Government control of the economy is not socialism

[madashell]

Socialism means social ownership (as opposed to private or state ownership) of the means of production, hence America is not socialist, it is not even a tiny bit socialist. The phrase all you Rand-ite morons are looking for is liberalism.

[cheXrules]

Then why don't we start a voluntary commune?

[quincunx5]

The phrase all you Rand-ite morons are looking for is liberalism.


The funny thing with words is that they evolve and change over time. The word 'liberalism' today means the extreme opposite of what it did 200 years ago.

Not to mention the variations across the Anglosphere.

[Publius]

Socialism means social ownership (as opposed to private or state ownership) of the means of production, hence America is not socialist, it is not even a tiny bit socialist. The phrase all you Rand-ite morons are looking for is liberalism.

so·cial·ism Audio pronunciation of "socialism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.



lib·er·al·ism Audio pronunciation of "liberalism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
n.

1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
2. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
1. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
2. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.



???

God damn you're stupid.

[JazzRemington]

Yes, dictionaries are excellent sources of knowledge about political or economic theory.

[Publius]

Yes, dictionaries are excellent sources of knowledge about political or economic theory.

Ha.

They are excellent sources for the meanings of words, taken out a certain political or economic context.

TO YOU socialism can be whatever and the fuck you want it to be, but to the real world, this is what the word means.

The term socialism IS applicable to the state-ownership of the means of production simply because that's what is meant BY the term in the vast majority of cases.

And the term 'liberalism' doesn't mean what he said at all.

He just made it up.

Quote me your marxists.org definition and I'll quote you my capitalism.org (Not really, the site sucks but you get the picture) definition, and where will that get us?

And if 'the people' GOVERN the means of production, even democratically, they become a a GOVERNment, just a large, democratic one.

A government is defined as a group that does the governing. That could be anyone or everyone.

THe only way there could be GOVERNment control of the means of production is if they were owned privately, in an undemocratic manner.

[JazzRemington]

Yes, and different dictionaries have different definitions of a word. If socialism is really understood by teh general public to be state-control of the means of production, which is odd because the word itself is called SOCIALism, then why do we ahve the American Heritage Dictionary calling it both, "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." and "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."

But I noticed what you did here. You took the American Heritage definitition and ignored the part about collective ownership and focused on the centralized government part of the definition. So I guess people are right when they say people want to believe whatever they wantt o believe.

[David]

he is just saying that socialism can also mean state control, making the original post false

[madashell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:39 PM

Yes, dictionaries are excellent sources of knowledge about political or economic theory.

Ha.

They are excellent sources for the meanings of words, taken out a certain political or economic context.

TO YOU socialism can be whatever and the fuck you want it to be, but to the real world, this is what the word means.

The term socialism IS applicable to the state-ownership of the means of production simply because that's what is meant BY the term in the vast majority of cases.

And the term 'liberalism' doesn't mean what he said at all.

He just made it up.

Quote me your marxists.org definition and I'll quote you my capitalism.org (Not really, the site sucks but you get the picture) definition, and where will that get us?

And if 'the people' GOVERN the means of production, even democratically, they become a a GOVERNment, just a large, democratic one.

A government is defined as a group that does the governing. That could be anyone or everyone.

THe only way there could be GOVERNment control of the means of production is if they were owned privately, in an undemocratic manner.
A state is a government of the people, socialism is government by the people (soundbites have never failed me yet :P). Seriously though, you have emphasised one dictionary definition of liberalism which is certainly not what most people mean by liberalism, which kind of completely fucks your argument into tiny little pieces (leaving aside the inadequacy of a dictionary in political debate).

[Publius]

Yes, and different dictionaries have different definitions of a word. If socialism is really understood by teh general public to be state-control of the means of production, which is odd because the word itself is called SOCIALism, then why do we ahve the American Heritage Dictionary calling it both, "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." and "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."

But I noticed what you did here. You took the American Heritage definitition and ignored the part about collective ownership and focused on the centralized government part of the definition. So I guess people are right when they say people want to believe whatever they wantt o believe.

I was showing that EITHER definition is incomplete.

I acknowledge that it can mean either of those things; the author of the thread obviously does not.

[Commie-Pinko]

The funny thing with words is that they evolve and change over time. The word 'liberalism' today means the extreme opposite of what it did 200 years ago.

Not to mention the variations across the Anglosphere.

Well, this isn't entirely true. Modern liberalism is not diametrically opposed to old style 19th century Liberalism, because one half of modern liberalism is essentially Libertarianism, while the other is a mix of market capitalism and some socialism.

The only time in which Liberals are not social libertarians is when being so causes more harm and misery to others. They modify their libertarian stance when objective criteria warrent intervention.

Liberals are for MORE regulation of the economy, but they are far from socialists.

[BuyOurEverything]

I would have to agree with quincunx5 that modern liberalism is nearly diametrically opposed to classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is about completely (or nearly so) unrestricted capitalism (with a couple of exceptions, like public schooling). Modern liberalism supports capitalism on the whole but moves to add restrictions to freedom of trade. Yes, classical liberalism was also about personal liberty, as is modern liberalism, but most of the issues espouses by modern liberals were not discussed during the period of classical liberalsim, making there very little that classical and modern liberals would agree on. Classical liberalism is much more similar to modern conservatism, funny how that works.

Anyways, I think that's a hell of a lot more interesting than whatever the hell dictionary definition you guys are arguing about.

[WeThePeople1911]

Socialism means social ownership (as opposed to private or state ownership) of the means of production, hence America is not socialist, it is not even a tiny bit socialist. The phrase all you Rand-ite morons are looking for is liberalism.

before now, I never had a good example of "double speak"

Society Ownership, Public Ownership...It IS state ownership.


(with a couple of exceptions, like public schooling).

no no no no

Public schooling is a fallacy, we need to turn schools back over to the market laws of supply and demand. We need competition back in the market place of schooling. End Government Schools Now.

[Commie-Pinko]

What fallacy is it? Quick! Name the logical fallacy. There is no public ed fallacy on the books. Nothing is wrong with PUblic ed, since the PUblic Ed in many other nations is very good.

American Public ed just sucks.

[Andy Bowden]

Publius, maybe you should have read that dictionary definition you gave more closely. It says,

1 Any of the various theories or systems of social organisation in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralised government that plans and controls the country.


The former is what I - and the majority of the Socialist movement - consider to be Socialism.

[WeThePeople1911]

I could waste my time and give you the inherint problems with public schools (egro public property), but I know that it won't make a differnce.

[Publius]

Publius, maybe you should have read that dictionary definition you gave more closely. It says,

1 Any of the various theories or systems of social organisation in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralised government that plans and controls the country.


The former is what I - and the majority of the Socialist movement - consider to be Socialism.

That is perfectly fair.

But to assume, as the original poster did, that it does not also mean the latter, is wrong.

[Andy Bowden]

I suppose there are various interpretations of Socialism, from Stalinism to Libertarian Socialism. The point is it is the second definition in the dictionary that the majority of the Socialist movement represents.

And try me, what is so wrong with going to a publicly owned school?

[WeThePeople1911]

And try me, what is so wrong with going to a publicly owned school?

If there is one thing I know, it is schools. Both public and private.

My Education

pre-school - private
kindergarten - public
advanced kindergarten - private
grade 1 - private
grade 2 - private
grade 3 - public
grade 4 - public
grade 5 - public
first part of grade 6 - public
second part of grade 6 - private
grade 7 - private
grade 8 - private
grade 9 - private
grade 10 - private
grade 11 - private
grade 12 - public

Public - 5 1/2
Private - 9 1/2

I have been through the loops and there are several things wrong with public schools.

1) the state controls them, the state prevents teachers from teacher what they feel is most important through quotas, standards, and standardized tests. It's a one size fits all education that doesn't fit anyone.

2) they are funded with tax money, which turns the "education centers" into "political circuses" from the funding to the text books, everything is a political issue. The crux of the evolution - creation debate is because the schools are tax funded. It is wrong to force creationists to fund the teaching of evolution and it is wrong to force evolutionists to fund the teaching of creation. If the schools were private, people could choose where to place their $ at and if they don't like what school A is doing, they can send their children to school B, C, D, E, F, or G.

the problem with government schools is that they are exempt from the free-marker forces and competition.

School should be ran the same way as a business. Schools should compete for students by offering what the demand of the market calls for.

The places where we are most pleased are ran for profit.
FedEx
Grocery Store
Computer Industry

The places where we are most disapointed are ran by "public spirit"
USPS
BMV
Public Schools

I'm not coming from some pro-capitalists premise, I am coming from life expiernce and a longing to improve education.

[Individual]

We all consider things to be true.

Satan, dressed in all red, is considered to be a true concept.

Socialism is considered to mean a whole lot of things.

What it does mean is: nothing

It doesn't exist. Get over it. You will die within 50-100 years anyway.

Who wants to sit around, wasting their petty life, staring at revolutionary posters and garnishing their rocks and bandanas? Oooh, oooooh! Revolucion Revolucion, viva la wast'a yo life'a!

One day, you too shall realize that your life probably wasnt worth the immature thoughts you wasted.

Viva La Revolucion Apparel -- NO

Viva La Real Fucking Life -- Yeah