Socialism != social spending.
They are not even remotely the same thing.
What a society chooses to spend on social programs has nothing to do with whether or not they are "socialist". You could spend zero on social spending with a free market driven economy, or you could spend 75% of your GDP on social spending, and neither would be "socialism".
Socialism is about the supply side of the economy, how things are organized in order to produce stuff, and who owns and controls that.
Social spending is about how that stuff is allocated to those who consume it.
There are important argument to be had and policy to decide on around how much of our production should be allocated to social spending. Really, really important discussions. Calling any kind of social spending "socialism" is so fucking stupid I can't even really believe that those crying about it are doing so in good faith to begin with - the US spends about 17% of GDP on social spending. Not as much as many, but more then plenty others. There is no magic point at which social spending becomes "socialism".
The variance in liberal democracies range from a low of around 14% to a high of about 30%. It is a matter of policy and choices made, and has nothing to do with "socialism" - none of the western liberal democracies are "Socialist" in any meaningful sense.
https://data.oecd.org/socialexp/social-spending.htm
Did you know that Nazis were lefty socialists? It's right there in the name! National SOCIALISTS!
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2021, 11:21:32 AM
Socialism != social spending.
Sounds like something a SOCIALIST would say.
Anyways, a lot of people on the right hate handouts .... but only if they go to the "wrong" people.
Just how some proponents of unfettered free markets cry for state help for the economy when something upsets the markets.
Quote from: Syt on June 07, 2021, 11:28:47 AM
Anyways, a lot of people on the right hate handouts .... but only if they go to the "wrong" people.
Just how some proponents of unfettered free markets cry for state help for the economy when something upsets the markets.
The wrong people being the poor and unfortunate of course.
Strangely the thread title is one I'm in full agreement with but your reasons are the opposite of what I see and disagree with.
What I most commonly see is the idea that the only valid socialism is 100% absolute marxism and that nothing else counts when social programmes are indeed examples of socialism.
No country in the world is 100% capitalist (even Somalia) or 100% socialist. The difference is where you place the slider. And plenty of countries are significantly further down the socialist line than the US.
How money is made is not particularly relevant. Sure, state owned industries are possible. But at the same time turning that effective socialised education system towards creating more small innovative businesses is another way to "do socialism". Internet smart guys always overlook the "Or regulated" part of the dictionary definition.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 07, 2021, 11:33:06 AM
The wrong people being the poor and unfortunate of course.
The wrong people being the "Other", i.e. anyone different from themselves. "We must first take care of OUR people." (Who that includes will differ widely on person and context, obviously.)
I try not to spend time on what other people think. You know, for sanity. But not like I always succeed, mind you.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2021, 11:21:32 AM
Socialism is about the supply side of the economy, how things are organized in order to produce stuff, and who owns and controls that.
That is one perspective. Another encompasses people like AOC and Bernie Sanders and a number of center left socialist parties in Europe. Even if you go back to what popular socialist parties were advocating in the early 20th century they were often labor market reforms or social programs that were designed to function in a mixed economy.
Socialist might advocate for social spending, but that does not make social spending socialism.
The idea that somewhere along the scale of how much a society devotes to "social spending" you magically become "socialist" makes no damn sense.
Two hundred years ago, nobody spent much of anything on social spending. Estimates are that in England around the industrial revolution, something like less then 1 or 2 percent of GDP went to social spending. Does that mean they were "socialists" when they double or tripled that?
That does not make any sense, and simply confuses the important discussion around what is appropriate social spending. France has the highest in the world at something like 30% of GDP spent on social programs. Does that make France socialist, but North Korea NOT socialist, because NK spends less then 30% of the GDP on social spending?
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2021, 12:30:30 PM
Socialist might advocate for social spending, but that does not make social spending socialism.
The idea that somewhere along the scale of how much a society devotes to "social spending" you magically become "socialist" makes no damn sense.
Two hundred years ago, nobody spent much of anything on social spending. Estimates are that in England around the industrial revolution, something like less then 1 or 2 percent of GDP went to social spending. Does that mean they were "socialists" when they double or tripled that?
That does not make any sense, and simply confuses the important discussion around what is appropriate social spending. France has the highest in the world at something like 30% of GDP spent on social programs. Does that make France socialist, but North Korea NOT socialist, because NK spends less then 30% of the GDP on social spending?
Doesn't seem so complicated. The word has different meanings depending on the context. North Korea is generally considered a totalitarian communist regime, which is one flavor of socialism.
Here is a sample of initiatives from Eugene Debs socialist platform for president in 1912:
QuoteTax Reform—The adoption of a graduated income tax, the increase of the rates of the present corporation tax and the extension of inheritance taxes......
Minimum Wage—By establishing minimum wage scales.
Direct Election of President—The Election of the President and Vice-President by direct vote of the people.
Social Insurance— ....a general system of insurance by the State of all its members against unemployment and invalidism and a system of compulsory insurance of their workers, without cost to the latter, against industrial diseases, accidents and death.
Also in the platform was woman's suffrage, public ownership of utilities and a shortened work day.
https://texasliberal.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/1912-socialist-platform-good-stuff/
The French have an actual socialist party that has governed France -- presidents Mitterrand and Hollandaise -- it is considered center - left.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2021, 12:49:14 PM
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.
Did someone say that North Korea is not socialist?
QuoteDid someone say that North Korea is not socialist?
Pretty sure they don't even claim to be these days.
Socialism for them was always just about the free shit from Russia rather than any deep Marxist belief.
The best analogy for North Korea I've seen is they're basically an imperial Japan remnant state. Fascist to the extreme.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2021, 12:30:30 PM
Socialist might advocate for social spending, but that does not make social spending socialism.
The idea that somewhere along the scale of how much a society devotes to "social spending" you magically become "socialist" makes no damn sense.
Two hundred years ago, nobody spent much of anything on social spending. Estimates are that in England around the industrial revolution, something like less then 1 or 2 percent of GDP went to social spending. Does that mean they were "socialists" when they double or tripled that?
That does not make any sense, and simply confuses the important discussion around what is appropriate social spending. France has the highest in the world at something like 30% of GDP spent on social programs. Does that make France socialist, but North Korea NOT socialist, because NK spends less then 30% of the GDP on social spending?
Well yes. That's just the thing. There's no point of magically becoming socialist and no point of magically becoming liberal.
It is however accurate to say that country a is more socialist than country b or that you think things should be more one way or the other depending on your beliefs.
If you come from a country where 5% tax rates and a brutal dog eat dog setup where the poor can just screw themselves then it's viable for you to call a nation with 40% tax rates and free education and health care socialist. On the other hand a citizen of this Scandinavian country would see themselves as merely normal and only see places like Cuba as socialist.
Another key error I see Internet smart guys making here is confusing the Marxist definition of socialism, a specific transitionary stage in the road to communism, with the general definition.
Quote from: Tyr on June 07, 2021, 12:54:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2021, 12:30:30 PM
Socialist might advocate for social spending, but that does not make social spending socialism.
The idea that somewhere along the scale of how much a society devotes to "social spending" you magically become "socialist" makes no damn sense.
Two hundred years ago, nobody spent much of anything on social spending. Estimates are that in England around the industrial revolution, something like less then 1 or 2 percent of GDP went to social spending. Does that mean they were "socialists" when they double or tripled that?
That does not make any sense, and simply confuses the important discussion around what is appropriate social spending. France has the highest in the world at something like 30% of GDP spent on social programs. Does that make France socialist, but North Korea NOT socialist, because NK spends less then 30% of the GDP on social spending?
Well yes. That's just the thing. There's no point of magically becoming socialist and no point of magically becoming liberal.
It is however accurate to say that country a is more socialist than country b or that you think things should be more one way or the other depending on your beliefs.
If you come from a country where 5% tax rates and a brutal dog eat dog setup where the poor can just screw themselves then it's viable for you to call a nation with 40% tax rates and free education and health care socialist. On the other hand a citizen of this Scandinavian country would see themselves as merely normal and only see places like Cuba as socialist.
Another key error I see Internet smart guys making here is confusing the Marxist definition of socialism, a specific transitionary stage in the road to communism, with the general definition.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2021, 12:49:14 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 07, 2021, 12:59:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2021, 12:49:14 PM
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.
Socialism is things I don't like. However, socialism is also things I like.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2021, 12:59:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2021, 01:01:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 07, 2021, 12:59:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2021, 12:49:14 PM
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.
Quote
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.
QuoteCuba 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2021, 02:28:02 PM
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.
Quote from: fromtia on June 07, 2021, 02:35:53 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2021, 02:36:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2021, 02:28:02 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Tyr on June 07, 2021, 03:03:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2021, 03:00:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2021, 02:36:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2021, 02:28:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on June 07, 2021, 01:21:17 PM
Lest we forget German State Socialism.
What's that?
Quote from: Zanza on June 08, 2021, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 07, 2021, 01:21:17 PM
Lest we forget German State Socialism.
What's that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)
I thought it was a pretty well known part of German history?
A big part of why the Nazis called themselves National Socialists and why German politics today is peculiar in the strength of its conservative socialists.
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2021, 03:37:32 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 08, 2021, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 07, 2021, 01:21:17 PM
Lest we forget German State Socialism.
What's that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)
I thought it was a pretty well known part of Germany history?
A big part of why the Nazis called themselves National Socialists and why German politics today is peculiar in the strength of its conservative socialists.
I clicked the link and Wiki told me it does not have an article of that description, so maybe not as well known as one might think? :P
You have to check the Pidgin article.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 08, 2021, 10:02:08 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2021, 03:37:32 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 08, 2021, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 07, 2021, 01:21:17 PM
Lest we forget German State Socialism.
What's that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)
I thought it was a pretty well known part of Germany history?
A big part of why the Nazis called themselves National Socialists and why German politics today is peculiar in the strength of its conservative socialists.
I clicked the link and Wiki told me it does not have an article of that description, so maybe not as well known as one might think? :P
Poor Tyr, just because he forgot a bracket. :P
Having the model social/welfare State founded by an arch-conservative/reactionary/right-winger was already hard enough. :lol:
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 08, 2021, 10:15:44 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 08, 2021, 10:02:08 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 08, 2021, 03:37:32 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 08, 2021, 12:28:07 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 07, 2021, 01:21:17 PM
Lest we forget German State Socialism.
What's that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Socialism_(Germany)
I thought it was a pretty well known part of Germany history?
A big part of why the Nazis called themselves National Socialists and why German politics today is peculiar in the strength of its conservative socialists.
I clicked the link and Wiki told me it does not have an article of that description, so maybe not as well known as one might think? :P
Poor Tyr, just because he forgot a bracket. :P
Having the model social/welfare State founded by an arch-conservative/reactionary/right-winger was already hard enough. :lol:
Actually, I've noticed our board has a tendency to not include closing parenthesis and thus breaks Wikipedia links.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2021, 02:55:54 PM
Quote from: fromtia on June 07, 2021, 02:35:53 PM
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.
So you started a thread understanding that socialist can be a term widely applied, and used as a self identifying label by lots of people on the center left, but wanted to complain that it "annoys the shit out of you" that people on the right use the broader definition?
Another one for Yi of not a useful term - and there's huge history of arguments within the left over what is or isn't socialism plus all the national traditions. At best a vague gesturing of being on the left, at worst a shibboleth that you're in the gang.