic.
North Korea now, that's where there could be debate.

Thanks for your input, comrade. 15 social credits for you!

[grumbler]

Next topic: revise the definition of Republic considering that China calls itself one.

  No revision necessary.  In China the people are (at least theoretically) sovereign, and government derives its legitimacy from elections.

[Sheilbh]

How is China not a republic? I'm confused

[grumbler]

How is China not a republic? I'm confused

This kind of thing sounds a lot like the "The United States is not a democracy" claims.

[HVC]

How is China not a republic? I'm confused

This kind of thing sounds a lot like the "The United States is not a democracy" claims.

Give it time

[Admiral Yi]

Give it time