Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Socialism

Socialism (Page 7)
Thread Tools
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Doesn't make it any less socialist. That just makes it socialism that you're o.k. with.
So government function= socialism. You're an idiot.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Give us the definition you are using.
Why don't you give us a definition of socialism that defines government performing a role of government as automatically socialist.

We'll wait.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 04:29 AM
 
Okay.

I define socialism as shorthand for how in all cases government performing the role of government is automatically a cluster****.

Like, inherently.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 08:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
So government function= socialism. You're an idiot.
So, basically, once universal health care becomes a government function, it ceases to be socialist?

Also, I'm surprised that you aren't able to see ways in which a military could be run by the private sector.
( Last edited by Wiskedjak; Jun 20, 2012 at 08:34 AM. )
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 11:59 AM
 
South Africa has a very large private military economy on top of its national military.

What about Police, Fire Departments, corrections...
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
So government function= socialism. You're an idiot.
You seem to be saying that socialism means "new role of government," which would also be idiotic. I'm not going to try to put words in your mouth, so it would be nice if you would put them there so I'm not tempted to try.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Okay.

I define socialism as shorthand for how in all cases government performing the role of government is automatically a cluster****.

Like, inherently.
That may be a definition of government, but it's not a definition of socialism. (Though cluster**** is fitting.)

Wiskedjak: your problem is, you don't read at all, so it's almost impossible to discuss anything with you. You make up facts and figures at random (like your ass-pulled 90% statistics) and you operate from definitions of things that are made up on the spot by yourself, not part of any recognized definition.

If you ever bothered to read anything, you'd know that there's no definition of socialism anywhere that includes military. It's on you to produce one from a legit source. So get on it.

A military is not an economic system, it's not a political movement. It's not an ideology. It can't be nationalized (like healthcare can be since it's a private function) since it's already a function of national government. It's not a means of producing goods, nor is it a method of distributing them. Attempts to shoehorn it into any of these is just part of making things up to suit a lame 'argument'.

For the dummies that think taxation is a prerequisite, again: you don't know history. The US military predates income taxes by 140 years. Even though of course it's addressed in the constitution, that also isn't a prerequisite since it predates even that by roughly 14 years.

Military power and authority are a function of state power, always have been, always will be. (Private military contractors by the way are only granted limited authority by and under contract from government, not the other way around). There is no recognized definition of socialism that includes military or even mentions the word, and of course militaries as a function of state have existed long before the term socialist ever did.

The head of state in any legitimate government must command the military, otherwise you get coups where some two-bit colonel (with allegiance at the rank and file not the upper ranks aligned to legit government) ends up in control of the nation.

I realize leftists virtually always have to rely on vague theoretical nonsense, bullshit, or simply making things up, but facts and history always prove you wrong and don't magically change simply because you're ignorant of them.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You seem to be saying that socialism means "new role of government," which would also be idiotic. I'm not going to try to put words in your mouth, so it would be nice if you would put them there so I'm not tempted to try.
Part of the legitimate definition of socialism is the nationalization of private means of production and distribution. This is why it is considered 'socializing' the healthcare industry (private) by nationalizing it. People are actually using a correct definition, not just making one up. So yes, in this sense, a 'new role of government' that's been taken over from private industry can be defined (legitimately) as socialism.

As I said above, a function of government can't be re-nationalized. That makes no sense.

I'm curious, do leftists also believe that having elected representatives and a congress is socialism? Are courts socialism? Is making laws socialism? Is voting socialism?

Since some people clearly seem to have made up the idea that government functions are automatically socialist, can we assume that in this make-believe universe every function of any government is automatically socialist?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Part of the legitimate definition of socialism is the nationalization of private means of production and distribution. This is why it is considered 'socializing' the healthcare industry (private) by nationalizing it. People are actually using a correct definition, not just making one up. So yes, in this sense, a 'new role of government' that's been taken over from private industry can be defined (legitimately) as socialism.

As I said above, a function of government can't be re-nationalized. That makes no sense.
It's pre-nationalized.

Socialism isn't a verb. I am starting to see why you think it is, but I have to warn you that's a tough row to hoe.

I'm curious, do leftists also believe that having elected representatives and a congress is socialism? Are courts socialism? Is making laws socialism? Is voting socialism?
I'm more sympathetic to the distinction between "means of production" and means of something else. You said that military doesn't produce or distribute goods. This is thought-provoking. But then again neither does health-care for example, in the same way. They are both services when you get down to it, not goods. Health-care produces a service that makes you healthy (or rather, less ill), and military produces a service that makes you secure. Their tangible components are merely tools to deliver those services; health care can produce drugs, and military can produce bullets, but neither of those are really the end product, they're merely an avenue of delivering the promised service. The real fundamental distinction in my mind is that the service produced by military is by necessity a shared service, we can't be made secure one by one. IOW it prevents a tragedy of the commons, like environmental protection, while health care doesn't (except for immunizations, which are already state-sponsored in many cases, for that reason). But it has nothing to do with whether socialism is good, bad, or applicable.

So anyway to your question, is it socialism to have congress produce rules, to have courts produce justice/vengeance, or to have voting produce representation. I think that some equivalent non-government "products" would be religion (rules), lawyers (justice/vengeance) and internet postings like this one (representation). If the state controlled the means of production of these things, I think that would qualify as socialism (in an ongoing steady-state way afterwards, not referring to the action of acquiring them). Do you? Meanwhile if the state merely policed those functions, that would not be socialism, IMO.

Since some people clearly seem to have made up the idea that government functions are automatically socialist, can we assume that in this make-believe universe every function of any government is automatically socialist?
That's a good question (but worded badly; It's not "government functions" that constitutes socialism, it's "government controlling the means of production"). The difference would be "control" vs "regulate," in my opinion. If government is in control, then yes (like police, roads, factories, operating all the TV stations, operating the internet, etc). If the government is merely a player influencing the game, then no (like bidding on contractors, auditing compliance, or collecting fees). IMO.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post

That's a good question (but worded badly; It's not "government functions" that constitutes socialism, it's "government controlling the means of production"). The difference would be "control" vs "regulate," in my opinion. If government is in control, then yes (like police, roads, factories, operating all the TV stations, operating the internet, etc). If the government is merely a player influencing the game, then no (like bidding on contractors, auditing compliance, or collecting fees). IMO.
Government controlling the means of production - communist
Government heavily influencing the game - socialist.

To expand on my opinion:

Keep in mind that, as has already been established in this thread, there is no "absolute" form of government. Its a continuum that slides in one direction or another along many axises. When someone defines a nation as "capitalist" they are referring to that nation being closer to "true capitalism" than to "true socialism" or "true monarchy." No such "true" form of government exists or has ever existed.

I'm not sure anyone advocates disposing of "all socialist functions of government" because those functions number a great many. The position is that the US needs to stay closer to free market capitalism when drafting fiscal policy. Of course we need regulations on certain markets. We need anti-trust laws. We need some markets to be socialized, because the benefit of doing so outweighs the economic benefits of free-market capitalism. The military is a great example of this.

Socialism does not create net economic value (as there is no value/profit incentive for government), which is what our economy runs on. Capitalism does. So, when drafting policies that have impact to our economy as a whole, we must consider where to place that slider on the continuum of "socialist" vs "capitalist."

The right's big concern (I'll disclaim that I mean fiscally conservative) is that once the slider is moved too far towards the socialist end of the continuum, there is no going back. Dependency classes are created, not enough value is created by the work force to contain inflation or to maintain our standard of living, and worst (and most extreme) of all leaders of government agencies find themselves with enough power to manipulate the systems to bolster that power for the benefit of themselves and their friends.

So to say "becoming more socialist" is inherently bad is incorrect, unless you consider a frame of reference that already includes the fact that many aspects of our economy are already over-socialized to the point that the detriment of the government intervention to the economy far exceeds the benefit to our society as a whole. IMO, the military is not one of these examples, but the health care industry most certainly is.

I guess to sum it up (and Uncle this is not directed at you by any means). To speak in absolutes about our form of government, and to cite examples in terms of those absolutes, is at best incompetent and at worst dishonest.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jun 20, 2012 at 03:49 PM. Reason: added IMO)
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 04:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Government controlling the means of production - communist
Government heavily influencing the game - socialist.
In general I agree with your post, but I don't think this labeling scheme works. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production, and communism is when the government ("people") owns EVERYTHING, ie there is no such thing as private property. You could maybe try to say that the microcosm of only that part of production that is owned by the government is a closed system of communism, but I don't think that's useful and it's still not really true because government workers still have private property, like their swingline staplers and the clothes on their backs.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
In general I agree with your post, but I don't think this labeling scheme works. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production, and communism is when the government ("people") owns EVERYTHING, ie there is no such thing as private property. You could maybe try to say that the microcosm of only that part of production that is owned by the government is a closed system of communism, but I don't think that's useful and it's still not really true because government workers still have private property, like their swingline staplers and the clothes on their backs.
Ok, I'd agree with you there. I would still maintain that influencing the game, although to a lesser extent, is still controlling the means of production (i.e. socialistic). Again, this isn't always inherently bad.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 05:35 PM
 
I don't know if you can say that once you become over socialized that you can't go back. China is a excellent example. Its a communist government with a socialism system in place with growing free market economics.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
If you ever bothered to read anything, you'd know that there's no definition of socialism anywhere that includes military. It's on you to produce one from a legit source. So get on it.
There's a definition of socialism that includes universal health care??? Universal health care is not an economic system, it's not a political movement. It's not an ideology. It's not a means of producing goods, nor is it a method of distributing them. Attempts to shoehorn it into any of these is just part of making things up to suit a lame 'argument'.

As for "nationalized", the US military is *already* nationalized as per your statement ("it's already a function of national government"). Do you disagree that it's possible to have privately run militaries?

Also, you're increasing need to attack me directly only reinforces my opinion that you're having difficulty defending your position.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I don't know if you can say that once you become over socialized that you can't go back. China is a excellent example. Its a communist government with a socialism system in place with growing free market economics.
It's interesting how similar the anti-socialism argument is to the global warming fear mongering. Environmentalists *also* suggest that if we let things go too far, there's no opportunity for recovery.
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:26 PM
 
Dropping terms like idiot are not the best ways to avoid infractions.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 02:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
If you ever bothered to read anything, you'd know that there's no definition of socialism anywhere that includes military. It's on you to produce one from a legit source. So get on it.

A military is not an economic system, it's not a political movement. It's not an ideology. It can't be nationalized (like healthcare can be since it's a private function) since it's already a function of national government. It's not a means of producing goods, nor is it a method of distributing them. Attempts to shoehorn it into any of these is just part of making things up to suit a lame 'argument'.
National defense is a service and is nationalized.

National defense is a service just like healthcare. One saves lives and the other saves lives.

If we can nationalize defense, we can nationalize healthcare. What makes one service more 'socialism' than another service?

Border patrol can be privatize.
Firefighters can be privatize.
Police can be privatize.
Space exploration can be privatize.
The Military can be privatize.

Blackwater anyone?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It's pre-nationalized.
Once again, you can’t nationalize a function of state. You’re trying to apply an incorrect definition.


Socialism isn't a verb. I am starting to see why you think it is, but I have to warn you that's a tough row to hoe.
Socialism is either an economic system or an ideology. Like Capitalism.
By the way, Socialize (ed) is a verb, meaning to bring under government ownership.
Not really sure where you were trying to go with that tangent.



I'm more sympathetic to the distinction between "means of production" and means of something else. You said that military doesn't produce or distribute goods. This is thought-provoking. But then again neither does health-care for example, in the same way. They are both services when you get down to it, not goods. Health-care produces a service that makes you healthy (or rather, less ill), and military produces a service that makes you secure. Their tangible components are merely tools to deliver those services; health care can produce drugs, and military can produce bullets, but neither of those are really the end product, they're merely an avenue of delivering the promised service.
This is where it’s helpful to stay within the boundaries of fact in what’s actually being debated.

First off- direct health care services are not what’s being talked about in the current debate surrounding attempts to socialize medicine in the US. Heatlh INSURANCE is. Insurance is a product, a consumer good and it’s currently provided by private industry. Government attempts to take over this industry and control its production and distribution do indeed fit the ACTUAL definition of socialism, not all of the wildly flailing and constantly shifting made-up definitions being flung around here.

Secondly- Militaries do not produce a product, an economic good or service that’s a commodity. (A requirement of the correct definition of socialism). You can’t go hire the military to do anything for you. Militaries don’t provide consumer goods. Military providing you security is a pleasant byproduct based only on the fact that you live in democratic republic wherein you elect the commander-in-chief with a directive that the nation’s armed forces will act defense of the nation. Unfortunately, it's far from a promise.

You could very well live in a dictatorship where the directive of the military is based on the commander-in-chief’s whim. Provide you security? How about conscript you as cannon fodder? How about round you up and toss you in jail because you spoke out against the dictator? Or behead you and torch your village because you’re of the wrong religion or ethic group.

Once again, a nation’s armed forces are an extension of state power and can be used for virtually any directive the state wishes to engage in, often including torment, punishment and subjugation of citizens. Providing you with security is far from a guarantee. In fact, going by most of history, it’s actually the rare exception.


So anyway to your question, is it socialism to have congress produce rules, to have courts produce justice/vengeance, or to have voting produce representation. I think that some equivalent non-government "products" would be religion (rules), lawyers (justice/vengeance) and internet postings like this one (representation). If the state controlled the means of production of these things, I think that would qualify as socialism (in an ongoing steady-state way afterwards, not referring to the action of acquiring them). Do you? Meanwhile if the state merely policed those functions, that would not be socialism, IMO.
Lawyers and Internet Service Providers provide products and services that if taken over and controlled by government would qualify as socialism. It fits the definition.

Lawyers (or private investigators for example) don’t qualify as lawmakers or law enforcement. Those are state functions. Policing private functions (law enforcement) is within the realm of government power, and no, isn't socialist by definition since it isn't direct control of the means of production.

And of course lawmaking, direct representation and the rest aren't socialism- I'm merely asking a hypothetical question since some people seem to think that anything government does is socialism. Or if they do have a line, where is it they draw it? I suspect, only at things like the military that they think is some 'gotcha' argument that's actually an idiotic one.



That's a good question (but worded badly; It's not "government functions" that constitutes socialism, it's "government controlling the means of production").
Exactly. You could have stopped here and it’s all you would have needed to write. It’s the whole point of the question, and you answered it. It didn’t require a further definition of what socialism ACTUALLY is. The only thing you might add, is that military power is a government function and also not anything to do with socialism, which is an economic system.

I’ve asked Wiskedjak to produce a legitimate definition of socialism that includes a nation’s military, and so far he’s failed to produce one. I won’t hold my breath waiting for him to put up or shut up.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
more nonsense attempting to skirt the challenge.
Stick to cut and paste trolling. I asked for a definition of socialism that includes military. Still waiting.

Your lame attempt to make universal healthcare into a definition of socialism and not the act of government takeover and control that's the actual definition is just more of you flailing around tossing up whatever crap you can and hoping against hope something sticks and that you might somehow blunder into an actual argument. As always, it's not working.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Once again, you can’t nationalize a function of state. You’re trying to apply an incorrect definition.
Actually, you are. Your definition is like a snapshot, a moment in time, and anything from a different time contradicts your snapshot. It's the ultimate conservatism: Keep things exactly precisely as they are right this very second. Any change is bad. That's your definition, but it's not the correct definition.

Socialism is either an economic system or an ideology. Like Capitalism.
By the way, Socialize (ed) is a verb, meaning to bring under government ownership.
Not really sure where you were trying to go with that tangent.
"Socialize" is a derivation of "socialism." "Socialism" is not a derivation of "socialize." Look up any definition anywhere, and "socialize" will refer to "socialism" but not vice versa.

The point is that the transition (to socialism) is not the definition. It makes no difference how it got that way, if something is socialist it could have been that way forever. The conversion (or not) is irrelevant.

First off- direct health care services are not what’s being talked about in the current debate surrounding attempts to socialize medicine in the US. Heatlh INSURANCE is. Insurance is a product, a consumer good and it’s currently provided by private industry.
...
Secondly- Militaries do not produce a product, an economic good or service that’s a commodity.
No, both are services, both are products (in the sense that services are products). You can buy and sell military service, and you can also buy and sell democracy. People do it all the time.

You can’t go hire the military to do anything for you.
Well, I can't, but it's just because i can't afford it

Militaries don’t provide consumer goods. Military providing you security is a pleasant byproduct based only on the fact that you live in democratic republic wherein you elect the commander-in-chief with a directive that the nation’s armed forces will act defense of the nation. Unfortunately, it's far from a promise. You could very well live in a dictatorship where the directive of the military is based on the commander-in-chief’s whim. Provide you security? How about conscript you as cannon fodder? How about round you up and toss you in jail because you spoke out against the dictator? Or behead you and torch your village because you’re of the wrong religion or ethic group. Once again, a nation’s armed forces are an extension of state power and can be used for virtually any directive the state wishes to engage in, often including torment, punishment and subjugation of citizens. Providing you with security is far from a guarantee. In fact, going by most of history, it’s actually the rare exception
As if medicine can't also be used for evil, by public or private sector evildoers...


Lawyers (or private investigators for example) don’t qualify as lawmakers or law enforcement. Those are state functions. Policing private functions (law enforcement) is within the realm of government power, and no, isn't socialist by definition since it isn't direct control of the means of production.
Law enforcement is a service, that can be bought and sold (for example). It's a means of producing a product. The only reason it's a government function is because that product is considered too important to be let out of government control. We want our government to have control over the production of that product. Not only do we want everyone to get enough, we specifically want no one to get extra. No different than if we were rationing government cheese (well the difference is that one implementation is smart and the other is stupid).


Exactly. You could have stopped here and it’s all you would have needed to write. It’s the whole point of the question, and you answered it. It didn’t require a further definition of what socialism ACTUALLY is. The only thing you might add, is that military power is a government function and also not anything to do with socialism, which is an economic system.
If that were true then anything could be re-classified as a government "function" instead of "means of production" and then you wouldn't call it "socialism" anymore. Rationing out cheese could be called a government "function" instead of a means of production (of cheese). The only definition of socialism that would be contradicted by that is your snapshot one, which is false. Do you have any supporting reference for your snapshot-based definition?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I don't know if you can say that once you become over socialized that you can't go back. China is a excellent example. Its a communist government with a socialism system in place with growing free market economics.
Do you see them becoming a free country in the next 20 years? I don't.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Do you see them becoming a free country in the next 20 years? I don't.
And 20 years ago if some one had said China will become a world power, and economic power and would open up its walls and move towards a free market system people would have laughed.


But how do you define free? Because as it stands right now you are more free to conduct business in China then in North America.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 08:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Actually, you are. Your definition is like a snapshot, a moment in time, and anything from a different time contradicts your snapshot. It's the ultimate conservatism: Keep things exactly precisely as they are right this very second. Any change is bad. That's your definition, but it's not the correct definition.
It's interesting. This definition, that Socialism is the nationalization of private means of production, combined with the statement that the military *can't* be socialist because it's already nationalized, suggests that once health care is nationalized it'll cease to be socialist (ie: Socialism is the *act* of nationalizing).
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2012, 08:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Stick to cut and paste trolling. I asked for a definition of socialism that includes military. Still waiting.

Your lame attempt to make universal healthcare into a definition of socialism and not the act of government takeover and control that's the actual definition is just more of you flailing around tossing up whatever crap you can and hoping against hope something sticks and that you might somehow blunder into an actual argument. As always, it's not working.
Tell you what: you stop dodging Subego's question that was posed first and show us a definition of socialism that includes health care, and I'll consider answering your question if you can bring yourself to respond without flinging insults.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Give us the definition you are using.
Why don't you give us a definition of socialism that defines government performing a role of government as automatically socialist.

We'll wait.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 07:37 AM
 
You won't generally see the term Socialism used in context of a single policy, but of an overarching agenda or more pervasive economic model. Why? Because that's how the purveyors of the term defined it. I see the struggle to understand this more a matter of argumentative hair-splitting to try and convince conservatives of the merit of Socialism when this policy or that clearly does not equate to Socialism.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You won't generally see the term Socialism used in context of a single policy,
Which is *exactly* why I'd like to see CRASH answer subego's question first.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You won't generally see the term Socialism used in context of a single policy, but of an overarching agenda or more pervasive economic model.
I don't get it. Is medicine more "overarching" than military? Is this a slippery slope argument?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 06:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't get it. Is medicine more "overarching" than military? Is this a slippery slope argument?
Let me try this another way.

Socialism
-ism
  • denoting an action or its result
  • denoting a system, principle, or ideological movement
  • denoting a pathological condition
So in context it's either a political movement, a system, a principle, or a mental disorder.

Slippery slope? You mean from this policy or that, to the government essentially owning all means of production? Not if you're trying to convince me that we're already there. It'd be more of a crumbling cliff in that regard.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 06:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Which is *exactly* why I'd like to see CRASH answer subego's question first.
CRASH answered subego's question at least as clearly if not more clearly than subego did. How is a Universal Health Care bill, shoehorned onto the American public in spite of its majority disagreement, including its own representatives enjoying back-door bribery and waivers; not a political movement?

With luck, it will have been found in stark contrast to the laws governing this country. If not, it will be movement toward a principle; an ideological system. Of course, never to be fully realized before communism.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 06:42 PM
 
socialism |ˈsōSHəˌlizəm| noun

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
This can be contrasted with .....

capitalism |ˈkapətlˌizəm| noun

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Now having said that, I completely reject this black-white, either-or, 1-0 mentality that is pervading this thread. The reality is that there are certain aspects of civilized society that are best suited to a "socialist" model ... and there are others that are best suited to a "capitalist" model. Unless, of course, one is blinded by ideology on either side of the spectrum. In which case ....

OAW
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2012, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Let me try this another way.

Socialism
-ism
  • denoting an action or its result
  • denoting a system, principle, or ideological movement
  • denoting a pathological condition
So in context it's either a political movement, a system, a principle, or a mental disorder.
But it's often (lately) used to describe health care, which is a "single policy," so either you disagree that it is used about health care, or you disagree that health care is a "single policy" (but military still is), or you're actually arguing that military is and health care isn't (or neither is?), or something else?

Slippery slope? You mean from this policy or that, to the government essentially owning all means of production? Not if you're trying to convince me that we're already there. It'd be more of a crumbling cliff in that regard.
Who's trying to convince you of that? Are you on one of those "sides?" Not trying to point fingers, it would just help to interpret your posts if I could tell what the motive of them was.

How is a Universal Health Care bill, shoehorned onto the American public in spite of its majority disagreement, including its own representatives enjoying back-door bribery and waivers; not a political movement?

With luck, it will have been found in stark contrast to the laws governing this country. If not, it will be movement toward a principle; an ideological system.
That's a stretch, and the same stretch could easily be applied to our ongoing, overlapping military shenanigans. So what is the point? If you were arguing that X is not an agenda or economic model, then that could exclude X as socialism. But to argue that it is one, still doesn't tell us anything about whether it is socialism, and it certainly doesn't distinguish it from Y or Z that are also obliquely agendas or economic models, so I don't see how this gets us anywhere. What connection am I missing?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
But it's often (lately) used to describe health care, which is a "single policy," so either you disagree that it is used about health care, or you disagree that health care is a "single policy" (but military still is), or you're actually arguing that military is and health care isn't (or neither is?), or something else?
It's not being used to describe health care, it is being used to describe movement toward a single-payer, universal health care system as expressed by Obama who claims that while a single-payer system is the preferred conclusion, you cannot move from our current system to a single-payer system overnight. Notwithstanding the fact that Obamacare encompasses other means of centralization including alienating private lenders from participating in student loan programs and adding approximately 16 million new people to the Medicaid roles. Obamacare is massive in its scope, encompasses more than simply health care, is costly for the taxpayer, and has future implications.

You also cannot move to Socialism overnight. It occurs through gradual movements away from free market capitalism and it is a compilation of this policy, on top of that policy, and then another policy on top of the policy before that until it is the pervasive economic model of the country. It is only a slippery slope if you acknowledge a downward grade. Those who do not acknowledge a downward grade will maintain that the slippery slope is nothing more than a fallacious argument as opposed to merely observing movement in one direction or another.

Who's trying to convince you of that? Are you on one of those "sides?" Not trying to point fingers, it would just help to interpret your posts if I could tell what the motive of them was.
My motive is simple. Socialism is a phrase coined by proponents of an ideology that puts all matters of ownership into the hands of the collective organization, realized as a centralized authority. I've found over time here there are a few ways folks approach the topic of Socialism. Those who generally appreciate the ideology, but understand it has a stigma will often use this policy or that (usually those deemed right-wing pets) in an attempt to convince others it's not so bad or to mitigate the stigma. Others believe socialism is abused by the right as a red herring to oppose any increase in centralized authority; they're generally more aware of their distaste for the rigidity of the right than they are the actual principle of socialism and will maintain this position regardless of whether or not movement toward the principle is apparent or even outwardly expressed by its proponents. No amount of evidence will convince them that conservatives aren't against progress of any kind for the sick and the poor... and the rest of us. To be clear, I do not pretend some aren't invoking the stigma by abusing the term in opposing any action of government and that's unfortunate, but I think something as massive as this health care legislation is just-cause for the accusation. The question the SCOTUS is grappling with this week is; what then can't the government require of you for the collective good?

That's a stretch, and the same stretch could easily be applied to our ongoing, overlapping military shenanigans. So what is the point? If you were arguing that X is not an agenda or economic model, then that could exclude X as socialism. But to argue that it is one, still doesn't tell us anything about whether it is socialism, and it certainly doesn't distinguish it from Y or Z that are also obliquely agendas or economic models, so I don't see how this gets us anywhere. What connection am I missing?
It's not a stretch to say that the reason Obamacare will be deemed unconstitutional is because of a founding document that limits what the government can require its collective to do for the collective good. If the governing philosophy is predicated more on what government shouldn't do than what it should, it likely does not fit neatly within the definition of Socialism. However, each new policy that expands the government's role in the means of production moves away from a constitutionally-limited model and toward a socialist model; the ism of socialism.
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've found over time here there are a few ways folks approach the topic of Socialism. Those who generally appreciate the ideology, but understand it has a stigma will often use this policy or that (usually those deemed right-wing pets) in an attempt to convince others it's not so bad or to mitigate the stigma. Others believe socialism is abused by the right as a red herring to oppose any increase in centralized authority; they're generally more aware of their distaste for the rigidity of the right than they are the actual principle of socialism and will maintain this position regardless of whether or not movement toward the principle is apparent or even outwardly expressed by its proponents. No amount of evidence will convince them that conservatives aren't against progress of any kind for the sick and the poor... and the rest of us. To be clear, I do not pretend some aren't invoking the stigma by abusing the term in opposing any action of government and that's unfortunate, but I think something as massive as this health care legislation is just-cause for the accusation. The question the SCOTUS is grappling with this week is; what then can't the government require of you for the collective good?
You've mentioned 3 approaches toward Socialism, but brushed over the third:
1. Lefties who use this or that policy to convince others that Socialism isn't so bad.
2. Lefties who believe Socialism is abused by the Right as a red herring to oppose any increase in centralized authority.
3. Righties who abuse Socialism as a red herring to oppose any policy that they don't like. (this is the one you brushed over/aside)

#2 and #3 are very closely related; I'd probably have merged them. But, I recognize a distinction. Certainly, some Lefties will think a red herring exists when it really doesn't.

I'm not certain that *any* of the above are being used in the case of the Universal Health Care debate. It's pretty clear to me that this is an example of Socialism. I'm also not using the Military as an attempt to convince others that Socialism isn't so bad. Rather, I'm attempting to use it to point out flaws and inconsistencies in arguments (ie: "Socialism is central ownership of production" breaks apart when Services are thrown into the mix; also, the idea that the Right must be opposed to anything painted as "Socialist").
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 10:15 AM
 
FWIW, my interest is in my own consistency.

Is there something about the military which makes it immune to the problems which plague systems like, say, government run health care? No? Then it walks like a duck.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 06:39 PM
 
Thank you, ebuddy, for the thoughtful response.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It's not being used to describe health care, it is being used to describe movement toward a single-payer, universal health care system as expressed by Obama who claims that while a single-payer system is the preferred conclusion, you cannot move from our current system to a single-payer system overnight. Notwithstanding the fact that Obamacare encompasses other means of centralization including alienating private lenders from participating in student loan programs and adding approximately 16 million new people to the Medicaid roles. Obamacare is massive in its scope, encompasses more than simply health care, is costly for the taxpayer, and has future implications.

You also cannot move to Socialism overnight. It occurs through gradual movements away from free market capitalism and it is a compilation of this policy, on top of that policy, and then another policy on top of the policy before that until it is the pervasive economic model of the country. It is only a slippery slope if you acknowledge a downward grade. Those who do not acknowledge a downward grade will maintain that the slippery slope is nothing more than a fallacious argument as opposed to merely observing movement in one direction or another.
This sounds like a recycling of many of the arguments hippies use(d) against the evil "military industrial complex." I'm not saying it's incorrect, when either side uses it, I'm just saying it doesn't differentiate the two.


My motive is simple. Socialism is a phrase coined by proponents of an ideology that puts all matters of ownership into the hands of the collective organization, realized as a centralized authority. I've found over time here there are a few ways folks approach the topic of Socialism. Those who generally appreciate the ideology, but understand it has a stigma will often use this policy or that (usually those deemed right-wing pets) in an attempt to convince others it's not so bad or to mitigate the stigma. Others believe socialism is abused by the right as a red herring to oppose any increase in centralized authority; they're generally more aware of their distaste for the rigidity of the right than they are the actual principle of socialism and will maintain this position regardless of whether or not movement toward the principle is apparent or even outwardly expressed by its proponents. No amount of evidence will convince them that conservatives aren't against progress of any kind for the sick and the poor... and the rest of us. To be clear, I do not pretend some aren't invoking the stigma by abusing the term in opposing any action of government and that's unfortunate, but I think something as massive as this health care legislation is just-cause for the accusation. The question the SCOTUS is grappling with this week is; what then can't the government require of you for the collective good?


It's not a stretch to say that the reason Obamacare will be deemed unconstitutional is because of a founding document that limits what the government can require its collective to do for the collective good. If the governing philosophy is predicated more on what government shouldn't do than what it should, it likely does not fit neatly within the definition of Socialism. However, each new policy that expands the government's role in the means of production moves away from a constitutionally-limited model and toward a socialist model; the ism of socialism.
The constitutional question is definitely a good one, and I agree with you on it far more than I disagree. But it's irrelevant to the socialism question. The constitution doesn't say you can't do Obamacare because it's socialism. The constitution doesn't even mention socialism. The only way military and health care are differentiated by the constitution is because military is mentioned by name. Military is an exception, and it's not because it falls outside the definition of socialism (or whatever classification you want to use for what's ok and what's not), it's because that type of socialism is appropriate. And other types, by the way, are supposed to be constitutional amendments, because if we don't agree it's needed by a 3/4 majority, then it's not needed.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2012, 07:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Thank you, ebuddy, for the thoughtful response.


This sounds like a recycling of many of the arguments hippies use(d) against the evil "military industrial complex." I'm not saying it's incorrect, when either side uses it, I'm just saying it doesn't differentiate the two.
This just affirms the ol' broken-clock theory. Where they're likely correct is that it's hardly effective to complain after your concern has already come to fruition.

The constitutional question is definitely a good one, and I agree with you on it far more than I disagree. But it's irrelevant to the socialism question. The constitution doesn't say you can't do Obamacare because it's socialism. The constitution doesn't even mention socialism. The only way military and health care are differentiated by the constitution is because military is mentioned by name. Military is an exception, and it's not because it falls outside the definition of socialism (or whatever classification you want to use for what's ok and what's not), it's because that type of socialism is appropriate. And other types, by the way, are supposed to be constitutional amendments, because if we don't agree it's needed by a 3/4 majority, then it's not needed.
I suppose you could stretch to claim the military is socialistic (adjective), but it still does not constitute socialism (noun). It makes a better case for the rigid-right when they can cite proponents of this policy or that; schooled on the philosophical model and appear to be driven to thrust it upon the collective regardless of its majority opposition.

Edited to thank you for engaging conversations in such a way as to elicit thoughtful responses.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Jun 27, 2012 at 07:28 AM. )
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2012, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This just affirms the ol' broken-clock theory. Where they're likely correct is that it's hardly effective to complain after your concern has already come to fruition.
It's also not very effective to complain about properties which don't distinguish the good from the bad. "Socialism" is an ineffective criticism because there are valuable uses for socialism and that's why we've always had it, even before there was a word for it. "Unaffordable," "convoluted," "corrupt," or "unconstitutional" would be more useful condemnations. If your argument rests or builds on "socialism," you're likely to be immediately tuned out by intelligent people, because socialism isn't an epithet, it's just a tool.

I suppose you could stretch to claim the military is socialistic (adjective), but it still does not constitute socialism (noun). It makes a better case for the rigid-right when they can cite proponents of this policy or that; schooled on the philosophical model and appear to be driven to thrust it upon the collective regardless of its majority opposition.
I don't see what you're building a distinction on besides wishful thinking. Military has "this" and "that" policies, it has expansive vision, philosophical models, and "thrusting," it's often wildly unpopular and forced on unwilling participants, yet remains larger than ever. On what basis do you claim "it does not constitute socialism?" Government controls the means of production in the military.

Edited to thank you for engaging conversations in such a way as to elicit thoughtful responses.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:42 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,